content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
I-ball/oscillon is a non-topological soliton-like solution in real scalar field theory~\cite{Bogolyubsky:1976yu,Gleiser:1993pt,Copeland:1995fq} whose formation process is nonlinear.
This lump of a real scalar field is a minimum energy state and understood as the coherent oscillation around the (local) minimum of the potential.
A lot of studies on the I-ball/oscillon
\cite{McDonald:2001iv,Amin:2010jq,Amin:2011hj,Amin:2013ika,Takeda:2014qma,Lozanov:2016hid,Hasegawa:2017iay,Antusch:2017flz,Hong:2017ooe,Kawasaki:2015vga,Fodor:2006zs,Fodor:2008du,Gleiser:2008ty,Fodor:2009kf,Gleiser:2009ys,Hertzberg:2010yz,Salmi:2012ta,Saffin:2014yka,Kawasaki:2013awa,Mukaida:2016hwd,Eby:2018ufi,Ibe:2019vyo,Olle:2019kbo,Antusch:2019qrr}
indicate that the lifetime of I-ball/oscillon is extremely long.
The longevity of the I-ball/oscillon could leave an
imprint on cosmology/astrophysics which can be tested
by some experiments. (See e.g.~\cite{Zhou:2013tsa,Antusch:2016con,Lozanov:2019ylm}
for gravitational waves from the I-ball/oscillon. See also \cite{Eby:2019ntd}.)
The longevity of I-ball/oscillon is guaranteed by the approximate conservation of adiabatic invariant $I$~\cite{Kasuya:2002zs,Kawasaki:2015vga}.
The adiabatic invariance is the analog to the invariance of the phase space volume for a periodic motion in classical mechanics.
It is also known that the adiabatic invariant corresponds to the particle number~\cite{Mukaida:2014oza}
in the non-relativistic limit, and hence, the approximate conservation of $I$
is regarded as the particle number conservation in this limit.
In this paper, we study the stability of a special type of the I-ball/oscillon, the ``exact" I-ball/oscillon,
which appears in a real scalar theory with a particular type of potential~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
In this particular case, the adiabatic invariant of I-ball/oscillon is exactly conserved.
We show that the exact I-ball/oscillon is stable in classical field theory.
We also find that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not stable against small perturbations depending on the value of the adiabatic invariant.
Accordingly, the exact I-ball/oscillon breaks up
in the presence of the fluctuations
corresponding to the instability modes.
We also confirm the fragileness of the exact I-ball/oscillon by the classical lattice simulation.
Organization of this paper is as follows.
In section~\ref{sec:I-ball}, we introduce the exact I-ball/oscillon, which conserves the adiabatic invariant exactly.
In section~\ref{sec:perturb}, we show that the exact I-ball/oscillon is stable,
but the perturbation around it has resonance bands and it breaks the exact I-ball/oscillon depending on its parameters.
In section~\ref{sec:sim}, we show the setup and the result of our lattice simulation to confirm fragileness of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
Finally, in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}, we conclude the results.
\section{Exact I-ball/oscillon}
\label{sec:I-ball}
\subsection{Exact conservation of adiabatic invariant}
I-ball/oscillon is a localized oscillating scalar field configuration which minimizes the energy for a given value of the adiabatic invariant $I$.
The adiabatic invariant of a real scalar field $\phi$
is defined by
\begin{equation}
I = \frac{1}{\omega}\int d^3x \overline{\dot{\phi}^2}\ ,
\label{eq:adiabatic_inv}
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the oscillating field
and the overbar denotes the average over one period of the oscillation.
The adiabatic invariant Eq.~(\ref{eq:adiabatic_inv}) is approximately conserved
when the scalar field oscillates in the potential dominated by the quadratic term ($\sim\phi^2$).
In other words, the I-ball/oscillon is not an exact periodic motion in time,
and hence, the time average over one period of the oscillation in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:adiabatic_inv} is not exact.
Due to this approximate conservation of $I$,
I-ball/oscillon is generally quasi-stable and eventually decays by emitting scalar waves~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
However, the adiabatic invariant is exactly conserved
when the solution of the equation of motion is completely separable into the time and the spatial dependent parts~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
Let us assume an I-ball/oscillon solution with the separated form as
\begin{equation}
\phi(t,\vec{x}) = f(t)\psi(\mathbf{x}).
\label{eq:separable}
\end{equation}
where $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ is the theoretical oscillon profile and
$f(t)$ is a time periodic function normalized as $\max\{f(t)\} = 1$.
The fact that the time and spatial dependencies are determined separately is crucial
when we consider the I-ball/oscillon stability.
In this case, the adiabatic invariant $I$ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
I = \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{\omega}\int d^3x \,\psi(\mathbf x)^2\ ,
\label{eq:I}
\end{align}
where overbar denotes the time average over the one period of oscillation.
Because $f(t)$ is exactly periodic,
the adiabatic invariant $I$ is constant in time,
and hence, is conserved exactly.
Such a separated solution like Eq.~(\ref{eq:separable}) is possible
only when the scalar potential of $\phi$ takes the form of
\begin{equation}
V= \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2 + \Delta V
= \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2
+\frac{1}{2}\kappa m^2 \phi^2 \log\frac{\phi^2}{M^2}\ .
\label{eq:potential}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa<0$ is a dimensionless constant and $m$ and $M$ are mass parameters
\footnote{
The parameter $M$ corresponds to the renormalization scale.
}
\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
For a later purpose, we redefine the parameters by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde m^2 &=& m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\tilde m^2}{M^2} \ , \\
\tilde \kappa \tilde m^2 &=& \kappa m^2 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with which
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{1}{2} \tilde{m}^2 \phi^2
+\frac{1}{2}\tilde \kappa \tilde{m}^2 \phi^2 \log\frac{\phi^2}{\tilde m^2}\ .
\label{eq:potential2}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we use the latter expression with $\tilde m^2 \to m^2$ and $\tilde \kappa \to \kappa$.
Eventually, the potential depends only on two parameters, $m$ and $\kappa$.
Substituting the solution Eq.~(\ref{eq:separable}) into the equation of motion
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\phi} -\nabla \phi + m^2 \phi + \Delta V' = 0\ ,
\label{eq:eom}
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left[\ddot{f} + m^2 f + \kappa m^2 \left(1+ \log f^2\right)f\right]\psi
-\left[\nabla \psi - \kappa m^2 \psi \log\frac{\psi^2}{m^2}\right]f = 0\ .
\end{equation}
This leads to the following two equations:
\begin{align}
\ddot{f} + m^2 f + \kappa m^2 \left(1+ \log f^2\right) f
& = \zeta m^2 f \ ,
\label{eq:eom_f}\\
\nabla^2 \psi - \left(\kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi^2}{m^2}\right)\psi
& = \zeta m^2 \psi\ ,
\label{eq:eom_psi}
\end{align}
where $\zeta$ is a constant.
As we will see in the next section, $\zeta$ determines
the adiabatic invariant of the I-ball/oscillon for
given potential parameters.
Therefore, because the solutions of equations of motions under the potential Eq.\,(\ref{eq:potential}) are independently determined by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and (\ref{eq:eom_psi})
the adiabatic invariant is exactly conserved
\footnote{
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:eom_f}), we can evaluate $\overline{\dot{f}^2}$ as
\begin{align}
\overline{\dot{f}^2}
= m^2 \left(1+\kappa -\zeta\right)\overline{f^2}
+ \kappa m^2 \,\overline{f^2 \log f^2}
\ .
\label{eq:f_ave_rel}
\end{align}
}
as shown in Ref.~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
\subsection{The exact I-ball/oscillon solution}
As the I-ball/oscillon corresponds to the minimum energy states
for a given value of $I$, the I-ball/oscillon profile
$\psi$ is expected to be spherical, $\psi(\vec{x})=\psi(r)$. Then, Eq.\,\eqref{eq:eom_psi} has an exact solution,
\begin{equation}
\psi(r) = \psi_c \exp(-r^2/R^2)\ ,
\label{eq:gaussian_sol}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
R =& \sqrt{\frac{2}{|\kappa|}}\frac{1}{m}\ , \\
\psi_c^2 =& m^2 \exp \left(3-\frac{\zeta}{\kappa}\right)\ .
\label{eq:cond_psic}
\end{align}
$\psi_c$ and $R$ is the central value and the radius of the I-ball/oscillon.
It should be noted that the spatial size of $R$ does not depend on $\zeta$, and hence, does not depend on $I$
for given potential parameters.
The period of the oscillation can be obtained as follow.
By multiplying $\dot f$ to Eq.\,(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and integrating over time $t$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}\dot f^2
+ \frac{1}{2}m^2 (1-\zeta) f^2 + \frac{1}{2}\kappa m^2 f^2 \log f^2
= C_f\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $C_f$ being a constant.
Because the potential of $f$ is a even function of $f$,
$f$ oscillates in $f = [-1,1]$,
and hence, $C_f$ is required to be $C_f > 0$ to allow $\dot f^2 > 0$ at $f = 0$.
As we defined $f = \pm 1$ at the turning points of the motion,
$C_f$ is represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
C_f = \frac{1}{2} m^2 (1-\zeta) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with which $\dot f = 0$ at the turning points.
As a result, we find a period of the oscillation to be
\begin{align}
T &\equiv \frac{2\pi}{\omega} = 2\int_{-1}^1 \frac{ df}{\sqrt{ m^2(1-\zeta) (1-f^2) - \kappa m^2 f^2 \log f^2}}\ ,
\label{eq:period}
\end{align}
which is determined by $\zeta$ for given potential parameters.
We plot the frequencies for the potential parameter $\kappa=-0.3$ and $\kappa=-0.1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:zeta_omega}.
The upper bound for the range of $\zeta$ is determined from Eq.\,\eqref{eq:period} with $T=$ finite,
\begin{align}
\zeta_{\mathrm{max}} = 1+\kappa \le 1 \ .
\end{align}
Besides, the region of $\omega \ge m$ is not physically attractive\footnote{More precise lower bound on $\zeta$ is determined by ${dE}/{dI} < m $.
}, and hence, we consider only closed range of $\zeta$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/zeta_omega03.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/zeta_omega01.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl (Left) The relation of $\zeta$ and $\omega$ for $\kappa=-0.3$.
(Right) Same plot for $\kappa=-0.1$.
}
\label{fig:zeta_omega}
\end{figure}
Similarly, the energy of the I-ball/oscillon is given by
\begin{align}
E = & \left(\overline{\dot f^2}
-\frac{1}{2} \kappa m^2 \overline{f^2}
\right) \int d^3 x \,\psi(r)^2 \ , \\
= & \left(1 - \frac{1}{2} \kappa m^2 \frac{ \overline{f^2} }{ \overline{\dot f^2} } \right) \omega I \ ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
I = \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{\omega}\int d^3x \psi(r)^2
= \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{m \omega} \left(\frac{\pi}{|\kappa|}\right)^{3/2}
\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2}\ .
\end{align}
Here, we used Eqs.\,\eqref{eq:eom_f}, \eqref{eq:I}, and \eqref{eq:f_ave_rel}.
Notice that $\overline{\dot{f}^2}$, $\omega$ and $\psi_c$ depend on $\zeta$ through Eqs.(\ref{eq:f_ave_rel}), (\ref{eq:cond_psic}) and (\ref{eq:period}).
Thus, the adiabatic invariant is determined only by $\zeta$ for given model parameters $\kappa$ and $m$.
\section{Stability and Instability of the Exact I-ball/Oscillon}
\label{sec:perturb}
\subsection{Stability}
As shown in \cite{Ibe:2019vyo}, the non-exact I-ball/oscillon
decays by emitting relativistic radiation of the scalar field.
Here, let us discuss whether the exact I-ball/oscillon obeys
this decay process.
To see whether a relativistic radiation is emitted from the exact I-ball/oscillon, we consider a small perturbation
around the I-ball/oscillon, $\phi(x) = \phi_I(x) + \xi(x)$.
Here, $\phi_I(x)$ is the I-ball/oscillon solution obtained in
the previous section.
Then, the equation of motion of the perturbation $\xi(x)$ is
given by
\begin{align}
(\Box+V'' )|_{\phi = \phi_I}\,\xi(x) = \order{\xi(x)^2} \ ,
\label{eq:fluct_eom}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
V''=m^2 \left( 1 + 3\kappa + \kappa \log\frac{\phi^2}{m^2}\right)\ .
\end{align}
Eq.\,\eqref{eq:fluct_eom} shows that
the perturbation does not have source terms, and
the I-ball/oscillon solution is stable if $\xi=0$ initially.
Thus, unlike the case of the non-exact I-ball/oscillon,
the exact I-ball/oscillon does not decay by emitting
relativistic radiations.
The absence of the source term of $\xi$ stems from the fact that the equation for the I-ball/oscillon profile is the same as the equation of motion Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and (\ref{eq:eom_psi}) without averaging over one period of the oscillation.
This contrasts with generic I-ball/oscillon solutions.
In general cases, the I-ball/oscillon solutions satisfy the equation of motion only after averaging over a period, and hence, the perturbation has source terms coming from the potential which disappear if averaged.
This leads to the decay of the I-ball/oscillon as shown in Ref.~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
These observations are consistent with the exactness of the conservation of the adiabatic invariant.
\subsection{Fragileness}
In this subsection, we discuss the instability of the exact I-ball/oscillon against small perturbations and
derive the growth index (the Floquet exponent) of the
instability.
As $\kappa < 0$, the perturbation around the vacuum, i.e. $\phi = 0$, has an infinite mass, i.e. $m_\xi^2 = \infty > 0$.%
\footnote{
The mass at the origin of this potential is divergent because
\begin{align*}
V''(\phi) = m^2\left[ (1+3\kappa) + \kappa \log \left( \frac{\phi}{m} \right)^2 \right] \rightarrow \infty. \ \ \ (\phi\rightarrow \pm 0)
\end{align*}
}
Thus, the perturbation around the vacuum is never excited.
Around the I-ball/oscillon solution,
\begin{align}
\phi_I(x) = f(t)\psi(r)\ , \quad
\quad
\psi(r) = \psi_c e^{-r^2/R^2}\ ,
\end{align}
on the other hand, the perturbation has a finite non-derivative kernel,
\begin{align}
\ddot{\xi}(x)-\nabla^2 \xi(x)
+ \left(2|\kappa|m^2 \frac{r^2}{R^2} + (1+3 \kappa) m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2} + F(t)\right)\xi(x)=0\ ,
\label{eq:eom_perturb}
\end{align}
where $F(t) = \kappa m^2 \log f(t)^2$.
and we neglected $\order{\xi^2}$ term in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:fluct_eom}.
Thus, there could be instability modes around the I-ball/oscillon solution.
To analyze Eq.~(\ref{eq:eom_perturb}), let us remember that the eigenequation,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3DHO}
\left(-\nabla^2 + \omega_\xi^2\,r^2 \right)\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) = 2 E_{\bf n} \lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x})\ ,
\end{align}
has the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) &= \prod_{i=1}^3
\left(\frac{1}{n_i!\, 2^{n_i}}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_\xi}{\pi}}\right)^{1/2} H_{n_i}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi}x_i) e^{-\omega_
\xi x_i^2/2}\ , \\
2E_{\bf n} &= 2\omega_\xi (n_1 + n_2 + n_3 + 3/2)\ .
\end{align}
where $H_n$ denotes the Hermite polynomial of order $n$,
and the eigenfunctions satisfy $\lambda_{\mathbf n}(|\mathbf x|\to \infty)=0$.
By expanding $\xi(x)$ by,
\begin{align}
\xi(t, {\bf x}) = \sum_{\bf n} q_{\bf n}(t)\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) \ ,
\end{align}
we find that each $q_{\bf n}(t)$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq:perturbation}
\left[
\partial_t^2 + 2 \omega_{\xi}(n_1+n_2+n_3)
+ \Lambda + F(t)
\right]q_{\bf n}(t) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
Here, we defined
\begin{align}
\omega_\xi^2 &= 2 |\kappa|\frac{m^2}{R^2} = \kappa^2 m^4\ , \\
\Lambda &= (1+3 \kappa) m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2} + 3 \omega_\xi\ , \\
&= (1+3 \kappa - \zeta) m^2 \ ,
\end{align}
where we used Eq.\,\eqref{eq:cond_psic}.
The exponential factor in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:lambda} is identical to that of the I-ball/oscillon, i.e.
\begin{align}
e^{-\omega_\xi (x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2)/2} = e^{-r^2/R^2}\ .
\end{align}
If Eq.\,\eqref{eq:perturbation} has growing modes with non-trivial Floquet exponents,
the I-ball/oscillon solution can be unstable.
It should be noted that the perturbation of the zero mode, ${\bf n} = 0$, is redundant.
As the radius of the I-ball/oscillon does not depend on $\zeta$ but is determined by $\kappa$ and $m$,
the addition of the zero mode perturbation just enhances the value of $I$,
which leads to an I-ball/oscillon with a slightly larger $I$.
Because we confine ourselves to the spherical configuration in our numerical simulation,
we consider the spherical perturbations to analyze the result of our simulation.
Let us rewrite Eq.\,\eqref{eq:3DHO} in the spherical coordinate,
\begin{align}
\left(-\frac{d^2}{dr^2} - \frac{2}{r} \frac{d}{dr} + \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2}+\omega_\xi r^2 \right)R_{n_r,\ell}(r) = 2 E_{n_r,\ell} R_{n_r,\ell}(r) \ ,
\end{align}
where the eigenfunction is given by $R_{n_r,\ell}(r)Y_m^{\ell}(\Omega)$ with $Y_m^{\ell}(\Omega)$
being the spherical harmonics.
By introducing $\tilde r = \sqrt{\omega_\xi}\, r$,
the eigenfunction of the radial direction and the corresponding energy are given by,
\begin{align}
R_{n_r,\ell}(\tilde r) &= \frac{2^{1/2}\omega_\xi^{3/2}\Gamma(n_r + \ell + 3/2)^{1/2}}{\Gamma(n_r+1)^{1/2}\Gamma(\ell+3/2)}\,\tilde{r}^\ell e^{-\tilde r^2/2}\,{}_1F_1\left(-n_r;{3}/{2}+\ell; \tilde {r}^2\right)\ ,\\
2E_{n_r,\ell} &= 2(2n_r + \ell + 3/2 )\ ,
\end{align}
for $(n_r =0,1,2\cdots)$ and $(\ell = 0,1,2\cdots)$.
Here, $_1F_1(a;b;z)$ denotes the confluent hypergeometric function,
and the wave function is normalized so that
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty dr r^2 R_{n_r,
\ell}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi} r) R_{n_r',\ell}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi} r)= \delta_{n_r n_r'}\ .
\end{align}
By expanding the perturbation by
\begin{align}
\xi(t,{\bf x}) = \sum_{n_r,\ell,m_z} q_{n_r, \ell, m_z}(t) R_{n_r,\ell}(r) Y_{\ell}^{m_z}(\Omega)\ ,
\end{align}
the $q_{n_r, \ell, m_z}(t)$ satisfies,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:perturbation2}
\left[
\partial_t^2 + 2 \omega_{\xi}(2 n_r + \ell)
+ \Lambda + F(t)
\right]q_{n_r,\ell,m_z}(t) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
Since we are interested in the effects of the spherical perturbation,
we hereafter take $\ell =0$ and denote $q_{n_r}(t) = q_{n_r,0,0}(t)$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/qnr3.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/Rnr3.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl (Left) The growing mode around the I-ball with $\kappa = -0.3$
and $\zeta = 0.4$.
(Right) The corresponding wave function $R_{n_r =3, 0}(r)$.
}
\label{fig:growth}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:growth}, we show the instability mode, $n_r = 3$,
for $\kappa = -0.3$ and $\zeta =0.4$.
The figure shows that the perturbation grows for ${\cal O}(100)/m$.
We also show the corresponding wave function $R_{n_r =3, 0}(r)$.
Once the perturbation grows around the I-ball/oscillon, it is expected to be dissociated and breaks up into
smaller configurations.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kappa03.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kappa01.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl
(upper) Plot of the Floquet exponent $\mu$ for the variables $n_r$ and $\zeta$ for $\kappa = -0.3$.
(lower) Same plot for $\kappa = -0.1$.
The instability bands for the spherical modes are at integer values of $n_r$.
The instability bands for the non-spherical modes
can be read off by renaming the horizontal axis
from $n_r$ to $n_r+\ell/2$. }
\label{fig:band}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:band}, we also show the Floquet exponent $\mu$
\begin{align}
\xi(t+T,{\bf x}) = e^{\mu T} \xi(t,{\bf x})\ ,
\end{align}
where $T=2\pi/\omega$ is a period of one oscillation.
The figure shows that there are some resonance bands.
This means that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not always a stable solution.
Thus, in the presence of tiny fluctuations around the
exact I-ball/oscillon, the instability modes exhibit
the exponential growths in the time scale of $\order{\mu^{-1}}$.
Once the exponential growth happens, the exact I-ball/oscillon
cannot keep its configuration anymore and is expected to be
broken up.
We will confirm these behaviors by the classical lattice simulation
in the next section.
\section{Numerical Simulation}
\label{sec:sim}
\subsection{Setup}
\label{sec:sim_setup}
In this subsection we briefly explain the setup of the simulation.
The procedure of the simulation is similar to that of Ref.~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
Because the lowest energy configuration of the scalar field $\phi$ is spherically symmetric in three-dimensional space,
the equation of motion of $\phi$ is represented by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 \phi}{d t^2}
= \frac{d^2 \phi}{d r^2} + \frac{2}{r}\frac{d \phi}{d r} - \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi}\ ,
\label{eq:num_eom}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
V (\phi) = m^2 \left[ 1 + \kappa \log \left(\epsilon + \frac{\phi^2}{m^2} \right) \right] \phi^2\ .
\end{align}
Here, we introduced a small parameter $\epsilon$ to avoid the numerical instability
caused by the singularity of the effective mass at $\phi = 0$.
We have confirmed that the simulation results are independent of this small regularization term $\epsilon$.
For the boundary condition, we use the two following conditions.
\begin{itemize}
\item At the origin $r=0$, to avoid the divergence of the second term of the right-hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_eom}), we impose
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{1}{r}\frac{d \phi}{d r} \right|_{r=0} = 0\,.
\end{equation}
\item At the other boundary $r = L\ (\gg R)$, we impose the absorbing boundary condition (see Appendix \ref{sec:apdx_abc} for details).
Under this condition, the radiation of the real scalar field emitted from the I-ball/oscillon is absorbed at the boundary so that we correctly calculate the time evolution of I-ball/oscillon.
\end{itemize}
As the initial condition of $\phi$,
we use the theoretical I-ball/oscillon configuration Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gaussian_sol})-(\ref{eq:cond_psic})
for a given $\zeta_{\rm ini}$ with $1\%$ random fluctuations.
We also set
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\phi}(t=0,r) = 0\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
as an initial condition of $\dot{\phi}$.
We have confirmed that the exact I-ball/oscillon is completely stable in the absence
of the random fluctuations.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
$\zeta_{\rm ini}$ & varying \tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $-0.3$ \tabularnewline
$\epsilon$ & $10^{-10}$ \tabularnewline
Box size $L$ & $64$ \tabularnewline
Grid size $N$ & $1024$ \tabularnewline
Initial time & $0$ \tabularnewline
Final time & $1.0\times 10^6$ \tabularnewline
Time step & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Simulation parameters.
$\zeta_{\rm ini}$ is changed in every simulation to set the appropriate initial profile of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
}
\label{Ta:sim_para}
\end{table}
The other simulation parameters are shown in Table~\ref{Ta:sim_para}.
Here, the units of the field, time, space, etc. are taken to be $m^{-1}$, that is,
\begin{equation}
\phi \rightarrow m\phi\ ,\ \
t \rightarrow \frac{t}{m}\ ,\ \
x \rightarrow \frac{x}{m}\ ,\ \dots\ {\rm etc}\ .
\end{equation}
We utilize the same lattice simulation code in \cite{Ibe:2019vyo},
in which the time evolution is calculated by the fourth-order symplectic integration scheme and the spatial derivatives are calculated by the fourth-order central difference scheme.
\subsection{Result}
\label{sec:sim_result}
We numerically calculate the time evolution of the exact I-ball/oscillon $\phi$ and its energy $E$ from
\begin{equation}
E (t) = \int ^L _0 dr\ 4\pi r^2
\left[ \frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi)^2 + V \right],
\label{eq:num_E}
\end{equation}
to see how it behaves in the presence of the instability modes derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:perturb}.
\subsubsection*{Stability}
First, we show the result of the stable exact I-ball/oscillon
which has no strong instability resonance bands.
The result is given in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_stable}, which shows that the exact I-ball/oscillation
does not break up even in the presence of the tiny fluctuation.
This result is consistent with the fact the exact I-ball/oscillon for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.3,\ 0.2$
does not have the instability modes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=95mm]{./figs/stable.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{\sl
The result of our simulations for the stable exact I-ball/oscillon.
The blue and the orange lines show the exact I-ball/oscillon energy (defined by Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_E})) for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.3$ and $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.2$, respectively.
The energy suddenly changes at $mt \simeq 60$
because the radiated fluctuations have reached the boundary and start to be absorbed at that time.
We find that the exact I-ball/oscillon energy is conserved in $mt \lesssim 10^6$
when the exact I-ball/oscillon does not have instability modes around it.
}
\label{fig:num_stable}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Fragileness}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=125mm]{./figs/unstable.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{\sl
The result of our simulations for the unstable exact I-ball/oscillon, which hit the instability bands.
The blue and the orange lines show the exact I-ball/oscillon energy (defined by Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_E})) for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ and $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.15$ respectively.
We also plot the typical instability bands as the Floquet exponent $\mu$ exhibited in Fig.~\ref{fig:band} by green thick lines.
The upper dark green line and the lower bright green line correspond to the instability bands at $\zeta \simeq 0.4,\ n_r = 3$ and $\zeta \simeq 0.1,\ n_r = 2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}.
The sudden change of the energy at $mt \simeq 60$ is for the same reason as the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:num_stable}.
We find that the exact I-ball/oscillon energy strikingly decreases around the instability bands.
}
\label{fig:num_unstable}
\end{figure}
Next, we show the result of the unstable exact I-ball/oscillon.
The results of the simulations are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}.%
\footnote{We have confirmed that the exact I-ball/oscillon for the given $\zeta_{\rm ini}$ without initial fluctuations is stable within simulation time.}
Comparing the result with our analytical calculation (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:band}),
we find that the energy of exact I-ball/oscillon strikingly decreases at around instability bands showed as green color bands in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}.
This can be interpreted that the initial fluctuations appended to the exact I-ball/oscillon grow exponentially
and deform the exact I-ball/oscillon profile
\footnote{
Instability bands should be wide and strong enough for the oscillon decay.
}.
Our results also suggest that the exact I-ball/oscillon
ends up with another exact I-ball/oscillon profile
with a smaller $I$ after the decay process.
In fact, both the cases in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}
converge to the smaller but finite energy at $mt \gtrsim 10^6$.
The case with $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ is particularly suggestive.
In this case, the I-ball/oscillon first decays
when the instability modes in the narrower band around
$\zeta = 0.4$ and $n_r = 3$ grows,
and ends up with the I-ball/oscillon with $\zeta \simeq 0.15$.
However, there is a broader instability band for $\zeta \simeq 0.15$ and $n_r = 2$, with which the the exact
I-ball/oscillon further decays very quickly.
As a result, the exact I-ball/oscillon profile for
$\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ converges to the smaller I-ball/oscillon solution.
In our analysis, we only consider the radial modes of the fluctuation.
The exact I-ball/oscillon can have more instability bands
in the three dimensional case (see Eqs.\,\eqref{eq:perturbation} and \eqref{eq:perturbation2}).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we examine the stability of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
The exact I-ball/oscillon has been considered to be stable since
it has the exactly conserved adiabatic invariant.
Its stability is also expected because the perturbations around the exact I-ball/oscillon obey the field equation without the source terms.
However, we have found that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not
always a stable solution and the perturbation around it has
growth modes depending on the size of the adiabatic invariant.
Thus, in the presence of the fluctuations with the corresponding instability modes,
the exact I-ball/oscillon cannot keep its configuration anymore and breaks up eventually.
The mechanism of the exact I-ball/oscillon decay in this paper is completely different from the previous study~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo},
in which I-ball/oscillon decays by emitting relativistic radiations of the scalar field.
Our results in this paper suggest that it is necessary to consider both decay processes,
the decay by radiation and the decay by the instability modes,
when we estimate the lifetime of generic I-ball/oscillon.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Nos. 17H01131 (M.K.) and 17K05434 (M.K.),
MEXT KAKENHI Grant Nos. 15H05889 (M.K., M.I), No. 16H03991(M.I.), No. 17H02878(M.I.), and No. 18H05542 (M.I.),
World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan,
and JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists Grant No. 19J12936 (E.S.).
\end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction}
I-ball/oscillon is a non-topological soliton-like solution in real scalar field theory~\cite{Bogolyubsky:1976yu,Gleiser:1993pt,Copeland:1995fq} whose formation process is nonlinear.
This lump of a real scalar field is a minimum energy state and understood as the coherent oscillation around the (local) minimum of the potential.
A lot of studies on the I-ball/oscillon
\cite{McDonald:2001iv,Amin:2010jq,Amin:2011hj,Amin:2013ika,Takeda:2014qma,Lozanov:2016hid,Hasegawa:2017iay,Antusch:2017flz,Hong:2017ooe,Kawasaki:2015vga,Fodor:2006zs,Fodor:2008du,Gleiser:2008ty,Fodor:2009kf,Gleiser:2009ys,Hertzberg:2010yz,Salmi:2012ta,Saffin:2014yka,Kawasaki:2013awa,Mukaida:2016hwd,Eby:2018ufi,Ibe:2019vyo,Olle:2019kbo,Antusch:2019qrr}
indicate that the lifetime of I-ball/oscillon is extremely long.
The longevity of the I-ball/oscillon could leave an
imprint on cosmology/astrophysics which can be tested
by some experiments. (See e.g.~\cite{Zhou:2013tsa,Antusch:2016con,Lozanov:2019ylm}
for gravitational waves from the I-ball/oscillon. See also \cite{Eby:2019ntd}.)
The longevity of I-ball/oscillon is guaranteed by the approximate conservation of adiabatic invariant $I$~\cite{Kasuya:2002zs,Kawasaki:2015vga}.
The adiabatic invariance is the analog to the invariance of the phase space volume for a periodic motion in classical mechanics.
It is also known that the adiabatic invariant corresponds to the particle number~\cite{Mukaida:2014oza}
in the non-relativistic limit, and hence, the approximate conservation of $I$
is regarded as the particle number conservation in this limit.
In this paper, we study the stability of a special type of the I-ball/oscillon, the ``exact" I-ball/oscillon,
which appears in a real scalar theory with a particular type of potential~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
In this particular case, the adiabatic invariant of I-ball/oscillon is exactly conserved.
We show that the exact I-ball/oscillon is stable in classical field theory.
We also find that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not stable against small perturbations depending on the value of the adiabatic invariant.
Accordingly, the exact I-ball/oscillon breaks up
in the presence of the fluctuations
corresponding to the instability modes.
We also confirm the fragileness of the exact I-ball/oscillon by the classical lattice simulation.
Organization of this paper is as follows.
In section~\ref{sec:I-ball}, we introduce the exact I-ball/oscillon, which conserves the adiabatic invariant exactly.
In section~\ref{sec:perturb}, we show that the exact I-ball/oscillon is stable,
but the perturbation around it has resonance bands and it breaks the exact I-ball/oscillon depending on its parameters.
In section~\ref{sec:sim}, we show the setup and the result of our lattice simulation to confirm fragileness of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
Finally, in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}, we conclude the results.
\section{Exact I-ball/oscillon}
\label{sec:I-ball}
\subsection{Exact conservation of adiabatic invariant}
I-ball/oscillon is a localized oscillating scalar field configuration which minimizes the energy for a given value of the adiabatic invariant $I$.
The adiabatic invariant of a real scalar field $\phi$
is defined by
\begin{equation}
I = \frac{1}{\omega}\int d^3x \overline{\dot{\phi}^2}\ ,
\label{eq:adiabatic_inv}
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the oscillating field
and the overbar denotes the average over one period of the oscillation.
The adiabatic invariant Eq.~(\ref{eq:adiabatic_inv}) is approximately conserved
when the scalar field oscillates in the potential dominated by the quadratic term ($\sim\phi^2$).
In other words, the I-ball/oscillon is not an exact periodic motion in time,
and hence, the time average over one period of the oscillation in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:adiabatic_inv} is not exact.
Due to this approximate conservation of $I$,
I-ball/oscillon is generally quasi-stable and eventually decays by emitting scalar waves~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
However, the adiabatic invariant is exactly conserved
when the solution of the equation of motion is completely separable into the time and the spatial dependent parts~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
Let us assume an I-ball/oscillon solution with the separated form as
\begin{equation}
\phi(t,\vec{x}) = f(t)\psi(\mathbf{x}).
\label{eq:separable}
\end{equation}
where $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ is the theoretical oscillon profile and
$f(t)$ is a time periodic function normalized as $\max\{f(t)\} = 1$.
The fact that the time and spatial dependencies are determined separately is crucial
when we consider the I-ball/oscillon stability.
In this case, the adiabatic invariant $I$ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
I = \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{\omega}\int d^3x \,\psi(\mathbf x)^2\ ,
\label{eq:I}
\end{align}
where overbar denotes the time average over the one period of oscillation.
Because $f(t)$ is exactly periodic,
the adiabatic invariant $I$ is constant in time,
and hence, is conserved exactly.
Such a separated solution like Eq.~(\ref{eq:separable}) is possible
only when the scalar potential of $\phi$ takes the form of
\begin{equation}
V= \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2 + \Delta V
= \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2
+\frac{1}{2}\kappa m^2 \phi^2 \log\frac{\phi^2}{M^2}\ .
\label{eq:potential}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa<0$ is a dimensionless constant and $m$ and $M$ are mass parameters
\footnote{
The parameter $M$ corresponds to the renormalization scale.
}
\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
For a later purpose, we redefine the parameters by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde m^2 &=& m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\tilde m^2}{M^2} \ , \\
\tilde \kappa \tilde m^2 &=& \kappa m^2 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with which
\begin{equation}
V = \frac{1}{2} \tilde{m}^2 \phi^2
+\frac{1}{2}\tilde \kappa \tilde{m}^2 \phi^2 \log\frac{\phi^2}{\tilde m^2}\ .
\label{eq:potential2}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we use the latter expression with $\tilde m^2 \to m^2$ and $\tilde \kappa \to \kappa$.
Eventually, the potential depends only on two parameters, $m$ and $\kappa$.
Substituting the solution Eq.~(\ref{eq:separable}) into the equation of motion
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\phi} -\nabla \phi + m^2 \phi + \Delta V' = 0\ ,
\label{eq:eom}
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left[\ddot{f} + m^2 f + \kappa m^2 \left(1+ \log f^2\right)f\right]\psi
-\left[\nabla \psi - \kappa m^2 \psi \log\frac{\psi^2}{m^2}\right]f = 0\ .
\end{equation}
This leads to the following two equations:
\begin{align}
\ddot{f} + m^2 f + \kappa m^2 \left(1+ \log f^2\right) f
& = \zeta m^2 f \ ,
\label{eq:eom_f}\\
\nabla^2 \psi - \left(\kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi^2}{m^2}\right)\psi
& = \zeta m^2 \psi\ ,
\label{eq:eom_psi}
\end{align}
where $\zeta$ is a constant.
As we will see in the next section, $\zeta$ determines
the adiabatic invariant of the I-ball/oscillon for
given potential parameters.
Therefore, because the solutions of equations of motions under the potential Eq.\,(\ref{eq:potential}) are independently determined by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and (\ref{eq:eom_psi})
the adiabatic invariant is exactly conserved
\footnote{
From Eq.~(\ref{eq:eom_f}), we can evaluate $\overline{\dot{f}^2}$ as
\begin{align}
\overline{\dot{f}^2}
= m^2 \left(1+\kappa -\zeta\right)\overline{f^2}
+ \kappa m^2 \,\overline{f^2 \log f^2}
\ .
\label{eq:f_ave_rel}
\end{align}
}
as shown in Ref.~\cite{Kawasaki:2015vga}.
\subsection{The exact I-ball/oscillon solution}
As the I-ball/oscillon corresponds to the minimum energy states
for a given value of $I$, the I-ball/oscillon profile
$\psi$ is expected to be spherical, $\psi(\vec{x})=\psi(r)$. Then, Eq.\,\eqref{eq:eom_psi} has an exact solution,
\begin{equation}
\psi(r) = \psi_c \exp(-r^2/R^2)\ ,
\label{eq:gaussian_sol}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
R =& \sqrt{\frac{2}{|\kappa|}}\frac{1}{m}\ , \\
\psi_c^2 =& m^2 \exp \left(3-\frac{\zeta}{\kappa}\right)\ .
\label{eq:cond_psic}
\end{align}
$\psi_c$ and $R$ is the central value and the radius of the I-ball/oscillon.
It should be noted that the spatial size of $R$ does not depend on $\zeta$, and hence, does not depend on $I$
for given potential parameters.
The period of the oscillation can be obtained as follow.
By multiplying $\dot f$ to Eq.\,(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and integrating over time $t$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2}\dot f^2
+ \frac{1}{2}m^2 (1-\zeta) f^2 + \frac{1}{2}\kappa m^2 f^2 \log f^2
= C_f\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $C_f$ being a constant.
Because the potential of $f$ is a even function of $f$,
$f$ oscillates in $f = [-1,1]$,
and hence, $C_f$ is required to be $C_f > 0$ to allow $\dot f^2 > 0$ at $f = 0$.
As we defined $f = \pm 1$ at the turning points of the motion,
$C_f$ is represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
C_f = \frac{1}{2} m^2 (1-\zeta) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with which $\dot f = 0$ at the turning points.
As a result, we find a period of the oscillation to be
\begin{align}
T &\equiv \frac{2\pi}{\omega} = 2\int_{-1}^1 \frac{ df}{\sqrt{ m^2(1-\zeta) (1-f^2) - \kappa m^2 f^2 \log f^2}}\ ,
\label{eq:period}
\end{align}
which is determined by $\zeta$ for given potential parameters.
We plot the frequencies for the potential parameter $\kappa=-0.3$ and $\kappa=-0.1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:zeta_omega}.
The upper bound for the range of $\zeta$ is determined from Eq.\,\eqref{eq:period} with $T=$ finite,
\begin{align}
\zeta_{\mathrm{max}} = 1+\kappa \le 1 \ .
\end{align}
Besides, the region of $\omega \ge m$ is not physically attractive\footnote{More precise lower bound on $\zeta$ is determined by ${dE}/{dI} < m $.
}, and hence, we consider only closed range of $\zeta$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/zeta_omega03.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/zeta_omega01.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl (Left) The relation of $\zeta$ and $\omega$ for $\kappa=-0.3$.
(Right) Same plot for $\kappa=-0.1$.
}
\label{fig:zeta_omega}
\end{figure}
Similarly, the energy of the I-ball/oscillon is given by
\begin{align}
E = & \left(\overline{\dot f^2}
-\frac{1}{2} \kappa m^2 \overline{f^2}
\right) \int d^3 x \,\psi(r)^2 \ , \\
= & \left(1 - \frac{1}{2} \kappa m^2 \frac{ \overline{f^2} }{ \overline{\dot f^2} } \right) \omega I \ ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
I = \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{\omega}\int d^3x \psi(r)^2
= \frac{\overline{\dot f^2}}{m \omega} \left(\frac{\pi}{|\kappa|}\right)^{3/2}
\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2}\ .
\end{align}
Here, we used Eqs.\,\eqref{eq:eom_f}, \eqref{eq:I}, and \eqref{eq:f_ave_rel}.
Notice that $\overline{\dot{f}^2}$, $\omega$ and $\psi_c$ depend on $\zeta$ through Eqs.(\ref{eq:f_ave_rel}), (\ref{eq:cond_psic}) and (\ref{eq:period}).
Thus, the adiabatic invariant is determined only by $\zeta$ for given model parameters $\kappa$ and $m$.
\section{Stability and Instability of the Exact I-ball/Oscillon}
\label{sec:perturb}
\subsection{Stability}
As shown in \cite{Ibe:2019vyo}, the non-exact I-ball/oscillon
decays by emitting relativistic radiation of the scalar field.
Here, let us discuss whether the exact I-ball/oscillon obeys
this decay process.
To see whether a relativistic radiation is emitted from the exact I-ball/oscillon, we consider a small perturbation
around the I-ball/oscillon, $\phi(x) = \phi_I(x) + \xi(x)$.
Here, $\phi_I(x)$ is the I-ball/oscillon solution obtained in
the previous section.
Then, the equation of motion of the perturbation $\xi(x)$ is
given by
\begin{align}
(\Box+V'' )|_{\phi = \phi_I}\,\xi(x) = \order{\xi(x)^2} \ ,
\label{eq:fluct_eom}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
V''=m^2 \left( 1 + 3\kappa + \kappa \log\frac{\phi^2}{m^2}\right)\ .
\end{align}
Eq.\,\eqref{eq:fluct_eom} shows that
the perturbation does not have source terms, and
the I-ball/oscillon solution is stable if $\xi=0$ initially.
Thus, unlike the case of the non-exact I-ball/oscillon,
the exact I-ball/oscillon does not decay by emitting
relativistic radiations.
The absence of the source term of $\xi$ stems from the fact that the equation for the I-ball/oscillon profile is the same as the equation of motion Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:eom_f}) and (\ref{eq:eom_psi}) without averaging over one period of the oscillation.
This contrasts with generic I-ball/oscillon solutions.
In general cases, the I-ball/oscillon solutions satisfy the equation of motion only after averaging over a period, and hence, the perturbation has source terms coming from the potential which disappear if averaged.
This leads to the decay of the I-ball/oscillon as shown in Ref.~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
These observations are consistent with the exactness of the conservation of the adiabatic invariant.
\subsection{Fragileness}
In this subsection, we discuss the instability of the exact I-ball/oscillon against small perturbations and
derive the growth index (the Floquet exponent) of the
instability.
As $\kappa < 0$, the perturbation around the vacuum, i.e. $\phi = 0$, has an infinite mass, i.e. $m_\xi^2 = \infty > 0$.%
\footnote{
The mass at the origin of this potential is divergent because
\begin{align*}
V''(\phi) = m^2\left[ (1+3\kappa) + \kappa \log \left( \frac{\phi}{m} \right)^2 \right] \rightarrow \infty. \ \ \ (\phi\rightarrow \pm 0)
\end{align*}
}
Thus, the perturbation around the vacuum is never excited.
Around the I-ball/oscillon solution,
\begin{align}
\phi_I(x) = f(t)\psi(r)\ , \quad
\quad
\psi(r) = \psi_c e^{-r^2/R^2}\ ,
\end{align}
on the other hand, the perturbation has a finite non-derivative kernel,
\begin{align}
\ddot{\xi}(x)-\nabla^2 \xi(x)
+ \left(2|\kappa|m^2 \frac{r^2}{R^2} + (1+3 \kappa) m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2} + F(t)\right)\xi(x)=0\ ,
\label{eq:eom_perturb}
\end{align}
where $F(t) = \kappa m^2 \log f(t)^2$.
and we neglected $\order{\xi^2}$ term in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:fluct_eom}.
Thus, there could be instability modes around the I-ball/oscillon solution.
To analyze Eq.~(\ref{eq:eom_perturb}), let us remember that the eigenequation,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3DHO}
\left(-\nabla^2 + \omega_\xi^2\,r^2 \right)\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) = 2 E_{\bf n} \lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x})\ ,
\end{align}
has the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) &= \prod_{i=1}^3
\left(\frac{1}{n_i!\, 2^{n_i}}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_\xi}{\pi}}\right)^{1/2} H_{n_i}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi}x_i) e^{-\omega_
\xi x_i^2/2}\ , \\
2E_{\bf n} &= 2\omega_\xi (n_1 + n_2 + n_3 + 3/2)\ .
\end{align}
where $H_n$ denotes the Hermite polynomial of order $n$,
and the eigenfunctions satisfy $\lambda_{\mathbf n}(|\mathbf x|\to \infty)=0$.
By expanding $\xi(x)$ by,
\begin{align}
\xi(t, {\bf x}) = \sum_{\bf n} q_{\bf n}(t)\lambda_{\bf n}({\bf x}) \ ,
\end{align}
we find that each $q_{\bf n}(t)$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq:perturbation}
\left[
\partial_t^2 + 2 \omega_{\xi}(n_1+n_2+n_3)
+ \Lambda + F(t)
\right]q_{\bf n}(t) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
Here, we defined
\begin{align}
\omega_\xi^2 &= 2 |\kappa|\frac{m^2}{R^2} = \kappa^2 m^4\ , \\
\Lambda &= (1+3 \kappa) m^2 + \kappa m^2 \log\frac{\psi_c^2}{m^2} + 3 \omega_\xi\ , \\
&= (1+3 \kappa - \zeta) m^2 \ ,
\end{align}
where we used Eq.\,\eqref{eq:cond_psic}.
The exponential factor in Eq.\,\eqref{eq:lambda} is identical to that of the I-ball/oscillon, i.e.
\begin{align}
e^{-\omega_\xi (x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2)/2} = e^{-r^2/R^2}\ .
\end{align}
If Eq.\,\eqref{eq:perturbation} has growing modes with non-trivial Floquet exponents,
the I-ball/oscillon solution can be unstable.
It should be noted that the perturbation of the zero mode, ${\bf n} = 0$, is redundant.
As the radius of the I-ball/oscillon does not depend on $\zeta$ but is determined by $\kappa$ and $m$,
the addition of the zero mode perturbation just enhances the value of $I$,
which leads to an I-ball/oscillon with a slightly larger $I$.
Because we confine ourselves to the spherical configuration in our numerical simulation,
we consider the spherical perturbations to analyze the result of our simulation.
Let us rewrite Eq.\,\eqref{eq:3DHO} in the spherical coordinate,
\begin{align}
\left(-\frac{d^2}{dr^2} - \frac{2}{r} \frac{d}{dr} + \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2}+\omega_\xi r^2 \right)R_{n_r,\ell}(r) = 2 E_{n_r,\ell} R_{n_r,\ell}(r) \ ,
\end{align}
where the eigenfunction is given by $R_{n_r,\ell}(r)Y_m^{\ell}(\Omega)$ with $Y_m^{\ell}(\Omega)$
being the spherical harmonics.
By introducing $\tilde r = \sqrt{\omega_\xi}\, r$,
the eigenfunction of the radial direction and the corresponding energy are given by,
\begin{align}
R_{n_r,\ell}(\tilde r) &= \frac{2^{1/2}\omega_\xi^{3/2}\Gamma(n_r + \ell + 3/2)^{1/2}}{\Gamma(n_r+1)^{1/2}\Gamma(\ell+3/2)}\,\tilde{r}^\ell e^{-\tilde r^2/2}\,{}_1F_1\left(-n_r;{3}/{2}+\ell; \tilde {r}^2\right)\ ,\\
2E_{n_r,\ell} &= 2(2n_r + \ell + 3/2 )\ ,
\end{align}
for $(n_r =0,1,2\cdots)$ and $(\ell = 0,1,2\cdots)$.
Here, $_1F_1(a;b;z)$ denotes the confluent hypergeometric function,
and the wave function is normalized so that
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty dr r^2 R_{n_r,
\ell}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi} r) R_{n_r',\ell}(\sqrt{\omega_\xi} r)= \delta_{n_r n_r'}\ .
\end{align}
By expanding the perturbation by
\begin{align}
\xi(t,{\bf x}) = \sum_{n_r,\ell,m_z} q_{n_r, \ell, m_z}(t) R_{n_r,\ell}(r) Y_{\ell}^{m_z}(\Omega)\ ,
\end{align}
the $q_{n_r, \ell, m_z}(t)$ satisfies,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:perturbation2}
\left[
\partial_t^2 + 2 \omega_{\xi}(2 n_r + \ell)
+ \Lambda + F(t)
\right]q_{n_r,\ell,m_z}(t) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
Since we are interested in the effects of the spherical perturbation,
we hereafter take $\ell =0$ and denote $q_{n_r}(t) = q_{n_r,0,0}(t)$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/qnr3.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/Rnr3.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl (Left) The growing mode around the I-ball with $\kappa = -0.3$
and $\zeta = 0.4$.
(Right) The corresponding wave function $R_{n_r =3, 0}(r)$.
}
\label{fig:growth}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:growth}, we show the instability mode, $n_r = 3$,
for $\kappa = -0.3$ and $\zeta =0.4$.
The figure shows that the perturbation grows for ${\cal O}(100)/m$.
We also show the corresponding wave function $R_{n_r =3, 0}(r)$.
Once the perturbation grows around the I-ball/oscillon, it is expected to be dissociated and breaks up into
smaller configurations.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kappa03.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/kappa01.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\sl
(upper) Plot of the Floquet exponent $\mu$ for the variables $n_r$ and $\zeta$ for $\kappa = -0.3$.
(lower) Same plot for $\kappa = -0.1$.
The instability bands for the spherical modes are at integer values of $n_r$.
The instability bands for the non-spherical modes
can be read off by renaming the horizontal axis
from $n_r$ to $n_r+\ell/2$. }
\label{fig:band}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:band}, we also show the Floquet exponent $\mu$
\begin{align}
\xi(t+T,{\bf x}) = e^{\mu T} \xi(t,{\bf x})\ ,
\end{align}
where $T=2\pi/\omega$ is a period of one oscillation.
The figure shows that there are some resonance bands.
This means that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not always a stable solution.
Thus, in the presence of tiny fluctuations around the
exact I-ball/oscillon, the instability modes exhibit
the exponential growths in the time scale of $\order{\mu^{-1}}$.
Once the exponential growth happens, the exact I-ball/oscillon
cannot keep its configuration anymore and is expected to be
broken up.
We will confirm these behaviors by the classical lattice simulation
in the next section.
\section{Numerical Simulation}
\label{sec:sim}
\subsection{Setup}
\label{sec:sim_setup}
In this subsection we briefly explain the setup of the simulation.
The procedure of the simulation is similar to that of Ref.~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo}.
Because the lowest energy configuration of the scalar field $\phi$ is spherically symmetric in three-dimensional space,
the equation of motion of $\phi$ is represented by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 \phi}{d t^2}
= \frac{d^2 \phi}{d r^2} + \frac{2}{r}\frac{d \phi}{d r} - \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi}\ ,
\label{eq:num_eom}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
V (\phi) = m^2 \left[ 1 + \kappa \log \left(\epsilon + \frac{\phi^2}{m^2} \right) \right] \phi^2\ .
\end{align}
Here, we introduced a small parameter $\epsilon$ to avoid the numerical instability
caused by the singularity of the effective mass at $\phi = 0$.
We have confirmed that the simulation results are independent of this small regularization term $\epsilon$.
For the boundary condition, we use the two following conditions.
\begin{itemize}
\item At the origin $r=0$, to avoid the divergence of the second term of the right-hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_eom}), we impose
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{1}{r}\frac{d \phi}{d r} \right|_{r=0} = 0\,.
\end{equation}
\item At the other boundary $r = L\ (\gg R)$, we impose the absorbing boundary condition (see Appendix \ref{sec:apdx_abc} for details).
Under this condition, the radiation of the real scalar field emitted from the I-ball/oscillon is absorbed at the boundary so that we correctly calculate the time evolution of I-ball/oscillon.
\end{itemize}
As the initial condition of $\phi$,
we use the theoretical I-ball/oscillon configuration Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gaussian_sol})-(\ref{eq:cond_psic})
for a given $\zeta_{\rm ini}$ with $1\%$ random fluctuations.
We also set
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\phi}(t=0,r) = 0\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
as an initial condition of $\dot{\phi}$.
We have confirmed that the exact I-ball/oscillon is completely stable in the absence
of the random fluctuations.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline \hline
$\zeta_{\rm ini}$ & varying \tabularnewline
$\kappa$ & $-0.3$ \tabularnewline
$\epsilon$ & $10^{-10}$ \tabularnewline
Box size $L$ & $64$ \tabularnewline
Grid size $N$ & $1024$ \tabularnewline
Initial time & $0$ \tabularnewline
Final time & $1.0\times 10^6$ \tabularnewline
Time step & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ \tabularnewline
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Simulation parameters.
$\zeta_{\rm ini}$ is changed in every simulation to set the appropriate initial profile of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
}
\label{Ta:sim_para}
\end{table}
The other simulation parameters are shown in Table~\ref{Ta:sim_para}.
Here, the units of the field, time, space, etc. are taken to be $m^{-1}$, that is,
\begin{equation}
\phi \rightarrow m\phi\ ,\ \
t \rightarrow \frac{t}{m}\ ,\ \
x \rightarrow \frac{x}{m}\ ,\ \dots\ {\rm etc}\ .
\end{equation}
We utilize the same lattice simulation code in \cite{Ibe:2019vyo},
in which the time evolution is calculated by the fourth-order symplectic integration scheme and the spatial derivatives are calculated by the fourth-order central difference scheme.
\subsection{Result}
\label{sec:sim_result}
We numerically calculate the time evolution of the exact I-ball/oscillon $\phi$ and its energy $E$ from
\begin{equation}
E (t) = \int ^L _0 dr\ 4\pi r^2
\left[ \frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi)^2 + V \right],
\label{eq:num_E}
\end{equation}
to see how it behaves in the presence of the instability modes derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:perturb}.
\subsubsection*{Stability}
First, we show the result of the stable exact I-ball/oscillon
which has no strong instability resonance bands.
The result is given in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_stable}, which shows that the exact I-ball/oscillation
does not break up even in the presence of the tiny fluctuation.
This result is consistent with the fact the exact I-ball/oscillon for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.3,\ 0.2$
does not have the instability modes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=95mm]{./figs/stable.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{\sl
The result of our simulations for the stable exact I-ball/oscillon.
The blue and the orange lines show the exact I-ball/oscillon energy (defined by Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_E})) for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.3$ and $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.2$, respectively.
The energy suddenly changes at $mt \simeq 60$
because the radiated fluctuations have reached the boundary and start to be absorbed at that time.
We find that the exact I-ball/oscillon energy is conserved in $mt \lesssim 10^6$
when the exact I-ball/oscillon does not have instability modes around it.
}
\label{fig:num_stable}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Fragileness}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=125mm]{./figs/unstable.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{\sl
The result of our simulations for the unstable exact I-ball/oscillon, which hit the instability bands.
The blue and the orange lines show the exact I-ball/oscillon energy (defined by Eq.\,(\ref{eq:num_E})) for $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ and $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.15$ respectively.
We also plot the typical instability bands as the Floquet exponent $\mu$ exhibited in Fig.~\ref{fig:band} by green thick lines.
The upper dark green line and the lower bright green line correspond to the instability bands at $\zeta \simeq 0.4,\ n_r = 3$ and $\zeta \simeq 0.1,\ n_r = 2$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}.
The sudden change of the energy at $mt \simeq 60$ is for the same reason as the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:num_stable}.
We find that the exact I-ball/oscillon energy strikingly decreases around the instability bands.
}
\label{fig:num_unstable}
\end{figure}
Next, we show the result of the unstable exact I-ball/oscillon.
The results of the simulations are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}.%
\footnote{We have confirmed that the exact I-ball/oscillon for the given $\zeta_{\rm ini}$ without initial fluctuations is stable within simulation time.}
Comparing the result with our analytical calculation (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:band}),
we find that the energy of exact I-ball/oscillon strikingly decreases at around instability bands showed as green color bands in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}.
This can be interpreted that the initial fluctuations appended to the exact I-ball/oscillon grow exponentially
and deform the exact I-ball/oscillon profile
\footnote{
Instability bands should be wide and strong enough for the oscillon decay.
}.
Our results also suggest that the exact I-ball/oscillon
ends up with another exact I-ball/oscillon profile
with a smaller $I$ after the decay process.
In fact, both the cases in Fig.\,\ref{fig:num_unstable}
converge to the smaller but finite energy at $mt \gtrsim 10^6$.
The case with $\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ is particularly suggestive.
In this case, the I-ball/oscillon first decays
when the instability modes in the narrower band around
$\zeta = 0.4$ and $n_r = 3$ grows,
and ends up with the I-ball/oscillon with $\zeta \simeq 0.15$.
However, there is a broader instability band for $\zeta \simeq 0.15$ and $n_r = 2$, with which the the exact
I-ball/oscillon further decays very quickly.
As a result, the exact I-ball/oscillon profile for
$\zeta_{\rm ini} = 0.4$ converges to the smaller I-ball/oscillon solution.
In our analysis, we only consider the radial modes of the fluctuation.
The exact I-ball/oscillon can have more instability bands
in the three dimensional case (see Eqs.\,\eqref{eq:perturbation} and \eqref{eq:perturbation2}).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we examine the stability of the exact I-ball/oscillon.
The exact I-ball/oscillon has been considered to be stable since
it has the exactly conserved adiabatic invariant.
Its stability is also expected because the perturbations around the exact I-ball/oscillon obey the field equation without the source terms.
However, we have found that the exact I-ball/oscillon is not
always a stable solution and the perturbation around it has
growth modes depending on the size of the adiabatic invariant.
Thus, in the presence of the fluctuations with the corresponding instability modes,
the exact I-ball/oscillon cannot keep its configuration anymore and breaks up eventually.
The mechanism of the exact I-ball/oscillon decay in this paper is completely different from the previous study~\cite{Ibe:2019vyo},
in which I-ball/oscillon decays by emitting relativistic radiations of the scalar field.
Our results in this paper suggest that it is necessary to consider both decay processes,
the decay by radiation and the decay by the instability modes,
when we estimate the lifetime of generic I-ball/oscillon.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Nos. 17H01131 (M.K.) and 17K05434 (M.K.),
MEXT KAKENHI Grant Nos. 15H05889 (M.K., M.I), No. 16H03991(M.I.), No. 17H02878(M.I.), and No. 18H05542 (M.I.),
World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan,
and JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists Grant No. 19J12936 (E.S.).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Methodology}
Given a source sentence ${\mathbf{x}} = \langle {\textnormal{x}}_1, \cdots, {\textnormal{x}}_{|{\mathbf{x}}|}\rangle$
and a target sentence ${\mathbf{y}} = \langle {\textnormal{y}}_1, \cdots, {\textnormal{y}}_{|{\mathbf{y}}|}\rangle$,
our proposed model is defined by the following conditional probability under
the Transformer architecture:~\footnote{Throughout this paper, a variable in
bold font such as ${\mathbf{x}}$ denotes a sequence while regular font such as ${\textnormal{x}}$
denotes an element which may be a scalar $x$, vector ${\bm{x}}$ or matrix ${\bm{X}}$.}
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
P \left({\mathbf{y}} \mid {\mathbf{x}}\right) & = & \prod \limits _{i=1}^{|{\mathbf{y}}|}
P \left({\textnormal{y}}_i \mid {\mathbf{y}}_{<i}, {\mathbf{x}}\right) =
\prod \limits _{i=1}^{|{\mathbf{y}}|} P \left({\textnormal{y}}_i \mid {\textnormal{c}}_i^L\right),
\label{eq:nmt}
\end{array}\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{y}}_{<i} = \langle {\textnormal{y}}_1, \dots, {\textnormal{y}}_{i-1}\rangle$ denotes a prefix
of ${\mathbf{y}}$ with length $i-1$, and ${\textnormal{c}}_i^L$ denotes the $L$\textsuperscript{th} layer
context in the decoder with $L$ layers which is obtained from the
representation of ${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$ and ${\mathbf{h}}^L$, i.e., the top layer hidden
representation of ${\mathbf{x}}$, similar to the original Transformer. To finish the
overall definition of our model in \eqref{eq:nmt}, we will expand the
definition ${\textnormal{c}}_i^L$ based on context gates in the following subsections.
\subsection{Context Gated Transformer}
\label{subsec:cg_transformer}
To develop context gates for our model, it is necessary to define the source
and target contexts at first. Unlike the case in RNN, the source sentence
${\mathbf{x}}$ and the target prefix ${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$ are tightly coupled in our model, and
thus it is not trivial to define the source and target contexts.
Suppose the source and target contexts at each layer $l$ are denoted by
${\textnormal{s}}_i^l$ and ${\textnormal{t}}_i^l$. We recursively define them from ${\mathbf{c}}_{<i}^{l-1}$
as follows.~\footnote{For the base case, ${\mathbf{c}}_{<i}^0$ is word embedding of
${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$.}
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
{\textnormal{t}}_i^l & = & \mathrm{rn}\circ\mathrm{ln}\circ\mathrm{att}
\left({\textnormal{c}}_i^{l-1}, {\mathbf{c}}_{<i}^{l-1}\right), \\
{\textnormal{s}}_i^l & = &\mathrm{ln}\circ\mathrm{att}\left({\textnormal{t}}_i^l,{\mathbf{h}}^L\right),
\end{array}\end{equation}
where $\circ$ is functional composition, $\mathrm{att} \left({\textnormal{q}}, {\textnormal{k}}
{\textnormal{v}}\right)$ denotes multiple head attention with ${\textnormal{q}}$ as query, ${\textnormal{k}}$ as
key, ${\textnormal{v}}$ as value, and $\mathrm{rn}$ as a residual
network~\cite{he2016deep}, $\mathrm{ln}$ is layer
normalization~\cite{ba2016layer}, and all parameters are removed for
simplicity.
In order to control the contributions from source or target side, we define
${\textnormal{c}}_i^l$ by introducing a context gate ${\bm{z}}_i^l$ to combine ${\textnormal{s}}_i^l$ and
${\textnormal{t}}_i^l$ as following:
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathbf{c}}_i^l & = & \mathrm{rn}\circ\mathrm{ln}\circ\mathrm{ff}
\left((\bm{1}-{\bm{z}}_i^l)\otimes{\textnormal{t}}_i^l+
{\bm{z}}_i^l\otimes{\textnormal{s}}_i^l\right)
\label{eq:ctx}
\end{array}\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
{\bm{z}}_i^l & = & \sigma \left( \mathrm{ff} \left( {\textnormal{t}}_i^l \Vert
{\textnormal{s}}_i^l\right) \right),
\label{eq:gates}
\end{array}\end{equation}
where \noindent $\textrm{ff}$ denotes a feedforward neural network, $\Vert$
denotes concatenation, $\sigma(\cdot)$ denotes a sigmoid function, and
$\otimes$ denotes an element-wise multiplication. ${\bm{z}}_i^l$ is a vector
(\citet{tu2017context} reported that a gating vector is better than a gating
scalar). Note that each component in ${\bm{z}}_i^l$ actually induces a probabilistic
model indicating whether the next generated word ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ is mainly
contributed from the source (${\mathbf{x}}$) or target sentence (${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$) , as
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:example}.
\paragraph{Remark}
It is worth mentioning that our proposed model is similar to the standard
Transformer with boiling down to replacing a residual connection with a high
way connection~\citep{srivastava2015highway, zhang2018improving}: if we replace
$(\bm{1}-{\bm{z}}_i^l) \otimes {\textnormal{t}}_i^l + {\bm{z}}_i^l \otimes {\textnormal{s}}_i^l$ in \eqref{eq:ctx}
by ${\mathbf{t}}_i^l + {\mathbf{s}}_i^l$, the proposed model is reduced to Transformer.
\subsection{Regularization of Context Gates}
In our preliminary experiments, we found learning context gates from scratch
cannot effectively reduce the context selection errors as described in
Section~\ref{subsec:error}.
To address this issue, we propose a regularization method to guide the learning
of context gates by external supervision $z_i^*$ which is a binary number
representing whether ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ is contributed from either source ($z_i^*=1$) or
target sentence ($z_i^*=0$). Formally, the training objective is defined as
follows:
\begin{multline}
\ell = - \log P({\mathbf{y}}\mid {\mathbf{x}}) + \lambda \sum \limits _{l,i} \bigg(
z_i^*\max ( \bm{0.5} - {\bm{z}}_i^l, \bm{0} ) \\ +
(1-z_i^*)\max ( {\bm{z}}_i^l - \bm{0.5}, \bm{0} ) \bigg),
\label{eq:reg}
\end{multline}
where ${\bm{z}}_i^l$ is a context gate defined in \eqref{eq:gates} and $\lambda$
is a hyperparameter to be tuned in experiments. Note that we only regularize
the gates during the training, but we skip the regularization during inference.
Because golden $z_i^*$ are inaccessible for each word ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ in the training
corpus, we ideally have to annotate it manually. However, it is costly for
human to label such a large scale dataset. Instead, we propose an automatic
method to generate its value in practice in the next subsection.
\subsection{Generating Supervision $z_i^*$}
To decide whether ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ is contributed from the source (${\mathbf{x}}$) or target
sentence (${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$)~\citep{li2019word}, a metric to measure the correlation
between a pair of words ($\langle {\textnormal{y}}_i, {\textnormal{x}}_j\rangle$ or $\langle {\textnormal{y}}_i,
{\textnormal{y}}_k\rangle$ for $k<i$) is first required. This is closely related to a
well-studied problem, i.e., word collocation~\cite{liu2009collocation}, and we
simply employ the pointwise mutual information (PMI) to measure the correlation
between a word pair $\langle \mu, \nu\rangle$
following~\citet{,bouma2009normalized}:
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathrm{pmi}\left(\mu,\nu\right) & = &
\log \frac{P\left(\mu,\nu\right)}{P\left(\mu\right)P\left(\nu\right)} \\
& = & \log Z +
\log \frac{C\left(\mu,\nu\right)}{C\left(\mu\right)C\left(\nu\right)},
\end{array}\end{equation}
where $C\left(\mu\right)$ and $C\left(\nu\right)$ are word counts,
$C\left(\mu,\nu\right)$ is the co-occurrence count of words $\mu$ and $\nu$,
and $Z$ is the normalizer, i.e., the total number of all possible
$\left(\mu,\nu\right)$ pairs. To obtain the context gates, we define two types
of PMI according to different $C\left(\mu,\nu\right)$ including two scenarios
as follows.
\paragraph{PMI in the Bilingual Scenario}
For each parallel sentence pair $\langle{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}\rangle$ in training set,
$C\left({\textnormal{y}}_i,{\textnormal{x}}_j\right)$ is added by one if both ${\textnormal{y}}_i\in{\mathbf{y}}$ and
${\textnormal{x}}_j\in{\mathbf{x}}$.
\paragraph{PMI in the Monolingual Scenario}
In the translation scenario, only the words in the preceding context of a
target word should be considered. So for any target sentence ${\mathbf{y}}$ in the
training set, $C\left({\textnormal{y}}_i,{\textnormal{y}}_k\right)$ is added by one if both
${\textnormal{y}}_i\in{\mathbf{y}}$ and ${\textnormal{y}}_k\in{\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$.
Given the two kinds of PMI for a bilingual sentence $\langle{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}\rangle$,
each $z_i^*$ for each ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ is defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
z_i^* =
\mathbbm{1}_{\max_j \mathrm{pmi}\left({\textnormal{y}}_i, {\textnormal{x}}_j\right)>
\max_{k<i} \mathrm{pmi}\left({\textnormal{y}}_i, {\textnormal{y}}_k\right)},
\label{eq:z*}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbbm{1}_b$ is a binary function valued by 1 if $b$ is true and 0
otherwise. In \eqref{eq:z*}, we employ $\max$ strategy to measure the
correlation between ${\textnormal{y}}_i$ and a sentence (${\mathbf{x}}$ or ${\mathbf{y}}_{<i}$). Indeed,
it is similar to use the average strategy, but we did not find its gains over
$\max$ in our experiments.
\section{Conclusions}
This paper transplants context gates from the RNN based NMT to the Transformer
to control the source and target context for translation. We find that context
gates only modestly improve the translation quality of the Transformer, because
learning context gates freely from scratch is more challenging for the
Transformer with the complicated structure than for RNN. Based on this
observation, we propose a regularization method to guide the learning of
context gates with an effective way to generate supervision from training data.
Experimental results show the regularized context gates can significantly
improve translation performances over different translation tasks even though
the context control problem is only slightly relieved. In the future, we
believe more work on alleviating context control problem has the potential to
improve translation performance as quantified in Table~\ref{tab:err}.
\section{Introduction}
An essence to modeling translation is how to learn an effective context from a
sentence pair. Statistical machine translation (SMT) models the source context
from the source-side of a translation model and models the target context from
a target-side language model~\cite{koehn2003statistical, koehn2009statistical,
chiang2005hierarchical}. These two models are trained independently. On the
contrary, neural machine translation (NMT) advocates a unified manner to
jointly learn source and target context using an encoder-decoder framework with
an attention mechanism, leading to substantial gains over SMT in translation
quality~\cite{sutskever2014sequence, bahdanau2014neural,
gehring2017convolutional, vaswani2017attention}. Prior work on attention
mechanism~\citep{luong2015effective, liu2016neural, mi2016supervised,
chen2018syntax, li2018target, elbayad2018pervasive, yang2020neural} have shown
a better context representation is helpful to translation performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig/example.pdf}
\caption{
A running example to raise the context control problem. Both original
and context gated Transformer obtain an unfaithful translation by
wrongly translate ``\textit{t\= i q\' iu}'' into ``\textit{play
{\color{red1} golf}}'' because referring too much target context. By
regularizing the context gates, the purposed method corrects the
translation of ``\textit{t\= i q\' iu}'' into ``\textit{play
{\color{green1} soccer}}''. The light font denotes the target words to
be translated in the future. For original Transformer, the source and
target context are added directly without any rebalancing.
}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
However, a standard NMT system is incapable of effectively controlling the
contributions from source and target contexts~\citep{he2018layer} to deliver
highly adequate translations as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:example}. As a result,
\citet{tu2017context} carefully designed context gates to dynamically control
the influence from source and target contexts and observed significant
improvements in the recurrent neural network (RNN) based NMT. Although
Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention} delivers significant gains over RNN for
translation, there are still one third translation errors related to context
control problem as described in Section~\ref{subsec:error}. Obviously, it is
feasible to extend the context gates in RNN based NMT into Transformer, but an
obstacle to accomplishing this goal is the complicated architecture in
Transformer, where the source and target words are tightly coupled. Thus, it is
challenging to put context gates into practice in Transformer.
In this paper, under the Transformer architecture, we firstly provide a way to
define the source and target contexts and then obtain our model by combining
both source and target contexts with context gates, which actually induces a
probabilistic model indicating whether the next generated word is contributed
from the source or target sentence~\citep{li2019word}. In our preliminary
experiments, this model only achieves modest gains over Transformer because the
context selection error reduction is very limited as described in
Section~\ref{subsec:error}. To further address this issue, we propose a
probabilistic model whose loss function is derived from external supervision as
regularization for the context gates. This probabilistic model is jointly
trained with the context gates in NMT. As it is too costly to annotate this
supervision for a large-scale training corpus manually, we instead propose a
simple yet effective method to automatically generate supervision using
pointwise mutual information, inspired by word collocation
~\cite{bouma2009normalized}. In this way, the resulting NMT model is capable
of controlling the contributions from source and target contexts effectively.
We conduct extensive experiments on 4 benchmark datasets, and experimental
results demonstrate that the proposed gated model obtains an averaged
improvement of 1.0 BLEU point over corresponding strong Transformer baselines.
In addition, we design a novel analysis to show that the improvement of
translation performance is indeed caused by relieving the problem of wrongly
focusing on the source or target context.
\section{Experiments}
The proposed methods are evaluated on
NIST ZH$\Rightarrow$EN \footnote{LDC2000T50,~LDC2002L27,~LDC2002T01,~LDC2002E18,
LDC2003E07,~LDC2003E14,~LDC2003T17,~LDC2004T07},
WMT14 EN$\Rightarrow$DE \footnote{WMT14: http://www.statmt.org/wmt14/},
IWSLT14 DE$\Rightarrow$EN \footnote{IWSLT14: http://workshop2014.iwslt.org/} and
IWSLT17 FR$\Rightarrow$EN \footnote{IWSLT17: http://workshop2017.iwslt.org/} tasks.
To make our NMT models capable of open-vocabulary translation, all datasets are
preprocessed with Byte Pair Encoding \citep{sennrich2015neural}. All proposed
methods are implemented on top of Transformer \cite{vaswani2017attention} which
is the state-of-the-art NMT system. Case-insensitive BLEU score
\citep{papineni2002bleu} is used to evaluate translation quality of
ZH$\Rightarrow$EN, DE$\Rightarrow$EN and FR$\Rightarrow$EN. For the fair
comparison with the related work, EN$\Rightarrow$DE is evaluated with
case-sensitive BLEU score. Setup details are described in
Appendix~\ref{sec:setup}.
\begin{table}[htb]\small
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
$\lambda$ & 0.1 & 0.5 & 1 & 2 & 10 \\
\hline
\textbf{BLEU} & 32.7 & 32.6 & \textbf{33.0} & 32.7 & 32.6
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item[*] Results are measured on DE$\Rightarrow$EN task.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\caption{Translation performance over different regularization
coefficient $\lambda$.}
\label{tab:lambda}
\end{table}
\subsection{Tuning Regularization Coefficient}
In the beginning of our experiments, we tune the regularization coefficient
$\lambda$ on the DE$\Rightarrow$EN task. Table~\ref{tab:lambda} shows the
robustness of $\lambda$, because the translation performance only fluctuates
slightly over various $\lambda$. In particular, the best performance is
achieved when $\lambda=1$, which is the default setting throughout this paper.
\subsection{Translation Performance}
\label{subsec:tp}
Table~\ref{tab:tp} shows the translation quality of our methods in BLEU. Our
observations are as follows:
1) The performance of our implementation of the Transformer is slightly higher
than \citet{vaswani2017attention}, which indicates we are in a fair comparison.
2) The proposed Context Gates achieves modest improvement over the baseline. As
we mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:cg_transformer}, the structure of RNN based
NMT is quite different from the Transformer. Therefore, naively introducing the
gate mechanism to the Transformer without adaptation does not obtain similar
gains as it does in RNN based NMT.
3) The proposed Regularized Context Gates improves nearly 1.0 BLEU score over
the baseline and outperforms all existing related work. This indicates that
the regularization can make context gates more effective in relieving the
context control problem as discussed following.
\subsection{Error Analysis}
\label{subsec:error}
To explain the success of Regularized Context Gates, we analyze the error rates
of translation and context selection. Given a sentence pair ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$,
the forced decoding translation error is defined as $P \left({\textnormal{y}}_i \mid
{\mathbf{y}}_{<i}, {\mathbf{x}}\right) < P \left(\hat{{\textnormal{y}}}_i \mid {\mathbf{y}}_{<i}, {\mathbf{x}}\right)$,
where $\hat{{\textnormal{y}}}_i \triangleq \argmax _{\textnormal{v}} P \left({\textnormal{v}} \mid {\mathbf{y}}_{<i},
{\mathbf{x}}\right)$ and ${\textnormal{v}}$ denotes any token in the vocabulary. The context
selection error is defined as $z_i^*({\textnormal{y}}_i) \neq z_i^*(\hat{{\textnormal{y}}}_i)$, where
$z_i^*$ is defined in \eqref{eq:z*}. Note that a context selection error must
be a translation error but the opposite is not true. The example shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:example} also demonstrates a context selection error indicating
the translation error is related with the bad context selection.
\begin{table}[htb]\small
\newcommand{$\text{\textbf{CE}}/\text{\textbf{FE}}$}{$\text{\textbf{CE}}/\text{\textbf{FE}}$}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{FER} & \textbf{CER} & $\text{\textbf{CE}}/\text{\textbf{FE}}$ \\
\hline
Transformer & 40.5 & 13.8 & 33.9 \\
Context Gates & 40.5 & 13.7 & 33.7 \\
Regularized Context Gates & \textbf{40.0} & \textbf{13.4} & \textbf{33.4} \\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item[*] Results are measured on MT08 of ZH$\Rightarrow$EN task.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\caption{
Forced decoding translation error rate (\textbf{FER}), context
selection error rate (\textbf{CER}) and the proportion of context
selection errors over forced decoding translation errors ($\text{\textbf{CE}}/\text{\textbf{FE}}$) of the
original and context gated Transformer with or without regularization.
}
\label{tab:err}
\let$\text{\textbf{CE}}/\text{\textbf{FE}}$\undefined
\end{table}
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:err}, the Regularized Context Gates significantly
reduce the translation error by avoiding the context selection error. The
Context Gates are also able to avoid few context selection error but cannot
make a notable improvement in translation performance. It is worth to note that
there is approximately one third translation error is related to context
selection error. The Regularized Context Gates indeed alleviate this severe
problem by effectively rebalancing of source and target context for
translation.
\subsection{Statistics of Context Gates}
\label{subsec:stat_cg}
\begin{table}[htb]\small
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{Mean} & \textbf{Variance} \\
\hline
Context Gates & 0.38 & 0.10 \\
Regularized Context Gates & 0.51 & 0.13 \\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item[*] Results are measured on MT08 of ZH$\Rightarrow$EN task.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\caption{Mean and variance of context gates}
\label{tab:mv}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:mv} summarizes the mean and variance of each context gate (every
dimension of the context gate vectors) over the MT08 test set. It shows that
learning context gates freely from scratch tends to pay more attention to
target context (0.38 $<$ 0.5), which means the model tends to trust its
language model more than the source context, and we call this context imbalance
bias of the freely learned context gate. Specifically, this bias will make the
translation unfaithful for some source tokens. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:mv},
the Regularized Context Gates demonstrates more balanced behavior
(0.51$\approx$0.5) over the source and target context with similar variance.
\subsection{Regularization in Different Layers}
To investigate the sensitivity of choosing different layers for regularization,
we only regularize the context gate in every single layer.
Table~\ref{tab:diffly} shows that there is no significant performance
difference, but all single layer regularized context gate models are slightly
inferior to the model, which regularizes all the gates. Moreover, since nearly
no computation overhead is introduced and for design simplicity, we adopt
regularizing all the layers.
\begin{table}[htb]\small
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
Layers & N/A & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & ALL \\
\hline
\textbf{BLEU} & 32.5 & 32.8 & 32.7 & 32.5 & 32.3 & 33.0
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item[*] Results are measured on DE$\Rightarrow$EN task.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\caption{
Regularize context gates on different layers.``N/A" indicates
regularization is not added. ``ALL" indicates regularization is added
to all the layers.
}
\label{tab:diffly}
\end{table}
\subsection{Effects on Long Sentences}
In \citet{tu2017context}, context gates alleviate the problem of long sentence
translation of attentional RNN based system \cite{bahdanau2014neural}. We
follow \citet{tu2017context} and compare the translation performances according
to different lengths of the sentences. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:difflen}, we
find Context Gates does not improve the translation of long sentences but
translate short sentences better. Fortunately, the Regularized Context Gates
indeed significantly improves the translation for both short sentences and long
sentences.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig/difflen.pdf}
\caption{Translation performance on MT08 test set with respect to
different lengths of source sentence. Regularized Context Gates
significantly improves the translation of short and long
sentences.}
\label{fig:difflen}
\end{figure}
\section{Details of Data and Implementation}
\label{sec:setup}
The training data for ZH$\Rightarrow$EN task consists of 1.8M sentence pairs.
The development set is chosen as NIST02 and test sets are NIST05, 06, 08. For
EN$\Rightarrow$DE task, its training data contains 4.6M sentences pairs. Both
FR$\Rightarrow$EN and DE$\Rightarrow$EN tasks contain around 0.2M sentence
pairs. For ZH$\Rightarrow$EN and EN$\Rightarrow$DE tasks, the joint vocabulary
is built with 32K BPE merge operations, and for DE$\Rightarrow$EN and
FR$\Rightarrow$EN tasks it is built with 16K merge operations.
Our implementation of context gates and the regularization are based on
Transformer, implemented by THUMT \citep{zhang2017thumt}. For ZH$\Rightarrow$EN and
EN$\Rightarrow$DE tasks, only the sentences of length up to 256 tokens are used
with no more than $2^{15}$ tokens in a batch. The dimension of both word
embeddings and hidden size are 512. Both encoder and decoder have 6 layers and
adopt multi-head attention with 8 heads. For FR$\Rightarrow$EN and
DE$\Rightarrow$EN tasks, we use a smaller model with 4 layers and 4 heads, and
both the embedding size and the hidden size is 256. The training batch contains
no more than $2^{12}$ tokens. For all tasks, the beam size for decoding is 4,
and the loss function is optimized with Adam, where $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.98$
and $\epsilon=10^{-9}$.
|
\section{Introduction}
%
Mathematical and computational models serve as convenient representations of physical and human-made processes. When data is difficult to obtain, unavailable (e.g., in the case of future value prediction), or computationally intractable, data-driven or physics based models,
are designed to inexpensively and reliably reproduce, and extrapolate, data. In general, a model may be deterministic or nondeterministic depending on the nature of the physical or human-made process it is trying to represent.
A model, its inputs, model form, and outputs, may be uncertain for any number of reasons. A model may have uncertain model parameters or noisy input data values, uncertainty pertaining to computational representation (discretization or surrogate mode error), model form uncertainty (i.e. how do we know this is the best model?), and others. It is common in the literature to categorize such uncertainties as being either: \emph{aleatory} and naturally stochastic, or \emph{epistemic} and deriving from a lack of knowledge on part of the modeler \cite{Mullins}.
Uncertainty may be propagated through a computational model using existing sampling methods. This includes simple Monte Carlo (MC), stratified sampling, and importance sampling, as well as simple quadrature integration such as midpoint, trapezoidal, or other integration rules. When the integrals are high dimensional or over complicated probability distributions, their results may be approximated using Markov Chain MC \cite{MCMC}, Metropolis Algorithm \cite{Metro}, Gibbs Algorithm \cite{GA}, Hamiltonian MC \cite{stan}, or slice sampling \cite{SS}. Other effective methods for propagating uncertainty construct surrogate models such as truncated Polynomial Chaos Expansions (PCE) \cite{Spectral, 134, 153,NumChallenges}, Gaussian Process \cite{KOH} models, and discretized models \cite{18,62,63,14,20}, that are sampled instead of the original models, which introduces additional uncertainty that in principle can be propagated at the model verification stage \cite{Shankar,Li,Roy2}.
The state of the art method for performing computational model sensitivity analysis (SA) involves constructing Variogram Analysis of Response Surfaces (VARS) \cite{VARS1, VARS2,GUPTA}. Integrating the VARS variogram leads to Integrated VARS (IVARS), which is able to provide a ``characterization of sensitivity across the full spectrum of scales" in a computationally efficient manner. IVARS includes variance based (Sobol) \cite{Sobol1,Sobol2,UQTk,Dakota} and derivative based \cite{Morris} sensitivity analysis methods as special cases. Each relevant scale is given equal weight in IVARS.
Performing SA on the basis of local and global input measurement uncertainties across the set of possible measurements appears to be a highly relevant, yet omitted topic, from modern SA.\footnote{Perhaps due to its presumably high computational time complexity.} As the task of collecting high precision data may be costly, ultimately we would like to know how our lack of exact knowledge over the inputs of a model affects our knowledge of the output so we can focus our collection efforts in regions with the highest payoff.
In the literature, the main application of GPU computing in computational probability theory is toward solving the steady state Markov chain problem \cite{MarkovChainGPU1,MarkovChainGPU2,MarkovChainGPU3} and toward speeding up probabilistic machine learning \cite{tf}, i.e., probabilistic model parameter learning. The steady state Markov chain problem involves finding the steady state probability distribution of a Markov chain system.
GPU solutions to this problem involve representing an initial probability distribution as a vector and applying a probability valued transition matrix on it many times until an approximate steady state solution is found.
Because GPU's are capable of multiplying matrices with high efficiency, \cite{MarkovChainGPU1,MarkovChainGPU2,MarkovChainGPU3} utilize the GPU for this process. When applicable, the sparseness of the matrix can be utilized to improve computational speed and memory requirements \cite{sparse}. A method in which many different input probabilities are sent through the GPU and propagated through a computational model ``simultaneously" has yet to be explored in the context of uncertainty quantification.
In this article we construct a theoretical and computational process for assessing Input Probability Sensitivity Analysis (IPSA) using a GPU enabled Vectorized Uncertainty Propagation (VUP) technique. We build IPSA from the theoretical foundations of VARS and IVARS and thus it can reproduce their results, and thus the results of other SA methods, as special cases. A full IPSA relies on an efficient method for propagating many input uncertainties through the computational model in question. By vectorizing the uncertainty propagation process and extending it to be able to evaluate many different input probability distributions ``simultaneously",
we instantiate a VUP technique that is more computationally efficient at this task than MC.
Thus, by using VUP for IPSA, IPSA becomes a rapid and efficient method for performing context specific SA.
The main SA object generated by an IPSA is a set of output probability distributions that encode pointwise deviations from the estimated values of the model function as a whole, due to local input uncertainties. These local output deviation probabilities can be used to calculate any number of quantities pertaining to local sensitivity such as expectation values, confidence intervals, maximum probability estimates, and others. The resulting distribution from marginalizing over the local distributions can be used to calculate global sensitivity quantities that incorporate the aggregate effect of uncertainty into the analysis.
IPSA differs from other probabilistic sensitivity analysis found in the literature. In IPSA, one uses a parametric model function (with uncertain parameters in general) directly rather than a data driven Gaussian Process \cite{PSA1}, which allows us to better address asymmetries in the model function output pdfs.
Further, we are interested in the probabilistic response of the function over may different locations, rather than just one \cite{PSA2}, which gives us access to global and local measures of sensitivity and provides the connection to IVARS as a special case.
The remainder of the article is as follows. We discuss computational models and uncertainty propagation in Section \ref{section2}. VUP is introduced in Section \ref{section3}. VUP and MC computational time complexity comparisons are derived and simulated in Section \ref{section4}. In Section \ref{section5} we derive IPSA from the foundational basis of IVARS and we illustrate an example IPSA problem using VUP for several input uncertainty scenarios.
\section{Computational Models and Uncertainty Propagation\label{section2}}
A computational model may be represented mathematically as a function \cite{Shankar,Li,Roy2,UQTk,Dakota}. Computational model functions may encode arbitrary input/output computer functions including but not limited to: differential and non-differential equations or their solutions, conditional piecewise functions, vector and matrix valued functions, or even computational functions of strings. The majority of the computational models above can be represented mathematically as a general function,
\begin{eqnarray}
M(\vec{v})=\vec{y},\label{modelfunction}
\end{eqnarray}
that maps inputs $\vec{v}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ to outputs $\vec{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$.
We find it conceptually convenient to partition the input vector,
$$\vec{v}=(\vec{x},\vec{\alpha}),$$
into the vector $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{\alpha}$, which represent the incoming ``data like" inputs and ``model parameter like" inputs, respectively. The $\vec{x}$ inputs tend to vary from instance to instance and originate from outside of the system, whereas the $\vec{\alpha}$ inputs are internal to the model and are (in general, probabilistically) regressed to fit known data.
In principle, computational models may be considered to be deterministic even if they have functional dependence on internally generated pseudorandom numbers. Because computers are deterministic machines, a computational model having internally generating pseudorandom numbers, $\vec{\lambda}$, according to a given pdf, $\rho(\vec{\lambda})$, is deterministic too. Thus, when appropriate, the $\vec{\lambda}$'s may be pulled out and lumped into the model parameters,
$$\vec{\alpha}\rightarrow\vec{\alpha}\equiv(\vec{\alpha},\vec{\lambda}),$$
without loss of generality.
Deterministic computational models can be represented using probability distributions that indicate complete certainty.
A completely certain input value $\vec{v}$ that propagates through the deterministic model function $M$ to the output $\vec{y}$ with certainty is represented probabilistically as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(\vec{y}|M,\vec{x},\vec{\alpha})=\delta(\vec{y}-M(\vec{x},\vec{\alpha})),\label{1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta(...)$ is the Dirac delta function (or the indicator function $\Theta(...)$ in the discrete case). We will call the left hand side of (\ref{1}) the ``model propagator", of which the right hand side is a ``deterministic model propagator". This equation represents the fact that we know computers are deterministic machines.
The goal of uncertainty propagation (UP) is to estimate the probability distribution function of the model outputs, $\rho(\vec{y}|M)$, due to a known amount of uncertainty in the input variables, $\rho(\vec{v}|M)$. Theoretically, the resulting value of the output pdf from UP is given by marginalization over the uncertain inputs,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(\vec{y}|M) = \int_{\vec{x},\vec{\alpha}} \rho(\vec{y}|M, \vec{x},\vec{\alpha})\rho(\vec{x},\vec{\alpha}|M)\,d\vec{x}\,d\vec{\alpha},\label{UP}
\end{eqnarray}
which is an integral that must be estimated for each viable element in $\{\vec{y}\}$. In the case where all of the $\vec{\lambda}$ parameters are lumped into $\vec{\alpha}$, we may substitute equation (\ref{1}) into (\ref{UP}) and still represent models having random numbers within them.
For the purpose of this paper, we will call any model where we do not know the functional form of the model propagator to be a ``black box model propagator" and for any model propagator that its functional form is known (e.g. (\ref{1}), Gaussian, etc.) to be a ``computationally deterministic model propagator". From our point of view, one is dealing with a black box model propagator if, for one reason or another, it is impossible or computationally unrealistic to lump the internal (and potentially nested) random numbers $\vec{\lambda}$ into $\vec{\alpha}$. In such a case, MC type methods tend to bypass the need for constructing the functional form of the model propagator in favor of simply generating estimates of $\rho(\vec{y}|M)$.
In this article we will only consider computationally deterministic model propagators.
The models within this class are not limited to: non-stochastic parametric models, models with known (or well estimated) functional forms of the model propagator (e.g. Markov Chain models, Gaussian Processes, etc.), or stochastic models with extractable low dimensional $\vec{\lambda}$ parameters. A given computationally deterministic model propagator may be simple or computationally complex to evaluate, e.g., they could just be algebraic functions or have internal search/optimization type routines.
\section{Vectorization Uncertainty Propagation\label{section3}}
We begin vectorizing the UP process for computationally deterministic models by first representing these sets of integrals $\{\rho(y|M)\}$ as set of sums $\{p(y_i|M)\}$, where $p(y_i|M)$ is the probability of $y_i$ given the model $M$. Let $\overrightarrow{|\bigtriangleup|}_{y_i,M(j,k)}$ be the vector resulting from the componentwise modulus of the subtracted vectors, $\vec{y}_i-M(\vec{x}_j,\vec{\alpha}_k)$. Given that UP will be calculated computationally, we represent the problem in the discrete setting, $\rho\rightarrow p$,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\vec{y}_i|M)&=&\sum_{j,k}\Theta\Big(\overrightarrow{|\bigtriangleup|}_{y_i,M(j,k)}\leq \vec{b}\Big)\,p(\vec{x}_j,\vec{\alpha}_k|M),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Theta(B)$ is the discretized deterministic model propagator and the indicator function, which is equal to one if $B$ is true and is zero otherwise. The bin widths vector $\vec{b}$ uniformly partitions $\{\rho(\vec{y}|M)\}$ into $\{p(\vec{y}_i|M)\}$.
We will notationally suppress the indices and the vector arrows and instead write,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(y|M)=\sum_{x,\alpha}\Theta\Big(|\bigtriangleup|_{y,M(x,\alpha)}\leq b\Big)\,p(x,\alpha|M),\label{4}
\end{eqnarray}
when there is no room for confusion.
We vectorize the UP process by representing the discretized model propagator as a matrix and by performing matrix multiplication. Let $P(x,\alpha|M)$ represent an input probability vector, which has components equal to the discrete input probabilities $p(x,\alpha|M)$. The dimension of $P(x,\alpha|M)$ is equal to the number of samples in the joint input space $N=N_x*N_{\alpha}$, where $(N_x,N_{\alpha})$ is the number of samples per $(x,\alpha)$, respectively. Let the model propagator be represented by what we call the ``model matrix" $\mathcal{M}_{y, (x,\alpha)}$, which has components given by a model's discretized model propagator $p(y|M, x,\alpha)$ and which has dimension $N_y\times N$. UP is performed by matrix multiplying the model matrix on the input probability vector. This generates $P(y|M)$, which is an $N_y$ dimensional output probability vector with components equal to the output probabilities $p(y|M)$.
That is, UP from equation (\ref{4}) is,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(y|M)= \mathcal{M}_{y, (x,\alpha)}\cdot P(x,\alpha|M).\label{5}
\end{eqnarray}
In the computationally deterministic case $p(y|M, x,\alpha)=\Theta\Big(|\bigtriangleup|_{y,M(x,\alpha)}\leq b\Big)$, (\ref{5}) looks something like (where the $M$ is notationally suppressed),
\begin{eqnarray} \left( \begin{array}{c}
p(y_1)\\
\vdots\\
p(y_{N_y})\\
\end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & \dots&1 & \dots &0 \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots &\vdots\\
0 & \dots&0&\dots & 1
\end{array} \right)\cdot
\left( \begin{array}{c}
p(x_1,\alpha_1)\\
\vdots\\
p(x_{j},\alpha_k)\\
\vdots\\
p(x_{N_x},\alpha_{N_{\alpha}})
\end{array} \right),\label{MUP}
\end{eqnarray}
for a particular discretized deterministic model propagator, i.e., for a particular population of 1's and 0's in the model matrix. From the above equations, it becomes clear that the model propagator uses the model function to effectively sort and sum the input probabilities into their respective output probability bins. Equation (\ref{5}) is the vectorized representation of UP (i.e. VUP) we seek to utilize GPU computing. Due to normalization, the model matrix is usually (extremely) sparse, which can be taken advantage of to improve speed and memory requirements, that is, using \cite{sparse}.
The matrix representation of UP is purely for computational convenience. Standard matrix methods, such as applying a matrix inverse or pseudoinverse, can result in negative probabilities or other nonsensical results.
VUP has access to Bayes Theorem,
$$p(x,\alpha|y,M,\ell)=\frac{p(y|x,\alpha,M,\ell)p(x,\alpha|M,\ell)}{p(y|M,\ell)},$$
which is the probabilistically correct way to make inverse or backward type inferences. We represent this set of probability distributions $\{p(x,\alpha|y,M,\ell)\}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{(x,\alpha),y}\sim\mathcal{M}^{-1}_{y,(x,\alpha)}$ with what can be called a ``inverted model matrix" -- it maps output values to input values $y\rightarrow M^{-1}(y)= \{(x,\alpha)\}_y$.\footnote{Bayes theorem provides the rules for ``inverting" the model matrix as one can prove $\mathcal{M}_{(x,\alpha),y} \cdot\mathcal{M}_{y, (x,\alpha)}\cdot P(x,\alpha|M)= P(x,\alpha|M)$.}
It should be stressed that this equation is \emph{predefined by the forward propagation} (i.e. equation (\ref{4})) and thus the inference is based purely on that instance (or context) represented by the input pdf $ P(x,\alpha|M)$. Because model functions $M$ are \emph{not} uniquely invertible in general, Bayes Theorem ends up assigning nonzero and nonunity probabilities over the possible inputs -- i.e., the multiple solutions of noninvertable functions are assigned probabilities.
We can use VUP to propagate a large number of distinct input probability distributions through a model matrix given the model matrix is an adequate representation of the model. Let each input probability distribution be distinct and differ by a given proposition or parameter $\ell$, of which there are $L$ many. Constructing an $N$ by $L$ input probability matrix,
$$\mathcal{P}_{(x,\alpha),\ell}=\Big[ P(x,\alpha|M,\ell=1), ..., P(x,\alpha|M,\ell=L)\Big],$$
and operating the model matrix on it,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_{y,\ell}= \mathcal{M}_{y, (x,\alpha)}\cdot \mathcal{P}_{ (x,\alpha),\ell},\label{VUP}
\end{eqnarray}
we propagate many distinct input probability distributions through the model ``simultaneously". Each column of $\mathcal{P}_{(x,\alpha),\ell}$ is an input probability vector that propagates to its corresponding output probability vector $ P(y|M,\ell)$, similarly situated in the output probability matrix $\mathcal{P}_{y,\ell}$.
Due to the current trend in AI and machine learning, GPU's are expected to continue to improve at an accelerated rate and become more readily available, which makes VUP increasingly attractive. We expect that by further developing batching, smart or representative sampling, and distributed computing techniques, that we would be able to mitigate memory constraints in a way that would expand VUP's domain of applicability to higher dimensions over time. The input pdfs are discretized using the composite midpoint rule for rapidity. Given the recent results of \cite{quadMC}, which indicate that the composite midpoint integration rule is just as good an integral estimation technique as MC, we are optimistic about extending VUP to higher dimensions accurately
\section{The Rapidity of VUP\label{section4}}
Appendix \ref{appendix} compares the computational complexity estimations of VUP and MC in the single and multiple propagated probability cases, which we will summarize here. These estimates comes from a few assumptions that can be relaxed if desired; however, similar results follow.
The estimation of the difference in the computational time complexity between MC ($C_{MC}$) and VUP ($C_{VUP}$) favors MC for the propagation of \emph{a single pdf} by an amount that is on the order of the number of samples,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{MC}-C_{VUP}\sim -\mathcal{O}(N) \label{singleCC},
\end{eqnarray}
due to the sparseness of the model matrix multiplication (\ref{A5}).
Because VUP reuses of the model matrix in (\ref{VUP}) for each propagated probability vector, the structure of the model matrix sorts the input probabilities automatically and therefore we do not need reevaluate the model function and resort the results as $L$ increases. Our method therefore increases sub-linearly in $L>1$, $C_{VUP}(L)<L*C_{VUP}$, whereas MC increases linearly, $C_{MC}(L)=L* C_{MC}$. The estimated difference in the computational time complexity for propagating $L$ input probability distributions is then,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{MC}(L)-C_{VUP}(L)\sim\mathcal{O}\Big((L-1)*N*(C_{model}+\log(N)+1)-L*N\Big),\label{multipleCC}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{model}$ is the computational time complexity of a model evaluation. Our method is favored for,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{L-1}\lesssim\mathcal{O}\Big(C_{model}+\log(N)\,\Big),
\end{eqnarray}
which is almost always the case, given $L>1$ (\ref{A8}). Thus, we can expect large improvements to the computational time complexity when $C_{model}$, $N$, or $L$, is large. We will demonstrate these expected computational complexity trends experimentally in the next subsection.
\subsection{Testing the Rapidity of VUP\label{sectiontest}}
Here we outline the time complexity simulation plotted in Figure \ref{timeplots}. Compared are the clock times for simple Monte Carlo using NumPy, VUP on the CPU using NumPy, and VUP on the GPU using PyTorch, for propagating $L$ distinguishable input probability distributions through a simple two dimensional computationally deterministic and vectorizable model function $y=M(x,\alpha)$.\footnote{The plotted trends are insensitive to small changes in the functional form of vectorizable model functions. We used $y=M(x,\alpha) = 1.1\sin{(x)} + 7 \sin^2{(\alpha)}$ in this simulation.} The number of samples per propagated distribution is constant and set to $N=10^6$ in this simulation.
For the sake of this experiment, each input probability distributions is a two dimensional Gaussian distribution that has a single free parameter $\mu_{x}(\ell)$, giving a set of $L$ different input probabilities. Simple Monte Carlo follows Algorithm 9.1 and VUP on the CPU and GPU follow Algorithm 9.2 in Appendix \ref{appendix}. These algorithms are extended to many input probabilities.
For the triple (MC, VUP CPU, VUP GPU), respectively, we find $L=1$ times of about\\ $(0.29,0.24,0.43)$ seconds and $L=1000$ times of about $(311.93,26.74,4.39)$ seconds. Thus, each method increases in time by a factor of approximately (1000, 100, 10), with respect to itself, as $L$ is increased from 1 to 1000. These times follow the expected trends from the computational time complexity analysis, (\ref{singleCC}) and (\ref{multipleCC}), respectively. Not included in the measured times for VUP GPU (and the computational complexity estimate) is the $\sim3$ second GPU initialization time. If the GPU initialization time is included for every instance, it acts as a 3 second time offset that causes the VUP CPU and VUP GPU lines to cross at around $L=90$ instead of at about $L=13$; however, the GPU only needs to be initialized once per session, not per instance, so this time was ignored.
Because MC has to evaluate the model $N*L$ times whereas VUP only has to evaluate the model $N$ times, small changes to the model function evaluation time complexity can cause large differences in the overall computation time. Because $L=1000$ and $N=10^6$ here, if the computational complexity required to evaluate the model function is increased by just a tenth of a millisecond, it leads to a 1.15 day increase in computation time for simple MC verses a 100 second computational time increase for VUP. Rather than being 70 times faster, as it was in our $L=1000$ experiment, the domination of the model function evaluation time complexity leads to VUP being about $L$ times faster than MC.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{newtime.png}
\caption[]
{\small
We follow the experiment described in Section \ref{sectiontest} and find results to agree qualitatively with the computational complexity estimates in equations (\ref{singleCC}) and (\ref{multipleCC}). The figure plots clock times for propagating $L$ distinct probability distributions using a simple MC method, VUP on the CPU, and VUP on the GPU. The small $L$ behavior is depicted in the zoomed in window.
The machine used for this test was leased through Paperspace web services and has the following specs: 8 CPUs, 30 GB of memory, and a Quadro P4000 (8 GB) GPU.
}
\label{timeplots}
\end{figure*}
\section{Input Probability Sensitivity Analysis\label{section5}}
In this section we develop Input Probability Sensitivity Analysis (IPSA), which naturally utilizes VUP. Because VUP can propagate many different probabilities through a model matrix rapidly, VUP allows us to access areas of UQ that may have previously been seen as inaccessible.
IPSA uses VARS and IVARS \cite{VARS1, VARS2} as a theoretical foundation and therefore we will review these SA methods for convenience
\subsection{SA, VARS, and IVARS Review}
Although local SA is well defined in terms of local partial derivatives of the model outputs with respect to coordinates in the input space, the meaning and objectives of global SA remained somewhat unstructured until \cite{Gupta}. In \cite{Gupta}, they outline several desirable criteria that a global SA method ought to have. They note that Sobol variance based \cite{Sobol1,Sobol2} and derivative based \cite{Morris} SA only include a subset of these global SA criteria. The desirable global SA criteria outlined in \cite{Gupta} have access to:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Local sensitivities (i.e., first-order derivatives),
\item Global distribution of local sensitivities (characterized, for example, by their mean and variance, or by some other statistics),
\item Global distribution of model responses (characterized, for example, by their variance, or by some other statistics), and,
\item Structural organization (shape) of the response surface (including its multi-modality and degree of non-smoothness/roughness).
\end{enumerate}
The authors later use these to guide the design of the VARS and IVARS \cite{VARS1,VARS2} global SA methods. Further they show how VARS and IVARS can reproduce Sobol and derivative based SA as special cases. The authors discuss how global SA can be used to: assess the similarly of model functions, find regions of sensitivity, simplify models based on insensitive factors, perform uncertainty apportionment, and identify factor importance, function, and independence.
VARS performs SA by calculating relevant expectation values of statistics that quantify the variations of a model's response surface. A response surface is defined as the set of outputs of a model, i.e. $\{y\}=\{M(\{v\})\}$, that form a surface in the input space, $\{v\}$, of interest. Typically $y=M(v)$ is a scalar value while $v$ and $\ell$ are vectors in SA, which we will assume is true for the remainder of the article. An important statistic, $S$, is the square difference of the responses $(M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2$ between the points $(\ell+v,\ell)$.\footnote{Note that our notation differs from \cite{VARS1, VARS2} in that their $(h,x)$ turns out to be our $(v,\ell)$ due to the differences in interpretation presented in equation (\ref{VARSvarH}).} The VARS expectation values are computed from equally weighted averages of these statistics over the input space,
$$E(S(M))=\frac{1}{L}\int_{\ell}(M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2\,d\ell,$$
having normalization $\frac{1}{L}$. This allows them to construct a multidimensional variogram over $\ell\in L$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma(v)=\frac{1}{2}E((M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2)=\frac{1}{2L}\int_{\ell} (M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2\,d\ell,\label{vargram}
\end{eqnarray}
which quantifies the expected squared deviation of the response surface at ``scale" $v$. By varying the components of $v$ in the input domain and observing $\gamma(v)$, one learns the expected sensitivity's dependence on scale.
A key solution presented in \cite{VARS1, VARS2} is to characterize SA across all scales by integrating over them. While preceding methods of global SA have scale dependence (which is seen as a shortcoming of their methods), VARS removes this dependence by calculating the ``integrated variogram",
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(V)=\int_{v\in V}\gamma(v)\,dv,\label{Gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
which is the variogram summed over all scales up in the space of scales $V$, explicitly $\vec{v}\in[0,\vec{V}]$. Analysis with this quantity is called Integrated Variogram Analysis of Response Surfaces (IVARS). In \cite{VARS1, VARS2}, they consider scales $V$ up to the 10\%, 30\% and 50\% of the total input space, which can be used for performing global sensitivity analysis, i.e, for the calculation and investigation of the desirable global SA criteria quantities \cite{Gupta}.
\subsection{IPSA Derivation}
We will show that IPSA quantifies the probability of a variation of an output due to possible variations stemming from uncertainty in the inputs, for every inquired uncertain input. These distributions are represented in the IPSA probability matrix (\ref{IPSA}), which is the main SA tool in IPSA. From the point of view of current SA methods, IPSA uses measurement uncertainty to weight the probabilistic relevance of each scale $v$ in IVARS.
Large scale $v$ deviations are suppressed due to their low probability in favor of more probable smaller scale $v$'s near the observed location $\ell$ when the measurement uncertainty is small.
We make three observations about IVARS that guide the derivation of IPSA: The first observation is that if we divide $\Gamma\rightarrow \Gamma/V$, where $V$ is now a multidimensional volume of the input space, we may interpret equation (\ref{Gamma}) as an expectation value over the variogram,
\begin{eqnarray}
E(\gamma(v))=\int_{v\in V}\frac{1}{V}\gamma(v)\,dv=\frac{\Gamma(V)}{V},\label{GammaH}
\end{eqnarray}
which does not result in a loss of generality. This expectation value is equally written as,
\begin{eqnarray}
E(\gamma(v))=\int_{\ell}\frac{1}{2VL}\Big(\int_{v\in V} (M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2\,dv\Big)\,d\ell,\label{VARSvarH}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have switched the order of integration of $\ell$ and $v$. Thus, in the computation of $\Gamma$, one could first integrate over the possible relevant ``scales" $v$ (or in our language ``deviations") differing from the location $\ell$ and only then averaging over all $\ell$, rather than the reverse (as was done in IVARS).
The second observation is that current SA methods have no stated dependence on the amount of input measurement uncertainty. When considering SA for UP, we believe this is a key missing feature as one would like to know how sensitive their model outcomes are to changes in input measurement uncertainty in practice. To include measurement uncertainty, we begin constructing IPSA by generalizing IVARS to nonuniform input probabilities, $\frac{1}{VL}\rightarrow \rho(v,\ell)$ such that,
\begin{eqnarray}
E(\gamma(v))\longrightarrow\int_{v,\ell}\frac{(M(\ell+v)-M(\ell))^2}{2}\rho(v,\ell)\,dv\,d\ell.
\end{eqnarray}
Reverting back to a uniform probability distribution over $\ell$ and $v$ gives $\Gamma(V)$ from IVARS and letting $\rho(v,\ell)=\delta(v-v')/L$, with $v'$ being the ``actual/single scale", gives back $\gamma(v')$ from VARS as special case statistics of IPSA.\footnote{Later this delta probability distribution would be interpreted as coming from measurement uncertainty, which is a bit unnatural. This shows some amount of negative correlation between the goals of SA from IPSA verses VARS.}
After switching the integration order as we did above, it becomes easier to interpret nonuniform $\rho(v,\ell)\rightarrow\rho(v,\ell|\Delta_{\ell})$ meaningfully as originating from measurement uncertainty. This is done by interpreting $\rho(v|\ell,\Delta_{\ell})$ to be the probability that in reality the value deviates from the observed value of $\ell$ by an amount $v$ due to measurement uncertainty $\Delta_{\ell}$ (for the data-like $x$'s at least). There exist many pdfs that could represent measurement uncertainty in this way, e.g. narrow uniform pdfs centered at the measurement locations; however, we will use Gaussian distributions with $\Delta_{\ell}=\sigma_{\ell}>0$ to represent the inclusion of measurement uncertainty here. That is, a natural choice is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(x|\ell,\Delta_{\ell}=\sigma_{\ell})=\frac{1}{Z}\exp\Big(-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma_{\ell}^2}\Big),\label{gaussh}
\end{eqnarray}
where the observed value $\ell$ plays the role of the measured value that the $x$'s are symmetrically distributed about. One may construct an expectation value that is conditional on a single observation $\ell$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta^2(\Delta_{\ell},\ell)=\int_{x,\alpha}\frac{(M(\ell+x,\alpha)-M(\ell,\alpha))^2}{2}\rho(x,\alpha|\ell,\Delta_{\ell})\,dx\,d\alpha.\label{IPSAvar}
\end{eqnarray}
Computing this quantity for all $\ell$ allows one to construct $\{\Delta^2(\Delta{\ell},\ell)\}$, which is the set of local expected square deviations of the response surface due to measurement uncertainty $\Delta_{\ell}$. Note that this equation involves the integration over $v$, i.e., over all probabilistically weighted scales at a fixed location $\ell$, whereas in the multidimensional variogram $\gamma(v)$, $\ell$ is integrated over and the scale $v$ is fixed. Thus, it is probabilistically natural to include $\Delta^2(\Delta_{\ell},\ell)$ as an additinoal SA tool in VARS/IVARS as it is conditioned on $\rho(v|\ell)$ whereas $\gamma(v)$ is instead conditioned on $\rho(\ell|v)$ -- both of whose marginalizations over their respective conditioned variable lead to $\Gamma(V)$ in the IVARS limit of IPSA due to the properties of joint probabilities.
The third observation is that expectation values are noninvertable in general and thus they constitute a loss in information. Every expectation value is a many to one map due to the sum. These degenerate results may have distinguishing features that are relevant for SA.
Although expectation values of linear statistics exhibit undesired positive and negative fluctuation cancellation, i.e. $E[M(v)-E[M(v)]]=0$, if one instead considers the probability of linear statistics, there is no mechanism for cancellation \emph{and} one preserves the entire information content of the model function. That is, by letting,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}(v,\ell)\equiv S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}=M(\ell+x,\alpha)-M(\ell,\alpha)=\Delta y,
\end{eqnarray}
we have a maximally informative statistic because no information is lost. This statistic informs one about the potential skews in the response, i.e. shorter scale $x$'s may dominate regions for $S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}<0$ as compared to regions of $S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}>0$ or vice versa. We therefore quantify the probabilities of \emph{linear} deviations of the model away from observed values, $p(S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}|\ell,\Delta_{\ell})$, for the purpose of SA. Due to the statistic's linearity, the probabilities for the statistic $S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}$ are simple translation coordinate transformations of the model output probabilities, which we can take advantage of computationally. Probabilistic deviations away from model parameters ($\sim \ell_{\alpha}$) may also be considered in general.
To perform IPSA, we first vectorize the set of relevant probabilities $\{p(y|\ell,\Delta_{\ell},M)\}$. This is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_{y|\Delta_{\ell},\ell}= \mathcal{M}_{y, v}\cdot \mathcal{P}_{v|\Delta_{\ell},\ell}.\label{IPSA}
\end{eqnarray}
We then preform a translation coordinate transformation to quantify deviations from the estimated values $y\rightarrow\Delta y=y-y(\ell)\,\,\forall \ell$ (i.e. for each column of $\mathcal{P}_{y|\Delta_{\ell},\ell}$), which gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rightarrow\mathcal{P}_{\Delta y|\Delta_{\ell},\ell}.\label{IPSA}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the IPSA probability matrix.
In principle, any SA quantity of interest can be inferred or calculated from the IPSA probability matrix, some of them, like expectation values, are easily vectorizable as well. Although a well sampled IPSA probability matrix contains all the information one might be interested in for SA, the result may be too cumbersome to communicate efficiently in its totality -- plotting the set of probabilities in the IPSA probability matrix can only be done in low numbers of dimensions.
One can use the IPSA probability matrix to calculate coarse grained SA quantities that are bit easier to handle and communicate due to their lower level of detail and dimensionality.
This might include: confidence intervals that vary with $\ell$, the maximum probability of $y$ per $\ell$, the expected deviation of $y$ per $\ell$, and the variance of $y$ per $\ell$. If one further marginalizes over $\ell$ using $\rho(\ell)$ (i.e. the probability of a measurement at $\ell$), one obtains ``global values", which may be probabilities such as $p(\Delta y|M,\Delta_1,...,\Delta_L)$ or single scalar expectation values. The least informative coarse grained measure is one that summarizes SA with a single scalar value, such as the overall variance of $S_{\tiny{lin.}}$, as there is only so much you can express with one value when the full expression lives in an extremely high dimensional space. For this reason we again stress that the preferred metric for SA is the IPSA probability matrix itself (\ref{IPSA}).
\subsection{IPSA Examples\label{section6_2}}
In this example we perform IPSA on the following model function,
\begin{eqnarray}
y=M(x,\alpha)= x^2+5\sin(3x)+\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
which resembles an example function considered in \cite{VARS1,VARS2}. The output probability matrices (a's) and the IPSA probability matrices (b's) are plotted as heat maps in each of Figure \ref{figure2}-\ref{figure6} in correspondence with five Gaussian measurement uncertainty scenarios $\sigma_{\ell}=\{0.05,0.25,0.5,1.0,3.0\}$ (uniform measurement uncertainty across $\ell$). In these scenarios we let $\sigma_{\alpha}=0.25$, which represents the addition of Gaussian noise ($\lambda$) or as an uncertain vertical offset model parameter in $y$ ($\alpha$). Each figure depicts $L=1000$ uncertain measurement locations $\ell\in[-5,5]$ and each distribution is over a $N=10^6$ uniform sampling grid in the space of $(x,\alpha)$. Because we used VUP, the computation times were similar to those simulated in Section \ref{section4}.
The main features to take away from Figures \ref{figure2}-\ref{figure6} are the joint dependence of measurement uncertainty and model functional form that shape of the output probability and IPSA matrices. Of further importance is the amount of relevant information and details that can be inferred from these matrices. We see that increases in input measurement uncertainty cause larger scale deviations to become more probable and, except for very low input uncertainties, that the deviations can be highly asymmetric and location $\ell$ dependent. Knowing that there is a tendency to under or over estimate a value at different locations help better assess the degree of skepticism in the estimated value of an uncertain input. If higher output accuracy is needed, one should aim to reduce $\sigma_{\ell}$ in the regions where probabilities are more spread out (purple). We see that if measurement uncertainties are large, the high probability regions dominate multiple length scales and measurement location doesn't matter much (Figure \ref{figure6a}), which, if marginalized over $\ell$, is similar to the case one implicitly considers in the large scale case of the IVARS framework.
In detail, the probabilities of the model outputs $p(y|\ell,\sigma_{\ell})$ are plotted in Figures \ref{figure2a}-\ref{figure6a} (one for each $\sigma_{\ell}$, respectively) over $y$ and $\ell$, which depicts the values of the components of the output probability matrix. For each column of pixels (constant $\ell$) in Figures \ref{figure2a}-\ref{figure6a}, VUP discretizes and calculates,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(y|\ell,\sigma_{\ell})&=&\frac{1}{Z}\int_{x,\alpha}\delta(y-M(x,\alpha))\exp\Big(-\frac{(x-\ell)^2}{2\sigma_{\ell}^2}-\frac{\alpha^2}{2\sigma_{\alpha}^2}\Big)\,dx\,d\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
for each $y$ in the column.\footnote{The coordinate transformation $x\rightarrow x+\ell$ was performed to take the $\ell$ dependence from the model matrix and to put it into the input pdf such that the model matrix could be reused.} The values of $\ell$ correspond to different columns of the output/ IPSA probability matrices. These probabilities are binned into $K=1000$ bins per column for plotting purposes. The $\alpha$'s are considered to have an uncertainty that is independent of the measurement location, which seems to be closer to what happens in most cases, but nothing in the VUP formalism prevents arbitrary amounts of correlation. We truncated the pdf outside the boundary of the input domain as a hard cut off (an impossible region) and renormalized the pdf inside the boundary
Figures \ref{figure2b}-\ref{figure6b} plot the probability of a deviation $S_{\mbox{\tiny{lin}}}=M(\ell+x)-M(\ell)=\Delta y$ away from the estimated value $y(\ell)\equiv M(\ell,0)=\ell^2+5\sin(3\ell)$, which is the set the arguments where the \emph{input} probability has its maximum values (one could instead consider deviations from the average value(s) if desired), over $y$ and $\ell$. These figures depict the values of the components of the IPSA probability matrix. The maximum input probability value $y(\ell)$ is plotted with a white dotted line in Figures \ref{figure2a}-\ref{figure6a} and in Figure \ref{figure2b} for reference in comparison to Figure \ref{figure2a}. Note the estimated value $y(\ell)$ before the inclusion of measurement uncertainty is not necessarily the same as the $y$ value with the maximum \emph{output} probability after measurement uncertainty is taken into account, as can be seen in Figures \ref{figure4}-\ref{figure6}.
The function is sampled at a much denser rate than is needed to obtain the same qualitative features (because the function is simple and smooth enough). Instead propagating 100 distinct input probabilities, each with $N=10^4$, takes about 0.005 seconds (+3 seconds if GPU initialization is included) and reveals these same features; however, given access to denser sampling, we used it instead.
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{figure2a}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA51.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure2b}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA52.png}}
\caption{ Low probability (purple) regions are more sensitive to measurement uncertainty because their values are changing more with $\ell$ as can be seen in (a). This can be seen by the larger probability of deviations at these locations in (b). The reverse is true for the high probability (gold) regions. Due to the small measurement uncertainty $\sigma_{\ell}=.05$ relative to the model function, the probability follows the model function curve tightly in (a) and the probability of a deviation away from the estimated value is relatively small in (b).}\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{figure3a}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA31.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure3b}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA32.png}}
\caption{ The measurement uncertainty in $\ell$ has been increased to $\sigma_{\ell}=0.25$ and we begin to see more uncertainty in (a) and larger local asymmetries in the deviations in (b).}\label{figure3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{figure4a}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA11.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure4b}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA12.png}}
\vspace{0mm}
\subfloat[]{\label{figure4c}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA13.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure4d}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA14.png}}
\caption{ The measurement uncertainty in $\ell$ has been increased to $\sigma_{\ell}=0.5$ which begins to conflate the probabilities from subsequent waveforms with wavelength $\lambda=\frac{k}{2\pi}\sim0.5$, although there is still a significant dependence on $\ell$ in (a) and (b). The majority of the participating scales are still local around $\ell$ due to their higher probability of occurrence. Figure (c) plots expectation value fields generated from the output probability matrix, the estimated value of $y$, as well as the values $y$ per $\ell$ with the maximum probability. Plotting the confidence intervals may be useful, although it is not done here. Figure (d) depicts these field lines as linear deviations from the input estimate. Again, the local asymmetries are apparent.
}\label{figure4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{figure5a}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA61.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure5b}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA62.png}}
\caption{The measurement uncertainty in $\ell$ has been increased to $\sigma_{\ell}=1.0$, which relative to the model function and location, begins to form probability bands across larger deviation scales in (a) and (b).}\label{figure5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]\centering
\subfloat[]{\label{figure6a}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA41.png}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\label{figure6b}\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{IPSA42.png}}
\caption{A large measurement standard deviation of $\sigma_{\ell}=3.0$ is causing participation from all scales in (a) and (b) as the input probability is largely uniform, but participation still varies slightly with $\ell$. There is a higher probability of a negative deviation for measurements at locations $|\ell|>3$ in (b) due to the relatively large probability of $y<10$ across the scales in (a).}\label{figure6}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this article we construct VUP, which is a vectorized computational method for efficiently propagating many probability distributions through computationally deterministic model propagators.
By constructing the model matrix as a probabilistic representation of the model function, and by reusing it for the propagation of $L$ many input probability distributions, VUP has a smaller computational time complexity than MC-type methods for $L\gtrsim 2$.
If executed on the GPU, and given the matrices are large enough, VUP's computational speed improves further.
We extrapolate the logic used in VARS and IVARS sensitivity analysis methods to formulate IPSA, which naturally utilizes VUP. The result of IPSA is an informationally dense model output probability matrix that encodes the probability of linear deviations, due to input parametric and measurement uncertainty, on a measurement point by point basis.
Because IPSA uses VARS and IVARS as its theoretical foundation, it can reproduce their results as special cases as well as the results of Sobol and derivative based SA by extension.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Center for Complex Engineering Systems (CCES) at King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). We would like to thank all of the researchers with the Center for Complex Engineering (CCES). Finally, we would also like to thank the members of the Mechatronics Research Lab at MIT, Nicholas Carrara, and Tony Tohme.
|
\section*{INTRODUCTION}
The astonishing recent evolution of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is based on an accurate control of quantum properties of semiconductors at sub-micron scales. As some limitations appear, new paradigms emerge to further improve the performances of ICT devices, based on coherent quantum states and nano-scale engineering.
Superconductivity is a very interesting platform which provides robust quantum states that can be entangled and controlled to realize quantum computation and simulation\cite{Wendin:2017bw}, or classical computation at very high speed using the so called SFQ (Single Flux Quantum) logic \cite{Tolpygo:2016hp}. This platform can also be used to make detectors of electromagnetic fields and photons operating at the quantum limit, \textit{i.e.} with unsurpassed sensitivity and resolution. These quantum sensors can be used for classical or quantum communications \cite{Holzman:2019dc}, THz waves detection and imaging \cite{Sizov:2018ii},sensitive high frequency magnetic fields measurements\cite{Clarke:2005tz,Mukhanov:2014ig}. Impressive results have been achieved in the recent years with devices based on Low critical Temperature ($T_{c}$) Superconductors (LTS) working at liquid helium temperature, and well below for Quantum Computing.
The main building block of this superconducting electronics is the Josephson Junction (JJ), a weak link between two superconducting reservoirs. While the technology for LTS JJ of typically $1\ \mu$m in size required for complex systems is mature\cite{Tolpygo:2016hp}, other ways are explored to downsize the JJ using Carbon Nano-Tubes\cite{Cleuziou:2006cs}, Copper nanowires\cite{Skryabina:2017ka} or $\mathrm{LaAl0}_3$\;/$\mathrm{SrTi0}_3$\; interfaces\cite{Goswami:2016ka} for examples. The complexity and the cost of the needed cryogenic systems are clearly obstacles for large scale applications of such devices. High-$T_{c}$ superconductors (HTS) operating at moderate cryogenic temperature ($\leq 40$ K) appear as an interesting alternative solution, provided reliable JJ are available.
Different routes to make HTS JJ with suitable and reproducible characteristics are explored \cite{Mitchell:2010el,Divin:2002ky}. One of them relies on the extreme sensitivity of HTS materials such as $\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_7$\; (YBCO) to disorder, which first reduces $T_{c}$ and then makes it insulating. High energy ion irradiation (HEII) have been used to introduce disorder in YBCO thin films through e-beam resist masks with apertures at the nanometric scale (20 - 40 nm), to make JJ\cite{Bergeal:2005jna,Bergeal:2007jc,Malnou:2014cp} and arrays\cite{Ouanani:2016cr,Pawlowski:2018jj,Couedo:2019fl} with interesting high frequencies properties, from microwaves to THz ones. Recently, Cybart \textit{et al.} successfully used a Focused Helium Ion Beam (He FIB) to locally disorder YBCO thin films and make JJ\cite{Cybart:2015cc}. In this technique, a $30$ keV He$^{+}$ ion beam of nominal size $0.7$ nm is scanned onto a thin film surface to induce disorder.
It has been used to engineer nanostructures in two-dimensional (2D) materials\cite{Iberi:2016ek,Stanford:2016bx,Zhou:2016cj}, magnetic ones\cite{Gusev:2016kd} or to make plasmonic nano-antennas for instance\cite{Scholder:2013bd}.
Superconducting nano-structures and JJ have been fabricated with cuprate superconductors\cite{Cho:2015hq,Gozar:2017kx,Cho:2018hn,Cho:2018ds,Muller:2019uy}, MgB$_{2}$\cite{Kasaei:2018kv} and pnictides\cite{Kasaei:2019cs}. While mainly DC properties of HTS JJ made by this technique have been reported to date, the present work aims at exploring their dynamic behavior, by studying the Josephson oscillation linewidth in the tens of GHz frequency range. This characterization, which gives access to the intrinsic noise of the JJ, is essential for high frequency applications of JJ such as mixers and detectors\cite{Malnou:2014cp,Pawlowski:2018jj,Couedo:2019fl} and to study unconventional superconductivity\cite{Kwon:2003if}.
Depending on the ion dose, HTS JJs made by the He FIB technique behave as Superconductor/Normal metal/Superconductor (SNS) JJs or Superconductor/Insulator/Superconductor (SIS) ones\cite{Cybart:2015cc}. M\"uller \textit{et al.}\cite{Muller:2019uy} evidenced scaling relations obeyed by the characteristic parameters $I_{c}$ (critical current) and $R_{n}$ (normal resistance), which are typical of highly disordered materials and known for a long time in HTS Grain-Boundary (GB) JJ\cite{Gross:1990co} for example. The large density of localized electronic defect states at the origin of this behavior is a source of $1/f$ low-frequency noise\cite{Marx:1997dw,Gustafsson:2011eea}, which broadens the Josephson oscillation linewidth at much higher frequency\cite{Likharev:1986wh}. To assess the potential performances of HTS Josephson devices made with He FIB, we directly measured the Josephson linewidth up to 40 GHz.
\section*{RESULTS}
To fabricate HTS JJ, we begin with a commercial 50 nm-thick c-oriented YBCO thin film on a sapphire substrate\footnote[1]{Ceraco gmbh.} capped \textit{in-situ} with 250 nm of gold for electrical contacts. After removing the Au layer by Ar$^{+}$ ion etching everywhere except at contact pads, we structure 4 $\mu$m wide and 20 $\mu$m long channels using the HEII technique\cite{Bergeal:2005jna}. An e-beam resist mask protects the film from a 70 keV oxygen ion irradiation at a dose of $1\times10^{15}\ $ions/cm$^{2}$ to keep it superconducting. The unprotected part becomes insulating. In a second step, samples are loaded into a Zeiss Orion NanoFab Helium/Neon ion microscope and the 30 keV He$^{+}$ beam (current $\sim$ 1.15 pA) was scanned across the 4 $\mu$m-wide superconducting bridges to form JJs.
A single line is used in these experiments, whose trace can be imaged directly in the microscope \cite{Muller:2019uy} (Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(a)}). Imaging with the He$^{+}$ beam creates disorder, which adds to the one used to make the JJ. This is why we did not image the channels that we measured in the present study. On the same YBCO chip, we irradiated different channels with different doses ranging from 200 to 1000 ions/nm. The samples were then measured in a cryogen-free cryostat with a base temperature of 2K, equipped with filtered DC lines. The RF illumination is performed via a broadband spiral antenna placed 1 cm above the chip, and connected to a generator in a Continuous Wave (CW) mode at frequency $f$. To measure the "detector response" described below, the RF signal is electrically modulated at low frequency ($f_{mod}=199\ Hz$).
The output signal $V_{det}$ is measured via a lock-in amplifier synchronized on this frequency.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figure1_27042020}
\caption{
\textit{(a)} Image of a JJ using the imaging mode of the He-FIB microscope. The light grey area in between dashed lines is the superconducting channel defined by HEII The horizontal line is the 600 ions/nm dose irradiated zone, which corresponds to the barrier of the JJ.
\textit{(b)} Sketch of the circuit used to measure the detector response signal $V_{det}$. A RF signal whose amplitude is modulated at the frequency $f_{mod}$ is sent onto the JJ via an antenna. $V_{det}$ is measured with a lock-in amplifier at $f_{mod}$. The JJ is described according to the RSJ model, as a junction in parallel with a resistance $R_{n}$.
\textit{(c)} $R$ vs $T$ curves (solid lines) for JJ made using different irradiation doses : $200$ ions/nm (blue), $400$ ions/nm (green) and $600$ ions/nm (red). Same color code for panels \textit{(c)} and \textit{(d)}. Below $T_{J}$, $R_{n}$ (symbols) is extracted from RSJ fits. Dashed lines show the linear decrease of $R(T)$ curves below $T_{J}$.
\textit{(d)} $I_{c}$ vs $T$ for different irradiation doses. Dashed lines are quadratic fits. \textit{inset} : $I-V$ characteristics of a 200 ions/nm JJ. Blue line are data and black line is the RSJ fit.
\textit{(e)} $I_{c}R_{n}$ product vs $T$ for different irradiation doses. Colored areas are calculated from the dashed lines in \textit{(c)} and \textit{(d)}, and correspond to the Josephson regimes.
}
\label{Figure1}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(c)} shows the resistance $R$ as a function of temperature $T$ for samples irradiated with a dose of 200, 400 and 600 ions/nm. Below the $T_{c}$ of the reservoirs ($T_{c}=84\ $K), a resistance plateau develops till a transition to a zero-resistance state takes place, corresponding to the Josephson coupling through the irradiated part of the channel. Let $T_{J}$ be this coupling temperature, which decreases as the dose is increased as already reported\cite{Cybart:2015cc}\cite{Muller:2019uy}. The resistance above $T_{J}$ increases with disorder as expected, from $\lesssim 1\ \Omega$ (200 ions/nm) to $\sim 3\ \Omega$ (600 ions/nm). For irradiation dose higher than 1000 ions/nm, an insulating behavior is observed down to the lowest temperature. For the samples studied here (doses between 200 and 600 ions/nm), we measured the current-voltage ($I-V$) characteristics below $T_{J}$. The inset of Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(d)} shows the $I-V$ curve of the 200 ions/nm sample recorded at $T=73\ $K, which can be accurately fitted with the Resistively-Shunted-Junction (RSJ) model including thermal noise (black line), as already reported\cite{Cybart:2015cc,Muller:2019uy}.
This model accounts for Josephson weak links and Superconductor-Normal Metal-Superconductor (SNS) junctions, where the quasiparticle current is in parallel with the superconducting one, in the limit of small junction capacitance \cite{Stewart:1968fw,Barone:1982th}. Finite temperature effect is introduced by mean of a noise current whose power spectral density corresponds to the Johnson noise of the normal state resistance $R_{n}$\cite{Likharev:1972vk,Likharev:1986wh} (see Methods section for more detail and numerical calculation).
The RSJ fits are still valid when the dose and the temperature are varied, as proved by extended fits shown in Figure \ref{Figure2}. From these fits, we extracted the temperature-dependent normal-state resistance $R_{n}(T)$ and the critical current $I_{c}(T)$ presented in Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(c)} and \textit{(d)}, respectively,
with an uncertainty of typically a few percents, indicated by error bars in the figures.
The former roughly follows the $R(T)$ curve measured above $T_{J}$, decreases linearly with temperature (dashed lines) and goes to zero at the superconducting temperature of the irradiated part where the Josephson regime ends. The latter has a quadratic temperature dependence (dashed lines) as expected for SNS JJ\cite{DEGENNES:1964wu, Bergeal:2005jna}. Its absolute value can exceed 1 mA (200 and 400 ions/nm doses), which corresponds to critical current densities larger than 500 kA/cm$^{2}$\cite{Muller:2019uy}. We show in Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(e)} the $I_{c}R_{n}$ product as a function of temperature for the different irradiation doses.
At low doses, it shows a maximum, characteristic of SS'S junctions (where S' is a superconductor with a $T_{c}$ lower than the one of S) as observed with HEII HTS JJ\cite{Malnou:2014cp}. However, for the highest dose (600 ions/nm), it raises monotonically as the temperature is lowered. Its maximum value ($I_{c}R_{n}\sim 600\ \mu$V at 4 K) lies in between the values reported by Cybart \textit{et al.}\cite{Cybart:2015cc} and M\"{u}ller \textit{et al.}\cite{Muller:2019uy}. The corresponding characteristic frequency $f_{c}=I_{c}R_{n}/\Phi_{0}\sim 300$ GHz ($\Phi_{0}=h/2e$ the flux quantum) is higher than the one obtained by the HEII technique, which is promising for operations up to the THz frequency range\cite{Malnou:2014cp}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Figure2_30082019}
\caption{
$I-V$ characteristics of \textit{(a)} a $200$ ions/nm JJ, \textit{(b)} a $400$ ions/nm JJ and \textit{(c)} a $600$ ions/nm JJ, with (red) and without (blue) $10$ GHz irradiation. Solid lines are data and dashed lines RSJ fits.
Color-plot of $R_{d}$ as a function of $I$ and $V_{RF}$ at $f=$10 GHz for \textit{(d)} a $200$ ions/nm JJ and \textit{(e)} a $400$ ions/nm JJ (Color-scale at the bottom).
\textit{(f)} Same plot for a $600\ $ions/nm JJ (Color scale on the right).
}
\label{Figure2}
\end{figure*}
We now focus on properties of these JJ at frequencies $f$ much lower than $f_{c}$, and more specifically on the Shapiro steps which appear on $I-V$ characteristics at voltages $V_{n}=n\cdot f\cdot \Phi_{0}$ ($n$ is an integer).
Figure \ref{Figure2} \textit{(a)} shows the $I-V$ curves of the 200 ions/nm JJ measured at T=72 K without (blue) and with (red) RF irradiation at $f=10$ GHz, where we observe clear Shapiro steps. Both curves are well fitted with the RSJ model (dashed lines) with the following parameters : $R_{n}=0.5\ \Omega$, $I_{c}=133\ \mu$A and for the RF curve : $I_{RF}=133\ \mu$A (the RF current). For this temperature close to $T_{J}=75$ K, $R_{n}$ does not depend on the bias current $I$, contrary to the HEII HTS JJ\cite{Kahlmann:1998dc,Ouanani:2016cr}. Sweeping both the RF voltage $V_{RF}$ and the bias current $I$, we recorded the $I-V$ curves from which we computed numerically the differential resistance $R_{d}=\frac{dV}{dI}$. The result is presented in color-scale in Figure \ref{Figure2} \textit{(d)}. The observation of well-defined and high-index (up to $n$=12) Shapiro steps attests the quality of this SNS JJ. Similar measurements were performed on the other JJs. The results are shown in Figure \ref{Figure2} \textit{(b)} and \textit{(c)} for the 400 ions/nm JJ and the 600 ions/nm, respectively. In each case, the measurement temperature ($T$=60 K and $T$=30 K) are close to their respective $T_{J}$. In this regime, all the curves are very well fitted with the RSJ model with the following parameters : $R_{n}=0.68\ \Omega$, $I_{c}=205\ \mu$A and $I_{RF}=143.5\ \mu$A for the 400 ions/nm JJ, and $R_{n}=2.9\ \Omega$, $I_{c}=32.5\ \mu$A and $I_{RF}=26.2\ \mu$A for the 600 ions/nm one. It is important to note that the RSJ fits were performed while taking a noise temperature equals to the bath temperature.
Figures \ref{Figure2} \textit{(e)} and \textit{(f)} show color-plot for the corresponding samples. In both cases, pronounced oscillations with RF voltage corresponding to high order Shapiro steps are observed.
Shapiro steps unveil the internal Josephson oscillation that is produced when a JJ is biased beyond its critical current. The width of the steps is the linewidth of the Josephson oscillation\cite{Likharev:1986wh}. Within the RSJ model, Likharev and Semenov\cite{Likharev:1972vk,Likharev:1986wh} calculated the voltage power spectral density $S_{V}(f)$ and the resulting Josephson oscillation linewidth $\Delta f$ as follows :
\begin{equation}
\Delta f=\frac{4\pi}{\Phi_{0}^2}\cdot k_{B}T\cdot \frac{R_{d}^2}{R_{n}}\cdot \left(1+\frac{I_{c}^2}{2I^2}\right)
\label{linewidth}
\end{equation}
This thermal $\Delta f$ is the minimum Josephson linewidth which can be measured, as any other noise source will increase this intrinsic linewidth.
Divin \textit{et al.} showed that $\Delta f$ can be measured experimentally from the Shapiro steps by mean of the "detector response" method\cite{Divin:1980ta,Divin:1983vu,Divin:1992ig}. The JJ is DC biased while the RF illumination is modulated at low frequency ($f_{mod}$)\cite{Sharafiev:2016fg}. The "detector response" signal $V_{det}$ is measured with a lock-in amplifier synchronized at $f_{mod}$, and plotted as a function of the DC voltage $V$ converted into a frequency $f$ through the Josephson relation $f=V/\Phi_{0}$. Centered on the Josephson frequency, \textit{i.e.} on the Shapiro step, an odd-symmetric structure appears, whose width (distance between the extrema) corresponds to $\Delta f$. To be more precise, Divin \textit{et al.}\cite{Divin:1980ta} showed that the inverse Hilbert transform of the quantity $g(V)=(8/\pi)\cdot (V_{det}/R_{d})\cdot I\cdot V$ is directly $S_{V}(f)$, a Lorentzian of width $\Delta f$ centered at the Josephson frequency $f$. This procedure, successfully used in LTS\cite{Divin:1983vu} and HTS\cite{Divin:1992ig} materials, allows to extract the Josephson linewidth accurately.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Figure3_30082019}
\caption{
\textit{(a)} $I-V$ characteristics of the $200$ ions/nm JJ under $f=40$ GHz irradiation. $V_{det}$ vs $f=V/\Phi_{0}$. The distance $\Delta f$ between the extrema corresponds to the Josephson oscillation linewidth. $S_{V}$ extracted from the inverse Hilbert transform of the the normalized response $g(V)$ (pink), whose width is $\Delta f$ (grey).
\textit{(b)} $V_{det}$ vs $V$ for a $400$ ions/nm JJ measured at different temperatures under $f=40$ GHz irradiation.
\textit{(c)} $\Delta f$ vs $T$ for different irradiation doses. Solid symbols correspond to the first Shapiro step, open symbols to the second one. Solid lines (blue, green, red) are calculated from the RSJ model for $n=1$ (200 and 400 ions/nm) and $n=2$ (600 ions/nm), the black one from the tunneling one.
\textit{(d)} $\Delta f$ vs $\Delta f_{RSJ}$ (left panel) and vs $\Delta f_{Tunnel}$ (right panel, 600 ions/nm JJ ($n=2$) for $T\leq 26 K$ ). The slope of the dashed lines is one. \textit{inset} : $\Delta f$ vs $I_{c}$ for the 600 ions/nm JJ ($n=2$) for $T\leq 26 K$. Dashed lines are best fits with a power-law exponent $1$ (purple) and $1.35$ (orange).
}
\label{Figure3}
\end{figure*}
We measured the Josephson oscillation linewidth of the different JJ irradiated at $f=40$ GHz using the "detector response" method. Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(a)} (bottom panel) shows $V_{det}$ (left axis) as a function of the frequency ($f=V/\Phi_{0}$) for the 200 ions/nm JJ. Around 40 GHz, the characteristic double-peak structure predicted by Divin\cite{Divin:1980ta} is observed, from which we extracted the Josephson linewidth ($\Delta f=4.87$ GHz). It is worth noticing that this method is highly sensitive, since the Shapiro steps cannot be seen in the $I-V$ curve simultaneously recorded (top panel). We then computed $S_{V}$ through the above explained procedure, and plotted it on the same graph (Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(a)} (bottom panel, right axis). Two peaks are observed, corresponding to the first an second Shapiro steps, that can be fitted with Lorentzian to extract the corresponding Josephson oscillation linewidths. For the first step (index $n=1$), the value is exactly the same as the one calculated above. Depending on the experimental conditions, we could accurately measure the Josephson linewidth of the first two Shapiro steps, or only of one of them.
We measured $V_{det}$ as a function of $V$ at different temperatures, as for example reported in Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(b)} for the 400 ions/nm JJ. The odd-symmetric structure at $V=82.7 \mu$V (corresponding to 40 GHz, dashed line) widens with increasing temperature as expected for thermal noise. We extracted $\Delta f$ as a function of temperature for the different samples. The result is shown in Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(c)}. Open (respectively solid) symbols correspond to measurements on the first (respectively second) Shapiro step. On the same graph, we added the linewidth $\Delta f_{RSJ}$ calculated for the thermal noise in the RSJ model using equation \ref{linewidth} \cite{Likharev:1972vk,Likharev:1986wh}, \textit{with no adjustable parameter}. The agreement is excellent for the 200 and 400 ions/nm JJ at all temperatures. For the 600 ions/nm, data are well reproduced at high temperature, but strongly depart from the calculation below $T=$20 K. In Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(d)}, we made a parametric plot of the same data : the experimental $\Delta f$ as a function of the calculated $\Delta f_{RSJ}$ in the RSJ model with thermal noise (left panel). All data align along the dashed line of slope 1, which means that noise in He FIB JJ is purely thermal, except for 600 ions/nm JJ at low temperature.
This indicates that an extra source of noise takes place below $T=$20 K in this JJ. We notice that this temperature corresponds to an up-turn in the R(T) curve (Figure \ref{Figure1} \textit{(c)}).
This thermally activated electronic transport, characteristic of a disorder-induced Anderson insulator where charge carriers hop between localized states\cite{Anderson:uc}, is well known for ion-irradiated cuprates\cite{Lesueur:1993tx}. It has been reported by Cybart \textit{et al}\cite{Cybart:2015cc} in YBCO JJ made by the He FIB technique for a sample slightly more irradiated than our 600 ions/nm one. They showed that a SIS junction is formed, and they observed a structure in the conductance related to the superconducting gap, as expected in tunnel junctions where the differential conductance is proportional to the Density of States of the reservoirs in first approximation. It is worth noting that in this regime, and contrary to the SS'S one, both $I_{c}$ and $R_{n}$ increase as the temperature is lowered, and so does the $I_{c}R_{n}$ product (see Figure \ref{Figure1} e)) to reach an interesting high value ($\sim 600\ \mu$V).
In that case, the tunneling approach proposed by Dahm \textit{et al.}\cite{Dahm:1969jm} is more appropriate than the RSJ one to calculate the Josephson oscillation linewidth, which includes the non-linear superposition of thermal and shot noises in these JJ at intermediate damping\cite{Dahm:1969jm,Likharev:1986wh}. They show that :
\begin{equation}
\Delta f=\frac{4\pi}{\Phi_{0}^2}\cdot k_{B}T\cdot \frac{R_{d}^2}{nf\Phi_{0}}\cdot I
\label{linewidth_SIS}
\end{equation}
We calculated $\Delta f$ for the 600 ions/nm JJ with this expression, and obtained a very good agreement with the data as shown in Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(c)}(black line), once again \textit{with no adjustable parameter}. The excess noise comes therefore from the shot noise contribution when approaching the tunneling limit. The parametric plot of the experimental $\Delta f$ as a function of the calculated $\Delta f_{Tunnel}$ including the shot noise (Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(d)} right panel) clearly shows that there is no additional noise source in our JJ.
\section*{DISCUSSION}
This seems quite surprising, given the recent result from Müller \textit{et al.} pointing towards highly disordered JJ\cite{Muller:2019uy}, which are usually associated with strong $1/f$ Flicker noise\cite{Marx:1997dw}. They measured the low-frequency noise of SQUIDs made with low-irradiation dose JJ (230 ions/nm). A clear $1/f$ noise component is observed up to $\sim 100$ kHz. These measurements have been performed on JJ fabricated on the so-called "LSAT" substrate, which have much lower $I_{c}$ and $I_{c}R_{n}$ products than the others for the same dose. The role of the substrate on the JJ characteristics is not understood yet, but it is clear that the microstructure of the film matters for final JJ performances, and more specifically for noise properties related to defects. This has been evidenced long ago on YBCO Grain-Boundary JJ by annealing experiments\cite{Kawasaki:1992ig}. Our samples grown on sapphire may have therefore less fluctuating centers at the origin of Flicker noise than others. Past studies showed that this noise in HTS JJ is often induced by enhanced critical current fluctuations in inhomogeneous barriers\cite{Miklich:1992cx,Divin:1993do,Hao:1996kn}, and that the maximum $1/f$ noise power in the vicinity of $I_{c}$ scales with it ($S_{Vmax}\propto I_{c}^{2.7}$)\cite{Marx:1995hj}\cite{Hao:1996kn}. This noise translates into a broader Josephson linewidth at high frequency, especially when $f<f_{c}$, \textit{i.e.} for DC bias current close to $I_{c}$\cite{Divin:1992ig}. It has been evaluated by Hao \textit{et al.}\cite{Hao:1997hm} as :
\begin{equation}
\Delta f=n\cdot \frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}}\cdot \sqrt{2S_{V}(f_{0})\cdot \ln{\left(\frac{f_{c}}{f_{0}}\right)}}
\label{linewidth_Hao}
\end{equation}
where $f_{0}$ is a low frequency cut-off of the $1/f$ noise (typically $f_{0}\sim 1$ Hz). Through the above mentioned scaling relation, $\Delta f$ should thus increase as $I_{c}^{1.35}$ or so. The data on our 600 ions/nm sample below $T=20$ K are compatible with this relation (inset Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(d)}), but we cannot make a quantitative fit since we do not know the value of $S_{V}(f_{0})$. Moreover, the same data can be fitted with the shot noise model as well (inset Figure \ref{Figure3} \textit{(d)}), since the latter states that $\Delta f\sim I_{c}$ close to $I_{c}$ (derived from the above equation). This model fits quantitatively the evolution of $\Delta f$ with temperature with no adjustable parameter, and qualitatively the one with the critical current. We therefore conclude that the shot noise contribution fully explains the low temperature data of the most irradiated JJ, and that
there is no evidence of strong Flicker noise in the present study.
\section*{CONCLUSION}
We fabricated HTS JJ by the He FIB technique, and studied their DC and RF properties in the 10 to 40 GHz range. Their $I_{c}R_{n}$ product reaches $300$ GHz at low temperature, which is higher than for HEII JJ. We showed that Shapiro steps in the $I-V$ characteristics that appear under RF irradiation are well described by the RSJ model for SNS junctions with thermal noise. Using the "detector response" method, we determined the Josephson oscillation linewidth, and showed that it corresponds to the sole Johnson-Nyquist thermal noise in the RSJ model for the low-dose irradiated JJ. Below $T=$ 20 K, the high-dose irradiated sample has a SIS character. We demonstrated that the associated enhanced noise is due to shot noise when approaching the tunneling regime. We did not evidenced any Flicker noise component, which means that the barrier is rather homogeneous in these JJ. This study paves the way for using He FIB JJ in high frequency applications\cite{Cortez:2019bu}.
\section*{Methods}
\textbf{Resistively Shunted Junction (RSJ) model}
\subsection*{Calculation of the I-V curve at finite temperature}
The Resistively Shunted Junction (RSJ) model describes the equivalent circuit of a Josephson Junction (JJ) as two elements in parallel (the junction described by the two Josephson equations written below and its normal state resistance $R_{n}$ as sketched in Figure \ref{Figure1} (b)), biased with a current $I$\cite{Stewart:1968fw,Barone:1982th}. In this "overdamped" limit, the capacitance of the junction is neglected.
The Josephson equations state :
\begin{equation}
I_{J}=I_{c}\sin{\varphi}
\label{equationJosephson1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}=\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}}V
\label{equationJosephson2}
\end{equation}
where $I_{J}$ is the bias current and $V$ the voltage of the JJ, $I_{c}$ its critical current , $\varphi$ the quantum phase difference across it, and $\Phi_{0}$ the superconducting flux quantum.
The time evolution of the current is therefore :
\begin{equation}
I=I_{c}\sin{\varphi}+ \frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}R_{n}}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}
\end{equation}
The voltage is given by equation \ref{equationJosephson2}.
These equations are valid in the limit of zero-temperature. At finite temperature, the Johnson noise of the resistance must be added. The power spectral density of the current fluctuations at temperature $T$ is \cite{Likharev:1972vk,Likharev:1986wh} :
\begin{equation}
S_{I}=\frac{4k_{B}T}{R_{n}}
\label{spectraldensity}
\end{equation}
We introduce a noise current $\delta I_{n}(t)$ whose power spectral density is given by equation \ref{spectraldensity}. It has therefore a Gaussian variation in time with a variance :
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{I}^{2}=\frac{2k_{B}T}{R_{n}\Delta t}
\label{variance}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta t$ is the time interval considered.
The time evolution of the current is now :
\begin{equation}
I+\delta I_{n}(t)=I_{c}\sin{\varphi}+ \frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}R_{n}}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}
\end{equation}
To get the DC I-V curve, one needs to time average this equation.
\subsection*{I-V curve in a presence of RF irradiation}
If the JJ is submitted to a time varying current (RF irradiation) $I_{RF}=I_{RF0}\cos{(2\pi\nu_{RF}t})$ at finite temperature, the time evolution of the JJ is given by :
\begin{equation}
V(t)=R_{n}[I-I_{c}\sin{\varphi}+ \delta I_{n}(t)+I_{RF0}\cos{(2\pi\nu_{RF}t})]
\label{voltage_under_RF}
\end{equation}
and equation \ref{equationJosephson2}. After time averaging, the I-V curves present current (Shapiro) steps at voltages $V_{n}=n\Phi_{0}\nu_{RF}$, where $n$ is an integer. The width of the transition from one step to the next one is given by the thermal noise.
\subsection*{I-V curve simulation}
In practice, the simulation of an IV curve consists in solving the equations \ref{voltage_under_RF} and \ref{equationJosephson2} by numerical integration using the Euler method. Hence the system to be numerically solved is :
\begin{equation}
V[n+1]=R_{n}(I-I_{c}\sin{\varphi[n]}+\delta I_{n}+I_{RF0}\cos{(2\pi\nu_{RF}\tau[n]}))
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\varphi[n+1]=\varphi[n]+\frac{2\pi}{\Phi_{0}}V[n+1]\delta\tau
\end{equation}
where the bracket notation means discrete time steps of pace $\delta\tau$, and $n$ is the step index. For each current bias $I$, a voltage vector is thus found by iteration, for each step $\delta\tau$ from $\tau=0$ to $\tau=\tau_{Max}$, starting with a random initial phase and $V[0]= 0$. The Gaussian noise $\delta I_{n}$ is a random variable changed at every step, whose variance is given by equation \ref{variance} ($\Delta t=\delta\tau$).
The system is numerically heavy to solve: first because one needs a sufficiently small $\delta\tau$ to account for the rapid variation of the voltage oscillations, especially at low bias, and at the same time one needs a sufficiently high $\tau_{Max}$ in order to have enough oscillations to average. In practice, $\delta\tau$ must be much smaller than $1/\nu_{RF}$, and $\tau_{Max}$ should be sufficiently high to average enough oscillations. We typically have vectors of 200000 points, and $\delta\tau\sim 1\cdot 10^{-12}$ s. Second, because the presence of the (actually pseudo random) noise also requires to average the calculation of each $V_{DC}$ over several iterations of the same IV curve, typically 10 times.
\section*{Aknowledgements}
The authors thank Yann Legall (ICUBE laboratory, Strasbourg) for ion irradiations. This work has been supported by the QUANTUMET ANR PRCI program (ANR-16-CE24-0028-01), the T-SUN ANR ASTRID program (ANR-13-ASTR-0025-01), the SUPERTRONICS ANR PRCE program (ANR-15-CE24-0008-03), the Emergence Program from Ville de Paris, the R\'{e}gion Ile-de-France in the framework of the DIM Nano-K and Sesame programs, the Délégation Générale à l'Armement (P. A. DGA PhD grant 2016) and the National Science Foundation Singapore (NRF2016-NRF-ANR004).
\section*{Author Contributions}
F. C. designed the samples with the help of Y. K. S. and R. S., and fabricated them with the help of P. A., C. F.-P. and C. U. F. C. performed the measurements with N. B. and C. F.-P., and most of the data analysis with J. L. J. L. and F. C. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the ideas behind the project, and to discussions and revisions of the manuscript.
\section*{Additional information}
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J. L.
\section*{Competing financial interests}
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
\newpage
\section*{Bibliography}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Enabling safe autonomous driving relies on robust scene understanding in a variety of different environments. The encountered variations range from favorable to adverse weather conditions~\cite{SFSU_synthetic}, from daytime to nighttime scenes~\cite{daytime:2:nighttime}, just to name a few. With semantic segmentation being one of the most important methods for scene understanding, substantial work has been invested in improving its robustness over the last decade. On the one hand, modern datasets cover more diverse regions, including cities across Europe in Cityscapes \cite{cordts_cityscapes_2016} and multiple continents as in the Mapillary dataset \cite{neuhold_mapillary_2017}. While extending the variation covered by the datasets is the most intuitive and well understood way to increase the robustness of machine learning algorithms, this approach is limited by the requirement for costly pixel level annotations of images. On the other hand, simulation environments allow for generating high quality renderings of driving scenes together with their pixel level annotations at practically no cost. Even though, recently major progress has been made in making the images appear as realistic as possible, there still remains a domain gap between simulation and reality, resulting in a suboptimal real world performance of algorithms only trained on synthetic data.
Tremendous progress has been made in the last years for domain adaptation. On the one hand, unsupervised domain adaptation aims at overcoming this gap by exploiting similarities such as feature distribution or scene structure between images in the source and target domain. Notable examples include matching data distributions via distance minimization~\cite{adversarial:training:simulated:17,CyCADA} and bridging domain gaps via curriculum domain adaptation~\cite{daytime:2:nighttime,SynRealDataFog19}.
On the other hand, the recipe of supervised fine-tuning has obtained great success for domain adaptation when a limited amount of annotated data is available in the target domain. The goal of this work is to develop a data engineering method such that both unsupervised and supervised domain adaptation methods can benefit from using it.
Inspired by the finding of a recent work~\cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018} that neural networks favor to learn textural rather than structural information, we in this work would like to answer the question whether domain adaptation can benefit from inducing texture under-fitting. We observe that in the context of synthetic-to-real domain adaptation, structures (shapes) are more consistent across the two domains than textures. This implies that a large portion of the domain gap is due to texture differences, thus inducing texture under-fitting for the training of domain adaptation can be beneficial. In order to induce texture under-fitting into the training procedure, this work leverages the success of image stylization to augment the dataset of source domain and target domain with their own stylized versions. The image stylization method is used in a way such that the stylization step randomizes the textures of the images while preserving the structures.
We have a two-stage training procedure for both unsupervised domain adaptation and supervised domain adaptation: pre-training and fine-tuning. The merit of this simple texture randomization lies in its power of domain generalization. To put in another way, a domain with randomized textures is more general, so a model trained for it is more generalizable to a new domain and two generalized domains have more overlaps than the original domains. This simplifies the training of domain adaptation at the early training stage. Due to this reason, the augmented datasets are better choices than the original source and target datasets for the pre-training. Once the networks are properly initialized via the pre-training, we fine-tune them with conventional data for both domain adaptation scenarios aiming to better adapt to the textures of the target domain. Note that the fine-tuning for unsupervised domain adaptation is performed in an unsupervised manner and the fine-tuning for the supervised domain adaptation is performed in a supervised manner.
Our proposed method is simple, yet effective. We verify its efficacy in two domain adaptation scenarios with extensive experiments. The method is orthogonal to existing domain adaptation methods and can be easily plugged into their training process for further improvement.
\section{RELATED WORK}
\subsection{Semantic Segmentation}
Current methods for semantic segmentation are mostly based on fully convolutional neural networks. After early work introduced the adaptation of classification networks for segmentation tasks \cite{long_fully_2015}, a steady improvement of performance has been archived by capturing contextual information on multiple scales \cite{he_spatial_2014, yu_multi-scale_2015}, extending the receptive field \cite{chen_deeplab_2016} and more powerful backbone networks \cite{he_deep_2016}. Although most state of the art networks are pre-trained on ImageNet \cite{ILSVRC15}, they still require large datasets specific for the segmentation task at hand.
\subsection{Synthetic Datasets}
The high cost associated with generating annotations for semantic segmentation led to the publication of a large family of synthetic datasets for driving scenes. Inspired by conventional datasets, Richter et al. \cite{leibe_playing_2016, richter_playing_2017} leveraged the consumer market video game Grand Theft Auto V to render images of driving scenes together with their segmentation masks in a semiautomatic manner. Ros et al. \cite{ros_synthia_2016} created an environment specifically for generating the SYNTHIA traffic scene segmentation dataset. By employing rendering methods used in the film industry for the Synscapes dataset \cite{wrenninge_synscapes:_2018}, Wrenninge et al. recently made a leap forward in generating realistically looking images. There are also works creating semi-synthetic data for adverse driving conditions by imposing weathering effects into real images \cite{SFSU_synthetic}. Orthogonal to this directions, the CARLA urban driving simulator \cite{pmlr-v78-dosovitskiy17a} offers the possibility of interaction between the algorithm and the environment together with real time image rendering. There is an emerging stream of methods in synthesizing weather effects into normal images to create weather-degraded images for semantic scene understanding under adverse weather conditions~\cite{SFSU_synthetic,NighttimeSegmentation19,SynRealDataFog19}. Although substantial work has been invested in providing a realistic image appearance, the domain gap between simulated and real data still exists, which evokes the need for domain adaptation methods.
\subsection{Domain Adaptation}
Domain adaptation aims at overcoming performance degradation when the data distribution at test time does not match the distribution present during training. Early publications on domain adaptation in classical machine learning \cite{pan_survey_2010} as well as in deep learning \cite{wang_deep_2018} mainly addressed domain mismatch in classification tasks. In this context, the alignment of source and target distribution in the feature space has been proven to work well \cite{Ganin:2015:UDA:3045118.3045244,tzeng_simultaneous_2015,ganin_domain-adversarial_2015}. In addition to this, domain adaptation for semantic segmentation of road scenes can profit from similar scene structures between domains~\cite{curriculum:domain:adaptation:17,chen2018road} -- while the appearance or texture might change significantly from source to target domain, the overall spatial layouts are similar. Tsai et at. \cite{tsai_learning_2018} employed an adversarial learning scheme leveraging this property and achieved a significant performance improvement over previous methods. Recently, this work was extended to also leverage the more powerful local similarities by patch matching \cite{tsai_domain_2019}. Curriculum Model Adaptation adapts models from an easier task to a harder task in a step-by-step fashion and has achieved great performance in multiple domain adaptation scenarios~\cite{curriculum:domain:adaptation:17,daytime:2:nighttime,SynRealDataFog19,NighttimeSegmentation19}.
\subsection{Texture Bias}
Interpretation of convolutional neural network features is an open and active field of research. While the common belief that networks learn a fine to coarse structural representation of objects present during training is supported by network visualization techniques and widely accepted in the field \cite{kriegeskorte_deep_2015,lecun_deep_2015}, recent work suggests that networks are heavily relying on textural information \cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018,gatys_texture_2017,brendel_approximating_2019}. By restricting the receptive field of neural networks, Brendel et al. \cite{brendel_approximating_2019} were able to show that ImageNet classification performance does not drop significantly, even when only relying on textural information. Furthermore, extensive user studies by Geirhos et al. \cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018} indicate that in contrast to humans, neural networks are biased towards performing inference based on texture rather than on the structure of images. By stylizing the ImageNet training dataset, they were able to reduce the texture bias and made the network behave more like human test subjects on classification tasks. In contrast to this, we investigate the influence of texture bias in domain adaptation for segmentation tasks, where, compared to classification, much more local information, as well as information on different scales is required. Furthermore, we focus on the evaluation of different network training approaches among themselves, instead of showing a general difference between human intuition and network prediction.
\section{APPROACH}
\subsection{Overview}
Our domain adaptation approach for semantic segmentation addresses the problem of overcoming textural differences between source and target domain by introducing a scene structure dataset into the training procedure. The scene structure dataset is generated by stylizing the original images with the style from random paintings as proposed in \cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018} and called stylized dataset in the following. A comparison of images from the Cityscapes dataset as well as from Playing for Data together with the corresponding stylized image is shown in Figure \ref{fig:stylization_comp}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/00995_gta.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/00995_sgta.png}
\vspace{0cm}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/zurich_000035_000019_leftImg8bit.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/zurich_000035_000019_leftImg8bit_scs.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples images from the original and stylized Cityscapes and Playing for Data dataset. On the left, the original image is visualized. The corresponding result after stylization via AdaIN \cite{huang_arbitrary_2017} is shown on the right.}
\label{fig:stylization_comp}
\end{figure}
Using random paintings for style transfer ensures that the texture of the same object class varies between images and hence does not encode information about it. As a result, the assignment of a class labels rely more on object shapes which is less domain-dependent than object textures. Object recognition with only shape information seems to be an inherently harder task. However, a human observer can still easily recognize and annotate almost all objects in the scene based purely on shape information. This recognition requires information from a more global context, and enforcing algorithms to learn this more global shape information which is more transferable across domains.
\subsection{Stylization}
For training and evaluation, adaptation from Playing for Data (GTA) \cite{leibe_playing_2016} to Cityscapes (CS) \cite{cordts_cityscapes_2016} is considered. Playing for Data is a dataset consisting of 24966 synthetic trafic scene images rendered with the Grand Theft Auto V engine. Cityscapes is a driving datasets consisting of 3475 publicly available images with pixel level segmentation for training and validation acquired in 50 European cities. To generate a stylized version of each dataset, we perform feed-forward style transfer with adaptive instance normalization \cite{huang_arbitrary_2017}. Images from the driving datasets are used as content images and each is transformed by adopting a style from paintings in the Painter by Numbers dataset hosted on Kaggle\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/c/painter-by-numbers}. As the Painter by Number dataset with 79434 paintings is larger than Playing for Data as well as Cityscapes with 24966 and 3475 annotated training and validation images respectively, each image can be stylized differently.
With the additional stylized datasets, multiple combinations are possible during training. In the following we denote the dataset combinations as:
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll@{}}
(GTA + CS)\,: & Conventional dataset \\
stylized(GTA + CS)\,: & Stylized dataset \\
stylized(GTA + CS) + (GTA + CS)\,: & Combined dataset \\
\end{tabular}
\end{flushleft}
\subsection{Unsupervised Domain Adaptation}
We base our unsupervised domain adaptation network on the AdaptSegNet structure as proposed by Tsai et al. \cite{tsai_learning_2018}. For further details we refer the reader to \cite{tsai_learning_2018}, where our pipeline is adapted from. For segmentation, the DeepLab-v2 architecture \cite{chen_deeplab_2016} with ResNet-50 backbone is used, which reduces training time and allows for a statistical comparison between different training approaches. We extend the data loader to use the combined dataset via a random dataset selection approach, as shown in Equation \ref{eq:dataset structure}, where the input images are drawn with equal probability either from the conventional or from the stylized dataset. The full architecture is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:network_architecture}.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{Conventional:}\\
&(X_{\text{GTA}}, Y_{\text{GTA}}, X_{\text{CS}}) &&|\,X \in \mathbf X_{\text{conventional}}\\[5pt]
&\text{Stylized:}\\
&(X_{\text{GTA}}, Y_{\text{GTA}}, X_{\text{CS}}) &&|\,X \in \mathbf X_{\text{stylized}}\\[5pt]
&\text{Combined:}\\
&(X_{\text{GTA}}, Y_{\text{GTA}}, X_{\text{CS}}) &&|\,X \in \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf X_{\text{conventional}} &p=0.5 \\
\mathbf X_{\text{stylized}} &p=0.5
\end{array} \right.\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:dataset structure}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/network.png}
\caption{Unsupervised domain adaptation pipeline.}
\label{fig:network_architecture}
\end{figure}
While inducing a strong structural bias during network training is intuitively sensible for global tasks like classification \cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018}, semantic segmentation requires additional local information to infer a dense mask. Thus, direct domain adaptation from the combined dataset is a much harder task than classical domain adaptation, resulting in performance degradation, even though it better captures the underlying idea. To overcome these challenges and unify local as well as global information in domain transfer, we split training into two stages. In the pre-training stage training is performed on the combined dataset and terminated after a predefined number of iterations. In the subsequent fine-tuning stage, training is continued with the conventional dataset. With this approach, pre-training prevents the network from overfitting to texture, while simultaneously reducing the domain gap with the stylized images from both datasets. However, as the task of segmentation is much more challenging with stylized images, the resulting segmentation masks in the source domain, used for training the disciminator network do not reach a sufficient quality. Therefore, fine-tuning, which only uses the conventional dataset, allows the network to refine the prediction and pick up textural cues that are required for providing he final high-quality segmentation masks.
\subsection{Supervised Domain Adaptation with Limited Data}
Supervised domain adaptation with a limited amount of labeled data is a second important approach towards successfully domain adaptation. While labeling a dataset consisting of thousands of images is too costly in many scenarios, it is generally feasible to annotate a handful of images from the target domain. With those images, a network pre-trained on a related, larger dataset can be fine-tuned, resulting in a better performance in the target domain without overfitting to the small dataset.
In our experiments, we run pre-training with cross entropy loss on either GTA, stylized GTA or combined GTA for 60,000 iterations with all 24966 synthetic images in the source domain. For combined GTA in each iteration an image is randomly chosen either from the conventional or stylized Playing for Data dataset with probability $p=0.5$. Subsequently, training is resumed with the small fine-tuning dataset of 5, 10, and 20 images selected from the original Cityscapes training set (target domain) for 10,000 additional iterations. By performing pre-training on the combined dataset, the network is forced to learn structural information in addition to the textural cues, allowing for a more efficient domain transfer.
\section{EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS}
\input{tables/unsupervised.tex}
\input{tables/supervised.tex}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/unsupervised.tex}
\caption{Average mIoU on the Cityscapes validation set. Plots are averaged over ten runs for each setup.}
\label{fig:unsupervised performance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/img_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/img_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Input image.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/no_adapt_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/no_adapt_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{No adaptation.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/conventional_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/conventional_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{AdaptSegNet \cite{tsai_learning_2018}.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/optimized_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/optimized_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Our proposed unsupervised method based on AdaptSegNet \cite{tsai_learning_2018}.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/sup_conventional_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/sup_conventional_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Conventional supervised domain adaptation.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/sup_optimized_frankfurt_000001_002646_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/sup_optimized_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_leftImg8bit_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Our proposed supervised method.}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/gt_frankfurt_000001_002646_gtFine_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/gt_2_frankfurt_000001_004327_gtFine_color.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Groundtruth segmentation mask.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of qualitative results. All frameworks employ DeepLab-v2 with the ResNet-50 backbone.}
\label{fig:example_images} \vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Unsupervised Domain Adaptation}
For evaluation on the task of unsupervised domain adaptation, we compare the proposed domain adaptation method to the state of the art method by Tsai et al. \cite{tsai_learning_2018} on domain transfer from Playing for Data \cite{leibe_playing_2016} to Cityscapes \cite{cordts_cityscapes_2016}. As domain adaptation performance highly fluctuates between runs, which is due to the approaches being based on unstable adversarial networks, we perform ten runs with our method as well as the baseline network.
The generator network is trained with an initial learning rate of 0.00025 and polynomial decay. Training is stopped early after 160,000 iterations for the conventional training. Pre-training on the combined dataset is terminated after 85,000 iterations and continues with fine-tuning on the conventional dataset for additional 75.000 iterations.
Comparison of the average performance of both approaches, measured as the mean intersection over union (mIoU) on the validation set, is shown in Figure \ref{fig:unsupervised performance}. The blue plot corresponds to the conventional training procedure and reaches its maximum performance after 115,000 iterations with a mIoU of $33.18\,\%$, which is in line with numbers reported in literature for the ResNet-50 backbone. Results generated with the network pre-trained on the combined datasets are shown in red. After the switch to fine-tuning at iteration 85,000, the networks outperform the conventional approach at most steps. Optimal results are generated at iteration 150,000 with a mIoU of $34.20\,\%$. Furthermore, pre-training with the combined dataset outperforms the maximum of the conventional training, indicated by the horizontal dashed line, at 11 out of 15 evaluated steps.
While most previous work in the community reports the single best run, we believe that this does not well incorporates the use-case for unsupervised domain adaptation. As a great performance gain can be achieved even from very few annotated images in the target domain, fully unsupervised domain adaptation cannot rely on a validation dataset to select the best performing checkpoint. Averaging over multiple training runs reduces the impact of fluctuations, nevertheless, by evaluating not at a single iteration, but stating the average performance over a window further approximates the practical setting, where the optimal termination point cannot be determined exactly. We set the window length to seven time-steps and optimize its location for each method individually. For the conventional implementation, the optimal window location incorporates iterations 110,000 to 135,000, for the network pre-trained on the combined dataset, the optimal window starts at iteration 125,000 and ends with iteration 150,000. Using this approach, the overall and per class IoU for both methods is reported in Table~\ref{table:unsupervised results}.
\subsection{Supervised Domain Adaptation with Limited Data}
Fine-tuning on a small set of labeled images from the target domain is evaluated with subsets of 5, 10 and 20 images from Cityscapes, where the sets are defined such that they do not contain multiple images from a single city. Validation is performed on a disjoint set of 100 images, randomly selected from the original training set and the 500 Cityscapes validation images are employed as testset. The initial learning rate for fine-tuning is set to 0.00001 with polynomial learning rate decay and images are drawn at random from the small dataset.
We compare the conventional baseline, pre-trained on Playing for Data, with one network pre-trained on a stylized version and one network trained on the combination of both. Results on the test set, generated from the best performing checkpoints on the validation set, are reported in Table~\ref{table:supervised results}. Out of all training approaches, pre-training on combined Playing for Data performs best in all experiments.
\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION}
Our experiments confirm that texture underfitting can improve the performance of domain adaptation. In the unsupervised setting, we were able to show that joint training with stylized as well as conventional data can effectively enhance existing domain adaptation techniques. The results of our experiments on fine-tuning with limited data support the intuition that pre-training is especially relevant if only very few data points are available for training. The resulting mIoU from experiments with five images span a range of $6.81\,\%$ (from $32.84\,\%$ to $39.65\,\%$) depending on the pre-training, which shrinks to $3.32\,\%$ ($38.60\,\%$ to $41.92\,\%$) for 20 images. In the first case, while extensive training would lead to overfitting, short training still places a high weight onto the pre-trained network. In contrast to this, if more data is available for fine-tuning, longer training is possible, which results in less influence of the pre-training and consequently reduces the differences. In the presented use-case of supervised domain adaptation from synthetic to real (Playing for Data to Cityscapes), we identify the threshold at 20 images, where the performance of the conventional and our top performing setup approach each other.
While texture underfitting shows promising results, it needs to be employed thoughtfully. Even though envisioned differently, image stylization inevitably perturbs local structure. While this is not a problem for image classification and thus did not impact the results from Geirhos et al. \cite{geirhos_imagenet-trained_2018}, it impedes the image segmentation process as these structures often define object boundaries. The effect becomes especially apparent when the network is pre-trained on a stylized dataset only, which results in the degradation of its performance. Joint training on the stylized and the conventional dataset allows to circumvent the impact of this property.
Qualitative evaluation of the segmentation results as shown in Figure \ref{fig:example_images} reveals that training with the combined dataset mostly improves performance on well defined shapes like sidewalks or buildings. Furthermore, for both adaptation settings, our approach reduces artifacts where only a few pixels are segmented as incorrect classes, reducing the amount of well visible holes in the masks.
In order to further formalize the concept of texture underfitting for domain adaptation, it is interesting to have a solution by designing a new network architecture. This is left as future work.
\addtolength{\textheight}{-0cm}
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgement}: The work is supported by Toyota Motor Europe via the research project TRACE-Z\"urich.
\bibliographystyle{./IEEEtranS}
|
\section{Introduction}
As mentioned in the abstract, by Solovay's celebrated completeness result \cite{Solovay:1976} on provability we know that the provability logic \logic{GL} describes exactly all provable structural properties for any sound and strong enough arithmetical theory with a decidable axiomatisation. Japaridze generalised this result in \cite{Japaridze:1988} by considering a polymodal version {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace of \logic{GL} with modalities $[n]$ for each natural number $n$ referring to ever increasing notions of provability.
Japaridze considered an arithmetical interpretation of the logic {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace where the $[n]$ referred to a natural formalisation of ``provable over the base theory $T$ using at most $n$ nested applications of the $\omega$-rule''. Beklemishev introduced in \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP} the logics ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ that are like {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace only that they now include a sequence of provability predicates $[\alpha]$ of ever increasing strength for each ordinal $\alpha$ below some fixed ordinal $\Lambda$. In \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} the authors generalised Japaridze's result into the transfinite by providing an interpretation of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ for recursive $\Lambda$ into second order arithmetic by allowing for $[\alpha]$ at most $\alpha$ nestings of the omega rule, thereby providing a first arithmetical interpretation of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ for $\Lambda >\omega$. In a recent paper (\cite{BeklemishevPakhomov:2019:GLPforTheoriesOfTruth}) Beklemishev and Pakhomov provide an alternative interpretation in first order arithmetic enriched with a collection of ever more expressive truth predicates indexed by the ordinals.
Modern treatments of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ tend to interpret the $[n]$ provability notion as ``provable in a base theory $T$ together with all true $\Pi^0_n$ formulas''. Let us call this the \emph{truth-interpretation} here. The main reason for the popularity of the truth-interpretation is that the resulting provability hierarchies run in phase with the arithmetical hierarchy and they imply good preservation properties between different consistency statements giving rise to the so-called \emph{reduction property}. In particular, due to these good properties Beklemishev was able to set ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ to work to perform proof-theoretical analyses of Peano Arithmetic and its kin (\cite{Beklemishev:2003:ProofTheoreticAnalysisByIteratedReflection, Beklemishev:2004:ProvabilityAlgebrasAndOrdinals, Beklemishev:2005:Survey}). Below we shall give more circumstantial evidence to why the truth interpretation is optimal.
As mentioned, the first arithmetical interpretation of transfinite polymodal provability logic (\cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP}) was, like Japaridze's original approach, based on iterating applications of the omega rule. Although it was observed in \cite{Joosten:2013:AnalysisBeyondFO} that soundness of the interpretation is sufficient for the purpose of an ordinal analysis, the paper also contained a completeness proof in such general lines that it can be applied to a wide range of interpretations.
It seemed however, that the omega-rule interpretation does not have all the desirable properties to make it directly a useful tool for ordinal analyses. Even though various known fragments of second order arithmetic like $\mathrm{ATR}_0$, $\Pi^1_1-\mathrm{CA}_0$ and $\Pi^1_1-\mathrm{CA}_0 + \mbox{Bar Induction}$ can be characterised (\cite{CordonFernandezJoostenLara:2017:PredicativityThroughTransfiniteReflection, Fernandez:2015:ImpredicativeReflection}) in terms of reflection principles using versions of the omega rule interpretation of $GLP_\Lambda$, the fine-structure between various consistency statements could not be proven.
One possible reason may be that the omega provability predicates do not tie up with the arithmetical hierarchy and Turing jumps as observed in \cite[Lemma 9]{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability}. A more concrete and serious objection is given in an unpublished simple observation from Fern\'andez Duque: using only one application of the omega-rule one can prove any induction axiom so that the one-consistency of primitive recursive arithmetic in the omega-rule sense suffices to prove the consistency of Peano arithmetic.
In short, the truth interpretation of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ has better properties than the omega-rule interpretation. However, one advantage of the omega-rule interpretation is its amenability to transfinite generalisations. The formalisation of the truth interpretation relies on a syntactical characterisation of the arithmetical hierarchy in terms of the $\Sigma^0_n$ formulas. It remained unclear how to generalise this in a canonical way to the hyperarithmetical setting or beyond without extending the language in a way that often seems rather ad-hoc.
The idea of this paper to overcome this is very simple yet turns out to be rather powerful. The \emph{Friedman-Goldfarb-Harrington} theorem (FGH) tells us that for a wide range of theories, in a sense, the canonical consistency predicate is $\Pi^0_1$ complete. Thus, instead of using a true $\Pi^0_1$ sentence as oracle for the $[1]_T$ provability predicate in the truth interpretation, one can use a provably equivalent consistency statement.
Via a generalisation of the FGH theorem proven in \cite{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability, Joosten:2019:TransfiniteTuringjumps} one can see that the consistency notion corresponding to $[1]$ provability is in a sense $\Pi^0_2$ complete and so on. Thus, it makes sense to consider the following recursion as in \cite{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability}: provability at level $n$ means provable from an oracle which is a consistency statement of level $m$ for some $m<n$. It feels like lifting oneself up from the swamp by pulling ones hairs as the \emph{Baron von M\"unchhausen} did. Moreover, the recursion lends itself to an easy transfinite generalisation and that is exactly what this paper does. Before we close the introduction with an overview of how the current paper does so, we would like to point out how this paper fits in the landscape of related literature thereby trying to provide an ample justification for it.
Ordinal analysis via polymodal provability logics seems to have various benefits over other methods of ordinal analysis. An important benefit is it allows to tell different incomplete theories apart at the lowest possible level of $\Pi^0_1$ sentences. It is good to recall that the classical $\Pi^1_1$ proof theoretical ordinal will not even discern theories at the level of $\Sigma^1_1$-level. Another benefit may seem the modularity of ordinal analysis: the ordinal analysis of different theories will all share the same template and re-use various tools and theorems.
We see another stronghold in the fact that the approach relates various different fields in a natural way. In particular, the closed formulas of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace --called \emph{worms}-- are important in this. Worms can be used to denote various notions central to foundational issues. For one, they are simple and well-behaved elements from a well-behaved logic. Even though the logic {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace is known to be PSPACE-complete (\cite{Shapirovsky:2008:PSPACEcompletenessOfGLP}) it is Kripke incomplete. However, natural topological semantics do exist (\cite{Icard:2009:TopologyGLP, Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates, BeklemishevGabelaia:2011:TopologicalCompletenessGLP, Fernandez:2012:TopologicalCompleteness, AguileraFernandez:2017:strongCompleteness}) even though it is known to depend on strong cardinal assumptions for various natural topological spaces \cite{BagariaMagidorSakai:2013}.
Moreover, the closed fragment of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ is very well behaved, well studied and in particular does allow for natural relational semantics \cite{Ignatiev:1993:StrongProvabilityPredicates, FernandezJoosten:2012:KripkeSemanticsGLP0, FernandezJoosten:2013:ModelsOfGLP}. In addition, and this provides a second interpretation of worms, the worms are known to define a well-ordered relation as studied in \cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP, BeklemishevFernandezJoosten:2014:LinearlyOrderedGLP, FernandezJoosten:2014:WellOrders} and thus can provide for ordinal notation systems (\cite{Beklemishev:2005:VeblenInGLP, Fernandez:2017:Spiders, HermoFernandez:2019:BracketCalculus}).
Some simple worms are just consistency statements which are known to be related to reflection principles so that by classical results they are related to fragments of arithmetic \cite{KreiselLevy:1968:ReflectionPrinciplesAndTheirUse}. Thus, worms --apart from being privileged elements of a decidable logic-- can denote both ordinals and fragments of arithmetic. A possibly more important use however lies in their relation to Turing progressions: each Turing progression below $\varepsilon_0$ can be approximated by the arithmetical interpretation of a ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ worm. The relation goes even that far so that points in a universal modal model for the closed fragment of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ can be seen as arithmetical theories axiomatised by Turing progressions (\cite{Joosten:2016:TuringTaylorExpansion}) so that the model displays all conservation results between the different theories. It is these four different possible denotations for worms that make them so versatile and make new interpretations of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ as the current paper so promising.
\paragraph{\bf Plan of the paper}
Section \ref{section:Prelims} provides some useful lemmata and settles on notation which otherwise is quite standard so that it can be skipped by the initiate readers only to come back to it when needed. Then, in Section \ref{section:TuringJumpProvability} the central provability notion of this paper is introduced: one-M\"unchhausen provability. The usage of the word ``one" in there refers to the fact that provability at level $\alpha$ is allowed to use a single oracle sentence of a lower level consistency statement.
Section \ref{section:OnUniqueness} mainly dwells on the fact that in general we can not prove that different M\"unchhausen provability predicates are provably equivalent even if they are so on the low levels. It is observed that we do have uniqueness in case the object theory and the meta theory are provably the same.
Section \ref{section:munchhausenSound} then proceeds to prove soundness for one-M\"unchhausen provability for a large class of theories and Section \ref{section:completeness} proves arithmetical completeness. In Section \ref{section:formalisation} it is sketched how one-M\"unchhausen provability can be formalised in second order arithmetic. The formalisation requires a substantial amount of transfinte induction both in the object and meta theory so that applications to ordinal analysis will become difficult. Finally, in Section \ref{section:MunchhausenProvabilityMultipleOracle} some first steps are taken on how to weaken the needed strength of the object and meta theory. By allowing for multiple oracles sentences instead of just one, soundness can be proven without any transfinite induction.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{section:Prelims}
In this section we dwell succinctly on the necessary notions from both formal arithmetic and modal provability logics. Apart from proving a few new observations, we mainly settle on notation and refer to the literature for details.
\subsection{Arithmetic}
This paper deals with interpretations of transfinite provability logic. Even though the set-up of such interpretations starts schematically so that our analysis applies to a wide range of theories, we will in particular have second order arithmetic in mind. We refer the reader to standard references for details (\cite{Simpson:2009:SubsystemsOfSecondOrderArithmetic, HajekPudlak:1993:Metamathematics, Beklemishev:2005:Survey}) and only include some minimal comments for expository purposes.
For first-order arithmetic, we shall work with theories with identity in the language $\{ 0,1, \exp, +, \cdot, < \}$ of arithmetic where $\exp$ denotes the unary function $x\mapsto 2^x$. We define $\Delta^0_0=\Sigma^0_0=\Pi^0_0$ formulas (also referred to as \emph{elementary formulas}) as those where all quantifiers occur bounded, that is we only allow quantifiers of the form $\forall\, x{<}t$ or $\exists\, x{<}t$ where $t$ is some term not containing $x$. We inductively define $\Pi^0_{n+1}$/$\Sigma^0_{n+1}$ formulas as allowing a block of universal/existential quantifiers up-front a $\Sigma^0_n$/$\Pi^0_n$ formula. The union of these classes is called the \emph{arithmetical formulas} and denoted by $\Pi^0_\omega$.
If $P$ is a predicate, the classes relativized to $P$ are defined the same with the sole difference that we consider the predicate $P$ as an atomic formula. We flag relativisation by including the predicate in brackets after the class like, for example, in $\Pi^0_1(P)$.
\emph{Peano Arithmetic} (\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace) contains the basic axioms describing the non-logical symbols together with induction formulas $I_\varphi$ for any formula $\varphi$ where as always $I_\varphi: = \varphi(0) \wedge \forall x(\varphi (x) \to \varphi (x+1)) \to \forall x \varphi (x)$. When $\Gamma$ is a complexity class, by $\mathrm{I}\Gamma$ we denote the theory which is like \ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace except that induction is restricted to formulas in $\Gamma$. The theory $\mathrm{I}\Delta^0_0$ is also referred to as \emph{elementary arithmetic\footnote{In the literature it is more common to work with a formulation of \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace in the language without exponentiation. For the purpose of this paper, the differences are not essential.}} or \emph{Kalmar elementary arithmetic} (\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace).
In this paper we also mention collection axioms $\mathrm{B}_\varphi$ which basically state that the range of a function with finite domain is finite: $B_\varphi: = \forall z{<}y\, \exists x \varphi (z,x) \to \exists u\, \forall z{<}y\, \exists\, x{<}u \varphi (z,x)$. Again, for a formula class $\Gamma$, by $\mathrm{B}\Gamma$ we denote the set of collection axioms for formulas from $\Gamma$.
Second order arithmetic is an extension of first order arithmetic where we now add second order set variables together with a binary symbol $\in$ for membership. Instead of extending identity to second order terms we stipulate that second order identity is governed by extensionality: $X = Y :\Leftrightarrow \forall x\ (x\in X \leftrightarrow x\in Y)$. The formula classes $\Sigma^1_n$ and $\Pi^1_n$ are defined as their first-order counterpart only that we now count second order quantification alternations. Likewise, by $\Pi^1_\omega$ we denote the class of all second order formulas.
The strength of various fragments of second order arithmetics is in large determined by their set existence axioms. The \emph{collection axiom} for $\varphi$ tells us that $\varphi$ defines a set: $\exists X \forall x (x\in X \leftrightarrow \varphi)$. The second order system $\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace$ contains the defining axioms for the first-order non-logical symbols together with set-induction $0\in X \wedge \forall x (x{\in} X \to x{+}1 {\in} X) \to \forall x \ x{\in} X$ and collection for all arithmetical formulas.
The theory $\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace$ is conservative over $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace$ for first-order formulas. In \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} the system \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace is introduced as $\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace$ except that comprehension is restricted to $\Delta^0_0$ formulas. In \cite[Lemma 3.2]{CordonFernandezJoostenLara:2017:PredicativityThroughTransfiniteReflection} it is proven that \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace is conservative over \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace for first-order formulas.
We will tacitly assume that when we are given a theory $T$, we are actually given a decidable formula $\tau$ that binumerates the axioms of $T$. That is to say, $\chi$ is an axiom of $T$ if and only if\footnote{We shall refrain from making a difference between syntactical objects and their G\"odel numbers when the context allows us so.} $T\vdash \tau(\chi)$. For each theory $T$ we denote by $\Box_T$ the unary $\Sigma^0_1$-predicate that defines provability in $T$. That is, $\mathbb N \models \varphi$ if and only if $\varphi$ is provable in $T$. When we write $\Box_T \varphi(\dot x)$ we denote the formula with free variable $x$ that expresses that for each number x, the formula $\varphi (\overline n)$ is provable in $T$. Here, $\overline n$ denotes the numeral of $n$ which is a syntactical expression denoting $n$, for example defined as $\overline 0 = 0; \overline {x+1} =\overline x + 1$.
The Friedman-Goldfarb-Harrington Theorem (FGH for short) states that for any computably enumerable theory $U$, the corresponding formalised provability predicate is provably $\Sigma^0_1$-complete provided $U$ is consistent. Since the theorem provides an important tool in this paper, let us give a precise formulation.
\begin{theorem}[Friedman-Goldfarb-Harrington]\label{theorem:FGH}
Let $U$ be a computably enumerable theory with corresponding provability predicate $\Box_U$. We have that for any $\Sigma^0_1$ formula $\sigma(x)$, there is a $\Sigma^0_1$ formula $\rho(x)$ so that
\[
\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \vdash \Diamond_U\top \to \forall x\ \big( \sigma (x) \leftrightarrow \Box_U \rho (\dot x)\big).
\]
\end{theorem}
The theorem was given its name in \cite{Visser:2005:FaithAndFalsity} in acknowledgment to the intellectual parents. Generalisations to other arithmetical provability predicates were studied in \cite{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability} and \cite{Joosten:2019:TransfiniteTuringjumps}. In particular, the quantification over $\Sigma^0_1$ formulas (without exponentiation however) can be made internal in \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace and the $\rho$ is obtained from $\sigma$ by means of an elementary function.
\subsection{Transfinite provability logic}
Even though via the FGH theorem the provability predicate $\Box_T$ is in a sense $\Sigma_1$ complete for a wide variety of theories, the provable structural behaviour of the predicate can be described with well-behaved PSPACE decidable propositional modal logics.
The simplest modal logics have one unary modal operator $\Box$ which syntactically behaves like negation. The dual modality $\Diamond$ can be seen as an abbreviation of $\neg \Box \neg$. The basic logic \logic K is axiomatised by all propositional tautologies (in the signature with $\Box$) and all so-called distribution axioms $\Box (A \to B) \to (\Box A \to \Box B)$. The rules of \logic K are modus ponens and Necessitation: from $A$ conclude $\Box A$.
The logic \logic{K4} arises by adding the transitivity axioms to \logic K: $\Box A \to \Box \Box A$. G\"odel L\"ob's logic \logic{GL} arises to adding L\"ob's axiom scheme to \logic K: $\Box (\Box A \to A) \to \Box A$. It is known that \logic{GL} is a proper extension of \logic{K4} and that it exactly describes the provable structural properties of the provability predicate for a wide range of theories.
In this paper we are interested in provability logics of a collection of provability predicates $[\alpha]$ of increasing strength indexed by ordinals $\alpha$. For the finite ordinals, this logic was discovered by Japaridze in \cite{Japaridze:1988}. We now present this logic, which would be ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\omega$ in our notation as given in the following definition.
\begin{definition}
For $\Lambda$ an ordinal or the class of all ordinals, the logic $\mathsf{GLP}_\Lambda$ is given by the following axioms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item all propositional tautologies{,}
\item Distributivity:
$[\xi](\varphi \to \psi) \to ([\xi]\varphi \to [\xi]\psi)$ for all $\xi<\Lambda${,}
\item Transitivity:
{$[\xi] \varphi \to [\xi] [\xi]\varphi$ for all $\xi<\Lambda$}{,}
\item L\"ob:
{$[\xi]([\xi]\varphi \to \varphi)\to[\xi]\varphi$ for all $\xi<\Lambda$}{,}
\item Negative introspection:
$\<\zeta\>\varphi\to\<\xi\>\varphi$ for $\xi<\zeta<\Lambda${,}
\item Monotonicity:
$\<\xi\>\varphi\to [\zeta]\<\xi\>\varphi$ for $\xi<\zeta<\Lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
The rules are Modes Ponens and Necessitation for each modality: $\displaystyle \frac{\varphi}{\nboxBox{\xi}\varphi}$.
\end{definition}
The following lemma is proven in \cite{BeklemishevFernandezJoosten:2014:LinearlyOrderedGLP}.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:GLPconservativelyExtendsFragments}
The logic ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ is conservative over ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_{\Lambda'}$ for $\Lambda'<\Lambda$.
\end{lemma}
The lemma is particularly useful in proofs where you only have access to reasoning up to ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda'$ and tells you that any statement formulated in this fragment can actually be proven there. We shall use this result throughout the paper, mostly without explicit mention. Let us now prove some basic properties that shall be needed later in the paper.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:basicGLPlemmas}\
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item:consistencyProvable:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}
${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace \vdash [\alpha] \langle \beta \rangle \top$ whenever $\alpha>\beta$;
\item \label{item:bigConsEquivSmallCons:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}
For $\alpha > \beta$ we have ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace \vdash \langle \alpha \rangle \top \to \Big( \langle \beta\rangle \varphi \leftrightarrow \langle \alpha \rangle \langle \beta \rangle \varphi \Big)$.
\item\label{item:boxDisjunctionDiamond:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}
For $\alpha \geq \beta >0$ we have ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace \vdash \langle \alpha \rangle \top \ \to \ \Big( \langle \beta \rangle \phi \vee \Box \psi \Big) \ \leftrightarrow \ \Big( \langle \beta \rangle \big( \phi \vee \Box \psi \big) \Big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We reason in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace.
For {\bf Item \ref{item:consistencyProvable:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}}:
If $\langle \beta \rangle \top$, then $[\alpha] \langle \beta \rangle \top$ by the negative introspection axiom. In case $[\beta]\bot$ we get by an \emph{ex falso} under the $[\beta]$ modality that $[\beta]\langle \beta \rangle \top$ whence $[\alpha]\langle \beta \rangle \top$ by monotonicity.
For {\bf Item \ref{item:bigConsEquivSmallCons:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}} we work under the assumption that $\langle \alpha \rangle \top$. From $\langle \beta \rangle \varphi$ we get, since $\beta <\alpha$, that $[\alpha]\langle \beta\rangle \varphi$ so from $\langle \alpha \rangle \top$ we get $\langle \alpha \rangle \langle \beta \rangle\varphi$. For the other direction, from $\langle \alpha \rangle \langle \beta \rangle \varphi$ we get by monotonicity that $\langle \beta \rangle \langle \beta \rangle \varphi$ whence by transitivity we obtain the required $\langle \beta \rangle \varphi$.
For {\bf Item \ref{item:boxDisjunctionDiamond:theorem:basicGLPlemmas}}: We now work under the assumption that $\langle \alpha \rangle \top$. The only case to consider in the $\rightarrow$ direction is when $\Box \psi$ holds. Then, $\Box \Box \psi$ whence $[\alpha] \Box \psi$ which together with $\langle \alpha \rangle \top$ yields $\langle \alpha \rangle \Box\psi$ whence $\langle \beta \rangle \big( \phi \vee \Box \psi \big)$.
For the $\leftarrow$ direction
we need to prove $\langle \beta \rangle \big( \phi \vee \Box \psi \big) \to \langle \beta \rangle \phi \vee \Box \psi$. So, suppose $\langle \beta \rangle \big( \phi \vee \Box \psi \big)$ and $\neg \Box \psi$ whence $[\beta]\neg \Box \psi$. But since $\langle \beta \rangle \big( \phi \vee \Box \psi \big)$ we must have $\langle \beta \rangle \phi$ and by weakening $\langle \beta \rangle \phi \vee \Box \psi$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Transfinite induction and its kin}
In various arguments we will have to prove that a statement $\varphi$ holds for all ordinals $\alpha$. Often we will prove this by transfinite recursion on $\alpha$. However, in certain cases, transfinite induction is not available. In such cases there is a technique called \emph{reflexive induction}.
The principle of reflexive induction can syntactically be seen as twice weakening regular transfinite induction. Recall that transfinite induction for a formula $\varphi$ is
\[
{\sf TI}_\varphi \ \ := \ \ \forall \alpha \big( \forall \, \beta{<}\alpha \varphi (\beta) \to \varphi (\alpha) \big) \ \to \ \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha).
\]
and for a set of formulas $\Gamma$ the principle ${\sf TI}(\Gamma)$ denotes the collection of all ${\sf TI}_\varphi$ for $\varphi \in \Gamma$. As a first weakening one could consider the rule based version: from $T\vdash \forall \alpha \big( \forall \, \beta{<}\alpha \varphi (\beta) \to \varphi (\alpha) \big)$, conclude $T\vdash \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha)$. Now, one can change the antecendent to $T\vdash \forall \alpha \big( \Box_T\forall \, \beta{<}\alpha \varphi (\dot \beta) \to \varphi (\alpha) \big)$ to arrive at reflexive induction. However, it turns out that by doing so, it has lost all its strength. That, is, the resulting principle is provable in almost any theory:
\begin{theorem}[Reflexive induction]\label{theorem:ReflexiveTransfiniteInduction}
Let $T$ be any theory capable of coding syntax. If $T\vdash \forall \alpha \Big( \Box_T \big(\forall \beta < \dot \alpha \ \varphi (\beta)\big) \to \varphi(\alpha) \Big)$, then
$T\vdash \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha)$.
\end{theorem}
Although this principle is well known since Schmerl's work (\cite{Schmerl:1978:FineStructure}) we include a proof to emphasize that the principle actually does not rely at all on the fact that $<$ is a well-order. As a matter of fact, the proof goes through for any kind of relation and basically boils down to an application of L\"ob's Theorem.
\begin{proof}
We shall see that from the assumption
\[
T\vdash \forall \alpha \Big( \Box_T \big(\forall \, \beta {<} \dot \alpha \ \varphi (\beta)\big) \to \varphi(\alpha) \Big)
\]
we get $T\vdash \Box_T \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha) \to \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha)$ so that the conclusion $T\vdash \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha)$ follows by L\"ob's Theorem.
Thus, we reason in $T$, pick $\alpha$ arbitrary, we assume $\Box_T \forall \alpha \varphi (\alpha)$, or equivalently $\Box_T \forall \theta \varphi (\theta)$, and set out to prove $\varphi (\alpha)$. But using $\Box_T \big(\forall \, \beta {<} \dot \alpha \ \varphi (\beta)\big) \to \varphi(\alpha)$ in the last step of the following reasoning, we clearly have
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
\Box_T \forall \theta \varphi (\theta) &\to& \Box_T \forall \theta \forall \, \beta{<}\theta \ \varphi (\beta)\\
\ & \to &\forall \theta \, \Box_T \forall \, \beta{<}\dot\theta \ \varphi (\beta)\\
\ & \to &\Box_T \forall \, \beta{<}\dot\alpha \ \varphi (\beta)\\
\ & \to &\varphi (\alpha).\\
\end{array}
\]
\end{proof}
On occasion, in this paper we will have to combine regular transfinite induction and reflexive induction. We call this amalgamate \emph{transfinite reflexive induction}.
\begin{lemma}[Transfinite reflexive induction]\label{theorem:TransfiniteReflexiveInduction}
Let $T$ be a theory with a sufficient amount of transfinite induction as specified below and let $\prec$ be a well-order in $T$.
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{If } & \\
& T\vdash \forall \, \alpha \Big(\forall\, \beta{\prec}\alpha \, \varphi(\beta) \ \wedge \ \Box_T \big( \forall\, \beta{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi(\beta)\big) \ \to \ \varphi (\alpha) \Big),\\
\mbox{then} & \\
& T\vdash \forall \alpha \ \varphi (\alpha).
\end{array}
\]
To prove transfinite reflexive induction for $\varphi$ it suffices that $T$ is capable of coding syntax and proves transfinite induction for formulas of the form $\Box_T\chi \to \varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To start our proof we assume
\begin{equation}\label{equation:AssumptionTRI}
T\vdash \forall \, \alpha \Big(\forall\, \beta{\prec}\alpha \, \varphi(\beta) \ \wedge \ \Box_T \big( \forall\, \beta{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi(\beta)\big) \ \to \ \varphi (\alpha) \Big).
\end{equation}
We will prove by transfinite induction on $\alpha$ that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:AssumptionRTI}
T \vdash \forall \alpha\ \Big(\Box_T \forall\, \beta{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi (\beta) \to \varphi (\alpha)\Big)
\end{equation}
so that the result $T\vdash \forall \alpha \, \varphi (\alpha)$ follows by reflexive induction (Lemma \ref{theorem:ReflexiveTransfiniteInduction}). Proving \eqref{equation:AssumptionRTI} for $\alpha=0$ amounts to showing that $T\vdash \varphi(0)$ which follows directly from \eqref{equation:AssumptionTRI}.
For the inductive step, we reason in $T$, fix some $\alpha>0$, assume that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:InductiveAssumptionRTI}
\forall \, \beta{\prec}\alpha\ \Big(\Box_T \forall\, \gamma{\prec}\dot\beta \, \varphi (\gamma) \to \varphi (\beta)\Big)
\end{equation}
and set out to prove
\begin{equation}\label{equation:InductiveStepRTI}
\Box_T \forall\, \gamma{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi (\gamma) \to \varphi (\alpha).
\end{equation}
To this end, we further assume that $\Box_T \forall\, \gamma{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi (\gamma)$, so that certainly we have $\forall \, \beta{\prec}\alpha\ \Box_T \forall\, \gamma{\prec}\dot\beta \, \varphi (\gamma)$. Combining the latter with \eqref{equation:InductiveAssumptionRTI} yields $\forall \, \beta{\prec}\alpha\ \varphi(\beta)$. This, together with our assumption $\Box_T \forall\, \gamma{\prec}\dot\alpha \, \varphi (\gamma)$ is the antecedent of \eqref{equation:AssumptionTRI} so that we may conclude $\varphi (\alpha)$ which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Theories for Single Oracle M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:TuringJumpProvability}
Throughout this section, we fix some ordinal $\Lambda$ and understand that all ordinals denoted in this section are majorized by $\Lambda$.
\subsection{Single Oracle M\"unchhausen provability}
We are interested in theories $T$ that can formalize a provability notion so that provably in $T$ the following recursion holds
\begin{equation}\label{equation:ramifiedProvability}
{[\zeta]}^\Lambda_T \phi \ \
:\Leftrightarrow \ \
\Box_T \phi \ \vee \ \exists \psi\, \exists \, \xi{<}\zeta\ \big({\langle \xi \rangle}^\Lambda_T \psi \ \wedge \ \Box_T ({\langle \xi \rangle}^\Lambda_T \psi \to \phi)\big).
\end{equation}
Here, $\Box_T \varphi$ will denote a standard predicate on the natural numbers expressing ``the formula (with G\"odel number) $\varphi$ is provable in the theory $T$". Further, it is understood that ${\langle \xi \rangle}^\Lambda_T$ stands for $\neg [\xi]^\Lambda_T \neg$.
Rather than exposing a concrete theory where this recursion is formalizable in a particular way and provable, we will define a class of theories that are able to define and prove this recursion and have some additional desirable properties.
Next we shall see which properties of the predicates $[\zeta]^\Lambda_T$ can be proven from the mere recursion defined in \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability}. It will turn out that under some fairly general conditions we can prove the collection of predicates $[\zeta]^\Lambda_T$ for $\zeta<\Lambda$ to provide a sound interpretation for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$.
In Section \ref{section:completeness} we shall see that by requiring slightly more on our predicate and theory, this will give us arithmetical completeness.
In principle it would make sense to study \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} at a higher level of generality. For example, $T$ could be some version of set-theory allowing for uncountable $\Lambda$. As long as \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} is provable together withs some additional conditions, most of the results of this paper will carry over. It would be natural to require $\Box_T$ to be such that all \logic{GL} theorems are schematically provable in $T$ in such a setting.
\subsection{Theories amenable for Single Oracle M\"unchhausen provability}
For the sake of readability we shall often not distinguish between an ordinal $\alpha<\Gamma$, a notation for such an $\alpha$ or even an arithmetization of such a notation for $\alpha$. We shall however be explicit about the difference between the ordering $<$ on the ordinals and the arithmetization $\prec$ of this ordering on ordinals.
\begin{definition}
Let $T$ be a theory and let $\Lambda$ denote an ordinal equipped with a representation in the language of $T$ with corresponding represented ordering $\prec$. For this representation, it is required that
\[
\begin{array}{l}
T\vdash ``{\prec}\mbox{ is transitive, right-discrete and has a minimal element}",\\
T\vdash (\xi \prec \zeta) \to [\zeta]^\Lambda_T (\xi \prec \zeta),\\
\mbox{$\xi < \zeta < \Lambda$ implies $T\vdash \xi \prec \zeta$.\footnotemark}
\end{array}
\]
\footnotetext{This requirement can be dropped if we are happy with a soundness proof where all ordinals are internally quantified. In this case we assume that each $\alpha<\Gamma$ has a natural representation in $T$ so that it makes sense to speak about the soundness of the necessitation rule.}
We call $T$ a \emph{Single Oracle $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen Theory} --or a \emph{$\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen Theory} for short-- whenever there is a binary predicate $[\xi]_T^\Lambda \varphi$ with free variables $\xi$ and $\varphi$ so that
\[
T\vdash \forall \varphi\ \forall \alpha{\prec}\Lambda \Big(\ {[\zeta]_T^\Lambda} \phi \
\leftrightarrow \
\Box_T \phi \ \vee \ \exists \psi\, \exists \, \xi{\prec}\zeta\ \big({\langle \xi \rangle^\Lambda_T} \psi \ \wedge \ \Box_T (\, {\langle \xi \rangle^\Lambda_T} \psi \to \phi) \, \big) \, \Big).
\]
In this case, we call the binary predicate $[\xi]_T^\Lambda \varphi$ a corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate.
\end{definition}
The ``One" in ``$\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen Theory" refers to the fact that provability $[\zeta]_T^\Lambda$ at level $\zeta$ makes use of one single oracle sentence $\langle \xi \rangle^\Lambda_T \psi$. In Section \ref{section:MunchhausenProvabilityMultipleOracle} we shall see variations where we allow various oracle sentences to occur.
Often shall we simply drop the, or some of the indices of $[\xi]^\Lambda_T$ like for example in $[\xi]_T \varphi$ in case the ordinal $\Lambda$ is clear from the context. To shorten nomenclature further, we shall mostly simply speak of 1-M\"unchhausen theories and the corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability. Often, when we speak of 1-M\"unchhausen theories we implicitly assume that we have fixed some 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]\varphi$.
\begin{observation}
Since any 1-M\"unchhausen theory $T$ proves that there is a $\prec$-minimal element, we shall use the notation $0$ for this element even if the natural number (or object) representing this minimal element is not the natural number zero. Likewise, from right-discreteness we know that for any element $\alpha\prec \Lambda$, there is a next bigger element that we shall suggestively call $\alpha+1$. In analogy, we shall denote $0+1$ by $1$, $1+1$ by $2$, $2+1$ by $3$, etcetera.
\end{observation}
The following observation is immediate.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:ZeroMunchhausenIsNormalProvability}
Let $T$ be a Single Oracle $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen Theory with corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]^\Lambda_T$. We have that
\[
T \vdash \ \forall \varphi \ \big( [0]_T^\Lambda \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \Box_T \varphi \big).
\]
\end{lemma}
When working with sound theories, we know that all the corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen consistency statements are actually true:
\begin{proposition}\label{theorem:MHconsistencyStatementsAreTrue}
Let $T$ be a sound Single Oracle $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen Theory with corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]^\Lambda_T$. Then for each $\xi \prec \Lambda$ we have $\mathbb N \models \langle{\xi}\rangle_T^\Lambda\top$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By a simple case distinction. In case $\xi=0$, we get from a hypothetical $\mathbb N \models [0]_T \bot$ together with the soundness and the above lemma that $\mathbb N \models \Box_T \bot$ so that $T\vdash \bot$ which cannot be.
In case $\xi \succ 0$, suppose for a contradiction that $\mathbb N\models [{\xi}]_T \bot$. Then, using soundness of $T$, we only need to consider the case that
\[
\mathbb N \models \exists \psi\, \exists \, \zeta{\prec}\xi\ \big(\langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi \wedge \Box_T(\langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi\to \bot) \big),
\]
so that for some ordinal $\zeta \prec \xi$ and some formula $\psi$ we have $\mathbb N \models \langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi$. Also $\mathbb N \models \Box_T(\langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi\to \bot)$ so that $T\vdash \langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi\to \bot$ whence by soundness of $T$ we see that $\mathbb N \models\neg \langle{\zeta}\rangle_T \psi$ which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We note that the above argument does not use transfinite induction.
\section{On uniqueness of M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:OnUniqueness}
The definition of 1-M\"unchhausen provability allows for various different 1-M\"unchhausen predicates to exist. Of course, it would be highly desirable that the defining equivalence \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} for 1-M\"unchhausen provability defined a $T$ provably unique predicate. We can prove uniqueness of the predicate via an external induction up to any level below $\omega$.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega}
Let $T$ be a sound Single Oracle $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen Theory for $\Lambda\geq \omega$, with corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicates $[\alpha]^\Lambda_T$ and $\overline{[\alpha]}^\Lambda_T$. We have for any natural number $n$ that
\[
T\vdash \forall \varphi \ \big( [n]^\Lambda_T \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \overline{[n]}^\Lambda_T \varphi \big).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by an external induction where the base case follow directly from Lemma \ref{theorem:ZeroMunchhausenIsNormalProvability}. We shall omit super and sub indices.
For the inductive step, we reason in $T$, fix some formula $\varphi$, fix the $(n+1)$th element in the $\prec$ ordering and assume $[n+1]\varphi$. In the non-trivial case, there is some formula $\psi$ and an element $\tilde m{\prec}n+1$ so that $\langle \tilde m \rangle \psi$ and $\Box (\langle \tilde m \rangle \psi \to \varphi)$. Here we end our reasoning inside $T$. Since we can prove that any element $\prec$-below the externally given $n+1$ is either the zero-th, or the first, or \ldots or, the $n$-th element, we know that $\tilde m$ corresponds to some natural number $m<n+1$. Thus, we can appeal to the external induction hypothesis that tells us that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega:IH}
T\vdash \forall \psi \ ([m] \psi \leftrightarrow \overline{[m]}\psi)
\end{equation}
and consequently
\begin{equation}\label{equation:theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega:IHBoxed}
T\vdash \Box \forall \psi \ ([m] \psi \leftrightarrow \overline{[m]}\psi).
\end{equation}
These two ingredients are sufficient to conclude $\overline{[m]} \psi$. Of course the other direction goes exactly the same.
\end{proof}
Let us make some observations about this simple proof. First, we observe that we could only conclude \eqref{equation:theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega:IHBoxed} from \eqref{equation:theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega:IH} by necessitation since the meta-theory as in $T\vdash \ldots$ is the same as the object-theory as in $\Box_T$. Second, we observe that we only had access to the inductive hypothesis since we can express in the language of first order logic that being smaller than the $(n+1)$th element implies being equal to one of the zero-th, or \ldots, or the $n$th element. Of course, we cannot generalize this to the first limit ordinal and hence our external induction cannot be extended to the transfinite.
If we wish to generalize our argument to the transfinite, we should replace our external induction by an internal one. Of course, then in our meta-theory, we should have access to transfinite induction. However, we only see how to continue the proof in the case where the object theory equals the meta-theory and consequently also has the same amount of transfinite induciton.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:UniqueExtensionalProgressions}
Let $T$ be a theory that proves the recursion from \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} for two predicates $[\zeta]_U$ and $\overline{[\zeta]}_U$. We further suppose that $T$ proves the basic facts about the ordering $\langle \Lambda,\prec \rangle$. Also, we assume that $T$ proves transfinite $\Pi_1([\alpha], \overline{[\alpha]})$ induction.
If $T$ and $U$ are $T$-provably equivalent, then we have that $[\zeta]_U$ and $\overline{[\zeta]}_U$ are $T$-provably equivalent predicates.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have chosen a formulation where $T$ and $U$ are different from the outset so that we clearly see at what point we need to assume that $T$ is $T$-provably equivalent to $U$.
Thus, we reason in $T$ and will as a first attempt prove by transfinite $\Pi_1([\alpha], \overline{[\alpha]})$ induction that
\[
\forall \zeta \,\forall \varphi \ ([\zeta]_U\varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi).
\]
For $\zeta=0$ the equivalence is obvious. Thus, we fix some $\zeta \succ 0$ and focus on one implication the other being analogous. Thus, we assume that $[\zeta]_U \varphi$ and set out to prove $\overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi$.
From the assumption $[\zeta]_U \varphi$ we find --in the non-trivial case-- some formula $\psi$ and ordinal $\xi\prec\zeta$ so that $\langle \xi \rangle_U \psi$ and $\Box_U (\langle \xi \rangle_U \psi \to \varphi)$. The inductive hypothesis now will tell us that $\langle \xi \rangle_U \psi \leftrightarrow \overline{\langle \xi \rangle}_U \psi$.
However, there is no way that we know that this equivalence is \emph{provable}, that is, that we have $\Box_U \Big( \langle \xi \rangle_U \psi \leftrightarrow \overline{\langle \xi \rangle}_U \psi\Big)$. The latter would be needed to conclude $\Box_U (\overline{\langle \xi \rangle}_U \psi \to \varphi)$ so that $\overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi$.
The problem cannot be solved by strengthening the induction to for example
\[
\forall \phi\ \big [\ ([\zeta]_U \phi \leftrightarrow \overline{[\zeta]}_U\phi) \ \wedge\ \Box_U ([\dot\zeta]_U \phi \leftrightarrow \overline{[\dot \zeta]}_U\phi) \ \big ]
\]
since then the problem will simply come back but now under a box.
However, when $T = U$ we have access to transfinite reflexive induction as formulated in Lemma \ref{theorem:TransfiniteReflexiveInduction}. That is, in order to show that $\forall \varphi \ ([\zeta]_U\varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi)$ for a particular $\zeta$ we may assume both $\forall \, \xi{\prec}\zeta\, \forall \varphi \ ([\zeta]_U\varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi)$ and also $\Box_U \big (\forall \, \xi{\prec}\dot \zeta\, \forall \varphi \ ([\zeta]_U\varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \overline{[\zeta]}_U \varphi) \big)$ which makes that the proof now goes through easily.
\end{proof}
This lemma tells us that solutions to the recursion equivalence \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} need not be provably unique if the object theory $U$ is different from the meta theory $T$ or in case we do not have the sufficient amount of transfinite induction available. Not having provably unique fixpoints need not necessarily be a big problem and similar phenomena occur with for example Rosser fixpoints.
However, as we shall see in Section \ref{section:munchhausenSound}, we also need the object theory to be equal to the meta theory if we wish to prove the soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ with respect to the $[\zeta]^\Lambda_U$ predicates. In particular, the arithmetical soundness of the Necessitation rule requires the object and meta theory to be equal.
In case the object theory is not equal to the meta-theory, we can only prove a weak form of uniqueness as expressed in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:weakUniqueExtensionalProgressions}
Let $T$ be a theory that proves the recursion expressed in equation \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} for two predicates $[\zeta]_U$ and $\overline{[\zeta]}_{V}$ with $V$ possibly different from $U$. We further suppose that $T$ proves the basic facts about the ordering $\langle \Lambda,\prec \rangle$. Also, we assume that $T$ proves transfinite $\Pi_1([\alpha]_U, \overline{[\alpha]_V})$ induction.
In case $T$ proves the arithmetical soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ for both predicates $[\zeta]_U$ and $\overline{[\zeta]}_{V}$, then (omitting subscripts)
\[
T \vdash \forall \, \alpha {\prec}\Lambda \Big ( \ \big( \langle \alpha \rangle \top \leftrightarrow \overline {\langle \alpha\rangle} \top \big) \ \longrightarrow \forall \varphi\, \exists \psi \ ([\alpha]\varphi \leftrightarrow \overline{[\alpha]} \psi)\Big).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We reason in $T$ and proceed by a transfinite induction on $\alpha$. Thus, we assume the equi-consistency of both theories, fix some formula $\varphi$ and assume $[\alpha] \varphi$. The case where $\overline{[\alpha]}\bot$ is trivial, so we assume $\overline{\langle \alpha\rangle} \top$ whence also ${\langle \alpha\rangle} \top$. Thus, in case $\neg [\alpha]\varphi$ we may by consistency use $\psi = \bot$.
In case that $[\alpha]\varphi$ in virtue of $\Box_U \varphi$, we are done by the FGH theorem (Theorem \ref{theorem:FGH}) for the theory $V$ since $\Box_U \varphi \in \Sigma^0_1$. In the other case, there are $\beta \prec \alpha$ and $\chi$ so that $\langle \beta\rangle \chi$ and $\Box_U (\langle \beta\rangle \chi \to \varphi)$. By the IH we find some $\chi'$ so that $\overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi' \ \leftrightarrow \ \langle \beta\rangle \chi$. Since we work under the assumption of $\overline {\langle \alpha \rangle}\top$ and since the provability predicates are sound for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ we also have $\overline {\langle \alpha \rangle} \,\overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi'$ by Lemma \ref{theorem:basicGLPlemmas}.\ref{item:bigConsEquivSmallCons:theorem:basicGLPlemmas} and, in particular $\Diamond_V \overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi'$. Since we now know the consistency of the theory $V + \overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi'$ we may apply the FGH theorem to obtain a $\psi$ with
\[
\Box_U (\langle \beta\rangle \chi \to \varphi) \ \leftrightarrow \ \Box_{V + \overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi'} \psi.
\]
By the formalised deduction theorem we may conclude $\Box_{V} \big( \overline{\langle \beta\rangle} \chi' \to \psi \big)$ whence $[\alpha]\varphi \leftrightarrow [\alpha]\psi$.
\end{proof}
In this section we have shown that in general we cannot prove that 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicates are uniquely defined by the recursion in \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability}. Only in the finite ordinals can we prove uniqueness. This allows us to relate the provability notions from this paper to similar ones from the literature. The most prominent example is given by the predicate
\[
[n]^{\sf True}_T \varphi \ \ \ \mbox{ which stands for } \ \ \ \ \exists \, \pi {\in} \Pi^0_1\ \Big({\sf True}_{\Pi^0_1}(\pi) \wedge \Box_T\big( \pi \to \varphi \big)\Big ).
\]
Furthermore, in \cite{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability} a reading is given where the modal operators $[n]\varphi$ are interpreted as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{equation:boxBoxDefinition}
\begin{split}
\boxBox 0_T\phi \ \ \ &:= \Box_T \phi, \ \ \mbox{ and }\\
\boxBox{n+1}_T \phi \ \ \ &:= \ \Box_T \phi \ \vee \ \exists \, \psi \ \bigvee_{0\leq m \leq n} \Big(\boxDiamond{m}_T \psi \ \wedge \ \Box (\boxDiamond{m}_T \psi \to \phi)\Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Soundness for this interpretation in \ensuremath{{\mathrm{PA}}}\xspace was proven and a strong relation was given to the truth provability predicates $[n]^{\sf True}_T$.
The next Lemma is a strengthening on the one hand since we weaken the base theory to \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace and a weakening on the other hand since we only consider two modalities.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:OldPaperIsGood}
Let $T$ be a theory that contains \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace.
We have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \vdash \forall \varphi \ (\boxBox 1_T \varphi \leftrightarrow [1]^{\sf True}_T \varphi)$;
\item
${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_2$ is sound for $T$ when interpreting $[0]$ as $\Box_T$ and $[1]$ as $\boxBox 1_T$;
\item In case that moreover $T$ proves the $\Sigma^0_1$-collection principle we have\\
$T \vdash \forall \, \varphi\, \forall \psi\, \exists \chi \ \big( \boxBox{1}_T \varphi \vee \boxBox{1}_T \psi \leftrightarrow \boxBox{1}_T \chi\big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to prove inside \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace that $\boxBox 0 \varphi \leftrightarrow \Box \varphi$ (we omit the subscripts). Likewise, $\boxBox 0 \varphi \to \boxBox 1 \varphi$ and $\boxBox 1 \bot \to \boxBox 1 \varphi$ are easy to prove. With these ingredients the first item easily follows: one direction is obvious since any oracle sentence of the form $\Diamond \psi$ is in $\Pi^0_1$. The other direction is immediate in case $ \boxBox 0 \bot$ and in the case $\boxDiamond 1 \top$ it follows from the FGH theorem since under the consistency assumption, any $\Pi^0_1$ formula is equivalent and provably so to a formula of the form $\Diamond \psi$.
The second item follows from the first since the statement holds for the $[n]^{\sf True}_T$ provability predicates (see e.g. \cite{Beklemishev:2005:Survey}).
The third item is implicit in \cite{Joosten:2015:TuringJumpsThroughProvability} and explicitly stated and proven in \cite{Joosten:2019:TransfiniteTuringjumps} for the $[1]^{\sf True}_T$ predicate which suffices by the first item of this lemma.
\end{proof}
Via an easy external induction we can prove that \eqref{equation:boxBoxDefinition} and \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability} define provably equivalent predices for all natural numbers. That is to say, if $T$ is a 1-M\"unchhausen theory, then for each natural number $n$ we have that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:OldPaperIsSpecialCaseOfCurrentPaper}
T\vdash \forall \varphi \ \big( \boxBox{n}_T \varphi \leftrightarrow [n]_T^\Lambda \varphi \big)
\end{equation}
for any 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]_T^\Lambda$. Moreover, in Lemma \ref{theorem:UniquePredicatesTillOmega} we know that any 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]_T^\Lambda$ will be uniquely defined up to $\omega$. For later in the paper, we formulate the following corollary:
\begin{corollary}\label{theorem:FirstTwoPredicatesAreGood}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-1-M\"unchhausen theory with $\Lambda>2$ and corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]_T^\Lambda$. Moreover, let $T$ contain ${\sf B}\Sigma_1^0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_2$ is sound for $T$ when interpreting $[0]$ as $[0]_T^\Lambda$ and $[1]$ as $[1]^\Lambda_T$;
\item
$T \vdash \forall \, \varphi\, \forall \psi\, \exists \chi \ \big( [1]^\Lambda_T \varphi \vee [1]^\Lambda_T \psi \leftrightarrow [1]^\Lambda_T \chi\big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows directly from \eqref{equation:OldPaperIsSpecialCaseOfCurrentPaper} and Lemma \ref{theorem:OldPaperIsGood}.
\end{proof}
\section{Arithmetical Soundness for One-M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:munchhausenSound}
In this section we will consider $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theories $T$ and their corresponding $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen provability predicates for some fixed ordinal $\Lambda$ represented in $T$ . We shall see that from the mere defining recursion on the provability predicate we can obtain soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$.
Many arguments in this section require transfinite induction. As we have observed in Subsection \ref{section:OrdinalAnalysis} this means that the base theory should also prove a decent amount of transfinite induction. In Section \ref{section:MunchhausenProvabilityMultipleOracle} we shall see how the need of transfinite induction can be circumvented by slightly altering the defining recursion.
Let us start the soundness proof by some basic observations that need very little arithmetical strength to be proven. In particular, the following facts do not require transfinite induction.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:boxBoxExfalso}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding provability predicate $[\xi]_T^\Lambda$. We have the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$T \vdash \forall \xi\, \forall \chi\ \big ( \bBox{\xi}_T \bot \to \bBox{\xi}_T \chi \big )$ and more in general,
\item
$T \vdash \forall \xi\, \forall \varphi, \chi \ \Big( \bBox{\xi}_T \varphi \, \wedge\, \Box_T (\varphi \to \chi) \to \bBox{\xi}_T\chi\Big)$,
\item \label{item:BoxConjunctions:theorem:boxBoxExfalso}
$T \vdash \forall \varphi\, \forall \psi \ \Big( \bBox{\xi}_T \varphi \, \wedge\, \Box_T \psi \to \bBox{\xi}_T(\varphi \wedge \psi)\Big)$,
\item \label{item:existsGoesInTheBox:theorem:boxBoxExfalso}
$T \vdash \exists x \ \bBox{\xi}_T \varphi (\dot x) \ \to \ \bBox{\xi}_T \exists x\varphi ( x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, the first item follows from the second, so we reason in $T$ and assume $\bBox{\xi}_T \varphi$. Thus, in the non-trivial case, for some $\psi$ and for some $\zeta \prec \xi$ we have $\bDiamond{\zeta}_T \psi$ and $\Box_T (\bDiamond{\zeta}_T \psi \to \varphi)$. Clearly, since $\Box_T (\varphi \to \chi)$, we have also $\Box_T (\bDiamond{\zeta}_T \psi \to \chi)$ so that $\bBox{\xi}_T\chi$.
The third item follows from the second since in case of $\Box_T \psi$ we also have $\Box_T \big( \varphi \to (\varphi \wedge \psi)\big)$.
The fourth item follows by an easy case distinction on $\xi$ being zero or not and both cases essentially follow from the fact that provably $\exists x \Box_T \varphi (\dot x) \ \to \ \Box_T \exists x \varphi (x)$.
\end{proof}
From our defining recursion \eqref{equation:ramifiedProvability}, we get the axiom of negative introspection and the axiom of monotonicity almost for free.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\xi < \zeta < \Lambda$ be ordinals in a $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theory $T$. We have
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item:negativeIntrospection:theorem:crossAxiomsSoundNonFormalized}
$T \vdash \forall \varphi\ \big( \bDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi \ \to \ \bBox{\zeta}_T \bDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi \big)$;
\item\label{item:monotonicity:theorem:crossAxiomsSoundNonFormalized}
$T \vdash \forall \varphi \ \big ( \bBox{\xi}_T \varphi \ \to \ \bBox{\zeta}_T \varphi \big )$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Item \ref{item:negativeIntrospection:theorem:crossAxiomsSoundNonFormalized} is immediate since $\Box_T(\boxDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi \to \boxDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi )$ using the fact that $\xi < \zeta$ implies $T\vdash \xi \prec \zeta$. Likewise, Item \ref{item:monotonicity:theorem:crossAxiomsSoundNonFormalized} follows directly from the definition since provably $\eta \prec \xi \to \eta \prec \zeta$ (recall that we required that M\"unchhausen theories prove the transitivity of $\prec$ and moreover, $\xi < \zeta$ implies $T\vdash \xi \prec \zeta$).
\end{proof}
It is easy yet important to observe that we actually have a formalized version of the previous lemma where we internally quantify over the ordinals. As such, the formalized lemma can be used for example in an induction where possibly non-standard ordinals are called upon.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:crossAxiomsSound}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theory. We have
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item:negativeIntrospection:theorem:crossAxiomsSound}
$T \vdash \forall \xi {\prec} \zeta {\prec} \Lambda\, \forall \varphi\ \big( \bDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi \ \to \ \bBox{\zeta}_T \bDiamond{\xi}_T \varphi \big)$;
\item\label{item:monotonicity:theorem:crossAxiomsSound}
$T \vdash \forall \xi {\prec} \zeta {\prec} \Lambda\, \forall \varphi \ \big ( \bBox{\xi}_T \varphi \ \to \ \bBox{\zeta}_T \varphi \big )$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
These cross axioms are for many interpretations of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ actually the harder axioms to prove sound. But in the M\"unchhausen interpretations they come almost for free.
The above lemma can also be interpreted that any 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate is monotone in the ordinal parameter. We note that it is not trivial to see that the 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate is monotone in the underlying base theory: Suppose that, for example we have a formulation of elementary arithmetic and axiomatic set theory so that provably $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \subset \ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace$. This means that for any formula $\varphi$ we have $\Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \varphi \to \Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \varphi$. Is it now easy to see that we also have the expected $[1]_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \varphi \to [1]_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \varphi$?
Let us suppose that $\bBox{1}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \varphi$ because of some $\bDiamond{0}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace\psi$ with $\Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace (\bDiamond{0}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \psi \to \varphi)$. A priori it is not at all clear how this information will yield us a $\psi'$ so that $\Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \Big(\bDiamond{0}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \psi' \to \varphi \Big)$ and furthermore $\bDiamond{0}_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \psi'$: where would we get so much $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace$ consistency strength from?\footnote{We have that \ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace is much stronger than \ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace, whence provably $\Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \chi \to \Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \chi$. Consequently, in this particular example we could take $\psi' = \Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \psi$: in case $\Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \bot$ we trivially have $\Box_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \varphi$ and $\Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \top \to (\Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \psi \leftrightarrow \Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ZFC}}}\xspace \Diamond_\ensuremath{{\mathrm{EA}}}\xspace \psi)$. However, for general $T\subset U$ we cannot use the same formula $\Diamond_T \psi$ to guarantee $[1]_T \varphi \to [1]_U \varphi$.}
At this point we can prove the soundness of the necessitation rule.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:necessitationSoundForOneMunchhausenProvability}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding 1-M\"unchhausen provability predicate $[\alpha]_T^\Lambda$. For any $\alpha\prec\Lambda$ we have that if $T\vdash \varphi$, then $T\vdash [\alpha]^\Lambda_T \varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will only show $\frac{\varphi}{\Box_T \varphi}$. This is sufficient since necessitation for larger ordinals $\frac{\varphi}{[\alpha]_T \varphi}$ follows from the monotonicity of the predicate in $\alpha$. But, as always $T\vdash \varphi$ can be expressed as a $\Sigma^0_1$ sentence which is true whence by $\Sigma^0_1$ completeness we get $T\vdash \Box_T \varphi$.
\end{proof}
We shall now prove the remaining {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace axioms to be sound. The following lemma which was proven in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP}, tells us that we don't need to care about L\"ob's axiom $\boxBox{\xi} (\boxBox{\xi} \varphi \to \varphi) \to \boxBox{\xi} \varphi$.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:noLoebNeeded}
Let ${\sf GL}^\blacksquare$ denote the extension of $\sf GL$ with a new operator $\blacksquare$ and the following axioms for all formulas $\phi,\mbox{ and }\psi$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\vdash{\Box}\phi\to \blacksquare\phi$,
\item $\vdash \blacksquare(\phi\to\psi)\to(\blacksquare\phi\to \blacksquare\psi)$ and,
\item $\vdash \blacksquare\phi\to \blacksquare\blacksquare\phi$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, for all $\phi$,
\[{\sf GL}^\blacksquare\vdash \blacksquare(\blacksquare\phi\to\phi)\to \blacksquare\phi.\]
\end{lemma}
Consequently, we only need to focus on the transitivity axioms $\bBox{\xi}\varphi \to \bBox{\xi}\bBox{\xi}\varphi$ and distribution axioms $\bBox{\xi} (\varphi \to \psi) \to (\bBox{\xi} \varphi \to \bBox{\xi} \psi)$ in our soundness proof. It is in this part where we need to assume that the object and meta theory are equal so that we have access to transfinite reflexive induction as formulated in Lemma \ref{theorem:TransfiniteReflexiveInduction}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:boxGLPSound}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-One-M\"unchhausen theory and let $[\alpha]^\Lambda_T$ be a corresponding provability predicate. If $T$ proves transfinite $\Pi_2^0([\alpha]^\Lambda_T)$ induction we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:GLPsound:theorem:boxGLPSound}
$T$ proves that all the rules and axioms of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace are sound wr.t.~$T$ by interpreting $[\alpha]$ as $\bBox{\alpha}_T^\Lambda$; in particular
\item \label{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}
Distributivity:
$T \vdash \forall \alpha \, \forall \varphi \, \forall \psi \ \Big( \bBox{\alpha}_T^\Lambda(\varphi \to \psi) \to (\bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \to \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi)\Big)$;
\item \label{item:conjunctions:theorem:boxGLPSound}
Closure under conjunctions:
\[
T\vdash \forall \alpha \, \forall \varphi\, \forall \psi \ \Big( \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \wedge \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi \ \ \leftrightarrow \ \ \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}(\varphi \wedge \psi) \Big);
\]
\item \label{item:disjunctions:theorem:boxGLPSound}
Weak closure under disjunctions:
$T\vdash \forall \alpha \, \forall \varphi\, \forall \psi \, \exists \chi \ \Big(\bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \vee \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi \ \ \leftrightarrow \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\chi \Big)$;
\item \label{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}
Transitivity:
$T \vdash \forall \alpha \, \forall \varphi\ \Big ( \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda} \varphi \to \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda} \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \Big )$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If we wish to prove Item \ref{item:GLPsound:theorem:boxGLPSound}, we should prove the soundness of the rules and of the axioms.
As to the rules, the only rules of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace are modus ponens and a necessitation rule for each modality: $\displaystyle \frac{\varphi}{\boxBox{\xi}_T\varphi}$. As pointed out in Lemma \ref{theorem:necessitationSoundForOneMunchhausenProvability} the soundness of the necessitation rules follows from necessitation for $\Box_T$ and by monotonicity, Lemma \ref{theorem:crossAxiomsSound}. As always, the soundness of modus ponens is immediate.
In the remainder of our proof we shall thus focus on the axioms. Since we proved the correctness of the negative introspection axioms -- axioms of the form $\langle \beta \rangle \varphi \to \bBox{\alpha} \langle \beta \rangle \varphi$ for $\beta < \alpha$--and of the monotonicity axioms --axioms of the form $\bBox{\beta} \varphi \to \bBox{\alpha} \varphi$ for $\beta < \alpha$-- without any induction in Lemma \ref{theorem:crossAxiomsSound} and since by Lemma \ref{theorem:noLoebNeeded} we may disregard L\"ob's axiom, we set out to prove the remaining axioms which are just the distribution and the transitivity axioms to complete a proof of Item \ref{item:GLPsound:theorem:boxGLPSound}. In other words, to complete the proof of Item \ref{item:GLPsound:theorem:boxGLPSound} we should prove Items \ref{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} and \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}.
To prove that both items hold up to a certain level $\alpha<\Lambda$ we proceed by an internal transfinite reflexive induction on $\alpha$ as expressed in Lemma \ref{theorem:TransfiniteReflexiveInduction}. We need to prove both items simultaneously since they depend on each other. As a matter of fact, to get the proof going we will need to do some induction building and prove Items \ref{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} -- \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} of the proof simultaneously by a transfinite reflexive induction on $\alpha$.
Thus, we will reason in $T$ and shall mostly omit the subscript $T$ and superscript $\Lambda$ in the remainder of this proof. The base case of the theorem is known to hold via the soundness of \logic{GL} and the FGH theorem.
For the reflexive inductive step, we are to prove our four items (Items \ref{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} -- \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}) at level $\alpha$ assuming that
we have access to all four items at any level $\beta\prec\alpha$ and we also have these four items under a regular provability predicate $\Box_T$ at any level $\beta'\prec \alpha$. As we observed before, Item \ref{item:GLPsound:theorem:boxGLPSound} at level $\alpha$ (soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\alpha$) follows directly from Items \ref{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} -- \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} for levels $\beta\prec\alpha$. Thus, we may in our inductive step assume that we have access --and $T$-provably so-- to all ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\alpha$ reasoning. Let us thus focus on the first item to prove:
{\bf Item \ref{item:conjunctions:theorem:boxGLPSound}}:
$ \forall \varphi\, \forall \psi \ \Big( \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \wedge \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi \ \ \leftrightarrow \ \ \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}(\varphi \wedge \psi) \Big)$. We fix some $\varphi$ and $\psi$ and assume $\bBox{\alpha}\varphi$ and $\bBox{\alpha}\psi$. We consider two cases. In the easy case, we have that at least one of $\Box\varphi$ or $\Box \psi$ holds in which case the result directly follows from Lemma \ref{theorem:boxBoxExfalso}.\ref{item:BoxConjunctions:theorem:boxBoxExfalso}.
In the remaining case, by the recursion equation for $\bBox{\alpha}$, we find ordinals $\beta, \beta' <\alpha$ and some formulas $\varphi', \psi'$ so that $\bDiamond{\beta}\varphi'$, $\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi'$, $\Box \big(\bDiamond{\beta}\varphi' \to \varphi\big)$ and $\Box \big(\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi'\to \psi \big)$.
We first remark that w.l.o.g.~we may assume $\beta'=\beta$. For, if e.g.~$\beta'<\beta$, then by Lemma \ref{theorem:basicGLPlemmas}.\ref{item:bigConsEquivSmallCons:theorem:basicGLPlemmas} we see that $\bDiamond{\beta}\top \ \to \ \big ( \bDiamond{\beta'}\psi' \ \leftrightarrow \ \bDiamond{\beta}\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi'\big)$ with $\bDiamond{\beta}\varphi' \to \bDiamond{\beta}\top$. Since we perform a transfinite \emph{reflexive} induction, we also have our inductive hypotheses under a $\Box$ and in particular $\Box\big(\bDiamond{\beta}\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi' \to \bDiamond{\beta'}\psi' \big)$. Thus, we see that $\bDiamond{\beta}\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi' \wedge \Box\big(\bDiamond{\beta}\bDiamond{\beta'}\psi' \to \psi \big)$ whence
\[
\exists \psi'' \ \Big(\bDiamond{\beta}\psi'' \wedge \Box\big(\bDiamond{\beta}\psi'' \to \psi \big) \Big).
\]
So, we assume $\beta'=\beta < \alpha$, and by the inductive hypothesis (on Item \ref{item:disjunctions:theorem:boxGLPSound}), we find $\chi$ with $\bDiamond{\beta}\chi \ \leftrightarrow \ \bDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \wedge \bDiamond{\beta}\psi'$ whence by the reflexive induction hypothesis also $\Box \big ( \bDiamond{\beta}\chi \ \leftrightarrow \ \bDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \wedge \bDiamond{\beta}\psi'\big )$. Consequently, we have that $\Box(\langle \beta \rangle \chi \to \varphi \wedge \psi)$ and we are done with the direction $[ \alpha] \varphi \wedge [ \alpha ] \psi \to [\alpha](\varphi \wedge \psi)$. The other direction follows directly from Lemma \ref{theorem:boxBoxExfalso} since $\Box \big( (\varphi \wedge \psi) \to \varphi \big)$ and $\Box \big( (\varphi \wedge \psi) \to \psi \big)$.
{\bf Item \ref{item:distributivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}}: $\forall \varphi \, \forall \psi \ \Big( \bBox{\alpha}_T^\Lambda(\varphi \to \psi) \to (\bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \to \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi)\Big)$.
From the previous item we know that
\[
[{\alpha}] (\varphi\to \psi) \wedge [{\alpha}]\varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ [{\alpha}]\Big ( (\varphi\to \psi) \wedge \varphi \Big)
\]
so that the result follows from Lemma \ref{theorem:boxBoxExfalso}.
{\bf Item \ref{item:disjunctions:theorem:boxGLPSound}}: $\forall \varphi\, \forall \psi \, \exists \chi \ \Big(\bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \vee \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\psi \ \ \leftrightarrow \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\chi \Big)$.
We still reason in $T$ and assume that for some arbitrary $\varphi$ and $\psi$ we have $ [{\alpha}] \varphi$ or $ [{\alpha}] \psi$. By Corollary \ref{theorem:FirstTwoPredicatesAreGood} we may assume that $\alpha \geq 2$ (observe that our assumption that $T$ proves transfinite $\Pi_2^0([\alpha]^\Lambda_T)$ induction, implies that certainly $T$ proves $\Sigma^0_1$ collection). Under this assumption we make a case distinction.
In case that $\nboxBox{\alpha} \bot$ we see by Lemma \ref{theorem:boxBoxExfalso} that for any formula $\chi$ we have $\nboxBox{\alpha}\chi \ \leftrightarrow \ \big( \nboxBox {\alpha} \varphi \vee \nboxBox {\alpha} \psi \big)$ so that equivalence certainly holds for the $\chi$ we propose in the alternative case.
That is, we consider the case that $\nboxDiamond{\alpha} \top$. We claim that under this assumption, e.g.~$\nboxBox \alpha \varphi$ is equivalent to the single $\exists \, \beta {\prec} \alpha \, \exists \varphi' \ \big(\nboxDiamond {\beta} \varphi' \wedge \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi) \big)$. But this is clear since by definition $\nboxBox \alpha \varphi$ is equivalent to
\[
\Box \varphi \ \vee \ \exists \, \beta {\prec} \alpha \, \exists \varphi' \ \big(\nboxDiamond {\beta} \varphi' \wedge \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi) \big)
\]
so we only need to see that the first disjunct $\Box \varphi$ implies the second. But since we work under the assumption that $\nboxDiamond \alpha \top$, in particular, we have $\nboxDiamond \beta \top$ for any ordinal $\beta \prec \alpha$. Moreover, for any such $\beta$ we have that $\Box \varphi \to \Box (\nboxDiamond \beta \top \to \varphi)$ so that the claim follows.
Using this observation, we find by unfolding the definition of 1-M\"unchhausen provability in $\nboxBox{\alpha} \varphi \vee \nboxBox{\alpha} \psi$ some formulas $\varphi'$ and $\psi'$ and some ordinals $\beta,\beta'<\alpha$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:disjunctionUnfoldedFirstStep}
\nboxDiamond {\beta} \varphi' \wedge \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi)\ \mbox{ or } \ \nboxDiamond{\beta'} \psi' \wedge \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta'} \psi' \to \psi).
\end{equation}
Since we work under the assumption that $\nboxDiamond{\alpha} \top$ holds with $\alpha \geq 2$, we certainly have $\nboxDiamond{\max{\{ \beta,\beta', 1 \}}}\top$ so that as before we may and will assume without loss of generality that $\beta'=\beta$ and $\beta\geq 1$.
Using the distributivity laws we see that \eqref{equation:disjunctionUnfoldedFirstStep} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{equation:diamondFormulasInClosureUnderDisjunctionProof}
\Big ( \nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \vee \nboxDiamond{\beta} \psi' \Big ) \ \wedge \ \Big( \nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \vee\, \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \psi' \to \psi) \Big) \ \wedge \ \Big( \nboxDiamond{\beta} \psi' \vee \, \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi) \Big)
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}\label{equation:boxFormulasInClosureUnderDisjunctionProof}
\Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi) \ \ \vee \ \ \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \psi' \to \psi).
\end{equation}
By the reflexive induction hypotheses and by Lemma \ref{theorem:basicGLPlemmas}.\ref{item:boxDisjunctionDiamond:theorem:basicGLPlemmas} --by the inductive hypothesis and Lemma \ref{theorem:GLPconservativelyExtendsFragments} we may use any ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\beta$ reasoning--
we see that \eqref{equation:diamondFormulasInClosureUnderDisjunctionProof} can be written as a single diamond formula, say $\nboxDiamond{\beta} \chi'$. Thus, we would be done if we can find some formula $\chi$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:existsChiRequirementInClosureDisjunctionProof}
\Big ( \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \varphi' \to \varphi) \ \ \vee \ \ \Box (\nboxDiamond{\beta} \psi' \to \psi)\Big ) \ \ \leftrightarrow \ \ \Box(\nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi' \to \chi).
\end{equation}
We will find such a $\chi$ by applying the FGH theorem with base theory $T+\langle \beta \rangle \chi'$. It thus remains to see that this theory $T+\langle \beta \rangle \chi'$ is consistent.
From $\nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi'$ we get by negative introspection (Lemma \ref{theorem:crossAxiomsSound}.\ref{item:negativeIntrospection:theorem:crossAxiomsSound}) that $\nboxBox{\alpha}\nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi'$. Recall that we work under the assumption that $\nboxDiamond{\alpha}\top$ so that by distributivity at level $\alpha$ --which is already known at this stage in our proof-- we get
\[
\nboxDiamond{\alpha}\top \wedge \nboxBox{\alpha}\nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi' \to \nboxDiamond{\alpha}\nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi'
\]
whence by monotonicity we get $\Diamond \boxDiamond{\beta}\chi'$ whence $\Diamond_{T+ \nboxDiamond{\beta}\chi'} \top$.
The existence of some $\chi$ so that
\eqref{equation:existsChiRequirementInClosureDisjunctionProof} holds is now guaranteed by the (formalized) FGH theorem applied to the theory $T + \boxDiamond{\beta}\chi'$ since
\[
\Box (\boxDiamond{n} \varphi' \to \varphi) \ \ \vee \ \ \Box (\boxDiamond{n} \psi' \to \psi) \in \Sigma^0_1.
\]
{\bf Item \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound}}: $\forall \varphi\ \Big ( \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda} \varphi \to \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda} \bBox{\alpha}_T^{\Lambda}\varphi \Big )$.
While reasoning in $T$ we assume $\nboxBox{\alpha}\varphi$ and only consider the non-trivial case. Thus, for some $\varphi'$ and some $\beta\prec \alpha$ we get $\nboxDiamond {\beta}\varphi'$ and $\Box(\nboxDiamond {\beta}\varphi' \to \varphi)$. By negative introspection we get $\nboxBox{\alpha} \nboxDiamond{\beta}\varphi'$. Since $T$ is a 1-M\"unchhausen theory it proves some properties of the order $\prec$. In particular, from $\beta\prec\alpha$, we also get $\nboxBox{\alpha} (\beta\prec \alpha)$. From $\Box(\nboxDiamond {\beta}\varphi' \to \varphi)$ we obtain by applying successively provable $\Sigma^0_1$ completeness and monotonicity that $\nboxBox{\alpha}\Box(\nboxDiamond {\beta}\varphi' \to \varphi)$. Since we already proved closure of the $[\alpha]$ predicate under conjunctions, we can collect all the information under the $\nboxBox{\alpha}$ and applying Lemma \ref{theorem:crossAxiomsSound}.\ref{item:existsGoesInTheBox:theorem:boxBoxExfalso} we see that we have obtained $\nboxBox{\alpha}\nboxBox{\alpha}\varphi$.
\end{proof}
\section{Completeness of M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:completeness}
In this section we shall prove that under some modest set of extra assumptions, we can obtain completeness of one-M\"unchhausen provability. Basically, this section consist of invoking a result from \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} and recasting it in our context. Let us first recall some definitions and results.
\subsection{Uniform proof and provability predicates}
The definitions and results from this subsection all come from \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} where an arithmetical completeness proof is given that is schematic in an abstract kind of provability predicates. A first step in defining these provability predicates consists of defining so-called \emph{$\Lambda$-uniform proof and provability predicates over $T$}.
\begin{definition}\label{UProv}
Let $T$ be representable and $\Lambda$ a linear order. Given a formula $\pi(c,\lambda,\phi)$, we introduce the notation $\provXc c\lambda \pi{\phi}=\pi(c,\lambda,\phi)$, as well as $\provx \lambda\pi\phi=\exists c \provXc c \lambda \pi{\phi}$. The dual notions $\consXc c\lambda\pi{\phi}$ and $\consx {\xi}\pi{\phi}$ are defined as $\neg \pi(c,\lambda,\neg \phi)$ and $\neg \exists c \provXc c \lambda \pi{\neg \phi}$ respectively.
A {\em $\Lambda$-uniform proof predicate over $T$} is a formula $\pi(c,\lambda,\phi)$ (with all free variables shown) satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$T\vdash {\mathrm{I}\Sigma_{1}^0}(\pi)$;\label{UProv1}
\item
$T\vdash\forall \lambda\forall\phi\ ({\Box}_T\phi\rightarrow \provx\lambda\pi\phi)$;\label{UProv2}
\item
$T\vdash\forall \lambda\forall \phi\forall\psi \ \Big(\provx \lambda\pi(\psi\to\phi)\wedge\provx \lambda\pi\psi\rightarrow \provx \lambda\pi\phi\Big)$;\label{UProv3}
\item
$T\vdash\forall c\, \forall \lambda \, \forall \xi{\leq_\Lambda}\lambda\, \forall \phi\ \Big(\provXc c\xi \pi{\phi}\rightarrow \provXc c\lambda \pi \phi\Big)$;\label{UProvNew}
\item
$T\vdash\forall c\, \forall \lambda\, \forall \phi\ \Big(\provXc c\lambda\pi{\phi}\rightarrow \provx\lambda \pi \provXc{\dot c}{\dot\lambda}{\pi}{\dot\phi}\Big)$;\label{UProv4}
\item
$T\vdash\forall c \forall \lambda\, \forall \phi\ \Big(\consXc c\lambda\pi{\phi}\rightarrow \provx\lambda \pi \consXc{\dot c}{\dot\lambda}{\pi}{\dot\phi}\Big)$;\label{UProv5}
\item
$T\vdash\forall \lambda\, \forall\, \xi{\leLam}\lambda\, \forall \phi\ \Big ( \consx {\xi}\pi{\phi}\rightarrow \provx{\lambda}\pi{{\consx {\dot\xi}{\pi}{\dot\phi}}}\Big)$.\label{UProv6}
\end{enumerate}
We say that $\pi$ is {\em sound}\footnote{Observe that for $\pi$ to be sound, we must have that $T$ itself was already sound.} if, moreover, $\mathbb N\models \forall \lambda\forall \phi\ (\provx\lambda\pi\phi\rightarrow \phi)$.
A formula $\hat\pi$ is a {\em $\Lambda$-uniform provability predicate} over $T$ if $T\vdash \hat\pi\leftrightarrow \exists c\ \pi$, where $\pi$ is a $\Lambda$-uniform proof predicate.
\end{definition}
Moreover, the provability predicates are required to require a modicum of good behaviour as captured in the following definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $\pi$ be a $\Lambda$-uniform proof predicate over a theory $T$. We say that $\pi$ is {\em normalized} if it is provable in $T$ that for every $\lambda$ we have that every $\lambda$-derivable formula has infinitely many $\lambda$-derivations and, whenever $\provXc c\lambda \pi\phi$ and $\provXc c\lambda \pi\psi$, it follows that $\phi=\psi$; in other words, every derivation must be a derivation of a single formula.
\end{definition}
Modal formulas are linked to arithmetical ones via an arithmetic interpretation.
\begin{definition}
An {\em arithmetic interpretation} is a function\footnote{By $\mathbb P$ we denote the set of propositional variables and by ${\mathcal S}^1_\omega$ we denote the set of $\Pi^1_\omega$ sentences.} $f:\mathbb P\to {\mathcal S}^1_\omega$.
If $\pi$ is a $\Lambda$-uniform proof predicate over $T$, we denote by $f_\pi$ the unique extension of $f$ such that $f_\pi(p)=f(p)$ for every propositional variable $p$, $f_\pi(\bot)=\bot$, $f_\pi$ commutes with Booleans and $f_\pi([\lambda]\phi)=[\overline\lambda]_\pi f_\pi(\phi)$.
\end{definition}
The following uniform completeness theorem is proven in \cite[Theorem 10.2]{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} and provides us with an easy way to prove completeness for our current interpretation.
\begin{theorem}\label{complete}
If $\Lambda$ is a computable linear order, $T$ is any sound, representable theory extending $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{RCA}}_0}\xspace$, $\pi$ is a sound, normalized, $\Lambda$-uniform proof predicate over $T$ and $\phi$ is any ${\mathcal L}_\nc$-formula, ${\sf GLP}_\Lambda\vdash \phi$ if and only if, for every arithmetic interpretation $f$, $T\vdash f_\pi(\phi)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Arithmetical completeness for M\"unchhausen provability}
We can now combine the results from this paper and the previous subsection to see that under some extra conditions we obtain arithmetical completeness for one-M\"unchhausen provability.
\begin{theorem}[Arithmetical Completeness]\label{theorem:MunchhausenArithmeticalComplete}
Let $\Lambda$ be a computable linear order, $T$ is any sound, representable one-M\"unchhausen theory extending $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{RCA}}_0}\xspace$ with corresponding provability predicate ${\nboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda \varphi$ so that $T\vdash {\mathrm{I}\Sigma_{1}^0}({\nboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda \varphi)$. We then have that ${\nboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda \varphi$ is a uniform provability predicate and in particular,
\[
{\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda \vdash \varphi \ \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \ \forall * \ T \vdash \varphi^*.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As always, the $*$ in the statement of the theorem is understood to range over arithmetical interpretations that map propositional variables to arbitrary sentences, so that $*$ commutes with the boolean connectives and each modal formula $[\alpha] \psi$ is mapped to ${{\nboxBox{\overline \alpha}_T}}^\Lambda \psi^*$.
From our provability predicate (omitting sub and superscripts) $\nboxBox \alpha \varphi$ we will define a proof predicate $\pi (c,\lambda,\phi)$ for which we will observe that over $T$ it is a normalized uniform proof predicate so that provably $\exists c\ \pi (c,\lambda,\phi) \ \leftrightarrow \ \nboxBox \lambda \phi$. To this end we define
\[
\pi (c,\lambda,\phi) \ := \ c=\langle c_0, c_1\rangle \wedge \left \{
\begin{array}{lcll}
\Big ( c_0 =0 &\wedge& {\sf Proof}_T(c_1, \phi) \Big) & \vee\\
\Bigg( c_0 =1 &\wedge & c_1 = \langle \xi, \psi, p\rangle \ \wedge \ \xi \prec \lambda \ \ \ \wedge & \\
& & \boxDiamond \xi \psi \wedge {\sf Proof}_T(p, \boxDiamond \xi \psi \to \phi)\Bigg).\\
\end{array}
\right .
\]
It is straightforward to see that, indeed, $T \vdash \exists c\ \pi (c,\lambda,\phi) \ \leftrightarrow \ \nboxBox \lambda \phi$. Since ${\sf Proof}_T$ is a normalized proof predicate, so is $\pi$. Thus, we should only check Properties 1 -- 7 from Definition \ref{UProv}. Property 1 is one of the assumptions of the theorem and Properties 2, 3 and 7 follow directly from the arithmetical soundness of one-M\"unchhausen provability. Property 4 follows since $T$ is a one-M\"unchhausen theory whence proves transitivity of $\prec$. Properties 5 and 6 are a direct consequence of the definition of $\pi$ and the soundness of the one-M\"unchhausen provability predicate.
\end{proof}
\section{Some notes on the Formalisation of one-M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:formalisation}
Throughout this paper we have been talking about M\"unchhausen provability predicates and proving all sorts of properties of them. The reserved reader may now question whether there exist one-M\"unchhausen theories with corresponding one-M\"unchhausen provability predicates at all. In this section we sketch how to formalize a M\"unchhausen provability predicate in second order arithmetic.
Just as in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} we start our formalization by reserving a set parameter $X$ where we will collect all the pairs $\langle \alpha, \varphi \rangle$ of ordinals $\alpha$ and formulas $\varphi$ so that $[\alpha] \varphi$ holds. Next, we will write down a predicate that all and only the correct pairs $\langle \alpha, \varphi \rangle$ are in $X$. Thus, we write the recursion for one-M\"unchhausen provability replacing every occurrence of $[ \alpha ] \varphi$ by $\langle \alpha , \varphi \rangle \in X$ and consequently replacing $\langle \alpha \rangle \varphi$ by $\langle \alpha, \neg \varphi\rangle \notin X$. We define any set satisfying our predicate to be an $1{-}\sf IMC$ for \emph{Iterated one-M\"unchhausen Class}.
By naively doing so, a problem arises namely that we get occurrences of the set variable $X$ under the regular provability predicate $\Box_T$. By using numerals we can speak under a box about numbers that `live outside the box'. However, we do not have any syntactical artefact to denote arbitrary sets. A possibly way out here would be to resort to \emph{oracle-provability} as introduced in \cite{CordonFernandezJoostenLara:2017:PredicativityThroughTransfiniteReflection}. Thus, for one-M\"unchhausen provability, the predicate would look something like:
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
1{-}{\sf IMC}(X,\alpha):= & & \\
\ \ \ \forall \, \xi{\leq}\alpha\, \forall \varphi \Big[
\langle \xi, \varphi \rangle \in X &\leftrightarrow & \Big( \Box_T \varphi \, \vee \, \exists \psi \, \exists \, \zeta{<}\xi \ \big( \, \langle \zeta, \neg \psi \rangle \notin X \ \wedge \\
& & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Box_{T | X } (\langle \zeta, \neg \psi \rangle \notin X \to \varphi) \big) \Big)\Big].
\end{array}
\]
With such a predicate we can then define:
\[
[\alpha]_{T,1} \varphi := \forall X \Big( 1{-}{\sf IMC}(X,\alpha) \to \langle \alpha, \varphi \rangle \in X\Big).
\]
However, it is not clear if such a predicate will satisfy the required recursive equation since the relation between oracle provability and regular provability is not yet entirely understood in all its details.
For these and other reasons we choose a different approach. We will anticipate that hopefully/probably the $1{-}\sf IMC$ predicate will define a unique set. Then, under the box we can just use any set that satisfies ${\sf IMC}(X)$. Of course, the fixpoint theorem allows us to do so. In the formalisation of M\"unchhausen provability we will closely follow \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP}. As such we allow ourselves to be rather sketchy and refer to \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} for the details.
\begin{definition}
We define the predicate $1{-}{\sf IMC}(X,\gamma)$ using the fixpoint theorem so that it satisfies (provably in \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace) the following recursion.
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
1{-}{\sf IMC}&\hspace{-.2cm}(X,\gamma) \ \longleftrightarrow& \\
& \Big( \forall\, \alpha {\preceq}\gamma\ \forall \varphi\ \Big[ & \langle \alpha , \varphi\rangle \in X \ \leftrightarrow \\
& & \Box_U \varphi \vee \exists\, \beta{\prec}\alpha \exists \psi \Big( \langle \beta, \neg \psi \rangle\notin X \wedge \\
& & \ \ \ \Box_U \big[ \exists X (
1{-}{\sf IMC} (X,\dot \beta) \wedge \langle\dot \beta, \neg \dot \psi \rangle \notin X) \to \varphi\big]\Big)\Big]\Big)
\end{array}
\]
With this Iterated one-M\"unchhausen Class predicate we define our one-M\"unchhausen predicate as
\[
[\alpha]_U \varphi := \forall X \Big( 1{-}{\sf IMC}(X,\alpha) \to \langle \alpha, \varphi \rangle \in X\Big).
\]
\end{definition}
It is clear that our definition supposes that we fix an ordinal notation system for some ordinal $\Lambda$ and that all our ordinal quantifications are restricted to this $\Lambda$.
We observe that
\[
\langle\alpha\rangle \varphi := \exists X \Big( 1{-}{\sf IMC}(X,\alpha) \wedge \langle \alpha, \neg \varphi \rangle \notin X\Big).
\]
Consequently we can rewrite the defining recursion for Iterated one-M\"unchhausen Classes as
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
1{-}{\sf IMC}&\hspace{-.2cm}(X,\gamma) \ \longleftrightarrow& \\
& \Big( \forall\, \alpha {\preceq}\gamma\ \forall \varphi\ \Big[ & \langle \alpha , \varphi\rangle \in X \ \leftrightarrow \\
& & \Box_U \varphi \vee \exists\, \beta{\prec}\alpha \exists \psi \big( \langle \beta, \neg \psi \rangle\notin X \wedge \\
& & \ \ \ \Box_U \big[ \langle \beta \rangle \psi \to \varphi\big]\big)\Big]\Big).
\end{array}
\]
It is clear that $1{-}{\sf IMC}$ depends on the base theory $U$ and on the ordinal representation $\Lambda$ but for the sake of readability we suppress these dependencies in our notation. We remark that $1{-}{\sf IMC} (X,\gamma)$ is of complexity $\Pi^0_2$ with free set variable $X$. Our predicate $[\alpha]\varphi$ has a universal quantifier ranging over all sets that are iterated M\"unchhausen classes. Of course, we would hope that indeed such classes are uniquely defined if they exists at all.
In order to express this, we will fix the following notation
\[
X\equiv_\alpha Y \ \ := \ \ \forall \, \beta{\preceq}\alpha\, \forall \varphi \Big( \langle \beta, \varphi \rangle \in X \ \longleftrightarrow \ \langle \beta, \varphi \rangle \in Y \Big),
\]
and
\[
\exists^{\leq 1} X \ {\sf IMC}(X,\alpha) \ \ := \ \ \forall X\, \forall Y\ \Big( {\sf IMC} (X,\alpha) \wedge {\sf IMC} (Y,\alpha) \ \longrightarrow \ X\equiv_\alpha Y\Big).
\]
We can now state and prove a key ingredient in proving that our formalisation satisfies the defining recursion for M\"unchhausen provability.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:uniquenessIMCs}
Let $U$ be a theory extending \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace. We have that
\[
\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace + {\sf wo}(\alpha) \vdash \forall \alpha \, \exists^{\leq 1} X \ {\sf IMC}(X,\alpha).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove by transfinite induction that ${\sf IMC} (X,\alpha) \wedge {\sf IMC} (Y,\alpha) \to X\equiv_\alpha Y$ where $X$ and $Y$ are unbounded set variables. Note that this is an arithmetical formula so that
\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace can prove transfinite induction up to $\alpha$ for this formula since we assumed ${\sf wo}(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
Now that we have uniqueness we proceed as in \cite[ Theorem 4.3]{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP} to observe that we actually may perform transfinite induction for second order formulas as long as the second order formulas are restricted to the ${\sf IMC}$s.
\begin{theorem}\label{TheoUnique} Given a formula $\theta(X)\in {\bm \Pi}^1_\omega$,
\[
\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ACA}}_0}\xspace\vdash \forall \Lambda \ \Big( \exists^{\leq 1} X\ \theta(X)\wedge{\tt wo}(\Lambda)\rightarrow {\tt TI}(\Lambda,\GuardLang\theta)\Big).\]
\end{theorem}
We are now ready to prove that our formalisation satisfies the required recursion.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:RecursionFormalized}
Let $T$ be any presentable theory extending \ensuremath{{{\rm ECA}_0}}\xspace. We have
\[
\begin{array}{lr}
\ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace + {\sf wo}(\beta) + \exists X 1{-}{\sf IMC}(X, \beta) \vdash & \forall \, \alpha{\preceq}\beta \ \Big[
\nboxBox{\alpha}_T \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \Box_T \varphi \vee \exists \psi \, \exists \, \gamma \Big( \gamma \prec \alpha \wedge \ \\
& \
\nboxDiamond{\gamma}_T \psi \,
\wedge \ \ \ \\
& \Box_T\big( \nboxDiamond{\gamma}_T \psi \, \to \, \varphi \big) \Big) \Big].
\end{array}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By transfinite induction on $\alpha$ as in \cite{FernandezJoosten:2018:OmegaRuleInterpretationGLP}. Note that we need the existence of a $1{-}{\sf IMC}$ for the $\to$ direction. By Theorem \ref{TheoUnique} we have access to the transfinite induction in \ensuremath{{{\rm ACA}_0}}\xspace since we proved uniqueness for $1{-}\sf IMC$'s.
\end{proof}
\section{Weakening the base theory: M\"unchhausen provability}\label{section:MunchhausenProvabilityMultipleOracle}
In this paper we have introduced the notion of one-M\"unchhausen provability for which we have proven arithmetical sound and completeness. Furthermore, we have shown in Theorem \ref{theorem:RecursionFormalized} that the notion can be formalised in second order arithmetic. However, the theory where the formalisation takes place is quite strong. In particular, it requires a fair amount of transfinite induction. As pointed out, this prove theoretic strength is consequently also required in the object theory which is not desirable. Via various tricks, one can lower the required proof theoretic strength of the object and meta-theory. A first step in doing so is via the introduction of \emph{M\"unchhausen provability}. Further tricks are presented and worked out in \cite{Joosten:2019:TransfiniteTuringjumps}.
To define M\"unchhausen provability we will start out with a very similar but slightly different recursion equivalence:
\begin{multline}\label{equation:FullVectorBox}
\vboxBox{\alpha}_T \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \Box_T \varphi \vee \exists \sigma \, \exists \, \tau \ \Big( \ |\sigma | = |\tau | \ \wedge \ \forall
\, i{<}| \tau |\, \tau_i {\prec}\alpha \ \wedge \ \forall \, i{<}| \sigma |\, \vboxDiamond{\tau_i}_T \sigma(i) \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\wedge \, \Box_T\big( \forall \, i{<}| \sigma |\, \vboxDiamond{\tau_i}_T \sigma(i) \, \to \, \varphi \big) \Big).
\end{multline}
In this recursive equivalence we understand that $\sigma$ is a finite sequence of formulas with $|\sigma |$ denoting the length of the sequence and $\sigma(i)$ denoting the $i$th element of the sequence. Likewise, $\tau$ is understood as being a sequence of ordinals all bounded by $\alpha$. We will write either $\tau(i)$ or $\tau_i$ for the $i$th element of $\tau$. Moreover, $\vboxDiamond \alpha$ is as always to be read a shorthand for $\neg \vboxBox \alpha \neg$.
One of the main complications in proving the arithmetical soundness of one-M\"unchhausen provability in the previous section was in the proof of the closure of provability under conjunctions that is, $\nboxBox{\alpha} \varphi \wedge \nboxBox \alpha \psi \leftrightarrow \nboxBox \alpha (\varphi \wedge \psi)$. The proof of this required a weak closure of consistency under conjunctions --$\forall \varphi, \psi \, \exists \chi \Big( \nboxDiamond \alpha \varphi \wedge \nboxDiamond \alpha \psi \leftrightarrow \nboxDiamond \alpha \chi\Big)$-- so that the conjunction of two oracle sentences could be conceived as a single oracle sentence. However, in the new recursive equivalence as we just defined in \eqref{equation:FullVectorBox}, the closure of oracles under conjunctions is built into the definition.
A further complication in proving the arithmetical soundness of one-M\"unch-hausen provability in the previous sections was caused by the fact that weak closure under conjunctions of consistency needed to be verified under a box. This was obtained by requiring a fair amount of transfinite induction and by requiring that the object and meta-theory be equal. In this last section we shall see that these requirements can also be circumvented.
The defining equation \eqref{equation:FullVectorBox} begs for a notational simplification. From now on, the greek letter $\sigma$ shall be reserved to denote sequences of formulas and the greek letter $\tau$ shall be reserved to denote sequences of ordinals. As such, we settle upon the notational convention that $\tau\prec\alpha$ is short for $\forall \, i{<}| \tau |\, \tau_i {\prec} \alpha$ and $\vboxDiamond{\tau}_T \sigma$ is short for $|\sigma| = |\tau| \ \wedge \ \forall \, i{<}| \sigma |\, \vboxDiamond{\tau_i}_T \sigma(i)$. Since we shall require that provably $|\sigma| = |\tau| \to \Box_T |\sigma| = |\tau|$, the defining recursion can be recasted as
\begin{equation}\label{equation:vectorBox}
\vboxBox{\alpha}_T \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \Box_T \varphi \vee \exists \sigma \, \exists \, \tau{\prec}\alpha\ \Big(\vboxDiamond{\tau}_T \sigma \, \wedge \, \Box_T\big( \vboxDiamond{\tau}_T \sigma \, \to \, \varphi \big) \Big).
\end{equation}
Although we still cannot prove that different predicates that provably satisfy \eqref{equation:vectorBox} are provably equivalent, at least proving soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ for such predicates becomes an easy matter. Let us first define some important notions as before but now for M\"unchhausen provability instead of one-M\"unchhausen provability.
\begin{definition}
Let us call a theory $T$ a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory whenever we can define a predicate ${\vboxBox {\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$ so that $T$ proves \eqref{equation:vectorBox} together with
\[
\begin{array}{l}
T\vdash ``{\prec}\mbox{ is transitive, right-discrete and has a minimal element}",\\
T\vdash (\xi \prec \zeta) \to {\vboxBox{\zeta}_T}^\Lambda (\xi \prec \zeta),\\
\mbox{$\xi < \zeta < \Lambda$ implies $T\vdash \xi \prec \zeta$.}
\end{array}
\]
Moreover, it is understood that $T$ has a simple coding machinery for finite sequence of objects so that the obvious facts about length and concatenation provably hold. For example, $T \vdash |\tau| =n \to \Box_T |\tau| =n$, etc.
In this case we call ${\vboxBox {\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$ a $T(\Lambda)$-M\"unchhausen provability predicate.
\end{definition}
When the theory $T$ and ordinal $\Lambda$ are clear from the context, we shall simply speak of a M\"unchhausen theory and of a M\"unchhausen provability predicate. On occasion we might only mention the ordinal $\Lambda$ or only the theory $T$ and speak of, for example, a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory and a $T$-M\"unchhausen provability predicate respectively. As with one-M\"unchhausen provability we see that the interaction axioms become trivial to prove for any M\"unchhausen provability predicate. In what follows we will revisit and simplify the soundness proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:MunchhausenCrossAxioms}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding predicate ${\vboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$. Omitting sub and superscripts, we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$T\vdash \forall \alpha\, \forall \varphi \, \forall \, \beta {\prec} \alpha {\prec}\Lambda\ \big( \vboxBox \beta \varphi \to \vboxBox \alpha \varphi \big)$,
\item
$T\vdash \forall \alpha\, \forall \varphi \, \forall \, \beta {\prec} \alpha {\prec}\Lambda\ \big( \vboxDiamond \beta \varphi \to \vboxBox \alpha \vboxDiamond \beta \varphi \big)$, and more in general
\item
$T\vdash \forall \alpha\, \forall \sigma \, \forall \, \tau {\prec} \alpha {\prec}\Lambda\ \big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \vboxBox \alpha \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is straightforward and completely analogous to the proof of Lemma \ref{theorem:crossAxiomsSound}. Let us just shortly comment on the second item. So, we reason in $T$ and pick a formula $\varphi$ and ordinals $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as indicated, assuming $\vboxDiamond \beta \varphi$. We now consider the sequence $\sigma_\varphi$ of length 1 whose only element is the formula $\varphi$. Likewise, we consider the sequence $\tau_\beta$ of length 1 whose only element is the ordinal $\beta$. Clearly, $T \vdash \vboxDiamond {\tau_\beta} \sigma_\varphi \to \vboxDiamond \beta \varphi$ so that $\vboxBox \alpha \vboxDiamond \beta \varphi$ follows.
\end{proof}
Contrary to the case of 1-M\"unchhausen provability it becomes now an easy exercise to see that each (internally quantified) provability predicate satisfies the distribution axioms for the basic modal logic \logic K. Moreover, necessitation is also a routine matter. Before we prove this, we first need a technical easy lemma similar to Lemma \ref{theorem:boxBoxExfalso} whose proof is immediate.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:MunchhausenClosedUnderZeroMP}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding predicate ${\vboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$. Again, omitting sub and superscripts, we have that
\[
U\vdash \forall \, \alpha{\prec}\Lambda\, \forall\, \varphi, \psi, \chi\ \Big( \, \vboxBox \alpha \psi \wedge \Box \varphi \wedge \Box (\varphi \wedge \psi \to \xi) \ \to \ \vboxBox \alpha \xi \,\Big).
\]
\end{lemma}
With this technical lemma at hand it becomes very easy to see that each M\"unchhausen provability predicate ${\vboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$ defines a normal\footnote{It is in this lemma that we see that working with a single $\beta$ would not have worked directly. That is, if we had defined $\vboxBox{\alpha}_T \varphi \ \leftrightarrow \ \Box_T \varphi \vee \exists \sigma \, \exists \, \beta{\prec}\alpha \ \Big( \forall \, i{<}| \sigma |\, \vboxDiamond{\beta}_T \sigma(i) \, \wedge \, \Box_T\big( \forall \, i{<}| \sigma |\, \vboxDiamond{\beta}_T \sigma(i) \, \to \, \varphi \big) \Big)$. The distributivity axiom can then only be proved if we can work with the largest consistency statement. Thus, something like Lemma \ref{theorem:basicGLPlemmas}.\ref{item:bigConsEquivSmallCons:theorem:basicGLPlemmas} should be available. For that, the soundness of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\beta$ would be needed and we are back at the transfinite induction template again.} modal logic.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:distributionMunchhausen}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding predicate ${\vboxBox{\alpha}_T}^\Lambda$. Again, omitting sub and superscripts, we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$T \vdash \forall \, \alpha{\prec}\Lambda \, \forall \varphi, \forall \psi \ \Big( \vboxBox \alpha (\varphi \to \psi) \ \to\ \big( \vboxBox \alpha \varphi \to \vboxBox \alpha \psi \big) \Big)$, and
\item
for any ordinal $\alpha$ below $\Lambda$, if $T\vdash \varphi$, then $T\vdash \vboxBox \alpha \varphi$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of the second item is easy and identical to the proof Lemma \ref{theorem:necessitationSoundForOneMunchhausenProvability}. It is in the first item where we see that working with sequences of formulas instead of formulas in our oracles is essential. So, let us reason in $T$ and fix $\alpha$ and $\varphi$ as stated. We assume $\vboxBox \alpha (\varphi \to \psi)$ and $ \vboxBox \alpha \varphi$ and need to prove $\vboxBox \alpha \psi$.
The case that both $\Box (\varphi \to \psi)$ and $\Box \varphi$ hold is trivial and in case one of them holds, Lemma \ref{theorem:MunchhausenClosedUnderZeroMP} provides a proof.
So, in the remaining and only non-trivial case, we find two pairs of sequences $\sigma_\varphi$ with $\tau_\varphi$ and $\sigma_{\varphi\to\psi}$ with $\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}$ so that
$\tau_\varphi\prec \alpha \wedge \langle \tau_\varphi \rangle \sigma_\varphi \ \wedge \ \Box (\langle \tau_\varphi \rangle \sigma_\varphi\to \varphi)$
and also
$\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}\prec \alpha \wedge \langle \tau_{\varphi\to\psi} \rangle \sigma_{\varphi\to\psi} \ \wedge \ \Box \Big(\langle \tau_{\varphi\to\psi} \rangle \sigma_{\varphi\to\psi}\to ({\varphi\to\psi})\Big)$. We now consider the concatenation $\tau_\varphi\star\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}$ of both $\tau$-sequences and likewise $\sigma_\varphi\star\sigma_{\varphi\to\psi}$ denotes the concatenation of both $\sigma$-sequences. Clearly, we have $|\tau_\varphi\star\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}| = |\sigma_\varphi\star\sigma_{\varphi\to\psi}|$ and $\tau_\varphi\star\tau_{\varphi\to\psi} \prec \alpha$. Likewise, from our assumptions it is easy to observe that $\langle \tau_\varphi\star\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}\rangle\sigma_\varphi\star\sigma_{\varphi\to\psi}$ and $\Box \Big( \langle \tau_\varphi\star\tau_{\varphi\to\psi}\rangle\sigma_\varphi\star\sigma_{\varphi\to\psi} \to \psi \Big)$ so that indeed $\vboxBox{\alpha}\psi$.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of our previous lemmas, we know that all reasoning of the modal logic \logic{K} can be applied to any M\"unchhausen provability predicate. We now turn to the transitivity axiom to conclude that each predicate $\vboxBox \alpha$ actually is sound for \logic{K4}. Before proving this, we need one easy technical observation.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:BarcanForMunchhausen}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding predicate $\vboxBox{\alpha}$. We have that
\[
T\vdash \exists x \ \vboxBox \alpha \varphi (\dot x) \ \to \ \vboxBox \alpha \exists x \, \varphi ( x).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We reason in $T$ and assume that for some $x$ we gave $\vboxBox \alpha \varphi (\dot x)$. Thus, for some (possibly empty) $\sigma$ and some ordinal $\beta$ (less than $\alpha$ in case $\sigma$ is non-empty) we have $\vboxDiamond \alpha \sigma$ and $\Box \big( \vboxDiamond \beta \sigma \to \varphi (\dot x)\big)$ whence also $\Box \big( \vboxDiamond \beta \sigma \to \exists x \varphi ( x)\big)$ as was to be shown.
\end{proof}
We can now prove the soundness of the transitivity axiom.
\begin{lemma}\label{theorem:MHTransitivityAxiom}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory with corresponding predicate $\vboxBox{\alpha}$. We have that
\[
T\vdash \forall \, \alpha{\prec}\Lambda\, \forall\, \varphi\ \Big( \, \vboxBox \alpha \varphi \ \to \ \vboxBox \alpha \vboxBox \alpha \varphi \,\Big).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is very similar to Item \ref{item:transitivity:theorem:boxGLPSound} of Theorem \ref{theorem:boxGLPSound} but now, there is no need for induction since we already know our predicate to be sound for \logic K reasoning. Thus, we reason in $T$, fix some ordinal $\alpha \prec \Lambda$ and formula $\varphi$ and assume $\vboxBox \alpha \varphi$. Now either $\Box \varphi$ or there is some sequence of ordinals $\tau \prec \alpha$ and sequence $\sigma$ so that $\vboxDiamond \beta \sigma$ and $\Box \Big( \vboxDiamond \beta \sigma \to \varphi \Big)$. In the first case, we get from $\Box \varphi$ that $\Box \Box \varphi$ whence by applying monotonicity twice that $\vboxBox \alpha \vboxBox \alpha \varphi$.
Thus we focus on the second case and fix a particular sequences $\tau$ and $\sigma$ so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\tau \prec \alpha$;
\item
$\vboxDiamond \tau \sigma$;
\item
$\Box \Big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \varphi \Big)$.
\end{enumerate}
From the first item, we get by assumptions on M\"unchhausen theories that $\vboxBox \alpha (\tau \prec \alpha)$. From the second item we get by negative introspection that $\vboxBox \alpha \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma$. From the third item we get $\Box \Box \Big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \varphi \Big)$ whence $\vboxBox \alpha \Box \Big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \varphi \Big)$. Collecting these three consequences and applying provable closure of provability under conjunctions we obtain
\[
\exists \sigma \exists \tau \ \vboxBox \alpha \Big( \tau{\prec}\alpha \, \wedge \, \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \, \wedge \, \Box \big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \varphi \big)\Big)
\]
so that by Lemma \ref{theorem:BarcanForMunchhausen} we conclude
\[
\vboxBox \alpha \exists \sigma \, \exists \tau{\prec}\alpha \, \ \Big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \, \wedge \, \Box \big( \vboxDiamond \tau \sigma \to \varphi \big)\Big)
\]
which implies $\vboxBox \alpha \vboxBox \alpha \varphi$ as was to be shown.
\end{proof}
In the light of Lemma \ref{theorem:noLoebNeeded} we may now conclude arithmetical soundness for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ for M\"unchhausen provability.
\begin{theorem}
Let $T$ be a $\Lambda$-M\"unchhausen theory and let $\vboxBox{\alpha}_T$ be a corresponding M\"unchhausen provability predicate. Then, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ is sound for $T$ when the $[\alpha ]$ -modalities ($\alpha \prec \Lambda$) are interpreted as $\vboxBox{\alpha}_T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As always we prove by induction on a ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda$ proof that if ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{GLP}}}\xspace_\Lambda \vdash \varphi$, then for any arithmetical realization $*$ we have that $T \vdash \varphi^*$.
\end{proof}
It is clear how the completeness proof and formalisation can be adapted to the new provability notion. Actually, it seems that in a sense M\"unchhausen provability is more fundamental than one-M\"unchhausen provability. We have chosen to start this paper with one-M\"unchhausen provability instead for two reasons. Firstly, the defining recursion for one-M\"unchhausen provability is slightly easier and more perspicuous. But secondly, it is important to be aware of the tension between provable properties and provable provable properties in the notion of one-M\"unchhausen provability and how this tension can be mitigated via transfinite reflexive induction.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction.}
\label{sect:intro}
The family of \emph{flip-flop} processes
corresponds to a class of piecewise-linear Markov processes that converges, in some sense, to a standard Brownian motion.
Specifically, for $\lambda>0$, let $ =\{\varphi^\lambda(t) \}_{t\ge 0}$
be a Markov jump process with state space $\{+,-\}$, initial distribution $(1/2, 1/2)$
and intensity matrix
\begin{align*}
\left[\begin{array}{rr}
-\lambda & \lambda\\
\lambda & -\lambda
\end{array} \right].
\end{align*}
Let $r(+) = \sqrt{\lambda}$, $r(-)=-\sqrt{\lambda}$ and define
\begin{align}
\label{eq:flipflop1}
F^\lambda(t) = \int_0^t r(\varphi^\lambda(s))\mathrm{d} s,\quad t\ge 0.
\end{align}
We call $\{(F^\lambda(t), \varphi^\lambda(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ a flip-flop process. It can be shown (see, e.g., \cite{ramaswami2013fluid}) that $\mathcal{F}^\lambda=\{F^\lambda(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ converges \emph{weakly} to a standard Brownian motion $\mathcal{B} =\{B(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ as $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$.
In other words,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:weak1}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\mathds{E}\left[h(\mathcal{F}^\lambda)\right] = \mathds{E}\left[h(\mathcal{B})\right]
\end{align}
whenever $h:\mathcal{C}([0,\infty))\mapsto\mathds{R}$ is a bounded Borel-measurable functional continuous with respect to the topology of uniform convergence on compact intervals. Weak convergence implies that the family of probability laws induced by $\{\mathcal{F}^\lambda\}_{\lambda>0}$ is tight, and that, for any $0\le t_1 < t_2 <\dots <t_n <\infty$,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow \infty} (F^\lambda(t_1),F^\lambda(t_2),\dots,F^\lambda(t_n)) \buildrel{d} \over{=} (B(t_1), B(t_2),\dots, B(t_n)).
\end{align*}
These two properties are also sufficient conditions for (\ref{eq:weak1}) to hold \cite{Billingsley:1999uc}. As weak convergence is a statement regarding probability laws, the stochastic processes involved do not need to be defined on a common probability space.
An alternative definition of the flip-flop process $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ is as follows. For $t > 0$, let
\[N^\lambda(t) =\#\{s\in(0,t]: \varphi^\lambda(s^-) \neq \varphi^\lambda(s)\},\]
and $N^\lambda(0)= 0$. Then, $\{N^\lambda (t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ is the Poisson process of intensity $\lambda$ which counts the jumps of $\{\varphi^\lambda(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$, and we can rewrite (\ref{eq:flipflop1}) as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:telegraph1}
F^\lambda(t) = \sqrt{\lambda}\int_0^t (-1)^{N^\lambda (s)}\mathrm{d} s,\quad t\ge 0.
\end{align}
The process $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ defined as in (\ref{eq:telegraph1}) was first considered in \cite{goldstein1951, kac1974},
where a link between its transition probabilities and the telegraph equation was developed. In this context, $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ became known as a \emph{telegraph process} or \emph{uniform transport process}, of which the weak convergence to $\mathcal{B}$ was proved in \cite{pinsky1968differential} and \cite{watanabe1968approximation}.
Later on, it was proved in \cite{griego1971almost} that such a convergence also holds in a pathwise sense. More precisely, the authors showed that there exists a common probability space in which the family of flip-flop (or uniform transport) processes $\{\mathcal{F}^\lambda\}_{\lambda>0}$ and a standard Brownian motion $\mathcal{B}$ are defined such that for any $T>0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:strong1}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{0\le t\le T}\left| F^\lambda(t) - B(t) \right| = 0\quad \mbox{almost surely.}
\end{align}
Whenever (\ref{eq:strong1}) holds, we say that $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ converges \emph{strongly} to $\mathcal{B}$ as $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. By applying the Bounded Convergence Theorem to (\ref{eq:weak1}), we trivially get that strong convergence implies weak convergence.
Strong convergence results also lead to stronger
approximations for diffusions and for solutions to stochastic differential equations (e.g. in \cite{gorostiza1979strong} and \cite{gorostiza1980rate2}, respectively). In \cite{gorostiza1980rate}, the rate of strong convergence of $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ to $\mathcal{B}$ was computed. The key step in \cite{griego1971almost, gorostiza1980rate} consisted in embedding certain values of $\mathcal{F}^\lambda$ into $\mathcal{B}$ using the Skorokhod embedding theorem.
In recent years, the study of flip-flop processes was generalised into different directions, most of which are based on the following. Consider a process $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J}) = \{(R(t), J(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ where the \emph{phase} process $\mathcal{J}$ is a Markov jump process on a finite state space $\mathcal{S}$, initial distribution $\boldsymbol{p}$, and intensity matrix $Q$, and the \emph{level} process $\mathcal{R}$ is defined by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Rt1}
R(t) = \int_0^\infty \mu_{J(s)}\mathrm{d} s + \int_0^\infty \sigma_{J(s)}\mathrm{d} B(s),\quad t\ge 0,
\end{align}
with $\mu_i\in\mathds{R}$ and $\sigma_i \ge 0$ for $i\in\mathcal{S}$.
If $\sigma_i = 0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{S}$, the process $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J})$ is known as a \emph{stochastic fluid process} (SFP). If $\sigma_i>0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{S}$, then $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J})$ is called a \emph{Markov modulated Brownian motion} (MMBM). In \cite{latouche2015morphing}, it is shown that there exists a family of SFPs that converges \emph{weakly} to any given MMBM. This result was later used to study MMBM with two boundaries in \cite{latouche2015fluid}, \cite{latouche2016feedback} and \cite{ahn2017time}, Markov-modulated sticky Brownian motion in \cite{latouche2017slowing}, and MMBM with temporary change of regime at zero in \cite{latouche2018markov}.
In this paper, we construct a sequence of stochastic fluid processes which converges \emph{strongly} to an MMBM of any given parameters. More specifically, we prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:strongConvMMBM}
For any given $\boldsymbol{p}$, $Q$, $\{\mu_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{S}}$ and $\{\sigma_i > 0\}_{i \in\mathcal{S}}$, there exists a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$ on which live an MMBM $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J})=\{(R(t), J(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ defined as in (\ref{eq:Rt1}) and a sequence of stochastic fluid models $\{(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)\}_{n \geq 0} =\{(R^n(t), J^n(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$, where $\mathcal{J}^n$ has the state space $\{+,-\}\times\mathcal{S}$, such that for all $T \geq 0$
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sup_{0\le s\le T} \left| R(s) - R^n(s) \right| & = 0 \quad \mbox{a.s.}, \\
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\pi_2(J^n(T)) & = J(T) \quad \mbox{a.s.},
\end{align}
where $\pi_2:\{+,-\}\times\mathcal{S}\mapsto \mathcal{S}$ denotes the second-coordinate projection.
\end{theorem}
In fact, Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} is a consequence of the following result which concerns the rate of the strong convergence of $\{(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)\}_{n \geq 0}$ to $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J})$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:rate}
Fix $T\in[0,1)$. In the probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$ of Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM},
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for each $q>0$ there exists a constant $\alpha=\alpha(q)>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rate2}
\mathds{P}\left(\sup_{0 \le s\le T} \left|R(s) - R^n(s)\right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n\right) = o(n^{-q})\quad\mbox{as } n\rightarrow\infty,
\end{align}
with $\varepsilon_n := n^{-1/2} \log(n)$, where $o(g(n))$ for $g:\mathds{N} \mapsto \mathds{R}_+$ denotes a function $f:\mathds{N} \mapsto \mathds{R}$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} f(n)/g(n)= 0$;
\item[(ii)] furthermore, the process $\{\pi_2(J^n(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ converges in an a.s. local uniform sense to $\{J(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$; that is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rateJ1}
%
\lim_{\rho\downarrow 0}\left[\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left( \sup_{s\in(T-\rho,T+\rho)} d \left(\pi_2(J^n(s)), J(s)\right)\right)\right] =0\quad\mbox{a.s.,}
\end{equation}
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the discrete metric in $\mathcal{S}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The case $T\in[0,1)$ of Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} is a consequence of Theorem \ref{th:rate} and the Borel-Cantelli lemma, with the case $T\ge 1$ following by elementary time-scaling arguments.
\begin{Remark} The proof of Theorem \ref{th:rate} is inspired by the work of \cite{gorostiza1980rate}, where we replace the use of the Skorokhod embedding theorem with a Poissionian observations argument. Our approach yields tighter and simpler bounds, which ultimately enables us to obtain a faster rate of convergence than the one of \cite{gorostiza1980rate} (which was proportional to $n^{-1/2}(\log(n))^{5/2}$) when reduced to the case of the standard Brownian motion.
\end{Remark}
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec:ProofStrongConvMMBM} we construct $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$ and describe the distributional characteristics of each stochastic fluid process $(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)$, for $n\ge 0$. We compute in Section \ref{sec:rate} the rate of convergence of $\mathcal{R}^n$ to $\mathcal{R}$, from which the proof of Theorem \ref{th:rate}, and thus that of Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM}, follows. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:applications} we develop some implications of Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} regarding the downcrossing probabilities of $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{R}^n$; in particular, we exhibit a new link between the solutions of certain Riccati and quadratic matrix equations.
\section{Construction of $\{(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)\}_{n \geq 0}$.}
\label{sec:ProofStrongConvMMBM}
First, we construct the probability space suitable to prove Theorems \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} and \ref{th:rate}. Fix $\boldsymbol{p}$, $Q$, $\{\mu_i\}_{i \in\mathcal{S}}$ and $\{\sigma_i >0\}_{i\in\mathcal{S}}$ of Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM}. Let $\lambda_0=2\max_{i\in\mathcal{S}}|Q_{ii}|$,
and consider a sequence $\{\lambda_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ such that $\lambda_n\ge \lambda_{n-1}$ for $n\ge 1$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lambda_n = \infty$. Let $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$ be a probability space that supports:
\begin{itemize}
\item a standard Brownian motion $\mathcal{B}=\{B(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$,
\item a Poisson process $\mathcal{M}^0=\{M^0(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ of rate $\lambda_0/2$,
\item a sequence of Poisson processes $\{\mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^n\}_{n\ge 1}$, where $\mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^n$ has rate $(\lambda_{n}-\lambda_{n-1})/2$,
\item a discrete-time Markov chain $\mathcal{X}^0=\{X^0(k)\}_{k\ge 0}$ with state space $\mathcal{S}$, initial distribution $\boldsymbol{p}$, and transition probability matrix $P_0:=I + (\lambda_0/2)^{-1}Q$,
\end{itemize}
with $\mathcal{B}$, $\mathcal{M}^0$, $\{\mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^n\}_{n\ge 1}$, and $\mathcal{X}^0$ being independent of each other. All the elements stated in Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} and of the whole manuscript will be constructed in $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$. To construct $(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{J})$ on $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathds{P})$, let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Jtunif1}
J(t)=X^0(M^0(t)),\quad t\ge 0.
\end{equation}
The uniformization method
implies that $\mathcal{J}=\{J(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ is a Markov jump process with initial distribution $\boldsymbol{p}$ and intensity matrix $Q$. Let $\mathcal{R}=\{R(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be defined as on (\ref{eq:Rt1}), so that $(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{J})$ corresponds to a Markov-modulated Brownian motion.
Next, for each $n \geq 0$, we construct the process $(\mathcal{R}^n,\mathcal{J}^n)$ as follows. Define the arrival process $\mathcal{M}^{n} = \{M^n(t)\}_{t \geq 0}$ to be the superposition of $\{\mathcal{M}^0, \mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^{1}, \mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^{2},\dots, \mathcal{\widetilde{M}}^{n}\}$. Then, $\mathcal{M}^n$ is itself a Poisson process of intensity
\begin{align*}
\lambda_0/2 + \sum_{\ell=1}^n(\lambda_\ell - \lambda_{\ell-1})/2 = \lambda_{n}/2,
\end{align*}
and its arrival epochs form a subset of the arrival epochs of $\mathcal{M}^{n + m}$ for any $m\ge 0$. In other words, $\{\mathcal{M}^n\}_{n\ge 0}$ is a sequence of Poisson process with nested time epochs whose new arrivals, as $n$ increases, are created independently of the existing ones. Let us emphasize that choosing to have Poissonan observations with rates $\lambda_{n}/2$ allows a direct comparison of our construction with the models of \cite{gorostiza1980rate} and of \cite{ramaswami2013fluid} in the special case of flip-flop approximations to a standard Brownian motion.
Intuitively, our aim is to construct $(\mathcal{R}^n,\mathcal{J}^n)$ in such a way that $\mathcal{R}^n$ visits the levels of $\mathcal{R}$ inspected at the arrival epochs of the Poisson process $\mathcal{M}^n$. To that end, we employ the well-known Wiener-Hopf factorisation for the Brownian motion with drift; see \cite[Corollary 2.4.10]{bladt2017matrix} for a proof.
\begin{theorem}[Wiener-Hopf factorisation for BM]
\label{th:WHBM1}
Let $\{W_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ be a Brownian motion with variance $\sigma^2>0$, drift $\mu$, and initial point $W_0=0$. Let $S$ be a stopping time and let $T \sim \mbox{exp}(\beta)$, independent of $\{W_t\}_{t\ge 0}$. Then, $W_S - \min_{0\le t\le T} W_{S + t}$ and $W_{S+T} - \min_{0\le t\le T} W_{S + t}$ are independent and exponentially distributed with rates
\[
\omega = \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{\sigma^4} + \frac{2\beta}{\sigma^2}} + \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\eta = \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{\sigma^4} + \frac{2\beta}{\sigma^2}} - \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2}, \quad\mbox{respectively.}
\]
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{th:WHBM1} implies that, restricted to an exponentially distributed time interval, we can track both the value of the minimum over this period and that at the right endpoint of a Brownian motion with drift.
Let $\{T_k^n\}_{k\ge 1}$ be the interarrival times of the process $\mathcal{M}^n$, and define $\theta_0^n := 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:thetakn1}
\theta_k^n:= \sum_{j=1}^k T^n_j, \quad k \geq 0;
\end{align}
thus $\{\theta_k^n\}_{n \geq 0}$ are the arrival epochs of $\mathcal{M}^n$. See Figure~\ref{fig:MnJt} for an illustration.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{MnJt.pdf}
\put(-399, 2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{0}}
\put(-399, 41){\makebox(0,0)[l]{0}}
\put(-374, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_1$}}
\put(-327, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_2$}}
\put(-239, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_3$}}
\put(-220, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_4$}}
\put(-135, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_5$}}
\put(-79, 36){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{0}_6$}}
\put(-374, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_1$}}
\put(-327, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_2$}}
\put(-292, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_3$}}
\put(-272, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_4$}}
\put(-239, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_5$}}
\put(-220, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_6$}}
\put(-168, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_7$}}
\put(-135, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_8$}}
\put(-105, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_9$}}
\put(-79, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_{10}$}}
\put(-45, 66){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^{n}_{11}$}}
\caption{Blue dots correspond to arrivals $\{\theta^{0}_k\}_{k \geq 0}$ of $\mathcal{M}^0$, red diamonds the arrivals $\{\theta^n_k\}_{k \geq 0}$ of $\mathcal{M}^n$, black squares the jump epochs of $\mathcal{J}$. As $\mathcal{J}$ is given by \eqref{eq:Jtunif1}, its jump epochs form a subset of the arrival times of $\mathcal{M}^0$.}
\label{fig:MnJt}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As $\{\theta_k^n\}_{n \geq 0}$ contain all the arrival epochs of $\mathcal{M}^0$, Equation (\ref{eq:Jtunif1}) implies that $\{J(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ remains constant on each interval $[\theta_k^n, \theta_{k+1}^n)$, $k\ge 0$. Consequently, given $J({\theta_k^n})=i$ on $[\theta_k^n, \theta_{k+1}^n)$, $\{R(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ behaves like a Brownian motion with drift $\mu_i$ and variance $\sigma^2_i$. Thus, by sequentially using the Wiener-Hopf factorisation between arrival epochs of $\mathcal{M}^n$, we can keep track of $\{ R(\theta_k^n)\}_{k\ge 0}$ and of $\{\min_{\theta_k^n\le t\le \theta_{k+1}^n} R(t)\}_{k\ge 0}=\{\min_{0\le t\le T_{k+1}^n} R(\theta_k^n + t)\}_{k\ge 0}$ in a simple manner, which we explain in detail next.
For each $k\ge 0$, define the random variables%
\begin{align*}
X^n(k) & := J(\theta_k^n), \\
L^{n}_{k+1} & := R(\theta_{k}^n) - \min_{0\le t\le T_{k+1}^n} R(\theta_k^n + t),\\
H^{n}_{k+1} & := R(\theta_{k+1}^n) - \min_{0\le t\le T_{k+1}^n} R(\theta_k^n + t).
\end{align*}
By Theorem \ref{th:reverseUnif} in the Appendix, $\mathcal{X}^n=\{X^n(k)\}_{k\ge 0}$ is a discrete-time Markov chain with transition probability matrix $P_n:= I + (\lambda_n/2)^{-1}Q$. The strong Markov property of $\{(R(t), J(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ and Theorem \ref{th:WHBM1} imply that, conditioned on $\mathcal{X}^n$, $\{L^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$ is a collection of independent random variables. More specifically, given $X^n_k=i$, $L^{n}_{k+1}$ is exponentially distributed with rate
\[
\omega_i^n := \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2_i}{\sigma^4_i} + \frac{\lambda_n}{\sigma^2_i}} + \frac{\mu_i}{\sigma^2_i}.
\]
Similarly, $\{H^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$ is a collection of conditionally
independent random variables for which, given $X^n_k=i$, $H^{n}_{k+1}$ is exponentially distributed with rate
\begin{align*}
\eta_i^n := \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2_i}{\sigma^4_i} + \frac{\lambda_n}{\sigma^2_i}} - \frac{\mu_i}{\sigma^2_i}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, $\{L^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$ is conditionally independent of $\{H^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$. Note that $\{L^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$ and $\{H^{n}_{k+1}\}_{k\ge 0}$ completely describe $\{ R(\theta_k^n)\}_{k\ge 0}$ and $\{\min_{\theta_k^n\le t\le \theta_{k+1}^n} R(t)\}_{k\ge 0}$, in the sense that for all $k\ge 0$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sumH1}
R(\theta_k^n)& = \sum_{j=1}^k \left( -L^{n}_{j} +H^{n}_{j}\right), \quad \mbox{and}\\
\label{eq:sumH2}
\min_{\theta_k^n\le t\le \theta_{k+1}^n} R(t)& = \sum_{j=1}^k \left(-L^{n}_{j} +H^{n}_{j}\right) - L^{n}_{k+1}.
\end{align}
For all $k\ge 1$, if $X^n(k-1) = i$, define
\begin{align*}
\widehat{L}^{n}_{k} & := \lambda_n^{-1}\omega_i^n L^{n}_{k} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \widehat{H}^{n}_{k} := \lambda_n^{-1}\eta_i^n H^{n}_{k}.
\end{align*}
Then, the collections $\{\widehat{L}^{n}_{k}\}_{k\ge 1}$ and $\{\widehat{H}^{n}_{k}\}_{k\ge 1}$ are i.i.d. random variables exponentially distributed with parameter $\lambda_n$. Let $\chi_n^0 := 0$, and define for all $k\ge 1$
\begin{align*}
\quad\chi_k^n:=\sum_{j=1}^k \left(\widehat{L}^{n}_{j} + \widehat{H}^{n}_{j}\right).
\end{align*}
Let $\mathcal{J}^n = \{J^n(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be the process with state space $\{+,-\}\times\mathcal{S}$ defined by
\begin{align*}
J^n(t) =\left\{\begin{array}{cl}(-,i)
%
& \mbox{if } t\in[\chi^n_k,\chi^n_k + \widehat{L}^{n}_{k+1})\mbox{ for some $k\ge 0$ and }X_k^n = i,\\
\vspace*{-0.2cm} \\
(+,i) & \mbox{if } t\in[\chi^n_k + \widehat{L}^{n}_{k+1}, \chi^n_{k+1})\mbox{ for some $k\ge 0$ and }X_k^n = i.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
Figure~\ref{fig:SandChi} shows a sample path of $\mathcal{J}^n$ with $\mathcal{S} = \{1, 2, 3\}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{SandChi-new.pdf}
\put(-382,117){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$J^n(t)$}}
%
\put(-3,8){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$t$}}
\put(-372,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$0$}}
%
\put(-340,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_1$}}
\put(-285,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_2$}}
\put(-233,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_3$}}
\put(-172,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_4$}}
\put(-100,0){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_5$}}
\put(-400,22){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(-,3)$}}
\put(-400,37){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(-,2)$}}
\put(-400,51){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(-,1)$}}
\put(-400,65){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(+,3)$}}
\put(-400,79){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(+,2)$}}
\put(-400,94){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(+,1)$}}
\caption{A sample path of $\{J^n(t)\}$ with $\mathcal{S} = \{1,2, 3\}$. \label{fig:SandChi} }
\end{figure}
The process $\mathcal{J}^n$ jumps alternately between $\{-\}\times\mathcal{S}$ and $\{+\}\times\mathcal{S}$ with intensity given by $\lambda_n$; furthermore, changes in its second coordinate, which occur according to $P_n$, are only possible at jumps instants from $\{+\}\times\mathcal{S}$ to $\{-\}\times\mathcal{S}$. Thus, $\mathcal{J}^n$ is a Markov jump process with state-space $\{+,-\}\times\mathcal{S}$ (ordered lexicographically), initial distribution $(\bm{0},\bm{p})$ and intensity matrix given by
\[
\left[\begin{array}{rr}
-\lambda_n I & \lambda_n P_n\\
\lambda_n I & -\lambda_n I
\end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{rr} -\lambda_n I & 2 Q + \lambda_n I\\
\lambda_n I& -\lambda_n I
\end{array}\right].
\]
Note that the sequence of states in $\mathcal{S}$ visited by $\pi_2(\mathcal{J}^n)$ coincides with that of $\mathcal{J}$, or more precisely,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sameJandJn}\pi_2({J}^n(\chi^n_k))=J(\theta^n_k)\quad\mbox{for all}\quad k\ge 0.\end{equation}
Also notice the jumps of $\pi_2(\mathcal{J}^n)$ can occur only at $\{\chi^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$ while the jumps of $\mathcal{J}$ can occur only at $\{\theta^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$. In general, $\{\chi^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}\neq\{\theta^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$; nevertheless,
\begin{align*}
\mathds{E}\left[\theta^n_k\right]& = \mathds{E}\left[\sum_{j=1}^k T^n_j\right] = k \mathds{E}\left[T^n_1\right] = \frac{2k}{\lambda_n},\\
\mathds{E}\left[\chi^n_k\right]&=\mathds{E}\left[\sum_{j=1}^k \left(\widehat{L}^{n}_{j} + \widehat{H}^{n}_{j}\right)\right] = k \mathds{E}\left[\widehat{L}^{n}_{1} + \widehat{H}^{n}_{1}\right] = \frac{2k}{\lambda_n}.
\end{align*}
In words, the average jump times of $\pi_2(\mathcal{J}^n)$ coincide with the average jump times of $\mathcal{J}$, so that the process $\pi_2(\mathcal{J}^n)$ is indeed {\it similar} to $\mathcal{J}$. A more precise and stronger version of this statement is proven in Section \ref{sec:rate}.
In order to construct $\mathcal{R}^n$, define $r^n:\{+,-\}\times\mathcal{S} \mapsto \mathds{R}$ by
\begin{align*}
r^n(+,i) & := \lambda_n/\omega_i^n, \quad r^n(-,i) := -\lambda_n/\eta_i^n.
\end{align*}
Let
\[
R^n(t) := \int_0^t r^n(J^n(s))\mathrm{d} s,\quad t\ge 0.
\]
The pair $(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)$ is indeed a stochastic fluid process. Moreover, from the construction of $\mathcal{J}^n$, (\ref{eq:sumH1}) and (\ref{eq:sumH2}), it follows that for all $k \ge 0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:RnS1}
%
R^n\left(\chi_k^n\right) & = \sum_{j=1}^k\left(-L^{n}_{j} + H^{n}_{j}\right) = R(\theta_k^n), \\
\label{eq:RnS2}
R^n\left(\chi_k^n + \widehat{L}^{n}_{k+1}\right) & = \sum_{j=1}^k \left(- L^{n}_{j} + H^{n}_{j}\right) - L^{n}_{k+1}=\min_{\theta_k^n\le t\le \theta_{k+1}^n} R(t).
\end{align}
This implies that the values at the inflection points of the level process $\mathcal{R}^n$ coincide with the values of $\{ R(\theta_k^n)\}_{k\ge 0}$ and $\{\min_{\theta_k^n\le t\le \theta_{k+1}^n} R(t)\}_{k\ge 0}$. In conclusion, the values of $\mathcal{R}$ at the arrival epochs of $\mathcal{M}^n$, and the minimum level attained between them, are embedded in $\mathcal{R}^n$. Figure \ref{fig:flip-flop} illustrates the construction of the stochastic fluid process $(\mathcal{R}^n, \mathcal{J}^n)$ corresponding to the Markov-modulated Brownian motion $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J})$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{approximation.pdf}
\put(-138,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_1$}}
\put(-87,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_2$}}
\put(-63,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_3$}}
\put(-23,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\chi^n_4$}}
\put(-328,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^n_1$}}
\put(-276,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^n_2$}}
\put(-268,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^n_3$}}
\put(-236,7){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\theta^n_4$}}
\put(-415,164){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$R(t)$}}
\put(-204,164){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$R^n(t)$}}
\put(-221,20){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$t$}}
\put(-11,20){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$t$}}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{(Left)} A sample path of an MMBM $(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{J})$ with $\mathcal{J}$ being on $\mathcal{S} = \{1, 2\}$: arrivals corresponding to $\mathcal{M}^n$ occur at $\{\theta_i^n\}_{i \geq 0}$, and the minima of $\mathcal{R}$ attained between these arrivals are highlighted with blue crosses. When $J(t) = 1$ (red), $\mu_1 = 5$ and $\sigma_1^2 = 4$. When $J(t) = 2$ (blue), $\mu_2 = -2$ and $\sigma_2^2 = 1$. \textbf{(Right)} An associated sample path of a stochastic fluid process $(\mathcal{R}^n,\mathcal{J}^n)$: jumps from $\{+\}\times\mathcal{S}$ to $\{-\}\times\mathcal{S}$ occur at $\{\chi_i^n\}_{i \geq 1}$. The values of $R^n(\chi_i^n)$ match with those of $R(\theta_i^n)$ for $i = 1, \ldots 4$, respectively.}
\label{fig:flip-flop}
\end{figure}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:rate}.}
\label{sec:rate}
As $\lambda_n \rightarrow \infty$, the partitions induced by $\{\theta^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$ and $\{\chi^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$ become finer. Intuitively, this and (\ref{eq:RnS1}) indicate that $\mathcal{R}^n$ \emph{approximates} $\mathcal{R}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, which is stated more precisely in Theorems \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} and \ref{th:rate}. We devote this section to rigorously prove Theorem \ref{th:rate}, from which Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} follows as a corollary.
Let $\lambda_n=2n^2$; this makes our results and rates comparable to those of \cite{gorostiza1980rate} and related papers. Fix $T \in [0,1)$, $q>0$ and w.l.o.g. consider $n\ge 2$ throughout.
\textbf{Proof of Part (i).} In order to prove (\ref{eq:rate2}), notice that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rateaux1}
\mathds{P}\left(\sup_{0 \le s\le T} |R(s) - R^n(s)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n\right)\le \mathds{P}(A^n) + \mathds{P}(\chi^n_{n^2} < T),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
A^n := \left\{\sup_{0 \le s\le \chi^{n}_{n^2}} |R(s) - R^n(s)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n\right\} = \left\{\max_{1 \leq k \leq n^2} \sup_{\chi^{n}_{k-1} \le s \le \chi^{n}_{k}} |R(s) - R^n(s)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n\right\},
\end{align*}
where $\alpha$ is a constant to be determined later. We now show that each of the quantities $P(A^n)$ and $P(\chi_{n^2}^n < T)$ are $o(n^{-q})$.
The triangle inequality implies that
\begin{align*}
A^n \subseteq B_1^n\cup B_2^n\cup B_3^n\cup B_4^n,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
B_1^n & := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2}\sup_{\chi_{{k - 1}}^n \le s\le \chi_{{k}}^n } |R(s) - R(\chi_k^n)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right\},\\
\displaybreak
B_2^n & := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2} |R(\chi_k^n) - R(k/n^2)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right\},\\
B_3^n & := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2} |R(k/n^2) - R^n(\chi_k^n)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right\},\\
B_4^n & := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2}\sup_{\chi_{{k - 1}}^n \le s\le \chi_{{k}}^n} |R^n(\chi_k^n) - R^n(s)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right\}.
\end{align*}
By (\ref{eq:RnS1}), $B_3^n$ can be rewritten as
\[
B_3^n = \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2} |R(\theta_k^n) - R(k/n^2)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right\},
\]
%
so that the events $B_1^n, B_2^n$ and $B_3^n$ concern only the process $\mathcal{R}$, not $\mathcal{R}^n$.
Let $\{\delta_n\}_{n\ge 0}$ be any positive and decreasing sequence. Making a further partition, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:Anfurther}
A^n
\subseteq \left(\left(B_1^n\cup B_2^n\cup B_3^n\right) \cap \left( C^n_\chi \cup C^n_\theta\right)^c \right) \cup \left( C^n_\chi \cup C^n_\theta\right) \cup B_4^n,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
C^n_\chi := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2} |\chi_k^n - k/n^2|>\delta_n\right\}, \quad
C^n_\theta := \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2} |\theta_k^n - k/n^2|>\delta_n\right\}.
\end{align*}
On $(C^n_\chi\cup C^n_\theta)^c$, for all $k = 1, \ldots, n^2$ we have that
\begin{align*}
\chi_k^n, \theta_k^n, \chi_{k + 1}^n \in [k/n^2 - \delta_n, (k + 1)/n^2 + \delta_n].
\end{align*}
Let $x_+:=\max\{x,0\}$ for $x\in\mathds{R}$. If there exists $a, b \in [k/n^2 - \delta_n, (k + 1)/n^2 + \delta_n]$ such that $|R(a_+) - R(b_+)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4$ , then by the triangle inequality either $|R([k/n^2 - \delta_n]_+) - R(a_+)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n / 8$, or $|R([k/n^2 - \delta_n]_+) - R(b_+)| > \alpha \varepsilon_n / 8$.
Therefore,
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:whyneedDn}
\left(B_1^n\cup B_2^n\cup B_3^n\right) \cap \left(C^n_\chi \cup C^n_\theta\right)^c
\subseteq D^n,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
D^n &:= \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2}\sup_{a \in [k/n^2 - \delta_n, (k + 1)/n^2 + \delta_n]} \left|R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n)_+\right) - R\left(a_+\right)\right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/8\right\}\\
&\;= \left\{\max_{1 \le k\le n^2}\sup_{s \in [0, n^{-2} + 2\delta_n]} \left|R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n + s)_+\right) - R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n)_+\right)\right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/8\right\}.
\end{align*}
Thus, by \eqref{eqn:Anfurther} and \eqref{eqn:whyneedDn},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:auxsum1}
\mathds{P}(A^n) \le \mathds{P}(D^n) + \mathds{P}(C^n_\chi ) + \mathds{P}(C^n_\theta) + \mathds{P}(B^n_4).
\end{align}
In the following, we show that with an appropiate choice of $\alpha$ and $\{\delta_n\}_{n\ge 1}$, each summand in the RHS of (\ref{eq:auxsum1}) is an $o(n^{-q})$ function. For the remainder of the section, $K_j$, for $j \in \mathds{N}$, denote generic constants that are used to simplify bounds and are not dependent on $q$ or $n$.
\textbf{Bounding $P(B^n_4)$.} Let
$\omega_{\min}^n := \min\limits_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\omega_i^n, \; \eta_{\min}^n := \min\limits_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\eta_i^n, \;\kappa_n :=\omega_{\min}^n\wedge\eta_{\min}^n.
$
Then,
\begin{align}
\mathds{P}(B_4^n)&\le \sum_{1\le k\le n^2}\mathds{P}\left(\sup_{\chi_{{k - 1}}^n \le s\le \chi_{{k}}^n} \left| R^n(\chi_k^n) - R^n(s)\right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right) \nonumber \\
&\le \sum_{1\le k\le n^2}\mathds{P}\left(H^{n}_k>\alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right) + \mathds{P}\left(L^{n}_k>\alpha \varepsilon_n/4\right) \nonumber\\
&\le n^2\left(e^{-\omega^n_{\min}\alpha \varepsilon_n/4} + e^{-\eta^n_{\min}\alpha \varepsilon_n/4}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le n^2 \left( 2e^{-\kappa_n(\alpha \varepsilon_n/4)}\right). \nonumber
\end{align}
By definition,
\begin{align*}
\kappa_n := \min_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\left\{\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mu^2_i}{\sigma^4_i} + \frac{2n^2}{\sigma^2_i}} + \frac{\mu_i}{\sigma^2_i}\right)\wedge\left( \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2_i}{\sigma^4_i} + \frac{2n^2}{\sigma^2_i}} - \frac{\mu_i}{\sigma^2_i}\right)\right\}= O(n),
\end{align*}
where the notation $O(g(n))$, for $g:\mathds{N}\mapsto \mathds{R}_+$, denotes a function $f:\mathds{N}\mapsto \mathds{R}$ such that $\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} |f(n)|/g(n) \le M$ for some $M\in\mathds{R}$.
Then, there exists $n_1$ such that $\kappa_n >n^{1/2}$ for all $n\ge n_1$, and so for $n\ge n_1$
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}(B_4^n)&\le n^2 \left(2e^{-\kappa_n(\alpha/4)n^{-1/2}\log(n)}\right) \le n^2 \left(2e^{-(\alpha/4)\log(n)}\right) =K_1n^{2-\alpha/4},
\end{align*}
Choose $\alpha$ to be larger than $\alpha_1:=8q+8$. Then, $\mathds{P}(B_4^n)$ is an $O(n^{-2q})$ function and thus, it is an $o(n^{-q})$ function.
\textbf{Bounding $P(C^n_{\chi})$ and $P(C^n_{\theta})$.} Let $\{p_n\}_{n}$ be a sequence taking values in $\mathds{N}$. By Doob's $L_p$-maximal inequality, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Ansigmabound1}
\mathds{P}(C^n_\chi )\le\frac{\mathds{E}[(\chi_{n^2}^n - 1)^{2p_n}]}{(\delta_n)^{2p_n}}.
%
\end{align}
Since $\chi_{n^2}^n$ is a convolution of $2n^2$ exponential r.v.s of rate $2n^2$, $\chi_{n^2}^n\sim\mbox{Erlang}(2n^2, 2n^2)$, so that (\ref{eq:Ansigmabound1}) and Lemma \ref{lem:cmomentErl} (in the Appendix) imply that
\begin{align}
\mathds{P}(C^n_\chi )&\le(\delta_n)^{-2p_n} \frac{(2p_n)!\sqrt{2n^2}}{(2n^2)^{2p_n}} \frac{\sqrt{2n^2}^{2p_n+1}-1}{\sqrt{2n^2}-1}\nonumber\\
& \le K_2 \frac{(\delta_n)^{-2p_n}(2p_n)! }{n^{2p_n-1}}\nonumber\\
& \le K_2 n\left(\frac{2p_n }{\delta_n n}\right)^{2p_n}.\label{eq:boundAnsigma2}
\end{align}
Similarly, since $\theta_{n^2}^n\sim \mbox{Erlang}(n^2, n^2)$, we have for $n \geq 2$
\begin{align}\label{eq:boundAntheta2}
\mathds{P}(C^n_\theta)\le K_3 n\left(\frac{2p_n }{\delta_n n}\right)^{2p_n}.
\end{align}
Set
\begin{align}
\label{eq:deltan}
\delta_n := 2p_nn^{(q+1/2)/p_n - 1},\quad n\ge 1.
\end{align}
With this choice of $\{\delta_n\}$, both (\ref{eq:boundAnsigma2}) and the RHS of (\ref{eq:boundAntheta2}) are proportional to $n^{-2q}$, so that $\mathds{P}(C^n_\chi )$ and $\mathds{P}(C^n_\theta)$ are $o(n^{-q})$ functions.
\textbf{Bounding $P(D^n)$.} Set $p_n := \lfloor\log(n)\rfloor$; one can verify that with this choice of $\{p_n\}$, the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$ is a $O(n^{-1}\log(n))$ function. Define $\delta_n' := 2\delta_n + n^{-2}$ and let $n_2\ge n_1$ be such that $\alpha_1\varepsilon_n/8-\mu_{\max}\delta_n'>0$ for all $n\ge n_2$. Then, for any $\alpha\ge \alpha_1$, we have $\alpha\varepsilon_n/8-\mu_{\max}\delta_n'>0$ for all $n\ge n_2$. Thus,
\begin{align}
\mathds{P}(D^n)
& \leq {\sum_{k = 1}^{n^2} \mathds{P} \left(\sup_{0 \leq s \leq \delta_n'} \left| R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n)_+\right) - R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n + s)_+\right) \right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/8\right)}\nonumber \\
& \leq { \sum_{k = 1}^{n^2} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} \mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \leq s \leq \delta_n'} \left| R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n)_+\right) - R\left((k/n^2 - \delta_n + s)_+\right) \right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/8 \; \right| \; G_{i, k, n} \right)}, \nonumber
\intertext{where $G_{i,k,n} := \{J\left(k/n^2 - \delta_n\right) = i\}$. By strong Markov property, we can rewrite the above RHS to obtain}
\mathds{P}(D^n) & = {n^2\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} \mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \leq s \leq \delta_n'} \left| R(s) \right| > \alpha \varepsilon_n/8 \; \right| \; J(0) = i \right)} \nonumber \\
&\le
n^2m \left[\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\max} \delta_n'}}{\alpha \varepsilon_n / 8 - \mu_{\max} \delta_n'}
\exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8-\mu_{\max}\delta_n')^2}{2\sigma_{\max}\delta_n'}\right)
\right]\nonumber \\
&\le K_4n^2\exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8-\mu_{\max}\delta_n')^2}{2\sigma_{\max}\delta_n'}\right),\quad n\ge n_2, \label{eq:PDn2}
%
\end{align}
where the first inequality follows from Lemma \ref{lem:boundforMMBM} (in the Appendix).
Let $n_3\ge n_2$ be such that $\varepsilon_n\le 1$ and $\delta_n'\le 3\delta_n$ for all $n\ge n_3$.
Then
\begin{align}
\mathds{P}(D^n)&\le K_4n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)^2 + (\mu_{\max}\delta_n')^2 - 2(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)(\mu_{\max}\delta_n') }{2\sigma_{\max}\delta_n'}\right) \nonumber\\
& \le K_4 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)^2 - 2(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)(\mu_{\max}\delta_n') }{2\sigma_{\max}\delta_n'}\right) \nonumber\\
& \le K_4 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)^2}{2\sigma_{\max}\delta_n'} + \frac{\alpha\mu_{\max}}{8\sigma_{\max}}\right)\nonumber\\
& \le K_5 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\alpha\varepsilon_n/8)^2}{6\sigma_{\max}\delta_n}\right)\nonumber\\
&= K_5 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{\alpha^2n^{-1}(\log(n))^2}{K_6\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor n^{(q+1/2)/\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor -1}}\right)\nonumber \\
& \le K_5 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{\alpha^2\log(n)}{K_6 n^{(q+1/2)/\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor}}\right),\quad n\ge n_3.\label{eq:boundDn3}
\end{align}
Let $\gamma(q)=\sup_{n\ge n_3} K_6 n^{(q+1/2)/\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor}$, which is finite since $n^{(q+1/2)/\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor}$ converges to $e^{q + 1/2}$. If $\alpha > \alpha_2:=\sqrt{(2q+2)\gamma(q)}$, by (\ref{eq:boundDn3}) we have
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}(D^n) & \le K_5 n^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(2q + 2)\gamma(q)\log(n)}{ K_6 n^{(q+1/2)/\lfloor\log(n)\rfloor}} \right) \\
& \le K_5 n^2 \exp\left(-(2q + 2)\log(n)\right) \\
& = K_5 n^{-2q}, \quad n\ge n_3,
\end{align*}
which implies $\mathds{P}(D^n)$ is an $o(n^{-q})$ function. Thus, all four terms in the LHS of (\ref{eq:auxsum1}) are $o(n^{-q})$ functions, and so is $\mathds{P}(A^n)$.
Finally, let $n_4\ge n_3$ be such that $\delta_n<1-T$ for all $n\ge n_4$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}\left(\chi^n_{n^2} < T\right)\le \mathds{P}\left(C^n_{\chi}\right) \mbox{ for all } n\ge n_4,
\end{align*}
meaning that $(\ref{eq:rateaux1})$ is an $o(n^{-q})$ function. The proof of (\ref{eq:rate2}) is now complete.
\textbf{Proof of Part (ii).} Now, let $\{\rho_{\ell}\}_{\ell\ge 1}$ be a sequence with $\rho_{\ell}\downarrow 0$, and define
\begin{align*}
E^\ell := \bigcap_{j=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left\{\pi_2(J^n(s))\neq J(s)\mbox{ for some }s\in(T-\rho_\ell, T + \rho_\ell)\right\}.
\end{align*}
Proving (\ref{eq:rateJ1}) is equivalent to showing that $\mathds{P}(\cap_{\ell=1}^\infty E^\ell) = 0$, which in turn is equivalent to proving that $\lim\limits_{\ell\rightarrow\infty}\mathds{P}(E^\ell)=0$.
Define $\beta_0:=0$, $\beta^n_0:= 0$ for $n\ge 0$. For $k\ge 0$, let
\begin{align*}
\beta_{k+1}&:=\inf\left\{s>\beta_k: J(s^-)\neq J(s)\right\},\\
\beta_{k+1}^n&:= \inf \left\{s>\beta_k^n: \pi_2(J(s^-))\neq \pi_2(J(s))\right\},\quad n\ge 0.
\end{align*}
For any $a,b\in\mathds{R}$, define $M^0[a,b]: = M(b_+)-M(a_+)$; recall that $\mathcal{M}^0$ is a Poisson process of rate $\lambda_0/2$ defined in Section \ref{sec:ProofStrongConvMMBM}. Then,
\begin{align}
E^\ell& \subseteq \left\{M^0[T-2\rho_\ell, T+2\rho_\ell]>0\right\} \cup \left(\left\{M^0[T-2\rho_\ell, T+2\rho_\ell]=0\right\} \cap E^{\ell}\right).
\end{align}
Note that $\mathds{P}(M^0[T-2\rho_\ell, T+2\rho_\ell]>0) \le 1-e^{-(\lambda_0/2)4\rho_\ell} \rightarrow 0$ as $\ell\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, in order to prove that $\lim\limits_{\ell\rightarrow\infty}\mathds{P}(E^\ell)= 0$, it is sufficient to show that
\begin{align}
\lim_{\ell\rightarrow\infty}\mathds{P}\left(\{M^0[T-2\rho_\ell, T+2\rho_\ell]=0\}\cap E^\ell\right)=0,
\end{align}
which we do next. A path inspection reveals that
\begin{align}
& \{M^0 [T-2\rho_\ell, T+2\rho_\ell]=0\}\cap E^\ell\nonumber\\
&\subseteq\left\{\bigcup_{k\ge 0}\left\{ \beta_k<T-2\rho_\ell < T+2\rho_\ell<\beta_{k+1}\right\}\right\}\cap E^\ell \nonumber\\
&=\bigcup_{k\ge 0}\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\beta_k<T-2\rho_\ell< T+2\rho_\ell<\beta_{k+1}, T-\rho_\ell < \beta^n_k \} \; \cup\\\{\beta_k<T-2\rho_\ell < T+2\rho_\ell<\beta_{k+1}, \beta^n_{k+1}<T+\rho_\ell \}\end{array}\right\}\nonumber\\
&\subseteq\bigcup_{k\ge 0}\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left(\{|\beta_k - \beta_k^n|>\rho_\ell, \beta_k< T-2\rho_\ell \}\cup\{|\beta_{k+1} - \beta_{k+1}^n|>\rho_\ell, \beta^n_{k+1}< T+\rho_\ell \}\right)\nonumber\\
\displaybreak
&\subseteq \left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left\{\max_{k:\theta^n_k< T-2\rho_\ell}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k|>\rho_\ell\right\}\right) \; \cup \; \left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left\{\max_{k:\chi^n_k< T+\rho_\ell}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k|>\rho_\ell\right\}\right)\nonumber\\
&\subseteq \left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty \left\{\max_{1\le k\le n^2}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k|>\rho_\ell\right\}\right) \; \cup \; \left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=j}^\infty\{ \theta^n_{n^2}<T-2\rho_\ell\}\right) \cup \left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=j}^\infty\{\chi^n_{n^2}<T+\rho_\ell\}\right).
\label{eq:last2sum}
\end{align}
Since $\{\delta_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ is a sequence such that $\delta_n\downarrow 0$, then for each $\ell\ge 1$,
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}\left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty\{\max_{1\le k\le n^2}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k| > \rho_\ell\}\right)\le \mathds{P}\left(\bigcap_{j=1}^\infty\bigcup_{n=j}^\infty\{\max_{1\le k\le n^2}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k| > 2\delta_n\}\right) = 0,
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from the fact that
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}\left(\max_{1\le k\le n^2}|\chi^n_k - \theta^n_k| > 2\delta_n\right)\le \mathds{P}(C^n_\chi\cup C^n_\theta)=o(n^{-q}),
\end{align*}
and applying Borel-Cantelli (choosing, say, $q = 2$). Similar arguments follow for the two other events in (\ref{eq:last2sum}). Thus, $\lim\limits_{\ell\rightarrow\infty}\mathds{P}(E^\ell)=0$ and so (\ref{eq:rateJ1}) follows.
\section{An application: First passage probabilities.}
\label{sec:applications}
Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} implies that some first passage properties of $(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{J})$ can be analysed as the limiting first passage properties of $(\mathcal{R}^n,\mathcal{J}^n)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. In particular, for any Borel set $A\subset\mathds{R}$ define
\begin{align*}
\tau_A &:=\inf\left\{s\ge 0: R(s)\in A\right\}, \\
\tau^n_A &:=\inf\left\{s\ge 0: R^n(s)\in A\right\},\quad n\ge 0.
\end{align*}
Then, Theorem \ref{th:strongConvMMBM} implies that for any open set $A$ and $j\in\mathcal{S}$,
\begin{align*}
\tau_A= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\tau_A^n\quad\mbox{a.s.},
\end{align*}
and on the event $\{\tau_A<\infty\}$,
\begin{align*}
\left\{J(\tau_A)=j\right\}=\bigcup_{i=0}^\infty\bigcap_{n=i}^\infty\{\pi_2(J^n(\tau_A))=j\}\quad\mbox{a.s.}.
\end{align*}
In the case $A$ takes the form $(-\infty,-x)$, for $x\ge 0$, we have the following.
\begin{Proposition} \label{prop:tauxtaunx1}For $x\ge 0$ and $n\ge 0$ define
\[\tau_x:=\tau_{(-\infty,-x)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\tau_x^n:=\tau_{(-\infty,-x)}^n.\]
Then, for all $j\in\mathcal{S}$,
\begin{align}
\{\tau_x<\infty, J(\tau_x)=j\} = \{\tau^n_x<\infty, \pi_2(J^n(\tau_x^n))=j\}.\label{eq:eventeqaux1}
\end{align}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
Fix $x\ge 0$ and $n\ge 0$. Let
\[N:=\sup\{k\ge 0: \tau_x\ge \theta^n_k\}.\]
This implies that $\tau_x\in[\theta^n_N,\theta^0_{N+1})$ on $\{N<\infty\}$, and since $\mathcal{J}$ is constant between the epochs $\{\theta^n_k\}_{k\ge 0}$, then $J(\theta^n_N)=J(\tau_x)$. Similarly, if we define
\[N^n:=\sup\{k\ge 0: \tau_x^n\ge \chi^n_k\},\]
then $\pi_2(J^n(\chi^n_{N^n}))=\pi_2(J^n(\tau_x^n))$ on $\{N^n<\infty\}$. Equations (\ref{eq:RnS1}) and (\ref{eq:RnS2}) imply that $N_n=N$, and since $J(\theta^n_k)=\pi_2(J^n(\chi^n_k))$ for all $k\ge 0$ (see (\ref{eq:sameJandJn})), then
\[J(\tau_x)=J(\theta^n_N)=\pi_2(J^n(\chi^n_{N^n}))=\pi_2(J^n(\tau_x^n))\quad\mbox{on}\quad\{N<\infty\},\]
and (\ref{eq:eventeqaux1}) follows.
\end{proof}
The following result describes one central first passage distributional property of our construction.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:quadratic1}
For $n\ge 0$, let $U_n$ denote the infinitesimal {generator} associated to {the process} $\{\pi_2(J^n(\tau^n_x))\}_{x\ge 0}$. Then, $U_n$ is a solution to the quadratic matrix equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq:quadratic2}
X^2 + 2\Delta_{\mu}\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}X + 2\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}Q=0
\end{align}
where $\Delta_{\mu} = \mbox{diag}\{\mu_i: i\in\mathcal{S}\}$, $\Delta_{\sigma}=\mbox{diag}\{\sigma_i: i\in\mathcal{S}\}$. Furthermore $U_n$ corresponds to the infinitesimal {generator} associated to $\{J(\tau_x)\}_{x\ge 0}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Psi_n$ be the $p\times p$-dimensional matrix defined by
\begin{align*}
(\Psi_n)_{ij}=\mathds{P}\left(\tau^n_0 <\infty, J^n(\tau_0)=(-,j) \mid R^n(0)=0, J^n(0)=(+,i)\right), \quad i,j\in\mathcal{S}.
%
\end{align*}
Define $
\Delta_{r^n_+} =\mbox{diag}\{r^n(+, i): i\in\mathcal{S}\}$, $\Delta_{r^n_-} =\mbox{diag}\{|r^n(-, i)|: i\in\mathcal{S}\}$,
and
\begin{align*}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
T_{++} & T_{+-} \\
T_{-+} & T_{--}\end{array}\right] := \left[\begin{array}{rc}
-\lambda_n I & 2 Q + \lambda_n I \\
\lambda_n I & -\lambda_n I \end{array}\right].
\end{align*}
It is known \cite{bean2005algorithms} that $\Psi_n$is the minimal nonnegative solution to the Riccati matrix equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Riccati1}
\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}T_{++}\Psi_n + \Psi_n\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}T_{--} + \Psi_n\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}T_{-+}\Psi_n + \Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}T_{+-} = 0,
\end{align}
and that
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}(\tau^n_0 <\infty, J^n(\tau_x)=(-,j) \mid R^n(0)=0, J^n(0)=(-,i))=\bm{e}_i^{\top}e^{U_n x}\bm{e}_j,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}
U_n & = \Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1} (T_{--} + T_{-+}\Psi_n)
=\lambda_n \Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1} (\Psi_n - I),\label{eq:rhsUn1}
\end{align}
with $\bm{e}_i$ being the $i$th unit column vector.
Premultiplying (\ref{eq:Riccati1}) by $\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}$ and commuting $\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}$ with $\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}$ give
\begin{align*}
-\lambda_n \Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1} \Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}\Psi_n -\lambda_n \Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}\Psi_n\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1} + \lambda_n\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}\Psi_n\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}\Psi_n + \Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}(2Q + \lambda_nI) = 0,
\end{align*}
which leads to
$
(\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}-\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1})U_n+ \lambda_n^{-1}U_n^2 + 2\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}Q = 0.
$
As $
\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1}-\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1} = 2\lambda_n^{-1}\Delta_{\mu}\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}$ and $
\Delta_{r^n_+}^{-1}\Delta_{r^n_-}^{-1} = \lambda_n^{-1}\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Quadratic1}
U_n^2 + 2\Delta_{\mu}\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}U_n + 2\Delta_{\sigma}^{-2}Q=0.
\end{align}
That $U_n$ is also the infinitesimal generator of $\{J(\tau_x)\}_{x\ge 0}$ follows from Proposition \ref{prop:tauxtaunx1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark} Theorem \ref{th:quadratic1} provides a novel understanding of the classic quadratic matrix equation associated to the {down-crossing records of an MMBM} (see \cite{Asmussen:1995jm}). Indeed, to compute the infinitesimal generator solution of (\ref{eq:quadratic2}) (which is unique by \cite{latouche2015morphing}), we can instead compute the minimal nonnegative solution to the Riccati matrix equation (\ref{eq:Riccati1}), say $\Psi_n$. The solution of (\ref{eq:quadratic2}) is then given by $U_n$ as defined in (\ref{eq:rhsUn1}). A comparable result is that of \cite{latouche2015morphing}, where the authors construct a sequence of matrices $\{U^*_n\}_{n\ge 0}$ that is shown to converge to $U$. One advantage of our construction is that each element of the sequence $\{U_n\}$ obtained through Theorem \ref{th:quadratic1} is identical to $U$.
\end{Remark}
\section*{Acknowledgements.}
Both authors are affiliated with Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers (ACEMS).
\section*{Appendix.}
The following are some standalone results used in Sections \ref{sec:ProofStrongConvMMBM} and \ref{sec:rate}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:reverseUnif}
Let $\mathcal{A}=\{A(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be a Poisson process of parameter $\lambda_a>0$, and $\mathcal{X}=\{X(n)\}_{n\ge 0}$ an independent discrete-time Markov chain with state space $\mathcal{S}$ and transition probability matrix $P$. Define the Markov jump process $\mathcal{J}=\{J(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be
\[J(t)= X(A(t)),\quad t\ge 0.\]
Let $\mathcal{B}=\{B(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be an independent Poisson process of parameter $\lambda_b>0$. Define $\mathcal{C}$ to be the superposition of the Poisson processes $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, and denote by $\{\tau_k\}_{k\ge 0}$ the arrival times of $\mathcal{C}$. If we let
\[Y(n)=J(\tau_n), \quad n\ge 0,\]
then the process $\mathcal{Y}=\{Y(n)\}_{n\ge 0}$ is a Markov chain with transition probability matrix given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:transitionmatrix1}\frac{\lambda_a}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b}P + \frac{\lambda_b}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b}I.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that $\mathcal{Y}$ is a Markov process. Let $i\in\mathcal{S}$ and $k\ge 1$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}&\left(Y(k)=i \mid Y(0), Y(1), \dots, Y(k-1)\right)\\
& = \mathds{P}(J(\tau_{k})=i \mid J(\tau_0), J(\tau_{1}), \dots, J(\tau_{k-1}))\\
& = \mathds{P}(J(\tau_{k})=i \mid J(\tau_{k-1}))\quad\mbox{(Strong Markov property of $\mathcal{J}$)}\\
& = \mathds{P}(Y(k)=i \mid Y(k-1)),
\end{align*}
so that the Markov property holds.
Next, let $\mathcal{C}^*$ be the \emph{marked} Poisson process with arrivals corresponding to the superposition of $\mathcal{A}$, arrivals which we mark with an $a$, and $\mathcal{B}$, arrivals which we mark with a $b$. The $k$th arrival of $\mathcal{C}^*$ occurs at $\tau_k$ carrying a mark, say $m_k\in\{a,b\}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
& \mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i) \\
& = \mathds{P}(Y(k)=j, m_k=a \mid Y(k-1)=i) + \mathds{P}(Y(k)=j, m_k=b \mid Y(k-1)=i)\\
& = \mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i, m_k=a)\mathds{P}(m_k=a \mid Y(k-1)=i)\\
&\quad + \mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i, m_k=b)\mathds{P}(m_k=b \mid Y(k-1)=i).
\end{align*}
The event $\{m_k=a\}$ is clearly independent from $\{Y(k-1)=i\}$: the mark of a given Poisson arrival is independent of the history of the previous arrivals. Thus,
\[\mathds{P}(m_k=a \mid Y(k-1)=i) = \mathds{P}(m_k=a) = \frac{\lambda_a}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b}.\]
Similarly,
\[\mathds{P}(m_k=b \mid Y(k-1)=i) = \mathds{P}(m_k=b) = \frac{\lambda_b}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b}.\]
Next, since $\mathcal{J}$ only (possibly) jumps at arrival times marked with $a$, then
\[\mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i, m_k=b) = \delta_{ij},\]
where $\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker delta. Finally, since $\mathcal{J}$ is piecewise constant between the arrival times $\{\tau_k\}_k$, then
\[\{Y(k-1)=i\} = \{J(\tau_{k-1})= i\}=\{J(\tau_{k}^-)= i\}.\]
This implies that
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i, m_k=a) & = \mathds{P}(J(\tau_{k})= j \mid J(\tau_{k}^-)= i, m_k=a) = p_{ij}.
\end{align*}
Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}(Y(k)=j \mid Y(k-1)=i) = p_{ij}\frac{\lambda_a}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b} + \delta_{ij}\frac{\lambda_a}{\lambda_a+\lambda_b}
\end{align*}
and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lem:cmomentErl}
For $a\in \mathds{N}_{+}\backslash\{1\}$ and $b>0$, let $Y\sim\mbox{\mbox{Erlang}}(a,b)$.
Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cmomentErl}
\mathds{E}\left[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^k\right] \le \frac{k!\sqrt{a}}{b^j} \frac{\sqrt{a}^{k+1}-1}{\sqrt{a}-1} \quad \mbox{ for } k\in\mathds{N}_{+}.
\end{align}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
W.l.o.g. suppose that $b=1$. Equation (\ref{eq:cmomentErl}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cmomentErl2}
\mathds{E}\left[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^k\right] \le {k!}\sum_{j=1}^k\sqrt{a}^j.
\end{align}
We use induction to prove that (\ref{eq:cmomentErl2}) holds. First, since $\mathds{E}[Y-\mathds{E}[Y]]=0< 1!\sqrt{a}$, the case $k=1$ holds trivially. Now, suppose (\ref{eq:cmomentErl}) holds for all $k\in\{1,2,\dots, k_0\}$ for some $k_0\ge 1$. By \cite[third formula on p.704]{willink2003relationships},
\begin{align}
\mathds{E}\left[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^{k_0+1}\right] & = k_0!a\sum_{i=0}^{k_0-1} \frac{\mathds{E}\left[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^{i}\right]}{i!} \nonumber \\
& =k_0!a\left[1 + \sum_{i=2}^{k_0-1}\frac{\mathds{E}[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^{i}]}{i!}\right]. \label{eq:willink}
\end{align}
Using the induction hypothesis on the RHS of (\ref{eq:willink}), we get
\begin{align*}
\mathds{E}[(Y-\mathds{E}[Y])^{k_0+1}] & \le k_0!a\left[1 + \sum_{i=2}^{k_0-1}\sum_{j=1}^i\sqrt{a}^j\right] \le k_0!a\sum_{i=1}^{k_0-1}\sum_{j=1}^i\sqrt{a}^j\\
&= k_0!a\sum_{j=1}^{k_0-1}\sum_{i=j}^{k_0-1}\sqrt{a}^j= k_0!a\sum_{j=1}^{k_0-1}(k_0-j)
\sqrt{a}^j\\
& \le (k_0+1)!a\sum_{j=1}^{k_0-1}\sqrt{a}^j\le (k_0+1)!\sum_{j=1}^{k_0+1}\sqrt{a}^j,
\end{align*}
which proves (\ref{eq:cmomentErl2}) and thus (\ref{eq:cmomentErl}).
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lem:boundforMMBM}
Let $(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{J}) = \{(R(t), J(t))\}_{t\ge 0}$ be a Markov-modulated Brownian motion defined as in (\ref{eq:Rt1}). Then, for any $i\in\mathcal{S}$, $t > 0$ and ${a > \mu_{\max} t}$,
\begin{align}
\mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|R(s)|> a \; \right| \; J(0) = i \right)\le \frac{2}{{\sqrt{2 \pi}}}{\frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}t}}{a - \mu_{\max}t}}\exp\left(-\frac{(a-\mu_{\max}t)^2}{2\sigma_{\max}t}\right),
\end{align}
where $\mu_{\max}:=\max_{i\in\mathcal{S}}|\mu_i|$ and $\sigma_{\max}:=\max_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\sigma_i.$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{W(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ be a standard Brownian motion, independent from $(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{J})$. A standard bound for the Brownian motion
gives us for $b > 0$
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}\left(\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|W(s)|> b\right)
& = 2 \int_b^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{-x^2/ 2t} \mathrm{d} x \\
& \leq 2 \int_{b}^{\infty} \frac{x / t}{\sqrt{2 \pi t}} e^{-x^2/ 2t} \mathrm{d} x \\
& \le \frac{2}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \left(\frac{\sqrt{t}}{b}\right)e^{-b^2/2t}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\mathcal{R}$ is identically distributed to $\{W(I^\sigma_t) + I^\mu_t\}_{t\ge 0}$, where $ I^\sigma_t := \int_0^t\sigma_{J(s)}\mathrm{d} s$ and $I^{\mu}_t :=\int_0^t\mu_{J(s)}\mathrm{d} s.$
This implies that
\begin{align*}
\mathds{P}&\left(\left.\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|R(s)|> a\;\right| \; J(0)=i\right) = \mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|W\left(I^\sigma_s\right) + I^\mu_s|> a\;\right| \; J(0)=i\right)\\
& \le \mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|W(I^\sigma_s)| > a - \sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\mu_s}|\;\right| \; J(0)=i\right)\\
& = \mathds{E}\left(\left.\mathds{P}\left(\left.\sup_{0 \le s\le t}\left|W(I^\sigma_s)\right| > a - \sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\mu_s}| \; \right| \; J(0)=i, \{I^\sigma_s\}_{0\le s\le t}, \{I^\mu_s\}_{0\le s\le t} \right)\;\right|\;J(0)=i\right) \\
& \le \mathds{E}\left(\left.\frac{2}{{\sqrt{2\pi}}}{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\sigma_s}|}}{a-\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\mu_s}|}
\right)} \exp\left(-\frac{(a-\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\mu_s}|)^2}{2\sup_{0 \le s\le t}|{I^\sigma_s}|}\right)\;\right| \; J(0)=i\right)\\
& \le \mathds{E}\left(\left.\frac{2}{{\sqrt{2 \pi}}}{\frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}t}}{a - \mu_{\max}t}}\exp\left(-\frac{(a-\mu_{\max}t)^2}{2\sigma_{\max}t}\right)\;\right| \; J(0)=i\right) \\
& = \frac{2}{{\sqrt{2 \pi}}}{\frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}t}}{a - \mu_{\max}t}}\exp\left(-\frac{(a-\mu_{\max}t)^2}{2\sigma_{\max}t}\right),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
Infrared dust bubbles are ubiquitous interstellar objects \citep{chur2006,chur2007,simp2012,Hou2014,N131_2013,N131_2016,Jayasinghe2019}. However, the details of the bubble shell formation mechanism are still unclear \citep[e.g.,][]{beau2010,wats2008}. N131 is a quite typical bubble, which has been observed and investigated in detail by \citet{N131_2013,N131_2016}. Bubble N131 has an inner minor radius of 13\,pc and an inner major radius of 15\,pc at a kinetic distance of $\sim$8.6\,kpc, and the center coordinates are R.A.(J2000) = $19\rm ^h52\rm ^m21.\!\!^{\rm s}5$, DEC.(J2000) = $+26^{\circ}21'24.\!\!{''}0$. A ring-like shell is visible at 8.0 and 24\,$\rm {\mu}m$ and is associated with CO emission (see Figure\,\ref{Fig:co_int}). Two giant elongated molecular clouds are located at opposite sides of the ring-like shell, and together, they exhibit a large velocity gradient. In addition, there is a huge cavity inside the bubble that is visible in the $5.8 - 500\,\rm {\mu}m$ emission. The column density, excitation temperature, and velocity of the $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ emission show a possibly stratified structure from the inner to outer rims of the ring-like shell. These suggest that bubble N131 has an expanding shell caused by feedback of strong stellar winds from the star formation at the center of the bubble \citep[see also the detailed discussion in][]{N131_2016}.
The $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ transitions have different upper energy levels \citep{Kaufman1999}. The different transitions can therefore be used to trace different excitation conditions. The integrated intensity ratios, such as $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$, may indicate a different temperature and density structure of the molecular cloud environments \citep{Hasegawa1994,Wilson1997}. For example, high $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}/W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ ratios have been observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) by \citet{Bolatto2000}. It was proposed that self-absorbed emission and optical depth effects may be possible origins for the high line ratios \citep{Bolatto2000,Bolatto2003}. Additionally, the line ratios are also quite important for us to diagnose the evolutionary stage of the molecular clouds \citep[e.g.,][]{Sakamoto1995, Beuther2000,Yoda2010,Polychroni2012,Nishimura2015}.
In this work, we carry out new $\rm CO\,(3-2)$ observations toward bubble N131 using the 15m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). In combination with our previous $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ line observations with the IRAM 30m telescope, we study how the CO line ratios can be used to trace the interaction in the expanding infrared dust bubble N131. In Section\,\ref{sect:obser} we describe the observations and data reduction. In Section\,\ref{sect:result_analysis} we show the observational results and the \texttt{RADEX} modeling. In Section\,\ref{sec:discussion} we mainly discuss the possibility of using the CO line ratios to trace the compressed inner rims of the ring-like shell around the bubble. In Section\,\ref{sect:summary} we summarize our results.
\section{Observations}
\label{sect:obser}
\subsection{$^{12}{\rm CO}\,{J=3-2}$}
\label{sect:co32}
We carried out new $\rm CO\,(3-2)$ observations (M17BP077 and M18BP069) toward bubble N131 during September 2017 -- August 2018 using the Heterodyne Array Receiver Programme \citep[HARP;][]{Buckle2009} at the 15m JCMT. Maps were referenced against an off-source position that was free of any significant CO emission in the \citet{Dame2001} CO Galactic Plane Survey. At 345\,GHz, the half-power beam width (HPBW) was $\sim$14.0$''$, and the main beam efficiency is $\eta_{\rm mb}=0.64$, taken from the JCMT efficiency archive. The main beam brightness temperature ($T_{\rm mb}$) can be derived by $T_{\rm mb} = T^*_{\rm A}/\eta_{\rm mb}$. The on-the-fly mapping mode was used to scan the bubble with a sampling step of 7.0$''$. For further line ratio analysis, the raw data were then convolved to the same angular resolution of 22.5$''$, corresponding to the lowest angular resolution of $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ (see Section\,\ref{sect:co21_obs}), with a grid of 11.0$''$ using the \texttt{GILDAS}\footnote{\url{http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS/}} software package.
Calibration scans, pointing, and focus were performed regularly. Calibration scans were taken at the beginning of each subscan. A pointing was made about every hour. A focus scan was taken every three hours, but more scans were taken around sunset and sunrise. The flux calibration is expected to be accurate to within 10\%. The \texttt{GILDAS} software package was used to reduce the observational data.
\subsection{$^{12}{\rm CO}\,{J=2-1}$ and $J=1-0$}
\label{sect:co21_obs}
Our $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ observations were simultaneously carried out in April 2014 using the IRAM 30m telescope\footnote{Based on observations carried out with the IRAM 30m Telescope. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany), and IGN (Spain).} on Pico Veleta, Spain. The observations have been introduced in detail in our previous work in \citet{N131_2016}. In our raw data, the HPBWs of $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ are 11.3$''$ and 22.5$''$ , respectively, with the same sampling step of 9.3$''$. For further line ratio analysis, the raw data were then convolved to the lowest angular resolution of 22.5$''$ with a grid of 11.0$''$ using the \texttt{GILDAS} software package.
\section{Results and analysis}
\label{sect:result_analysis}
\subsection{CO integrated intensity distributions}
\label{sect:co_distri}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/co_int-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Integrated intensity maps of $\rm CO\,(3-2)$ (\textit{upper}), $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ (\textit{middle}), and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ (\textit{lower}) lines with a velocity range from $-16.0$ to $-5.0\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ superimposed on 24\,$\rm {\mu}m$ emission. The contour levels in each CO map start at 5$\sigma$ in steps of 10$\sigma$ with $\sigma_{\rm CO\,(3-2)} = 0.6\,{\rm K}\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$, $\sigma_{\rm CO\,(2-1)} = 1.3\,{\rm K}\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$, and $\sigma_{\rm CO\,(1-0)} = 1.6\,{\rm K}\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$. The letters and the ellipse indicate the positions of nine molecular clumps (A-I) and the ring-like shell of the bubble, respectively. The angular resolution (22.5$''$) is indicated in the bottom left corner of each panel.}
\label{Fig:co_int}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{Fig:co_int} displays the integrated intensity maps of $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ lines with a velocity range from $-16.0$ to $-5.0\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ superimposed on MIPSGAL 24\,$\rm {\mu}m$ emission \citep{care2009}. All the CO data were convolved to the same angular resolution of 22.5$''$. We also label the nine selected molecular clumps \citep{N131_2016} and the ring-like shell of the bubble in the maps. The morphological structures of the three integrated intensity maps are clearly similar.
\subsection{Spectra}
\label{sect:spectra}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/spectra3221-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Example spectra of the high ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ (\textit{upper}) from the inner rims of the ring-like shell near clumps\,G and H, and of the low ratios (\textit{lower}) from the clump center regions (see also Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int}).}
\label{Fig:spectra3221}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/spectra2110-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Example spectra of the high ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ (\textit{upper}) from the inner rims of the ring-like shell near clumps\,A and B, and of the low ratios (\textit{lower}) from the clump center regions (see also Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int}).}
\label{Fig:spectra2110}
\end{figure}
We extracted several example spectra $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ (see upper panels in Figures\,\ref{Fig:spectra3221} and \ref{Fig:spectra2110}) with high ratios ($W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$) from the inner rims near clumps\,A, B, G, and H. All the spectra with the highest ratios have high signal-to-noise ratios above 10$\sigma$. This indicates that the line ratios have high signal-to-noise ratios at least above 7$\sigma$. For comparison, we also extracted some spectra (see lower panels in Figure\,\ref{Fig:spectra3221} and \ref{Fig:spectra2110}) with low line ratios from the corresponding clump center regions.
\subsection{Integrated intensity ratio distributions}
\label{sect:int_ratio_distri}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/ratio_int-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Integrated intensity ratio maps of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ (\textit{upper}) and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ (\textit{lower}) derived from the integrated intensity maps that are above 5$\sigma$ in Figure\,\ref{Fig:co_int}. The letters indicate the positions of nine molecular clumps (A-I) in the bubble. The angular resolution is indicated in the bottom left corner of each panel.}
\label{Fig:ratio_int}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/hist_ratio_int-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Integrated intensity ratio histograms of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ for all pixels in Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int}. The median uncertainties are derived from the standard deviation of the sample.}
\label{Fig:hist_ratio_int}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int} displays the integrated intensity ratio maps of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$. The ratios were obtained based on the integrated intensity maps that are above 5$\sigma$ (see Figure\,\ref{Fig:co_int}). For the line ratios we considered pixels above $3.5\sigma$ according to the error propagation of the integrated intensity maps. It clearly shows that at clumps A, F, G, H, and I in the $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ map, the inner rims of ring-like shell have a higher integrated intensity ratio ($W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$) than the outer rims, while in the $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ map the highest line ratio occurs at the inner rims of the shell near clumps A, B, E, and F with $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$. Figures\,\ref{Fig:spectra3221} and \ref{Fig:spectra2110} display some spectra $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ extracted from the inner rims of the ring-like shell near clumps\,A, B, G, and H with high ratios ($W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$).
Figure\,\ref{Fig:hist_ratio_int} displays the integrated intensity ratio histograms of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ for all pixels in Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int}. The line ratios of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ mostly range from 0.2 to 1.2 with a median of $0.54\pm0.12$, which is slightly lower than what was found ($\approx$0.75) at the Central Molecular Zone of the Milky Way \citep{Kudo2011}. The line ratios of $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ range from 0.5 to 1.6 with a median of $0.84\pm0.15$. We also derived the median value of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ , which is around 0.45, close to the average value of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\approx0.5$ in star-forming galaxies \citep[e.g,][]{Aravena2010,Aravena2014,Daddi2015}.
\subsection{\texttt{RADEX} modeling}
\label{sect:radex}
To study the line ratio distributions as a function of kinetic temperature and H$_2$ volume density in bubble N131, we used the nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium (non‐LTE) radiative transfer code \texttt{RADEX}\footnote{\url{https://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~moldata/radex.html}} \citep{Tak2007} with the Leiden Atomic and Molecular Database \citep[LAMDA;][]{Schoier2005} to model the $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ lines. The model grid extends over a grid of 51 temperatures ($T_{\rm kin}=3-500$\,K) and 51 densities ($n_{\rm H_2}=10-10^{5}\,\rm cm^{-3}$). The CO column density and line width were fixed with $N_{\rm CO}=2.2\times10^{17}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ and ${\delta}{\rm v}=3.5\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$, which are the derived median values of CO column density and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ velocity dispersion from CO\,($1-0$) and $^{13}$CO\,($1-0$) in N131 \citep[see][]{N131_2016}. The beam-filling factors were assumed to be unity.
Figures\,\ref{Fig:temperature_density_3221} and \ref{Fig:temperature_density_2110} display the line ratio and optical depth distributions as a function of kinetic temperature and H$_2$ volume density obtained with \texttt{RADEX} modeling. Linear molecules of CO at low rotational transitions (critical density of about $n_{\rm crit}\sim10^4\rm\,cm^{-3}$) are tracers of low-density gas \citep{Kaufman1999,Qin2008,Nishimura2015,Penaloza2018}. For a given molecule, moving up to a high rotational transition will lead to a high critical density. The high rotational transitions are sensitive to a high temperature based on the large velocity gradient (LVG) model. The high temperature and density can therefore be probed with the high CO line ratios \citep{Tak2007}.
\section{Discussion: Line ratios tracing the compressed areas}
\label{sec:discussion}
\citet{Wilson1997} found that the $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ line ratios for the molecular clouds containing optical H {\small{II}} regions ($0.79\pm0.05$) are somewhat higher than those for the clouds without optical H {\small{II}} regions ($0.58\pm0.06$), while the line ratio in the giant H {\small{II}} region is even higher ($1.07\pm0.03$). \citet{Wilson1997} also suggested that the high line ratio may be caused by heating of the gas by the massive stars. Line ratio distributions such as $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ have been used to study the interaction in supernova remnant molecular cloud system \citep[e.g,][]{Jiang2010,Zhou2016,Zhou2018,Arias2019}. The high ratios with $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\approx1.6$ were suggested by \citet{Zhou2016} to trace the shocked compressed gas that is located at the shell of supernova remnant Tycho. Recently, \citet{Celis2019} also found that the high integrated line ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ at the shell of the LMC supergiant bubble N11 may be caused by the expansion of nebulae and the interaction with radiation from OB association. The question now is why and how the CO line ratios can be used to trace the interactions.
The infrared dust bubble N131 originates from expanding H {\small{II}} regions, but the H {\small{II}} region inside has been extinguished \citep{N131_2013,N131_2016}. Figure\,\ref{Fig:ratio_int} clearly shows that most parts of the inner rims of the ring-like shell have higher integrated intensity ratios (e.g., $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$, $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$) than the outer rims. Additionally, the most notable discrepancy between the two ratio distributions is that at the inner rims of the ring-like shell near clumps G and H, the ratio $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ is much higher than in other regions (except for the complicated clump A\footnote{Clump A is a small expanding H {\small{II}} region that is deeply embedded in the ring-like shell of bubble N131 \citep[see details in][]{N131_2016}.}) but the ratio $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ is not, while at the inner rims near clump B, the ratio $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ is much higher than in other regions but the ratio $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ is not. This may suggest that the inner rims of the ring-like shell near clumps G and H have a relatively high kinetic temperature up to the excitation temperature of high transition level of $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, leading to stronger $\rm CO\,(3-2)$ emission than in other regions; while the inner rims near clump B have a relatively low kinetic temperature just up to the low transition level of $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, leading to stronger $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ emission than in other regions. This also suggests that the inner rims of the ring-like shell were compressed by strong stellar winds from the bubble insides \citep[see also discussion in][]{Nishimura2015}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/temp_dens_3221-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Line ratios ($R=W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$) and optical depths ($\tau_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$) in the conditions of $N_{\rm CO}=2.2\times10^{17}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ and ${\delta}{\rm v}=3.5\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ (estimated by median values in N131) as a function of kinetic temperature and volume density by \texttt{RADEX} modeling. The green contour indicates a region (or threshold) for a possible gas temperature-density distribution in a colliding flow at the onset of star formation from simulations in \citet{Clark2012}.}
\label{Fig:temperature_density_3221}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, angle=0]{figure/temp_dens_2110-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Line ratios ($R=W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$) and optical depths ($\tau_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$) in the conditions of $N_{\rm CO}=2.2\times10^{17}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ and ${\delta}{\rm v}=3.5\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}$ (estimated by median values in N131) as a function of kinetic temperature and volume density by \texttt{RADEX} modeling. The green contour indicates a region (or threshold) for a possible gas temperature-density distribution in a colliding flow at the onset of star formation from simulations in \citet{Clark2012}.}
\label{Fig:temperature_density_2110}
\end{figure}
To trace the compressed inner rims of the ring-like shell by stellar winds from the bubble insides, we computed the expected CO line ratios at different gas temperatures and densities using \texttt{RADEX} code. The results are presented in Figures\,\ref{Fig:temperature_density_3221} and \ref{Fig:temperature_density_2110}. We then determined the CO line ratios that can be used to trace the interactions. We recall that in an ordinary molecular cloud, the cold gas is mainly heated by cosmic rays. This heating is balanced by radiative cooling \citep{Draine2011}. As a result, we expect a limited range of temperatures and densities for the molecular gas, which leads to a limited range of observed line ratios. These line ratios, which lie far beyond the upper limit, could trace the interaction between the cold and hot gas that presumably lies in the inner rims of a bubble shell because these interactions should increase the temperature and density.
Therefore, we propose to use CO line ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$ to trace the compressed inner rims of the ring-like shell. The thresholds were selected based on the following considerations. The thresholds correspond to the non-Gaussian tail of line ratio distribution presented in Figure\,\ref{Fig:hist_ratio_int}, where we propose that non-interacting clouds should produce line ratios that are Gaussian distributed, and the non-Gaussian parts of the distributions are caused by interaction. To justify our thresholds, we used \texttt{RADEX} to compute the line ratios as a function of gas temperature and density (see Figures\,\ref{Fig:temperature_density_3221} and \ref{Fig:temperature_density_2110}). By overlaying the expected range of gas density and temperature found in the most recent numerical simulations\footnote{Although the simulations in \citet{Clark2012} were carried out under a certain set of initial conditions, the predicted temperature-density relation for the molecular gas is relatively robust (e.g., independent of the initial condition) and is applicable to our data. Additionally, due to the short cooling times, the density-temperature relation of the molecular gas should not depend on the initial conditions (e.g., whether the converging speed is fast or slow).} \citep{Clark2012}, we derived the expected CO line ratios for non-interacting clouds. The highest ratios are located in regions with moderate or low optical depths ($\tau\lesssim5$ for $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$ and $\tau\lesssim1$ for $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$) in the temperature-density plane. Line ratios higher than this can be used to trace the interaction region where the gas temperature and density are higher than normal.
\section{Summary}
\label{sect:summary}
Based on our previous multiwavelength observations \citep{N131_2013,N131_2016}, the infrared dust bubble N131 is a typical bubble showing an expanding ring-like shell, which has been swept up by the energetic winds of ionizing stars inside. We here carried out new $\rm CO\,(3-2)$ observations toward the bubble N131 using the 15m JCMT, and also used our published $\rm CO\,(2-1)$ and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ line data observed with the IRAM 30m telescope. We plotted their integrated intensity maps, which were convolved to the same angular resolution (22.5$''$). We find that the three different CO transition maps show a similar morphological structure.
In bubble N131, we used the \texttt{RADEX} code to model the kinetic temperature and H$_2$ volume density, and we studied the relationship between them and line ratios. The line ratios of $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ mostly range from 0.2 to 1.2 with a median of $0.54\pm0.12$, while the line ratios of $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ range from 0.5 to 1.6 with a median of $0.84\pm0.15$. The line width ratios between $\rm CO\,(3-2)$, $\rm CO\,(2-1)$, and $\rm CO\,(1-0)$ are close to unity.
To probe the interaction between the hot stellar winds and the cold molecular ring-like shell, we performed \texttt{RADEX} modeling to test the dependence of the line ratios on the underlying parameters such as temperature and density, and to predict the range of CO integrated intensity ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ if the gas temperatures and densities are predicted by the chemodynamics simulations. Line ratios far beyond the temperature-density threshold \citep{Clark2012} could thus be used to trace the interactions.
From our observations, we find that the high CO integrated intensity ratios $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}$ are far beyond the prediction from the most recent numerical simulation without stellar feedback. As a result, these high line ratios can be used to trace the compressed areas in bubble N131. We suggest that the high CO integrated intensity ratios, such as $W_{\rm CO\,(3-2)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}\gtrsim0.8$ and $W_{\rm CO\,(2-1)}$/$W_{\rm CO\,(1-0)}\gtrsim1.2$, can be used as a tracer of gas-compressed regions with a relatively high temperature and density. We further proved that the non-Gaussian part of the line-ratio distribution can be used to trace the interaction between the molecular gas and the hot gas in the bubble.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referees for constructive comments that improved the manuscript. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Nos.\,11703040, 11743007, and National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) No.\,2015CB857101. C.-P. Zhang acknowledges support by the MPG-CAS Joint Doctoral Promotion Program (DPP) and China Scholarship Council (CSC) in Germany as a postdoctoral researcher. The JCMT is operated by the EAO on behalf of NAOJ; ASIAA; KASI; CAMS as well as the National Key R\&D Program of China (No.\,2017YFA0402700). Additional funding support is provided by the STFC and participating universities in the UK and Canada.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
\subsection{Motivation}
In the vast majority of foundational research on programming
languages, although ideas are thought of as widely applicable, they
are presented on \emph{one}, simple example. Typically, there is a
tension between simplicity of exposition, leading to the minimal
language making the idea relevant, and significance, leading to the
most expressive one. Strikingly, the scope of the idea is often
mostly clear to the experts, but no attempt is made at stating it
precisely. The reason for this is that the mathematical concepts
needed for even only making such statements are lacking. Indeed, one
needs to be able to say something like: ``for all programming
languages of such shape, the following holds''. But there simply is no
widely accepted mathematical notion of programming language.
Such a general notion should account for both
\begin{enumerati}
\item the interaction between syntax and dynamics, as involved in,
e.g., structural operational semantics~\cite{PlotkinSOS}, or in the
statement of results like type soundness, congruence of program
equivalence, or compiler correctness, and
\item denotational semantics, in the sense of including not only
operational, syntactic models but also others, typically ones in
which program equivalence is coarser.
\end{enumerati}
Typically, standard formats~\cite{mousavi2007sos} elude denotational
semantics, and are exclusively syntactic. To our knowledge, the only
such proposals meeting all these criteria are \emph{functorial
operational semantics}, a.k.a.\ \emph{bialgebraic
semantics}~\cite{plotkin:turi:bialgebraic}, and a few
variants~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/CorradiniHM02,DBLP:conf/lics/Staton08}.
This approach has been deeply developed, and shown to extend smoothly
to various settings, e.g., non-deterministic and probabilistic
languages. However, two important extensions have proved more
difficult.
\begin{itemize}
\item The treatment of languages with variable binding is
significantly more technical than the basic
setting~\cite{DBLP:conf/lics/FioreT01,DBLP:conf/lics/FioreS06,DBLP:conf/lics/Staton08}.
\item More importantly, the bialgebraic study of higher-order
languages like the $\lambda $-calculus or the higher-order $\pi $-calculus is
only in its infancy~\cite{Peressotti}.
\end{itemize}
This leaves some room for exploring potential alternatives.
\subsection{Context}
In recent work~\cite{hirschowitz:hal-01815328}, a new approach to
abstract operational semantics was proposed, and its expressive
power was demonstrated by proving for the first time an abstract
soundness result for \emph{bisimulation up to context} in the
presence of variable binding. Bisimulation up to context is an
efficient technique~\cite[Chapter~6]{SangioRutten} for proving program
equivalences, which had previously been proved correct in the
bialgebraic setting~\cite{DBLP:conf/csl/BonchiPPR14}, but only
without binding.
Its novelty mainly resides in the following two technical features.
\begin{description}
\item[Transition categories] First, while standard operational
semantics is based on \emph{labelled transition systems}, this is
both generalised and abstracted over in the framework.
\begin{description}
\item[Generalisation] Indeed, in the examples, instead of standard
labelled transition systems, we use a slight generalisation
similar in spirit to~\cite{DBLP:conf/ifipTCS/Fiore00}, essentially
from relations to graphs, i.e., possibly with several transitions
between two states. This simple, harmless generalisation brings
in a lot of useful structure, typically that of a
\emph{topos}~\cite{MM}, which is unavailable at this level in
bialgebraic operational semantics.
\item[Abstraction] In full generality, the framework takes as a
parameter a \emph{transition category}, a typical example of which
is given by such generalised transition systems. For any object
of a given transition category, bisimulation may be defined by
lifting, following an idea from~\cite{DBLP:conf/lics/JoyalNW93}.
\end{description}
\item[Combinatorial category theory] A second technical innovation is
the use of advanced combinatorial category theory. To start with,
\emph{familial monads}~\cite{DBLP:journals/mscs/CarboniJ95}, or
rather their recent \emph{cellular}
variant~\cite{garner:hal-01246365}, provide a notion of evaluation
context for both programs and transitions, at the abstract
level. Standard reasoning by induction on context thus becomes
simple algebraic calculation. A second, crucial notion is
cofibrantly generated factorisation systems, a notion from homotopy
theory~\cite{Hovey,riehl} which, together with cellularity, allows
for a conceptually simple, yet relevant characterisation of
well-behaved transition contexts.
\end{description}
\advance\textheight 13.6pt
Each instance of the framework is then constructed as follows.
\begin{description}
\item[Type of transition system] The first step is the choice of a
type of transition system, which may involve different kinds of
states (e.g., initial or final ones), the set of labels to be put on
transitions, etc. Technically, this amounts to fixing a transition
category ${\mathcal C} $. This also fixes the relevant notion of bisimulation,
hence bisimilarity.
\item[Transition rules] The second step consists in defining the
dynamics of the considered language, which is usually specified
through a set of inference rules. This comes in as a monad $T$ on
${\mathcal C} $, whose algebras are essentially the transition systems
satisfying the given inference rules. The standard, syntactic
transition system is typically the free algebra $T(0)$. This fixes
the relevant notion of context closure. In this setting, congruence
of bisimilarity $\sim _X$ on a $T$-algebra $X$ is the fact that
$T(\sim _X) \rightarrow X^2 $ factors through ${\sim _X} \rightarrow X^2 $
(see~\eqref{eq:cong:bisim} on page~\pageref{eq:cong:bisim}).
\end{description}
One of the main
results~\cite[Corollary~4.30]{hirschowitz:hal-01815328} is that if the
considered algebra is \emph{compositional}, in the sense that its
structure map $T(X) \rightarrow X$ is a functional bisimulation, and if the
monad $T$ satisfies an additional condition, then bisimilarity is
indeed a congruence. The latter condition is called
\emph{${\mathbf T} _s $-familiality} in~\cite{hirschowitz:hal-01815328}, but we
will here call it \emph{cellularity}, because it is a specialisation
of cellularity in the sense of~\cite{garner:hal-01246365} to familial
functors. As mentioned above, a second main
result~\cite[Corollary~5.15]{hirschowitz:hal-01815328} is that under a
different condition called \emph{${\mathbf T} _s ^\vee $-familiality}, bisimulation up
to context is sound.
\subsection{Contribution}
One of the main issues with cellular monads $T$ on transition
categories ${\mathcal C} $ is the lack of an efficient generation mechanism, i.e.,
a mathematical construction that produces pairs $({\mathcal C} ,T)$ from more
basic data. In this paper, we initiate the search for such generating
constructions by showing that an existing simple format,
\emph{Positive GSOS}~\cite{GSOS}, always produces cellular monads
whose free algebras are compositional. As a consequence, we recover
(Theorem~\ref{thm}) the known result that bisimilarity is a congruence
in all free algebras.
As this is an invited contribution, we briefly introduce the approach
at an expository, rather concrete level. In particular, the only
considered transition category is the one of generalised labelled
transition systems in the sense alluded to above. Finally, our proofs
are meant to be instructive rather than fully detailed.
\subsection{Plan}
In \partie \ref{sec:labelled}, we explain our generalisation of labelled
transition systems, and bisimulation by lifting. In
\partie \ref{sec:positive}, we recall Positive GSOS specifications $\Sigma $ and
show how they generate monads $T_\Sigma $. In \partie \ref{sec:models}, we argue
that algebras for the obtained monad $T_\Sigma $ are a good notion of model
for the considered Positive GSOS specification. We then state
congruence of bisimilarity in categorical terms, and quickly reduce it
to two key properties: (i) compositionality of the considered algebra
and (ii) preservation of functional bisimulations by $T_\Sigma $.
We deal with~(i) in
\partie \ref{sec:compositionality}, where we show that when $T_\Sigma $ is obtained
from a Positive GSOS specification, all free algebras are
compositional. In \partie \ref{sec:preserving}, we then attack (ii), by
further reducing it to familiality and cellularity. The remaining
sections develop these ideas.
In \partie \ref{sec:familiality}, we define familiality for functors (as
opposed to monads), and show that $T_\Sigma $ is a familial functor. In
\partie \ref{sec:factorisation}, we establish some factorisation properties
of familial functors which were announced and used
in~\partie \ref{sec:models} to reduce congruence of bisimilarity to
compositionality and preservation of bisimulation. We then introduce
cellularity in~\partie \ref{sec:cellularity}, and show that $T_\Sigma $ is indeed
cellular. Finally, we wrap up in~\partie \ref{sec:monads:familiality} by
defining familiality for monads (which is slightly more demanding than
for mere functors), and showing that $T_\Sigma $ does form a familial monad.
This fills a hole left open in~\partie \ref{sec:compositionality}, thus
allowing us to state the main theorem.
Finally, we conclude and give some perspective in~\partie \ref{sec:conclu}.
\subsection{Prerequisites}
We assume familiarity with basic category
theory~\cite{MacLane:cwm,LeinsterCats}, including categories,
functors, natural transformations, monads and their algebras, and the
Yoneda lemma.
\section{Labelled transition systems as presheaves}\label{sec:labelled}
\subsection{Generalised transition systems}
A standard SOS specification is given by a signature, plus a family of
transition rules over a fixed set ${\mathbb A} $ of labels. The set ${\mathbb A} $ fixes
the relevant kind of transition system, and we interpret this by
constructing a corresponding category of (generalised) transition
systems. Given any set ${\mathbb A} $, let $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $ denote the graph with
\begin{itemize}
\item vertex set ${\mathbb A} + 1$, i.e., vertices are elements of ${\mathbb A} $,
denoted by $[a]$ for $a \in {\mathbb A} $, plus a special vertex $\star $,
\item two edges $s^a ,t^a : \star \rightarrow [a]$, for all $a \in {\mathbb A} $.
\end{itemize}
Pictorially, $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $ looks like this:
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\dots \& {[a]} \& \dots \& \mbox{($a \in {\mathbb A} $)} \\
\& \star \rlap{.} %
}{%
(m-2-2) edge[labell={s^a },bend left] (m-1-2) %
(m-2-2) edge[labelr={t^a },bend right] (m-1-2) %
}
\end{center}
There are no composable edges in $\Gamma _A$, so, adding formal identity
arrows, it readily forms a category, which we also denote by $\Gamma _A$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{category of transition systems induced by ${\mathbb A} $} is
$\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, the category of presheaves over $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $.
\end{definition}
To see what presheaves over $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $ have to do with transition systems,
let us observe that a presheaf $X \in \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ consists of a set
$X(\star )$ of \emph{states}, together with, for each $a \in {\mathbb A} $, a set of
\emph{transitions} $e \in X[a]$ with source and target maps
$X(s^a ),X(t^a ): X[a] \rightarrow X(\star )$. Our notion is thus only slightly more
general than standard labelled transition systems over ${\mathbb A} $, in that it
allows several transitions with the same label between two given
states.
\begin{remark}
The category $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ may be viewed as a category of labelled
graphs. Indeed, letting $\Omega _{\mathbb A} $ denote the one-vertex graph with ${\mathbb A} $
loops on it, we have by well-known abstract nonsense an equivalence
${\mathbf G} {\mathbf p} {\mathbf h} /\Omega _{\mathbb A} \simeq \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ of categories. (This is due to the fact that
$\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $ is isomorphic to the \emph{category of elements} of $\Omega _{\mathbb A} $, see
Definition~\ref{def:elts} below.)
\end{remark}
\begin{notation}
For any $X \in \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, we denote the action of morphisms in $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $
with a dot. E.g., if $e \in X[a]$, then $e \cdot s^a \in X(\star )$ is its
source. We also sometimes abbreviate $s^a $ and $t^a $ to just $s$ and
$t$.
\end{notation}
\begin{example}
For languages like CCS~\cite{Milner80}, we let ${\mathbb A} = {\mathcal N} + {\mathcal N} + 1$
denote the disjoint union of a fixed set ${\mathcal N} $ of \emph{channel names}
with itself and the singleton $1$. Elements of the first term are
denoted by $\overline{a}$, for $a \in {\mathcal N} $, and are used for output
transitions, while elements of the second term, simply denoted by
$a$, are used for input transitions. Finally, the unique element of
the third term is denoted by $\tau $ and used for silent transitions.
E.g., the labelled transition system
\begin{center}
\diag{|(x)| x \& |(y)| y \&
|(z)| z %
}{%
(y) edge[labela={\overline{a}}] (x) %
edge[bend left=10,labela={b}] (z) %
edge[bend right=10,labelb={b}] (z) %
(z) edge[loop right,labela={a}] (z)
}
\end{center}
is modelled by the presheaf
$X$ with
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}[t]{c} X(\star ) = \ens{x,y,z}
\end{array}$
\hfil
$\begin{array}[t]{c}
X(\overline{a}) = \ens{e} \\
X(b) = \ens{f,f'} \\
X(a) = \ens{g}
\end{array}$
\hfil
$\begin{array}[t]{c}
x = e \cdot t \\
y = e \cdot s = f \cdot s = f' \cdot s \\
z = f \cdot t = f' \cdot t = g \cdot s = g \cdot t.
\end{array}$
\end{center}
\end{example}
\subsection{Bisimulation}
Returning to generalised transition systems, we may define
bisimulation categorically in the following way. Morphisms
$f: X \rightarrow Y$, i.e., natural transformations, are the analogue in our
setting of standard functional simulations. Indeed, given any
transition $e: x \xto{a} x'$ in $X$, then $f(x)$ sure has an $a$
transition to some state related to $x'$: this is simply $f(e)$! The
next step is to define an analogue of functional bisimulation. For
this, let us observe that the base category $\Gamma _{\mathbb A} $ embeds into the
presheaf category $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ -- this is just the Yoneda embedding
${\mathbf y} : \Gamma _{\mathbb A} \rightarrow \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, directly specialised to our setting for
readability:
\begin{itemize}
\item the state object $\star $ embeds as the one-vertex graph ${\mathbf y} _\star $ with no transition;
\item any transition object $[a]$ embeds as the graph ${\mathbf y} _{[a]}$ with
one $a$-transition between two distinct vertices;
\item the morphisms $s^a , t^a : \star \rightarrow [a]$ embed as the morphisms
${\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow {\mathbf y} _{[a]}$ picking up the source and target, respectively, of
the given transition.
\end{itemize}
\begin{notation}
We often omit ${\mathbf y} $, treating it as an implicit coercion.
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}
Let $f: X \rightarrow Y$ be a \emph{functional bisimulation} whenever all
commuting squares as the solid part below, admit a (potentially
non-unique) \emph{lifting} $k$ as shown, i.e., a morphism making
both triangles commute.
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\star \& X \\
{[a]} \& Y %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={x}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={s^a }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={e}] (m-2-2) %
edge[dashed,labelal={k}] (m-1-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={f}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
\end{definition}
Let us explain why this matches the standard definition. In any such
square, $x$ is essentially the same as just a state in $X$, while $e$
is just an $a$-transition in $Y$. Furthermore, the composite
$\star \xto{s^a } [a] \xto{e} Y$ picks the source of $e$, so commutation of
the square says that the source $e \cdot s^a $ of $e$ is in fact $f(x)$
(a.k.a.\ $f \circ x$). So we are in the situation described by the solid
part below.
\begin{center}
\diag{%
x \& f(x) \\
x' \& y' %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[mapsto,labela={f}] (m-1-2) %
edge[dashed,labell={k}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[dashed,mapsto,labelb={f}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={e}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
Finding a lifting $k$ then amounts to finding an antecedent to $e$
whose source is $x$, as desired.
We finally recover the analogue of standard bisimulation relations.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{bisimulation relation} on $X$ is a subobject $R \hookrightarrow X^2 $ ($=$
isomorphism class of monomorphisms into $X^2 $) whose projections
$R \rightarrow X$ are both functional bisimulations.
\end{definition}
In this case, the above diagram specialises to
\begin{center}
\diag{%
(x_1 ,x_2 ) \& x_i \\
(x'_1 ,x'_2 ) \& x'_i \rlap{,} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[mapsto,labela={\pi _i }] (m-1-2) %
edge[dashed,labell={(e_1 ,e_2 )}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[dashed,mapsto,labelb={\pi _i }] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={e_i }] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
where $(x_1 ,x_2 ),(x'_1 ,x'_2 ) \in R(\star )$, and $(e_1 ,e_2 ) \in R[a]$.
Now, $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, as a presheaf category, is very well-behaved, namely
it is a Grothendieck topos~\cite{MM}. In particular, subobjects of
$X^2 $ form a (small) complete lattice, in which the union of a family
$R_i \hookrightarrow X^2 $ is computed by first taking the copairing $\sum _i R_i \rightarrow X^2 $,
which is generally not monic, and then taking its image. Furthermore,
bisimulation relations are closed under unions and so admit a maximum
element,
\emph{bisimilarity}~\cite[Proposition~3.14]{hirschowitz:hal-01815328}.
The presheaf category $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ is thus only a slight generalisation
of standard labelled transition systems over ${\mathbb A} $, in which we have an
analogue of bisimulation, conveniently defined by lifting, and
bisimilarity. Let us now consider the case where states are terms in
a certain language, and transitions are defined inductively by a set
of transition rules, i.e., operational semantics.
\section{Positive GSOS specifications as monads}\label{sec:positive}
Let us briefly recall the Positive GSOS format. We fix a set ${\mathbb A} $ of
labels, and start from a \emph{signature} $\Sigma _0 = (O_0 ,E_0 )$ on ${\mathbf S} {\mathbf e} {\mathbf t} $,
i.e., a set $O_0 $ equipped with a map $E_0 : O_0 \rightarrow {\mathbb N} $.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{Positive GSOS rule} over $\Sigma _0 $ consists of
\begin{itemize}
\item an operation $f \in O_0 $, say of arity $n = E_0 (f)$,
\item a label $a \in {\mathbb A} $,
\item $n$ natural numbers $m_1 ,\dots ,m_n $,
\item for all $i \in n$, $m_i $ labels $a_{i,1},\dots ,a_{i,m_i }$, and
\item a term $t$ with $n + \sum _{i = 1}^n m_i $ free variables.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
In more standard form, such a rule is just
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule{ \dots \\ x_i \xto{a_{i,j}} y_{i,j} \\ \dots \\ (i \in n, j \in m_i ) %
}{ %
f(x_1 ,\dots ,x_n ) \xto{a} t %
}
\end{mathpar}
where the $x_i $'s and $y_{i,j}$'s are all distinct and denote the
potential free variables of $t$.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{Positive GSOS specification} is a signature $\Sigma _0 $, together
with a set $\Sigma _1 $ of Positive GSOS rules.
\end{definition}
Let us now describe how any Positive GSOS specification $\Sigma $ induces a monad
$T_\Sigma $ on $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, starting with the action of $T_\Sigma $ on objects.
Given any $X \in \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, the set $T_\Sigma (X)(\star )$ of states consists of
all $\Sigma _0 $-terms with variables in $X(\star )$, as defined by the
grammar
$$M,N \Coloneqq \llparenthesis u\rrparenthesis \mathrel{|} f(M_1 ,\dots ,M_n ),$$
where $u$ ranges over $X(\star )$. Similarly, each $T_\Sigma (X)[a]$ consists
of all transition proofs following the rules in $\Sigma _1 $, with axioms in
all $X[a']$'s. Formally, such proofs are constructed inductively from the following rules,
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule{ }{\llparenthesis e\rrparenthesis \mathrel{:} _X \llparenthesis e \cdot s\rrparenthesis \xto{a} \llparenthesis e \cdot t\rrparenthesis }~(e \in X[a])
\and
\inferrule{ \dots \\ R_{i,j}\mathrel{:} _X M_i \xto{a_{i,j}} M_{i,j} \\ \dots \\ (i \in n, j \in m_i ) %
}{ %
\rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i } \mathrel{:} _X
f(M_1 ,\dots ,M_n ) \xto{a} t[ (x_i \mapsto M_i , (y_{i,j} \mapsto M_{i,j})_{j \in m_i })_{i \in n} ] %
}
\end{mathpar}
where in the second rule $f \in O_0$ , $E_0 (f) = n$,
$\rho = (f,a,(m_i ,(a_{i,j})_{j \in m_i })_{i \in n},t) \in \Sigma
_1$.
When $m_i = 0$, we want to keep track of $M_i $ in the transition proof,
so by convention the family $(R_{i,j})_{j \in m_i }$ denotes just $M_i $.
In the sequel we simply call \emph{transitions} such transition proofs.
\begin{example}\label{ex:ccs}
Let us consider the following simple CCS transition of depth
$>1$, in any $T_{CCS}(X)[\tau ]$.
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule*{
\inferrule*{
\inferrule*{
}{
\llparenthesis e_1 \rrparenthesis :_X \llparenthesis x_1 \rrparenthesis \xto{\overline{a}} \llparenthesis y_1 \rrparenthesis
}
}{
\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis e_1 \rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis ):_X \llparenthesis x_1 \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis \xto{\overline{a}} \llparenthesis y_1 \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis
}
\\
\inferrule*{
}{
\llparenthesis e_2 \rrparenthesis :_X \llparenthesis x_3 \rrparenthesis \xto{a} \llparenthesis y_2 \rrparenthesis
}
}{
\mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis e_1 \rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis e_2 \rrparenthesis ):_X (\llparenthesis x_1 \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis x_3 \rrparenthesis \xto{\tau } (\llparenthesis y_1 \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis y_2 \rrparenthesis
}~,
\end{mathpar}
where $\mathit{lpar}$ and $\mathit{sync}$ denote the left parallel and
synchronisation rules, $(e_1 : x_1 \xto{\overline{a}} y_1 ) \in X[\overline{a}]$,
$x_2 \in X(\star )$, and $(e_2 : x_3 \xto{a} y_2 ) \in X[a]$.
\end{example}
The source and target of a transition $R \mathrel{:} _X M \xto{a} N$ are
$M$ and $N$, respectively, which ends the definition of $T_\Sigma $ on
objects. On morphisms $f: X \rightarrow Y$, $T_\Sigma (f)$ merely amounts to
renaming variables $\llparenthesis x\rrparenthesis $ and $\llparenthesis e\rrparenthesis $ to $\llparenthesis f(x)\rrparenthesis $ and $\llparenthesis f(e)\rrparenthesis $,
respectively. It thus remains to show that $T_\Sigma $ has monad
structure. The unit $\eta _X: X \rightarrow T_\Sigma (X)$ is obviously given by $\llparenthesis -\rrparenthesis $,
while multiplication $\mu _X: T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (X)) \rightarrow T_\Sigma (X)$ is given
inductively by removing the outer layer of $\llparenthesis -\rrparenthesis $'s
$$\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mbox{on states} & \mu _X\llparenthesis M\rrparenthesis & = & M \\
& \mu _X(f(M_1 ,\dots ,M_n )) & = & f(\mu _X(M_1 ),\dots ,\mu _X(M_n )) \\
\mbox{and on transitions} & \mu _X\llparenthesis R\rrparenthesis & = & R \\
& \mu _X(\rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n,i \in m_i }) & = & \rho (\mu _X(R_{i,j}))_{i \in n,i \in m_i }.
\end{array}$$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:monad}
The natural transformations $\eta $ and $\mu $ equip $T_\Sigma $ with monad
structure.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A straightforward induction.
\end{proof}
\section{Models as algebras and congruence of bisimilarity}\label{sec:models}
Algebras for $T_\Sigma $ readily give the right notion of model for
the transition rules:
\begin{definition}
An \emph{algebra} for a monad $T$, or a \emph{$T$-algebra},
consists of an object $X$, equipped with a morphism
$\alpha : T(X) \rightarrow X$ such that the following diagrams commute.
\begin{center}
\diag{%
T (T (X)) \& T(X) \\
T(X) \& X
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T(\alpha )}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\mu _X}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={\alpha }] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\alpha }] (m-2-2) %
}
\hfil
\diag{%
X \& \& T(X) \\
\& X
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={\eta _X}] (m-1-3) %
edge[identity] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-3) edge[labelbr={\alpha }] (m-2-2)
}
\end{center}
\end{definition}
Thus, intuitively, a $T_\Sigma $-algebra is a transition system which
is stable under the given operations and transition rules.
We now would like to show that, under suitable hypotheses,
bisimilarity for any given $T_\Sigma $-algebra $\alpha : T_\Sigma (X) \rightarrow X$ is a
congruence. We may state this categorically by saying that the
canonical morphism $T_\Sigma (\sim _X) \rightarrow X^2 $ factors through $m: (\sim _X) \hookrightarrow X^2 $, as
in
\begin{equation}
\diag(1,2){%
T_\Sigma (\sim _X) \& \& {\sim _X} \\
T_\Sigma (X^2 ) \& (T_\Sigma (X))^2 \& X^2 \rlap{.} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[dashed,labela={}] (m-1-3) %
edge[labell={T_\Sigma (m_X)}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={\langle T_\Sigma (\pi _1 ),T_\Sigma (\pi _2 )\rangle }] (m-2-2) %
(m-2-2) edge[labelb={\alpha ^2 }] (m-2-3) %
(m-1-3) edge[labelr={m}] (m-2-3) %
}
\label{eq:cong:bisim}
\end{equation}
Indeed, an element of $T_\Sigma (\sim _X)$ is a term $M$ whose free variables
are pairs of bisimilar elements of $X$, which we write as
$M((x_1 ,y_1 ),\dots ,(x_n ,y_n ))$, with $x_i \sim _X y_i $ for all $i \in n$. The
morphism $\langle T_\Sigma (\pi _1 ),T_\Sigma (\pi _2 )\rangle $ maps this to the pair
$$(M(x_1 ,\dots ,x_n ),M(y_1 ,\dots ,y_n )),$$
which $\alpha ^2 $ then evaluates componentwise. The given factorisation
thus boils down to
$$\alpha (M(x_1 ,\dots ,x_n )) \sim _X \alpha (M(y_1 ,\dots ,y_n ))$$
for all $M$ and $x_1 \sim _X y_1 $,\dots , $x_n \sim _X y_n $, i.e., bisimilarity is a
congruence.
In order to prove such a property, it is sufficient to prove that
$T_\Sigma $ preserves \emph{all} bisimulation relations, in the sense that
if $m: R \hookrightarrow X^2 $ is a bisimulation relation, then so is
$$T_\Sigma (R) \xto{T_\Sigma (m)} T_\Sigma (X^2 ) \xto{\langle T_\Sigma (\pi _1 ),T_\Sigma (\pi _2 )\rangle } (T_\Sigma (X))^2 \xto{\alpha ^2 } X^2 $$
(in the slightly generalised sense that its image is).
Equivalently, an easy diagram chasing shows that it all boils down to
$$T_\Sigma (R) \xto{T_\Sigma (m)} T_\Sigma (X^2 ) \xto{T_\Sigma (\pi _i )} T_\Sigma (X) \xto{\alpha } X$$
being a functional bisimulation for $i \in \ens{1,2}$.
Finally, $\pi _i \circ m$ is a functional bisimulation by definition, and
functional bisimulations are stable under composition, so it is
sufficient to prove that
\begin{enumerati}
\item \label{item:compositionality} the considered algebra is
\emph{compositional}, in the sense that its structure map
$\alpha : T_\Sigma (X) \rightarrow X$ is a functional bisimulation, and
\item \label{item:preservation} $T_\Sigma $ preserves all functional
bisimulations.
\end{enumerati}
Compositionality essentially means that transitions of any
$\alpha (M(x_1 ,\dots ,x_n ))$ are all obtained by assembling transitions of the
$x_i $'s. This is not always the case, even for free algebras:
\begin{example}
Consider a specification $\Sigma $ consisting of the unique rule
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule{x \xto{a} y}{f(g(x)) \xto{a} f(g(y))}~,
\end{mathpar}
say $\rho $, where $f$ and $g$ are two unary operations. Then the
free algebra $\mu _1 : T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (1)) \rightarrow T_\Sigma (1)$ is not compositional.
Indeed, $1$ contains a unique vertex, say $\star $, and a transition
$b: \star \xto{b} \star $ for all labels $b$. Thus, $T_\Sigma (1)$ contains a
transition $\rho \llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis : f(g\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ) \xto{a} f(g\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )$. But the term
$f(g\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )$ is the image under $\mu _1 $ of $f\llparenthesis g\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis \rrparenthesis $, which has no
transition.
\end{example}
Summing up, we have proved:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:abstract}
If $T_\Sigma $ preserves functional bisimulations, then bisimilarity in
any compositional $T_\Sigma $-algebra is a congruence.
\end{lemma}
\section{Compositionality}\label{sec:compositionality}
Let us first consider compositionality. For a general algebra, we
cannot do more than taking compositionality as a
hypothesis. However, we can say something when the considered
algebra is free:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:compositionality}
The multiplication $\mu _X: T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (X)) \rightarrow T_\Sigma (X)$ is a functional
bisimulation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will see below (Lemma~\ref{lem:TSigma:familial:monad}) that all
naturality squares of $\mu $ are pullbacks. In particular, we have a
pullback
\begin{center}
\Diag{%
\pbk{m-2-1}{m-1-1}{m-1-2} %
}{%
T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (X)) \& T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (1)) \\
T_\Sigma (X) \& T_\Sigma (1)\rlap{.} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T_\Sigma (T_\Sigma (!))}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\mu _X}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (!)}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\mu _1 }] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
But functional bisimulations are easily seen to be stable under
pullback, so it is enough to show that $\mu _1 $ is a functional
bisimulation. We thus consider any term ${\mathbf M} $ whose free variables
are in $T_\Sigma (1)(\star )$, i.e., are themselves terms over a single free
variable, say $\star $, together with a transition
$R: \mu _1 ({\mathbf M} ) \xto{a} N$. And we need to show that there exists a
transition ${\mathbf R} : {\mathbf M} \xto{a} {\mathbf N} $ whose free variables and axioms are in
$T_\Sigma (1)$, such that $\mu _{[a]}({\mathbf R} ) = R$. We proceed by induction on ${\mathbf M} $:
\begin{itemize}
\item If ${\mathbf M} = \llparenthesis M\rrparenthesis $, then taking ${\mathbf R} = \llparenthesis R\rrparenthesis $ does the job.
\item Otherwise, ${\mathbf M} = f({\mathbf M} _1 ,\dots ,{\mathbf M} _n )$, so $M = \mu _1 ({\mathbf M} ) = f(M_1 ,\dots ,M_n )$,
with $M_i = \mu _1 ({\mathbf M} _i )$ for all $i \in n$. But then, $R$ must have the
form $\rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$, for a certain rule
$\rho = (f,a,(m_i ,(a_{i,j})_{j \in m_j })_{i \in n},t)$ of $\Sigma $.
By induction hypothesis, we find
for all $i \in n$ and $j \in m_i $ a transition
$${\mathbf R} _{i,j}: {\mathbf M} _i \xto{a_{i,j}} {\mathbf N} _{i,j},$$
such that $\mu _1 ({\mathbf R} _{i,j}) = R_{i,j}$. Thus,
${\mathbf R} = \rho ({\mathbf R} _{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$ does have ${\mathbf M} $ as its source,
and furthermore satisfies $\mu _1 ({\mathbf R} ) = R$, as desired. \qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\section{Preserving bisimulations through familiality and
cellularity}\label{sec:preserving}
Let us now consider~\ref{item:preservation}, i.e., the fact that
$T_\Sigma $ preserves functional bisimulations. So we need to find a lifting
to any commuting square of the form
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\star \& T_\Sigma (X) \\
{[a]} \& T_\Sigma (Y)\rlap{,} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={M}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={s^a }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={R}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={T_\Sigma (f)}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
for any functional bisimulation $f$.
We will proceed in two steps: we will require $T_\Sigma $ to be first
familial, and then cellular. Familiality will allow us to factor the
given square as the solid part below left, while cellularity will
ensure existence of a lifting $k$ as on the right.
\begin{equation}
\diag{%
\star \& T_\Sigma (A) \& T_\Sigma (X) \\
{[a]} \& T_\Sigma (B) \& T_\Sigma (Y) %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={M'}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={s^a }] (m-2-1) %
edge[bend left,labela={M}] (m-1-3) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={R'}] (m-2-2) %
edge[bend right,labelb={R}] (m-2-3) %
(m-1-2) edge[labell={T_\Sigma (\gamma )}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labela={T_\Sigma (\phi )}] (m-1-3) %
(m-2-2) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (\psi )}] (m-2-3) %
edge[dashed,labelal={T_\Sigma (k)}] (m-1-3) %
(m-1-3) edge[labelr={T_\Sigma (f)}] (m-2-3) %
}
\qquad \qquad
\diag{%
A \& X \\
B \& Y %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={\phi }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\gamma }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={\psi }] (m-2-2) %
edge[dashed,labelal={k}] (m-1-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={f}] (m-2-2) %
}
\label{eq:congruence:proof:sketch}
\end{equation}
The composite $T_\Sigma (k) \circ R'$ will thus give the desired lifting for the
original square.
At this stage, both steps may seem mysterious to the reader. In
fact, as we will see, factorisation as above left follows directly
from the fact that $T_\Sigma $ may be expressed as a sum of representable
functors. Let us first explain intuitively why this latter fact
holds. We will then prove it more rigorously
in~\partie \ref{sec:familiality}, to eventually return to factorisation
in~\partie \ref{sec:factorisation}.
To start with, let us observe that the set $T_\Sigma (1)(\star )$ consists of
terms over a single free variable, say $\star $. For any such term $M$,
we may count the number of occurrences of $\star $, say $n_M$. Thus, any
term in any $T_\Sigma (X)(\star )$ is entirely determined by an
$M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )$, together with a map $n_M \rightarrow X(\star )$ assigning an
element of $X(\star )$ to each occurrence of $\star $ in $M$. But maps
$n_M \rightarrow X(\star )$ in ${\mathbf S} {\mathbf e} {\mathbf t} $ are in 1-1 correspondence with maps
$n_M \cdot {\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow X$ in $\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$, where $n_M \cdot {\mathbf y} _\star $ denotes the
$n_M$-fold coproduct ${\mathbf y} _\star + \dots + {\mathbf y} _\star $ of ${\mathbf y} _\star $ with itself. In other
words, letting $E^\star (M) = n_M \cdot {\mathbf y} _\star $, we have
\begin{equation}
T_\Sigma (X)(\star ) \cong \sum _{M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^\star (M),X).\label{eq:TSigma:fam:star}
\end{equation}
Clearly, for any $f: X \rightarrow Y$, the action of $T_\Sigma (f)$ at $\star $
is given by postcomposing with $f$, i.e., we have
\begin{center}
\diag(1,1.5){%
T_\Sigma (X)(\star ) \& \sum _{M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^\star (M),X) \\
T_\Sigma (Y)(\star ) \& \sum _{M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^\star (M),Y). %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[iso,labela={}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={T_\Sigma (f)_\star }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[iso,labelb={}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[shorten >=1ex,labelr={\sum _{M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^\star (M),f)}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
The family~\eqref{eq:TSigma:fam:star} of isomorphisms is thus
natural in $X$. We will see shortly that this extends to objects
other than $\star $. Indeed, any transition in $T_\Sigma (X)[a]$ may be
decomposed into a transition $R$ in $T_\Sigma (1)[a]$, together with a
morphism $E^a (R) \rightarrow X$, where $E^a (R)$ is obtained from occurrences of
term and transition variables in $R$.
We have seen that our isomorphisms are natural in $X$, so it seems
natural to try to express some naturality constraint in the second
argument of $T_\Sigma $. But this requires making the right-hand side
of~\eqref{eq:TSigma:fam:star} functorial in this variable in the
first place! In fact, for any transition $R: M \xto{a} N$, we will
construct morphisms
$$E^\star (M) \xto{E(s^a \restriction R)} E^a (R) \xot{E(t^a \restriction R)} E^\star (N)$$
(see Notation~\ref{not:el:mor} below). Thus, e.g., precomposing by
the left-hand map yields the desired functorial action
$$\sum _{R \in T_\Sigma (1)[a]} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^a (R),X) \rightarrow \sum _{M \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^\star (M),X),$$
of $s^a : \star \rightarrow [a]$, sending any $\phi : E^a (R) \rightarrow X$ to the composite
\begin{equation}
E^\star (M) \xto{E(s^a \restriction R)} E^a (R) \xto{\phi } X.\label{eq:action:s}
\end{equation}
\section{Familiality for functors}\label{sec:familiality}
Let us now state more rigorously the definition of familiality and
the fact that $T_\Sigma $ is familial. In the next section, we will
explain how this entails the desired
factorisation~\eqref{eq:congruence:proof:sketch}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:elts}
The \emph{category of elements} $el(X)$ of any presheaf $X \in \psh{{\mathcal C} }$ on
any category ${\mathcal C} $ has
\begin{itemize}
\item as objects all pairs $(c,x)$ with $c \in {\mathbf o} {\mathbf b} ({\mathcal C} )$ and $x \in X(c)$,
\item and as morphisms $(c,x) \rightarrow (c',x')$ all morphisms $f: c \rightarrow c'$
such that $x'\cdot f = x$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{notation}\label{not:el:mor}
The morphism $f$, viewed as a morphism $(c,x) \rightarrow (c',x')$, is entirely
determined by $f$ and $x'$. We denote it by $f \restriction x'$.
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}\label{def:familial:endofunctor}
An endofunctor $F: \psh{{\mathbb C} } \rightarrow \psh{{\mathbb C} }$ on a presheaf category is
\emph{familial} iff there is a functor $E: el(F(1)) \rightarrow \psh{{\mathbb C} }$
such that
\begin{equation}
F(X)(c) \cong \sum _{o \in F(1)(c)} \psh{{\mathbb C} }(E(c,o),X),\label{eq:familiality:psh}
\end{equation}
naturally in $X \in \psh{{\mathbb C} }$ and $c \in {\mathbb C} $.
\end{definition}
And indeed, we have:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:TSigma:familial}
The endofunctor $T_\Sigma $ is familial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We need to do two things: (1) extend the
isomorphisms~\eqref{eq:TSigma:fam:star} to objects of the form
$[a]$, and (2) define the morphisms $E(s^a \restriction R)$ and $E(t^a \restriction R)$
rendering our isomorphisms natural also in the second argument of
$T_\Sigma $. In fact, we will do almost everything simultaneously by
induction: we define $E^a (R)$ and $E(s^a \restriction R): E^\star (R \cdot s^a ) \rightarrow E^a (R)$ by
induction on $R$. By convention, as we did for the unique element
$\star \in 1(\star )$, we denote the unique element of $1[a]$ by $a$ itself.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $R = \llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis $, then its source is $M = \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis $ and we put
$E^a (R) = {\mathbf y} _{[a]}$ and $E(s^a \restriction R) = s^a : {\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow {\mathbf y} _{[a]}$.
\item If $R = \rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }:_1 M \xto{a} N$, then for all $i$ and
$j \in m_i $, by induction hypothesis, we get morphisms
$$E(s^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j}) : E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E^{a_{i,j}}(R_{i,j}),$$
where $R_{i,j}:_1 M_i \xto{a_{i,j}} N_{i,j}$ for all $i \in n$ and
$j \in m_i $. Let us temporarily fix any $i \in n$. For all
$j,j' \in m_i $, we have $R_{i,j} \cdot s^a = R_{i,j'} \cdot s^a = M_i $, so we
take the wide pushout $E_i = \bigoplus _{E^\star (M_i )} E^{a_{i,j}}(R_{i,j})$,
i.e., the colimit of the following diagram.
\begin{equation}
\diag{%
\& E^\star (M_i ) \\
\dots E^{a_{i,j}}(R_{i,j}) \& \dots \& E^{a_{i,j'}}(R_{i,j'}) \dots
}{%
(m-1-2) edge[labelal={E(s^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j} )}] (m-2-1) %
(m-1-2) edge[shorten >=1ex,labelar={E(s^{a_{i,j'}}\restriction R_{i,j'})}] (m-2-3) %
}
\label{eq:arity:rho}
\end{equation}
If $m_i = 0$, this reduces to just $E^\star (M_i )$, which is exactly
what we want. Finally, we let $E^a (R)$ be the coproduct $\sum _i E_i $
of all the $E_i $'s, and observe that
$E^\star (f(M_1 ,\dots ,M_n )) = \sum _i E^\star (M_i )$ by definition, so that we may
define $E(s^a \restriction R)$ to be the coproduct $\sum _i S_i $ of all canonical
injections $S_i : E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E_i $.
\end{itemize}
This ends the inductive definition of $E^a (R)$ and $E(s^a \restriction R)$. We
now need to construct the morphisms $E(t^a \restriction R)$. We again proceed
inductively. When $R = \llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis $, the desired morphism is clearly $t^a $
itself. When $R = \rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$, the target is
$N = t[x_i \mapsto M_i , (y_{i,j} \mapsto N_{i,j})_{j \in m_i }]$. Now, by construction, occurrences $occ_\star (N)$ of
the unique variable $\star $ in $N$ are in 1-1 correspondence with
$$V_N = \sum _i \left ( (occ_\star (M_i ))^{occ_{x_i }(t)} + \sum _{j\in m_i } (occ_\star (N_{i,j}))^{occ_{y_{i,j}}(t)} \right ),$$
and our map $E(t^a \restriction R)$ should reflect the intended correspondences.
Since $E^\star (N) = V_N \cdot {\mathbf y} _\star $, $E(t^a \restriction R)$ is entirely determined
by choosing a map $E_u : {\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow E^a (R)$ for all $u \in V_N$:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $u$ denotes an occurrence of $\star $ in $M_i $, for some
occurrence of $x_i $ in $t$, we let $E_u $ denote the
composite $${\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E^\star (R),$$ where the latter map
denotes injection into the colimit of~\eqref{eq:arity:rho}.
\item If $u$ denotes an occurrence of $\star $ in $N_{i,j}$, for some
occurrence of $y_{i,j}$ in $t$, we let $E_u $ denote the composite
$${\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow E^\star (N_{i,j}) \xto{E(t^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j})}
E^{a_{i,j}}(R_{i,j}) \rightarrow E^\star (R),$$ where the latter map again
denotes injection into the colimit of~\eqref{eq:arity:rho}. \qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Rather than a full formal proof, let us illustrate that our
construction satisfies the isomorphisms~\eqref{eq:TSigma:fam:star}
on a few examples.
\begin{example}
In the case of the transition of Example~\ref{ex:ccs},
familiality means that this transition is determined by picking the
following transition in $T_{CCS}(1){[\tau ]}$,
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule*{
\inferrule*{
\inferrule*{
}{
\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis :_1 \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis \xto{\overline{a}} \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis
}
}{
\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ):_1 \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis \xto{\overline{a}} \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis
}
\\
\inferrule*{
}{
\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis :_1 \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis \xto{a} \llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis
}
}{
\mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis ):_1 (\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis \xto{\tau } (\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis
}
\end{mathpar}
together with a morphism $E^\tau (\mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis )) \rightarrow X$.
Let us start with $E^\star (\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ))$: it is given by the
colimit of
\begin{center}
\diag{%
{\mathbf y} _\star \& {\mathbf y} _\star \\
{\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labell={s^{\overline{a}}}] (m-2-1) %
}
\end{center}
(one ${\mathbf y} _\star $ for each argument $x_i $ of $\mathit{lpar}$, and for each $x_i $ one
${\mathbf y} _{[a_{i,j}]}$ for each premise $x_i \xto{a_{i,j}} y_{i,j}$).
Equivalently, this is just the coproduct ${\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star $, and
$E(s^{\overline{a}}\restriction \mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ))$ and
$E(t^{\overline{a}}\restriction \mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ))$ are given by
$${{\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star } \xto{s^{\overline{a}} + {\mathbf y} _\star } {{\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star } \xot{t^{\overline{a}} + {\mathbf y} _\star } {{\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star .}$$
It is then clear that $E(s^\tau \restriction \mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis ))$ is given by
$${{\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star } \xto{s^{\overline{a}} + {\mathbf y} _\star + s^a } {{\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _{[a]}}.$$
Now how about $E(t^\tau \restriction \mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis ))$? As the term $t$ occurring in the rule is here
linear in the $y_{i,j}$'s, an easy computation leads to
$${{\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _{[a]}} \xot{t^{\overline{a}} + {\mathbf y} _\star + t^a } {{\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star }.$$
On this example, the isomorphism~\eqref{eq:familiality:psh} thus
boils down to the transition
$\mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis e_1 \rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis x_2 \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis e_2 \rrparenthesis )$ above being entirely determined by
picking $R = \mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis ) \in T_{CCS}(1)[\tau ]$, and
giving a morphism
$$\phi : E^\tau (\mathit{sync}(\mathit{lpar}(\llparenthesis \overline{a}\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ),\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis )) = {\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _{[a]} \longrightarrow X,$$
which holds by universal property of coproduct and the Yoneda
lemma. Naturality of~\eqref{eq:familiality:psh} in $c$ says that
the source of $(R,\phi )$ is given up to this correspondence by
$(\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis $ and the composite
$$E^\star ((\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis |\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis )|\llparenthesis \star \rrparenthesis ) = {{\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _\star } \xto{s^{\overline{a}} + {\mathbf y} _\star + s^a } {\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} + {\mathbf y} _\star + {\mathbf y} _{[a]} \longrightarrow X,$$
and likewise for the target.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let us now illustrate the treatment of branching, in the sense of
a rule having several premises involving the same $x_i $. An example
from CCS is the `replicated synchronisation' rule
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule{x_1 \xto{\overline{a}} y_{1,1} \\ x_1 \xto{a} y_{1,2}}{{!}x_1 \xto{\tau } {!}x_1 |(y_{1,1}|y_{1,2})}~,
\end{mathpar}
say $\mathit{rsync}$.
First, $E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$ is simply the pushout
\begin{center}
\Diag{%
\pbk{m-2-1}{m-2-2}{m-1-2} %
}{%
{\mathbf y} _\star \& {{\mathbf y} _{[a]}} \\
{{\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]}} \& E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))\rlap{,} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={s^a }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={s^{\overline{a}}}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={}] (m-2-2) %
}%
\end{center}
which rightly models the fact that a transition
$\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis e_1 \rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis e_2 \rrparenthesis ) \in T_{CCS}(X)[\tau ]$ is entirely determined by
picking $\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ) \in T_{CCS}(1)[\tau ]$, together with
elements $e_1 $ and $e_2 $ of $X[\overline{a}]$ and $X[a]$ with a common
source.
The morphism $E(s^\tau \restriction \mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$ is then straightforwardly given by
the diagonal. The target morphism $E(t^\tau \restriction \mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$ is a bit
more complex to compute. Indeed, the target $t = {!}x_1 |(y_{1,1}|y_{1,2})$ has
three free variables. The first, $x_1 $, should yield a morphism ${\mathbf y} _\star \rightarrow E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$
that is determined by the source morphism $E^\star (M_1 ) \rightarrow E^{\overline{a}}(R_{1,1})$. Here,
we get $${\mathbf y} _\star \xto{s^{\overline{a}}} E^{\overline{a}}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ) = {\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} \rightarrow E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis )).$$
On the other hand, $y_{1,1}$ and $y_{1,2}$ should be determined
by the target morphisms $E^\star (M_{1,1}) \rightarrow E^{\overline{a}}(R_{1,1})$ and $E^\star (M_{1,2}) \rightarrow E^a (R_{1,2})$,
in our case
\begin{center}
${\mathbf y} _\star \xto{t^{\overline{a}}} E^{\overline{a}}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ) = {\mathbf y} _{[\overline{a}]} \rightarrow E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$
\hfil and \hfil
${\mathbf y} _\star \xto{t^a } E^a (\llparenthesis a\rrparenthesis ) = {\mathbf y} _a \rightarrow E^\tau (\mathit{rsync}(\llparenthesis [\overline{a}]\rrparenthesis ,\llparenthesis [a]\rrparenthesis ))$.
\end{center}
\end{example}
\section{Familiality and factorisation}\label{sec:factorisation}
Let us now return to our proof
sketch~\eqref{eq:congruence:proof:sketch}, and explain the
properties of familiality that allow us to factor the original
square as indicated. The crucial observation is that elements of
the form
$$(R,id_{E^c (R)}) \in \sum _{R \in T_\Sigma (1)(c)} \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }(E^c (R),E^c (R)) \cong T_\Sigma (E^c (R))(c)$$
have the special property that any other element of the form
$(R,\phi ) \in T_\Sigma (X)(c)$ may be obtained uniquely as the image of
$(R,id)$ by the action of
$$T_\Sigma (\phi )_c: T_\Sigma (E^c (R))(c) \rightarrow T_\Sigma (X)(c).$$
Having the same first component $R$ is equivalent to having the same
image in $T_\Sigma (1)(c)$. So by Yoneda, having two elements of
$T_\Sigma (X)(c)$ and $T_\Sigma (Y)(c)$ with common first component is the same
as having a commuting square of the form below left.
\begin{center}
\diag{%
{\mathbf y} _c \& T_\Sigma (X) \\
T_\Sigma (Y) \& T_\Sigma (1) %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={}] (m-2-2) %
}
\hfil
\diag{%
{\mathbf y} _c \& T_\Sigma (X) \\
T_\Sigma (E^c (R)) \& T_\Sigma (1) %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={p}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\xi }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (!)}] (m-2-2) %
edge[dashed,labelal={T_\Sigma (k)}] (m-1-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={T_\Sigma (!)}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
The special property of $(R,id)$ is thus equivalently that any
commuting square as above right (solid part) admits a unique
(dashed) lifting $k$ as shown, making the non-trivial triangle
commute. In fact, this holds more generally by replacing ${\mathbf y} _c$ and
$1$ by arbitrary objects:
\begin{definition}
Given a functor $F: {\mathcal C} \rightarrow {\mathcal D} $,
a morphism $\xi : D \rightarrow F(C)$ is \emph{$F$-generic}, or \emph{generic} for short,
when any commuting square as the solid part of
\begin{center}
\diag{%
D \& F(B) \\
F(C) \& F(A) %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={\chi }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\xi }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={F(k)}] (m-2-2) %
edge[dashed,labelal={F(l)}] (m-1-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={F(h)}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
admits a unique \emph{strong} lifting $l$ as shown, in the
sense that $F(l) \circ \xi = \chi $ and $h \circ l = k$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Remark~2.12]{Weber:famfun}}]\label{lem:fam:gen}
A functor $F: \psh{{\mathbb C} } \rightarrow \psh{{\mathbb C} }$ is familial iff any morphism
$Y \rightarrow F(X)$ factors as
$$Y \xto{\xi } F(A) \xto{F(\phi )} F(X),$$
where $\xi $ is $F$-generic. This is called a \emph{generic-free} factorisation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
$(\Rightarrow )$ Passing from ${\mathbf y} _c$ to any $Y$ goes by observing that generic
morphisms are stable under colimits in the comma category
$\psh{{\mathbb C} } \downarrow F$, remembering that any presheaf $Z$ is a colimit of
the composite $$el(Z) \xto{{\mathbf p} _Z} {\mathbb C} \xto{{\mathbf y} } \psh{{\mathbb C} },$$ where ${\mathbf p} _Z$
denotes the obvious projection functor.
\noindent $(\Leftarrow )$ Conversely, $E(c,o)$ is given by $A$, for any choice of generic-free factorisation
\begin{center}
\hfill
\diag|baseline=(m-2-1.base)|{%
\& F(A) \\
{\mathbf y} _c \& \& F(1)\rlap{.}
}{%
(m-2-1) edge[labelal={\xi }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labelb={o}] (m-2-3) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelar={F(\phi )}] (m-2-3) %
}\qedhere
\end{center}
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:fam:gen} thus accounts for the factorisation of the
original square as on the left in~\eqref{eq:congruence:proof:sketch}: $M$ and $R$
respectively factor as
\begin{center}
$\star \xto{M'} T_\Sigma (A) \xto{T_\Sigma (\phi )} T_\Sigma (X)$ \hfil and \hfil
$\star \xto{R'} T_\Sigma (B) \xto{T_\Sigma (\psi )} T_\Sigma (Y)$,
\end{center}
with $M'$ and $R'$ generic. But genericness of $M'$ yields the strong lifting $\gamma $ in
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\star \& {[a]} \& T_\Sigma (B) \\
T_\Sigma (A) \& T_\Sigma (X) \& T_\Sigma (Y)\rlap{.} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={s^a }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={M'}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (\phi )}] (m-2-2) %
edge[dashed,labelal={T_\Sigma (\gamma )}] (m-1-3) %
(m-1-2) edge[labela={R'}] (m-1-3) %
(m-2-2) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (f)}] (m-2-3) %
(m-1-3) edge[labelr={T_\Sigma (\psi )}] (m-2-3) %
}
\end{center}
\section{Cellularity}\label{sec:cellularity}
We have now factored the original square as promised, but for the
moment we have no guarantee that the `inner' square
\begin{equation}
\diag{%
A \& X \\
B \& Y %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={\phi }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\gamma }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={\psi }] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={f}] (m-2-2) %
}
\label{eq:inner}
\end{equation}
will admit a lifting. The point of cellularity is precisely this.
For once, let us start from the abstract viewpoint and explain how
directly relevant it is in this case.
The starting point is the observation that our definition of
bisimulation by lifting is based on a Galois connection. Indeed,
for any class ${\mathcal L} $ of morphisms, let ${\mathcal L} ^\boxslash $ denote the class of maps
$f: X \rightarrow Y$ such that for any $l: A \rightarrow B$ in ${\mathcal L} $, any commuting square
as below left admits a (not necessarily unique) lifting.
\begin{center}
\diag{%
A \& X \\
B \& Y %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={u}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={{\mathcal L} \ni l}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={v}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={f \in {\mathcal L} ^\boxslash }] (m-2-2) %
}
\hfil
\diag{%
X \& A \\
Y \& B %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={u}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\wbotleft{{\mathcal R} } \ni f}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={v}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={r \in {\mathcal R} }] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
Conversely, given a class ${\mathcal R} $ of morphisms, let $\wbotleft{{\mathcal R} }$
denote the class of morphisms $f: X \rightarrow Y$ such that for any
$r: A \rightarrow B$ in ${\mathcal R} $, any commuting square as above right admits a
lifting. Clearly, letting ${\mathcal S} $ denote the set of all maps of the
form $s^a : \star \rightarrow [a]$, ${\mathcal S} ^\boxslash $ catches exactly all functional
bisimulations. But what is $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$? In other words,
which maps will admit a lifting against all functional
bisimulations? This is very relevant to us, because finding a
lifting for our inner square~\eqref{eq:inner} is obviously
equivalent to showing that $\gamma \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$! Fortunately, the
theory of weak factorisation systems gives a precise
characterisation~\cite[Corollary~2.1.15]{Hovey}, of which we only
need the following very special cases:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:wbotbot}
Maps in $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$ are closed under composition and
pushout, in the sense that
\begin{itemize}
\item for any composable $f,g \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$,
$g \circ f \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$, and
\item for any $f: X \rightarrow Y$ in $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$ and $u: X \rightarrow X'$,
the pushout $f'$ of $f$ along $u$, as below, is again in
$\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$.
\begin{center}
\Diag(.6,2){%
\pbk{m-2-1}{m-2-2}{m-1-2} %
}{%
X \& Y \\
X' \& Y' %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={f \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={u}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={f' \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={u'}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
This is useful to us because the map $\gamma $ that we want to show is in
$\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$ may be obtained as a finite composite of
pushouts of maps in ${\mathcal S} $, which allows us to conclude.
Indeed, $\gamma $ occurs in
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\star \& {[a]} \\
T_\Sigma (E^\star (M)) \& T_\Sigma (E^a (R))\rlap{,} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={s^a }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={M'}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (\gamma )}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={R'}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
with $M'$ and $R'$ generic. So $(M',\gamma )$ is the generic-free
factorisation of $R' \circ s^a $ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:fam:gen}, hence,
because generic-free factorisations are unique up to canonical
isomorphism, we can actually compute $\gamma $. Indeed, letting $M' = (M'',id)$
and $R' = (R'',id)$, for suitable $M'' \in T_\Sigma (1)(\star )$ and
$R'' \in T_\Sigma (1)[a]$, by~\eqref{eq:action:s} $R' \circ s^a $
is the pair $(R'' \cdot s^a , E(s^a \restriction R''))$, where
$$E(s^a \restriction R''): E^\star (R'' \cdot s^a ) \rightarrow E^a (R'')$$ is obtained by familiality of
$T_\Sigma $. We thus get $$(M'',\gamma ) = (R''\cdot s^a , E(s^a \restriction R'')),$$ hence in
particular $$\gamma = E(s^a \restriction R'').$$ It is thus sufficient to show that
each $E(s^a \restriction R)$ is in $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$. This goes by induction on $R$,
following an incremental construction of $E(s^a \restriction R)$. The base case is clear.
When $R = \rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$, remember from the proof
of Lemma~\ref{lem:TSigma:familial} that $E^a (R)$ is the coproduct
$\sum _i E_i $ for $i \in n$,
each $E_i $ being constructed as the wide pushout of all
$$E(s^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j}): E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E^{a_{i,j}}(R_{i,j}).$$
Coproducts may be constructed by pushout along $0$, so it suffices
to show that each diagonal $E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E_i $ is in $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$
if each $E(s^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j})$ is. This in turn boils down to
incrementally constructing the diagonal $E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E_i $ by
successively pushing out each $E(s^{a_{i,j}}\restriction R_{i,j})$: assuming
that we have constructed the diagonal $E^\star (M_i ) \rightarrow E_i ^j $ up until
$j < m_i $, we can incorporate $R_{i,j+1}$ by composing with the
bottom morphism of
\begin{center}
\Diag(1,2){%
\pbk[2em]{m-2-1}{m-2-2}{m-1-2}
}{%
E^\star (M_i ) \& E^{a_{i,j+1}}(R_{i,j+1}) \\
E_i ^j \& E_i ^{j+1}\rlap{,}
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={E(s^{a_{i,j+1}}\restriction R_{i,j+1})}] (m-1-2) %
edge[shorten >= 3pt,labell={}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[shorten >= 5pt,labelr={}] (m-2-2) %
}%
\end{center}
which is indeed in $\wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:wbotbot}.
Clearly, the obtained $E_i ^{m_i }$ is canonically isomorphic to $E_i $,
so we have shown:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cellular}
The monad $T_\Sigma $ is \emph{cellular}, in the sense that in any
commuting square of the form
\begin{center}
\diag{%
\star \& {[a]} \\
T_\Sigma (A) \& T_\Sigma (B)\rlap{,} %
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={s^a }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\xi }] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (\gamma )}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\chi }] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
with $\xi $ and $\chi $ generic, we have $\gamma \in \wbotrightleft{{\mathcal S} }$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Familiality for monads}\label{sec:monads:familiality}
We have now almost proved:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:preservation}
$T_\Sigma $ preserves functional bisimulations.
\end{lemma}
The only remaining bit is the hole we left in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lem:compositionality}, when we claimed that all
naturality squares of $\mu $ were pullbacks. Let us prove this now, as
part of the following upgrade of
Definition~\ref{def:familial:endofunctor} and
Lemma~\ref{lem:TSigma:familial}.
\begin{definition}
A monad is \emph{familial} when its underlying functor is, and its
unit and multiplication are \emph{cartesian} natural
transformations, i.e., their naturality squares are pullbacks.
\end{definition}
In a case like ours, where the underlying category has a terminal
object, by the pullback lemma, it is sufficient to verify that
squares of the following form are pullbacks.
\begin{center}
\Diag{%
\pbk{m-2-1}{m-1-1}{m-1-2} %
}{%
T_\Sigma ^2 (X) \& T_\Sigma ^2 (1) \\
T_\Sigma (X) \& T_\Sigma (1)
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T_\Sigma ^2 (!)}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\mu _X}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (!)}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\mu _1 }] (m-2-2) %
}
\hfil
\Diag{%
\pbk{m-2-1}{m-1-1}{m-1-2} %
}{%
X \& 1 \\
T_\Sigma (X) \& T_\Sigma (1)
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T_\Sigma ^2 (!)}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\eta _X}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T_\Sigma (!)}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\eta _1 }] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{center}
The following will conclude our proof of congruence of bisimilarity:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:TSigma:familial:monad}
$T_\Sigma $ is a familial monad.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Pullbacks in presheaf categories being pointwise, we just need to
check that a few types of squares are pullbacks in
${\mathbf S} {\mathbf e} {\mathbf t} $: for $\mu $ and $\eta $, and for each type of label.
Let us treat the most interesting one, namely the left one below,
assuming that the right one has already been covered.
\begin{mathpar}
\diag(.6,1){%
T^2 (X)[a] \& T^2 (1)[a] \\
T(X)[a] \& T(1)[a]
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T^2 (!)_{[a]}}] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\mu _{X,{[a]}}}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T(!)_{[a]}}] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\mu _{1,{[a]}}}] (m-2-2) %
}
\and
\diag(.6,1){%
T^2 (X)(\star ) \& T^2 (1)(\star ) \\
T(X)(\star ) \& T(1)(\star )
}{%
(m-1-1) edge[labela={T^2 (!)_\star }] (m-1-2) %
edge[labell={\mu _{X,\star }}] (m-2-1) %
(m-2-1) edge[labelb={T(!)_\star }] (m-2-2) %
(m-1-2) edge[labelr={\mu _{1,\star }}] (m-2-2) %
}
\end{mathpar}
Let $R[!]$ denote $T(!)(R)$ and ${\mathbf R} \llbracket !\rrbracket $ denote $T^2 (!)({\mathbf R} )$, for all
$R \in T(X)[a]$ and ${\mathbf R} \in T^2 (X)[a]$. We must show that for any
$a \in {\mathbb A} $, given any ${\mathbf R} \in T^2 (1)[a]$ and $R \in T(X)[a]$ such that
$R[!] = \mu _1 ({\mathbf R} ),$ there exists a unique ${\mathbf R} ^0 \in T^2 (X)[a]$ satisfying
\begin{center}
$\mu _X({\mathbf R} ^0 ) = R$ \hfil and \hfil ${\mathbf R} ^0 \llbracket !\rrbracket = {\mathbf R} $.
\end{center}
We proceed by induction on ${\mathbf R} $. The base case is easy. For the induction step,
if
${\mathbf R} = \rho ({\mathbf R} _{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$, then because
$\mu _1 ({\mathbf R} ) = R[!]$, we have $R = \rho (R_{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$ with
$R_{i,j}[!] = \mu _1 ({\mathbf R} _{i,j})$ for all $i,j$\footnote{For all $i$ such
that $m_i = 0$, we in fact deal with some term $M_i $, using the
corresponding square. Let us ignore this detail for readability.}.
By induction hypothesis, we find
a family ${\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j} \in T^2 (X)[a_{i,j}]$ such that
\begin{center}
$\mu _X({\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j}) = R_{i,j}$ \hfil and \hfil ${\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j}\llbracket !\rrbracket = {\mathbf R} _{i,j}$
\hfil for all $i,j$.
\end{center}
Letting now ${\mathbf R} ^0 = \rho ({\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j})_{i \in n, j \in m_i }$, we get as
desired
\begin{center}
$\mu _X({\mathbf R} ^0 ) = \rho (\mu _X({\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j}))_{i,j} = \rho (R_{i,j})_{i,j} = R$ \hfil and \hfil
${\mathbf R} ^0 \llbracket !\rrbracket = \rho ({\mathbf R} ^0 _{i,j}\llbracket !\rrbracket )_{i,j} = \rho ({\mathbf R} _{i,j})_{i,j} = {\mathbf R} $.
\qedhere
\end{center}
\end{proof}
This ends the proof of:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm}
For all $X \in \psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$ and Positive GSOS specifications $\Sigma $,
bisimilarity in the free algebra $T_\Sigma (X)$ is a congruence.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusion and perspectives}\label{sec:conclu}
In this paper, we have introduced the familial approach to
programming language theory~\cite{hirschowitz:hal-01815328} at the
rather concrete level of generalised labelled transition systems
($\psh{\Gamma _{\mathbb A} }$). Notably, we have recalled the notions of cellular
monad and compositional algebra, and recalled that bisimilarity is
always a congruence in a compositional algebra for a cellular monad
(Lemma~\ref{lem:abstract}).
We have also shown that all monads $T_\Sigma $ generated from a Positive
GSOS specification $\Sigma $ are cellular (Lemma~\ref{lem:cellular}) and
that free $T_\Sigma $-algebras are always compositional
(Lemma~\ref{lem:compositionality}). Putting all three results
together, we readily recover (Theorem~\ref{thm}) the known result
that bisimilarity is a congruence for all free $T_\Sigma $-algebras. In
particular, this is the case for the standard, syntactic transition
system, which is the initial algebra $T_\Sigma (0)$.
This result constitutes a first generic tool for constructing
instances of the framework of~\cite{hirschowitz:hal-01815328}.
However, its scope is rather limited, and we plan to refine the
construction to cover other formats like
\emph{tyft/tyxt}~\cite{tyft}. A striking and promising observation
here is that the well-foundedness condition demanded of a tyft/tyxt
specification for bisimilarity to be a congruence is clearly covered
by our approach based on weak factorisation systems
(see~\partie \ref{sec:cellularity}). Cellularity thus provides a semantic
criterion for well-foundedness, whose precise relationship with the
original, syntactic one seems worth investigating.
Beyond the task of showing by hand that existing formats yield
cellular monads whose free algebras are compositional, we also plan
to investigate a more categorical understanding of the generating
process. The main motivation here is to design a construction that
would cover variable binding. The theory developed by Fiore and his
colleagues~\cite{DBLP:conf/lics/Fiore08,FioreHurEquational} seems
like a good starting point.
\bibliographystyle{./eptcs}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
A fraction of stars end their lives in powerful supernova (SN) explosions \cite[e.g.][ and references therein]{2017hsn..book.....A}. This is the case after core-collapse (CC) for some of the most massive stars (zero age main sequence mass $\gtrsim 8~M_{\odot}$), and through the thermonuclear disruption of the CO core of a white dwarf (the so-called type~Ia SNe), being possibly ignited when the Chandrasekhar mass is reached via accretion, or during the merger of a double white dwarf binary. Both types of SNe release large quantities of freshly-produced elements from light $\alpha$-group elements (O, Ne, Mg) to intermediate-mass elements (Si, S) and heavier Fe-group elements (Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni), produced during thermostatic nuclear burning and in the final, explosive nucleosynthesis episode. Together with stellar winds and neutron star mergers, SNe are responsible for the enrichment and chemical content of the Universe \citep{2013ARA&A..51..457N,2017ARNPS..67..253T}.
Furthermore, the tremendous energy release of a SN ($\sim 10^{51}$~erg) is transferred to the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM). The object created in the ISM by a SN is called a supernova remnant (SNR). The SN ejecta launched at velocities greater than $10^4$~km~s$^{-1}$ drive shock waves in the ambient medium, heating the ISM and ejecta up to X-ray emitting temperatures \citep{2012A&ARv..20...49V}. Cosmic rays (particles) are accelerated at the shock front where the magnetic field is turbulent, and electrons with energies up to 100~TeV (for the youngest SNRs) emit synchrotron radiation from radio to X-rays \citep{1995Natur.378..255K}. Optical line emission can arise mostly from charge exchange and collisional excitation of neutrals at fast shocks \citep{2001ApJ...547..995G}, shock-ionised material, or radiative cooling if the conditions are conducive \citep{1971ApJ...167..113C}.
Remnants remain visible for several $10^4$ years, as opposed to a few hundred days for their parent SNe. Consequently, the SNR population of a galaxy collectively holds precious information on the dozen or hundreds of SNe which exploded recently within it. For instance, the ratio between the rates of SNe of each type (CC vs. type~Ia) can in principle be recovered; the morphologies of individual SNRs can be linked to asymmetries either intrinsic to the explosion or coming from its surrounding ISM \citep{2013A&A...552A.126W,2014IAUS..296..239L}; and the abundances of newly-synthesised ejecta constrain details of both stellar evolution and explosion physics \citep{2017ApJ...836...79C,2018ApJ...861..143L}.
The many SNe exploding in a galaxy are the main source of energy of its ISM, in the form of kinetic energy, turbulence, and cosmic ray acceleration \citep{2004RvMP...76..125M}. They offer a mode of star formation regulation, as the combined shocks of many SNe can launch galactic winds which expels gas. Heated to temperatures $T > 10^6$~K, the dominant elements of the ISM (C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Fe) emit many lines in the X-ray band which can be used to infer their abundances. Therefore, studies of populations of SNRs in a galaxy can reveal key information on the SNe themselves \textit{and} can be used to probe the host galaxy.
The Milky Way population currently contains about 300 SNRs \citep{2019arXiv190702638G}. Their study is hampered by large distance uncertainties and line-of-sight confusion/crowding, which prevent accurate comparison of objects. Even more problematic is the strong interstellar absorption towards most of these sources in the Galactic plane, particularly for X-rays as the important 0.5-2~keV energy band can be completely masked for $N_H > 10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$. Despite larger distances, external galaxies are therefore better suited to SNR population studies. The SNRs of several galaxies in the Local Group \citep[M31, M33,][]{2012A&A...544A.144S,2010ApJS..187..495L,2014SerAJ.189...15G,2017MNRAS.472..308G} and beyond \citep{2004A&A...425..443P,2009ApJ...703..370C,2010ApJ...725..842L,2011Ap&SS.332..221M,2011AJ....142...20P,2012SerAJ.184...19M,2013Ap&SS.347..159O,2014ApJS..212...21L,2014Ap&SS.353..603G,2015AJ....150...91P,2018PASA...35...15Y} have been studied at various wavelengths. Closer to us, our Galactic neighbours the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC, SMC) provide excellent benchmarks for the study of star-forming galaxies. At only 50 and 60~kpc, respectively \citep{2019Natur.567..200P,2005MNRAS.357..304H,2014ApJ...780...59G}, they are close enough that we can detect and spatially resolve SNRs from radio to X-rays, and are located behind only a moderate Galactic foreground \citep[$N_H \lesssim$ a few $10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$,][]{1990ARA&A..28..215D}.
In the LMC, our knowledge about the SNR population was built up over time with radio, optical, and X-ray observations. In \citet[][hereafter \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}]{2016A&A...585A.162M}, a comprehensive X-ray study of the LMC SNRs was conducted, taking advantage of the coverage of a large fraction of the SNR population ($\sim 60$ objects) with the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ X-ray observatory during targeted observations and the extensive survey of the LMC (PI: F. Haberl). The radio counterpart to that study, also presenting 15 further SNR candidates, was published in \citet[][hereafter \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}]{2017ApJS..230....2B}.
In this work, we attempt to provide the most comprehensive study of the SNR population of the SMC. As the sample is about three times smaller than in the LMC, we combine in a single work both the X-ray and radio-continuum analyses, together with archival optical emission line data and new optical spectroscopy. Previous similar studies were more limited in their scope. \citet{2004A&A...421.1031V} analysed XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ data for 13 SMC SNRs. We expand considerably on this work, using the much larger body of XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ observations accumulated since, a larger population augmented with newly-discovered objects \citep[e.g.][]{2008A&A...485...63F}, and, as already mentioned, a multiwavelength approach including deep radio and optical surveys.
The paper is organised as follows: in Sect.\,\ref{observations} we describe the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace, radio, and optical observations used and how the data were reduced. The X-ray imaging and spectral analyses are detailed in Sect.\,\ref{data}. Our results are presented and discussed in Sect.\,\ref{results}, starting with the final sample and rejected objects in Sect.\,\ref{results_sample} and \ref{results_rejectedSNRs}, respectively, followed by the X-ray spectral properties of SMC SNRs (Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral}). Candidates and confirmed SNRs are discussed individually in Sect.\,\ref{results_notes_candidates} and \ref{results_notesSNRs}. We then measure the gas-phase abundances of the SMC ISM and the ratio of CC to type~Ia SNe (Sect.\,\ref{results_abundances} and \ref{results_typing}), discuss the radio properties, size, and morphology of SNRs in both Magellanic Clouds (MCs; Sect.\,\ref{results_radio_properties}), and probe the 3D spatial distribution of SNRs within the SMC (Sect.\,\ref{results_3D}). Our findings are summarised in Sect.\,\ref{summary}.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
\label{observations}
\subsection{X-ray data }
\label{observations_xray}
There are upwards of 120 XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace observations of the SMC. In this work, all observations useful for imaging and/or spectroscopic purposes were included. Lists of observation IDs (ObsIDs) sorted by off-axis angle and exposure time were compiled for each SNR. Thanks to the compactness of the SMC and its dense coverage with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace, all SNRs have multiple observations available. That number ranges from two (for two SNRs) to 38 for four of them. Those highly covered are those in the field of view of SNR 1E~0102.2$-$7219 (including itself), which is used as a calibration source \citep{2017A&A...597A..35P} and thus monitored frequently.
All data were processed with the ``MPE pipeline'', used for XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace surveys of M31 \citep{2005A&A...434..483P,2011A&A...534A..55S}, M33 \citep{2004A&A...426...11P,2006A&A...448.1247M}, and the SMC \citep{2012A&A...545A.128H}. A summary of the important steps of the pipeline was given in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. The difference with \citet{2012A&A...545A.128H} is that data were reprocessed with version 16.0.0 of the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace Science Analysis Software\,\footnote{SAS, \url{http://xmm.esac.esa.int/sas/}}. The resulting event lists and associated good time interval files (\texttt{gti}, one file per detector) were used as the primary source for subsequent analysis.
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[height=0.31\vsize]{1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.30\vsize]{0109-7318_MCELS_RGB_V2.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Left\,:} MCSNR candidate J0056$-$7209 on a composite MCELS image (R, G, B = [\ion{S}{ii}], H$\alpha$, and [\ion{O}{iii}], respectively). On the east and west side of the ellipse, fragmented filaments typical of older supernova remnants are clearly seen. The white bar shows the position of the WiFeS spectrograph slit. The spectrograph slit is actually a combination of 25 $\times$ 1\arcsec\ wide adjacent slits each, repeated 36 times to yield an effective 25$\times$36\arcsec\ field of view on the sky.
\textit{Right\,:} Same as left for MCSNR candidate J0109--7318. Compared with J0056$-$7209, this one exhibits more fragmented filaments creating [\ion{S}{ii}] and H$\alpha$ arcs also common in morphological structures of old supernova remnants.}
\label{MC}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Radio continuum data}
In a similar manner as in \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B} where the LMC radio continuum sample were investigated, we used all available radio continuum data described in various surveys to date \citep{1997A&AS..121..321F,1998A&AS..130..421F,2002MNRAS.335.1085F,2004MNRAS.355...44P,2005MNRAS.364..217F,2006MNRAS.367.1379R,2007MNRAS.376.1793P,2011SerAJ.182...43W,2011SerAJ.183...95C,2011SerAJ.183..103W,2012SerAJ.184...93W,2012SerAJ.185...53W}. Some earlier radio continuum studies of selected SMC SNRs were shown in \cite{2008A&A...485...63F,2011A&A...530A.132O,2012A&A...537L...1H,2014AJ....148...99C,2015A&A...584A..41M}. Where possible, our study improves upon these previous SMC SNR studies. We also examine Australia Telescope Online Archive to search for in depth coverage of SNRs studied here. Apart from the ATCA (and Parkes) radio telescope, we make use of MWA observations as described in \citet{2018MNRAS.480.2743F} as well as the Australia Square Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) Early Science Project on the SMC (Joseph et al., submitted). Typical data reduction procedures as described in above papers were used. We specifically used the MIRIAD tasks \texttt{imfit} and \texttt{imsum} in order to extract flux density, extensions (diameter/axes $D$ and position angle PA) for each radio detected SNR. The radio spectral index ($\alpha$) based on at least two flux density ($S$) measurements is then estimated defined as $S_{\nu} \propto \nu^\alpha$.
\subsection{Optical observations of SMC SNRs candidates}
\label{observations_supplementary}
In our optical search for the SMC SNRs we initially used the Magellanic Clouds Emission Line Survey (MCELS) (see \citealt{2012ApJ...755...40P}). In this survey which covered optical wavebands of [O\,{\sc iii}]\ at 5007\AA, H${\alpha}$\ at 6563\AA\ and [S\,{\sc ii}]\ at 6716/6731\AA, we found two new objects (see Fig.~\ref{MC}) whose morphological structures are typical of SNRs. This was the initial motivation for us to go further and obtain optical spectra of these objects, named candidates MCSNR~J0056$-$7209 and MCSNR~J0109$-$7318, and try to confirm their nature.
Spectral observations were undertaken on June 8, 2015 (see Table~2), using the Wide-Field Spectrograph (WiFeS) on the 2.3-m telescope of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatory (MSSSO). The WiFeS spectrograph is an image slicer and behaves as an integral field unit (IFU) providing spatially-resolved spectroscopy \citep[see details in][]{2007Ap&SS.310..255D}. The final result, after complex data reduction of WiFeS observations, is a cube with R.A., Dec. and wavelength as third dimension. From that cube, we can generate 1D spectra. WiFeS consists of twenty-five 1\arcsec\ wide adjacent slits which are each 36\arcsec\ in length to yield an effective $25\times36$\arcsec\ on the sky. As our granted observational night definitely was not photometric, we performed observations only in the red part of the spectrum between 5700~\AA\ and 7000~\AA\ using the R7000 grating with 1200 lines~mm$^{-1}$. In addition, due to the non-photometric night we could neither apply observations of spectrophotometric standard stars to get real line fluxes (but used simple counts) nor estimate the true extinction.
\section{Data analysis}
\label{data}
\subsection{X-ray imaging}
\label{data_imaging}
Images were created with a pixel size of 2\arcsec$\times$~2\arcsec, using single to quadruple-pixel events (\texttt{PATTERN} = 0 to 12) with \texttt{FLAG = 0} from the MOS detectors. Single and double-pixel events (\texttt{PATTERN} = 0 to 4) from the pn detector with \texttt{(FLAG \&\& 0xf0000) = 0} (i.e. including events next to bad pixels or bad columns) were used. To avoid the higher detector noise contribution from the double-pixel events below 500~eV, only single-pixel events were selected at these low energies. Exposure maps taking into account the energy-dependent telescope vignetting were produced with the task \texttt{eexpmap}. Out-of-time (OoT) images were created from the EPIC-pn OoT event lists, scaled by the corresponding OoT fraction $f_{\mathrm{OoT}}$\,\footnote{Values taken from the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ Users Handbook.}, and subtracted from the corresponding source+background images.
Images and exposure maps were extracted in various energy bands for all three cameras. The set of energy bands was tailored to the thermal spectrum of SNRs: a soft band from 0.3~keV to 0.7~keV includes strong lines from oxygen; a medium band from 0.7~keV to 1.1~keV comprises Fe L-shell lines as well as K-shell lines from \ion{Ne}{IX} and \ion{Ne}{X}; and a hard band (1.1~--~4.2~keV) includes K lines from Mg, Si, S, Ca, Ar, and possibly non-thermal continuum.
The detector background was subtracted from the images. We used filter wheel closed (hereafter FWC) data, obtained with the detectors shielded from astrophysical and soft-proton backgrounds. FWC observations are collected several times per year as part of the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace calibration efforts and made available by the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ Science Operations Centre\,\footnote{\url{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/xmm-newton/filter-closed}}. The instrumental background contribution $f_{\mathrm{FWC}}$ to the science image is estimated from the count rate in the detector corners for each instrument individually, as they are always shielded from the X-ray telescopes. The FWC images were scaled by $f_{\mathrm{FWC}}$ and removed from the science image to create the background-subtracted image. Only FWC exposures in full-frame mode are available for MOS detectors, excluding all other modes from our analysis.
We combined all suitable observations of an SNR to produce an image centred on the source. In each band, we merged the images from pn and both MOS. The smoothing of the combined images was done in adaptive mode with the SAS task \texttt{asmooth}. It calculates a library of Gaussian kernels such that the resulting images reach a minimum (Poissonian) signal-to-noise ratio of 5 everywhere. Regions of good statistics (\mbox{e.\,g.}\xspace bright sources) are smoothed with a small kernel, whereas fainter regions are more thoroughly smoothed. The minimum kernel size for adaptive smoothing is either 10\arcsec\ or 20\arcsec, depending on the available data and the surface brightness of the SNR under investigation. Only MCSNR~J0104$-$7201 (1E 0102.2$-$7219) was smoothed with a smaller kernel of 6\arcsec\ owing to its small size and excellent photon statistics available. We divided the combined image by the corresponding vignetted and smoothed exposure map. The combined exposure map was produced by weighting the MOS exposure maps with a factor of 0.4 relative to pn, to account for the lower effective area. The smoothing of the exposure map is done with the same template of kernels as the for the images. The resulting composite images (soft-medium-hard bands) are shown in Appendix~\ref{appendix_images} with radio and optical features.
\subsection{X-ray spectra}
\label{data_spectra}
We follow the spectral analysis method described extensively in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}: we simultaneously fit source and background spectra (hereafter \texttt{SRC} and \texttt{BG}), where the latter is explicitly modelled rather than subtracted. This is critical for the analysis of faint \textit{extended} sources such as SNRs in the SMC. We correct the event lists for vignetting with the SAS task \texttt{evigweight} prior to extraction. This accounts for the energy-dependent effective area variation across the extents of SNRs and background regions. The redistribution matrices are produced by the SAS task \texttt{rmfgen}, and the ancillary response files by \texttt{arfgen}. The latter is used in unvignetted mode (equivalent to a flat detector map), returning the on-axis effective area, because the vignetting is already corrected event-wise.
We use the same event pattern for spectra as for imaging. We use the spectral-fitting package XSPEC \citep{1996ASPC..101...17A} version 12.9.0e, with spectra rebinned with a minimum of 25~counts to allow the use of the $\chi^2$-statistic. Interstellar absorption is reproduced by the photoelectric absorption model \texttt{phabs} in XSPEC (or \texttt{vphabs}, where the prefix ``v'' indicates that abundances can vary), using cross-sections set to those of \citet{1992ApJ...400..699B}.
The extraction regions for \texttt{SRC} and \texttt{BG} spectra are defined manually, usually guided by the X-ray contours. Simple shapes (circles, ellipses) are preferred, but an arbitrary shape (e.g. polygonal region) is also used if required. Point sources detected during the pipeline data reduction with the task \texttt{edetectchain} are excluded. Details of the definition of extraction regions are given in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}.
When defining extraction regions, we also screen out observations not suited for spectroscopy (that might have been used for imaging). For instance, we do not use the shorter observations if many longer exposures are available, those at large off-axis angle, and those where the SNR is only partially in the field of view (i.e. over the detector edges). In the end, a variety of spectra combination can be found, from pn/MOS1/MOS2 data from a single observation (e.g. for MCSNR~J0051$-$7321), up to a combination of spectra from six observations (e.g. for MCSNR~J0058$-$7217, fitting 16 spectra simultaneously).
Spectra extracted from FWC data at the same detector positions as the \texttt{SRC} and \texttt{BG} regions are used to fit the instrumental background model. It comprises electronic noise and particle-induced background, as described in \citet{2008A&A...478..575K,2012PhDT......ppppS}; and \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. The instrumental background is not vignetted, and the vignetting-weighting process used on science data distorts its spectrum, particularly at high-energy where the vignetting effect is the strongest. We correct for this by including an ad-hoc multiplicative spline function in the model of the instrumental background. The best-fit models are used in subsequent fits (including astrophysical signal) with no free parameter, as the instrumental background averaged in the FWC dataset matches generally well with the one in the SNR spectra.
One component of the background is the SMC diffuse emission. This was studied by \citet{2012PhDT......ppppS}, who modeled the diffuse emission with a thermal model\,:
\begin{equation}
S_{\mathrm{SMC\ diff}} =
\mathrm{\texttt{phabs}} \left(N_H ^{\mathrm{Gal}} \right)
\times
\mathrm{\texttt{vphabs}} \left( N_H ^{\mathrm{SMC*}}, 0.2 Z_{\sun} \right)
S_{\mathrm{apec}} ^{\mathrm{SMC}}
\label{eq_SMCdiff}
\end{equation}
where $S_{\mathrm{apec}} ^{\mathrm{SMC}}$ is the emission from an \texttt{apec} model\,\footnote{Using AtomDB 3.0, \url{http://www.atomdb.org/index.php}.} at temperature $kT^{\mathrm{SMC}}$ and normalisation $N^{\mathrm{SMC}}$. The foreground column density $N_{H} ^{\mathrm{Gal}}$ at the location of each analysed source is taken from the \ion{H}{I} maps of \citet{1990ARA&A..28..215D}. $N_H ^{\mathrm{SMC*}}$ is between 0 and $N_H ^{\mathrm{SMC}}$, the total line-of-sight column density through the SMC \citep{1999MNRAS.302..417S}. Parameters of SMC diffuse emission are given by \citet{2012PhDT......ppppS} in a grid of 240 boxes (size of 9\arcmin\,$\times$\,9\arcmin), containing all but one SNR (MCSNR~J0127$-$7333). The significance of the diffuse emission component is higher than 3$\sigma$ in all the boxes hosting an SNR, except for MCSNR~J0040$-$7336, where the diffuse emission is very faint (the normalisation of the diffuse component generally correlates with its significance). For completeness, we included the diffuse SMC emission in the background model of MCSNR~J0041$-$7336, as it does not affect the rest of the fit much.
The remaining astrophysical X-ray background (AXB) comprises Galactic and extragalactic components: unabsorbed thermal emission from the local hot bubble and an absorbed two-temperature plasma emission from the halo. The cosmic X-ray background is modelled as a power law with a photon index $\Gamma$ of 1.41 \citep{2004A&A...419..837D}. The final model for the AXB is\,:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{AXB}} =
S ^1 _{\mathrm{apec}} + & \mathrm{\texttt{phabs}} (N_H ^{\mathrm{Gal}} ) ( S ^2 _{\mathrm{apec}} + S ^3 _{\mathrm{apec}} + \\
& \mathrm{\texttt{vphabs}} \left(N_H ^{\mathrm{SMC}}, 0.2 Z_{\sun} \right) N_{\mathrm{CXB}} E^{-\Gamma} )
\end{aligned}
\label{eq_XRB}
\end{equation}
The temperatures of the thermal components ($kT^1 = 108$~eV, $kT^2 = 36$~eV, and $kT^3 = 247$~eV) and normalisations are taken from \citet{2012PhDT......ppppS}, where this model was fit on observations around the main SMC field. Thus, it gives a fair representation of Galactic foreground and extragalactic background towards the SMC.
Another non-X-ray background component is the soft proton contamination (SPC), which we model following the prescription of \citet{2008A&A...478..575K}. The SPC parameters are highly time-variable and position-dependent, so they were different for each instrument and observation.
The final background model (FWC + $S_{\mathrm{SMC\ diff}}$ + $S_{\mathrm{AXB}}$ + SPC) is fit to the \texttt{BG} spectra prior to fitting source emission. In most cases good fits are obtained with only a constant renormalisation factor for $S_{\mathrm{SMC\ diff}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{AXB}}$. For five SNRs, the background model fit was significantly improved by varying the parameters of the SMC diffuse emission ($N_H ^{\mathrm{SMC*}}$ and $kT^{\mathrm{SMC}}$) or the normalisations of the various XRB components. This is likely due to variations of the X-ray background or diffuse emission on small angular scales.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{results}
\subsection{Final sample}
\label{results_sample}
We searched all available optical, radio and X-ray surveys in order to secure the most complete population of the SMC SNRs. The number of confirmed SNRs in the SMC is currently at 19\ (see Table~\ref{tab:smcsnrs}). Sources previously classified as SNRs which were not included in the final sample are discussed in Sect.\,\ref{results_rejectedSNRs}. In addition, we list in this work two SMC SNR candidates which are presented here for the first time (Table~\ref{tbl:candsnrs}). These new SNR candidates are given the identifiers MCSNR candidate J0106$-$7242 and MCSNR candidate J0109$-$7318, and join two other candidates, MCSNR candidate J0056$-$7209 and MCSNR candidate J0057$-$7211, which were presented in \citet{2012A&A...545A.128H}. Primarily, we classified the 4\ SMC SNR candidates based on the well established criteria described in \citet{1998A&AS..130..421F}. For more details, see Table~\ref{tbl:candsnrs} and Sect.~\ref{results_notesSNRs}.
The extent of all 23\ SNRs and SNR candidates is primarily measured using MCELS images, with some additional information obtained via our various radio images as well as {\sl Chandra}\xspace,XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace, or ROSAT\ surveys when needed. Where possible, we determined SNR diameters from the highest resolution image available including optical and X-ray images. We estimated that the error in diameter is smaller than 2\arcsec\ or $\sim$0.58~pc. We also found that our diameters shown here could be different at different wavebands (usually within $\sim$10\% ) as it was the case in the LMC \citepalias{2017ApJS..230....2B,2016A&A...585A.162M}. All SMC SNRs and SNR candidates' radio flux density measurements are shown here for the first time and their associated errors are well below 10\%. For the sake of consistency, we assumed a common distance of 60~kpc to all sources for our measurements and derived properties. The expected dispersion along the line-of-sight due to the depth of the SMC (see Sect.\,\ref{results_3D}) is likely higher than the uncertainties of e.g. angular sizes and fluxes. Because of their very low surface brightness we could not detect radio emission from two of the 4\ SMC SNR candidates. Also, we could not measure the flux density of MCSNR~J0103$-$7201 (Haberl et al., in prep) as it is a very weak radio source with a very thin (but distinguishable in our high sensitivity ATCA-CABB observations) shell, which overlaps with the neighbouring massive \ion{H}{II}\ region DEM~S103 (see Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh5}). Therefore, Table~\ref{tab:smcsnrs} is a compilation of our own measurements as well as those of other papers for this well established sample of the SMC SNRs.
\subsection{Objects not included}
\label{results_rejectedSNRs}
We present here a list of objects previously classified as SNR or SNR candidate that, upon closer scrutiny and in light of the new datasets in radio and X-rays, can no longer be bona-fide SNRs. Most of these objects were originally suggested to be (possible) SNRs based on a single feature (e.g. radio, X-rays). None were later confirmed by a multi-wavelength detailed study, although they have been since included in SNR samples and compilations. This attempt at ``cleaning'' the literature will be beneficial for population studies, making sure they do not include such unrelated objects \citep[as e.g. in][]{2010MNRAS.407.1301B,2019ApJ...871...64A}, which is likely to introduce biases.
\paragraph{N\,S19 / [FBR2002] J004806$-$730842}: From the ATCA radio catalogue of \citet{2005MNRAS.364..217F}, this source is the very confused LHA 115-N 19 (hereafter N\,19) \ion{H}{ii} complex. Radio emission thus includes both thermal contribution from the \ion{H}{ii} region and non-thermal (synchrotron) emission by the nearby three genuine SNRs in that area (see Sect.\,\ref{results_notesSNRs} and Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh1}). The new ASKAP data do not resolve this source into a shell, as expected for a true SNR. Very faint soft X-ray emission was noted in the SMC X-ray survey \citep{2012A&A...545A.128H}, but it is to the northeast of the radio source and from a larger region, itself surrounded by small optical features. We conclude that the radio features are likely just thermal emission from optical nebulosities within N\,19, while the large size, soft and very faint X-ray diffuse emission is akin to a superbubble, resembling e.g. LHA 120-N 51D in the LMC \citep{2003IAUS..212..637B,2010ApJ...715..412Y}.
\paragraph{SNR B0045$-$73.3}: Like N\,S19, it is a radio source in the N\,19 complex \citep{2002MNRAS.335.1085F}, but the ASKAP emission is not resolving a shell, instead highlighting optical nebulosity of the \ion{H}{ii} region with interior [\ion{O}{iii}] emission, a better indication of photoionisation. Some X-ray diffuse emission is also seen \citep{2012A&A...545A.128H}, but again it does not match the radio or optical features. This could be just hot gas seen within N\,19.
\paragraph{N\,S21 / [FBR2002] J004748$-$731727}: It is an unresolved radio source \citep{2002MNRAS.335.1085F} with no X-ray emission \citep[down to $\sim10^{-14}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~arcmin$^{-2}$,][]{2012A&A...545A.128H}. The small optical nebulosities at that position point towards the radio source being thermal emission from photoionised \ion{H}{ii} regions.
\paragraph{IKT7 / [HFP2000]424}: It was suggested as an SNR candidate based on \textit{Einstein} observatory hardness ratios \citep{1983IAUS..101..535I}. Later this source was confidently identified via its 172~s pulsations as the Be/X-ray binary AX J0051.6$-$7311 \citep{2004A&A...414..667H}. The absence of optical, radio, or diffuse X-ray emission proves that this is not an SNR, a conclusion already mentioned in \citet{2012A&A...545A.128H}.
\paragraph{DEM S130 / [FBR2002] J010539$-$720341}: This is a radio source around a bright emission-line star (LHA 115-N 78C). DEM S130 designates the compact \ion{H}{ii} region which likely is the source of thermal radio emission. There is no X-ray emission despite this area being the deepest covered with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace, in the field of view of MCSNR~J0104$-$7201.
\paragraph{LHA 115-N 83C}: There are no studies of this radio candidate \citep{2005MNRAS.364..217F} in the southeast of the SMC, which shows no X-ray emission. It is likely a compact \ion{H}{ii} region (photoionised, filled with [\ion{O}{iii}] emission) within the LHA~115-N~83 (= NGC 456) complex.
\subsection{X-ray spectral properties of SMC SNRs}
\label{results_spectral}
\subsubsection{General properties}
\label{results_spectral_general}
The results of the spectral analysis for the SMC sample are given in Appendix~\ref{appendix_tables} (Table~\ref{appendix_table_spectra_all}). Only MCSNR~J0103$-$7201 and J0104$-$7201 have not been included (see Sect.\,\ref{results_notesSNRs}).
The X-ray analysis opens the possibility to follow the evolution of thermal energy ($P = n \, kT$) of the SNR, whose volume integral we expect to be at most 0.47 $E_{\mathrm{SN}}$ in the Sedov phase, as function of the size $R$. A proxy for the density is obtained from the emission measure as $n_H = f^{-1} 0\sqrt{EM \, / \,1.2\,V}$, with a factor 1.2 for a fully ionised plasma, and a filling factor $f < 1$. The volume was calculated assuming an ellipsoid shape with minor and major axes, and a third axis assumed to be in between these values. We propagate the uncertainty of this assumption in our calculation. To avoid having the size $R$ entering both $x-$ and $y-$axes (because $n \propto R^{-1/3}$), we plot in Fig.\,\ref{fig_PV} the product $P\times\sqrt{V} \equiv f^{-1} \sqrt{EM} \times kT$ as a function of average diameter in pc. For multiple-component spectra, we used the sum of all $EM$, and the $EM$-averaged temperature. Lines of constant energy $f \times E_{\mathrm{SN}} \propto R^{-3/2}$ are overplotted. We show the results for the SMC population (this work) and the LMC SNRs \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. There is no tight downward correlation. The scatter reflects at least some intrinsic variation in explosion energy, but most likely it is due to part of these SNRs having entered the radiative phase (in many cases indicated by prominent optical emission), which lowered their internal energy.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.99\hsize]{PsqrtV_vs_size_withLMC_errorbars.pdf}
\caption{$P \times V^{1/2}$ of SNRs in SMC (orange triangles, this work) and LMC (grey plus signs, \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}) as a function of their size. Lines of constant SN energy (times filling factor $f$, see text in Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral_general}) are overplotted in units of $10^{51}$~erg~$\equiv$1~foe.}
\label{fig_PV}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Fe~K emission}
\label{results_spectral_Fe}
Fe~K lines were shown to be a valuable tool to distinguish type~Ia from CC SNRs \citep[][but see caveats in \citealt{2017A&A...597A..65M}]{2014ApJ...785L..27Y}. However, no Fe~K emission has been reported from SMC SNRs in the literature or found in our analysis. We examined the high-energy emission of MCSNR~J0104$-$7201 (1E 0102.2$-$7219), the brightest SNRs in our sample with the hottest plasma, to assess the presence of faint Fe~K emission or derive upper limits. With a simple Bremsstrahlung continuum, we fit the spectrum above 3~keV, a band devoid of strong line besides Fe K, as Ar and Ca lines ($\sim3-4.5$~keV) have much smaller equivalent widths. Then, a Gaussian line with zero width is added at a centroid energy ranging from 6.4~keV to 6.7~keV and the 3$\sigma$ uncertainty on the line normalisation is calculated. Over the tested centroid range the error bars always cross zero, consistent with no detection.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{SNRs used for measurements of ISM composition (top part),
and with detected ejecta (bottom part).}
\begin{center}
\label{table_ejecta}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c | c c c}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{MCSNR}} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{High X/Fe flags} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Low X/Fe flags} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{O} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Ne} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Mg} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Si} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{O} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Ne} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Mg} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
J0046$-$7308 & Y & Y & --- & Y & --- & --- & ---\\
J0047$-$7308 & --- & Y & Y & --- & --- & --- & ---\\
J0047$-$7309 & Y & Y & Y & --- & --- & --- & ---\\
J0049$-$7314 & --- & --- & --- & --- & Y & Y & Y \\
J0051$-$7321 & Y & Y & Y & Y & --- & --- & ---\\
J0059$-$7210 & Y & Y & --- & --- & --- & --- & ---\\
J0103$-$7209 & --- & Y & --- & --- & --- & --- & ---\\
J0104$-$7201 & Y & Y & Y & Y & --- & --- & ---\\
J0105$-$7223 & Y & Y & Y & Y & --- & --- & ---\\
J0105$-$7210 & --- & --- & --- & --- & Y & Y & Y \\
J0106$-$7205 & --- & --- & --- & --- & Y & Y & Y \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\medskip}
& \multicolumn{7}{c}{ISM abundances} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{O} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ne} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Mg} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Fe} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
J0047$-$7308 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0047$-$7309 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0051$-$7321 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0052$-$7236 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0056$-$7209 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0058$-$7217 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0059$-$7210 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
J0105$-$7223 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y}\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth,angle=0,trim=0 0 0 0mm,scale=1.01,clip]{C1_spectra_c.pdf}
\hspace{0.01\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth,trim=0 0 0 7mm, scale=0.98, clip]{C4_spectra_c.pdf}
\caption{Red part of optical spectra of SNR candidates J0056--7209 (left) and J0109--7318 (right) as seen by the WiFeS spectrograph. All main lines characteristics of old SNRs are seen: [N\,{\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda 6548,6583$\AA, H${\alpha}$\ and [S\,{\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda 6717, 6731$\AA.}
\label{candidate_spectra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\small
\caption{Emission line intensities$^\dagger$ and ratios for two SNR candidates observed with the WiFeS spectrograph, taking H${\alpha}$=100}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{4pt}}ccccccccccccccccc}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Date&Object Name&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Slit position (J2000)}&[N\,{\sc ii}] &H${\alpha}$&[N\,{\sc ii}]&[S\,{\sc ii}]&[S\,{\sc ii}]&[N\,{\sc ii}]/H${\alpha}$&[S\,{\sc ii}]/H${\alpha}$&[S\,{\sc ii}] &Electron Density\\
&MCSNR&RA&DEC& 6548\AA& &6583\AA &6717\AA &6731\AA & & &6717/6731\AA &(cm$^{-3}$) \\
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
08/11/2015&J0056--7209& 00 55 59 &--72 10 04 & 26.7 & 100$^a$ & 14.8 & 27 & 20.4 & 0.42 & 0.47 & 1.32 & $\sim$10$^{2}$\\
08/11/2015&J0109--7318& 01 09 47 &--73 19 27 & 29.5 & 100$^b$ & 9.1 & 28.1 & 18 & 0.39 & 0.46 & 1.56 & LDL \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{
\tablefoottext{a}{H${\alpha}$\ flux = 19154 counts;}
\tablefoottext{a}{H${\alpha}$\ flux = 8837 counts.}
\tablefoottext{$^\dagger$} {The rms wavelength dispersion error from the arc calibrations was 0.09\AA\ while the relative percentage error in the flux determination from the calibration using the brightest lines was estimated as $\sim$13\%.}
}
\label{table_spectro}
\end{table*}
The upper limit was at most $0.9 \times 10^{-6}$~ph\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$. In the whole sample of Fe~K emitting SNRs, only two Galactic sources (Cas~A and W49B) and two LMC sources (N103B and N132D) would have fluxes above this limit at the SMC distance and would potentially be detectable. At an age of about 2000~yr \citep[1700 to 2600~yr,][]{2006ApJ...641..919F,2019ApJ...874...14X}, the expansion measurement and explosion modelling suggest that the remaining unshocked ejecta in MCSNR~J0104$-$7201 include most of the iron produced in the SN \citep{2019ApJ...874...14X}, explaining the lack of Fe emission. All other SMC SNRs are more evolved and their X-ray temperatures are likely too low to promote Fe~K line emission, in addition to being fainter overall, further preventing detection with existing instruments.
\subsubsection{Detection of SN ejecta}
\label{results_spectral_ejecta}
Supernova ejecta can be revealed in X-ray spectra by high abundances of metals, significantly above the average SMC abundance (0.1 to 0.2 times solar) or even
super-solar. Since there are stark contrasts in the nucleosynthesis yields of thermonuclear and CC SNe, ratios of O, Ne, and Mg to Fe abundances can provide
valuable information as to the type of progenitor of a given SNR.
Using the results of our spectral analysis, we flag in Table~\ref{table_ejecta} the SNRs where the X/Fe abundance ratios (where X is O, Ne, Mg, or Si) are significantly higher or lower than the average SMC value \citep{1992ApJ...384..508R}. The three SNRs with \textit{low} X/Fe ratios are those akin to several evolved LMC SNRs with iron-rich, centrally-bright emission \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. In some cases an elevated Fe abundance or sometimes a pure Fe component are needed to fit the spectra, leading to their classification as ``low X/Fe'' cases, even if the low-Z elements were not left free. We make use of these flags in the typing of SMC SNRs (Sect.\,\ref{results_typing}).
\subsection{New SMC SNR candidates}
\label{CAND}
\subsubsection{Optical spectroscopy}
\label{CAND_spectro}
Examination of WiFeS 1D spectra (see Fig.~\ref{candidate_spectra}) shows all main lines typical of old SNRs. They show lines of [N\,{\sc ii}]\ at 6548 and 6583\AA, H${\alpha}$\ and [S\,{\sc ii}]\ at 6717 and 6731\AA. The latter are shock-sensitive line: the ratio of [S\,{\sc ii}]\ lines to H${\alpha}$\ should be $\gtrsim$~0.40 for an object to be classified as an SNR shock from the point of view of optical spectra. Our MCSNR candidates have values of 0.47 and 0.46 (see also Table ~\ref{table_spectro}) so we can classify them as SNRs. Also, the ratio between the individual [S\,{\sc ii}]\ lines (6717~\AA / 6731~\AA) of 1.32 and 1.56 is fully in line with optical SNR spectra. The only exception are [N\,{\sc ii}]\ lines whose ratios to H${\alpha}$\ have values of 0.39 and 0.42, which is somewhat low. In Milky Way SNRs, this (mostly) would not be accepted as an SNR, however in the SMC it is different. From the early optical spectral observations of the MCs \citep[see examples in][]{1979AuJPh..32..123D} it is well known that [N\,{\sc ii}]\ lines are very weak due to an abundance effect: nitrogen, particularly in the SMC, is even more underabundant (by 0.3~--~0.5~dex) than other elements \citep{1992ApJ...384..508R,2019AJ....157...50D}.
So, if we exclude the value and comparison of nitrogen lines with H${\alpha}$, all other spectral characteristics of these two candidates match SNRs.
\subsubsection{Notes on individual SNR candidates}
\label{results_notes_candidates}
\paragraph{MCSNR candidate J0056$-$7209} is a large optical shell of 99~pc by 65~pc in size (Fig.~\ref{MC}, left), among the largest SNRs in the SMC. The weak diffuse X-ray emission, first identified in \citet{2012A&A...545A.128H}, is however confined to the northern region of the optical loop only, centred at RA(J2000)=00\hour56\minute33.0$^{\mathrm{s}}$\ and Dec(J2000)=--72\D08\arcmin00\arcsec\ and with extent of about 48~pc. Using WiFeS spectroscopic data, we found a strong indication of shock excitation with [S\,{\sc ii}]/H${\alpha}$\ ratio of 0.46 (Fig.\,\ref{candidate_spectra}, left), lending further support to a true SNR nature for this source. We also found that the weak [O\,{\sc iii}]\ emission is coinciding with the X-ray emission of MCSNR candidate J0056$-$7209, which we confirm as of thermal nature with low metal abundances (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_candidates}, Table~\ref{appendix_table_spectra_all}). The lack of radio continuum detection is surprising but not unheard of \citep[see Venn diagrams of ][\citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}]{2010ApJ...725..842L}, although this issue arises more commonly for galaxies beyond the Local Group where sources are often not spatially resolved.
Based on optica and X-ray features, we can nevertheless confidently confirm this source as a \textit{bona-fide} SNRs, attributing it the identifier MCSNR~J0056$-$7209.
\paragraph{MCSNR candidate J0057$-$7211 (aka N\,S66D)}: it was first suggested as an SNR candidate based on the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ mosaic of the SMC \citep{2012A&A...545A.128H}. The faint and extended soft X-ray emission is very close to the listed position, which is based on our new ASKAP EMU (SMC Early Science Project) radio continuum images (Joseph et al., submitted). The radio emission forms a partial shell at the north, while the diffuse thermal X-ray emission completes a shell in the south and south-western quadrant (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_candidates}; note a likely unrelated point source at the south-western edge of the SNR). The low absorption measured in X-rays towards this SNR (Table~\ref{appendix_table_spectra_all}) suggests a position on the near side of the SMC. Its radio detection is clear, although it is a low surface brightness SNR (S$_{1 \rm{GHz}} =$~0.031~Jy). Its radio SED is quite steep ($\alpha=-0.75\pm0.04$). There is no obvious optical emission associated to that source (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_candidates}), but the combination of radio and X-ray evidence leads us to conclude as a true SNR nature for it, to which we assign the identifier MCSNR~J0057$-$7211. However, it is an optically ``quiet'' SNR, similar to some Galactic SNRs as described by \citet{2008MNRAS.390.1037S}.
\paragraph{MCSNR candidate J0106$-$7242}: this is a newly suggested SMC SNR candidate based solely on its radio-continuum detection and morphology. We discovered this candidate in our new ASKAP radio continuum images (Joseph et al., submitted). Although a low surface brightness SNR candidate (S$_{1 \rm{GHz}} =$~0.0236~Jy), its radio SED is typical for an SNR ($\alpha=-0.55\pm0.02$, Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_candidates}). We do not detect any optical emission from this object -- similarly to SMC SNR [HFP2000] 334. Also, we found no significant X-ray detection, but this region is poorly covered with low exposure time (20~ks only, combining all EPIC detectors). From the soft and medium fluxed mosaic image in and around the radio SNR position (Table~\ref{tbl:candsnrs}), we estimate a 3~$\sigma$ upper limit of $1.9\times10^{34}$~erg s$^{-1}$ for the 0.3-8~keV luminosity (or $8.3\times 10^{-15}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~arcmin$^{-2}$ for surface brightness) of the MCSNR candidate J0106$-$7242. As several SMC SNRs are similarly faint (Table~\ref{tab:smcsnrs}), there is still comfortable room for a subsequent X-ray detection with deeper observations. Until then this object remains a good SNR candidate.
\paragraph{MCSNR candidate J0109$-$7318}: we suggest this shell-like object (Fig.~\ref{MC}, right) as an SNR candidate because of its strong [S\,{\sc ii}]\ emission. Namely, its [S\,{\sc ii}]/H${\alpha}$\ ratio is 0.46 (Fig.~\ref{candidate_spectra}, right), which indicates shock emission that could be attributed to an SNR nature. However, none of our present generation radio images show any signs of the object due to its projected proximity to a bright radio source \citep[the background AGN XMMU J011053.5-731415,][]{2013A&A...558A.101S}, whose sidelobes distort any nearby emission. The X-ray coverage is mediocre, and in addition it was covered at high off-axis angle in the two overlapping observations of that region, further decreasing the possibility of detecting associated emission. Like MCSNR candidate J0106$-$7242, this object remains a candidate awaiting X-ray confirmation.
\subsection{Notes on individual SMC SNRs}
\label{results_notesSNRs}
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0041$-$7336\,/\,DEM~S5\,:} This SNR is a particularly large optical shell around a central X-ray emission (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh0}), first studied with ROSAT and XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ in \citet{2000A&AS..142...41H} and \citet{2008A&A...485...63F}, respectively. The presence of an X-ray point-like source within the remnant associated to resolved radio emission recently led \citet{2019MNRAS.486.2507A} to the discovery of a candidate pulsar wind nebula (PWN). The X-ray analysis of the diffuse emission (SNR component) in this work, which was also presented in \citet{2019MNRAS.486.2507A}, reveals that the emission arises from shocked ambient medium, as no abundance enhancement is found.
\paragraph{The "triumvirate" of LHA 115-N 19\,:} In this large optical emission nebula lie the three SNRs MCSNR~J0046$-$7308, J0047$-$7308, and J0047$-$7309. Although it is a confused region in the optical due to the bright emission and the lack of well-defined borders, these three sources have strongly different X-ray colours that allow us to distinguish them (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh1}). The spectral fits indicate a similar temperature for these three SNRs ($\approx 0.6$~keV). The variety in X-ray colours is instead due to variations in $N_H$ (by up to an order of magnitude), ionisation age, and abundances. For instance, MCSNR~J0047$-$7309 has highly elevated O, Ne, and Mg abundances (several times solar), while the strongest abundance enhancement of J0046$-$7308 is Si. Ne and Mg are also higher than solar in J0047$-$7308, while its high absorption ($N_H = 1.4 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$) prevents a meaningful measurement of its oxygen abundance. Finally, we note that the large variation of $N_H$ between these three objects indicates that even though close in \textit{projected} position, they might be at different distances and \textit{not} associated to the same star-forming event/region, as implicitly assumed in \citet{2019ApJ...871...64A}.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0048$-$7319\,/\,IKT~4\,:} This faint SNR has an irregular X-ray emission, filling a well-defined optical shell (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh0}) and peaking in the Fe L-shell band, which led to the suggestion \citepalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} that this was a type~Ia SNR, similar to those discovered later by \citet{2006ApJ...652.1259B,2014MNRAS.439.1110B,2014A&A...561A..76M}. We have doubled the exposure time compared to the first XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ analysis of \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V}, enabling us to confirm enhanced iron abundances. However, the Mg abundance is also formally enhanced in our spectral fits, making a conclusion as to the type of progenitor indecisive for IKT~4.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0049$-$7314\,/\,IKT~5\,:} We found the interior X-ray emission to be enriched in iron (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh1}), which we fit with a supplementary Fe-only component. The first component possibly shows enhanced Mg abundance, but not as markedly as in IKT~4. This iron-rich core inside an [\ion{S}{ii}] shell and radio dimness make it very similar to other evolved type~Ia SNRs found in the LMC.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0051$-$7321\,/\,IKT~6\,:} The third brightest among SMC SNRs in X-rays, IKT~6 has two components, with ejecta-dominated emission in the centre, surrounded by a soft X-ray shell of shocked SMC-abundance ISM (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh2}). The abundance pattern of the ejecta (elevated Ne, Mg, and Si) betray a core-collapse SN origin. The shell can be used to measure SMC ISM abundances (Sect.\,\ref{results_abundances}).
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0052$-$7236\,:} Only the south-west part of this structure was suggested as an SNR, before \citet{2012A&A...545A.128H} suggested a possible close connection with other X-ray knots further north, linked by very faint emission. This could either be two close SNRs or a single large one. The slightly brighter SW X-ray knots correlate with the strongest optical emission, while the N part exhibits small filaments in [\ion{S}{ii}], possibly part of the remnant (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh2}). Our X-ray spectral analysis reveals that the N and SW knots have strikingly similar spectra ($N_H$, $kT$, abundances). Combined with the morphology, we propose that these knots indeed form a single, large SNR, actually the largest SNR of the SMC.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0058$-$7217\,/\,IKT~16\,:} This SNR is atypical in the SMC because of the hard extended source near its centre, suggested as the first PWN of the SMC \citep{2011A&A...530A.132O} and then confirmed with high-resolution {\sl Chandra}\xspace\ observations \citep{2015A&A...584A..41M}. To characterise the extended soft X-ray emission from the underlying SNR, we included the pulsar and PWN components obtained in the {\sl Chandra}\xspace\ analysis with fixed parameters in our analysis of the integrated emission. The X-ray size is roughly circular (1.2\arcmin\ radius) and matches some fait optical filamentary structure (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh3}), albeit over a confused larger nebula.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0059$-$7210\,/\,IKT~18\,:} Just 10\arcmin\ north-east of IKT~16, IKT~18 has an irregular centre-filled X-ray morphology (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh3}). Its location in a large optical nebula (N66) makes an optical identification difficult, but analysis of radio to H${\alpha}$\ emission ratio allowed \citet{1991MNRAS.249..722Y} to separate the larger \ion{H}{ii} region from the SNR emission which matches the detected X-ray SNR fairly well. The abundances measured in the X-ray spectrum are low, except for O and Ne that are slightly above the SMC average values. This possibly points to ejecta contamination from regions we cannot pinpoint with the available data and spatial resolution of XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0100$-$7133\,/\,DEM~S108\,:} The northernmost SNR of the SMC sample (by half a degree) is detected in radio, optical, and X-rays (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh4}). The low surface brightness of the latter does not allow for a definite conclusion regarding elemental abundances. The diffuse interior X-ray emission is well outlined by an optical shell with enhanced [\ion{S}{ii}] and strong [\ion{O}{iii}] emission typical of radiative shocks \citep{1971ApJ...167..113C}, indicating an evolved SNR.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0103$-$7209\,/\,IKT~21\,:} Analysis of this SNR is complicated by the bright point-source AX~J0103$-$722 within it, first identified in \citet{1994AJ....107.1363H}, and confirmed as a Be/X-ray binary by \citet{2000ApJ...531L.131I}. A compact radio and optical shell ($\approx$90\arcsec\ diameter) is seen around the X-ray binary (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh4}), suggested as an SNR by \citet{1984ApJS...55..189M}. No X-rays were found in this region \citep{1995MNRAS.275.1218Y} until the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace analysis of \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V}, who modelled the faint thermal X-ray emission simultaneously with that of the binary. Much like for MCSNR~J0052$-$7236, the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace mosaic \citep{2012A&A...545A.128H} revealed a much larger diffuse emission than the former compact nebula. We used that 270\arcsec\ diameter region for our X-ray spectral analysis. We could thus afford to excise the X-ray binary point-source contribution by excluding a circle of 50\arcsec\ radius (i.e. 90\,\% encircled energy fraction at 8\arcmin\ off-axis angle). This removes about 15\,\% of the total SNR area. The emission was best fit with an NEI model, with only neon having a higher abundance than SMC ISM, which we take as a marginal indication of a core-collapse origin (Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral_ejecta}). Finally, we note that the best-fit $N_H$ of the large thermal SNR is about half that towards the X-ray binary \citep[$3.9\times10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$;][]{2000ApJ...531L.131I}. In addition, the binary is far from the centre of our larger SNR, making an SNR-binary physical association far less likely than e.g. in SXP~1062 \citep{2012A&A...537L...1H}.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0103$-$7247\,/\,[HFP2000]~334\,:} Without any detected optical emission (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh5}), this object, discovered via its faint radio and X-ray emission \citep{2008A&A...485...63F}, was thought to host a putative PWN because of a central radio and X-ray point-like source. Later resolved with {\sl Chandra}\xspace \citep{2014AJ....148...99C}, it was however attributed to a background object. We included the spectral parameters of that source obtained with {\sl Chandra}\xspace \citep{2014AJ....148...99C} in our analysis of the integrated X-ray emission. The extent of the SNR was measured using both radio and X-ray contours.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0103$-$7201\,:} This faint SNR is detected as an H$\alpha$ circular shell (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh5}) centered on the long-period X-ray pulsar SXP~1323 \citep{2019MNRAS.485L...6G}. Deep radio and co-added {\sl Chandra}\xspace\ data reveal faint radio and X-ray emission of the shell, thus confirming its SNR status (Haberl et al., in prep.). Interestingly, this is the second case in the SMC of an SNR containing a Be X-ray binary after SXP~1062 (see below), both objects harbouring long-period pulsars ($> 1000$~s).
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0104$-$7201\,/\,IKT~22\,:} Most commonly known as 1E 0102.2$-$7219, this is the brightest X-ray and radio SNR in the SMC (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh5}). It has been and continues to be extensively studied. Not wanting to expand on the bulk of past detailed studies, our approach was merely to include it in our analysis for completeness, and use a multi-component spectral model to derive consistently its X-ray luminosity. We needed three NEI components with variable abundances to satisfactorily reproduce the integrated emission. For pn spectra, a redshift parameter was added to account for small gain variations \citep{2017A&A...597A..35P} that shift the line centroid between observations and would otherwise cause large residuals. We have independently verified the lack of detected Fe~K emission at high energies (Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral_Fe}).
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0105$-$7223\,/\,IKT~23\,:} This is the second brightest X-ray SNR of the SMC, although the radio flux density is about the median value of the whole sample. It is also very similar to IKT~6, with a soft ISM-abundance shell enclosing an ejecta-enhanced hotter plasma. The abundances of O and Ne are clearly super-solar, and in particular are enhanced relative to iron (Table~\ref{appendix_table_spectra_all}), yielding a clear CC SN origin for this remnant. In the optical, the remnant is not seen in [\ion{S}{ii}] or H$\alpha$. However, a faint thin shell of [\ion{O}{iii}] emission delineates clearly the remnant on the \textit{outer} side of the soft X-ray shell (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh6}). This is strongly suggestive of the radiative part of the outer blast wave, from regions where the plasma cooled down below X-ray emitting temperatures. Furthermore, this transition is very recent, as [\ion{O}{iii}] is emitted before H$\alpha$ in cooling order.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0105$-$7210\,/\,DEM~S128\,:} This SNR is slightly elongated and consists mainly of diffuse interior X-ray emission and a faint radio shell encasing it at the northern and southern ends (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh6}). In the optical only faint emission in the north can be associated to this object. The interior X-ray emission exhibits a strong iron enhancement, which was already seen with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace \citepalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} and {\sl Chandra}\xspace \citep{2015ApJ...803..106R}, that we interpret as a strong indicator of a type~Ia SN origin (Sect.\,\ref{results_typing}).
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Abundances of the SMC ISM.}
\begin{center}
\label{table_abundances}
\begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{0.05em}}c @{\hspace{0.05em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.0em}} c @{\hspace{0.05em}}}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{SMC SNRs} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{weighted SNRs} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{RD92 (\ion{H}{II} + SNRs)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{vdH04 (SNRs)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Radiative shocks} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{B stars} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\ion{H}{II} regions}
\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
& (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
O & 7.80$_{-0.10}^{+0.38}$ & 7.61$_{-0.16}^{+0.59}$ & 8.03$\pm0.10$ & $8.13_{-0.16}^{+0.11}$ & 8.02$\pm$0.06 & 7.99$\pm$0.21 & 7.99$\pm$0.04\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Ne & 7.17$_{-0.11}^{+0.39}$ & 7.02$_{-0.15}^{+0.54}$ & 7.27$\pm0.20$ & 7.50$\pm0.15$ & 7.04$\pm0.10$ & --- & 7.22$\pm$0.04 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Mg & 6.76$_{-0.13}^{+0.41}$ & 6.76$_{-0.13}^{+0.42}$ & 6.98$\pm0.12$ & 7.07$\pm0.13$ & (6.72)$^{\dagger}$ & 6.72$\pm$0.18 & --- \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Fe & 6.60$_{-0.14}^{+0.32}$ & 6.35$_{-0.26}^{+0.58}$ & 6.84$\pm0.13$ & 6.75$\pm0.18$ & (6.77)$^{\dagger}$ & --- & --- \\
\noalign{\medskip}
$[$Fe/H$]$&-0.83$_{-0.14}^{+0.32}$&-1.08$_{-0.26}^{+0.58}$&-0.59$\pm0.13$&-0.68$\pm0.18$ & -0.66 & --- & --- \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$[$O/Fe$]$&-0.06$_{-0.18}^{+0.49}$&-0.01$_{-0.60}^{+0.64}$&-0.07$\pm0.16$&0.12$_{-0.24}^{+0.21}$ & -0.01 & --- & --- \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$[\alpha$/Fe$]$&-0.03$_{-0.24}^{+0.75}$& 0.06$_{-0.63}^{+0.94}$ & -0.06$\pm0.15$&0.15$_{-0.31}^{+0.29}$ & -0.04 & --- & --- \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3em}
\tablefoot{Elemental abundances are given as 12+log(X/H); abundance ratios follow the convention $[$X/Y$]$ = log(X/Y) - log (X/Y)$_{\sun}$. Columns (1) to (4) are listing \textit{gas-phase} abundance values, while columns (5) to (7) are total gas+dust abundances. References for (1) and (2)\,: this work; (3)\,: \citet{1992ApJ...384..508R} ; (4)\,: \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} ; (5)\,: \citet{2019AJ....157...50D} ; (6)\,: \citet{2009A&A...496..841H} ; (7)\,: \citet{2001A&A...372..667T}. $^{\dagger}$ Values assumed in their model.}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0106$-$7205\,/\,IKT~25\,:} Bright in X-rays and optical but relatively radio-dim (Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh7}), J0106$-$7205 has a debated type. The elevated iron abundances measured with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace \citepalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} and {\sl Chandra}\xspace \citep{2011ApJ...731L...8L} led to the suggestions that it was a type~Ia SNR, like IKT~5 and DEM~S128. It was argued in \citet{2014ApJ...788....5L} that the SMC abundance pattern used in the spectral analysis of \citet{2011ApJ...731L...8L} was erroneous. While true, this does not affect the conclusion that the Ne/Fe ratio was clearly skewed towards iron. We found a similar result in our re-analysis of the XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ data. On the contrary, \citet{2014ApJ...788....5L} or \citet{2016PASJ...68S...9T}, using \textit{Suzaku} data, measured a Ne/Fe $\gtrsim 1$ ratio, albeit without resolving an \ion{Ne}{X} line that would be a tell-tale sign of enhanced neon enhancement. Meanwhile, the argument of the disrupted morphology being against a type~Ia origin \citep{2014ApJ...788....5L} remains weak, as other SNRs have been found with elongated iron-rich cores where the optical emission does not follow the diffuse X-ray emission \citep[e.g. DEM~L238, DEM~L249, or MCSNR~J0527$-$7104,][]{2006ApJ...652.1259B,2016A&A...586A...4K}, as is the case in IKT~25.
\paragraph{MCSNR~J0127$-$7333\,/\,SXP~1062\,:} Located far off to the south-east, in the Wing of the SMC, this SNR is observed as an optical shell \citep{2012MNRAS.420L..13H}, and radio and X-ray shell \citep[][Fig.\,\ref{fig_appendix_sfh7}]{2012A&A...537L...1H}. The central source is an associated Be/X-ray binary, harbouring a long-period pulsar (SXP~1062). In this work we analysed the diffuse X-ray shell, including more observations that were obtained subsequently for the monitoring of the central binary \citep{2013A&A...556A.139S}.
\subsection{Abundances of the SMC ISM}
\label{results_abundances}
The current elemental abundances of the SMC ISM have been measured using several methods:
\textit{i)} Spectrophotometric observations of photospheric abundances of B stars \citep{2009A&A...496..841H} or O-type dwarfs \citep{2013A&A...555A...1B}, as these are young, short-lived stars and thus still presenting ISM abundances at their surfaces. Complications arise from the modelling of non-local thermodynamical equilibrium effects \citep[e.g.][]{2010PASJ...62.1239T} and the amount of rotational mixing \citep{2006ApJ...638..409H}.
\textit{ii)} Photoionisation modelling of \ion{H}{ii} nebular spectra \citep{1999ApJ...518..246K,2000ApJ...541..688P,2001A&A...372..667T,2002ApJ...564..704R,2012ApJ...746..115P,2015RMxAA..51..135C} remains affected by uncertainties of available atomic data, escape fraction, and incident spectra.
\textit{iii)} Spectral modelling of radiative shocks in dense ISM clouds, as found within some SNRs \citep{1990ApJS...74...93R,2019AJ....157...50D}.
Finally, in cases where the X-ray emission of SNRs is solely comprised of, or dominated by swept-up ISM, we can use the fitted abundances as measurements of the chemical composition of the ISM gas phase. This was used previously for the LMC \citep{1998ApJ...505..732H,2016A&A...585A.162M,2016AJ....151..161S}. One advantage is that it constrains directly the set of elements most relevant to X-ray observations, those which have emission lines and absorption edges in the 0.3-10~keV band. SMC SNRs have been used previously for that purpose by \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V}, but only three objects were used in their study. Here, we attempt to improve this result, taking advantage of the higher number of SNRs known and observed.
Three SNRs (MCSNR~J0052$-$7237, J0058$-$7217, and J0059$-$7210) had their abundances already measured in the fitting procedure of Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral}. To increase that number, we re-analyse the sample using their previous best-fit model and thawing the abundances of O, Ne, Mg, and Fe. The fit improvements are not statistically significant, since by construction we would have identified these cases in Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral}. If the true abundances in an SNR are very close to the starting values of \citet{1992ApJ...384..508R}, there will be no strong improvement of the $\chi^2$-statistic. Therefore, we look instead at the \textit{uncertainties}, that is, how well the abundance of a given element is constrained. Often the abundances are severely unconstrained (i.e. X/Fe between a small fraction and hundred times the solar value) and we easily discard these objects as unsuitable. We add three SNRs (MCSNR~J0047$-$7308, J0047$-$7309, and J0056$-$7209) to the sample from which (some) abundances can be measured. Although the latter is first presented here as an SNR candidate, we provided strong evidence to its confirmation as an SNR (Sect.\,\ref{results_notesSNRs}), and at any rate its thermal emission is probing the gas-phase abundance of the ISM and can be used for that purpose.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{ISMabund_compareNEI.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight]{ISMabund_compare_abund.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the effect of type of spectral models (left) and input abundance tables (right) on abundance derived with X-ray spectra of SNRs.
\textit{Left\,:} O, Ne, Mg, and Fe abundances (by group of three, from left to right, respectively) relative to the reference value of \citet{2000ApJ...542..914W}, in five SMC SNRs (labelled on top). Different symbols are used for the three types of spectral models used.
\textit{Right\,:} For two SNRs, derived number abundances relative to hydrogen as function of input abundance tables (reference in Sect.\,\ref{results_abundances}), each coded by different symbols.}
\label{fig_abund_compare}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Finally, the two bright objects MCSNR~J0051$-$7321 and J0105$-$7223 clearly show two morphological components (see images in \ref{appendix_images}), a central region of shocked ejecta surrounded by a shell of shocked ISM \citep[\citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V};][]{2005ApJ...622L.117H,2014ApJ...791...50S, 2003ApJ...598L..95P}. For these sources we go beyond the spatially-integrated analysis of Sect.\,\ref{data_spectra}. Using X-ray contours in soft and hard bands, we define an ``interior'' region (ejecta-rich) and a ``shell'' region (ISM), which is the whole SNR minus the interior region and a small buffer zone. This minimises cross-talk between regions and thus contamination of the shell with shocked ejecta emission. The shell emission is well fit by a \texttt{vpshock} model with low abundances ($\sim$ 10~\% solar). We thus obtain eight SNRs in which ISM abundances of various elements can be measured (Table~\ref{table_ejecta}). We list the mean abundances and uncertainties in Table~\ref{table_abundances}, using the simple arithmetic mean for column (1) and a mean weighted in inverse proportion to each SNR uncertainty in column (2).
Before comparing with previous studies, we investigate two potentially important sources of systematic errors: What are the effects of \textit{i)} the chosen NEI models, and \textit{ii)} the abundance table used on the derived SMC abundances? Firstly, we replace the \texttt{vpshock} model by a \texttt{vnei} (single ionisation timescale) or \texttt{vsedov} \citepalias[used in][]{2004A&A...421.1031V} in the analysis of the six SNRs where abundances other than just Fe were measured (Table~\ref{table_ejecta}). The spectral model chosen has no strong impact on the abundances, as shown on Fig.\,\ref{fig_abund_compare} (left). If anything, there is a tendency for the \texttt{vnei} model to yield slightly lower abundances. Results of a Sedov model, as used in \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} (SMC) and in \citet{1998ApJ...505..732H} to measure LMC abundances, are essentially indistinguishable from those of the \texttt{vpshock} model.
Secondly, we used other abundance tables available in XSPEC (\texttt{ANGR}\,: \citealt[][]{1989GeCoA..53..197A}, \texttt{LODD}\,: \citealt[][]{2003ApJ...591.1220L}, \texttt{ASPL}\,: \citealt[][]{2009ARA&A..47..481A}) to fit the spectra of MCSNR~J0051$-$7321 and J0105$-$7223. The fitted abundances should be insensitive to the different starting points of these tables. However, they also differ in the abundances of trace elements (e.g. odd-Z nuclei) or other non-fitted elements, such as Si and S. This affects the free electron balance ($n_e/n_H$) and thus the emission continuum. Furthermore, in some cases rare elements have lines in similar energy bands as the fitted elements, e.g. N, Ar, Ca in the 0.5-0.6 keV band dominated by oxygen. We show the absolute abundances obtained in Fig.\,\ref{fig_abund_compare} (right). There are no discernible differences. The abundance ratios, e.g. O/Fe, should be the least affected by the choice of abundance tables. Indeed, the scatter is very small, with less than 5~\% scatter between the four input tables.
Our results are best compared to those of \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V} since they come from the same environment. In absolute abundances we find values lower by about 0.3 to 0.5 dex. This could be ascribed to our larger sample, including several more evolved SNRs\,: As pointed in \citetalias{2004A&A...421.1031V}, larger remnants tend to have lower abundances\,\footnote{We found a similar trend in our larger sample.} as they swept up more ISM and thus further dilute the effect of potential SN ejecta contamination. On that topic, we note that our derived abundance ratios $[$O/Fe$]$ or $[\alpha$/Fe$]$ are well consistent (within 0.1 dex) with other studies, indicating that we have efficiently vetoed contamination by the more frequent CC SNRs ejecta, as we have shown for the LMC ISM as well \citep[][\citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}]{1998ApJ...505..732H}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{``Hint-spec'' attributed to SNRs as function of spectral results.}
\begin{center}
\label{table_hints}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c c @{}}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Hint-spec} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Criteria}
\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
1 & at least three ``low X/Fe'' flags AND no ``high X/Fe'' flag \\
1.5 & (two ``low X/Fe'' flags OR low O/Fe) AND no ``high X/Fe'' flag \\
2 & one ``low X/Fe'' flag (except O/Fe) AND ``high X/Fe'' flag \\
2.5 & low Si/Fe AND no ``high X/Fe'' flag \\
3 & ISM abundances, unfitted abundances \\
3.5 & high Si/Fe AND no ``low X/Fe'' flag \\
4 & one `high X/Fe'' flag (except O/Fe) AND no ``low X/Fe'' flag \\
4.5 & (two ``high X/Fe'' flags OR high O/Fe) AND no ``low X/Fe'' flag \\
5 & (at least three ``high X/Fe'' flags AND no ``low X/Fe'' flag) OR
pulsar/PWN detected \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
We remind that our abundances are those of the (hot) gas-phase. Compared to stellar abundance measurements \citep{2009A&A...496..841H,2013A&A...555A...1B}, or dust depletion-corrected measurements \cite[][Table~\ref{table_abundances}]{2019AJ....157...50D}, we found similar Ne abundance but lower O, Mg, Fe abundances, on average by $\approx$0.1-0.3 dex, which reflects partial depletion of these elements onto dust. However, the depletion factors $D_X = \log(N_X/N_H) - \log(N_X/N_H)_{\mathrm{stellar}}$ are less (closer to 0) than in other ISM phases (e.g. $D_{Fe} \approx -1$ in the warm ionised medium of \ion{H}{ii} regions). This can be explained by the (partial) destruction of dust by the SNR shocks \citep{2006ApJ...642L.141B,2006ApJ...652L..33W,2016ApJ...821...20K}. At least a fraction of these elements are released into the gas phase and are contributing to the observed X-ray emission. Although we do not attempt to quantify this further, the average SMC SNR depletion is less than measured directly in radiative shocks in e.g. LMC SNRs \citep{2016ApJ...826..150D,2018ApJS..237...10D}, probably an effect of the faster shocks probed in X-rays, that increase the intensity of dust grain destruction \citep{2015ApJ...803....7S}.
\subsection{The ratio of CC to type~Ia SNe in the SMC}
\label{results_typing}
Here, we aim to establish the type (CC or Ia) of all SMC SNRs to measure $N_{\mathrm{CC}}/N_{\mathrm{Ia}}$, the ratio of CC to Ia SNe rates. We covered the various methods of SNR typing in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. We mostly use our X-ray spectral results (i.e. the measurement of nucleosynthesis products in the ejecta), or the detection of an associated (NS) or PWN. We then add secondary evidence based on the local stellar environment of SMC SNRs to tentatively type the rest of the sample, a method we explain in detail in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}.
In Table~\ref{table_ejecta} we flagged the detection of ejecta in 11 SNRs. As in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}, we assign a number ``hint-spec'' ranging from 1 (strongly favouring a type~Ia origin) to 5 (strongly favouring a CC SN origin) depending on the flags raised, as summarised in Table~\ref{table_hints}. This leads to a (relatively) secure typing for 13 SNRs, including MCSNR~J0058$-$7217 and J0127$-$7333, which host a PWN and a BeXRB, respectively. The remaining six SNRs can only be tentatively typed using the local stellar environment, which we characterised by two metrics as described in the following paragraphs.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{``Hint--SF'' attributed to SNRs as function of \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and $r$.}
\begin{center}
\label{table_hint_SF}
\begin{tabular}{l | c c c }
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\backslashbox{\ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace}{$r$-value} & $r < 0.6$ & $0.6 < r < 1.5$ & $r > 1.5$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace $< 80$ & 1 & 1.5 & 2 \\
$80 \leq $\ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace $\leq 115$ & 2.5 & 3 & 3.5 \\
\ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace $>115$ & 4 & 4.5 & 5 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
First, we construct a $V$ vs. $(B-V)$ colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) of all stars within a projected distance of 100~pc ($\sim 5.7$ \arcmin) of each SNR, using the photometric catalogue of \citet[][hereafter MCPS]{2002AJ....123..855Z}. We add stellar evolutionary tracks from \citet{2001A&A...366..538L} to identify the upper main sequence of stars in the SMC, using initial masses from 3 to 40~$M_{\odot}$\ and a metallicity Z $= 0.004 = 0.1$~Z$_{\sun}$. A distance modulus of $\mu = 18.89$ is assumed, and the average extinction for ``hot'' SMC stars is taken as $A_V = 0.6$ \citep{2002AJ....123..855Z}. We use the criteria $V < 16.4$ and $B - V < 0.03$ to select blue early-type stars. The CMDs are shown in Appendix~\ref{appendix_images}. We denote \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace the number of massive stars ($\gtrsim 8$~$M_{\odot}$) in the vicinity of the remnant identified this way.
Second, we plot for each SNR the star formation rate (SFR) of its surroundings as a function of lookback time (Appendix~\ref{appendix_images}), obtained from the reconstructed SMC star formation history (SFH) of \citet{2004AJ....127.1531H}. Since the SMC SFH is noisier than in the LMC \citep{2009AJ....138.1243H}, we take the average SFH in a grid of $3\times3$ cells centered on each SNR. We then compute $r=N_{\rm CC}/N_{\rm Ia}$, the ratio of CC SNe to thermonuclear SNe expected from the observed distribution of stellar ages in the neighbourhood
of the remnants, as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_r}
r = \frac{\Psi_1 M_1}{\Psi_2 M_2 + \Psi_3 M_3}
\end{equation}
where $\Psi _{i}$ is the delay-time distribution, the SN rate following a star formation event, as measured by \citet{2010MNRAS.407.1314M} in the MCs, in time intervals $i=1$, 2, and 3 corresponding to $t <$ 35~Myr, 35~Myr $< t <$ 330~Myr, and 330~Myr $< t < 14$~Gyr, respectively. This $r$ provides us with a measure of the relative size of the pool of possible progenitors of both SN types, taking into account their delay-time distributions.
As massive stars are rarely formed in isolation, high values of \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and the CC-to-Type Ia SN ratio $r$ in a region hosting an SNR would strongly suggest a CC SN origin, while low values favour type~Ia. We showed it to be the case in the LMC, where SNRs with well-established types (i.e. based on other methods) have bimodal distributions of \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and $r$ \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. In the SMC we have the additional difficulty that there is significant extent along the line of sight, such that \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and $r$ might not reflect the correct environment of an SNR. For instance, an SNR might be located in front or behind a star forming region, without its progenitor drawn from that stellar population. If \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and $r$ are low, however, it is still a solid indication that no recent star formation occurred along the line of sight, as there is not enough internal extinction to mask the bright young stars that would have been created. Therefore, we can be relatively confident for typing SNRs with low \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace and $r$ as type~Ia, while classifying the high \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace--$r$ SNRs as CC should be done with caution.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{slika_SMC_d_av_pc.png}
\hspace{1em}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{slika_SMC_ovality.png}
\vspace{1em}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{slika_SMC_speind.png}
\hspace{1em}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize]{slika_SMC_s_1ghz_log.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\caption{Distribution of parameters of 19 confirmed SMC SNRs using kernel smoothing. The colour of symbols indicate progenitor type for a particular SNR. Data points that fall in the same bin on the $x$-axis are plotted within a vertical column with equidistant spacing. The upper and lower gray curves delineate the 95\,\% uncertainty level. The corresponding kernel bandwidth $h$ and distribution parameters are shown on each panel.
\textit{Top left\,:} Average diameter distribution.
\textit{Top right\,:} Distribution of ovality, which is defined as $2 \, ( D_{\mathrm{maj}} - D_{\mathrm{min}} ) / ( D_{\mathrm{maj}} + D_{\mathrm{min}} )$, where $D_{\mathrm{maj}}$ and $D_{\mathrm{min}}$ are the major and minor axes, respectively.
\textit{Bottom left\,:} Radio spectral index distribution.
\textit{Bottom right\,:} Estimate of the 1~GHz flux density distribution for the 18 SNRs with available 1~GHz flux density estimates from Table~\ref{tab:smcsnrs}.}
\label{fig:kernel}
\end{figure*}
The average \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace\ is $128 \pm 67$ for 18 SNRs\,\footnote{MCSNR~J0127$-$7333 is too far east to be in the area covered by the MCPS and will not be included in this discussion. It is however classified as a secure CC SNR based on its associated Be/X-ray binary.}. It is higher ($160 \pm 63$) for the ten secure CC SNRs than for the (only) three likely type~Ia ($92 \pm 22$), confirming that this dagnostic has some discriminatory power, even in the SMC. The average \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace for the remaining six SNRs of uncertain type is 86, with a very large scatter. It includes the two lowest occurrences, 18 around MCSNR~J0040$-$7336 and 32 around J0100$-$7132. MCSNR~J0056$-$7209 has \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace$= 76$, less than all likely CC SNRs. The three other uncertain SNRs have \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace between 117 and 142, higher than those of type~Ia SNRs and consistent with many CC SNRs.
Even when averaging over several cells, the SMC SFH is noisy, especially at recent times, which are critical. The distribution of $r$-values of all regions (not just those hosting an SNR) is less bimodal than in the LMC, without a prominent high-$r$ peak. This is again due to the elongated shape of the SMC along the line of sight. Older episodes of star-formation permeate most of the Cloud \citep{2004AJ....127.1531H} and are seen in projection in all the cells, thus lowering $r$ and blurring its peak in regions with recent star formation. Consequently, we put more emphasis on \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace than $r$. We choose three intervals for \ensuremath{N_{{\rm OB}}}\xspace, each split in three intervals depending on $r$, to assign a number ``hint-SF'' (for star formation) to our SNR, following the criteria from Table~\ref{table_hint_SF}. As with ``hint-spec'', values close to 1 favour type~Ia, and those close to 5 favour a CC origin.
We combined the two hints by taking their weighted mean, with a coefficient of two for the "hint-spec" which is deemed to be more critical, since it does not have the projection effect of the star-formation hint. We take a slightly more conservative approach than in the LMC, classifying sources as ``likely-Ia'' when the final hint is $< 2.5$, and ``likely-CC'' if it is $> 3.5$. Objects between 2.5 and 3.5 (inclusive) remain undecided. There are two SNRs in that category (MCSNR~J0048$-$7319 and J0100$-$7133). Therefore, we estimate that in the SMC $N_{\mathrm{CC}}/N_{\mathrm{Ia}}$~$=$~4.7 (14/3), with lower and upper limits of 2.8 (14/5) and 5.3 (16/3), respectively. The limits are obtained if the undecided SNRs are assigned to either types.
The value in the LMC, measured by a similar method but with a sample three times larger, is 1.35 (1.11--1.46) \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. Hence, the ratio $N_{\mathrm{CC}}/N_{\mathrm{Ia}}$\ appears to be higher in the SMC. We argued in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M} that the apparent excess of type~Ia SNe in the LMC, as compared to direct SN search in the local universe or $N_{\mathrm{CC}}/N_{\mathrm{Ia}}$\ measurements from intracluster medium abundances, was due to the specific recent and intermediate age SFH of the LMC. Several studies found enhanced star formation episodes at 1.5~--~2 Gyr ago and 250~--~500 Myr ago, based on both CMD fitting of field stars \citep[at various limiting magnitudes,][]{2009AJ....138.1243H,2013MNRAS.431..364W,2012A&A...537A.106R, 2014MNRAS.438.1067M} and star cluster formation history \citep[e.g.][]{2013MNRAS.430..676B}, which mostly agree with field star formation at recent times \citep{2011MNRAS.411.1495M}. Combined with the type~Ia delay-time distribution, peaking below 1~Gyr \citep{2012PASA...29..447M}, there is a large pool of possible progenitors for type~Ia SNRs.
In the SMC, several studies point to a major SFR enhancement about 5~Gyr ago \citep{2015MNRAS.449..639R,2013MNRAS.431..364W,2012ApJ...754..130C, 2009ApJ...705.1260N}, possibly related to early LMC~--~SMC interaction, with only some evidence for a secondary peak at 1.5~Gyr ago \citep{2015MNRAS.449..639R,2012ApJ...754..130C}. \citet{2004AJ....127.1531H} found the most significant intermediate star formation episode 2~--~3~Gyr ago. In recent times, SFR peaked again 200~--~400 Myr ago, most notably on the LMC side with the formation of the SMC Wing by tidal interaction. The smaller SMC SFR 0.5~--~1.5~Gyr ago as compared to the LMC could explain the currently smaller number of type~Ia SNRs.
An important caveat, however, is that while recent star formation is strong in the Bar and Wing regions which are well covered with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace, the outskirts (at galactocentric radius larger than 1.5\textdegree) are poorly known, and might host more type~Ia SNRs owing to the ancient SFH of these regions \citep[e.g.][]{2015MNRAS.449..639R}. The detection of low surface brightness SNRs in these areas might be possible in the near future with the \textit{eROSITA} all-sky survey and subsequent pointed surveys \citep{2012arXiv1209.3114M}.
Our suggested classification of three SNRs as type~Ia is mostly driven by their X-ray spectral features, most notably the large Fe abundance of ejecta origin, and are considered robust. In no case is an SNR classified as type~Ia based on local (projected) star-formation alone. MCSNR~J0041-7336 (DEM S5) is far off to the south-west of the main SMC Bar and thus has the lowest recent star formation of the whole sample, but a PWN candidate was recently identified in it, strongly suggesting a CC SN origin. This explains the discrepancy with \citet{2019ApJ...871...64A} who list only one type~Ia candidate SNR, but whose CC SNR classification is based on the projected star-formation history alone. Given the significant extent/depth of the SMC, such an interpretation is not warranted. A similar study for the LMC population, however, would be much more significant because the recent star forming regions and other regions potentially hosting type~Ia SNRs are better segregated thanks to the thinness of the LMC and a favourable viewing angle.
\subsection{Radio properties, size, and morphology of SMC SNRs}
\label{results_radio_properties}
As in \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B} we estimate the distributions of the radio parameters for the sample of 19 confirmed SMC SNRs using kernel smoothing with a Gaussian kernel. The maximum likelihood method with ``leave one out'' cross-validation is applied \citep{duin1976choice} in order to calculate the optimal smoothing kernel bandwidth ($h$). Confidence bands are calculated from $10^4$ bootstrap \citep{efron1994introduction} resamples. The kernel bandwidth, optimal for the original data sample, is used to calculate the resulting distributions of the bootstrap resamples. All distributions are calculated at $100$ equidistant points along the plotted interval (on the x-axis, Fig.\,\ref{fig:kernel}). At each $x$-axis coordinate we calculate the median value and the confidence bands as the $95\%$ confidence interval around the median value. The same procedure and re-sampled data is also used to estimate uncertainties of the distribution mean, mode and median (Fig.\,\ref{fig:kernel}). The boundary correction for the smoothed distributions that cannot have negative values (diameter and ovality) is done using the reflection method \citep{silverman1986density}. Note that in \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B} a different method (smooth bootstrap resampling) was used to estimate the optimal kernel bandwidth, but the method in this work is less computationally intensive and better suited to apply data reflection. For the flux density distribution we used a log scale.
Figure~\ref{fig:kernel} shows estimates of the distributions for average diameter, ovality, radio spectral index and 1~GHz flux density. The diameter and radio spectral index distributions appear to be symmetric. The ovality shows significant asymmetry with many data points consistent with zero (circular morphology).
The median ovality is the same within the uncertainties for SMC and LMC, although the SMC distribution contains a higher fraction of circular SNRs, pointing to a less disturbed ambient medium in that galaxy.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\hsize]{density_distribution.pdf}
\caption{Histogram of ambient density around LMC and SMC SNRs, estimated from the X-ray spectrum as $n \propto \sqrt{EM / V}$ (see Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral_general}).}
\label{fig_density}
\end{figure}
SNRs of the LMC population are slightly smaller (median of 33~pc vs. 43~pc in the SMC\,\footnote{In this work we used LMC values updated since \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}, recalculating the distributions and their parameters with the same optimal kernel bandwidth and reflection methods used for the SMC.}).
The observed difference might be due to the lower completeness of the LMC SNR population compared to that of the SMC because of the lower coverage fraction e.g. in X-rays (only central areas have been surveyed by XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace), if the outer area hosts on average larger, older SNRs, that could have been missed by previous surveys (for instance ROSAT all-sky survey and LMC pointed survey). Such incompleteness of the faint, large LMC SNR population was already suggested based on the X-ray luminosity function \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. Another plausible factor for the smaller size of LMC remnants is an ambient medium denser on average than in the SMC, which is expected given the concentration of gas and star formation in a disk in the LMC. This explanation is supported by the distribution of ambient densities shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig_density}, where the density is estimated from the X-ray derived emission measure as $n \propto \sqrt{EM / V}$ (see Sect.\,\ref{results_spectral_general}). The LMC exhibits a bimodal behaviour with about 25\,\% of SNRs studied in X-rays interacting in a denser environment ($n > 1$~cm$^{-3}$) than the rest of the population, which clusters around $n \sim 0.1$~cm$^{-3}$. Only the latter, lower density mode ($n \lesssim 0.1$~cm$^{-3}$) is seen for the SMC SNR population, the sole ``high-density'' SNR being J0104$-$7201 (IKT~22).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\columnwidth]{fig18_s1ghz_fx_smc_lmc.png}
\caption{The broad-band X-ray flux vs. 1~GHz flux density for the sample of SMC and LMC SNRs with available data for age and explosion type (Table \ref{tab:smcsnrs}, \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}). The position of the colour-coded symbols along the axis with no measured radio flux is offset by -0.2 dex from the faintest detection. The solid line marks the high flux correlation from \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}.}
\label{fig:s1ghz_fx_smc_lmc}
\end{figure}
The distribution of spectral indices is the same in the SMC and LMC. This is likely due to the marginal dependency of $\alpha$ with age of the SNR \citepalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}, and a similar contribution of PWN-contaminated SNRs, which if not properly resolved, would drive the radio spectra to flatter indices \cite[e.g.][]{2011A&A...530A.132O,2012A&A...543A.154H}, in both galaxies.
Finally, the radio flux densities of SMC and LMC SNRs have consistent values, with the bulk of the population around 0.1~Jy.
\citet{2009ApJ...703..370C} already noted the similar radio luminosities across extragalactic SNR populations, which can be explained because the radio luminosity, i.e. synchrotron emission, is mostly controlled by the magnetic field strength. As SNR shocks amplify $B \propto \rho_0 v_s^2$ (with $\rho_0$ the ambient density and $v_s$ the shock speed), the shock speeds and thus hydrodynamical states of the SNRs are more critical than the ambient density. Since most of the LMC and SMC are in the Sedov state, we can expect their radio luminosities to be similar.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.255\textheight]{nHfraction_distribution.pdf}
\hspace{1em}
\includegraphics[height=0.255\textheight]{nHfraction_distribution_labels.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Left}\,: Comparison of the distribution of $N_H$ fraction for LMC and SMC SNRs. \textit{Right}\,: Spatial distribution of SMC SNRs, with $N_H$ fraction used as a proxy for the line-of-sight depth within the neutral gas.}
\label{fig_nHfraction}
\end{figure*}
We add on Fig.\,\ref{fig:s1ghz_fx_smc_lmc} the SMC objects to the $F_X - S_{\mathrm{1\ GHz}}$ diagram of \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}. SMC SNRs appear to be fainter X-ray emitters than the LMC objects (median observed 0.3~--~8~keV flux of $1.2 \times 10^{-13}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ vs. $4.1 \times 10^{-13}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$). This difference is likely again due to the lower average density in which SMC SNRs explode. The X-ray luminosity scales with the density \textit{squared} and is thus much more affected by it than the radio luminosity (see above). The solid black line is plotted to guide the eye and indicates a linear correlation between X-ray and radio fluxes, which was noted for young ($\lesssim 10^4$~yr) SNRs in \citetalias{2017ApJS..230....2B}. IKT~6 and IKT~23, two of the SMC SNRs close to that line, are however estimated to be older than $10^4$~yr \citep{2005ApJ...622L.117H,2014ApJ...791...50S,2003ApJ...598L..95P}, and are probably representing the extrapolation of that multi-wavelength correlation down to lower fluxes. This highlights the need for further, both theoretical and empirical, investigation in this direction to further examine the possible origin of this correlation.
\subsection{Three-dimensional spatial distribution}
\label{results_3D}
X-ray emitting objects in a galaxy are subjected to absorption by hydrogen and metals of that galaxy's ISM. These are obviously only sensitive to the amount of material between the source and the observer, while e.g. 21~cm observations can measure the total \ion{H}{I} column density through a galaxy, e.g. for the SMC. Therefore, combining the equivalent $N_H$ measured in X-rays ($= N_{H} ^{\ X}$) with $N_{H} ^{\mathrm{\,21\,cm}}$, the line-of-sight integrated column density derived from \ion{H}{I}\ surveys, gives us a proxy for the location of sources within the SMC along the line of sight.
As in \citetalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}, we define the ``$N_H$ fraction'' as the ratio $N_{H} ^{\ X} / N_{H} ^{\mathrm{\,21\,cm}}$. It is a measurement of how deep an SNR is with respect to the \ion{H}{I} structure. Such a \textit{relative} line-of-sight proxy is particularly useful in the case of the SMC, because the main body of this galaxy has been shown to be inclined, with the north-eastern tip of the Bar closer than the south-western one by up to 10 kpc \citep[][]{2012ApJ...744..128S,2016ApJ...816...49S}.
The distribution of $N_H$ fraction for 19 SMC SNRs observed in X-rays is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig_nHfraction} (left) and compared to that of the LMC. The SMC distribution is flatter than in the LMC, where there is a strong mode at 0 and a second, fainter mode around 1. This reflects the SMC neutral gas structure which has a large depth of 3-7.5 kpc \citep{2009A&A...496..399S,2010A&A...520A..74N,2011MNRAS.415.1366K,2012AJ....144..107H}, while that of the LMC has a well-defined thin disc distribution \citep{1999AJ....118.2797K}. Furthermore, there are no SMC SNRs with $N_H$ fraction $> 1$, while in the LMC this betrays the presence along the line of sight of foreground molecular clouds traced by CO emission \citepalias{2016A&A...585A.162M}. Only MCSNR J0103$-$7201 (which we did not study with XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace) and the SNRs in the LHA 115-N 19 complex (see Sect.\,\ref{results_notesSNRs}) lie close in projection to some known giant molecular clouds (GMC) in the SMC \citep{2001PASJ...53L..45M,2007ApJ...658.1027L,2010ApJ...712.1248M}. In the latter case, MCSNR J0046$-$7308 is the best candidate to be physically associated with molecular clouds as evidenced by the detection of shocked CO emission in higher-resolution ALMA observations \citep{2019ApJ...881...85S}.
We find no obvious correlation of depth with spatial location (Fig.\,\ref{fig_nHfraction}, right). SNRs clustered closely in projected position might be at widely different $N_H$ fraction, and thus line-of-sight depth, in particular in the N19 region (south-west of SMC). This probably reflects the complex \ion{H}{I} structure of that area, with two "sheets" of neutral gas \citep[e.g.][Fig. 6]{2004ApJ...604..176S}.
\section{Summary}
\label{summary}
We summarise below our work and findings:
\begin{itemize}
\item By combining deep, large scale XMM-{\sl Newton}\xspace\ and radio surveys of the SMC, we presented a clean list of 19\ bona-fide SNRs and identified 4\ more candidates. Upon new optical spectroscopic observations and based on multi-wavelength features, we confirm the two candidates MCSNR J0056$-$7209 and MCSNR J0057$-$7211 as \textit{bona-fide} SNRs. we also argued against the SNR nature of six poorly studied objects which were previously classified as SNRs. This leads to a final list of 21\ SNRs and 2\ candidates in the SMC.
\item We characterised the SNRs using a multiwavelength approach to best capture their size and morphology.
\item The homogeneous X-ray spectral analysis allowed us to measure the hot-gas abundance of O, Ne, Mg, and Fe to be between 0.1 and 0.2 times their solar values. O, Mg, and Fe are only partially depleted onto dust grains, as some of the grains have been destroyed by the fast shocks producing the X-ray emission through which we are measuring these abundances.
\item We constrained the ratio of type~Ia to core-collapse SNRs in the SMC by using both intrinsic properties (detection of SN ejecta, presence of compact remnant) and extrinsic properties (local stellar population from which the SN progenitor is taken) to infer the type of each SNR. The ratio $N_{\mathrm{CC}}/N_{\mathrm{Ia}}$ = 4.7 (2.8 to 5.3) is larger than that obtained from the same method in the LMC. This difference can potentially be attributed to an enhanced SFR episode 0.5~--~1.5~Gyr in the LMC which is not found in the SMC. Characterising the so far poorly-known SNR population on the outskirts of both Clouds, which is likely to preferentially contain type~Ia SNRs, is needed to provide a more definitive answer.
\item Radio properties like the spectral index and median flux density at 1~GHz are remarkably consistent between the LMC and SMC population. This stems from the fact that such properties are governed by the ISM magnetic field and hydrodynamical states of the SNRs which are similar in both galaxies.
\item LMC remnants are slightly smaller and more elongated than their SMC counterparts. A plausible explanation is a more disturbed and denser ambient medium in the LMC, as expected given the concentration of gas and star formation in the LMC disk or giant star forming complex (e.g. 30~Dor), where many SNRs explode.
\item The SMC is inclined with respect to the plane of the sky and has significant depth, as opposed to the LMC. The line-of-sight proxy that is obtained by X-ray absorption reflects that fact. Although SNRs cannot be used as probes of absolute distances within the Cloud, we can show that several SNRs close in projection are likely to be at a different line-of-sight location. This should serve as an important caveat for studies that rely solely on the projected positions of these objects.
\end{itemize}
\begin{acknowledgements}
P.\,M. and J.\,B. acknowledge support by the Centre National d'\'Etudes Spatiales (CNES).
M.S.\ acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Heisenberg professor grants SA 2131/5-1 and 12-1.
The Australian Compact Array and the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) are part of the Australian Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as National Facility managed by CSIRO. This paper includes archived data obtained through the Australia Telescope Online Archive (http://atoa.atnf.csiro.au). We used the \textsc{karma} and \textsc{miriad} software packages developed by the ATNF. Operation of ASKAP is funded by the Australian Government with support from the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. ASKAP uses the resources of the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre. Establishment of ASKAP, the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory and the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre are initiatives of the Australian Government, with support from the Government of Western Australia and the Science and Industry Endowment Fund. We acknowledge the Wajarri Yamatji people as the traditional owners of the Observatory site.
This research has made use of Aladin, SIMBAD and VizieR, operated at the CDS, Strasbourg, France.
\end{acknowledgements}
\input{smcsnrs_arxiv.bbl}
|
\section{Derivations}
\subsection{Accuracy of the 0-1 attack}
\label{app:probaderiv}
\newcommand{\mathrm{TP}}{\mathrm{TP}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{TP}}{\mathrm{TP}}
\newcommand{\textrm{=}}{\textrm{=}}
We note $g_1$ the binary random variable that indicates whether $z_1$ was classified correctly, and thus considered part of the training set by the 0-1 attack.
The attack is accurate if $ g_1 = 1 $ on training images and $ g_1 = 0 $ on other images.
This happens with probability
{\small
\begin{align}
p_{\text{bayes}} & = \prob(m_1 = g_1) \nonumber \\
&= \prob(g_1 \textrm{=} 1 ~|~ m_1 \textrm{=} 1 ) \prob(m_1 \textrm{=} 1) + \prob(g_1 \textrm{=} 0 ~|~ m_1 \textrm{=} 0 ) \prob(m_1 \textrm{=} 0) \nonumber \\
&= \lambda p_\mathrm{train} + (1-\lambda) (1 - p_\mathrm{test}).
\end{align}
}
\subsection{Gaussian data}
\label{app:gauss}
\mypar{Estimation of average distribution.}
We assume without loss of generality that $ \mu = 0 $.
$ \theta $ is the mean of $ n $ Gaussian variables, centered on $ \mu $ with covariance $ I $.
Thus, $ \theta $ follows a Gaussian distribution, of variance $ \frac{1}{n} I $.
\begin{align}
\int_t e^{- \ell(z, t)} p(t) dt &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{ \det{\frac{2 \pi}{n} I } }} \int_t e^{\frac{- \| z - t \|^2 - n \| t\|^2}{2} } dt
\end{align}
Denoting $ \omega := \frac{z}{n+1} $, we have
\begin{align}
n \| t \|^2 + \| z - t \|^2 = (n + 1) \| t - \omega \|^2 + \frac{n}{n+1} \| z \|^2,
\end{align}
hence
\begin{align}
\int_t e^{ \frac{- \| z - t \|^2 - n \| t\|^2}{2} } dt &= \sqrt{\det{ \frac{2 \pi }{n+1} I }} e^ { - \frac{n \| z \|^2}{2(n+1)} }.
\end{align}
We have:
\begin{align}
\log \left( \int_t e^{- \ell(z, t) } p(t) dt \right) &= C - \frac{n}{2(n+1)} \| z \|^2
\end{align}
\subsection{Bound on variations of a sigmoid}
\label{sec:boundedsigma}
We show that
\begin{align}
\sigma(u) \le \sigma(v) + |u - v|_{+}/4~~~~~\forall u, v \in \mathbb{R}.
\label{eq:boundedsigma}
\end{align}
Since $\sigma$ is increasing, the relation is obvious for $v>u$.
For $u>v$, we observe that
\begin{align}
\sup_u |\sigma'(u)| = \sup_u \frac{e^{-u}}{(1 + e^{-u})^2} = \frac{1}{4}.
\end{align}
Thus, $\sigma$ is Lipschitz-continuous with constant $1/4$, which entails Equation~(\ref{eq:boundedsigma}).
\subsection{Hessian approximations}
\label{app:hessian}
We give here a rough justification of the approximation conducted in the MATT paragraph of Section \ref{sec:algorithms}.
Equation (\ref{eq:hessian_dl}) writes:
\begin{align}
\log & \left( \frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1 = 1, z_1, \mathcal{T})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1 = 0, z_1, \mathcal{T})} \right) \\
&\approx - (\theta - \theta_1^*)^T H (\theta - \theta_1^*) + (\theta - \theta_0^*)^T H (\theta - \theta_0^*).
\end{align}
This approximation holds up to the following quantity:
\begin{align}
\delta &= \underbrace{-\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\det{H_1}}{\det{H_0}} \right) }_{\delta_1} + \underbrace{(\theta_1^* - \theta_0^*)^T (H_1 - H_0) (\theta_1^* - \theta_0^*)}_{\delta_2}.
\end{align}
We reason qualitatively in orders of magnitude.
$ \theta_0^* - \theta_1^* $ has order of magnitude $ 1 / n $, and $ H_1 - H_0 $ has order of magnitude $1$, so $ \delta_2 $ has order of magnitude $ 1/n^2$.
As for $ \delta_1 $, we observe that $ H_0^{-1} (H_1 - H_0) $ has order of magnitude $ 1/n $ and therefore
\begin{align}
\delta_1 &= -\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{\det{H_1}}{\det{H_0}} \right) \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \det{I + H_0^{-1} (H_1 - H_0) } \right) \\
&\approx -\Tr( H_0^{-1} (H_1 - H_0) ).
\end{align}
Hence, $ \delta_1 $ has order of magnitude $ 1/n $ as well.
Since the main term in Equation (\ref{eq:hessian_dl}) is in the order of $ 1/ \sqrt{n} $, $ \delta_1 $ and $ \delta_2 $ can be safely neglected.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper has addressed the problem of membership inference by adopting a probabilistic point of view.
This led us to derive the optimal inference strategy.
This strategy, while not explicit and therefore not applicable in practice, does not depend on the parameters of the classifier if we have access to the loss.
Therefore, a main conclusion of this paper is to show that, asymptotically, white-box inference does not provide more information than an optimized black-box setting.
We then proposed two approximations that lead to three concrete strategies.
They outperform competitive strategies for a simple logistic problem, by a large margin for our most sophisticated approach (MATT).
Our simplest strategy (MALT) is applied to the more complex problem of membership inference from a deep convolutional network on Imagenet, and significantly outperforms the baseline.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section we evaluate the membership inference methods on machine-learning tasks of increasing complexity.
\subsection{Evaluation}
We evaluate three metrics: the accuracy of the attack, and the mean average precision when detecting either from train ({mAP\textsubscript{train}}) or test ({mAP\textsubscript{test}}) images.
For the mean average precision, the scores need not to be thresholded, the metric is invariant to mapping by any increasing function.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{
\label{tab:expe_cifar_accu}
Accuracy (top) and mAP (bottom) of membership inference on the 2-class logistic regression with simple CNN features, for different types of attacks. Note that 0-1 corresponds to the baseline~\cite{yeom18privacyrisk}.
We do not report ~\citet{shokri16membershipinference} since Table \ref{tab:shadow_comparison} shows MALT performs better.
Results are averaged over $ 100 $ different random seeds.
}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|rr|rrr@{}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Model accuracy} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Attack accuracy}\\
n & train & validation & $0-1$ & MALT & MATT \\ \midrule
400 & 97.9 & 93.8 & 52.1 & 54.4 & \bf{57.0} \\
1000 & 97.3 & 94.5 & 51.4 & 52.6 & \bf{54.5} \\
2000 & 96.8 & 95.2 & 50.8 & 51.7 & \bf{53.0} \\
4000 & 97.7 & 95.6 & 51.0 & 51.4 & \bf{52.1} \\
6000 & 97.5 & 96.0 & 50.7 & 51.0 & \bf{51.8} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{6mm}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrr@{}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{mAP\textsubscript{test}} & \phantom{c} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{mAP\textsubscript{train}} \\
\cmidrule{2-3} \cmidrule{5-6}
n & MALT & MATT && MALT & MATT \\ \midrule
400 & 55.8 & 60.1 && 51.9 & 57.1 \\
1000 & 53.2 & 56.6 && 50.5 & 54.8 \\
2000 & 51.8 & 54.4 && 50.4 & 53.4 \\
4000 & 51.9 & 53.7 && 50.1 & 52.6 \\
6000 & 51.4 & 53.0 && 50.2 & 52.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Logistic regression}
CIFAR-10 is a dataset of $ 32 \times 32 $ pixel images grouped in 10 classes.
In this subsection, we consider two of the classes (\emph{truck} and \emph{boat}) and vary the number of training images from $n=400$ to $6,000$.
We train a logistic regression to separate the two classes.
The logistic regression takes as input features extracted from a pretrained Resnet18 on CIFAR-100 (a disjoint dataset).
The regularization parameter $ C $ of the logistic regression is cross-validated on held-out data.
We assume that $\lambda=1/2$ ($n/2$ training images and $n/2$ test images).
We also reserve $n/2$ images to estimate $\theta_0^*$ for the MATT method.
In both experiments, we report the peak accuracy obtained for the best threshold (cf. Section~\ref{sec:scorethesh}).
Table \ref{tab:expe_cifar_accu} shows the results of our experiments, in terms of accuracy and mean average precision.
In accuracy, the Taylor expansion method MATT outperforms the MALT method, for any number of training instances $n$, which itself obtains much better results than the naive 0-1 attack.
Interestingly, it shows a difference between MALT and MATT: both perform similarly in terms of mAP\textsubscript{test}, but MATT slightly outperforms MALT in mAP\textsubscript{train}.
The main reason for this difference is that the MALT attack is asymmetric: it is relatively easy to predict that elements come from the test set, as they have a high loss, but elements with a low loss can come either from the train set or the test set.
\subsection{Small convolutional network}
In this section we train a small convolutional network\footnote{
2 convolutional and 2 linear layers with Tanh non-linearity.
} with the same architecture as \citet{shokri16membershipinference} on the CIFAR-10 dataset, using a training set of $15,000$ images.
Our model is trained for $ 50 $ epochs with a learning rate of $ 0.001 $.
We assume a balanced prior on membership ($\lambda = 1/2$). %
We run the MALT and MAST attacks on the classifiers.
As stated before, the MATT attack cannot be carried out on convolutional networks.
For MAST, the threshold is estimated from 30 shadow models: we train these 30 shadow models on $ 15,000 $ images chosen among the train+held-out set ($30,000$ images).
Thus, for each image, we have on average 15 models trained on it and 15 models not trained on it: we estimate the threshold for this image by taking the value $ \tau(z) $ that separates the best the two distributions: this corresponds to a non-parametric estimation of $ \tau(z) $.
Table~\ref{tab:shadow_comparison} shows that our estimations outperform the related works.
Note that this setup gives a slight advantage to MAST as the threshold is estimated directly for each sample under investigation, whereas MALT first estimates a threshold, and then applies it to never-seen data.
Yet, in contrast with the experiment on Gaussian data, MAST performs only slightly better than MALT.
Our interpretation for this is that the images in the training set have a high variability, so it is difficult to obtain a good estimate of $\tau(z_1)$.
Furthermore, our analysis of the estimated thresholds $ \tau(z_1) $ show that they are very concentrated around a central value $ \tau $, so their impact when added to the scores is limited.
Therefore, in the following experiment we focus on the MALT attack.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:shadow_comparison}
Accuracy of membership attacks on the CIFAR-10 classification with a simple neural network.
The numbers for the related works are from the respective papers. \medskip
}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lr@{}}
\toprule
Method & Accuracy \\ \midrule
0-1~\cite{yeom18privacyrisk} & 69.4 \\
Shadow models~\cite{shokri16membershipinference} & 73.9 \\
MALT & \bf{77.1} \\
\midrule
MAST & 77.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluation on Imagenet}
\label{sec:baselines}
We evaluate a real-world dataset and tackle classification with large neural networks on the Imagenet dataset~\citep{deng2009imagenet,russakovsky15imagenet}, which contains 1.2 million images partitioned into 1000 categories.
We divide Imagenet equally into two splits, use one for training and hold out the rest of the data.
We experiment with the popular VGG-16 \citep{simonyan15vgg} and Resnet-101 \citep{he16resnet} architectures.
The model is learned in $ 90 $ epochs, with an initial learning rate of $ 0.01 $, divided by $ 10 $ every $ 30 $ epochs.
Parameter optimization is conducted with SGD with a momentum of $ 0.9 $, a weight decay of $ 10^{-4} $, and a batch size of $ 256 $.
We conduct the membership inference test by running the 0-1 attack and MALT.
An important factor for the success of the attacks is the amount of data augmentation.
To assess the effect of data augmentation, we train different networks with varying data augmentation: None, Flip+Crop$\pm$5, Flip+Crop (by increasing intensity).
Table~\ref{tab:attack_baselines} shows that data augmentation reduces the gap between the training and the held-out accuracy.
This decreases the accuracy of the Bayes attack and the MALT attack.
As we can see, without data augmentation, it is possible to guess with high accuracy if a given image was used to train a model (about $90$\% with our approach, against $77$\% for existing approaches).
Stronger data augmentation reduces the accuracy of the attacks, that still remain above $ 64\%$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:attack_baselines}
Imagenet classification with deep convolutional networks: Accuracy of membership inference attacks of the models. \medskip
}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llcc@{}}
\toprule
Model & Augmentation & 0-1 & MALT \\ \midrule
Resnet101 & None & 76.3 & 90.4 \\
& Flip, Crop $\pm5$ & 69.5 & 77.4 \\
& Flip, Crop & 65.4 & 68.0 \\ \midrule
VGG16 & None & 77.4 & 90.8 \\
& Flip, Crop $\pm5$ & 71.3 & 79.5 \\
& Flip, Crop & 63.8 & 64.3 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Introduction}
\citet{ateniese2015hacking} state that ``\emph{it is unsafe to release trained classifiers since valuable information about the training set can be extracted from them}''.
The problem that we address in this paper, \emph{i.e.}\xspace, to determine whether a sample has been used to train a given model, is related to the privacy implications of machine learning systems.
They were first discussed in the context of support vector machines~\citep{rubinstein09learning,Biggio14securitysvm}.
The problem of ``unintended memorization'' \citep{carlini18secret} appears in most applications of machine learning, such as natural language processing systems~\citep{carlini18secret} or image classification~\cite{yeom18privacyrisk}.
More specifically, we consider the problem of membership inference, \emph{i.e.}\xspace, we aim at determining if a specific image was used to train a model, given only the (image, label) pair and the model parameters.
This question is important to protect both the privacy and intellectual property associated with data.
For neural networks, the privacy issue was recently considered by \citet{yeom18privacyrisk} for the MNIST and CIFAR datasets.
The authors evidence the close relationship between overfitting and privacy of training images.
This is reminiscent of prior membership inference attacks, which employ the output of the classifier associated with a particular sample to determine whether it was used during training or not~\citep{shokri16membershipinference}.
At this stage, it is worth defining the different levels of information to which the ``attacker'', \emph{i.e.}\xspace, the membership inference system, has access to.
We assume that the attacker knows the data distribution and the specifications of the model (training procedure, architecture of the network, etc), even though they are not necessarily required for all methods.
We refer to the \emph{white-box} setting as the case where the attacker knows all the network parameters.
On a side note, the setup commonly adopted in differential privacy~\cite{dwork2006calibrating} corresponds to the white-box setting, where the attacker additionally knows all the training samples except the one to be tested.
The \emph{black-box} setting is when these parameters are unknown.
For classification models, the attacker has only access to the output for a given input, in one of the following forms:
~\hfill \begin{minipage}{0.95\linewidth}
\emph{(i)} the classifier decision; \newline
\emph{(ii)} the loss of the correct label;\newline
\emph{(iii)} the full response for all classes. %
\end{minipage}
Prior works on membership inference commonly assume (i) or (iii).
Our paper focuses on the black-box case (ii), in which we know the loss incurred by the correct label. %
The state of the art in this setting are the shadow models proposed by~\citet{shokri16membershipinference}.
In our work, we use a probabilistic framework to derive a formal analysis of the optimal attack.
This framework encompasses both Bayesian learning, and noisy training, where the noise is injected~\citep{welling2011langevin} or comes from the stochasticity of SGD.
Under mild assumptions on the distribution of the parameters, we derive the optimal membership inference strategy.
This strategy only depends on the classifier through evaluation of the loss, thereby showing that black-box attacks will perform as well as white-box attacks in this optimal asymptotic setting.
This result may explain why, to the best of our knowledge, the literature does not report white-box attacks outperforming the state-of-the-art black-box-(ii) attacks.
The aforementioned optimal strategy is not tractable, therefore we introduce approximations to derive an explicit method for membership inference.
As a byproduct of this derivation, we show that state-of-the-art \makebox{approaches~\citep{shokri16membershipinference,yeom18privacyrisk}} are coarser approximations of the optimal strategy.
One of the approximation drastically simplifies the membership inference procedure by simply relying on the loss and a calibration term.
We employ this strategy to the more complex case of neural networks, and show that it outperforms all approaches we are aware of. %
In summary, our main contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}%
\item We show, under a few assumptions on training, that the optimal inference only depends on the loss function, and not on the parameters of the classifier. In other terms, white-box attacks don't provide any additional information and result in the same optimal strategy.
\item We employ different approximations to derive three explicit membership attack strategies. We show that state-of-the-art methods constitute other approximations. Simple simulations show the superiority of our approach on a simple regression problem.
\item We apply a simplified, tractable, strategy to infer the membership of images to the train set in the case of the public image classification benchmarks CIFAR and Imagenet. It outperforms the state of the art for membership inference, namely the shadow models.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:related} reviews related work.
Section~\ref{sec:model} introduces our probabilistic formulation and derives our main theoretical result. %
This section also discusses the connection between membership inference and differential privacy.
Section~\ref{sec:practical} considers approximations for practical use-cases, which allow us to derive inference strategies in closed-form, some of which are connected with existing methods from the literature.
Section~\ref{sec:algorithms} summarizes the practical algorithms derived from our analysis.
Finally, Section~\ref{sec:experiments} considers the more difficult case of membership inference for real-life neural networks and datasets. %
\section{Membership inference model}
\label{sec:model}
In this section, we derive the Bayes optimal performance for membership inference (Theorem~\ref{thm:optimal_strategy}).
We then make the connection with differential privacy and propose looser guarantees that prevent membership inference. %
\subsection{Posterior distribution of parameters}
Let $ \dist $ be a data distribution, from which we sample $ n \in \N $ points $ z_1, z_2, \dots, z_{n} {\iid} \dist$.
A machine learning algorithm produces parameters $ \theta $ that incur a low loss $ \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(\theta, z_i)$.
Typically in the case of classification, $z = (x, y)$ where $x$ is an input sample and $y$ a class label, and the loss function $\ell$ is high on samples $(x, y')$ for which $y' \neq y$.
We assume that the machine learning algorithm has some randomness, and we model it with a posterior distribution over parameters $ \theta | z_1, \dots, z_n $.
The randomness in $ \theta $ either comes from the training procedure (e.g., Bayesian posterior sampling), or arises naturally, as is the case with Stochastic Gradient methods.
In general, we assume that the posterior distribution follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:temperature}
\prob(\theta~|~z_1, \dots, z_n) &\propto e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(\theta, z_i) },
\end{align}
where $ T $ is a temperature parameter, intuitively controlling the stochasticity of $ \theta $.
$ T = 1 $ corresponds to the case of the Bayesian posterior, $ T \to 0 $ the case of MAP (Maximum A Posteriori) inference and a small T to the case of averaged SGD \citep{polyak1992averaging}.
Note that we do not include a prior on $ \theta $: we assume that the prior is either uniform on a bounded $ \theta $, or that it has been factored in the loss term $ \ell $.
\subsection{Membership inference}
Given $ \theta $ produced by such a machine learning algorithm, membership inference asks the following question: What information does $ \theta $ contain about its training set $ z_1, \dots, z_n $?
Formally, we assume that binary membership variables $ m_1, m_2, \dots, m_{n}$
are drawn independently, with probability $\lambda = \prob(m_i=1)$.
The samples for which $ m_i = 0 $ are the test set, while the samples for which $ m_i = 1 $ are the training set.
Equation~(\ref{eq:temperature}) becomes
\begin{align}
\label{eq:temperaturem}
\prob(\theta~|~z_1, \dots, z_n, m_1, \dots, m_n) &\propto e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=1}^n m_i\ell(\theta, z_i) },
\end{align}
Taking the case of $ z_1 $ without loss of generality, membership inference determines, given parameters $ \theta $ and sample $ z_1 $, whether $ m_1 = 1 $ or $ m_1 = 0$.
\begin{definition}[Membership inference]
Inferring the membership of sample $z_1$ to the training set amounts to computing:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) := \prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1).
\end{align}
\end{definition}
{\bf Notation.}
We denote by $ \sigma $ the sigmoid function $ \sigma(u) = (1 + e^{-u})^{-1} $. %
We collect the knowledge about the other samples and their memberships into the set $\mathcal{T} = \{z_2,...,z_n, m_2,..., m_n\}$.
\subsection{Optimal membership inference}
In Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_strategy}, we derive the explicit formula for $\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:optimal_strategy}
Given a parameter $ \theta $ and a sample $ z_1 $,
the optimal membership inference is given by:
{\small
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) &= \esp_{\mathcal{T}} \left[ \sigma \left( \log \left(
\frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ {m_1=1, z_1, \mathcal{T}})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ {m_1=0, z_1, \mathcal{T}})}
\right) + t_{\lambda}
\right) \right],
\end{align}
}%
with $ t_{\lambda} = \log \left( \frac{\lambda}{1- \lambda} \right) $.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the law of total expectation, we have:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) &= \prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1) \\
&= \esp_{\mathcal{T}} \left[ \prob \left( m_1 = 1 ~|~ \theta, z_1, \mathcal{T} \right) \right].
\end{align}
Applying Bayes' formula:
{\small
\begin{align}
\prob \left( m_1 = 1 ~|~ \theta, z_1, \mathcal{T} \right) & = \frac{ \prob \left( \theta ~|~ m_1=1, z_1, \mathcal{T} \right) \prob( m_1 = 1) } {\prob \left( \theta ~|~ z_1, \mathcal{T} \right)},\\
&= \frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}
= \sigma \left( \log \left( \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \right) \right)
\label{eq:probratio}
\end{align}}
where:
\begin{align}
\alpha &:= \prob \left( \theta ~|~ m_1=1, z_1, \mathcal{T} \right) \prob( m_1 = 1) \\
\beta &:= \prob \left( \theta ~|~ m_1=0, z_1, \mathcal{T} \right) \prob( m_1 = 0)
\end{align}
Given that $\prob(m_1=1) = \lambda$,
\begin{align}
\log \left( \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \right) &= \log \left( \frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1=1, z_1, \mathcal{T})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1=0, z_1, \mathcal{T})} \right) + \log \left( \frac{\lambda}{1 - \lambda} \right),
%
\end{align}
which gives the expression for $\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1)$.
\end{proof}
Note that Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_strategy} only relies on the fact that $ \theta $ given $\{z_1,..., z_n, m_1, ..., m_n\}$ is a random variable, but it does not make any assumption on the form of the distribution. %
In particular the loss $ \ell $ does not appear in the expression.
Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_loss} uses the assumption in Equation (\ref{eq:temperaturem}) to further explicit $ \mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) $; we give its formal expression below, prove it, and analyze the expression qualitatively.
Let us first define the posterior over the parameters given samples $ z_2, \dots, z_{n} $ and memberships $ m_2, \dots, m_{n} $:
\begin{align}
p_{\mathcal{T}}(\theta) := \frac{ e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(\theta, z_i) } }{\int_{t} e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(t, z_i) } dt}.
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:optimal_loss}
Given a parameter $ \theta $ and a sample $ z_1 $,
the optimal membership inference is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:expectsigma}
\mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) &= \esp_{\mathcal{T}} \left[ \sigma \left( s(z_1, \theta, p_{\mathcal{T}}) + t_{\lambda} \right) \right]
\end{align}
where we define the following score: %
\begin{align}
\tau_p(z_1) &:= - T \log \left( \int_{t} e^{ -\frac{1}{T}\ell(t, z_1) } p(t) dt \right)
\label{eq:taudefinition}
\\
s(z_1, \theta, p) &:= \frac{1}{T} \left( \tau_p(z_1) - \ell (\theta, z_1) \right). %
\label{eq:sdefinition}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Singling out $m_1$ in Equation~(\ref{eq:temperaturem}) yields the following expressions for $\alpha$ and $\beta$:
\begin{align}
\alpha &= \lambda
\frac{ e^{- \frac{1}{T} \ell(\theta, z_1)} e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(\theta, z_i) } }
{\int_{t} e^{- \frac{1}{T} \ell(t, z_1)} e^{ -\frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(t, z_i) }dt} \\
&= \lambda \frac{ e^{- \frac{1}{T} \ell(\theta, z_1)} p_{\mathcal{T}}(\theta)}{\int_{t} e^{- \frac{1}{T} \ell(t, z_1)} p_{\mathcal{T}}(t) dt},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\beta &= (1-\lambda) \frac{e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(\theta, z_i) } }{\int_{t} e^{ - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=2}^{n} m_i \ell(t, z_i) } dt} = (1-\lambda) p_{\mathcal{T}}(\theta).
\end{align}
Thus,
\begin{align}
\log \left( \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \right) &= - \frac{\ell (\theta, z_1)}{T}
- \log \left( \int_{t} e^{- \frac{1}{T}\ell(t, z_1))} p_{\mathcal{T}}(t) dt \right) + t_\lambda \label{eq:logsumexp} \nonumber \\
&=s(z_1, \theta, p_{\mathcal{T}}) + t_\lambda.
\end{align}
Then, Equation~(\ref{eq:probratio}) yields the expected result.
\end{proof}
The first observation in Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_loss} is that $ \mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) $ does not depend on the parameters $ \theta $ beyond the evaluation of the loss $ \ell(\theta, \cdot)$: this strategy does not require, for instance, internal parameters of the model that a white-box attack could provide.
This means that if we can compute $\tau_p$ or approximate it well enough, then the optimal membership inference depends only on the loss. In other terms, asymptotically,
\textbf{the white-box setting does not provide any benefit compared to black-box membership inference.}
Let us analyze qualitatively the terms in the expression: %
Since $ \mathcal{T} $ is a training set, $ p_{\mathcal{T}} $ corresponds to a posterior over this training set, \emph{i.e.}\xspace, a typical distribution of trained parameters.
$\tau_p(z_1)$ is the softmin of loss terms $ \ell(\cdot, z_1) $ over these typical models, and corresponds therefore to the {\em typical loss of sample $ z_1 $} under models that have not seen $ z_1 $.
The quantity $\tau_p(z_1)$ can be seen as a threshold, to which the loss $ \ell(\theta, z_1) $ is compared.
Around this threshold, when $ \ell(\theta, z_1) \approx \tau_p(z_1)$, then $ s \approx 0 $: since $ \sigma(t_{\lambda}) = \lambda $, the membership posterior probability $ \mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) $ is equal to $ \lambda $, and thus we have no information on $ m_1 $ beyond prior knowledge.
As the loss $ \ell(\cdot, z_1) $ gets lower than this threshold, $s$ becomes positive.
Since $ \sigma $ is non decreasing, when $s(z_1, \theta, p_{\mathcal{T}}) > 0 $, $ \mathcal{M}(\theta, z_1) > \lambda $ and thus we gain non-trivial membership information on $ z_1 $.
Another consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_loss} is that a higher temperature $ T $ decreases $ s $, and thus decreases $ \prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1) $: it corresponds to the intuition that more randomness in $ \theta $ protects the privacy of training data.
\subsection{Differential privacy and guarantees}
In this subsection we make the link with differential privacy.
Differential privacy \citep{dwork2006calibrating} is a framework that allows to learn model parameters $ \theta $ while maintaining the confidentiality of data.
It ensures that even if a malicious attacker knows parameters $ \theta $ and samples $ z_i $, $ i \geq 2$, for which $ m_i = 1$, the privacy of $ z_1 $ is not compromised.
\begin{definition}[$\epsilon$-differential privacy]
A machine learning algorithm is $ \epsilon $-differentially private if, for any choice of $ z_1$ and $\mathcal{T}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:epsdifpriv}
\log \left( \frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ {m_1 =1, z_1, \mathcal{T}})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ {m_1=0, z_1, \mathcal{T}})} \right) < \epsilon.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
Note that this definition is slightly different from the one of \citet{dwork2006calibrating} in that we consider the removal of $ z_1 $ rather than its substitution with $ z' $. Additionally we consider probability densities instead of probabilities of sets, without loss of generality.
\begin{property}[$\epsilon$-differential privacy]
If the training is $ \epsilon $-differentially private, then:
\begin{align}
\prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1) &\leq \lambda + \frac{\epsilon}{4}. \label{eq:diff_proba}
\end{align}
\end{property}
\begin{proof}
Combining Equation~(\ref{eq:epsdifpriv}) and the fact that $ \sigma(u) \leq \sigma(v) + \max(u-v, 0) / 4 $ (Appendix~\ref{sec:boundedsigma}), we have:
\begin{align}
\sigma \left( \log \left(
\frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1=1, z_1, \mathcal{T})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1=0, z_1, \mathcal{T})} \right) + t_{\lambda} \right) &\leq \sigma(t_{\lambda}) + \frac{\epsilon}{4} \nonumber \\
&= \lambda + \frac{\epsilon}{4}.
\end{align}
Combining this expression with Theorem~\ref{thm:optimal_strategy} yields the result.
\end{proof}
Note that this bound gives a tangible sense of $ \epsilon $.
In general, decreasing $ \epsilon $ increases privacy, but there is no consensus over ``good" values of $ \epsilon $; this bound indicates for instance that $ \epsilon = 0.01 $ would be sufficient for membership privacy.
$ \epsilon $-differential privacy gives strong membership inference guarantees, at the expense of a constrained training procedure resulting generally in a loss of accuracy \cite{abadi16deep}.
However, if we assume that the attacker knows the $ z_i, i \geq 2 $ for which $m_i = 1$, $ \epsilon $-differential privacy is required to protect the privacy of $ z_ 1$.
Depending on the information we have on $ z_i, i \geq 2 $, there is a continuum between differential privacy (all $ z_i$'s are known) and membership inference (only prior knowledge on $ z_i $).
In the case of membership inference, it suffices to have the following guarantee:
\begin{definition}[$(\epsilon, \delta)$ membership privacy]
The training is $(\epsilon, \delta)$-membership private for
some $ \epsilon>0, \delta>0$ if with probability $ 1 - \delta $ over the choice of $ \mathcal{T}$:
\begin{align}
\int_{t} \ell(t, z_1) p_{\mathcal{T}}(t) dt - \ell (\theta, z_1) \leq \epsilon. \label{eq:guarantee}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{property} If the training is $(\epsilon, \delta)$-membership private, then:
\begin{align}
\prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1) \leq \lambda + \frac{\epsilon}{4T} + \delta.
\end{align}
\end{property}
\begin{proof}
Jensen's inequality states that for any distribution $p$ and any function $f$:
\begin{align}
\int_{t} f(t) p(t) dt &\leq \log \left( \int_{t} e^{f(t)} p(t) dt \right),
\end{align}
hence the score $s$ from Equation~(\ref{eq:sdefinition}) verifies:
\begin{align}
s(z_1, \theta, p) \leq \frac{1}{T}\left(\int_{t} \ell(t, z_1) p(t) dt - \ell (\theta, z_1) \right) .
\end{align}
Thus, distinguishing the cases $\delta$ and $1-\delta$ in the expectation in Equation~(\ref{eq:expectsigma}),
\begin{align}
\prob( m_1 = 1~|~\theta, z_1) &\leq \delta + (1 - \delta) \left( \lambda + \frac{\epsilon}{4T} \right) \\
&\leq \lambda + \frac{\epsilon}{4T} + \delta,
\end{align}
which gives the desired bound.
\end{proof}
Membership privacy provides a \emph{post-hoc} guarantee on $ \theta, z_1 $.
Guarantees in the form of Equation (\ref{eq:guarantee}) can be obtained by PAC (Probably Approximately Correct) bounds.
\section{Approximations for membership inference}
\label{sec:practical}
Estimating the probability of Equation (\ref{eq:sdefinition}) mainly requires to compute the term $\tau_p$.
Since its expression is intractable, we use approximations to derive concrete membership attacks (MA).
We now detail these approximations, referred to as MAST (MA Sample Threshold), MALT (MA Loss Threshold) and MATT (MA Taylor Threshold).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figs/gauss_global.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figs/gauss_local.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:gauss}
Comparison of MALT and MALT for membership inference on the mean estimator for Gaussian data ($n=100$ samples in 2000 dimensions).
Distribution of scores $s$ used to distinguish between samples seen or not at training.
\emph{MALT}: a single threshold is used for all the dataset;
\emph{MAST}: each sample gets assigned a different threshold.
MAST better separates training and non-training samples.
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{MAST: Approximation of $\tau(z_1)$}
We first make the mean-field assumption that $ p_{\mathcal{T}}(t) $ does not depend on $\mathcal{T}$ (we note it $p$), and define
\begin{align}
\label{eq:deftauz}
\tau(z_1) := \log \left( \int_{t} e^{-\frac{1}{T}\ell(t, z_1)} p(t) dt \right).
\end{align}
The quantity $ \tau(\cdot) $ is a ``calibrating" term that reflects the difficulty of a sample.
Intuitively, a low $ \tau(z_1) $ means that the sample $ z_1 $ is easy to predict, and thus a low value of $ \ell (\theta, z_1) $ does not necessarily indicate that $ z_1 $ belongs to the train set.
Thus, Theorem~\ref{thm:optimal_loss} gives the optimal attack model:
\begin{equation}
\boxed{s_\mathrm{MAST}(\theta, z_1) = - \ell(\theta, z_1)+ \tau (z_1). }
\end{equation}
\subsection{MALT: Constant $\tau$}
If we further assume that $ \tau(\cdot)$ is constant, the optimal strategy reduces to predicting that $ z_1 $ comes from the training set if its loss $ \ell (\theta, z_1) $ is lower than this threshold $ \tau $, and from the test set otherwise:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:malt}
\boxed{s_\mathrm{MALT}(\theta, z_1) = - \ell(\theta, z_1)+ \tau.}
\end{equation}
A similar strategy is proposed by \citet{yeom18privacyrisk} for Gaussian models.
\citet{carlini18secret} estimate a secret token in text datasets by comparing probabilities of the sentence ``My SSN is X" with various values of X.
Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, it has not been proposed in the literature to estimate the threshold $ \tau $ on public data, and to apply it for membership inference.
As we show in Section \ref{sec:experiments}, this simple strategy yields better results than shadow models.
Their attack models take as input the softmax activation $ \phi_{\theta}(x) $ and the class label $ y $, and predict whether the sample comes from the training or test set.
For classification models, $ \ell(\theta, (x, y)) = - \log(\phi_{\theta}(x)_y) $.
Hence the optimal attack performs:
\begin{equation}
s_\mathrm{MALT}(\theta, (x, y)) = \log(\phi_{\theta}(x)_y)+ \tau.
\end{equation}
In \citet{shokri16membershipinference}, we argue that the attack model essentially performs such an estimation, albeit in a non-explicit way.
In particular, we believe that the gap between \citet{shokri16membershipinference}'s method and ours is due to instabilities in the estimation of $ \tau $ and the numerical computation of the $ \log $, as the model is given only $ \phi_{\theta}(x)$.
As a side note, the expectation term in $ \mathcal{T} = {z_2, \dots, z_n, m_2, \dots, m_n} $ is very similar in spirit to the shadow models, and they can be viewed as a Monte-Carlo estimation of this quantity.
\vspace{-1em}
\mypar{An experiment with Gaussian data.}
We illustrate the difference between a MALT (global $ \tau $) and MAST (per-sample $ \tau(\cdot) $) on a simple toy example.
Let's assume we estimate the mean $\mu$ of Gaussian data with unit variance.
We sample $ n $ values $ z _1, \dots, z_n $ from $ \dist = \mathcal{N}(\mu, I)$.
The estimate of the mean is $\theta = \frac{1}{n'} \sum_{i=1}^n m_i z_i$ where $ n' = | \{i~|~m_i=1\} | $.
We have (see Appendix \ref{app:gauss} for derivations):
\begin{align}
\ell(\theta, z_i) &:= \frac{1}{2} \| z_i - \theta \|^2 \\
\tau(z_i) &= \frac{n'}{2(n'+1)} \| z_i - \mu\|^2 \\
\tau &= \frac{n'}{2(n'+1)} \esp \| z - \mu \|^2 = \frac{n'}{2(n'+1)} d.
\end{align}
The expression of $\tau(z_i)$ shows that the ``difficulty" of sample $ z_i $ is its distance to $ \mu $, \emph{i.e.}\xspace, how untypical this sample is. %
Figure \ref{fig:gauss} shows the results with a global $ \tau $ or a per-sample $ \tau $: the per-sample $ \tau $ better separates the two distributions, leading to an increased membership inference accuracy.
\vspace{-1em}
\paragraph{MATT: Estimation with Taylor expansion}
\label{subsec:taylor}
We assume that the posterior induced by the loss $ \mathcal{L}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^n m_i\ell(\theta, z_i)$ is a Gaussian centered on $ \theta^* $, the minimum of the loss, with covariance $ C $.
This corresponds to the Laplace approximation of the posterior distribution.
The inverse covariance matrix $ C^{-1} $ is asymptotically $ n $ times the Fisher matrix \cite{vandervaart98asymptoticstatistics}, which itself is the Hessian of the loss~\makebox{\cite{kullback97informationtheory}}:
\begin{align}
\prob(\theta~|~z_1, \mathcal{T}) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det{2\pi H^{-1}}}} e^{-\frac{1}{2} (\theta - \theta^*)^T H (\theta - \theta^*)}.
\end{align}
We denote by $\theta_0^*$ (resp. $\theta_1^*$) the mode of the Gaussian corresponding to $ \{z_2,...,z_n\} $ (resp. \{$ z_1,...,z_n$\}), and $ H_0 $ (resp. $ H_1 $) the corresponding Hessian matrix.
We assume that $ H $ is not impacted by removing $ z_1 $ from the training set, and thus $ H := H_0 \approx H_1 $ (cf. appendix \ref{app:hessian} for a more precise justification).
The log-ratio is therefore
{\small
\begin{align}
\log & \left( \frac{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1 = 1, z_1, \mathcal{T})}{\prob(\theta ~|~ m_1 = 0, z_1, \mathcal{T})} \right) \label{eq:hessian_dl} \\
&= - \frac{1}{2} (\theta - \theta_1^*)^T H (\theta - \theta_1^*) + \frac{1}{2} (\theta - \theta_0^*)^T H (\theta - \theta_0^*) \nonumber \\
&= (\theta - \theta_0^*)^T H (\theta_1^* - \theta_0^*) - \frac{1}{2} (\theta_1^* - \theta_0^*)^T H (\theta_1^* - \theta_0^*). \nonumber
\end{align}
}%
The difference $ \theta_1^* - \theta_0^* $ can be estimated using a Taylor expansion of the loss gradient around $ \theta_0^*$ (see \emph{e.g.}\xspace \citet{koh2017understanding}):
\begin{align}
\theta_1^* - \theta_0^* \approx - H^{-1} \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1)
\end{align}
Combining this with Equation (\ref{eq:hessian_dl}) leads to
{\small
\begin{align}
\label{eq:twoterm}
- (\theta - \theta_0^*)^T \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1) - \frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1)^T H^{-1} \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1).
\end{align}
}
We study the asymptotic behavior of this expression when $n\rightarrow \infty$.
On the left-hand side, the parameters $\theta$ and $\theta_0^*$ are estimates of the optimal $\theta^*$, and under mild conditions, the error of the estimated parameters is of order $1/\sqrt{n}$.
Therefore the difference $ \theta - \theta_0^* $ is of order $ 1 / \sqrt{n}$.
On the right-hand side, the matrix $H$ is the summation of $n$ sample-wise Hessian matrices.
Therefore, asymptotically, the right-hand side shrinks at a rate $1/n$, which is negligible compared to the other, which shrinks at $1/\sqrt{n}$.
In addition to the asymptotic reasoning, we verified this approximation experimentally.
Thus, we approximate Equation~(\ref{eq:twoterm}) to give the following score:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dl_grad}
\boxed{
s_\mathrm{MATT}(\theta, z_1) = - (\theta - \theta_0^*)^T \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1). }
\end{align}
Equation (\ref{eq:dl_grad}) has an intuitive interpretation: parameters~$ \theta $ were trained using $ z_1 $ if their difference with a set of parameters trained without $ z_1 $ (i.e. $\theta_0^*$) is aligned with the direction of the update $- \nabla_{\theta} \ell(\theta_0^*, z_1) $.
\section{Membership inference algorithms}
\label{sec:algorithms}
In this section, we detail how the approximations of $ s(\theta, z_1, p) $ are employed to perform membership inference.
We assume that a machine learning model has been trained, yielding parameters $\theta$.
We assume also that similar models can be re-trained with different training sets.
Given a sample $z_1$, we want to decide whether $z_1$ belongs to the training set.
\subsection{The 0-1 baseline}
We consider as a baseline the ``0-1" heuristic, which predicts that $z_1$ comes from the training set if the class is predicted correctly, and from the test set if the class is predicted incorrectly.
We note $p_{\text{train}} $ (resp. $ p_{\text{test}}$) the classification accuracy on the training (resp. held-out) set.
The accuracy of the heuristic is (see Appendix~\ref{app:probaderiv} for derivations):
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{bayes}} = \lambda p_{\text{train}} + (1-\lambda) (1-p_{\text{test}}).
\end{equation}
For example when $\lambda=1/2$, since $p_{\text{train}} \geq p_{\text{test}}$ this heuristic is better than random guessing (accuracy $1/2$) and the improvement is proportional to the overfitting gap $p_{\text{train}} - p_{\text{test}}$.
\iffalse
\mypar{Maximum Accuracy Threshold (MAT\xspace).}
\cite{yeom18privacyrisk} propose an attack on the loss value: a sample is deemed part of the training set if its loss is below a threshold $ \tau $.
If $ F_{\text{train}} $ (resp. $ F_{\text{heldout}} $) is the cdf of the loss on the train (resp. held out), the accuracy of the MAT\xspace is:
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{threshold}} = \max_{\tau} ~1/2 + 1/2 \left(F_{\text{train}}(\tau) - F_{\text{heldout}}(\tau)\right)
\end{equation}
\matthijs{update with $\lambda \ne 1/2$}
\fi
\subsection{Making hard decisions from scores}
\label{sec:scorethesh}
Variants of our method provide different estimates of $ s(\theta, z_1, p) $.
Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_loss} shows that this score has to be passed through a sigmoid function, but since it is an increasing function, the threshold can be chosen directly on these scores. %
Estimation of this threshold has to be conducted on simulated sets, for which membership information is known.
We observed that there is almost no difference between chosing the threshold on the set to be tested and cross-validating it.
This is expected, as a one-dimensional parameter the threshold is not prone to overfitting.
\subsection{Membership algorithms}
\label{subsec:membershipalgorithms}
\textbf{MALT: Threshold on the loss.}
Since $\tau$ in Equation (\ref{eq:malt}) is constant, and using the invariance to increasing functions, we need only to use loss value for the sample, $\ell(\theta, z_1)$.
\textbf{MAST: Estimating $\tau(z_1)$.}
To estimate $\tau(z_1)$ in Equation~(\ref{eq:deftauz}), we train several models with different subsamples of the training set.
This yields a set of per-sample losses for $z_1$ that are averaged into an estimate of $\tau(z_1)$.
\textbf{MATT: the Taylor approximation.}
We run the training on a separate set to obtain $\theta_0^*$.
Then we take a gradient step over the loss to estimate the approximation in Equation~(\ref{eq:dl_grad}).
Note that this strategy is not compatible with neural networks because the assumption that parameters lie around a unique global minimum does not hold.
In addition, parameters from two different networks $ \theta $ and $ \theta_0^* $ cannot be compared directly as neural networks that express the same function can have very different parameters (\emph{e.g.}\xspace because channels can be permuted arbitrarily).
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
\mypar{Leakage of information from the training set. }
Our work is related to the topics of overfitting and memorization capabilities of classifiers.
Determining what neural networks actually memorize from their training set is not trivial. A few recent works~\citep{zhang16understanding,yeom18privacyrisk} evaluate how a network can fit random labels.
\citet{zhang16understanding} replace true labels by random labels and show that popular neural nets can perfectly fit them in simple cases, such as small datasets (CIFAR10) or Imagenet without data augmentation.
\citet{krueger17memorization} extend their analysis and argue in particular that the effective capacity of neural nets depends on the dataset considered.
In a privacy context, \citet{yeom18privacyrisk} exploit this memorizing property to watermark networks.
As a side note, random labeling and data augmentation have been used for the purpose of training a network without any annotated data~\citep{dosovitskiy2014discriminative,bojanowski2017unsupervised}.
In the context of differential privacy~\citep{dwork2006calibrating}, recent works~\citep{wang2016average,bassily2016algorithmic} suggest that guaranteeing privacy requires learning systems to generalize well, \emph{i.e.}\xspace, to not overfit.
\citet{wang2015privacyforfree} show that Bayesian posterior sampling offers differential privacy guarantees.
\citet{abadi16deep} introduce noisy SGD to learn deep models with differential privacy.
\vspace{-1em}
\mypar{Membership Inference.} A few recent works~\citep{,hayes17logan,shokri16membershipinference,long18understanding} have addressed membership inference.
\citet{yeom18privacyrisk} propose a series of membership attacks and derive their performance. %
\citet{long18understanding} observe that some training images are more vulnerable than others and propose a strategy to identify them. %
\citet{hayes17logan} analyze privacy issues arising in generative models.
\citet{dwork2015traceability} and \citet{sankararaman2009genomicprivacy} provide optimal strategies for membership inference in genomics data.
\vspace{-1em}
\mypar{Shadow models.}
Shadow models were introduced by \citet{shokri16membershipinference} in the context of black-box attacks.
In this setup, an attacker has black-box-(iii) access (full response for all classes) to a model trained on a private dataset, and to a public dataset that follows the same distribution as the private dataset.
The attacker wishes to perform membership inference using black-box outputs of the private model.
For this, the attacker simulates models by training \emph{shadow models} on known splits from the public set.
On this simulated models, the attacker can analyze the output patterns corresponding to samples from the training set and from a held-out set.
\citet{shokri16membershipinference} propose to train an attack model that learns to predict, given an output pattern, whether it corresponds to a training or held-out sample.
If the attack model simply predicts ``training" when the output activations fire on the correct class, this strategy is equivalent to \citet{yeom18privacyrisk}'s adversary.
\citet{salem2019leaks} further show that shadow models work under weaker assumptions than those of \citet{shokri16membershipinference}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Interacting Calogero-Moser-Sutherland particle models
on $\mathbb R$ with $N$ particles
can be described via Bessel processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ associated with root systems;
see e.g.~\cite{CGY,GY,R, RV1,RV2,DV,AKM1, AKM2}.
These processes are classified via root systems and finitely many multiplicity parameters
which control the interaction.
In this paper, we only study the root systems
$A_{N-1}$ and $B_N$.
In the case $A_{N-1}$, we have a multiplicity $k\in[0,\infty[$,
$(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ lives on the closed Weyl chamber
$$C_N^A:=\{x\in \mathbb R^N: \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\ldots\ge x_N\},$$
the generator of the transition semigroup is
\begin{equation}\label{def-L-A} \Delta_k f:= \frac{1}{2} \Delta f +
k \sum_{i=1}^N\Bigl( \sum_{j:j\ne i} \frac{1}{x_i-x_j}\Bigr) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f ,
\end{equation}
and we assume reflecting boundaries, i.e., the domain of $ \Delta_k$ may be chosen as
$$D(\Delta_k):=\{f|_{C_N^A}: \>\> f\in C^{(2)}(\mathbb R^N), \>\>\> f\>\>\text{ invariant under all coordinate-premutations}\}.$$
In the case $B_N$, we have two multiplicities $k_1,k_2\ge 0$, the processes live on
$$C_N^B:=\{x\in \mathbb R^N: \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\ldots\ge x_N\ge0\},$$
the generator of the transition semigroup is
\begin{equation}\label{def-L-B} \Delta_{k_1,k_2}f:= \frac{1}{2} \Delta f +
k_2 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j:j\ne i} \Bigl( \frac{1}{x_i-x_j}+\frac{1}{x_i+x_j} \Bigr)
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f
\> + k_1\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{x_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f, \end{equation}
and we again assume reflecting boundaries.
The transition probabilities of the diffusions
$(X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ on $C_N$ (with $C_N=C_N^A$ or $C_N^B$) are as
follows by \cite{R,RV1,RV2}:
For any $x\in C_N$, and $E\subset C_N$ Borel set,
\begin{equation}\label{density-general}
K_t(x,E)=c_k \int_E t^{-\gamma_k-N/2}\ \mathrm e^{-(\|x\|^2+\|y\|^2)/(2t)} J_k(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}, \frac{y}{\sqrt{t}})
\cdot w_k(y)\> dy
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{def-wk}
w_k^A(x):= \prod_{i<j}(x_i-x_j)^{2k}, \quad
w_k^B(x):= \prod_{i<j}(x_i^2-x_j^2)^{2k_2}\cdot \prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{2k_1},\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{def-gamma}
\gamma_k^A=kN(N-1)/2, \quad\quad \gamma_{(k_1,k_2)}^B=k_2N(N-1)+k_1N
\end{equation}
respectively. The weights
$w_k$ are homogeneous of degree $2\gamma_k$.
Furthermore, the
$c_k>0$ are known normalization constants, and
$J_k$ is a multivariate Bessel function of
type $A_{N-1}$ or $B_N$ with multiplicities $k$ or $(k_1,k_2)$ respectively;
see e.g. \cite{R}.
$J_k$ is analytic on $\mathbb C^N \times \mathbb C^N $ with
$ J_k(x,y)>0$ for $x,y\in \mathbb R^N $.
Moreover, $J_k(x,y)=J_k(y,x)$ and $J_k(0,y)=1$
for all $x,y\in \mathbb C^N $.
Therefore, if $X_0=0$, then for $t>0$, $X_{t}$ has the Lebesgue density
\begin{equation}\label{density-A-0}
\frac{c_k}{t^{\gamma_k+N/2}} e^{-\|y\|^2/(2t)} \cdot w_k(y)\> dy
\end{equation}
on $C_N$ for $t>0$.
In particular, in the case $A_{N-1}$ for $k=1/2, 1,2$, $X_{t}$
has the distribution of the eigenvalues of
Gaussian orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic ensembles up to scalings; see e.g. \cite{Me}.
Moreover, for general $k>0$, these distributions appear as spectral distributions of
the tridiagonal $\beta$-Hermite ensembles of
Dumitriu and Edelman \cite{DE1}. Similar interpretations exist in the case $B_{N}$
for Laguerre ensembles and the tridiagonal $\beta$-Laguerre ensembles of \cite{DE1}.
In this paper we use the generators (\ref{def-L-A}), (\ref{def-L-B}) and the associated
stochastic differential equations for the diffusions $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ and construct polynomials $p_l$
in $N+1$ variables of order $l=1,\ldots,N$ such that the processes $(p_l(X_t,t))_{t\ge0}$
are martingales. The functions $p_l$
are constructed via elementary symmetric polynomials such that,
up to some rescaling of the processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$, these polynomials do not depend on the parameter $k$ in the
case $A_{N-1}$, while they depend on one parameter only in the case $B_N$. Moreover, due to this observation,
our martingale result can be also extended to the case where the independent parameter is equal to $\infty$,
in which case the SDE of the renormalization of $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ simplifies to an ODE. The solution of this ODE starting in the origin $0\in C_N$ can be described explicitely in terms of the zeros of the Hermite polynomial
$H_N$ or the Laguerre polynomial $L_N^{(\alpha)}$ with a suitable $\alpha$ in the cases $A_{N-1}$ or $B_N$
respectively.
This observation will lead to closed formulas for
$$\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}^\beta)\bigr) \quad (y\in\mathbb R)$$
for the processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ starting in $0$, which involve Hermite and Laguerre polynomials.
These formulas are known for the multiplicities associated with the classical random matrix ensembles
\cite{DG, FG}.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we consider the case $A_{N-1}$ while Section 3 is devoted to
the case $B_N$.
We finally recapitulate the following well-known result
(see Lemma 3.4, Corollary 6.6, and Proposition 6.8 of \cite{CGY} and
\cite{Sch, GM} for corrections of the proofs of these results) which will be the basis
for our SDE approach:
\begin{theorem}\label{SDE-basic} Let $k>0$ or $k_1,k_2>0$ in the
$A_{N-1}$- or $B_N$-case. Then, for each starting point $x\in C_N$ and $t>0$,
the initial problem
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-general}
X_0=x,\quad\quad dX_t= dB_t + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla(\ln w_k))(X_t) \> dt
\end{equation}
where $w_k$ is defined by (\ref{def-wk}) and $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$ is an $N$-dimensional Brownian motion,
has a unique strong solution $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$.
This solution is a Bessel process as above.
Moreover, if $k\ge 1/2$ in the
$A_{N-1}$-case or $k_1,k_2\ge 1/2$ in the $B_N$-case, then $X_t$ is in the interior on $C_N$
almost surely for $t>0$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Bessel processes of type A}
We now study Bessel processes
of type $A_{N-1}$ where we denote the multiplicities by $\beta\ge 0$ instead of $k$
in order to avoid confusions with indices and coordinates.
Therefore, let $( X_{t}^\beta)_{t\ge0}$ be a Bessel process
of type $A_{N-1}$ with multiplicity $\beta\ge 0$ with values from
$$C_N^A:=\{x\in \mathbb R^N: \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\ldots\ge x_N\}.$$
$( X_{t}^\beta)_{t\ge0}$ satisfies the SDE
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-A}
dX_{t,i}^\beta = dB_{t,i}+ \beta\sum_{j:j\ne i} \frac{1}{X_{t,i}^\beta-X_{t,j}^\beta} dt \quad\quad(i=1,\ldots,N).
\end{equation}
with an $N$-dimensional Brownian motion $(B_{t,1},\ldots,B_{t,N})_{t\ge0}$,
where the paths are reflected whenever they hit the boundary $\partial C_N^A$ of $C_N^A$.
By Theorem \ref{SDE-basic}, $( X_{t}^\beta)_{t\ge0}$
does not meet $\partial C_N^A$ for $t>0$ a.s.~for $\beta\ge 1/2$.
For the sake of convenience we will study the renormalized processes
$(\tilde X_{t}:=\tilde X_{t}^\beta:=X_{t}^ \beta/\sqrt \beta)_{t\ge0}$ which satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-A-normalized}
d\tilde X_{t,i}^\beta =\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}dB_{t,i} + \sum_{j:j\ne i}
\frac{1}{\tilde X_{t,i}^\beta-\tilde X_{t,j}^\beta }dt\quad\quad(i=1,\ldots,m).
\end{equation}
>From now on the parameter $\beta$ in $\tilde X^\beta_t$ will be omitted unless it is explicitly referred to.
Now we will derive some results for symmetric polynomials of $( X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ and
$(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$.
First let us we recapitulate that the elementary
symmetric polynomials $e_k^m$ ($m\in \mathbb N,$ $ k=0,\ldots,m$) in $m$ variables are characterized by
\begin{equation}\label{symmetric-poly}
\prod_{k=1}^m (z-x_k) = \sum_{k=0}^{m}(-1)^{m-k} e^m_{m-k}(x) z^k \quad\quad (z\in\mathbb C, \> x=(x_1,\ldots,x_m)),
\end{equation}
in particular,
$e_0^m=1, \> e_1^m(x)=\sum_{k=1}^m x_k ,\quad \ldots\quad e_m^m(x)=\prod_{k=1}^m x_k$.
We need a further notation: For a non-empty set $S\subset \{1,\ldots,N\}$, let $\tilde X_{t,S}$ be the $\mathbb R^{|S|}$-valued
random vector with the
coordinates $\tilde X_{t,i}$ for $i\in S$ in the natural ordering on $S$.
The following technical observation is our starting point:
\begin{lemma}\label{symmetric-pol-in-t}
For $\beta\ge 1/2$, $k=2,\ldots,N$, and $l\ge 0$
\begin{align}d(t^l\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}))=&
\frac{t^l}{\sqrt\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\>
dB_{t,j}\notag\\
&+\Biggl( lt^{l-1}\cdot e^N_k(\tilde X_{t})
- \frac{t^l}{2} (N-k+2)(N-k+1)e_{k-2}^{N}(\tilde X_{t})\Biggr)dt.
\notag\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It\^{o}'s formula and the SDE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) show that
$$d(t^l\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}))=
lt^{l-1}\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}) \> dt+
t^l\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\> d\tilde X_{t,j}.$$
Therefore, by the SDE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}),
\begin{align}\label{elementary-symm-a-1}
d(t^l \cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}))&= lt^{l-1}\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}) \> dt+ \frac{t^l}{\sqrt\beta}
\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\>
dB_{t,j}\\
&\quad+
t^l\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i: i\ne j}
\frac{ e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})}{\tilde X_{t,j}-\tilde X_{t,i}}dt\notag\\
&= lt^{l-1}\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}) \> dt+
\frac{t^l}{\sqrt\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\>
dB_{t,j}\notag\\
&\quad+
\frac{t^l}{2} \sum_{i,j=1,\ldots,n; i\ne j}
\frac{ e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})-
e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i\}}) }{\tilde X_{t,j}-\tilde X_{t,i}}dt.\notag
\end{align}
Moreover, by simple combinatorial computations (see (2.10), (2.11) in \cite{VW}) we have for $i\neq j$ that
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-a-2}
e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})- e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i\}})=
(\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j})e_{k-2}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-a-3}
\sum_{i,j=1,\ldots,N; i\ne j}e_{k-2}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}})=
(N-k+2)(N-k+1)e^N_{k-2}(\tilde X_{t}).
\end{equation}
(\ref{elementary-symm-a-1})-(\ref{elementary-symm-a-3}) now lead to the lemma.
\end{proof}
We also need the following well known observation.
Here we always use the canonical filtration of the Brownian motion $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Brownian-martingale}
For each polynomial $p$ in $N$ variables, $\beta\ge0$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, and $l\ge0$, the process
$\Bigl(\int_0^t s^l\cdot p(\tilde X_{s})\> dB_{s,i})_{t\ge0}$
is a martingale.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The process $(\sum_{i=1}^N X_{t,i}^2)_{t\ge0}$ is a classical one-dimensional squared Bessel process
(see e.g. \cite{RV1}), i.e., all powers of this process are square-integrable w.r.t.~the measure
${\mathcal P}\otimes\lambda|_{[0,t]}$ on $\Omega\times[0,t]$ for each $t>0$, the probability measure ${\mathcal P}$
on the underlying probability space $\Omega$, and the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.
The lemma is now clear by the very construction of the It\^{o} integral.
\end{proof}
Using Lemmas \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} and \ref{Brownian-martingale}, the following martingales can be constructed
for Bessel processes via elementary symmetric polynomials:
\begin{proposition}\label{elementary-symm-martingale}
For all $\beta>0$, $k=1,\ldots,N$, and all starting points $x_0\in C_N^A$ of $(\tilde X_{t,\beta})_{t\ge0}$,
the process
\begin{equation}\label{mart-formel-a}
\Biggl( e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}) + \sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} \frac{(N-k+2l)!}{2^l\cdot l!\cdot (N-k)!}
t^l\cdot e^N_{k-2l}(\tilde X_{t})\Biggr)_{t\ge0}
\end{equation}
is a martingale.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First assume $\beta\ge1/2$. For $k=1$ we obtain from the SDE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) that
\begin{equation}\label{e-1-brownian}
e^N_{1}(\tilde X_{s})=\sum_{i=1}^N\tilde X_{s,i}
=\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}\sum_{i=1}^N B_{s,i} + e^N_1(x_0)\end{equation}
which proves the proposition for $k=1$. In general,
it follows from Lemmas \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} and \ref{Brownian-martingale} that
\begin{align}\label{mart-long}
\Biggl( e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}) +& \sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1} \frac{(N-k+2l)!}{2^l\cdot l!\cdot (N-k)!}
t^l\cdot e^N_{k-2l}(\tilde X_{t}) \\& + \frac{(N-k+2 \lfloor k/2\rfloor )!}{2^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor }\cdot
(\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1)!\cdot (N-k)!} \int_0^ts^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1 }\cdot e^N_{k-2\lfloor k/2\rfloor}(\tilde X_{s}) \> ds
\Biggr)_{t\ge0}
\notag\end{align}
is a martingale. We thus only have to compare the last term on the RHS of (\ref{mart-long}) with the summand
$l=\lfloor k/2\rfloor$ on the RHS of (\ref{mart-formel-a}).
Here the arguments are different for even and odd $k$.
If $k$ is even, then $ e^N_{k-2\lfloor k/2\rfloor}=e^N_0=1$ and
$\int_0^ts^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1 } \> ds=\frac {1}{\lfloor k/2\rfloor } t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor }.$
This shows that the last term on the RHS of (\ref{mart-long})
is the last summand for $l= \lfloor k/2\rfloor$ in (\ref{mart-formel-a}).
This yields the claim in the even case.
Now let $k\ge3$ be odd. Here $e^N_{k-2\lfloor k/2\rfloor}=e^N_1$, and we
obtain from the SDE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) and It\^{o}'s formula that
\begin{align}
t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor}& e^N_{k-2\lfloor k/2\rfloor}(\tilde X_{t}) =
t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} \sum_{i=1}^N\tilde X_{t,i} =
\frac{ t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor}}{\sqrt \beta}\sum_{i=1}^N B_{t,i} \> +\> t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor}e_1^N(x_0)\notag
\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}\int_0^t s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor }\> d\Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^N B_{s,i}\Bigr)
+\frac{ \lfloor k/2\rfloor}{\sqrt \beta} \int_0^t\Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^N B_{s,i}\Bigr)s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1 } \> ds
+ t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor}e^N_1(x_0)\notag
\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}\int_0^t s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor }\> d\Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^N B_{s,i}\Bigr) \notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad
+ \lfloor k/2\rfloor \int_0^t(e^N_{1}(\tilde X_{s})-e^N_1(x_0))s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1 }
\> ds
+ t^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor}e^N_1(x_0)\notag
\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}\int_0^t s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor }\> d\Bigl( \sum_{i=1}^N B_{s,i}\Bigr) +
\lfloor k/2\rfloor \int_0^te^N_{1}(\tilde X_{s})s^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1 }
\> ds.
\notag\end{align}
This and (\ref{mart-long}) yield the proposition for $k\ge3$ odd.
In summary, the proposition holds for $\beta\ge1/2$.
We now use Dynkin's formula (see e.g. Section III.10 of \cite{RW}) which implies that
the symmetric functions
$$ f_{N,k}:C_N^A\times [0,\infty[\to \mathbb R, \quad (x,t)\mapsto
e^N_k(x) + \sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} \frac{(N-k+2l)!}{2^l\cdot l!\cdot (N-k)!}
t^l\cdot e^N_{k-2l}(x)$$
are space-time-harmonic w.r.t. the generators
$$\tilde\Delta_\beta f= \frac{1}{2\sqrt\beta}\Delta f +
\sum_{i=1}^N\Bigl( \sum_{j\ne i} \frac{1}{x_i-x_j}\Bigr) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f$$
of
the diffusions $(\tilde X_t)_{t\ge0}$ for $\beta\ge1/2$, i.e., we have
\begin{equation}\label{diff-op-space-time}
(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+ \tilde\Delta_\beta)f_{N,k}\equiv 0.
\end{equation}
As the left hand side of (\ref{diff-op-space-time}) is analytic in $\beta$,
analytic continuation shows that $f_{N,k}$ is space-time-harmonic
also for all $\beta>0$. Dynkin's formula now yields the
proposition in general.
\end{proof}
Notice that the functions $f_{N,k}$ do
not depend on $\beta>0$, and that the simultanous space-time harmonicity w.r.t.~ all $\tilde\Delta_\beta$
($\beta>0$) is trivial, as $\beta$ only appears as a factor of the classical Laplacian $\Delta$,
for which obviously $\Delta e^N_k\equiv$ holds for all $k$.
We also point out that
Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} and
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} remain valid for $\beta=\infty$, in which case the
SDE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) is an ODE, and the process $(\tilde X_{t}^\infty)_{t\ge0}$ is deterministic
whenever so is the initial condition for $t=0$. There are several limit theorems
(laws of large numbers, CLTs) for the limit transition $\beta\to\infty$; see \cite{AKM1, AV, VW}.
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} for $\beta\in]0,\infty]$ leads to:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-expectation}
Let $(\tilde X_{t}^\beta)_{t\ge0}$ be a normalized Bessel process for $\beta\in]0,\infty]$
which starts in some $x_0\in C_N^A$.
Then for $k=0,1,\ldots,N$ and $t\ge0$, the expectations
$\mathbb E( e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^\beta) )$ do not depend on
$\beta$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The the case $k=0$ is trivial, and, by (\ref{e-1-brownian}),
$\mathbb E( e_1^N(\tilde X_{t}^\beta) )=0$, which proves the result for $k=1$.
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} and induction now lead to the general case.
\end{proof}
We now study the case when the process is initially in the origin. For $\beta=\infty$, the solution of the
ODE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) can be expressed via the ordered zeros $z_1> z_2>\ldots>z_N$ of
the Hermite polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{def-hermite}
H_N(x)= \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} (-1)^k \frac{N!}{k! \> (N-2k)!} 2^{N-2k}x^{N-2k}
\end{equation}
where the Hermite polynomials $(H_N)_{N\ge 0}$ are orthogonal w.r.t.
the density $e^{-x^2}$; see \cite{S} for details. We have the following result by \cite{AV}
which follows easily from Section 6.7 of \cite{S} on the zeros of $H_N$:
\begin{lemma}\label{special-solution}
The solution of the
ODE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) with $\beta=\infty$ and start in $0\in C_N^A$
is given by $\tilde X_{t}^\infty= \sqrt{2t}\cdot {z} $ with $z:=(z_1,\ldots,z_N)$.
\end{lemma}
This and the preceding results have the following consequence:
\begin{corollary}\label{det-formula} For $\beta\in]0,\infty[$ let
$( X_{t,\beta})_{t\ge0}$ be the Bessel process of type A with start in $0$.
Then,
\begin{align}\label{det-form-1}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}^\beta)\bigr) & =
\nonumber c_\beta^A \int_{\mathbb R^N}\big( \prod_{i=1}^N (y-x_i)\big)\cdot t^{-\gamma_\beta^A- N/2 } \mathrm{e}^{-\|x\|^2/(2t)} \prod_{i<j} (x_i-x_j)^{2\beta}\ dx \\
& = (t\beta/2)^{N/2}\cdot H_N(y/ \sqrt{2\beta t})
\quad\quad\text{for}\quad y\in \mathbb R.
\end{align}
Moreover, for $k=0,1,\ldots,\lfloor k/2\rfloor-1$, $\mathbb E\bigl(e^N_{2k+1}(X_{t}^\beta)\bigr)=0$, and
\begin{equation}\label{det-form-2}
\mathbb E\bigl(e_{2k}^N(X_{t}^\beta)\bigr)= (t\beta/2)^k \frac{N!}{k! \> (N-2k)!}
\quad\quad(k=0,1,\ldots,\lfloor k/2\rfloor).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Corollary \ref{constant-expectation} and Lemma \ref{special-solution} yield
\begin{align}\label{det-computation}
&\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}^\beta)\bigr)=
\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k\mathbb E\bigl(e_k^N( X_{t}^\beta)\bigr)\cdot y^{N-k}\\
&=\beta^{N/2}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k \mathbb E\bigl(e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^\beta)\bigr) (y/\sqrt\beta)^{N-k}\notag\\
&=\beta^{N/2}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k\mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^\infty)\bigr)(y/\sqrt\beta)^{N-k}\notag\\
&=\beta^{N/2}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k e_k^N(\sqrt{2t}\cdot {z})(y/\sqrt\beta)^{N-k}\notag\\
&=(2t\beta)^{N/2}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k e_k^N( {z})(y/\sqrt{2t\beta})^{N-k}
\notag\\
&=(2t\beta)^{N/2}\prod_{i=1}^N ( y/\sqrt{2t\beta}- z_i)
=(2t\beta)^{N/2}\frac{1}{2^N}\cdot H_N(y/ \sqrt{2t\beta }) .
\notag\end{align}
This proves the first statement. The second one follows by a comparison of the coefficients in
(\ref{def-hermite}) and (\ref{det-computation}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For $\beta=1/2,1,2$ and start in $0$, the random variables $X_{t}^\beta$ have the same
distributions as the ordered eigenvalues of a Gaussian orthogonal,
unitary, or symplectic ensemble processes respectively
up to normalizations by (\ref{density-A-0}).
In this way, Corollary \ref{det-formula} can be restated for these ensembles. In particular, (\ref{det-form-1})
yields Proposition 11 of \cite{FG}
in the Gaussian unitary case; see also \cite{DG}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} By \cite{AV}, the solution of the ODE (\ref{SDE-A-normalized}) with $\beta=\infty$ and start in $cz$, $c\geq 0$, is given by $\sqrt{2t +c^2}z$. For Bessel processes of type A with start in $cz$, this leads to
$$\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}^\beta)\bigr) = ((2t+c^2)\beta/4)^{N/2}\cdot H_N(y/ \sqrt{(2t+c^2)\beta }).$$
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
All preceding results are concerned with formulas which are invariant under the
canonical action of the symmetric group $S_N$ on $\mathbb R^N$. We thus can replace the Bessel processes
$( X_{t}^\beta)_{t\ge0}$ by Dunkl processes of type $A_{N-1}$
in Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale}
and Corollaries \ref{constant-expectation} and \ref{det-formula}.
For the theory of Dunkl processes we refer to \cite{CGY}, \cite{GY}, \cite{RV1}, \cite{RV2}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} Corollary \ref{det-formula} is also valid for the case $\beta=0$. Here, the Dunkl process is an
$N$-dimensional Brownian motion, and the Bessel process a Brownian motion on $C_N^A$
which is reflected on $\partial C_N^A$. We here have $\mathbb E(e^N_k(X_{t}^0))=0$ for $k\ge1$.
\end{remark}
\section{Bessel processes of type B}
In this section we study Bessel processes
for the root systems $B_N$ with multiplicities $(k_1,k_2):=(\nu\cdot\beta, \beta)$
with parameters $\nu\ge0,\beta>0$. These processes $( X_{t}:=(X_{t,1},\ldots,X_{t,N} ))_{t\ge0}$
have values on the closed Weyl chamber
$$C_N^B:=\{x\in \mathbb R^N: \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\ldots\ge x_N\ge0\}$$
of type B and satisfy the SDE
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-B}
dX_{t,i}^\beta = dB_{t,i}+ \beta \sum_{j\ne i} \Bigl(\frac{1}{X^\beta_{t,i}-X^\beta_{t,j}}+ \frac{1}{X^\beta_{t,i}+X^\beta_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt
+ \frac{\nu\cdot\beta}{X^\beta_{t,i}}dt\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$
with an $N$-dimensional Brownian motion $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$
where the paths are reflected when they meet the boundary $\partial C_N^B$ of $C_N^B$.
Again, by Proposition 6.1 of \cite{CGY},
the process does not meet the boundary in positive time almost surely for $\beta\ge 1/2$ and $\nu\ge1$.
Again we also study the renormalized processes
$(\tilde X^\beta_{t}:=X_{t}/\sqrt \beta)_{t\ge0}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-B-normalized}
d\tilde X^\beta_{t,i} =\frac{1}{\sqrt \beta}dB_{t,i} + \sum_{j\ne i}
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\tilde X^\beta_{t,i}-\tilde X^\beta_{t,j}}
+ \frac{1}{\tilde X^\beta_{t,i}+\tilde X^\beta_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt +\frac{\nu}{\tilde X^\beta_{t,i}}dt
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$ where we usually omit the parameter $\beta$ in $\tilde X_t^\beta$.
We now derive an analogue of Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} which involves functions, which are invariant under
the Weyl group of type $B_N$. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t}, let
$\tilde X_{t,S}$ be the $\mathbb R^{|S|}$-valued
random vector with the
coordinates $\tilde X_{t,i}$ for $i\in S$ in the natural ordering on a subset $S\subset\{1,\ldots,N\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{symmetric-pol-in-t-b}
For all $\beta\ge 1/2$, $\nu\ge1$, $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, and $l\ge 0$
\begin{align}d(t^l\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^2)&)=
\frac{2t^l}{\sqrt\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N\tilde X_{t,j}\cdot e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2 )\>
dB_{t,j}\notag\\
&+\Biggl( lt^{l-1}\cdot e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2)
+2t^l (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))(N-k+1)e^N_{k-1}(\tilde X_{t}^2)\Biggr)dt.
\notag\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} As $d[\tilde X_{t,i},\tilde X_{t,j}]= \frac{\delta_{i,j}}{\beta}dt$ by (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}),
It\^{o}'s formula implies that
\begin{align}d(t^l\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^2))= &
lt^{l-1}\cdot e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^2) \> dt+
t^l\sum_{j=1}^N 2\tilde X_{t,j}\cdot e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2)\> d\tilde X_{t,j}
\notag\\
& + \frac{t^l}{\beta}\sum_{j=1}^Ne_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2)\> dt.\notag
\end{align}
\if 0
\textcolor{blue}{Just for double-checking: Ito's formula \begin{align*}
d(f(t,X_t)) = \partial_t f(t,X_t)dt + \sum_i(\partial_{x_i} f)(t,X_t)dX_{t,i} + \frac12 \sum_{i,j} (\partial_{x_i} \partial_{x_j} f)(t,X_t) d[X_i,X_j]_t
\end{align*}
set $f(t,x)=t^le_k^N (x^2)$, then
$$ \partial_{x_j} f(x)= 2x_j e_{k-1}^{N-1}(x_{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus{j}}^2) \quad \quad \partial_{x_j}^2 f(x) = 2 e_{k-1}^{N-1}(x^2_{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus \{i\}}), $$
furthermore $d[X_{i},X_j]_t = \delta_{ij} \beta^{-1}dt$. } \fi
Therefore, by the SDE (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}),
\begin{align}\label{elementary-symm-b-1}
d(t^l\cdot e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2))&= lt^{l-1}\cdot e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2) \> dt+
\frac{2t^l}{\sqrt\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N\tilde X_{t,j}\cdot e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2 )\>
dB_{t,j}\notag\\
&+
2t^l\sum_{i,j; i\ne j} \Bigl(
\frac{ e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2)X_{t,j}}{\tilde X_{t,j}-\tilde X_{t,i}}
+\frac{ e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2)X_{t,j}}{\tilde X_{t,j}+\tilde X_{t,i}}\Bigr)dt
\notag\\
&+2t^l\nu\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2) \> dt
+\frac{t^l}{\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2) \> dt
\notag\\
&= lt^{l-1}\cdot e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2) \> dt+
\frac{2t^l}{\sqrt\beta}\sum_{j=1}^N\tilde X_{t,j}\cdot e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2 )\>
dB_{t,j}\notag\\
&+2t^l\sum_{i,j; i\ne j} \Bigl(
\frac{\tilde X_{t,j}^2 e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2 )-
\tilde X_{t,i}^2 e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i\}}^2 )}{\tilde X_{t,j}^2-\tilde X_{t,i}^2}
\Bigr)dt
\notag\\
&+2t^l(\nu+1/(2\beta))\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2) \> dt.
\end{align}
Simple combinatorial computations (cf. (4.9)-(4.12) in \cite{VW}) show for $i\neq j$ and $k\ge2$ that
\begin{align}\label{elementary-symm-b-2}
\tilde X_{t,j}^2 e_{k-1}^{N-1}&(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2 )-
\tilde X_{t,i}^2 e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i\}}^2 )\\
&=
(\tilde X_{t,j}^2-\tilde X_{t,i}^2)\cdot e_{k-1}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}}^2 ),\notag
\end{align}
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-b-4}
\sum_{i,j=1,\ldots,N; i\ne j} e_{k-1}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}}^2 )=
(N-k+1)(N-k) e_{k-1}^{N}(\tilde X_{t}^2),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-b-3}
\sum_{j=1}^N e_{k-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t,\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}^2)=(N-k+1)e^N_{k-1}(\tilde X_{t}^2).
\end{equation}
(\ref{elementary-symm-b-2})-(\ref{elementary-symm-b-3}), and (\ref{elementary-symm-b-1})
now lead to the lemma for $k\ge2$. For $k=1$, the lemma also follows by an even simpler computation.
\end{proof}
We also have the following analogue of Lemma \ref{Brownian-martingale} by the same reasons.
The proof is very similar, hence omitted.
\begin{lemma}\label{Brownian-martingale-b}
For each polynomial $p$ in $N$ variables, $i=1,\ldots,N$, and $l\ge0$, the process
$\Bigl(\int_0^t s^l\cdot p(\tilde X_{s})\> dB_s^i)_{t\ge0}$
is a martingale.
\end{lemma}
With Lemmas \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t-b} and \ref{Brownian-martingale-b}, we obtain the following martingales:
\begin{proposition}\label{elementary-symm-martingale-b}
For all $\nu\ge0$, $\beta>0$, $k=1,\ldots,N$, and all starting points $\tilde X_{0,\beta}\in C_N^B$, the process
\begin{align}
\Biggl( e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2) + \sum_{l=1}^{k} {(-2t)}^l\binom{N-k+l}{l} (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_l \cdot
e_{k-l}^N(\tilde X_{t}^2)
\Biggr)_{t\ge0}
\notag\end{align}
(with the Pochhammer symbol $(x)_r:=x(x+1)\cdots(x+r-1)$)
is a martingale.
\if 0
\textcolor{blue}{I believe the right formula is
$$ \Bigg( e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2) + \sum_{l=1}^{k} {(-2t)}^l\binom{N-k+l}{l} (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_l \cdot
e_{k-l}^N(\tilde X_{t}^2) \Bigg)_{t\ge0} $$
since
\begin{align*} d&\Bigg(\binom{N-1}{k-1}(N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_{k-1}(-2t)^{k-1}e_1^N(\tilde X_t^2)\Bigg) \\
& = (-2)^{k-1}\binom{N-1}{k-1}(N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_{k-1}\bigg((k-1)t^{k-2}e_1^N(\tilde X_t^2)\bigg. + \\ & \quad\quad \bigg. + 2t^{k-1} (N-1+\nu+1/(2\beta))N\bigg)dt+ \mbox{mart. part} \\
& = (... )e_1^N(\tilde X_t^2)\ dt + 2(-2t)^{k-1} (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_k \binom{N}{k} k\ dt + \mbox{mart. part}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
d&\bigg((-2t)^k \binom N k (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_k\bigg) = \\
& = (-2)^k k t ^{k-1} \binom N k (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_k\ dt = \\
&= -2(-2t)^{k-1} (N-k+\nu + 1 /(2\beta))_k \binom N k k\ dt.
\end{align*}
} \fi
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} For $\beta\ge 1/2$ and $\nu\ge1$,
it follows readily from Lemmas \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t-b} and \ref{Brownian-martingale-b} that
\begin{align}\label{mart-long-b}
\Biggl( e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}^2) +& \sum_{l=1}^{k-1} {(-2t)}^l\binom{N-k+l}{l} (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_l
e^N_{k-l}(\tilde X_{t}^2)
\notag \\
& + (-{2})^k\cdot\binom{N}{k}k (N-k+\nu+1/(2\beta))_{k}
\int_0^t s^{k-1} \> ds
\Biggr)_{t\ge0}
\notag\end{align}
is a martingale which proves the claim in this case. The extension to arbitrary $\beta,\nu$ follows again by
``analytic continuation'' as in the proof of Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale}.
\end{proof}
Notice that the algebraic functions in Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b},
which lead to martingales, depend on $\nu+1/(2\beta)$ only. Moreover, Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t-b} and
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b} remain valid for $\beta=\infty$, in which case the
SDE (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}) is an ODE, and the process $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ is deterministic
whenever so is the initial condition for $t=0$. There are several limit theorems
(laws of large numbers, CLTs) for the limit transition $\beta\to\infty$; see \cite{AKM2}, \cite{AV},
\cite{VW}. Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b} for $\beta\in]0,\infty]$ leads to:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-expectation-b}
For a fixed $x_0\in C_N^A$, let $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ be a Bessel process of type B
with start in $x_0$ for the parameters $\nu\ge0$ and $\beta\in]0,\infty]$.
Then for $k=0,1,\ldots,N$ and $t\ge0$, the expectations
$\mathbb E( e_k^N(\tilde X_{t}^2) )$ depend on $\nu+1/(2\beta)$ only (and not on $\nu,\beta$).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} This is clear by
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b} and induction.
\end{proof}
We now start in $x_0=0\in C_N^A$. Then for $\beta=\infty$, the solution of the
ODE (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}) can be written via zeros of some
Laguerre polynomial. For this we recapitulate that
for $\alpha>0$,
the Laguerre polynomials
\begin{equation}\label{def-laguerre}
L_n^{(\alpha)}(x)= \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n+\alpha}{n-k} \frac{(-x)^k}{k!}
\end{equation}
are orthogonal w.r.t.~the density $e^{-x}\cdot x^{\alpha}$ on $]0,\infty[$ as in \cite{S}.
We need the following fact; see \cite{AKM1},
Section 6.7 of \cite{S}, or, in the present notation, \cite{AV}:
\begin{lemma}\label{char-zero-B}
Let $\nu>0$ and denote by $z_1^{(\nu-1)}> \ldots>z_N^{(\nu-1)}>0$ the ordered zeros of $L_N^{(\nu-1)}$.
Then the vector $y\in C_N^B$ with
$y^2:=(y_1^2, \ldots, y_N^2)=2(z_1^{(\nu-1)},\ldots, z_N^{(\nu-1)})$
satisfies
$$\frac{1}{2}y_i=
\sum_{j: j\ne i} \Bigl(\frac{1}{y_i-y_j} +\frac{1}{y_i+y_j}\Bigr) +\frac{\nu}{y_i} \quad\quad (i=1,\ldots,N).$$
\end{lemma}
This leads to the following solutions of the ODEs (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}) for $\beta=\infty$; cf.~\cite{AV}:
\begin{corollary}\label{special-solution-B1}
Let $\nu>0$ and $y\in C_N^B$ the vector in Lemma \ref{char-zero-B}.
Then $\phi(t)= \sqrt{t}\cdot y $ is a solution of (\ref{SDE-B-normalized}) for $\beta=\infty$.
\end{corollary}
This result has the following consequence:
\begin{corollary}\label{det-formula-b} Let $( X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ be the Bessel process of type B
starting in 0 with parameters $\nu\ge 0,\beta>0$.
Then,
\begin{align} \label{Lag_det_form}\nonumber \mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}^2)\bigr) &= c_{(\beta\nu,\beta)}^B \int_{\mathbb R^N} \big(\prod_{i=1}^N(y-x_i^2)\big) \cdot t^{-\gamma_{(\beta\nu,\beta)}^B-N/2}\mathrm e^{-\|x\|^2/(2t)} \\ & \hspace{2cm} \times \prod_{i<j}(x_i^2-x_j^2)^{2\beta} \prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{2\beta\nu}\ dx \\ & = (2t \beta)^{N}\cdot(-1)^NN!\cdot L_N^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)}(y/(2t\beta))
\quad\quad\text{for}\quad y\in \mathbb R.\end{align}
Moreover, for $k=0,1,\ldots,N$,
\begin{equation}\label{det-form-b-2}
\mathbb E(e^N_k( X_{t}^2))= \binom{N+\nu+1/(2\beta)-1}{k} \cdot \frac{N!}{(N-k)!}\cdot (2t \beta)^{k}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} As here we need processes with different parameters, we denote the Bessel processes and their normalizations with parameters
$\nu,\beta$ by $(X_t(\nu,\beta))_{t\ge 0}$ and $(\tilde X_t(\nu,\beta))_{t\ge 0}$ respectively.
Corollary \ref{constant-expectation-b} and Lemma \ref{special-solution-B1} yield
\begin{align}\label{computation-det-lagu}
\mathbb E\bigl(&\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i}(\nu,\beta)^2)\bigr)=
\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k \mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k( X_{t}(\nu,\beta)^2)) \cdot y^{N-k}\\
&=\beta^{N}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k \mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}(\nu,\beta)^2)) \cdot (y/\beta)^{N-k}\notag\\
&=\beta^{N}\sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k \mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k(\tilde X_{t}(\nu+1/(2\beta),\infty)^2)) \cdot (y/\beta)^{N-k}\notag\\
&=\beta^{N} \sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k e^N_k(2t\cdot(z_1^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)},\ldots, z_N^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)})) \cdot(y/\beta)^{N-k} \notag\\
&=(2t \beta)^{N} \sum_{k=0}^N (-1)^k e^N_k(z_1^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)},\ldots, z_N^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)}) \cdot(y/(2t\beta))^{N-k}\notag\\
&=(2t \beta)^{N} \prod_{i=1}^N ( y/(2t\beta) - z_i^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)})\notag\\
&
=(2t \beta)^{N}\cdot(-1)^NN!\cdot L_N^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)}(y/(2t\beta)) .
\notag\end{align}
Notice that the last equation follows from the fact that $L_N^{(\nu+1/(2\beta)-1)}$
has the leading coefficient $(-1)^N/N!$; see (5.1.8) in \cite{S}. This proves the first statement.
The second statement follows by a comparison of the coefficients in (\ref{computation-det-lagu}) and
(\ref{def-laguerre}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Corollary \ref{det-formula-b} can be also applied in the limit case $\beta=0$. In this case, the
Bessel process is independent of $\nu$ and
a Brownian motion on $C_N^B$ where the paths are reflected on $\partial C_N^B$.
Moreover, writing $\mathbb E(e^N_k( X_{t}(\nu,\beta)^2))$ as an integral
over $C_N^B$ with the explicit densities
of the random variables $X_{t}(\nu,\beta)$ for arbitrary $\beta,\nu\ge0$ as in \cite{RV1},
implies by dominated convergence that $\mathbb E(e^N_k( X_{t}^2))$ depends continuously on $\beta,\nu$.
Hence, by Corollary \ref{det-formula-b}, for $\beta=0$ and
$k=0,1,\ldots,N$,
$$\mathbb E(e^N_k( X_{t}^2))= (2t)^{k} \binom{N}{k}$$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For the cases $\beta=1/2,1,2$ and start in $0$, Corollary \ref{det-formula-b} admits an interpretation for
Wishart processes and chiral ensembles.
In particular we obtain Proposition 12 and Corollary 1 of \cite{FG} in the Gaussian cases.
For the details of the connection we refer to Section 3 of \cite{RV2}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Corollary \ref{det-formula-b} suggests that it might be interesting to study the expectation of
$\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i})$
for a Dunkl process $( X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ on $\mathbb R^N$ of type $B_{N}$ with arbitrary multiplicities $(k_1,k_2)$ with $k_1,k_2>0$
where the process starts in $0\in \mathbb R^N$.
For the theory of Dunkl processes and the notations we refer to \cite{CGY, GY, RV1, RV2}.
The result is however simple, as
the distributions $P_{X_{t}}$ of the $X_t$ are invariant under sign changes in all coordinates separately.
As thus $\mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k( X_{t})\bigr)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,N$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{charpol_rm}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i})\bigr)
= \sum_{k=0}^N \mathbb E\bigl(e^N_k( X_{t})\bigr)\cdot y^{N-k}=y^N \quad\quad(y\in \mathbb R).
\end{equation}
We also note that (\ref{charpol_rm}) coincides with the expectation of the characteristic polynomial of a general random square matrix with independent, centered elements.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b} and Corollary \ref {det-formula-b}
hold also for Bessel processes $(X_{t}^D)_{t\ge0}$
of type $D_N$ which live on the
closed Weyl chamber
$$C_N^D=\{x\in\mathbb R^N: \quad x_1\ge \ldots\ge x_{N-1}\ge |x_N|\},$$
and which depend on a one-dimensional multiplicity $\beta\ge 0$.
These processes
may be regarded a doubling of the processes $(X_{t}^B)_{t\ge0}$ of type B w.r.t.~the last coordinate
with the same $\beta$ and $\nu=0$.
More precisely, the squared processes
$((X_{t}^D)^2)_{t\ge0}$ and $((X_{t}^B)^2)_{t\ge0}$ are equal in distribution.
This shows that Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale-b} and Corollary \ref {det-formula-b}
remain valid for $\nu=0$ there.
\end{remark}
Funding: The first author has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG) via RTG 2131 High-dimensional Phenomena in Probability - Fluctuations and Discontinuity to visit Dortmund for the preparation of this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a complex Hilbert space with usual inner product $\langle .,. \rangle$ and $\|.\|$ be the norm induced from $\langle .,. \rangle$. Let $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ denote the $C^*$-algebra of all bounded linear operators on $\mathcal{H}.$ Throughout this article we assume $I$ and $O$ are identity operator and zero operator on $\mathcal{H}$, respectively. A self-adjoint operator $A\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is called positive if $\langle Ax,x \rangle \geq 0$ for all $x\in \mathcal{H}$ and is called strictly positive if $\langle Ax,x \rangle > 0$ for all $(0\neq)x\in \mathcal{H}$. For a positive (strictly positive) operator $A$ we write $A\geq 0$ $(A>0)$. Let $B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A&O \\
O&A
\end{array}\right)$. Then $B \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H})$ is positive or strictly positive if $A$ is positive or strictly positive respectively. Let us fix the alphabets $A$ and $B$ for positive operator on $\mathcal{H}$ and $ \mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}$ respectively. Clearly $A$ induces a positive semidefinite sesquilinear form $\langle .,. \rangle _A : \mathcal{H} \times \mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined as $\langle x,y \rangle _A=\langle Ax,y \rangle$ for $x,y\in \mathcal{H}$. Let $\|.\|_A$ denote the semi-norm on $\mathcal{H}$ induced from the sesquilinear form $\langle .,. \rangle_A,$ that is, $\|x\|_A=\sqrt{\langle x,x \rangle_A}$ for all $x\in \mathcal{H}.$ It is easy to verify that $\|.\|_A$ is a norm if and only if $A$ is a strictly positive operator. Also $(\mathcal{H}, \|.\|_A)$ is complete space if and only if the range $\mathcal{R}(A)$ of $A$ is closed in $\mathcal{H}$. By $\overline {\mathcal{R}(T)}$ we denote the norm closure of $\mathcal{R}(T)$ in $\mathcal{H}$. For $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, A-operator semi-norm of $T$, denoted as $\|T\|_A$, is defined as \[\|T\|_A=\sup_{x\in \overline{\mathcal{R}(A)},x\neq 0}\frac{\|Tx\|_A}{\|x\|_A}.\]
Here we note that for a given $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, if there exists $c>0$ such that $\|Tx\|_A \leq c\|x\|_A$ for all $x\in \overline{\mathcal{R}(A)}$ then $\|T\|_A<+\infty$.
Again A-minimum modulus of $T$, denoted as $m_A(T)$ (see \cite{Z2}), is defined as \[m_A(T)=\inf_{x\in \overline{\mathcal{R}(A)},x\neq 0}\frac{\|Tx\|_A}{\|x\|_A}.\]
We set $\mathcal{B}^A(\mathcal{H})=\{ T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}): \|T\|_A <+ \infty\}.$ It is easy to verify that $\mathcal{B}^A(\mathcal{H})$ is not generally a subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\|T\|_A=0$ iff $ATA=0.$
For $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, an operator $R \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is called an $A$-adjoint of $T$ if for every $x,y \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $\langle Tx,y \rangle_A=\langle x,Ry \rangle_A$, that is, $AR=T^*A$ where $T^*$ is the adjoint of $T$. For any operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, A-adjoint of $T$ may or may not exist. In fact, an operator $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ may have one or more than one A-adjoint operators, also it may have none. By Douglas Theorem \cite{doug}, we have that an operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ admits A-adjoint if
$$\mathcal{R}(T^{*}A)\subseteq \mathcal{R}(A). $$
Now we consider an example that $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&0\\
0&1
\end{array}\right)$ and $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&1\\
1&0
\end{array}\right)$ on $\mathbb{C}^2.$ Then we see that $\mathcal{R}(T^{*}A)=\{(x,0):x\in \mathbb{C}\}$ and $\mathcal{R}(A)=\{(0,x):x\in \mathbb{C}\}.$ So by Douglas Theorem \cite{doug} we conclude that $T$ have no A-adjoint.
\noindent Let $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ be the collection of all operators in $ \mathcal{B}^A(\mathcal{H})$ which admits A-adjoint. Note that $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ is a sub-algebra of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ which is neither closed nor dense in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}).$ For $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, A-adjoint operator of $T$ is written as $T^{\sharp_A}$. It is well known that $T^{\sharp_A}=A^\dag T^*A$ where $A^\dag$ is the Moore-Penrose inverse of $A$, (see \cite{MKX}). It is useful that if $T \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ then $AT^{\sharp_A}=T^*A$. An operator $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ is said to be A-self-adjoint operator if $AT$ is self-adjoint, that is, $AT=T^*A$ and it is called A-positive if $AT\geq 0$. For A-positive operator $T$ we have
\[\|T\|_A=\sup\{\langle Tx,x \rangle_A: x\in \mathcal{H}, \|x\|_A=1\}.\]
An operator $U\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ is said to be $A$-unitary if $U^{\sharp_A}U=(U^{\sharp_A})^{\sharp_A}U^{\sharp_A}=P_A$, $P_A$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\overline{\mathcal{R}(A)}.$ Here we note that if $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ then $T^{\sharp_A}\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, $(T^{\sharp_A})^{\sharp_A}=P_ATP_A$. Also $T^{\sharp_A}T$, $TT^{\sharp_A}$ are A-self-adjoint and A-positive operators and so
\[\|T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A =\|TT^{\sharp_A}\|_A =\|T\|^2_A =\|T^{\sharp_A}\|^2_A.\]
Also for $T,S \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, $(TS)^{\sharp_A}=S^{\sharp_A}T^{\sharp_A}$, $\|TS\|_A\leq \|T\|_A\|S\|_A$ and $\|Tx\|_A\leq \|T\|_A\|x\|_A$ for all $x\in \mathcal{H}.$ For further details we refer the reader to \cite{ACG, ACG2, AS}. For an operator $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, we write $\textit{Re}_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}(T+T^{\sharp_A})$ and $\textit{Im}_A(T)=\frac{1}{2i}(T-T^{\sharp_A})$.\\
For $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, A-numerical radius of $T$, denoted as $w_A(T)$, is defined as
\[ w_A(T)=\sup\{|\langle Tx,x \rangle_A|: x \in \mathcal{H}, \|x\|_A=1\}, ~~\mbox{(see \cite{BFA})}. \]
Also, for $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, A-Crawford number of $T$, denoted as $c_A(T)$ (see \cite{Z2}), is defined as
\[c_A(T)=\inf\{|\langle Tx,x \rangle_A|: x\in \mathcal{H}, \|x\|_A=1\}.\]
For $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$, it is well-known that A-numerical radius of $T$ is equivalent to A-operator semi-norm of $T$, (see \cite{Z}), satisfying the following inequality:
\[\frac{1}{2}\|T\|_A \leq w_A(T)\leq \|T\|_A.\]
\noindent Over the years many mathematicians have studied numerical radius inequalities in \cite{BBP1,B, BBP, BBP2, D, GR, HKS, HKS2, KMY, K, PB, PB2, S, Y}.
Recently, Zamani \cite{Z} have studied A-numerical radius and computed some inequalities for A-numerical radius. In this paper, we compute some inequalities for B-numerical radius of $2 \times 2$ operator matrices which generalize and improve on the existing inequalities. Also we obtain some inequalities for A-numerical radius of operators in $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ which improve on the existing inequalities in \cite{Z}. Further we obtain A-numerical radius bounds for sum of product of operators in $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ which improve on the existing bounds.
\section{\textbf{A-numerical radius inequalities for operators in $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$}}
We begin this section with the following three results proved by Zamani \cite{Z}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Z3}
Let $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ be an $A$-self-adjoint operator. Then
\[w_A(T)=\|T\|_A.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Z1}
Let $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$. For every $\theta \in \mathbb{R},$
\[w_A\left (\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta }T) \right )=\left\| \textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta }T) \right\|_A.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Z2}
Let $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$. Then
\[w_A(T)=\sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}}\left\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta }T)\right\|_A ~~\mbox{ and } ~~w_A(T)=\sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}}\left\|\textit{Im}_A(e^{i\theta }T)\right\|_A. \]
\end{lemma}
\noindent Next we compute B-numerical radius for some $2 \times 2$ operator matrices. First we note that the operator $T=(T_{ij})_{2 \times 2}$ is in $\mathcal{B}_B(\mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H})$ if the operator $T_{ij}$ (for $i,j=1,2$) are in $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ and in this case (see \cite[Lemma 3.1]{BFP}) $T^{\sharp_B}=(T_{ji}^{\sharp_A})_{2 \times 2}.$ We now prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:1}
Let $X,Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H}) $. Then the following results hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&(i) ~~ w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
X&O \\
O&Y
\end{array}\right)=\max \left \{ w_A(X), w_A(Y)\right \}.\\
&&(ii)~~ \textit{If}~~ A>0 ~~\textit{then}~~ w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) = w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&Y \\
X&O
\end{array}\right). \\
&&(iii) ~~ \textit{If} ~~ A>0~~ \textit{then}~~ \textit{for any}~~ \theta \in \mathbb{R},~~
w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
e^{i\theta}Y&O
\end{array}\right) = w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right).\\
&&(iv)~~ \textit{If} ~~ A>0~~ \textit{then}~~
w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
X&Y \\
Y&X
\end{array}\right)=\max \left \{ w_A(X+Y), w_A(X-Y)\right \}.\\
&& \textit{In particular}, ~~w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&Y \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)=w_A(Y).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) Let $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X&O \\
O&Y
\end{array}\right)$ and $u=(x,y)\in \mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}$ with $\|u\|_B=1$, i.e., $\|x\|^2_A+\|y\|^2_A=1.$ Now,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\langle Tu,u \rangle_B| &\leq& |\langle Xx,x \rangle_A|+|\langle Yy,y \rangle_A|\\
&\leq& w_A(X)\|x\|^2_A + w_A(Y)\|y\|^2_A \\
&\leq& \max \left \{ w_A(X), w_A(Y)\right \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|u\|_B =1$, we get
\[w_B(T) \leq \max \left \{ w_A(X), w_A(Y)\right \}.\]
Suppose $u = (x,0) \in \mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H} $ where $\|x\|_A =1.$ Then
\[|\langle Tu,u\rangle_B|=|\langle AXx,x\rangle|=|\langle Xx,x\rangle_A|.\]
Taking supremum over $\|x\|_A=1$, we get
\[ \sup_{\|x\|_A=1}|\langle Tu,u\rangle_B|=w_A(X)\]
and so we have $w_B(T) \geq w_A(X).$
Similarly, if we take $v =(0,y) \in \mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}$ with $\|y\|_A=1$ then we can show that $w_B(T) \geq w_A(Y).$ Therefore, $w_B(T) \geq \max \left \{ w_A(X), w_A(Y)\right \}.$ This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (i).\\
\noindent(ii) The proof follows from the observation that $w_B(U^{\sharp_B}TU) = w_B(T)$ (see \cite[Lemma 3.8]{BFP}) if $U$ is an $B$-unitary operator on $\mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}$, here we take $U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&I \\
I&O
\end{array}\right)$.\\
\noindent(iii) As in (ii) we now take $U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I&O \\
O&e^\frac{i\theta}{2}I
\end{array}\right)$.\\
\noindent(iv) Let $U= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I&I \\
-I&I
\end{array}\right)$ and $T= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
X&Y \\
Y&X
\end{array}\right)$. Then an easy calculation we have
\[U^{\sharp_B}TU = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
X-Y&O \\
O&X+Y
\end{array}\right).\] Using Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (i) and $w_B(U^{\sharp_B}TU) = w_B(T)$ we get
\[w_B(T)=\max \left \{ w_A(X+Y), w_A(X-Y)\right \}.\]
Taking $X=O$ we get
\[w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&Y \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)=w_A(Y).\]
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (iv).
\end{proof}
Next we prove the following important lemma for $A$-positive operators.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:5}
Let $X, Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ be A-positive. If $X-Y$ is A-positive then \[ \|X\|_A \geq \|Y\|_A.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of A-positive operator we have , for all $x\in \mathcal{H}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\langle (X-Y)x,x\rangle_A \geq0\\
&\Rightarrow & \langle Xx,x\rangle_A \geq \langle Yx,x\rangle_A\\
&\Rightarrow & w_A(X) \geq \langle Yx,x\rangle_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|x\|_A=1,$ we get
\[w_A(X) \geq w_A(Y).\]
Since $X,Y$ are A-self-adjoint operators, so $ \|X\|_A \geq \|Y\|_A$.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:1}
Let $X,Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
w^{2}_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) &\geq& \frac{1}{4}\max \big\{\| XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y\|_A, \| X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}\|_A\big\} ~~\mbox{and} \\
w^{2}_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)
&\leq& \frac{1}{2}\max \big\{\| XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y\|_A, \| X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}\|_A\big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)$, $H_{\theta}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta}T)$ and $K_{\theta}=\textit{Im}_A(e^{i\theta}T).$
Then from an easy calculation we have,
\[H^2_{\theta}+K^2_{\theta}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right)\] where $M=XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y$, $N=X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}$.\\
Taking norm on both sides and then using Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we get
\[\frac{1}{2}\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right)\right\|_B=\|H^2_{\theta}+K^2_{\theta}\|_B\leq \|H_{\theta}\|^2_B+\|K_{\theta}\|^2_B\leq 2w^2_B(T).\]
Therefore we get,
\[\frac{1}{2}\max \big\{\| M\|_A, \| N\|_A \big\}\leq 2w^2_B(T).\]
This completes the proof of the first inequality.\\
Again, from $H^2_{\theta}+K^2_{\theta}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right) $~~\mbox{we have,} $H^2_{\theta}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right)=-K^2_{\theta}\leq 0.$
Therefore, $ H^2_{\theta}\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right)$. Using Lemma \ref{lemma:5}, we get
\[\|H_{\theta}\|^2_B\leq\frac{1}{2}\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M&O \\
O&N
\end{array}\right)\right\|_B=\frac{1}{2}\max \big\{\| M\|_A, \|N\|_A\big\}.\]
Taking supremum over $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$, we get
\[w^{2}_B(T) \leq \frac{1}{2}\max \big\{\| M\|_A, \|N\|_A\big\}.\] This completes the proof of the second inequality of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Next we state the corollary, the proof of which follows easily by considering $X=Y=T$ and $A>0$ in Theorem \ref{theorem:1}.
\begin{cor}\label{corollary}
Let $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ and $A>0.$ Then
\[\frac{1}{4}\| TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A \leq w^2_A(T) \leq \frac{1}{2}\| TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:1}
(i) Kittaneh \cite[Th. 1]{K} proved that if $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ then
\[\frac{1}{4}\| TT^{*}+T^{*}T\| \leq w^2(T) \leq \frac{1}{2}\| TT^{*}+T^{*}T\|,\]
which follows easily from Corollary \ref{corollary} by taking $A=I.$\\
(ii) Zamani \cite[Th. $2.10$]{Z} proved that
\[ w^2_A(T) \leq \frac{1}{2}\| TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A,\]
which clearly follows from the inequality obtained in Corollary \ref{corollary}.
\end{remark}
Next we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:2}
Let $X, Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$. Then\\
$w^{4}_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \geq \frac{1}{16}\max \big\{\| P\|_A, \| Q\|_A\big\} ~\mbox{and}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
w^{4}_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \leq \frac{1}{8}\max \Big\{\| XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y\|^2_A+4w^2_A(XY),\\
~~~~ \| X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}\|^2_A + 4w^2_A(YX)\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $P=(XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y)^2+4(\textit{Re}_A(XY))^2,Q=(X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A})^2+4(\textit{Re}_A(YX))^2.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)$, $H_{\theta}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta}T)$ and $K_{\theta}=\textit{Im}_A(e^{i\theta}T).$
Then we get,
\[H^4_{\theta}+K^4_{\theta}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right).\]
where $P_0=(XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y)^2+4(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta}XY))^2$, $Q_0=(X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A})^2+4(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta}YX))^2.$
Taking norm on both sides and using Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we get \\ $\frac{1}{8} \left \|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right)\right \|_B=\|H^4_{\theta}+K^4_{\theta}\|_B\leq \|H_{\theta}\|^4_B+\|K_{\theta}\|^4_B\leq 2w^4_B(T).$\\ Therefore we get,
\[\frac{1}{8}\max \big\{\| P_0\|_A, \| Q_0\|_A\big\}\leq 2w^4_B(T).\]
This holds for all $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, so taking $\theta=0$ we get,\\
$\frac{1}{8}\max \big\{\| P\|_A, \| Q\|_A\big\} \leq 2w^{4}_B(T).$
This completes the proof of the first inequality of the theorem.
\noindent Again, from $H^4_{\theta}+K^4_{\theta}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right)$ we have,
$H^4_{\theta}-\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right)=-K^4_{\theta}\leq 0.$
Therefore, $ H^4_{\theta}\leq\frac{1}{8}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right).$\\
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:5}, we get
\[\|H_{\theta}\|_B^4\leq\frac{1}{8}\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_0&O \\
O&Q_0
\end{array}\right)\right\|_B=\frac{1}{8}\max \big\{\| P_0\|_A, \| Q_0\|_A\big\}.\]
Therefore using Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we get
\[\|H_{\theta}\|_B^4\leq\frac{1}{8}\max \big\{\| XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y\|^2_A+4w^2_A(XY), \| X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}\|^2_A+4w^2_A(YX)\big\}.\]
Taking supremum over $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$ and using Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we get
\[w^{4}_B(T) \leq \frac{1}{8}\max \big\{\| XX^{\sharp_A}+Y^{\sharp_A}Y\|^2_A+4w^2_A(XY), \| X^{\sharp_A}X+YY^{\sharp_A}\|^2_A+4w^2_A(YX)\big\}.\] This completes the proof of the second inequality of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Now, taking $X=Y=T$ (say) and $A>0$ in the above Theorem \ref{theorem:2}, we get the following inequality.
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
Let $T\in B_A(H)$ where $A>0$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{16}\|(TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T)^2+4(\textit{Re}_A(T^2))^2\|_A &\leq & w^4_A(T)\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{8}\| TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|^2_A+\frac{1}{2}w^2_A(T^2).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{cor}
\begin{remark}
(i) In \cite[Th. 2.11]{BBP1} we proved that if $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{16}\|TT^{*}+T^{*}T\|^2+\frac{1}{4}m\left((\textit{Re}(T^2))^2\right) &\leq & w^4(T)\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{8}\| TT^{*}+T^{*}T\|^2+\frac{1}{2}w^2(T^2),
\end{eqnarray*}
which follows easily from Corollary \ref{cor1} by taking $A=I.$\\
(ii) Zamani \cite[Th. $2.10$]{Z} proved that
\[ w^2_A(T) \leq \frac{1}{2}\| TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A.\]
Since $w_A(T^2)\leq w^2_A(T)$ (see \cite[Prop. 3.10]{MXZ}), so $w_A(T^2)\leq \frac{1}{2}\|TT^{\sharp_A}+T^{\sharp_A}T\|_A.$ Therefore, the right hand inequality obtained in Corollary \ref{cor1} improves on the inequality obtained by Zamani \cite[Th. $2.10$]{Z}.
\end{remark}
We next prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:3}
Let $T \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\[w^{4}_A(T)\leq \frac{1}{4}w^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}w_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2,\] where $P=T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we have $w_A(T)=\sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}}\|H_\theta\|_A$ where $H_{\theta}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta}T)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_{\theta} & = & \frac{1}{2}(e^{i\theta} T + e^{-i\theta} T^{\sharp_A}) \\
\Rightarrow 4 {H_{\theta}}^2 &= & e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \\
\Rightarrow 16 {H_{\theta}}^4 &= & \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \big) \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \big)\\
&= & \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)^2+\big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)P \\
&& +P \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)+P^2\\
& = & 4\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)^2+ 2 \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} (T^2P+PT^2)) +P^2\\
\Rightarrow \| {H_{\theta}}^4 \|_A &\leq & \frac{1}{4}\big \| \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2) \big \|_A^2+\frac{1}{8}\big \| \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} (T^2P+PT^2)) \big \|_A +\frac{1}{16} \|P\|_A^2\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{4}w^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}w_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, we get,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Rightarrow w^{4}_A(T)&\leq&\frac{1}{4}w^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}w_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Using the inequality in Corollary \ref{cor2}, it is easy to see that if $A>0$ then $w_A(T^2P+PT^2)\leq 2w_A(T^2)\|P\|_A.$ In case $A>0$, we would like to remark that the inequality obtained in Theorem \ref{theorem:3} improves on the inequality \cite[Th. 2.11]{Z} obtained by Zamani. As for numerical example, if we consider $T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&1&0 \\
0&0&2\\
0&0&0
\end{array}\right)$ and $A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0 \\
0&1&0\\
0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$ on $\mathbb{C}^3$, then by simple computation we have
\[\frac{1}{4}w^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}w_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2=\frac{39}{16} < \frac{1}{16}\left (\| P\|_A+2w_A(T^2)\right )^2=\frac{49}{16}.\]
\end{remark}
Now we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:4}
Let $T \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\[w^{3}_A(T)\leq \frac{1}{4}w_A(T^3)+\frac{1}{4}w_A(T^2T^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T^2+TT^{\sharp_A}T).\] Moreover if $T^2=0$ then $w_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\|TT^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T\|_A}$ and if $T^3=0$ then $w^3_A(T)=\frac{1}{4}w_A(T^2T{^{\sharp_A}}+{T{^{\sharp_A}}}T^2+TT{^{\sharp_A}}T)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we have $w_A(T)=\sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}}\|H_\theta\|_A$ where $H_{\theta}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta}T)$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_{\theta} & = & \frac{1}{2}(e^{i\theta} T + e^{-i\theta} T^{\sharp_A}) \\
\Rightarrow 4 {H_{\theta}}^2 &= & e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + T^{{\sharp_A}}T+TT^{{\sharp_A}} \\
\Rightarrow 8H^3_{\theta} &= &\big( e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + T^{{\sharp_A}}T+TT^{{\sharp_A}}\big)(e^{i\theta} T + e^{-i\theta} T^{\sharp_A})\\
\Rightarrow H^3_{\theta} &= & \frac{1}{4}\textit{Re}_A(e^{3i\theta} T^3) +\frac{1}{4}\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta} (T^2T{^{\sharp_A}}+{T{^{\sharp_A}}}T^2+TT{^{\sharp_A}}T)\\
\Rightarrow \|H^3_{\theta}\|_A &\leq & \frac{1}{4}\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{3i\theta} T^3)\|_A +\frac{1}{4}\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta} (T^2T{^{\sharp_A}}+{T{^{\sharp_A}}}T^2+TT{^{\sharp_A}}T))\|_A\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{4}w_A(T^3)+\frac{1}{4}w_A(T^2T^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T^2+TT^{\sharp_A}T).
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, we get the desired inequality.\\
If $T^2=0$, then $4 {H_{\theta}}^2 = T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}$ and so $w_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\|TT^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T\|_A}.$\\
If $T^3=0$, then $H^3_{\theta} = \frac{1}{4}\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta} (T^2T{^{\sharp_A}}+{T{^{\sharp_A}}}T^2+TT{^{\sharp_A}}T))$ and so $w^3_A(T) = \frac{1}{4}w_A(T^2T{^{\sharp_A}}+{T{^{\sharp_A}}}T^2+TT{^{\sharp_A}}T)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Here we would like to remark that the bound obtained in Theorem \ref{theorem:4} improves on the existing upper bound in \cite[Cor. 2.8]{Z} when $A>0$. Note that if $T^2=0$ then $w_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\|TT^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T\|_A}$. But converse is not true, that is, $w_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\|TT^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T\|_A}$ does not always imply $T^2=O.$ As for example we consider $T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&2&0 \\
0&0&0\\
0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$ and $A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0 \\
0&1&0\\
0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$ on $\mathbb{C}^3$. Then we see that $w_A(T)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\|TT^{\sharp_A}+{T^{\sharp_A}}T\|_A}=1$ but $T^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&0 \\
0&0&0\\
0&0&1
\end{array}\right)\neq O.$
\end{remark}
Next we prove the following inequality.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:5}
Let $T \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$. Then for each $r\geq 1$,
\[w^{2r}_A(T)\leq \frac{1}{2}w^r_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{4}\big\|(T^{\sharp_A}T)^r+(TT^{\sharp_A})^r\big\|_A.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lemma:Z2}, we get $w_A(T)=\sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{R}}\|H_\theta\|_A$ where $H_{\theta}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\theta }T)$. Now,
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_{\theta} & = & \frac{1}{2}(e^{i\theta} T + e^{-i\theta} T^{\sharp_A}) \\
\Rightarrow 4 {H_{\theta}}^2 &= & e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A} \\
\Rightarrow {H_{\theta}}^2 & = & \frac{1}{2}\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2) +\frac{1}{4}(T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A})\\
\Rightarrow \|{H_{\theta}}^2\|_A & \leq & \frac{1}{2} \big\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big\|_A +\frac{1}{4}\big\|T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}\big\|_A
\end{eqnarray*}
For $r\geq 1$, $t^r$ and $t^{\frac{1}{r}}$ are convex and concave functions respectively and using that we get,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|{H_{\theta}}^2\|_A^r &\leq & \left \{\frac{1}{2} \big\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big\|_A +\frac{1}{2}\left\|\frac{T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}}{2}\right\|_A \right\}^r\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{2} \big\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big\|_A^r +\frac{1}{2}\left\|\frac{T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}}{2}\right\|_A^r\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{2} \big\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big\|_A^r +\frac{1}{2}\left\|\left(\frac{(T^{\sharp_A}T)^r+(TT^{\sharp_A})^r}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}\right\|_A^r\\
&= & \frac{1}{2} \big\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big\|_A^r +\frac{1}{2}\left\|\frac{(T^{\sharp_A}T)^r+(TT^{\sharp_A})^r}{2}\right\|_A\\
&\leq&\frac{1}{2}w^r_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{4}\left\|(T^{\sharp_A}T)^r+(TT^{\sharp_A})^r\right\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
w^{2r}_A(T)&\leq&\frac{1}{2}w^r_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{4}\big\|(T^{\sharp_A}T)^r+(TT^{\sharp_A})^r\big\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Here we would like to remark that if we take $r=1$ in the above Theorem \ref{theorem:5}, we get the inequality \cite[Th. 2.11]{Z} proved by Zamani .
\end{remark}
Now we obtain a lower bound for A-numerical radius.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:6}
Let $T \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\[w^{4}_A(T)\geq \frac{1}{4}C^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}c_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2,\] where $P=T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}, C_A(T)=\inf_{\|x\|_A=1}\inf_{\phi \in \mathbb{R}}\|\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\phi} T)x\|_A.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We know that $w_A(T)=\sup_{\phi \in \mathbb{R}}\|H_\phi\|_A$ where $H_{\phi}=\textit{Re}_A(e^{i\phi }T)$. Let $x$ be a unit vector in $H$ and $\theta$ be a real number such that $$e^{2i\theta}\langle(T^2P+PT^2)x,x\rangle_A = |\langle(T^2P+PT^2)x,x\rangle_A|.$$ Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_{\theta} & = & \frac{1}{2}(e^{i\theta} T + e^{-i\theta} T^{\sharp_A}) \\
\Rightarrow 4 {H_{\theta}}^2 &= & e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \\
\Rightarrow 16 {H_{\theta}}^4 &= & \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \big) \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 + P \big)\\
&= & \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)^2+\big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)P \\
&& +P \big(e^{2i\theta} T^2 + e^{-2i\theta} {T^{\sharp_A}}^2 \big)+P^2\\
& = & 4\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)^2+ 2 \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} (T^2P+PT^2)) +P^2\\
\Rightarrow 16 w^4_A(T) &\geq& \|4\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)^2+ 2 \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} (T^2P+PT^2)) +P^2\|_A\\
&\geq& | \langle \big(4\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)^2+ 2 \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} (T^2P+PT^2)) +P^2\big)x,x \rangle_A| \\
&=& | 4 \langle\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)^2x,x \rangle_A + 2 \textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} \langle (T^2P+PT^2)x,x\rangle_A) +\langle P^2x,x \rangle_A | \\
&=& 4 \|\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)x \|_A^2+ 2 |\langle (T^2P+PT^2)x,x\rangle_A| +\|Px\|_A^2 \\
&\geq& 4 \|\big(\textit{Re}_A(e^{2i\theta} T^2)\big)x \|_A^2+ 2 c_A(T^2P+PT^2) +\|Px\|_A^2 \\
\Rightarrow 16 w^4_A(T) &\geq& 4 C^2_A(T^2)+ 2 c_A(T^2P+PT^2) +\sup_{\|x\|_A=1}\|Px\|_A^2 \\
&=& 4 C^2_A(T^2)+ 2 c_A(T^2P+PT^2) +\|P\|_A^2 \\
\Rightarrow w^{4}_A(T)&\geq& \frac{1}{4}C^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}c_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is clear that $\frac{1}{4}C^2_A(T^2)+\frac{1}{8}c_A(T^2P+PT^2)+\frac{1}{16}\|P\|_A^2\geq \frac{1}{16}\|T^{\sharp_A}T+TT^{\sharp_A}\|_A^2 \geq \frac{1}{16}\|T\|_A^4.$ So, if $A>0$ then the inequality obtained in Theorem \ref{theorem:6} is better than the first inequality in \cite [Cor. 2.8]{Z}, obtained by Zamani.
\end{remark}
\section{\textbf{A-numerical radius inequalities for product of operators in $\mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$}}
We begin this section with the following $A$-numerical radius inequality for sum of product of operators.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:H1}
Let $ P,Q,X,Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\[w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A} \pm QYP^{\sharp_A}) \leq 2\|P\|_A\|Q\|_Aw_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right).\]
In particular, \[w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A} \pm QXP^{\sharp_A})\leq2\|P\|_A\|Q\|_Aw_A(X).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P&Q \\
O&O
\end{array}\right)$ and $Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)$. Then from an easy calculation we get, \[CZC^{\sharp_B}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
PXQ^{\sharp_A}+QYP^{\sharp_A}&O \\
O&O
\end{array}\right).\] Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A}+QYP^{\sharp_A})&=&w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
PXQ^{\sharp_A}+QYP^{\sharp_A}&O \\
O&O
\end{array}\right) \\
&=& w_B(CZC^{\sharp_B}),~~ \mbox{using Lemma }\ref{lemma:1}~~ (i) \\
&\leq& \|C\|_B^2w_B(Z), ~~\mbox{using \cite[Lemma 4.4]{Z}} \\
&=& \|PP^{\sharp_A}+QQ^{\sharp_A}\|_Aw_B(Z)\\
&\leq& (\|P\|_A^2 + \|Q\|_A^2)w_B(Z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Replacing $P ~~\mbox{and} ~~ Q $ by $tP~~\mbox{and } ~~ \frac{1}{t}Q$ respectively with $t > 0$ in this above inequality, we get
\[w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A}+QYP^{\sharp_A}) \leq \left(\frac{t^4\|P\|_A^2 + \|Q\|_A^2}{t^2}\right)w_B(Z).\]
Note that \[\min_{t>0} \frac{t^4\|P\|_A^2 + \|Q\|_A^2}{t^2}= 2\|P\|_A\|Q\|_A\]
and so
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A}+QYP^{\sharp_A}) \leq 2 \|P\|_A\|Q\|_A w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Replacing $Y$ by $-Y$ in the above inequality and using Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (iii), we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A}-QYP^{\sharp_A}) \leq 2 \|P\|_A\|Q\|_A w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking $X=Y$ and using Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (iv), we get
\[w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A} \pm QXP^{\sharp_A}) \leq 2\|P\|_A\|Q\|_Aw_A(X).\]
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Here we note that the inequality \[w_A(PXQ^{\sharp_A} + QYP^{\sharp_A})\leq 2\|P\|_A\|Q\|_Aw_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)\] in Theorem \ref{theorem:H1} holds also when $A\geq 0$.
\end{remark}
Considering $X=Y=T $ (say), $P=I$ in Theorem \ref{theorem:H1}, we get the following inequality.
\begin{cor}\label{cor2}
Let $T, Q \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\[w_A(TQ^{\sharp_A} \pm QT) \leq 2w_A(T)\|Q\|_A.\]
\end{cor}
Next we prove the following lemma, the idea of which is based on the result \cite[Lemma $3$]{BS} proved by Bernau and Smithes.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:G Y and S}
Let $X, T, Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then, for all $x\in \mathcal{H}$
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{number G1}
|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x\rangle_A|+|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x\rangle_A|\leq 2w_A(T)\|Xx\|_A\|Yx\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in \mathcal{H}$ and ${\theta, \phi}$ be real numbers such that $e^{i\phi}\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A=|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A|$, $e^{2i\theta}\langle e^{-i\phi}X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A=|\langle e^{-i\phi}X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A|=|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A|.$
Then for non-zero real number $\lambda$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& 2e^{2i\theta}\langle TYx,e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A+2 e^{i\phi}\langle TXx,Yx \rangle_A\\
&& \hspace{.8 cm}=\langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\\
&& \hspace{1.8 cm} - \langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\\
\Rightarrow && 2e^{2i\theta}\langle e^{-i\phi}X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A+2 e^{i\phi}\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A\\
&& \hspace{.8 cm}=\langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\\
&& \hspace{1.8 cm} - \langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\\
\Rightarrow && 2\left|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A \right|+2 \left |\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A \right |\\
&& \hspace{.8 cm}=\langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\\
&& \hspace{1.8 cm} - \langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Rightarrow && 2\left|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A \right|+2 \left |\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A \right |\\
&& \hspace{.8 cm}\leq \left |\langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A\right |\\
&& \hspace{1.8 cm} + \left |\langle e^{i\theta}T\left(\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right), \lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx \rangle_A \right|\\
\Rightarrow && 2\left|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A \right|+2 \left |\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A \right |\\
&& \hspace{.8 cm}\leq w_A(T) \left( \left\|\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right\|_A^2+ \left\|\lambda e^{i\theta}Yx-\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{i\phi}Xx\right\|_A^2 \right)\\
\Rightarrow && \left|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x \rangle_A \right|+ \left |\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x \rangle_A \right | \leq w_A(T) \left( \lambda^2 \|Yx\|_A^2+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|Xx\|_A^2 \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
This holds for all non-zero real $\lambda.$ If $\|Yx\|_A \neq 0,$ then we choose $\lambda^2=\frac{\|Xx\|_A}{\|Yx\|_A}.$ So, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x\rangle_A|+|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x\rangle_A|\leq 2w_A(T)\|Xx\|_A\|Yx\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly this inequality also holds when $\|Yx\|_A=0$, i.e., $Yx=0$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{BPN} we have already generalized the result obtained by Bernau and Smithes \cite[Lemma $3$]{BS} and proved some important numerical radius inequalities.
\end{remark}
Now using Lemma \ref{lemma:G Y and S}, we obtain the following inequalities involving A-numerical radius, A-Crawford number and A-operator norm.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem: G1}
Let $X, T, Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_A(X^{\sharp_A}TY)+w_A(Y^{\sharp_A}TX) &\leq & 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A\|Y\|_A,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_A(X^{\sharp_A}TY)+c_A(Y^{\sharp_A}TX) &\leq & 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A\|Y\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Taking $\|x\|_A=1$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:G Y and S}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x\rangle_A|+|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x\rangle_A|&\leq& 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A\|Y\|_A\\
\Rightarrow c_A(X^{\sharp_A}TY)+|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x\rangle_A| &\leq& 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A \|Y\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|x\|_A=1$, we get
\[c_A(X^{\sharp_A}TY)+w_A(Y^{\sharp_A}TX) \leq 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A \|Y\|_A. \]
Again taking $\|x\|_A=1$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:G Y and S}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x\rangle_A|+|\langle Y^{\sharp_A}TXx,x\rangle_A|&\leq& 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A\|Y\|_A\\
\Rightarrow |\langle X^{\sharp_A}TYx,x\rangle_A| + c_A(Y^{\sharp_A}TX) &\leq& 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A \|Y\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|x\|_A=1$, we get
\[w_A(X^{\sharp_A}TY)+c_A(Y^{\sharp_A}TX) \leq 2w_A(T)\|X\|_A \|Y\|_A. \]
This completes the proof of the theorem.\\
\end{proof}
Now taking $Y=I, T=X$ and $X=Y$ in the above Theorem \ref{theorem: G1}, we get the following upper bounds for the numerical radius of product of two operators, which improve on the existing bounds.
\begin{cor}\label{cor: G12}
Let $X,Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then the following inequalities hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_A(XY) &\leq& 2w_A(X)\|Y\|_A-c_A(Y^{\sharp_A}X), \\
w_A(XY) &\leq& 2w_A(Y)\|X\|_A-c_A(YX^{\sharp_A}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{cor}
\begin{remark}
For $A>0$, it is clear that the inequalities obtained in Corollary \ref{cor: G12} improve on the inequalities $w_A(XY)\leq 2w_A(X)\|Y\|_A $ and $w_A(XY)\leq 2w_A(Y)\|X\|_A$, (see \cite[Th. 3.4]{Z}).\\
\end{remark}
Finally using Lemma \ref{lemma:G Y and S} we obtain new inequalities for B-numerical radius of $2 \times 2$ operator matrices with zero operators as main diagonal entries.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem: G2}
Let $X, Y \in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ where $A>0$. Then the following inequalities hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
(i)~~\|X\|_A^2+ c_A(YX) &\leq& 2w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(ii)~~m_A^2(X)+ w_A(YX) &\leq& 2w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(iii)~~\|Y\|_A^2+ c_A(XY) &\leq& 2w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|Y\|_A,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
(iv)~~m_A^2(Y)+ w_A(XY) &\leq& 2w_B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|Y\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Taking $X=T$ and $Y=I$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:G Y and S} we get,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|Tx\|_A^2+|\langle T^2x,x\rangle_A| &\leq& 2w_A(T)\|Tx\|_A \|x\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
This also holds if we take $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right)$ and $x=(x_1,x_2) \in \mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}$ with $\|x\|_B=1$, i.e., $\|x_1\|_A^2+\|x_2\|_A^2=1$. Therefore we get,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|Xx_2\|_A^2+\|Yx_1\|_A^2+|\langle XYx_1,x_1\rangle_A+\langle YXx_2,x_2\rangle_A| &\leq & 2w_B (T) \left( \|Xx_2\|_A^2+\|Yx_1\|_A^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking $x_1=0$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|Xx_2\|_A^2+|\langle YXx_2,x_2\rangle|_A &\leq & 2 w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|Xx_2\|_A\\
\Rightarrow \|Xx_2\|_A^2+|\langle YXx_2,x_2\rangle_A| &\leq & 2 w _B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A\\
\Rightarrow \|Xx_2\|_A^2+c_A(YX) &\leq & 2 w _B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|x_2\|_A=1$, we get the inequality (i), i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|X\|_A^2+c_A(YX) &\leq & 2 w _B\left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Again from the inequality
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|Xx_2\|_A^2+|\langle YXx_2,x_2\rangle_A| &\leq & 2 w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A, ~~\mbox{we get}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_A^2(X)+|\langle YXx_2,x_2\rangle_A| &\leq & 2 w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking supremum over $\|x_2\|_A=1$, we get the inequality (ii), i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_A^2(X) + w_A(YX) &\leq & 2 w_B \left(\begin{array}{cc}
O&X \\
Y&O
\end{array}\right) \|X\|_A.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly taking $x_2=0$ and supremum over $ \|x_1\|_A=1,$ we can prove the remaining inequalities.\\
\end{proof}
Next taking $X=Y=T$ in Theorem \ref{theorem: G2} and using Lemma \ref{lemma:1} (iv), we get the following lower bounds for A-numerical radius.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:lower bounds}
Let $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ with $\|T\|_A \neq 0$ where $A>0$. Then the following inequalities hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{number 2}
w_A(T)&\geq& \frac{\|T\|_A}{2}+\frac{c_A(T^2)}{2\|T\|_A},
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{number 3}
w_A(T)&\geq& \frac{m_A^2(T)}{2\|T\|_A}+\frac{w_A(T^2)}{2\|T\|_A}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Here we note that the two inequalities obtain in Theorem \ref{theorem:lower bounds} are incomparable. So, using these bounds we have a new lower bound
\[w_A(T)\geq \frac{1}{2\|T\|_A}\max \big\{ \|T\|_A^2+c_A(T^2), m_A^2(T)+w_A(T^2) \big\},\]
where $T\in \mathcal{B}_A(\mathcal{H})$ with $\|T\|_A \neq 0$. It is clear that this inequality improves on the first inequality in \cite[Cor. 2.8]{Z}.
\end{remark}
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements:}
First and third author would like to thank UGC, Govt. of India for the financial support in the form of JRF. Prof. Kallol Paul would like to thank RUSA 2.0, Jadavpur University for the partial support.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Passive radar is not equipped with a dedicated transmitter but uses existing wireless sources as illuminators of opportunity (IOs) to detect and track targets of interest \cite{GriffithsBaker05,PalmerDavis13,GogineniRangaswamy14,ZhangAmin16,HackHimedSaville14,ZhangLiHimed16,WangLi18,KarthikBlum18,LiHeBlum19,ChenBlum19}. It has a number of advantages when compared with its active counterpart. First, many IO sources are usually available, including frequency modulation (FM) radio, television, digital audio/video broadcasting, cellular systems, satellites, and many others \cite{GriffithsBaker05,PalmerDavis13,GogineniRangaswamy14,ZhangAmin16}. Second, passive radar is more covert and economical since it does not require a transmitter and there is no transmitter operation related cost. Finally, the bi-static or multi-static configuration of passive radar enables it to exploit the associated spatial diversity. Despite such advantages, passive radar cannot apply beam steering on transmit routinely used in active radar. It has no control on the transmitter location/power and, moreover, the IO waveform is intended for communication, not optimized for sensing purpose.
To address the above limitations, a new paradigm of hybrid radar that consists of both an active and a passive component was introduced in \cite{GaoHimed17}. The motivation was to take advantage of the strengths of both active and passive sensing. On one hand, the passive component allows the hybrid system to easily form a bi-static or multi-static configuration with existing IOs to obtain spatial diversity, while reducing the transmit power of the active component by leveraging the illumination from the IOs. On the other hand, the active component of the system can steer its transmit beam as needed and employ optimized transmit waveform to complement the passive component. The hybrid system \cite{GaoHimed17} assumes the passive and active components operate in different frequency bands with no mutual interference. In recent years, there is an increasing interest in co-channel existence of radar and communication systems due to spectrum shortage (e.g., \cite{LiPetropuluTrappe16,ZhengLopsGrossi18,WangLiGovoni19,ZhengLopsWang2019,MishraKoivunen2019}). There have been a number of efforts exploring co-channel illuminations from both an active radar and communication sources to perform radar functions \cite{BicaKoivunen15,BicaKoivunen17,HeBlum2019}, effectively resulting in co-channel hybrid active-passive radars. Specifically, \cite{BicaKoivunen15} examined radar waveform optimization based on the Neyman-Pearson detection performance and mutual information by exploiting the communication signals scattered off the target as useful target information at the radar receiver. Meanwhile, \cite{BicaKoivunen17} proposed a delay estimator from a multicarrier radar that exploits the communication signal in a passive manner. Recently, the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) for target localization was derived in \cite{HeBlum2019} to show the benefit of utilizing the target returns contributed from the communication transmitters in a co-channel multi-input multi-output (MIMO) radar and MIMO communication system.
A major challenge of a co-channel hybrid active-passive radar is mutual interference. Specifically, the radar receiver observes a target echo due to the active source and, simultaneously, another one due to the passive IO. While each alone is useful, observed together, they also interfere with one another, which has to be addressed by careful transmitter/waveform and receiver design. The subject has been under intensive investigation for active radar, including transmit waveform designs to meet certain requirements on the temporal or spatial characteristics of the radar waveform (e.g., \cite{MaioNicola09,MaioFarina11,CuiFogliaLi17,YuCuiKongLi19}), as well as joint transmit waveform and receiver designs with the additional goal to mitigate clutter or mutual interference created by different transmitters in MIMO radars \cite{AubryDeMaioFarina13,NaghshStoicaAubry14,AubryDeMaioNaghsh15,CiuonzoMaio2015,ChengAubryMaio17,ZhaoPalomar17,CuiCarotenutoKong17,CuiFuYuLi18}. Such designs often utilize prior knowledge of the target and/or clutter environment, and fall within the general framework of cognitive or fully adaptive radar \cite{Haykin06,BellRangaswamy141,BellRangaswamy142}. However, the design problem for hybrid radar is different, as the design parameters at disposal are those related to the active transmitter and receiver, e.g., the radar waveform and receive filters implemented at the receiver of the hybrid radar, and in general we cannot change the waveform and parameters of IO.
In this paper, we examine the joint design of radar waveform and receive filters for a hybrid active-passive radar system which consists of one IO and a monostatic active radar operating in the same frequency band. We consider a scenario where the interference from the radar to the communication system is negligible due to directive transmission of the radar \cite{WangJohnsonBaker17,NTIA10,sanders2012analysis}. We assume the IO waveform is partially known, i.e., the modulation format and pulse shaping waveform is known but the information symbols are unknown due to privacy related issues. Such knowledge was employed in passive radar to improve the target detection and estimation performance \cite{KarthikBlum18,ChenBlum19}. Here, we use it for the joint design of the radar waveform and receive filters to help separating the target echoes from the active and passive illumination and minimizing mutual interference. Since there may be uncertainties related to the locations of the target and/or the IO, which can cause an uncertainty in the timing of the radar and communication signals, we introduce two design criteria to cope with this issue. The first is a max-min (MM) criterion, which tries to optimize the worst-case performance metric, i.e., the output signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), within a delay uncertainty interval. The second is a weighted-sum (WS) criterion that employs a set of weights to form a weighted sum of the SINR at each delay within the delay uncertainty interval, which is useful in applications with prior knowledge about the timing uncertainty. Both design criteria result in nonconvex constrained optimization problems. We propose sequential convex programming methods to iteratively optimize the radar waveform and receive filters. In the absence of timing uncertainty, we show the two designs become identical, leading to a simplified solution. Our extensive numerical results show the proposed hybrid designs can achieve considerable performance improvements over conventional active-only or passive-only system.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The problem of interest is formulated in \ref{sec:signalmodel}. The timing uncertainty and proposed design criteria are discussed in Section \ref{subsec:ASynchronized}. Solutions to the proposed designs are presented in Section \ref{sec:proposedmethod}. Section \ref{sec:simulationresults} contains numerical results and discussion, followed by conclusions in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\emph{Notations}: We use boldface symbols for
vectors (lower case) and matrices (upper case). ${\mathbb C}^{N\times1}$
denotes the set of $N\times1$ vectors of complex numbers,
$(\cdot)^T$ the transpose, and $(\cdot)^H$ the conjugate
transpose. $\mathbf{0}$ and $\Ibf$ denote a matrix with zero
entries and an identity matrix, respectively. $\mathbb{E}\{\cdot\}$
represents the statistical expectation. $\mathbb{N}_K$ denotes a set defined as $\{-K,\cdots,0,\cdots,K\}$. $\text{tr}(\cdot)$ is the matrix trace operator. $\mathcal{N}(\ubf,\Sigmabf)$ denotes the Gaussian distribution with mean $\ubf$ and covariance matrix $\Sigmabf$. $\Abf\succeq\mathbf{0}$ indicates that $\Abf$ is a positive semi-definite matrix. Finally, $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$ denotes the Landau notation for complexity.
\section{Signal Model and Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:signalmodel}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig1}
\caption{A hybrid radar system with an active transmitter, an IO, and a shared receiver that receives from both the active and passive paths.}
\label{fgr:systemconfiguration}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we consider a hybrid active-passive radar system as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fgr:systemconfiguration}, where a broadcasting communication transmitter (Tx), referred to as an illuminator of opportunity (IO), and a monostatic radar system in the same neighborhood operate in the same frequency band. The radar system also tries to leverage the IO as a passive Tx, which is utilized along with the radar's own Tx to illuminate a target. In the following, we first introduce the signal model for the hybrid system and then discuss the formulation of the design.
For the hybrid system, the radar's active Tx emits a probing waveform, and its receiver (Rx) receives target echoes of both the probing waveform and the IO waveform simultaneously. We can obtain a baseband equivalent discrete-time signal by first down-converting the received signal and passing it through a sampling scheme with a sampling interval $T_s$. We assume that $T_s$ is very small so we obtain a good approximation of the continuous-time signal in an observation window $NT_s$. Then, the noise corrupted received signal $\ybf$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:sync}
\ybf=\alpha_r\sbf_r+\alpha_c\sbf_c+\wbf,
\end{equation}
where $\sbf_r\in{\mathbb C}^{N\times1}$ and $\sbf_c\in{\mathbb C}^{N\times1}$ denote the sampled waveform vector of the active radar, and respectively, the IO signal, $\alpha_r$ and $\alpha_c$ are the amplitudes of the target due to the active probing signal and the passive IO signal, respectively, and $\wbf$ denotes the noise with zero mean and covariance matrix $\sigma^2\Ibf$. Note that the target amplitudes can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\alpha_r=\rho h_r,\qquad
\alpha_c=\rho h_c,
\label{equ:rcs}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ denotes radar cross section (RCS) of the target, while $h_r$ and $h_c$ denote channel coefficients that include the effects of antenna gain and propagation related attenuation.
The received signal is filtered through two filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$, which are used to separate the reflections from the radar Tx and communication Tx:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mfout}
\begin{cases}
y_r=\wbf_r^H\ybf=\alpha_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r+\alpha_c\wbf_r^H\sbf_c+\wbf_r^H\wbf,\\
y_c=\wbf_c^H\ybf=\alpha_r\wbf_c^H\sbf_r+\alpha_c\wbf_c^H\sbf_c+\wbf_c^H\wbf.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\emph{Remark 1}: In this paper, we focus on a single-pulse scenario, where the target Doppler effect is neglected. For moving target detection, the radar can transmit a pulse train, i.e., multiple copies of $\sbf_r$, over a coherent processing interval (CPI). Each pulse is first filtered by $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$, and then the filtered outputs are processed by Doppler processing to expose the target Doppler shift.
After receive filtering, the output SINR can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:SINRDef}
\text{SINR}(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)=\text{SINR}_{r}(\sbf_r,\wbf_r)+\text{SINR}_{c}(\sbf_r,\wbf_c),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR}_{r}(\sbf_r,\wbf_r)=\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_r\vert^2\}\wbf_r^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_r}{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_c\vert^2\}\wbf_r^H\mathbb{E}\{\sbf_c\sbf_c^H\}\wbf_r+\sigma^2\wbf_r^H\wbf_r},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR}_{c}(\sbf_r,\wbf_c)=\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_c\vert^2\}\wbf_c^H\mathbb{E}\{\sbf_c\sbf_c^H\}\wbf_c}{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_r\vert^2\}\wbf_c^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_c+\sigma^2\wbf_c^H\wbf_c},
\end{equation}
where the communication waveform $\sbf_c$ is modeled as a random vector because of the message symbols it carries, which are assumed unknown. To facilitate discussions, we define the \emph{channel signal-to-noise ratio} (SNR) as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:gammar_r}
\gamma_r=\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_r\vert^2\}}{\sigma^2}=\rho^2\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert h_r\vert^2\}}{\sigma^2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{equ:gammar_c}
\gamma_c=\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert\alpha_c\vert^2\}}{\sigma^2}=\rho^2\frac{\mathbb{E}\{\vert h_c\vert^2\}}{\sigma^2}.
\end{equation}
Note these quantities are called channel SNRs since they do not include the transmitter power. Given these definitions, \eqref{equ:SINRDef} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:SINRdef}
\begin{split}
\text{SINR}(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)&=\frac{\gamma_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_r}{\gamma_c\wbf_r^H\mathbb{E}\{\sbf_c\sbf_c^H\}\wbf_r+\wbf_r^H\wbf_r}\\
&+\frac{\gamma_c\wbf_c^H\mathbb{E}\{\sbf_c\sbf_c^H\}\wbf_c}{\gamma_r\wbf_c^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_c+\wbf_c^H\wbf_c}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In this paper, we consider the joint design of the active radar waveform $\sbf_r$ and the receive filters, $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$, by maximizing the output SINR.
\emph{Remark 2}: For the design problem, the communication signal $\sbf_c$ is not fully known because the IO is non-cooperative and the message symbols carried by the communication signal may be unknown to the radar. On the other hand, the modulation format/waveform of the communication signal is usually known, which can be exploited to help the design. However, there are other uncertainties related to the locations of the target and/or the IO, which can cause an uncertainty in the timing of the radar and communication signals. Such uncertainties have to be addressed in the design.
\emph{Remark 3}: In our design, we consider primarily the mutual interference observed at the radar Rx, while the interference created by the radar waveform to a communication Rx is neglected. This reflects scenarios such as spectrum sharing between the air traffic control or marine radar and wireless systems \cite{WangJohnsonBaker17,NTIA10,sanders2012analysis}, in which the radar-to-communication interference is small due to directive transmission of the radar Tx.
\section{Timing Uncertainty and Design Criteria}
\label{subsec:ASynchronized}
In this section, we introduce the design criterion when the location-induced timing uncertainty is absent or present. The timing uncertainty refers to an uncertainty of the relative timing between the communication and radar waveforms, which has an impact on the composition of $\sbf_c$ in \eqref{equ:sync}. To elaborate, we first derive a linear representation for $\sbf_c$ assuming linear modulation for the communication signal, and then discuss how the timing uncertainty affect the representation and design criterion.
With linear digital modulation the baseband communication signal $s_c(t)$ can be expressed as \cite{proakis2001digital}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:ldm}
s_c(t)=\sum_{\ell=0}^{L-1}b_{\ell}g(t-\ell T_c),
\end{equation}
where $b_{\ell}$ denotes the $\ell$-th communication symbol, $g(t)$ is the symbol pulse shaping function which is assumed to have a duration of $IT_c$, $L$ is the number of communication symbols, and $T_c$ denotes the symbol duration. Here, to be consistent with the discrete model in Section \ref{sec:signalmodel}, we also obtain a discrete-time representation of $s_c(t)$ by using a fine sampling interval $T_s$. Let $P=T_c/T_s$ which is assumed to be an integer. Then, the discrete model of \eqref{equ:ldm} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:ldm_dis}
s_c(pT_s)=\sum_{\ell=0}^{L-1}b_{\ell}g(pT_s-\ell T_c),\,p=0,\cdots,M-1,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
M=(L+I-1)P
\end{equation}
denotes the total number of samples used to represent the communication waveform. Let $\sbf=[s_c(0),s_c(T_s),\cdots,s_c((M-1)T_s)]^T$. Then, we can express $\sbf$ as \cite{KarthikBlum18}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:ss}
\sbf=\Hbf\bbf,
\end{equation}
where $\bbf=[b_0,b_1,\cdots,b_{L-1}]^T$ contains the unknown communication symbols and $\Hbf$ is an $M\times L$ waveform matrix:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:Hmatrix}
\Hbf=
\left (
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\gbf_0 & \mathbf{0}_{P\times1} & \cdots & \mathbf{0}_{P\times1}\\
\vdots & \gbf_0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
\gbf_{I-1} & \vdots & \ddots & \mathbf{0}_{P\times1}\\
\mathbf{0}_{P\times1}& \gbf_{I-1}& \ddots & \gbf_0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\mathbf{0}_{P\times1} &\mathbf{0}_{P\times1} & \cdots & \gbf_{I-1}
\end{array}
\right ),
\end{equation}
with $\gbf_i=[g(-iT_c),g(T_s-iT_c),\cdots,g((P-1)T_s-iT_c)]^T$, $i=0,\cdots,I-1$.
We assume the radar system employs a pulse structure with a pulse repetition interval (PRI) $T$ and there are $L$ communication symbols in one radar PRI, i.e., $T=LT_c$. Each radar pulse has a duration $T_r$, which is also the observation interval in \eqref{equ:sync}, i.e., $T_r=NT_s$. The relative relation of $T$, $T_r$, and $T_c$ is illustrated in Fig.\,\ref{fgr:systemconfiguration_1}, which shows that the communication signal $\sbf_c$ observed in \eqref{equ:sync} is one segment of $\sbf$. However, the exact position, i.e., the starting and ending samples of $\sbf_c$, within $\sbf$ depends on the knowledge of the arrival time of the target returns, which are discussed next.
\subsection{No Timing Uncertainty}
\label{subsubsec:WitouthUncertainty}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{Fig2}
\caption{An illustration of the relative timing of the received radar and communication waveforms. Note that the radar pulse duration $T_r$ can be smaller or larger than the communication symbol duration $T_c$.}
\label{fgr:systemconfiguration_1}
\end{figure}
Let $\tau_r$ denote the propagation delay of the active path, i.e., the delay due to the transmission from the radar Tx to the target and then from the target back to the radar Rx (active path), and $\tau_c$ be similarly defined for the passive path. Suppose there is no timing uncertainty such that $\tau_r$ and $\tau_c$ are accurately known. Let $(x,~y)$, $(x_r,~y_r)$, and $(x_c,~y_c)$ denote the coordinates of the target, radar, and IO, respectively, in a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. Then, the propagation delay difference $\Delta\tau=\tau_r-\tau_c$ as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fgr:systemconfiguration_2} can be represented as
\begin{equation}
\Delta\tau=\frac{\sqrt{(x-x_r)^2+(y-y_r)^2}-\sqrt{(x-x_c)^2+(y-y_c)^2}}{c},
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light. Positive $\Delta \tau$ indicates that the IO is closer to the target than the active Tx and vice versa.
Note that $\Delta\tau$ is used by the receiver to determine the relative position of $\sbf_c$ within $\sbf$. Without loss of generality, we assume when timing uncertainty is absent, $\sbf_c$ is located in the middle of $\sbf$, which is referred to as the nominal position. When timing uncertainty is present (considered in the next subsection), the real position of $\sbf_c$ will be shifted to either the left or the right of the nominal position. It follows from the above discussion that, in the absence of timing uncertainty, the communication signal $\sbf_c$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\sbf_c=\Jbf\sbf,
\end{equation}
where
\[
\Jbf=
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc|cccc|ccc}
0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & \ddots &\vdots & 0 & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots & 0 & \ddots & \vdots\\
\vdots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots & \ddots & 0\\
\undermat{N\times \frac{M-N}{2}}{0 & \cdots & 0} & \undermat{N\times N}{0 & \cdots & 0 & 1} & \undermat{N\times \frac{M-N}{2}}{0 & \cdots & 0} \\
\end{array}
\right ).
\]
\\
\\
Substituting \eqref{equ:ss} into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ:withoutsc}
\sbf_c=\Jbf\Hbf\bbf.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig3}
\caption{Illustration of timing uncertainty caused by location uncertainty.}
\label{fgr:systemconfiguration_2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Timing Uncertainty}
\label{subsubsec:WithUncertainty}
As noted in \emph{Remark 2}, timing uncertainty may occur in practice due to uncertainties of the target location and IO location (IO may be placed on a moving platform, e.g., satellite). In addition, timing uncertainty may be caused by synchronization errors. All these uncertainties translate into (or can be modeled by) an uncertainty on the target location. Let $x+\Delta x$ and $y+\Delta y$ denote the true target coordinates relative to the nominal target coordinates $(x,y)$. Then, the true propagation delay difference can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Delta\tau'=&\frac{1}{c}\big(\sqrt{(x+\Delta x-x_r)^2+(y+\Delta y-y_r)^2}\\&-\sqrt{(x+\Delta x-x_c)^2+(y+\Delta y-y_c)^2}\big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since the timing uncertainty is generally unknown, the radar still uses the nominal propagation delay difference $\Delta \tau$ to perform sampling and alignment. This leads to an extra and unknown delay given by
\begin{equation}\label{equ:k}
k= \frac{\Delta\tau'-\Delta\tau}{T_s},
\end{equation}
which is assumed to be an integer. Taking this timing uncertainty into account, we can express the IO signal as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:async}
\sbf_c=\Jbf_k\Hbf\bbf,
\end{equation}
where $\Jbf_k$ is an $N\times M$ shifting matrix with the $(i,j)$-th element given by
\begin{equation}
\Jbf_k(i,j)=
\begin{cases}
1,~i=j-\bar{k}~\text{and}~j=\bar{k}+1,\cdots,\bar{k}+N,\\
0,~\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{k}=\frac{M-N}{2}-k$. It is easy to check $\Jbf_0=\Jbf$.
\subsection{Design Criteria}
\label{subsec:designcriterion}
Similar to the process in Section \ref{sec:signalmodel}, two filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$ are employed to process the received signal and the output SINR can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:SINR_OR}
\begin{split}
\text{SINR}_k(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)&=\frac{\gamma_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_r}{\gamma_c\wbf_r^H\Jbf_k\Hbf\Rbf_b\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\wbf_r+\wbf_r^H\wbf_r}\\
&+\frac{\gamma_c\wbf_c^H\Jbf_k\Hbf\Rbf_b\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\wbf_c}{\gamma_r\wbf_c^H\sbf_r\sbf_r^H\wbf_c+\wbf_c^H\wbf_c},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Rbf_b=\mathbb{E}\{\bbf\bbf^H\}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $\Rbf_b=\Ibf$.
When there is no timing uncertainty, the design problem can be formulated as maximizing the $\text{SINR}_k$ in \eqref{equ:SINR_OR} with $k=0$. On the other hand, with timing uncertainty, $k$ is unknown. In this case, we consider a range of possible delays, $k=-K,\cdots,K$, where $K$ denotes an upper bound on the timing uncertainty. Specifically, we propose two design approaches to cope with timing uncertainty. The first is a max-min (MM) based approach which considers the worst-case SINR among the $2K+1$ positions as the figure of merit (to be optimized). The second is a weighted-sum (WS) based approach which employs a set of weights to form a weighted sum of the SINR at each location as a merit. The latter approach is useful in applications where we have some prior knowledge about the timing uncertainty.
\subsubsection{Max-Min} For the MM formulation, we maximize the worst-case SINR over the unknown timing uncertainty under a power constraint for the radar:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:mm}
\begin{gather}
\label{equ:mm_cost}
\max\limits_{\sbf_r,~\wbf_r,~\wbf_c}~~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~~\text{SINR}_k(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)
\\
\label{equ:mm_const}
\text{s.t.}~~\sbf_r^H\sbf_r\leq P_r.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where the cost function $\text{SINR}_k(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)$ is defined in \eqref{equ:SINR_OR} and \eqref{equ:mm_const} represents a power constraint for the radar.
\subsubsection{Weighted-Sum} The WS formulation aims to maximize the weighted sum of the SINR over different delays:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:ws}
\begin{gather}
\max\limits_{\sbf_r,~\wbf_r,~\wbf_c}~~\frac{1}{2K+1}\sum_{k=-K}^{K}u_k\text{SINR}_k(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)
\\
\text{s.t.}~~\sbf_r^H\sbf_r\leq P_r,
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where $\{u_k\}_{k=-K}^K$ are real-valued weights for the corresponding SINR. To simplify the notation, the scaling factor $\frac{1}{2K+1}$ will be ignored in the following derivation.
\emph{Remark 4}: It is easy to see that the MM and WS design criteria, which are proposed to deal with timing uncertainty, become identical to each other when $K=0$, i.e., when there is no timing uncertainty. Therefore, the design with no timing uncertainty is a special case of the one with timing uncertainty.
\emph{Remark 5}: The above formulation assumes
knowledge of the channel SNR $\gamma_r$ \eqref{equ:gammar_r} and
$\gamma_c$ \eqref{equ:gammar_c}. Although the target RCS $\rho$ is
generally unknown prior to target detection, the channel
statistics $\mathbb{E}\{\vert h_r\vert^2\}$ and $\mathbb{E}\{\vert
h_c\vert^2\}$ are related to the locations of the Tx, Rx, and
range bin, as well as the transmit power, which can be learned
through training and calibration. We may assume the RCS is also
known, since the design can be thought of as based on a nominal
target, i.e., the smallest target that is detectable for a given
range, which is often employed in radar design
\cite{Blake90}. Meanwhile, since interference dominates noise in
the considered co-channel scenario, the noise related terms,
$\wbf_r^H\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c^H\wbf_c$, in the denominators of
\eqref{equ:SINR_OR} are negligible compared to their interference
counterparts (the first term of each denominator). In such cases,
the knowledge of the RCS is no longer necessary since $\rho$
cancels out in the SINR expression \eqref{equ:SINR_OR}.
\section{Proposed Solutions}
\label{sec:proposedmethod}
In this section, we first develop solutions for the MM and WS optimization problems, i.e., \eqref{equ:mm} and \eqref{equ:ws}, in the presence of timing uncertainty, and then simplify the solutions to the case when no timing uncertainty is present. Both \eqref{equ:mm} and \eqref{equ:ws} are nonconvex problems without closed-form solutions. Thus, iterative processes are employed to solve these problems.
\subsection{Max-Min Design}
\label{subsec:MMformulation}
In this subsection, we introduce a sequential optimization procedure to solve the max-min problem \eqref{equ:mm} by iteratively optimizing the worst-case SINR with respect to (w.r.t.) the active radar waveform $\sbf_r$ and the receive filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$. Specifically, by fixing $\sbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$ to the values obtained from the $\ell$-th iteration, $\sbf_r^{(\ell)}$ and $\wbf_c^{(\ell)}$, we can write \eqref{equ:mm} as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mmwr}
\max\limits_{\wbf_r}~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\big(\text{SINR}_{r,k}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)},\wbf_r)+\text{SINR}_{c,k}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)},\wbf_c^{(\ell)})\big),
\end{equation}
where only $\text{SINR}_{r,k}$ depends on $\wbf_r$ and is given by
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR}_{r,k}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)},\wbf_r)=\frac{\gamma_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H\wbf_r}{\gamma_c\wbf_r^H\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\wbf_r+\wbf_r^H\wbf_r},
\end{equation}
and the second SINR term is a constant w.r.t. $\wbf_r$ but depends on $k$:
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR}_{c,k}\triangleq\frac{\gamma_c(\wbf_c^{(\ell)})^H\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\wbf_c^{(\ell)}}{\gamma_r(\wbf_c^{(\ell)})^H\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H\wbf_c^{(\ell)}+(\wbf_c^{(\ell)})^H\wbf_c^{(\ell)}}.
\end{equation}
The optimization problem in \eqref{equ:mmwr} is still nonconvex. In the following, we use the semidefinite relaxation (SDR) \cite{LuoSo10} to convert \eqref{equ:mmwr} to a fractional programming problem by dropping the rank-one constraint. Let $\Wbf_r=\wbf_r\wbf_r^H$ and $\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}=\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H$. The SDR of \eqref{equ:mmwr} can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mmwrSDR}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}~~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~~\Big(\frac{\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)}+\text{SINR}_{c,k}\Big).
\end{equation}
Clearly, \eqref{equ:mmwrSDR} can be represented in the following generalized form as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:standardFP}
\max\limits_{\Wbf\in\mathcal{X}}~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\Big(\frac{\bar{f}_k(\Wbf)}{g_k(\Wbf)}+\kappa_k\Big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{X}$ is a convex set of positive semi-definite matrices, $\kappa_k$ is a constant independent of the variable $\Wbf$ but dependent on $k$, $\bar{f}_k(\Wbf)$ is a non-negative concave/affine function, and $g_k(\Wbf)$ is a positive convex/affine function. For our problem, $\bar{f}_i(\Wbf)$ represents the numerator of the ratio in \eqref{equ:mmwrSDR}, $g_k(\Wbf)$ corresponds to the denominator, and $\kappa_k$ is $\text{SINR}_{c,k}$. Problem \eqref{equ:standardFP} can be rewritten as a fractional programming problem and solved by the Dinkelbach algorithm in polynomial time \cite{Dinkelbach67}. For completeness, we summarize the process of solving problem \eqref{equ:standardFP} in $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$. The $\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)}$ in Step 2) of $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$ can be obtained by solving the following convex optimization problem:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:cvxproblem}
\begin{equation}
\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)}=\arg \max\limits_{\Wbf\in\mathcal{X}}~~\eta
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{s.t.}~~f_k(\Wbf)-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}g_k(\Wbf)\geq \eta,\forall k\in\mathbb{N}_K,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\eta$ is an auxiliary variable. The convex problem \eqref{equ:cvxproblem} can be solved by standard numerical solvers, e.g., CVX \cite{cvxBoyd2014}. Thus, an optimal solution $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ of \eqref{equ:mmwrSDR} can be obtained through $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Generalized Dinkelbach's Algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\label{alg:GDA}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Known parameters that define problem \eqref{equ:standardFP}
\STATE \textbf{Initialization:} Initialize $\lambda^{(0)}=0$. Set the error tolerance $\epsilon$ and iteration index $\ell_1=0$. Let $f_k(\Wbf)=\bar{f}_k(\Wbf)+\kappa_kg_k(\Wbf)$.
\\
\REPEAT
\STATE
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)}=\arg~\max\limits_{\Wbf\in\mathcal{X}}\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\{f_k(\Wbf)-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}g_k(\Wbf)\}$
\item Update $\lambda^{(\ell_1+1)}=\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\frac{f_k(\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)})}{g_k(\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)})}$
\item Let $\epsilon_0=\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\{f_k(\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)})-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}g_k(\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)})\}.$
\item Set $\ell_1=\ell_1+1$
\end{enumerate}
\UNTIL $\epsilon_0\leq\epsilon$.
\RETURN $\Wbf=\Wbf^{(\ell_1+1)}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
When employing the SDR approach, one has to convert the optimal solution $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ to \eqref{equ:mmwrSDR} into a feasible solution $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ to \eqref{equ:mmwr}. We can use the randomization method to obtain a solution $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ from $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ \cite{LuoSo10}. Note that, during the $(\ell_1+1)$-st iteration of $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$, the following convex optimization problem is solved
\begin{equation}\label{equ:wrD}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}~~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\big(f_k(\Wbf_r)-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}g_k(\Wbf_r)\big),
\end{equation}
where the cost function $f_k(\Wbf_r)-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}g_k(\Wbf_r)$ has following form
\begin{align}
&\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)+\text{SINR}_{c,k}\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)\notag\\
&-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big).
\end{align}Consider a random vector $\xibf$ with zeros mean and covariance matrix $\mathbb{E}\{\xibf\xibf^H\}$, i.e., $\xibf\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbb{E}\{\xibf\xibf^H\})$. It is clear that \eqref{equ:wrD} is equivalent to the following stochastic optimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mmwrstochastic}
\max\limits_{\mathbb{E}\{\xibf\xibf^H\})\succeq\mathbf{0}}~~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~~F_k(\xibf),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&F_k(\xibf)=\gamma_r\mathbb{E}\big\{\xibf^H\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\xibf\big\}\\&+\text{SINR}_{c,k}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)},\wbf_c^{(\ell)})\mathbb{E}\big\{\xibf^H(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\xibf\big\}\\
&-\lambda^{(\ell_1)}\mathbb{E}\big\{\xibf(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\xibf\big\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence, the stochastic interpretation of the SDR in \eqref{equ:mmwrstochastic} allows us to obtain an approximate rank-one solution to \eqref{equ:mmwrSDR}. Specifically, given $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, we can generate a set of independent and identically distributed Gaussian random vectors $\xibf_i\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})$, $i=1,\cdots,Q$, where $Q$ is the number of randomization trials. Then, a rank-one solution is obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:randomization}
\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\arg~\max\limits_{\xibf_i}~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\big(\text{SINR}_{r,k}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)},\xibf_i)+\text{SINR}_{c,k}\big).
\end{equation}
Next, we find $\Wbf_c=\wbf_c\wbf_c^H$ by fixing $\Sbf_r$ and $\Wbf_r$ to values obtained from the latest updates, $\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}=\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H$ and $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$, in which case the optimization problem \eqref{equ:mm} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mmwcSDR}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_c\succeq\mathbf{0}}\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}\Big(\frac{\gamma_c\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c(\gamma_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}+\Ibf)\big)}+G_{r,k}(\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell)})\Big),
\end{equation}
where the second SINR is independent of $\Wbf_c$:
\begin{equation}
G_{r,k}(\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell)})=\frac{\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$ along with the randomization method can be used to solve the above problem and find $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$ and $\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$.
Finally, we find $\Sbf_r=\sbf_r\sbf_r^H$ by fixing $\Wbf_r$ and $\Wbf_c$ to $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})^H$. With the help of SDR, the optimization problem \eqref{equ:mm} can be simplified as:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:scpsr}
\begin{gather}
\max\limits_{\Sbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}~\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}~\big(F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})+F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})\big)
\\
\label{equ:powerconstraint}
\text{s.t.}~~\mathop{\rm tr}(\Sbf_r)\leq P_r,
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:F_rk}
F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})=\frac{\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big((\Wbf_r^{\ell+1)}\Sbf_r\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:F_ck}
F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})=\frac{\gamma_c\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\gamma_r\Sbf_r+\Ibf)\big)}.
\end{equation}
Although the cost function in \eqref{equ:scpsr} is convex, maximizing a convex function is a nonconvex problem \cite{Boyd2004}. We can employ a convex relaxation based sequential convex programming (SCP) approach \cite{DinhDiehl10} to solve the problem. Specifically, let $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}$ denote the solution from the $\ell_2$-th iteration of the SCP iterative process. Then, $F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})$ can be approximated by its first-order Taylor expansion at $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}$ as \cite{PetersenPedersen2012}
\begin{align}\label{equ:gkappr}
&F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})\approx\widetilde{F}_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)})\notag\\
&\triangleq\frac{\gamma_c\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\gamma_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}+\Ibf)\big)}-\gamma_c\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)\notag\\
&\times\mathop{\rm tr}\Big(\frac{\gamma_r\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\Sbf_r-\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)})}{\Big(\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\gamma_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}+\Ibf)\big)\Big)^2}\Big).
\end{align}
Therefore, we can solve the following convex optimization problem:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:scpsrnew}
\begin{gather}
\max\limits_{\Sbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}\min\limits_{k\in\mathbb{N}_K}\big(F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})+\widetilde{F}_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)})\big)
\\
\text{s.t.}~~\eqref{equ:powerconstraint}.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
The iteration of the SCP method ends when the difference of the cost function over two adjacent iterations is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$. The radar waveform matrix after the convergence is denoted by $\Sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, which can be converted into $\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ by using the randomization process.
The outer iterative process w.r.t. $\ell$ is repeated until the algorithm converges, e.g., the SINR improvement is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$. Our proposed sequential optimization algorithm for the max-min formulation is summarized in $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:MM}}$.
Note that the computational complexity of the proposed sequential optimization algorithm ($\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:MM}}$) mainly depends on the number of outer iterations $\bar{\ell}$, the numbers of inner iterations, $\bar{\ell}_1$, $\bar{\ell}_2$, and $\bar{\ell}_3$, and the number of randomization trials for the semidefinite relaxation $Q$. On one hand, a convex problem was solved inside each inner iteration with a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^{3.5})$ if an interior-point method is used \cite{Boyd2004}, where $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$ denotes the Landau notation. On the other hand, the computational complexity of $Q$ randomization trials is in the order of $\mathcal{O}(QN^2)$ \cite{AubryMaio2012}. Thus, the overall complexity of the proposed alternating algorithm is $\mathcal{O}\big(\bar{\ell}(\bar{\ell}_1+\bar{\ell}_2+\bar{\ell}_3)N^{3.5}\big)+\mathcal{O}\big(Q\bar{\ell}(\bar{\ell}_1+\bar{\ell}_2+\bar{\ell}_3)N^2\big)$. Numerical simulations show that $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:MM}}$ converges with a relatively small number of inner and outer iterations, e.g., about 10 iterations. Furthermore, for the number of randomizations, we find $Q\leq100$ is generally sufficient to yield a good solution.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Sequential Optimization Algorithm for the \mbox{Max-Min} Formulation}
\begin{algorithmic}
\label{alg:MM}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Channel SNRs $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$, IO waveform that is used to construct matrix $\Hbf$ in \eqref{equ:Hmatrix}, total radar power $P_r$, and tolerance $\epsilon$.
\STATE \textbf{Output:} Radar waveform $\sbf_r$ and receive filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$.\\
\STATE \textbf{Initialization:} Initialize $\sbf_r^{(0)}$ and $\wbf_c^{(0)}$, and set iteration index $\ell=0$.\\
\REPEAT
\STATE
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fix $\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell)}$. Use $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$ and randomization \eqref{equ:randomization} to obtain $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, and update $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Fix $\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}$ and $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$. Use $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$ along with randomization to find $\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$, and update $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Initialization:$\ell_2=0$ and $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}=\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}$.
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fix $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$.
\item Update the radar waveform matrix $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2+1)}$ by solving \eqref{equ:scpsrnew}.
\item Set $\ell_2=\ell_2+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\STATE \textbf{until} convergence
\item Apply randomization to obtain $\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ from $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2+1)}$. Update $\Sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Set $\ell=\ell+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\UNTIL convergence.
\RETURN $\sbf_r=\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, $\wbf_r=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, and $\wbf_c=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Weighted-Sum Design}
\label{subsec:WSformulation}
The original WS formulation in \eqref{equ:ws} is nonconvex. However, we can decompose the problem into three subproblems by sequentially and iteratively fixing two variables and solving one variable at a time. Specifically, by fixing $\sbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$ from the $\ell$-th iteration, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ:wrws}
\max\limits_{\wbf_r}~~\sum_{k=-K}^{K}\frac{u_k\gamma_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H\wbf_r}{\gamma_c\wbf_r^H\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\wbf_r+\wbf_r^H\wbf_r},
\end{equation}
where the constant term which is independent of $\wbf_r$ is dropped. The above quadratic optimization problem can be relaxed into an SDR form as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:sdrws}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}~~\sum_{k=-K}^{K}\frac{u_k\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)},
\end{equation}
which is a sum-of-ratio problem. Dinkelbach's algorithm in $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:GDA}}$ is no longer applicable. However, a quadratic transform based approach \cite{ShenYu18} can be used to solve the sum-of-ratio problem. Similar to Dinkelbach's algorithm, this approach introduces a set of slack variables $\lambda_k$ ($k\in\mathbb{N}_K$) to deal with the non-convexity and applys alternating optimization. Specifically, problem \eqref{equ:sdrws} is equivalent to \cite[Corollary 1]{ShenYu18}
\begin{equation}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0},\lambda_k}~~F(\Wbf_r,\lambda_k,\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{equ:F}
\begin{split}
F(\Wbf_r,\lambda_k,\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}) & = \sum_{k=-K}^{K}\Big(2\lambda_k\sqrt{u_k\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)}\\
& -\lambda_k^2\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)\Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda_k^{(\ell_1)}$ and $\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1)}$ denote the solutions obtained from the $\ell_1$-th inner iteration. Then, $\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1+1)}$ can be updated by solving the following convex problem:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:WR}
\max\limits_{\Wbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}~F(\Wbf_r,\lambda_k^{(\ell_1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}),
\end{equation}
where $F(\Wbf_r,\lambda_k^{(\ell_1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell)})$ has the same form of \eqref{equ:F} by fixing $\lambda_k=\lambda_k^{(\ell_1)}$.
Similarly, $\lambda_k^{(\ell_1+1)}$ can be obtained by solving the following problem:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:lambda}
\max\limits_{\lambda_k}~F(\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1+1)},\lambda_k,\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}),
\end{equation}
which has a closed-form solution:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:lambdak}
\lambda_k^{(\ell_1+1)}=\frac{\sqrt{u_k\gamma_r\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1+1)}\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}\big)}}{\mathop{\rm tr}\big(\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1+1)}(\gamma_c\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H+\Ibf)\big)}.
\end{equation}
The alternating process between \eqref{equ:WR} and \eqref{equ:lambda} ends when the improvement of the cost function over two adjacent iterations is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$. After convergence, the filter matrix $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ is used to find $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ by applying randomization process.
Next, we fix $\sbf_r=\sbf_r^{(\ell)}$ and $\wbf_r=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$. The optimization problem \eqref{equ:ws} w.r.t. $\wbf_c$ can be simplified by dropping the constant term:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:WC}
\max\limits_{\wbf_c}~\frac{\wbf_c^H\big(\gamma_c\sum_{k=-K}^Ku_k\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)\wbf_c}{\wbf_c^H(\gamma_r\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H+\Ibf)\wbf_c},
\end{equation}
where the cost function is a generalized Rayleigh quotient and can be reduced to a Rayleigh quotient through a transformation $\Rbf\triangleq\Cbf^{-1}\big(\gamma_c\sum_{k=-K}^Ku_k\Jbf_k\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf_k^H\big)\Cbf^{-H}$ where $\Cbf\Cbf^H$ is the Cholesky decomposition of the Hermitian positive-definite matrix $(\gamma_r\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H+\Ibf)$. Then, \eqref{equ:WC} is solved in closed-form, that is, $\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$ is the eigenvector of matrix $\Rbf$ corresponding to the largest eigenvalue.
Finally, fix $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$ to the values obtained in the current iteration and let $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})^H$, we have
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:SR}
\begin{equation}
\max\limits_{\Sbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}\sum_{k=-K}^Ku_k\Big(F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})+F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})\Big)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:powerc}
\text{s.t.}~\mathop{\rm tr}(\Sbf_r)\leq P_r,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})$ and $F_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})$ are defined in \eqref{equ:F_rk} and \eqref{equ:F_ck}, respectively. Like \eqref{equ:scpsr}, the above problem is nonconvex and can be similarly solved by the SCP iterative approach. Specifically, during the $(\ell_2+1)$-st iteration of the SCP process, the following convex optimization problem is solved:
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:ws_s_r}
\begin{equation}
\max\limits_{\Sbf_r\succeq\mathbf{0}}\sum_{k=-K}^Ku_k\Big(F_{r,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})+\widetilde{F}_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)})\Big)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{s.t.}~~\eqref{equ:powerc}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $\widetilde{F}_{c,k}(\Sbf_r,\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)},\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)})$ is defined in \eqref{equ:gkappr}. Similarly, the iteration of the SCP method ends when the difference of the cost function of two adjacent iterations is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$. Then, the obtained $\Sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ is utilized to find $\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ by employing the randomization.
The outer alternating process is repeated until the algorithm converges, e.g., the SINR improvement is smaller than a tolerance $\epsilon$. Our proposed solution to the weighted-sum formulation is summarized in $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:WS}}$.
Like $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:MM}}$, the complexity of $\textbf{Algorithm~\ref{alg:WS}}$ mainly depends on the number of outer iterations $\hat{\ell}$, the numbers of inner iterations, $\hat{\ell}_1$ and $\hat{\ell}_2$, and the number of randomization trials $Q$. The overall computational complexity is thus $\mathcal{O}\big(\hat{\ell}(\hat{\ell}_1+\hat{\ell}_2)N^{3.5}\big)+\mathcal{O}\big(Q\hat{\ell}(\hat{\ell}_1+\hat{\ell}_2)N^2\big)$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Sequential Optimization Algorithm for the \mbox{Weighted-Sum} Formulation}
\begin{algorithmic}
\label{alg:WS}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Channel SNRs $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$, IO waveform that is used to construct matrix $\Hbf$ in \eqref{equ:Hmatrix}, total radar power $P_r$, and tolerance $\epsilon$.
\STATE \textbf{Output:} Radar waveform $\sbf_r$ and receive filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$.\\
\STATE \textbf{Initialization:} Initialize $\sbf_r^{(0)}$, $\wbf_c^{(0)}$, and $\wbf_r^{(0)}$, and set iteration index $\ell=0$.\\
\REPEAT
\STATE
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialization: $\ell_1=0$ and $\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1)}=\Wbf_r^{(\ell)}$.
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Solve \eqref{equ:WR} for $\Wbf_r^{(\ell_1+1)}$ with fixed $\lambda_k^{(\ell_1)}$, $\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}$, and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell)}$.
\item Update $\lambda_k^{(\ell_1+1)}$ by using \eqref{equ:lambdak}.
\item $\ell_1=\ell_1+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\STATE \textbf{until} convergence.
\item Apply randomization to obtain $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ and update $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Obtain $\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$ by solving \eqref{equ:WC}.
\item Initialization:$\ell_2=0$ and $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2)}=\Sbf_r^{(\ell)}$.
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fix $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}(\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Solve \eqref{equ:ws_s_r} for radar waveform matrix $\Sbf_r^{(\ell_2+1)}$.
\item Set $\ell_2=\ell_2+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\STATE \textbf{until} convergence
\item Find $\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ by applying randomization and update $\Sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)})^H$.
\item Set $\ell=\ell+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\UNTIL convergence.
\RETURN $\sbf_r=\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, $\wbf_r=\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$, and $\wbf_c=\wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Simplified Solution with No Timing Uncertainty}
\label{subsec:proposedmethodwithout}
When there is no timing uncertainty, i.e., $K=0$, both the max-min design \eqref{equ:mm} and the weighted-sum design \eqref{equ:ws} become
\begin{subequations}\label{equ:nouncertainty}
\begin{gather}
\label{equ:no_cost}
\max\limits_{\sbf_r,~\wbf_r,~\wbf_c}~\text{SINR}_0(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)
\\
\label{equ:no_const}
\text{s.t.}~~\sbf_r^H\sbf_r\leq P_r,
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where $\text{SINR}_0(\sbf_r,\wbf_r,\wbf_c)$ is defined in \eqref{equ:SINR_OR} with $k=0$. Although there is still no closed-form solution for \eqref{equ:nouncertainty}, the solution can be simplified when compared with the MM and WS designs. Specifically, by fixing $\sbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$ to the values obtained from the $\ell$-th iteration as $\sbf_r^{(\ell)}$ and $\wbf_c^{(\ell)}$, \eqref{equ:nouncertainty} reduces to the following optimization problem by dropping the constant term:
\begin{equation}\label{equ:MVDRwr}
\max\limits_{\wbf_r}~~\frac{\gamma_r\wbf_r^H\sbf_r^{(\ell)}(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H\wbf_r}{\wbf_r^H(\gamma_c\Jbf\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf^H+\Ibf)\wbf_r},
\end{equation}
which has an analytical solution
\begin{equation}\label{equ:soluwrwc}
\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}=\frac{(\gamma_c\Jbf\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf^H+\Ibf)^{-1}\sbf_r^{(\ell)}}{(\sbf_r^{(\ell)})^H(\gamma_c\Jbf\Hbf\Hbf^H\Jbf^H+\Ibf)^{-1}\sbf_r^{(\ell)}}.
\end{equation}
The above closed-form solution not only bypasses the iterative procedure employed in solving \eqref{equ:mmwr} and \eqref{equ:wrws} but also saves the randomization process required to convert the SDR solution $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ to $\wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$.
As for the optimization w.r.t. $\wbf_c$, a similar procedure used to solve \eqref{equ:WC} can be employed by setting $K=0$, which also leads to a closed-form solution. The iteration and randomization procedures are again omitted when compared with solving \eqref{equ:mmwcSDR}. However, the SCP method and randomization process are still required to find $\sbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ by fixing $\Wbf_r^{(\ell+1)}$ and $\Wbf_c^{(\ell+1)}$.
\section{Numerical Simulations}
\label{sec:simulationresults}
In this section, numerical examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed schemes and methods. We first demonstrate the performance of the proposed hybrid design for scenarios without and with timing uncertainty, respectively. Then, an application of the proposed designs to radar target detection is considered.
The simulation setup consists of a radar and a communication transmitter operating in the same frequency band. In the simulation, the number of samples in each radar pulse is $N=16$, the number of communication symbols in one radar PRI is $L=10$, and the number of samples per symbol is $P=8$. The communication signal $s_c(t)$ in \eqref{equ:ldm} is a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) signal, where the symbol waveform $g(t)$ is a raised cosine function with a rolloff factor of 0.22 truncated to a duration of $I=2$ symbol intervals. The noise variance at the radar receiver is $\sigma^2=1$. The radar and communication waveforms in \eqref{equ:sync} are normalized so that they have unit energy, i.e., $\sbf_r^H\sbf_r=\sbf_c^H\sbf_c=1$. As such, the signal strength of the active and passive path is controlled by the channel SNR $\gamma_r$ \eqref{equ:gammar_r} and $\gamma_c$ \eqref{equ:gammar_c}, respectively.
For comparison, we consider the following 4 different system configurations:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{hybrid-TxRx}: This refers to the proposed hybrid system with joint design of the radar transmit waveform and receive filters discussed in Section \ref{sec:proposedmethod}, which covers two cases with or without timing uncertainty, and two different designs (MM and WS) for the case with timing uncertainty. The specific case/design is identified in each individual experiment.
\item \textbf{hybrid-Rx}: This is a simplified version of the proposed hybrid system, which only optimizes the receiver filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$, while fixing the radar transmit waveform $\sbf_r$. In the simulation, the radar waveform is generated as a random binary sequence of length $N$. This configuration is included in comparison to illustrate the benefit of joint Tx and Rx design versus Rx-only design in hybrid radar.
\item \textbf{active-only} or \textbf{passive-only}: These two conventional radar configurations employ either the active path or passive path for sensing. While there is no cross interference in these configurations, they cannot benefit from the energy and diversity gains offered by exploiting both the active and passive illuminating sources.
\end{itemize}
For the hybrid schemes, we have the following parameters. The weights of the WS formulation are $u_k=1$, $k=-K,\cdots,K$, the radar waveform is initialized with a randomly generated binary sequence, the number of randomization trials is $Q=200$, and the convergence tolerance is $\epsilon=0.01$.
\subsection{With No Timing Uncertainty}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{Fig4}
\caption{Contour plot of the output SINR versus the channel SNR $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$. (a) Hybrid-TxRx; (b) hybrid-Rx; (c) active-only; (d) passive-only.}
\label{fgr:radarpower}
\end{figure}
We first consider the performance of the hybrid schemes without timing uncertainty, i.e., $K=0$, in which case the MM and WS designs coincide. Fig.\,\ref{fgr:radarpower} shows the contour plot of the output SINR \eqref{equ:SINR_OR} versus the channel SNRs $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$. Each plot contains the isolines of the output SINR with a stepsize of 5 dB. For the active-only or passive-only system, the contours are horizontal or vertical lines, as their output SINR only depends on the signal strength of a single path, determined by the transmit power, Tx-target-Rx distance, target radar cross section (RCS), etc. In contrast, the hybrid schemes can leverage the illuminations from both the active and passive paths, leading to more flexible and energy-efficient sensing solutions. For example, suppose a sensing task requires the system to provide an output $\text{SINR}=25$ dB. The hybrid schemes allow the radar Tx to significantly lower its transmit power (e.g., to close to 0 dB), if there is a strong passive source available. As the strength of the passive source decreases, the hybrid system traces the 25-dB contour line counter-clockwise and increases the transmit power of the active source. A comparison between the two hybrid schemes shows that hybrid-TxRx offers an additional gain in the output SINR over hybrid-Rx due to a better interference handling ability of the former.
\subsection{With Timing Uncertainty}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig5}
\caption{Convergence behavior of the proposed sequential optimization algorithms when $K = 3$.}
\label{fgr:convergence}
\end{figure}
Here we only consider hybrid-TxRx and hybrid-Rx here since the timing uncertainty only affects the hybrid schemes. The channel SNRs are fixed to $\gamma_r=\gamma_c=25\text{ dB}$. We first examine the convergence of the proposed algorithms. Fig.\,\ref{fgr:convergence} depicts the output SINR of the hybrid-based design versus the number of iterations, for the MM and WS designs when $K=3$. It is seen that both designs converge quickly.
Next, we evaluate the effects of the upper bound $K$ of the timing uncertainty. Fig.\,\ref{fgr:maxdelayuncertainty} shows the output SINR versus $K$. It is seen that as the timing uncertainty $K$ increases, the output SINR for all hybrid designs decreases. This is because a larger $K$ implies that the radar waveform and received filters under design have to deal with more mismatched cases between the radar and communication signals received by the radar Rx, which in turn imposes more difficult constraints on the design and reduces the solution space and the output SINR. Meanwhile, hybrid-TxRx is overall better than hybrid-Rx, as observed before in Fig.\,\ref{fgr:radarpower}. Within either the hybrid-TxRx or hybrid-Rx configurations, the WS design outperforms the MM design, especially for large $K$. This is because MM is based on the more conservative maxmin optimization.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig6}
\caption{Output SINR of the proposed hybrid designs versus the timing uncertainty bound $K$.}
\label{fgr:maxdelayuncertainty}
\end{figure}
Finally, we consider the robustness of hybrid-TxRx designed by the WS and MM approaches. Specifically, the designs are obtained by using a specific value for the timing uncertainty bound $K$, and then tested by using different values for the \emph{real} relative delay $k$ \eqref{equ:k} between the communication and radar signals. Fig.\,\ref{fgr:robustness} shows the output SINR of the WS and MM designs obtained with $K=0$ and $K=3$, respectively, versus $k$. It is observed that in the presence of timing uncertainty $k\neq0$, the designs obtained with a non-zero $K=3$ are generally better than those obtained with $K=0$, which is expected, since the timing mismatch is ignored by the latter. Interestingly, the WS design with $K=3$ incurs only a small SINR loss at $k=0$. The MM design is able to provide a uniform output SINR over the timing uncertainty interval used for the design, i.e., $-3\leq k\leq3$, although this is achieved at a slightly larger SINR loss experienced at $k=0$, when compared with the WS design.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig7}
\caption{Output SINR versus the real relative delay $k$ between the radar and communication signals.}
\label{fgr:robustness}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Detection Performance}
The previous results show the proposed hybrid designs offer higher output SINR, which is expected to yield better performance in detection than the conventional active-only or passive-only system. To see this, we consider the following hypothesis test:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{equ:hypothesesH0}
&H_0:~\ybf=\wbf,
\\
\label{equ:hypothesesH1}
&H_1:~\ybf=\alpha_r\sbf_r+\alpha_c\sbf_c+\wbf,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where under the $H_0$ hypothesis, the radar observes only noise $\wbf$, while under the $H_1$ hypothesis, the radar observation $\ybf$ contains target echoes from both the active and passive paths, as in \eqref{equ:sync}. Note that the communication waveform can be expressed as $\sbf_c=\Jbf\Hbf\bbf$ per \eqref{equ:withoutsc}. The received signal passes through two filters $\wbf_r$ and $\wbf_c$, outputting two samples $y_r$ and $y_c$, similarly as in \eqref{equ:mfout}. The two samples are combined by using the energy detector for detection \cite{HaimovichBlum08}:
\begin{equation}
|y_r|^2+|y_c|^2
\mathop{\gtrless}\limits_{H_0}^{H_1} \zeta ,
\label{eq:lrt}
\end{equation}
where $\zeta$ is a threshold set based on a desired probability of false alarm $P_f$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fig8}
\caption{Probability of missing versus the average SNR $\gamma$ for a given probability of false alarm $P_f$ of $10^{-4}$.}
\label{fgr:probabilityofmissing3}
\end{figure}
We consider a setup with equal channel average SNR for the active and passive paths, i.e., $\mathbb{E}\{\gamma_r\}=\mathbb{E}\{\gamma_c\}$, which corresponds to a symmetric scenario where the communication Tx and radar Tx are equally distanced from the target. The real SNR $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$ are changing from one trial to another, to reflect fluctuations of the RCS of the real target. Specifically, the target RCS $\alpha_r$ and $\alpha_c$ are generated as independent complex Gaussian random variables for each trial, with zero mean and variance determined by the average SNR. In addition, the communication symbols $\bbf$ consist of random binary sequence in each trial. Our designs of the waveform and receivers are obtained by using a fixed and hypothetical value of $25\text{ dB}$ for the $\gamma_r$ and $\gamma_c$, while the other design parameters, i.e., $N$, $L$, $P$, and $I$, are identical to those used in previous examples.
We compare the detection performance of the active-only, passive-only, and the proposed hybrid-TxRx designs obtained using MM or WS, respectively. Two cases for hybrid-TxRx are considered, namely $k=0$ and $K=0$, which represents the ideal case of no timing uncertainty, and $k=0$ and $K=4$, a case with timing uncertainty.
Fig.\,\ref{fgr:probabilityofmissing3} shows the probability of missing of the various schemes versus the average SNR, when the probability of false alarm is $P_f=10^{-4}$. It is seen that the hybrid designs substantially outperform the active-only/passive-only schemes, especially at the medium-to-high SNR region. This is because the hybrid designs can leverage both the active and passive sources, and more importantly, the \emph{spatial diversity} \cite{HaimovichBlum08} created by the active and passive paths. In particular, the probability of missing for the hybrid system is lower with a steeper slope than that of the active-only and passive-only systems as the SNR increases. The steeper slope is an indicator of the diversity gain. Interestingly, it is noticed that the WS hybrid design with timing uncertainty yields nearly identical performance when compared with the ideal case of no timing uncertainty.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Joint design of the waveform and receivers for a hybrid active-passive radar system consisting of a monostatic active radar and a non-cooperative IO was studied by considering the location-induced timing uncertainty between the radar signal and communication signal. Two design approaches were proposed, namely a max-min based design which maximizes the worst-case SINR among all delays within a delay upper bound, and a weighted-sum based design that employs a set of weights to form a weighted sum of the SINR at each delay as a design criterion. Numerical results show that the proposed joint transmit-receive designs of the hybrid active-passive system offers significant performance gain over the conventional active-only or passive-only radar system. Future directions of interest include extensions of the current approach to cases involving multiple IO sources, joint waveform and receive designs with additional constraints, such as constant envelope, and consideration of interference to the communication system due to radar co-channel transmission.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of this article is to prove the following:
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $V$ is an $N{=}1$ SVOA with no free fermions, and that $V_{\ev} = G_k$ is a simply connected WZW algebra which is not one of $\rE_{7,2}$, $\rE_{7,1}^2$, or $\rE_{8,2}$. Then
$V$ is on the following list:
$$\begin{array}{l|l|l|l}
V_{\ev} & \dim V_{3/2} & c & \Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \\ \hline &&& \\[-9pt]
\Spin(m)_3 & \frac{m(m-1)(m+4)}6 & \frac{3m(m-1)}{2(m+1)} & S_{m+1} \\[3pt]
\Spin(m)_1^3 & m^3 & \frac{3m}2 & \begin{cases} 2^{2(m-1)}{:}(S_3 \times S_m), & m \neq 4 \\
2^6 {:} 3S_6, & m = 4 \end{cases}
\\[3pt]
\Sp(2{\times}3)_2 & 84 & 7 & \rU_3(3){:}2 \\[3pt]
\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2 & 196 & 8 \frac25 & \rJ_2{:}2 \\[3pt]
\SU(6)_2 & 175 & 8 \frac34 & \rM_{21}{:}2^2 \\[3pt]
\Sp(2{\times}6)_1 & 429 & 9 \frac34 & \rG_2(4){:}2\\[3pt]
\SU(6)_1^2 & 400 & 10 & \rU_4(3){:}D_8 \\[3pt]
\Spin(12)_2 & 462 & 11 & \rM_{12}{:}2 \\[3pt]
\SU(12)_1 & 924 & 11 & \Suz{:}2 \\[3pt]
\Spin(12)_1^2 & 1024 & 12 & 2^{10}{:}\rM_{12}{:}2 \\[3pt]
\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1 & 1024 & 12 & 2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2).2 \\[3pt]
\Spin(24)_1 & 2048 & 12 & \Co_1 \\[3pt]
\end{array}$$
In each case on the list, the $N{=}1$ SVOA $V$ is uniquely determined up to isomorphism by $G_k$, and the supersymmetry-preserving automorphism group of $V$ is the listed finite group $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$.
\end{theorem}
The type $\rE$ case is discussed in Section~\ref{sec.typeE},
where we construct an $N{=}1$ SVOA with even subalgebra $\rE_{7,1}^2$, but do not prove its uniqueness, and explain why the other two cases seem unlikely.
\begin{conjecture}
There is a unique-up-to-isomorphism $N{=}1$ SVOA with even subalgebra $\rE_{7,1}^2$. There does not exist an $N{=}1$ SVOA with even subalgebra $\rE_{7,2}$ or $\rE_{8,2}$.
\end{conjecture}
We now elaborate on the statement of the Theorem. Our notation for groups is the following: as in the ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS}, a colon denotes a semidirect product,
$2 = \bZ_2$ denotes a cyclic group of order $2$,
$2^{2m}$ is the elementary abelian group of that order,
and $S_m$, $\rJ_2$, etc.\ denote specific finite groups;
we write $\Sp(2{\times}m)$ for the group of type $\rC_m$ (which is variously called $\Sp(m)$ and $\Sp(2m)$);
and the small-$m$ members of the ``$\Spin(m)$'' families must be interpreted appropriately~(see \S\ref{subsec:small-m}).
We will later use the notation $nG$ for a perfect central extension of $G$ by $\bZ_n$ and $\rP G$ for the adjoint form of the simply connected group $G$; when $m$ is divisible by $4$, we will write $\SO^+(m)$ for the image of $\Spin(m)$ in the positive half-spin representation; and we will denote the central product of $G$ and $G'$, where their centres have been identified $Z = Z(G) = Z(G')$, by $G \circ G' = (G \times G')/Z$.
The acronym ``SVOA'' stands for super vertex operator algebra. Elements of an SVOA are the ``fields'' (also typically called ``vertex operators''). Axioms can be found in the standard textbooks \cite{MR1651389,MR2082709,MR2023933}. Our SVOAs $V$ enjoy many niceness axioms: $C_2$-cofiniteness; the $L_0$-action on $V$ is diagonalizable and determines a $\frac12\bZ$-grading $V = \bigoplus_{h \in \frac12\bZ} V_h$ that we call ``spin''; the vacuum vector spans the space $V_0$ of spin-$0$ fields. (The first two of these axioms define ``niceness'' in the sense of \cite{MR1614941,MR2352133}, and the third says that the SVOA is of ``CFT type'' \cite{MR2648364}.)
All the SVOAs in this paper are moreover rational (they have finitely many simple modules).
The space $V_1$ of spin-$1$ fields is naturally a Lie algebra,
and a version of Noether's theorem identifies it with the Lie algebra of the group $\Aut(V)$ of SVOA automorphisms of $V$, which is always a reductive algebraic group~\cite{MR2097833}.
We will furthermore require that our SVOA be \define{unitary}, i.e.\ equipped with an invariant positive definite Hermitian form. This requirement does two things. First, it provides inside each graded component $V_h$ a real subspace of self-adjoint, aka real, fields.
Second, it makes each $V_h$ into a Hilbert space, and picks out a compact form $\Aut(V)_{\mathrm{cpt}}$ of $\Aut(V)_\bC$ acting on each $V_h$ unitarily. Indeed, $V_h$ is the complexification of its self-adjoint subspace, which is a real $\Aut(V)_{\mathrm{cpt}}$-module. Using this, we may move freely between compact and complex forms of groups, and between their unitary (perhaps real) representations and their algebraic (perhaps self-dual) representations.
A \define{simply connected WZW algebra} is a VOA generated by its spin-$1$ fields (the ``currents'')~\cite{HenriquesWZW}. Simply connected WZW algebras are labeled by a simply connected reductive Lie group $G$ together with a positive class $k$, called the ``level,'' in the integral cohomology group $\H^4(BG;\bZ)$. In the quasisimple case, $\H^4(BG;\bZ) \cong \bZ$, and the level is a positive integer. We will generally write the WZW algebra corresponding to $(G,k)$ as $G_k$, simplifying for example $(\rE_7)_2$ to $\rE_{7,2}$. We will call a WZW algebra \define{simple} if the corresponding group is quasisimple.
(All WZW algebras are ``simple'' in the VOA sense.)
Automorphism groups of simply connected WZW algebras are always $\Aut(G_k) = \Aut(\mathfrak{g}) = \rP G{:}\operatorname{Out}(\mathfrak{g})$, where $\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra of $G$, $\rP G$ is its adjoint form, and $\operatorname{Out}(\mathfrak{g})$ is its group of Dynkin diagram automorphisms. Note in particular that although $G$ acts naturally on each $G_k$, the action has kernel the centre of $G$.
The SVOAs in the Theorem are all ``non-simply connected'' WZW algebras. A non-simply connected WZW algebra is determined by a connected but not simply connected group $G$ together with a level which, in the quasisimple case, is a positive integer satisfying a divisibility criterion that depends on ($G$ and) $\pi_1(G)$; details are reviewed in~\S\ref{subsec.extension}. $\rE_{8,2}$ has some peculiar behaviour, and is forbidden by fiat in \cite{HenriquesWZW}, where VOAs containing an~$\rE_{8,2}$ factor are termed ``$\rE_{8,2}$-contaminated.''
An SVOA is called ``$N{=}1$'' if it is equipped with a supersymmetry: a real \define{superconformal vector}, which is a spin-$\frac32$ field $\tau$ (also typically called ``$G$'') satisfying the OPE
$$ \tau(z) \tau(0) \sim \frac{\frac23c}{z^3} + \frac{\nu(0)}{z}, $$
where the spin-$2$ field $\nu$ is the conformal vector (also typically called ``$L$'' or ``$T$'') and $c$ is the bosonic central charge.
For an $N{=}1$ SVOA $V$, we will adopt the names $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ and $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ for the groups of automorphisms of $V$ as an SVOA and as an $N{=}1$ SVOA, respectively.
A \define{free fermion} in an SVOA is a field of spin $\frac12$.
We will write $\Fer(m)$ for the SVOA generated by an $m$-dimensional vector space of free fermions, and call it the ``(purely) free fermion'' algebra. It is unique up to isomorphism, and $\Aut(\Fer(m)) = \rO(m)$.
The free fermions in any SVOA split off as a tensor factor~\cite{MR968813},
although perhaps not compatibly with a chosen supersymmetry.
There are many $N{=}1$ SVOAs with free fermions: highlights include the supersymmetric lattice SVOAs~\cite{HeluaniKac2007} and the beautiful classification identifying $N{=}1$ structures on purely free-fermion algebras with semisimple Lie algebras~\cite{MR791865}.
Noether's theorem for $N{=}1$ SVOAs identifies $\operatorname{Lie}(\Aut_{N{=}1}(V))$ with the space of free fermions in $V$, equipped with a Lie bracket derived, in the sense of \cite{MR2104437}, from the ordinary Lie bracket:
$$ [x,y]_\tau = [x,[\tau,y]].$$
In particular, if $V$ has no free fermions, then $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ is a finite group.
One reason to be interested in $N{=}1$ SVOAs $V$ without free fermions, and with $V_\ev$ easy to understand (for instance, a simply connected WZW algebra), comes from Duncan's beautiful work~\cite{MR2352133}.
In that work, Duncan discovered a specific $N{=}1$ SVOA $V^{f\natural}$ with no free fermions; it enjoys $V^{f\natural}_\ev = \Spin(24)_1$ and $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V^{f\natural}) = \Co_1$, Conway's largest sporadic simple group.
The original motivation for this paper was to produce similar $N{=}1$ SVOAs for the \define{Suzuki chain} groups
$$ \Suz{:}2 \supset \rG_2(4){:}2 \supset \rJ_2{:}2 \supset \rU_3(3){:}2 \supset \rL_2(7){:}2 \supset A_4{:}2 \supset A_3{:}2. $$
This is a chain of subgroups of $\Co_1$ (except that $\Suz{:}2$ lives therein only through its abelian extension $3\Suz{:}2$).
In fact, the Theorem provides a systematic construction of such SVOAs only for $\Suz{:}2,\dots,\rU_3(3){:}2$. We did not find a satisfactory SVOA representation of $\rL_2(7){:}2$, and our SVOA representations of $A_4{:}2$ and $A_3{:}2$ place them
naturally as entries in the infinite chain $S_{m+1} = A_{m+1}{:}2$ and not in the Suzuki chain. That said, Wilson organizes $\rU_4(3){:}D_8$, which does appear in the Theorem, with the Suzuki chain \cite{MR723071}, and the $m=8$ entry in our $\Spin(m)_1^3$ family is closely related to the ``tricode group'' $2^{2+12}{:}(S_3 \times A_8)$, which Wilson also discusses in the context of the Suzuki chain.
(The passage $2^{14} \leadsto 2^{2+12}$ occurs because some symmetries are broken, and others are centrally extended, when passing from $\Spin(8)_1^3$ to $\Spin(24)_1$.)
The paper is structured as follows.
Section~\ref{sec.WZW} classifies the SVOAs $V$ with even subalgebra a simple simply connected WZW algebra which have no free fermions but which do have a nonzero field of spin $\frac32$; we find a short list, consisting of those algebras listed in the Theorem together with $\rE_{7,2}$, $\rE_{7,1}^2$, and $\rE_{8,2}$.
The $N{=}1$ structures claimed in the Theorem are constructed in Section~\ref{sec.existence}. Uniqueness (up to conjugation by SVOA automorphisms, of course, with the asserted stabilizer) is shown for the $\Spin(m)_3$ and $\Spin(m)_1^3$ families in Section~\ref{sec.spinm3}, and for the exceptional cases in Section~\ref{sec.uniqueness}. For the exceptional cases we take advantage of Duncan's work on the Conway group $\Co_1$ and its module $V^{f\natural}$, and through this we connect directly to the Suzuki chain. Finally, Section~\ref{sec.typeE} addresses the type $\rE$ case.
\section{WZW algebras with a spin-$\frac32$ abelian anyon}\label{sec.WZW}
This section restricts the possible WZW algebras $G_k$ that can appear as the even parts of the $N{=}1$ SVOAs $V$ considered in the Theorem. First, in \S\ref{subsec.extension}, we ask what WZW algebras can appear as the even parts of (not necessarily supersymmetric) SVOAs with a field of spin $\frac32$ and with no free fermions; in particular, this already cuts the possibilities down to just those simple groups appearing in the Theorem. We then make a comment in \S\ref{subsec:small-m} about some unstable behaviour enjoyed by the Spin groups. In \S\ref{subsec.genus} we use ``elliptic genus'' considerations to rule out most non-simple possibilities. Finally, in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions}, we chart the WZW algebras that require further study.
\subsection{$\bZ_2$ simple current extensions} \label{subsec.extension}
Suppose $V$ is an SVOA, not necessarily supersymmetric, with a nontrivial fermionic part $V_{\odd}$. Then the bosonic subalgebra $V_{\ev}$ is the fixed points of a nontrivial $\bZ_2$-action on $V$ (namely, fermion parity). It follows that $V$ is a ``$\bZ_2$ simple current extension'' of $V_{\ev}$. If $V$ is to be an $N{=}1$ SVOA without free fermions, then $V_{\odd}$ will have conformal dimension exactly $\frac32$.
This means the following. The representations of a VOA are called \define{anyons}. An anyon is \define{abelian} if it is invertible for the braided monoidal structure on the category of anyons; abelian anyons are also called ``simple currents.'' (The braided monoidal category of anyons is a modular tensor category when the VOA is rational \cite{MR2468370}. All VOAs appearing in this paper are rational.) From the unitary representation theory of Virasoro algebras \cite{MR740343}, one sees that each irreducible anyon $M$ has a \define{conformal dimension} $h_M \geq 0$, with equality only for the trivial anyon; conformal dimension is also called ``minimal energy,'' and is by definition the smallest eigenvalue of the action of $L_0 \in V$ on the anyon~$M$.
The abelian anyons form an abelian group $A$, and $$q = (M \mapsto \exp(2\pi i h_M)) : A \to \rU(1)$$ is a quadratic function. Given a subgroup $A' \subset A$, the direct sum $\bigoplus_{M\in A'} M$, admits an SVOA structure if and only if the restriction of $q$ to $A'$ is a group homomorphism to $\{\pm 1\}$. In this case that SVOA structure is unique up to isomorphism and is called the ``$A'$ simple current extension'' of $V$~\cite{MR4050091}.
Simple current extensions of WZW algebras are studied in detail in \cite{MR1822111,HenriquesWZW}. The representation theory of the WZW algebra $G_k$ is well understood, and is easily accessed in Schellekens' computer algebra program ``Kac'' \cite{Kac-computer} and in the detailed tables compiled in \cite{MR1117679}.
(We focus in this section on the case when $\mathfrak{g} = \operatorname{Lie}(G)$ is simple. The general semisimple case is considered in \S\ref{subsec.genus}.)
The irreducible anyons are indexed by dominant integral weights $\lambda$ of $G$ such that $\langle \lambda, \alpha_{\mathrm{max}} \rangle \leq k$, where $\alpha_{\mathrm{max}}$ denotes the highest root; the fields of minimal conformal dimension in the $\lambda$th anyon form the simple $G$-representation of highest weight $\lambda$.
The conformal dimensions of all anyons are given by an easy formula in terms of the weight lattice.
With one notable exception, the group $A$ of abelian anyons is naturally isomorphic to the centre~$Z(G)$ of~$G$. The conformal dimension of the $G_k$-anyon corresponding to a fixed element in $Z(G)$ depends linearly on $k$ and is listed in \cite{MR1822111}:
\begin{lemma}[\cite{MR1822111}] The conformal dimension $h_a$ of the $G_k$-anyon corresponding to $a \in Z(G)$ is:\\[-3pt]
\hfill
$ \begin{array}[b]{l|l|l}
G & Z(G) & h_a \\ \hline && \\[-9pt]
\SU(m) & \bZ_m & i \mapsto \frac {ki(m-i)}{2m} \\[3pt]
\Sp(2{\times}m) & \bZ_2 & \frac {mk} 4 \\[3pt]
\Spin(m), \, m \,\odd & \bZ_2 & \frac k2 \\[3pt]
\Spin(m), \, m \,\ev & \bZ_4 \text{ or } (\bZ_2)^2 & v \mapsto \frac k 2, \; s^\pm \mapsto \frac{km}{16} \\[3pt]
\rE_6 & \bZ_3 & \frac{2k}3 \\[3pt]
\rE_7 & \bZ_2 & \frac{3k}4
\end{array}
$ \hfill \qed
\end{lemma}
We list only the nonzero values of $h_a$. In type $\rA$, $i$ ranges over $\{1,\dots,m-1\}$, and in type $\rD$ we write $v \in Z(\Spin(m))$ (``vector'') for the nontrivial element in $\ker(\Spin(m) \to \SO(m))$ and $s^\pm$ (``spinor'') for the other two elements. The exceptional groups $\rG_2$, $\rF_4$, and $\rE_8$ have trivial centre and so are not listed. Levels for the spin groups $\Spin(m)$ with $m\leq 4$ have some unstable behaviour, described in \S\ref{subsec:small-m}, and so the formulas above in those cases must be appropriately interpreted.
The simple current extension of $G_k$ by $A' \subset Z(G)$, if it exists, is a ``non-simply connected WZW algebra'' corresponding to the quotient group~$G/A'$~\cite{HenriquesWZW}.
We will follow the reasonably standard convention that $(G/A')_k = G_k / A'$ denotes the $A'$ simple current extension of $G_k$, so that a level for a non-simply connected group is determined by its pullbacks to the simply connected cover --- note that this means deciding that for a non-simply connected group, the minimal level may not be ``level $1$'' (cf.\ \S\ref{subsec:small-m}). As will be discussed in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions}, one should not read too much into the name ``$(G/A')_k$,'' as there is no known functorial construction taking in a compact but non-simply connected group and producing a WZW algebra: a functorial construction is outlined in~\cite{HenriquesWZW}, but would require stronger results than are available relating loop groups and VOAs; the rigorous construction in~\cite{HenriquesWZW} is via a case-by-case analysis. Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that the simply connected group $G$ acts, but usually non-faithfully, on the WZW algebra $G_k$, and the quotient group $G/A'$ may fail to act on the VOA $(G/A')_k$.
The one exception to the rule ``$A = Z(G)$'' is $G_k = \rE_{8,2}$~\cite{MR1096120}, which has an abelian anyon (corresponding to the $3875$-dimensional $\rE_8$-module) even though $Z(\rE_8)$ is trivial. Henriques does not consider the corresponding $\bZ_2$ extension of $\rE_{8,2}$ to be a ``WZW algebra,'' and it does not seem to have a standard name; we will abusively call it ``$\rE_{8,2}/\bZ_2$.''
For this exception, the simple current has conformal dimension $h = \frac32$.
As we have already explained, we are interested in the case when $a \in A$ has order $2$ with $h_a = \frac32$.
Let us focus for now on the case when the group $G$ is simple.
In type $\rA$, this means that $m$ is even and $\frac{k(m/2)^2}{2m} = \frac 32$. In type $\rC$, this means $\frac{km}4 = \frac32$. In type $\rD_\ev$, we could take $a=s^\pm$ and solve $\frac{km}{16} = \frac32$. Otherwise, in all types $\rB\rD$, we can take $a = v$ and $m$ arbitrary provided $\frac k2 = \frac 32$, and for $\rE_7$ we want $\frac{3k}4 = \frac32$.
The abelian anyon in the exceptional case $\rE_{8,2}$ has the desired conformal dimension.
All together, we find:
\begin{corollary}
The SVOAs $V$ such that $V_\ev = G_k$ is a simple simply-connected WZW algebra and $V_\odd$ has conformal dimension $\frac32$ are the following:\\[-3pt]
\hfill
$ \begin{array}[b]{l|l|l}
V & V_\ev & \text{Spin-$\frac32$ fields in }V_\odd \\[3pt] \hline & \\[-9pt]
\SO(m)_3 & \Spin(m)_3 & \text{$\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$, of dimension $\frac{m(m-1)(m+4)} 6$}\\[3pt]
\PSp(2{\times}3)_2 & \Sp(2{\times}3)_2 & \text{Irrep of dimension $84$} \\[3pt]
3\PSU(6)_2 & \SU(6)_2 & \text{Irrep of dimension $175$} \\[3pt]
\SO^+(12)_2 & \Spin(12)_2 & \text{Either irrep of dimension $462$} \\[3pt]
\PSp(2{\times}6)_1 & \Sp(2{\times}6)_1 & \text{$\Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12})$, of dimension $429$} \\[3pt]
6\PSU(12)_1 & \SU(12)_1 & \text{$\Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$, of dimension $924$} \\[3pt]
\SO^+(24)_1 & \Spin(24)_1 & \text{Either half-spin irrep, of dimension $2048$} \\[3pt]
\rP\rE_{7,2} & \rE_{7,2} & \text{Irrep of dimension $1463$} \\[3pt]
\rE_{8,2}/\bZ_2 & \rE_{8,2} & \text{Irrep of dimension $3875$}
\end{array}\hfill\qed
$
\end{corollary}
By ``$\mathbf{m}$'' we mean, of course, the $m$-dimensional vector representations of $\Spin(m)$, and $\mathbf{12}$ means the vector representation of $\Sp(2{\times}6)$ or $\SU(12)$.
Their symmetric and alternating powers are not irreducible; for instance, $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$ splits as $\mathbf{m}$ plus an irrep that we will simply call $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$ consisting of the ``traceless'' symmetric $3$-tensors. $\Sp(2{\times}6)$ has two $429$-dimensional irreps: the other one, which does not lead to a simple current extension of $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, is $\Alt^4(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^2(\mathbf{12})$. Other irreps are listed by dimension. We took advantage of the famous exceptional isomorphisms of small spin groups to leave redundant entries off the list; see \S\ref{subsec:small-m}.
The name ``$\PSp$'' means the adjoint form of $\Sp$, and ``$n\PSU(m)$,'' for $n$ dividing $m$, means the perfect central extension of $\PSU(m)$ by a cyclic group of order $n$, i.e.\ $n\PSU(m) = \SU(m)/(\bZ_{m/n})$.
\subsection{Conventions for Spin groups} \label{subsec:small-m}
When $m$ is divisible by $4$, the centre of $\Spin(m)$ is a Klein-four group, and so $\Spin(m)$ has three quotients by $\bZ_2$. One of these is $\SO(m)$, defined as the image of $\Spin(m)$ in the adjoint representation. It is invariant under the outer automorphism of $\Spin(m)$. The other two are called $\SO^\pm(m)$. They are exchanged by the outer automorphism of $\Spin(m)$, and are by definition the image of $\Spin(m)$ in the half-spin representations.
The Spin groups have some well-known exceptional behaviour for small $m$. The triality automorphism of $\Spin(8)$ relates the
vector representation with the two half-spin representations; thus the SVOAs $\SO(8)_3$, $\SO^+(8)_3$, and $\SO^-(8)_3$ are all isomorphic.
The exceptional isomorphisms
\begin{gather*}
\Spin(3) \cong \SU(2) \cong \Sp(2{\times}1), \quad \Spin(4) \cong \SU(2)^2 \cong \Sp(2{\times}1)^2, \\ \Spin(5) \cong \Sp(2{\times}2), \quad \Spin(6) \cong \SU(4)
\end{gather*}
mean that we have left out of the Corollary from~\S\ref{subsec.extension} the redundant entries $\Sp(2{\times}1)_6 = \SU(2)_6$ (see next paragraph), $\Sp(2{\times}2)_3$, and $\SU(4)_3$.
Recall that to define a simply connected WZW algebra for the group $G$ requires a choice of ``level'' $k \in \H^4(BG;\bZ)$. When $m\geq 5$, the algebra $\Spin(m)_k$ corresponds to the class $k \frac{p_1}2 \in \H^4(B\Spin(m);\bZ)$, where
$\frac{p_1}2$, the \define{fractional first Pontryagin class}, is the positive generator of $\H^4(B\Spin(\infty);\bZ)$; it is a \define{stable} class in the sense that it is restricted from $B\Spin(\infty) = \varinjlim B\Spin(m)$. Our convention, even for $m<5$, will be to write ``$\Spin(m)_k$'' for the level given by restricting $k\frac{p_1}2$ along the standard inclusion $B\Spin(m) \subset B\Spin(\infty)$.
Unpacking this convention for $m=4$, we have for example the group $\Spin(4) \cong \Sp(2{\times}1)^2$. This group is not simple, and so not technically considered in the Corollary, but does appear in our Theorem; see \S\ref{subsec.genus}. The level restricts diagonally: the appropriate meaning of ``$\Spin(4)_3$'' is $\Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2$, with level $(3,3) \in \H^4(B\Spin(4);\bZ) = \bZ^2$.
For the $m=3$ case of the $\Spin(m)_3$ family, we will always write scare-quotes around ``$\Spin(3)_3$.'' The reason for the scare-quotes is that it is not technically a ``level $3$'' algebra, at least with the usual normalization for $\H^4(B\Spin(3);\bZ)$. Indeed, the generator $\frac{p_1}2 \in \H^4(B\Spin(\infty);\bZ)$ restricts along the standard inclusion $B\Spin(3) \subset B\Spin(\infty)$ to \emph{twice} the generator of $\H^4(B\Spin(3);\bZ)$.
The generator of $\H^4(B\Spin(3);\bZ)$ does have a stable interpretation, in fact two of them: the inclusion $\SU(m) \subset \SU(m+1)$ induces an isomorphism $\H^4(B\SU(m+1);\bZ) \isom \H^4(B\SU(m);\bZ)$ when $m \geq 2$, and the generator is the \define{Chern class} $c_2$; also, for all $m$, the inclusion $\Sp(2{\times}m) \subset \Sp(2{\times}(m+1))$ induces an isomorphism on $\H^4$, and the generator of $\H^4(B\Sp(2{\times}m);\bZ)$ is the so-called \define{quaternionic Pontryagin class}. In summary, the $m=3$ case of the $\Spin(m)_3$ family is $\text{``}\Spin(3)_3\text{''} = \SU(2)_6 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_6$, which we otherwise should have included in our list.
Finally, it is worth addressing the $m=2$ case of the $\Spin(m)_3$ family. The group $\Spin(2)$ is not simply connected, being isomorphic to $\rU(1)$, and so ruled out of out Theorem by fiat, but is important in our analysis in \S\ref{su12.uniqueness} and \S\ref{unique.su6}.
If $G/A$ is a compact Lie group with simply connected cover $ G$ and finite $\pi_1(G/A) = A$, then the restriction $\H^4(B(G/A);\bZ) \to \H^4(B G)$ is an injection, and it is traditional to say that $G/A$ acts with ``level $k$'' if the induced $ G$-action has level $k$. For example, writing $\rP \rE_6 = \rE_6 / \bZ_3$ for the adjoint form of $\rE_6$, the inclusion $\bZ \cong \H^4(B\rP \rE_6;\bZ) \to \H^4(B\rE_6;\bZ) \cong \bZ$ has cokernel of order $3$, and so $\rP \rE_{6,k} = (\rP \rE_6)_k$ is meaningful only when $k$ is divisible by $3$.
This convention fails for $\rU(1)$, since the simply connected cover of $\rU(1)$ is $\bR$, and $\H^4(B\rU(1);\bZ) \to \rH^4(B\bR;\bZ)$ is not injective. Rather, ``$\rU(1)_k$'' refers to the lattice SVOA corresponding to the lattice $\sqrt{k}\bZ \subset \bR$; it is a bosonic VOA only when $k$ is even.
The reason for this convention corresponds to deciding that the vector representation of $\rU(m)$, which restricts to a level-$1$ representation of $\SU(m)$, should have ``level $1$'' on all of $\rU(m)$.
In particular, ``$\rU(1)$ at level $2$'' refers to the generator $-c_1^2 \in \H^4(B\rU(1))$, and ``level~1'' refers to a supercohomology class that could be called ``$-\frac{c_1^2}2$.''
Supercohomology will be discussed further in \S\ref{orbifolds}; see also \cite[\S5.3--5.4]{MR3978827} for definitions and relations to invertible phases of matter, and \cite[\S1.4]{JFT} for a supercohomological interpretation of the fractional Pontryagin class $\frac{p_1}2$.
All together, the fractional Pontryagin class $\frac{p_1}2$, which restricts along $\Spin(3) = \SU(2)$ to $2c_2$, restricts further along the maximal torus $\Spin(2) \subset \Spin(3)$ to $4(-\frac{c_1^2}2)$. Thus $3\frac{p_1}2 \mapsto 12(-\frac{c_1^2}2)$, and so ``$\Spin(2)_3$'' is the bosonic VOA $\rU(1)_{12}$. But we come full circle: its simple current extension ``$\SO(2)_3$'' ends up being the SVOA $\rU(1)_3$, which is consistent with the isomorphism $\rU(1) \cong \SO(2)$.
\subsection{Elliptic genus constraints} \label{subsec.genus}
An SVOA $V$ with nontrivial fermionic part has two types of anyons.
A \define{Neveu--Schwarz (NS) sector anyon} is simply a ``vertex module'' for $V$, understood internal to the category of supervector spaces: it is a supervector space $M$ with a vertex algebra action of $V$; the locality axiom describing how odd elements of $V$ act on odd elements of $M$ takes into account the Koszul sign rule. The vacuum module $V$ itself is an NS-sector anyon, and NS-sector anyons form a braided monoidal ``supercategory'' (a monoidal category enriched in supervector spaces, with a braiding whose axiomatics take into account the Koszul sign rule).
The other type of anyons are called \define{Ramond (R) sector}. In terms of vertex (super) modules, an R-sector anyon for $V$ is a ``twisted module,'' where the ``twisting'' is the canonical parity-reversal automorphism $(-1)^f$. The R-sector anyons also form a supercategory, but it is not monoidal. Rather, the R-sector is a ``module category'' for the NS-sector. Any supercategory has an underlying bosonic category given by forgetting the odd morphisms. (For instance, the underlying bosonic category of $\cat{SVec}$ itself is $\cat{Vec}^2$.) The direct sum of underlying bosonic categories of the NS- and R-sectors for $V$ is the category of (bosonic) representations of the even subalgebra $V_\ev$. A $V_\ev$-anyon $M_\ev$ produces a $V$-anyon $M$ whose even subspace is $M_\ev$ and whose odd subspace is $M_\odd = M_\ev \otimes_{V_\ev} V_\odd$ (where ``$\otimes_{V_\ev}$'' denotes fusion of $V_\ev$-anyons). The $V$-anyon $M$ is in the NS- or R-sector according to the \define{charge} of $M_\ev$, controlled by the braiding of $V_\odd$ with $M_\ev$. When $V_\ev = G_k \neq E_{8,2}$, this charge is precisely the action on $M_\ev$ of the central element of $G$ corresponding to $V_\odd$.
A (super) $V$-module $M$, whether NS- or R-sector, has furthermore two different ``characters,'' i.e.\ graded dimensions. One, the \define{NS-character}, is the graded dimension
$$ \chi_{\mathrm{NS}}(M) = \tr_M\bigl(q^{L_0 - c/24}\bigr)$$
of the underlying non-super vector space of $M$. The \define{R-character}, on the other hand, is the graded superdimension
$$ \chi_{\mathrm{R}}(M) = \operatorname{str}_M\bigl(q^{L_0 - c/24}\bigr) = \tr_M\bigl( (-1)^f q^{L_0 - c/24}\bigr).$$
Zhu's famous modularity result \cite{MR1317233} in the super case asserts that the ``NS-NS'' characters, i.e.\ the NS characters of the NS-sector anyons, form a vector valued modular form for $\Gamma_0(2)$, whereas the ``R-R'' characters form a vector valued modular form for the whole modular group $\mathrm{SL}_2(\bZ)$ \cite{MR2175996,MR2681777,MR3077918,MR3205090}.
Suppose now that the SVOA $V$ is equipped with an $N{=}1$ superconformal vector $\tau$. As with any odd operator, the Fourier expansions of $\tau(z)$ on NS- and R-sector anyons have different gradings. As a result, NS-sector anyons become representations of the ``$N{=}1$ Neveu--Schwarz algebra'' whereas R-sector anyons become representations of the ``$N{=}1$ Ramond algebra.'' In the latter algebra, but not the former, the shifted energy operator $L_0-c/24$ has an odd square root (traditionally called ``$G_0$''). This operator pairs bosonic and fermionic fields in the same R-sector module, other than the \define{ground states} with $L_0 = c/24$, and so those fields cancel out of the R-R character, and we recover the famous boson-fermion cancellation:
\begin{lemma}
If $V$ is an $N{=}1$ SVOA, then for every R-sector anyon $M$, its R-character evaluates to an integer (i.e.\ it has no $q$-dependence), equal to the signed count of ground states in $M$. In particular, if $M_\ev$ is a nontrivially-charged $V_\ev$-anyon, then $M_\ev$ and $M_\ev \otimes_{V_\ev} V_\odd$ must have the same graded dimensions up to a constant. \qed
\end{lemma}
We will use this Lemma to rule out most semisimple but non-simple groups from consideration in our Theorem.
Suppose that $G_{(1)},G_{(2)},\dots$ are simple simply connected groups, and that $G = G_{(1)} \times G_{(2)} \times \dots$ is equipped with the level $k = (k_{(1)},k_{(2)},\dots)$, and that $c = (c_{(1)},c_{(2)},\dots) \in G$ is a central element of order $2$ such that $V = (G / \{1,c\})_k$ admits an $N{=}1$ structure. Then each $c_{(i)} \in G_{(i)}$ must be nontrivial: else $\tau$ would have trivial OPE with $(G_{(i)})_{k_{(i)}} \subset V$ and so could not generate the conformal vector. Write $M_{(i)}$ for the abelian $(G_{(i)})_{k_{(i)}}$-anyon corresponding to $c_{(i)}$, so that $V_\odd = \bigotimes_i M_{(i)}$. The total conformal dimension of $V_\odd$, equal to $\frac32$ by assumption, is the sum of the conformal dimensions of the $M_{(i)}$s. Inspecting the Lemma from \S\ref{subsec.extension}, we see find the following choices for conformal dimension $<3/2$:
$$ \begin{array}{l|l|l}
h_a & (G_{(i)})_{k_{(i)}} & \dim(M_{(i)}) \\ \hline
1/4 & \Sp(2{\times}1)_1 & 2 \\
\hline 1/2 & \Spin(m)_1 & m \\
\hline 3/4 & \Sp(2{\times}1)_3 & 4 \\
& \Sp(2{\times}3)_1 & 14 \\
& \SU(6)_1 & 20 \\
& \Spin(12)_1 & 32 \\
& \rE_{7,1} & 56 \\
\hline 1 & \Spin(m)_2 & \frac{(m+2)(m-1)}2 \\
& \Sp(2{\times}4)_1 & 42 \\
& \Spin(16)_1 & 128 \\
\hline 5/4 & \Sp(2{\times}1)_5 & 6 \\
& \Sp(2{\times}5)_1 & 132 \\
& \Spin(20)_1 & 512
\end{array}$$
Note that $\Sp(2{\times}2)_k = \Spin(5)_k$, $\SU(4)_k = \Spin(6)_k$, and $\SU(2)_{2k} = \Sp(2{\times}1)_{2k} = \text{``}\Spin(3)_{k}\text{''}$ do not require separate entries.
For example, $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_1 \times \Spin(12)_1$ has an anyon $V_\odd = M_{(1)} \otimes M_{(2)}$ of conformal dimension~$\frac32$. Is it possible for the corresponding SVOA $V$ to admit an $N{=}1$ structure? No. Indeed, writing $\vac$ for vacuum module of either $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1$ or $\Spin(12)_1$, we find that the $V_\ev$-modules $M_{(1)} \boxtimes \vac$ and $\vac \boxtimes M_{(2)}$ are nontrivially charged and exchanged by fusion with $V_\odd$ and hence merge into an R-sector $V$-anyon, but that their characters are
$$ \chi\bigl(M_{(1)} \boxtimes \vac\bigr) = 14 \, q^{0.325} + \dots, \quad \chi\bigl(\vac \boxtimes M_{(2)}\bigr) = 32 \, q^{0.325} + \dots.$$
The coefficients are simply the dimensions of the minimal-spin subspaces of the anyons $M_{(i)}$, and the power of $q$ is $\frac34 - \frac c{24}$ (a quantity that Schellekens' computer algebra program ``Kac'' calls the ``modular anomaly''). Since $14\neq 32$, we have found a non-constant R-R character, and so this SVOA $V$ does not admit an $N{=}1$ structure.
The same conclusion holds whenever $G_k = (G_{(1)})_{k_{(1)}} \times (G_{(2)})_{k_{(2)}}$ with the $M_{(i)}$s of conformal dimensions $(\frac34,\frac34)$ or $(\frac14,\frac54)$: we must have $(G_{(1)})_{k_{(1)}} = (G_{(2)})_{k_{(2)}}$.
In the $\Spin(m)_1 \times \Spin(m')_2$ and $\Spin(m)_1 \times \Sp(2{\times}4)_2$ cases, the $V_\ev$-anyons $M_{(1)} \boxtimes \vac$ and $\vac \boxtimes M_{(2)}$ merge to an NS-sector $V$-anyon, where $V_\odd = M_{(1)} \boxtimes M_{(2)}$. To build an R-sector $V$-anyon, one can take start with the (not necessarily irreducible) $\Spin(m)_1$-anyon $N$ of conformal dimension $h = \frac m {16}$
whose minimal-spin fields are the full spinor representation (of dimension $2^{m/2}$); then $N \boxtimes \vac$ merges with $N \boxtimes M_{(2)}$ to form an R-sector anyon with nonconstant R-R character.
Similar arguments also rule out more complicated combinations with three or more simple factors. All together, we see that, in order for $G_k = (G_{(1)})_{k_{(1)}} \times (G_{(2)})_{k_{(2)}} \times \dots$ to have a $\bZ_2$-extension with $N{=}1$ supersymmetry and no free fermions, a necessary condition is that all the simple factors $(G_{(i)})_{k_{(i)}}$ must be isomorphic, with one exception: $\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$ extended by its anyon of conformal dimension $\frac32$ passes the test in the previous Lemma.
\begin{corollary}
The SVOAs $V$ with no free fermions, $V_\ev = G_k$ a simply connected WZW algebra, $V_\odd$ of conformal dimension $\frac32$, and for which all R-R characters are constants are those listed in the Corollary in \S\ref{subsec.extension} (including $\Spin(4)_3 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2$) and
$$
\Spin(m)_1^3\quad \text{(including $\Spin(3)_1^3 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_2^3$ and $\Spin(4)_1^3 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_1^6$)}, $$
\quad\hfill $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2,\quad \SU(6)_1^2, \quad \Spin(12)_1^2, \quad \Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1, \quad \text{and} \quad \rE_{7,1}^2$. \hfill \qed
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Inclusions of non-simply connected WZW algebras} \label{subsec.inclusions}
The (bosonic) simply connected WZW algebras $V_\ev = G_k$ listed in the Corollaries in \S\ref{subsec.extension} and \S\ref{subsec.genus} are related by the following inclusions:
$$ \begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.1]
\path
(0,1) node (A16) {\!``$\Spin(3)_3$''\!}
+(0,-.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,-1) node (C16) {$\Sp(2{\times}1)_6$}
++(2,0) node (D23) {$\Spin(4)_{3}$}
+(0,-.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,-1) node (C132) {$\Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2$}
++(2,0) node (B23) {$\Spin(5)_3$}
+(0,-.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,-1) node (C23) {$\Sp(2{\times}2)_3$}
++(2,0) node (D33) {$\Spin(6)_3$}
+(0,-.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,-1) node (A33) {$\SU(4)_3$}
++(2,0) node (B33) {$\Spin(7)_3$}
++(2,0) node (D43) {$\Spin(8)_3$}
+(0,-.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$} +(0,-.5) node[anchor=west] {\tiny triality}
+(0,-1) node (D43t) {$\Spin(8)_3$}
++(2,0) node (B43) {$\Spin(9)_3$}
++(1.5,0) node (dots) {$\dots$}
;
\path
(0,2) node (A123) {\!``$\Spin(3)_1^3$''\!}
+(0,.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,1) node (C123) {$\Sp(2{\times}1)_2^3$}
++(2,0) node (D213) {$\Spin(4)_1^3$}
+(0,.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,1) node (C116) {$\Sp(2{\times}1)_1^6$}
++(2,0) node (B213) {$\Spin(5)_1^3$}
+(0,.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,1) node (C213) {$\Sp(2{\times}2)_1^3$}
++(2,0) node (D313) {$\Spin(6)_1^3$}
+(0,.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$}
+(0,1) node (A313) {$\SU(4)_1^3$}
++(2,0) node (B313) {$\Spin(7)_1^3$}
++(2,0) node (D413) {$\Spin(8)_1^3$}
+(0,.5) node[rotate=90] {$=$} +(0,.5) node[anchor=west] {\tiny triality}
+(0,1) node (D413t) {$\Spin(8)_1^3$}
++(2,0) node (B413) {$\Spin(9)_1^3$}
++(1.5,0) node (dots1) {$\dots$}
;
\path
(0,4) node (C32) {$\Sp(2{\times}3)_2$}
++(2,1) node (A52) {$\SU(6)_2$}
++(2,-1) node (C61) {$\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$}
++(0,2) node (D62) {$\Spin(12)_2$}
++(2,-1) node (A111) {$\SU(12)_1$}
++(4,-1) node (D8D4) {$\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$}
++(0,2) node (D121) {$\Spin(24)_1$}
;
\path
(D62)
++(0,1) node (E72) {$\rE_{7,2}$}
++(0,1) node (E82) {$\rE_{8,2}$}
;
\path
(C32) ++(2,0) node (C312) {$\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$}
(A52) ++(2,0) node (A512) {$\SU(6)_1^2$}
(D62) ++(2,0) node (D612) {$\Spin(12)_1^2$}
(E72) ++(2,0) node (E712) {$\rE_{7,1}^2$}
;
\draw[right hook - >] (A16) -- (D23);
\draw[right hook - >] (A123) -- (D213);
\draw[right hook - >] (A16) -- (A123);
\draw[right hook - >] (D23) -- (B23);
\draw[right hook - >] (B23) -- (D33);
\draw[right hook - >] (D33) -- (B33);
\draw[right hook - >] (B33) -- (D43);
\draw[right hook - >] (D43) -- (B43);
\draw[right hook - >] (B43) -- (dots);
\draw[right hook - >] (D23) -- (D213);
\draw[right hook - >] (B23) -- (B213);
\draw[right hook - >] (D33) -- (D313);
\draw[right hook - >] (B33) -- (B313);
\draw[right hook - >] (D43) -- (D413);
\draw[right hook - >] (B43) -- (B413);
\draw[right hook - >] (D213) -- (B213);
\draw[right hook - >] (B213) -- (D313);
\draw[right hook - >] (D313) -- (B313);
\draw[right hook - >] (B313) -- (D413);
\draw[right hook - >] (D413) -- (B413);
\draw[right hook - >] (B413) -- (dots1);
\draw[right hook - >] (C16) -- (C132);
\draw[right hook - >] (C132) -- (C23);
\draw[right hook - >] (C23) -- (A33);
\draw[right hook - >] (A33) -- (D43t);
\draw[right hook - >] (C123) -- (C116);
\draw[right hook - >] (C116) -- (C213);
\draw[right hook - >] (C213) -- (A313);
\draw[right hook - >] (A313) -- (D413t);
\draw[right hook - >] (C123) -- (C32);
\draw[right hook - >] (C116) -- (C312);
\draw[right hook - >] (C213) -- (C61);
\draw[right hook - >] (A313) -- (A111);
\draw[right hook - >] (C32) -- (C312);
\draw[right hook - >] (C312) -- (C61);
\draw[right hook - >] (C32) -- (A52);
\draw[right hook - >] (C312) -- (A512);
\draw[right hook - >] (C61) -- (A111);
\draw[right hook - >] (A52) -- (C61);
\draw[right hook - >] (A52) -- (A512);
\draw[right hook - >] (A512) -- (A111);
\draw[right hook - >] (A52) -- (D62);
\draw[right hook - >] (A512) -- (D612);
\draw[right hook - >] (A111) -- (D121);
\draw[right hook - >] (D62) -- (A111);
\draw[right hook - >] (D62) -- (D612);
\draw[right hook - >] (D612) -- (D121);
\draw[right hook - >] (D413t) -- (D8D4);
\draw[right hook - >] (D8D4) -- (D121);
\draw[right hook - >] (D62) -- (E72);
\draw[right hook - >] (D612) -- (E712);
\draw[right hook - >] (E72) -- (E712);
\draw[right hook - >] (E72) -- (E82);
\end{tikzpicture} $$
Indeed, let $G' \subset G$ be an inclusion of simply connected Lie groups. Then $G'_{k'} \subset G_k$ exactly when $k'$ is the image of $k$ under the restriction map $\H^4(BG;\bZ) \to \H^4(BG';\bZ)$. (When $G'$ and $G$ are simple, these cohomology groups are both isomorphic to $\bZ$, and the restriction map is multiplication by a positive integer called the \define{Dynkin index} of the inclusion.)
This is how the above diagram was charted.
Except in special situations, the inclusion $G'_{k'} \subset G_k$ is not \define{conformal} --- it does not intertwine conformal vectors. Rather, there is a \define{coset} VOA $G_k / G'_{k'}$ defined to consist of those fields in $G_k$ which commute with $G'_{k'}$. Writing $\nu$ and $\nu'$ for the conformal vectors of $G_{k}$ and $G'_{k'}$ respectively, the conformal vector for the coset is $\nu'' = \nu - \nu'$, so that the total inclusion $G'_{k'} \boxtimes (G_k / G'_{k'}) \subset G_k$ is conformal. The coset of a conformal inclusion is the trivial VOA $\bC$. Often but not always a sub-VOA is equal to its double coset; for example, this fails for conformal inclusions, but holds in many examples related to level-rank duality. Complete lists of conformal inclusions of simply connected WZW algebras are available in \cite{MR867023,MR867243}, and the relation to level-rank duality is discussed in \cite{MR3039775}.
One should expect that the non-simply connected WZW algebras also depend functorially on the corresponding groups, but this is not manifest from the construction and does not seem to be known in general (but see \cite[Section~2]{HenriquesWZW} for a heuristic construction of non-simply connected WZW algebras which is manifestly functorial). If we did have such functoriality, then it would follow that all of the above bosonic inclusions, other than $\rE_{7,2} \subset \rE_{8,2}$, extend to the $\bZ_2$-extensions: the reader is invited to check that in all cases, the given $\bZ_2$-quotients of the simply connected groups do map appropriately. Since we do not have a general functorialty result, we will instead check that for the SVOAs from \S\ref{subsec.extension}, the bosonic inclusions extend.
We check this as follows.
Let $G' \subset G$ be an inclusion of simple simply connected Lie groups from the above chart,
so that we are trying to establish an inclusion $G'_{k'}/\bZ_2 \subset G_k/\bZ_2$ of SVOAs. We do have inclusions $G'_{k'} \subset G_k \subset G_k/\bZ_2$. Write $M = (G_k/\bZ_2)_\odd$ for the $G_k$-anyon consisting of the fermionic part of $G_k/\bZ_2$; it has conformal dimension $h_M = \frac32$, and its space $M_{3/2}$ of fields of spin $\frac32$ is the simple $G$-module listed, in the simple-$G$ case, in the Corollary in \S\ref{subsec.extension}. Now decompose $M$ over $G'_{k'} \times (G_k / G'_{k'})$. It decomposes as
$$ M = \bigoplus A_i \boxtimes B_i $$
where the $A_i$s are simple $G'_{k'}$-anyons and the $B_i$s are simple $(G_k / G'_{k'})$-anyons. They have complementary conformal dimensions: $h_{A_i} + h_{B_i} = h_M = \frac32$. Since $G'_{k'}$ is simply connected, the fields of minimal spin in any simple anyon $A$ are a simple module for the compact group $G'$, and $A$ is determined by this module. In the case at hand, these simple modules are precisely the modules appearing as direct summands inside the restriction $M_{3/2}|_{G'}$ of $M_{3/2}$ to $G'$.
Write $M' = (G'_{k'}/\bZ_2)_\odd$ for the fermionic part of $G'_{k'}/\bZ_2$, and $M'_{3/2}$ for its space of spin-$\frac32$ fields. By the remarks in the previous paragraph, $M'$ appears as one of the $A_i$s if and only if $M'_{3/2}$ appears as a direct summand of $M_{3/2}|_{G'}$. If it does, then the corresponding $B_i$ must be the vacuum $(G_k / G'_{k'})$-module, since it must have conformal dimension $0$.
But then
\begin{multline*}
G'_{k'}/\bZ_2 \boxtimes (G_k / G'_{k'}) = (G'_{k'} \oplus M') \boxtimes (G_k / G'_{k'}) \\ = \bigl(G'_{k'} \boxtimes (G_k / G'_{k'})\bigr) \oplus \bigl(M' \boxtimes (G_k / G'_{k'})\bigr) \subset G_k \oplus M = G_k/\bZ_2
\end{multline*}
and the inclusion is verified. And sure enough:
\begin{lemma}
For all inclusions $G' \subset G$ in the above diagram except for $\rE_{7,2} \subset \rE_{8,2}$, $M_{3/2}|_{G'}$ contains $M'_{3/2}$ as a direct summand, and so the inclusion extends to an SVOA inclusion $G'_{k'}/\bZ_2 \subset G_k/\bZ_2$.
\end{lemma}
It is worth warning that, although many of the inclusions $G'_{k'}/\bZ_2 \subset G_k/\bZ_2$ are compatible with $N{=}1$ superconformal structures, not all of them are. We will describe the modules $M_{3/2}$ in more detail in Section~\ref{sec.existence}, and we will
use some but not all of the resulting inclusions in Sections~\ref{sec.spinm3} and~\ref{sec.uniqueness}.
\begin{proof} For the inclusions $G_2 \subset G_1^2$, write $N$ for the abelian $G_1$-anyon of conformal dimension $\frac34$. Then $M_{3/2} = N^{\boxtimes 2}$ restricts over the diagonal inclusion $G \subset G^2$ to $N^{\otimes 2}$, and its highest-weight submodule is $M'_{3/2}$. For the remaining inclusions, we work from bottom to top and right to left:
\begin{description}
\item[$\Spin(m)_3 \subset \Spin(m+1)_3$] The module $M_{3/2}$ is the space $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m+1}) \ominus (\mathbf{m+1})$ of traceless symmetric 3-tensors in $m+1$ variables. It includes the space $M'_{3/2} = \Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$ of traceless 3-tensors in $m$ variables.
\item[$\Spin(m)_3 \subset \Spin(m)_1^3$] The module $M_{3/2}$ is the ``outer'' product $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$ of the vector representations of the three copies of $\Spin(m)$. It restricts along the diagonal inclusion $G' = \Spin(m) \subset \Spin(m)^3 = G$ to $\mathbf{m}^{\otimes 3}$, which contains the irrep $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$ as a direct summand.
\item[$\Spin(m)_1^3 \subset \Spin(m+1)_1^3$] $(\mathbf{m+1})^{\boxtimes 3} \supset \mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$.
\item[$\Spin(8)_1^3 \subset \Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$] $M_{3/2}$ is the tensor product of positive half-spin modules $\mathbf{128}_+ \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+$. It decomposes over $\Spin(8)^3$ as $(\mathbf{8}_+ \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+ \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+) \oplus (\mathbf{8}_- \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_- \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+)$. The first summand becomes $M'_{3/2} = \mathbf{8}^{\boxtimes 3}$ after applying the triality automorphism of $\Spin(8)$.
\item[$\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1 \subset \Spin(24)_1$] $M_{3/2}$ is the positive half-spin module $\mathbf{2048}_+$. It decomposes over $\Spin(16) \times \Spin(8)$ as $(\mathbf{128}_+ \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+) \oplus (\mathbf{128}_- \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_-)$. The first summand is $M'_{3/2}$.
\item[$\SU(4)_1^3 \subset \SU(12)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$.
Write $\mathbf{4}^{\oplus 3} = \mathbf{12}|_{\SU(4)^3}$ for the direct sum of the three vector representations. Then $M_{3/2}$
restricts over $\SU(4)^3$ as $\Alt^6(\mathbf{4}^{\boxplus 3}) \supset \Alt^2(\mathbf{4})^{\boxtimes 3}$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}2)_1^3 \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{429} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12})$. The vector representation $\mathbf{12}$ restricts along the diagonal inclusion $\Sp(2{\times}2)^3 \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)$ to $\mathbf{4}^{\boxplus 3}$, and so $\mathbf{429}$ contains $M'_{3/2} = \bigl(\Alt^2(\mathbf 4) \ominus \mathbf 1\bigr)^{\boxtimes 3}$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}1)_1^6 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$] The $\Sp(2{\times}3)$-irrep $\mathbf{14}_- = \Alt^3(\mathbf6) \ominus \mathbf6$ restricts along $\Sp(2{\times}1)^3 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)$ to $\Alt^3(\mathbf2^{\boxplus 3}) \ominus (\mathbf2^{\boxplus 3}) \supset \mathbf2^{\boxtimes 3}$, and so $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{14}_-^{\boxtimes 2}$ contains $M'_{3/2} = \mathbf2^{\boxtimes 6}$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}1)_2^3 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)_2$] $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{84} = \Sym^2(\mathbf{14}_-) \ominus \mathbf{21}$, where $\mathbf{21}$ is the adjoint representation of $\Sp(2{\times}3)$. As above, $\mathbf{14}_-$ restricts along $\Sp(2{\times}1)^3 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)$ to contain $\mathbf2^{\boxtimes 3}$, and so $\Sym^2(\mathbf{14}_-)$ contains $M'_{3/2} = \Sym^2(\mathbf2)^{\boxtimes 3}$, whereas $\mathbf{21}|_{\Sp(2{\times}1)^3} = \mathbf3^{\boxplus 3}$.
\item[$\SU(12)_1 \subset \Spin(24)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{2048}_+$ splits over $\SU(12)$ as $\Alt^0(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^2(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^8(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^{10}(\mathbf{12}) \oplus \Alt^{12}(\mathbf{12})$, and so contains $M'_{3/2} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$ as a direct summand.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}6)_1 \subset \SU(12)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$ contains $\Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12}) = M'_{3/2}$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12})$ restricts to $\Alt^6(\mathbf{6}^{\boxplus 2}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{6}^{\boxplus 2}) \supset \bigl(\Alt^3(\mathbf{6}) \ominus \mathbf{6}\bigr)^{\boxtimes 2} = M'_{3/2}$.
\item[$\Spin(12)_1^2 \subset \Spin(24)_1$] $M_{3/2}|_{\Spin(12)^2} = \mathbf{2048}_+|_{\Spin(12)^2} = \mathbf{32}_+^{\boxtimes 2} \oplus \mathbf{32}_-^{\boxtimes 2} \supset \mathbf{32}_+^{\boxtimes 2} = M'_{3/2}$.
\item[$\SU(6)_1^2 \subset \SU(12)_1$] $M_{3/2}|_{\SU(6)^2} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{6}^{\boxplus 2}) \supset \Alt^3(\mathbf{6})^{\boxtimes 2} = M'_{3/2}$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2 \subset \SU(6)_1^2$] $M_{3/2} = \Alt^3(\mathbf{6})^{\boxtimes 2}$ contains $M'_{3/2} = \bigl(\Alt^3(\mathbf{6}) \ominus \mathbf{6}\bigr)^{\boxtimes 2}$.
\item[$\Spin(12)_2 \subset \SU(12)_1$] $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{924}$ splits as $\mathbf{462}_+ \oplus \mathbf{462}_-$, where $M'_{3/2} = \mathbf{462}_+$.
\item[$\SU(6)_2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$] $\Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$ contains $\Sym^2(\Alt^3(\mathbf{6}))$, and the desired inclusion $M'_{3/2} \subset M_{3/2}$ arises as the traceless parts of these modules.
\item[$\SU(6)_2 \subset \Spin(12)_2$] $\mathbf{462}_+$ is a simple submodule of $\Sym^2(\mathbf{32}_+) = \mathbf{462}_+ \oplus \mathfrak{so}(12)$, where $\mathbf{32}_+$ is the positive half-spin module of $\Spin(12)$. It splits over $\SU(6)$ as $\mathbf{32}_+ = \Alt^1(\mathbf{6}) \oplus \Alt^3(\mathbf{6}) \oplus \Alt^5(\mathbf{6})$, and so $\Sym^2(\mathbf{32}_+)$ contains $\Sym^2(\Alt^3(\mathbf{6})) = \mathbf{175}_+ \oplus \mathfrak{su}(6)$.
\item[$\Sp(2{\times}3)_2 \subset \SU(6)_2$] The inclusion $M'_{3/2} \subset M_{3/2}$ comes from applying $\Sym^2$ to the inclusion $\Alt^3(\mathbf6) \ominus \mathbf6 \subset \Alt^3(\mathbf6)$ and restricting to traceless parts.
\item[$\Spin(12)_1^2 \subset \rE_{7,1}^2$] The standard representation $\mathbf{56}$ of $\rE_7$ splits over $\Spin(12)$ as $\mathbf{32}_+ \oplus 2 \otimes \mathbf{12}$, and so $M_{3/2} = \mathbf{56}^{\boxtimes 2}$ contains $M'_{3/2} = \mathbf{32}_+^{\boxtimes 2}$.
\item[$\Spin(12)_2 \subset \rE_{7,2}$] Applying $\Sym^2$ to the restriction $\mathbf{56}|_{\Spin(12)} \supset \mathbf{32}_+$, we see that $\Sym^2(\mathbf{56}) = \mathbf{1463} \oplus \mathbf{133}$ contains $\Sym^2(\mathbf{32}_+) = \mathbf{462}_+ \oplus \mathbf{66}$, where $\mathbf{1463} = M_{3/2}$, $\mathbf{462}_+ = M'_{3/2}$, $\mathbf{133} = \mathfrak{e}_7$, and $\mathbf{66} = \mathfrak{so}(12)$.
\item[$\rE_{7,2} \subset \rE_{8,2}$]
According to the GAP package ``SLA'' \cite{SLA-GAP},
$M_{3/2} = \mathbf{3875}$ splits over $\rE_7$ as $\mathbf{1} \oplus \mathbf{1539} \oplus 2 \otimes \mathbf{56} \oplus 2 \otimes \mathbf{912} \oplus 3 \otimes \mathbf{133}$, and so does not contain $M'_{3/2} = \mathbf{1463}$. \qedhere
\end{description}
\end{proof}
\section{Constructing $N{=}1$ structures}\label{sec.existence}
In this section we construct the $N{=}1$ structures listed in the Theorem. The underlying SVOAs~$V$ are those listed in \S\ref{subsec.extension} and \S\ref{subsec.genus}.
Our strategy is the following. Given such a $V$, we will cleverly choose a finite subgroup $S \subset \Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$. It is worth remarking that $\Aut(G_k) = \Aut(\mathfrak{g}) = G^\adj{:}\operatorname{Out}(G)$, where $G^\adj$ is the adjoint form of $G$ and $\operatorname{Out}(G)$ is the group of Dynkin diagram automorphisms of $G$, and the colon denotes a semidirect product. The extension from $V_\ev = G_k$ to $V = V_\ev \oplus V_\odd$ involves passing to a (possibly trivial) double cover of $G^\adj$, and may break some of the $\operatorname{Out}(G)$ symmetry.
We will choose the subgroup $S \subset \Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ so that it fixes a unique (up to scalar) non-null spin-$\frac32$ field $\tau$, but such that
the adjoint representation $\mathfrak{g}$ remains simple upon restriction to $S$. The space of spin-$2$ fields in a simply connected WZW algebra $G_k$ is a submodule of $\Sym^2(\mathfrak{g})\oplus \mathfrak{g}$, with equality except in very low level. (The $\Sym^2(\mathfrak{g})$ summand consists of bilinears in the Kac--Moody generators, and the $\mathfrak{g}$-summand consists of the derivatives of the Kac--Moody generators.) So simplicity of $\mathfrak{g}$ will imply that the conformal vector $\nu$ is the only (up to scalar) $S$-fixed spin-$2$ field.
The generic self-OPE of $\tau$ is
$$ \tau(z)\,\tau(0) \sim \frac{c'}{z^3} + \frac{X(0)}{z}$$
for some spin-$2$ field $X$ ---
locality rules out a term of the form $\frac{Y(0)}{z^2}$, hence its omission.
There is a unique $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$-invariant nondegenerate inner product on the spin-$\frac32$ fields, which sets $\|\tau\|^2 = c'$, and so provided $\tau$ is not lightlike for this inner product, we can rescale $\tau$ to set $c' = \frac23 c$.
Since $S$ is finite and the spin-$\frac32$ fields have a nondenegerate inner product, the $S$-module of spin-$\frac32$ fields has a natural real form for which that inner product is positive definite (namely, the real subspace on which the bilinear inner product agrees with the Hermitian form coming from unitarity of the SVOA). If $S$ has a complex fixed point, then it has a real fixed point, and so if $\tau$ was the unique fixed point, it must be real and cannot be lightlike.
Finally, $X$ is spin-$2$ and $S$-fixed and so proportional to $\nu$, and the Jacobi identity will force the correct normalization \cite[Lemma 5.9]{MR1651389}.
We now proceed with the examples. We will follow the ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS} for names for finite groups: for instance, ``$2$'' means the cyclic group $\bZ_2$, $\rU_3(3)$ means the simple subquotient of the third unitary group over $\bF_3$, $\Suz$ is Suzuki's sporadic group, and a colon denotes a split extension.
We rely on GAP \cite{GAP} (and its CTblLib library \cite{CTblLib}, which uses the ATLAS naming conventions) for all character table computations; groups in the ATLAS were accessed through the GAP package AtlasRep \cite{AtlasRep-Gap}.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(m)_3$}\label{exist.spinm}
When $m\neq8$,
the automorphism group of the bosonic WZW algebra $V_\ev = \Spin(m)_3$ is the projective orthogonal group $\mathrm{PO}(m) = \rO(m)/\{\pm1\}$, isomorphic to $\PSO(m){:}2$ when $m$ is even and to $\SO(m)$ when $m$ is odd. This lifts to the full orthogonal group $\rO(m)$ upon including the simple current $V_\odd$.
When $m=8$, $\Aut(V_\ev) = \PSO(8){:}S_3$ includes the triality automorphism, but $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ does not and remains $\rO(8)$.
Choose $S = A_{m+1}$ the alternating group, embedded into $\rO(m)$ via the simple submodule of the permutation representation. The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{so}(m) = \Alt^2(\mathbf{m})$ remains simple upon restriction to $S$, and so the conformal vector $\nu$ is the unique $S$-fixed spin-$2$ field.
We claim that $A_{m+1}$ has a unique fixed point in $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus (\mathbf{m})$, or equivalently in $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$. Indeed, we can witness a fixed point explicitly: write $\mathbf{m}$ as the span of elements $e_0,\dots,e_m$, permuted by $A_{m+1}$, modulo $\sum e_i = 0$; then $\sum e_i^3$ is a nonzero $S_{m+1}$-fixed element of $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$. On the other hand, a Young diagram computation confirms that $\hom_{A_{m+1}}(\mathbf{m},\Sym^2(\mathbf{m}))$ is one-dimensional, and so $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$ has at most one fixed point.
We remark that this $\tau$ is in fact preserved by the whole symmetric group $S_{m+1} = A_{m+1}{:}2$. Actually, $S_{m+1}$ maps to $\rO(m)$ in two different ways, related by the sign representation, and $\tau$ is fixed for one of these and \define{antifixed} (i.e.\ acted on by the sign representation) for the other.
As we remarked already in \S\ref{subsec:small-m}, special cases include $\Spin(6)_3 = \SU(4)_3$, $\Spin(5)_3 = \Sp(2{\times}4)_3$, $\Spin(4)_3 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2 = \SU(2)_3^2$, and $\text{``}\Spin(3)_3\text{''} = \Sp(2{\times}1)_6 = \SU(2)_6$. In \S\ref{su12.uniqueness} and \S\ref{unique.su6}, we will use the non-simply-connected special case $\text{``}\Spin(2)_3\text{''} = \rU(1)_{12}$.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(m)_1^3$}\label{exist.spinm.3}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \Spin(m)_1^3$ contains (and is equal to, when $m\neq 4,8$) the wreath product $\rP\rO(m)\wr S_3 = \rP\rO(m)^3{:}S_3$ --- the $S_3$ permutes the three simple factors --- and lifts to the double cover $2.\rP\rO(m)^3{:}S_3 = \rO(m)^{\circ 3}{:}S_3$ upon inclusion of the simple current $V_\odd$. (If $G$ and $G'$ have identical centres $Z = Z(G) = Z(G')$, then we will write $G \circ G'$ to denote their \define{central product} $(G \times G') / Z$.
As in \S\ref{exist.spinm}, when $m=8$, $\Aut(V_\ev)$ also includes the triality automorphism, but $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ does not.)
The space of spin-$\frac32$ fields is $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$, the outer product of three copies of the vector representation of $\rO(m)$. Choose an orthonormal basis $e_1,\dots,e_m$ for $\mathbf{m}$; then a basis for $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$ is $e_{\vec\imath} = e_{i_1} \boxtimes e_{i_2} \boxtimes e_{i_3}$, where $\vec\imath = (i_1,i_2,i_3) \in \{1,\dots,m\}^3$.
Embed $S = 2^{2(m-1)}{:}(S_3 \times S_m)$ into $\rO(m)^{\circ 3}{:}S_3$ as follows. The $S_3$ embeds along the $S_3$ permuting the three factors. The $S_m$ embeds diagonally inside $\rO(m) \subset \rO(m)^{\circ 3}$ via the permutation representation. Finally, write $2^{2m} = (2^2)^m$, and declare that the $j$th copy of the Klein-4 group $2^2$ embeds into $\rO(m)^3$ so as to switch the signs of two out of the three ``$j$th'' coordinates; this copy of $2^{2m} \subset \rO(m)^3$ projects to $2^{2(m-1)} \subset \rO(m)^{\circ 3}$.
(For instance, the first nontrivial element in the first copy of $2^2 \subset (2^2)^m$ maps to $\bigl(\diag(-1,1,1,\dots), \diag(-1,1,1,\dots), \id \bigr) \in \rO(m)^3$.)
Then $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$ has a unique $S$-fixed vector, namely
$$ \tau = \sum_i e_{i,i,i}.$$
On the other hand, the adjoint representation $\mathfrak{so}(m)^3$ of $\rO(m)^{\circ 3}{:}S_3$ remains simple upon restriction to $S$.
\subsection{Existence for $\Sp(2{\times}3)_2$}\label{exist.sp3}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_2$ is the adjoint form $\PSp(2{\times}3)$. This extends to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = 2 \times \PSp(2{\times}3)$ when $V_\odd$ is included --- the central extension splits because the level is even.
The group $S = \rU_3(3)$ has a unique six-dimensional irrep. It is quaternionic (i.e.\ its Frobenius--Schur indicator is $-1$), and so determines an injection $S \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)$. Since $S$ has no centre, this injection descends to an injection $S \subset \PSp(2{\times}3)$. The adjoint representation $\mathbf{21} = \mathfrak{sp}(3)$ of $\PSp(2{\times}3)$ remains simple upon restriction to $S$.
Denote the three fundamental representations of $\Sp(2{\times}3)$ by $\mathbf{14}_+$, $\mathbf{14}_-$, and $\mathbf{6}$. The third is the standard representation, and the other two are
$$ \mathbf{14}_+ = \Alt^2(\mathbf{6}) \ominus \mathbf{1}, \qquad \mathbf{14}_- = \Alt^3(\mathbf{6}) \ominus \mathbf{6}.$$
$\mathbf{14}_+$ is real and descends to $\PSp(2{\times}3)$ whereas $\mathbf{14}_-$ is quaternionic and acted on nontrivially by the centre of $\Sp(2{\times}3)$.
The $84$-dimensional space of spin-$\frac32$ fields appears inside
$$ \Sym^2(\mathbf{14}_-) = \mathbf{21} \oplus \mathbf{84}.$$
The restriction of $\mathbf{14}_+$ to $S$ is irreducible, but the restriction of $\mathbf{14}_-$ breaks as $\mathbf{7} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{7}}$ for a dual pair of seven-dimensional complex irreps. ($S$ also has a real seven-dimensional irrep.) Since the restriction of $\mathbf{21}$ to $S$ is simple, it follows that $\Sym^2(\mathbf{14}_-)$, and hence $\mathbf{84}$, has a unique $S$-fixed point, providing us with our desired spin-$\frac32$ field~$\tau$.
We remark that $\PSp(2{\times}3) \times 2$ contains two conjugacy classes of $\rU_3(3){:}2$ subgroups, whose actions on $\mathbf{84}$ differ by the sign representation. Indeed,
write $f : \rU_3(3){:}2 \mono \PSp(2{\times}3)$ for the unique conjugacy class of embeddings therein; then the other copy of $\rU_3(3){:}2 \subset \PSp(2{\times}3) \times 2$ is given by the map $(f, \pi)$, where $\pi : \rU_3(3){:}2 \to 2$ is the projection. It follows that $\tau$ is fixed by one (and not the other) of the two copies of $\rU_3(3){:}2 \subset \PSp(2{\times}3) \times 2$.
The other copy \define{antifixes} $\tau$ in the sense that it acts on $\tau$ via the unique nontrivial one-dimensional ``sign'' representation of $\rU_3(3){:}2$ (namely, the composition of the projection $\pi$ with the standard ``sign'' representation $2 \isom \rO(1)$).
\subsection{Existence for $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$}\label{exist.sp3.2}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$ is $\PSp(2{\times}3) \wr 2 = \PSp(2{\times}3)^2 {:} 2$, extending to $\Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2} {:} 2$ upon including $V_\odd$.
Choose $S = \rJ_2$. Its double cover $2\rJ_2$ has two symplectic six-dimensional irreps, exchanged by the outer automorphism, and together they provide a map $2\rJ_2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)^2$ covering an inclusion $\rJ_2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2} \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2} {:} 2$.
The space of spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V$ is $\mathbf{14}_-^{\boxtimes 2}$, where $\mathbf{14}_- = \Alt^3(\mathbf{6}) \ominus \mathbf{6}$ is one of the fundamental $\Sp(2{\times}3)$-irreps, namely the one with nontrivial central character.
The two choices of six-dimensional irrep of $2\rJ_2$ lead to the same 14-dimensional irrep $\mathbf{14}_-$, and a character table calculation confirms that $\mathbf{14}_-^{\boxtimes 2}$ has a unique fixed point upon restriction to $\rJ_2$.
The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{sp}(2{\times}3)^2$ is not simple upon restricting to $\rJ_2$, but it becomes simple if we include the outer automorphism and work with $\rJ_2{:}2$. Because of the double cover, there are two inclusions $\rJ_2{:}2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2} {:} 2$, differing only by the sign of the action of the ``${:}2$.'' By uniqueness, the $\rJ_2$-fixed point in $\mathbf{14}_-^{\boxtimes 2}$ is fixed by one of the copies of $\rJ_2{:}2$, and antifixed by the other.
\subsection{Existence for $\SU(6)_2$}\label{exist.su6}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \SU(6)_2$ is $\Aut(\mathfrak{su}(6)) = \PSU(6){:}2$. This extends to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \PSU(6){:}2 \times 2$. Write $\mathbf{6}$ for the standard representation of $\SU(6)$, and $\mathbf{20} = \Alt^3(\mathbf{6})$ for the third fundamental representation. The $175$-dimensional space of spin-$\frac32$ fields arises as
$$\Sym^2(\mathbf{20}) = \mathbf{175} \oplus \mathbf{35},$$
where $\mathbf{35} = \mathfrak{su}(6)$ is the adjoint representation.
The Mathieu group $\rM_{21}$ is not sporadic, being isomorphic to $\mathrm{PSL}_3(\bF_4) = \rL_3(4)$. It embeds into $\PSU(6)$ via the 6-dimensional representation of its 6-fold cover $6\rM_{21}$ (which GAP's character table library only knows under the name ``$6.\rL_3(4)$,'' but we will use the Mathieu name). The adjoint representation $\mathbf{35}$ remains simple when restricted to $\rM_{21}$, and so the conformal vector $\nu$ is the unique $\rM_{21}$-fixed spin-$2$ field. On the other hand, $\mathbf{20}$ breaks over $2\rM_{21}$ as $\mathbf{10} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{10}}$, where $\mathbf{10}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{10}}$ are a dual pair of $10$-dimensional complex irreps of $2\rM_{21}$, and so
$\Sym^2(\mathbf{20})$, and hence $\mathbf{175}$, has a unique fixed point when restricted to $\rM_{21}$, picking out the superconformal vector $\tau$.
We remark that, although $\rM_{21} = \rL_3(4)$ is not sporadic, it is exceptional, having very large Schur multiplier ($3 \times 4^2$) and outer automorphism group ($D_{12} = 2 \times S_3$). The outer automorphism of order $3$ permutes the three double covers.
In particular, there is no (interesting) group ``$2.\rM_{21}.3$,'' and so no ``$6.\rM_{21}.3$'' which could embed into $\SU(6)$.
(GAP can compute, in a few seconds, that $\Aut(6.\rM_{21}) = \rM_{21}{:}2^2$.)
There are three groups of shape $\rM_{21}{:}2$, coming from the three conjugacy classes of order-$2$ element in $\operatorname{Out}(\rM_{21}) = D_{12}$. The one corresponding to the central element in $D_{12}$ is called $\rM_{12}{:}2\mathrm{a}$. It has a 6-fold central extension, and GAP is able to build the group $6\rM_{21}{:}2{\mathrm{a}}$ from the $6$-dimensional matrix representation over $\bF_{25}$ listed in the ATLAS, convert it into a permutation group, and calculate its character table. It does have a $6$-dimensional complex irrep, and so embeds into $\SU(6)$ covering an embedding $\rM_{21}{:}2{\mathrm{a}} \subset \PSU(6)$. The other two groups, $\rM_{21}{:}2\mathrm{b}$ and $\rM_{21}{:}2\mathrm{c}$, can be built as normal subgroups of $\Aut(6\rM_{21}) = \rM_{21}{:}2^2$. One can see (for instance by calculating Schur multipliers using Holt's program ``Cohomolo'') that the outer automorphisms $2\mathrm{b}$ and $2\mathrm{c}$ exchange $\mathbf{6}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{6}}$. In particular, $\rM_{21}{:}2^2$ is not a subgroup of $\PSU(6)$, but is a subgroup of $\PSU(6){:}2$. There are, therefore, four embeddings $\rM_{21}{:}2^2 \subset \PSU(6){:}2 \times 2$. These differ by signs in their actions on the spin-$\frac32$ fields. It follows that one of these embeddings, but not the others, fixes $\tau$.
\subsection{Existence for $\SU(6)_1^2$}\label{exist.su6.2}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \SU(6)_1^2$ is $(\PSU(6){:}2)^2{:}2$, extending to the diagonal double cover $2.(\PSU(6){:}2)^2.2$ upon including $V_\odd$. The finite simple group called ``$\rU_4(3)$'' in the ATLAS has a large Schur multiplier~($4\times3^2$) and a large outer automorphism group~($D_8$). Of its 6-fold covers, the cover called ``$6_1.\rU_4(3)$'' in GAP's character table libraries has two dual six-dimensional irreps, exchanged by an outer automorphism. These provide a diagonal inclusion $\rU_4(3) \subset 2.\PSU(6)^2 \subset 2.(\PSU(6){:}2)^2.2$. (The diagonal double cover of $\PSU(6)^2$ restricts trivially along the diagonal $\rU_4(3) \subset \PSU(6)^2$.)
Writing $\mathbf{20} = \Alt^3(\mathbf{6})$ for third fundamental irrep of $\SU(6)$, the space of spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V$ is $\mathbf{20}^{\boxtimes 2}$. The central character of $\mathbf{20}$ is just a sign, and so $\mathbf{20}$ pulls back from $2\PSU(6)$; its restriction to $2\rU_4(3)$ is simple (and in fact the unique $2\rU_4(3)$-irrep of dimension $20$). A character table calculation confirms that $\mathbf{20}^{\otimes 2}$ has a unique $\rU_4(3)$-fixed point $\tau$.
The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{su}(6)^{\boxplus 2} = \mathbf{35}^{\boxplus 2}$ of $2.(\PSU(6){:}2)^2.2$ is not simple when restricted to $\rU_4(3)$, but it becomes simple upon including the outer automorphism called ``$2_3$'' in GAP's character table libraries. There are two ways to extend the inclusion $\rU_4(3) \subset 2.(\PSU(6){:}2)^2.2$ to $\rU_4(2){:}2_3$, differing by a sign; one of them fixes $\tau$ (and the other antifixes $\tau$). Thus we may take $S = \rU_4(3){:}2_3$ to complete the proof: $\tau$ and $\nu$ are the unique $S$-fixed fields of spin $\frac32$ and $2$, respectively.
Using the ``${:}2$s'' in $2.(\PSU(6){:}2)^2.2$, we may in fact embed the full automorphism group $\rU_4(3){:}D_8$, in various ways differing by some signs, exactly one of which fixes $\tau$.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(12)_2$}\label{exist.spin12}
$V_\ev = \Spin(12)_2$ has two anyons of conformal dimension $\frac32$, and the choice breaks
$\Aut(V_\ev) = \Aut(\mathfrak{so}(12)) = \mathrm{PO}(12)$ to $\PSO(12)$, which then extends to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \PSO(12) \times 2$.
The group $2\rM_{12}$ has a unique $12$-dimensional irrep.
It is real, and the central element acts by~$-1$. This provides an inclusion $2\rM_{12} \mono \SO(12)$ covering $\rM_{12} \mono \PSO(12) \subset \PSO(12) \times 2$. The adjoint representation $\mathbf{66}$ of $\PSO(12)$ remains simple upon restriction to $\rM_{12}$, and so the conformal vector $\nu$ is the unique $\rM_{12}$-fixed spin-$2$ field.
Write $\mathbf{32}_+$ and $\mathbf{32}_-$ for the two irreducible spinor representations of $\Spin(12)$; both are quaternionic, and $\mathbf{32}_+$ is in fact a representation of the double cover $\SO^\pm(12)$ of $\PSO(12)$.
Recall that double covers of $G$ are classified by $\H^2(BG; \bZ_2)$ --- for instance,
the three double covers $\SO(12)$, $\SO^+(12)$, and $\SO^-(12)$ correspond to the three nontrivial classes in $\H^2(B\PSO(12); \bZ_2) = (\bZ_2)^2$. Since $\H^2(B\rM_{12}; \bZ_2) = \bZ_2$ and the double cover $\SO(12) \to \PSO(12)$ restricts nontrivially to $\rM_{12}$, it follows that one of the double covers $\SO^+(12) \to \PSO(12)$ and $\SO^-(12)\to \PSO(12)$ --- the former, say --- restricts trivially over $\rM_{12}$ and the other restricts to the nontrivial double cover. Said another way, $\mathbf{32}_+$ restricts to a representation of $\rM_{12}$ whereas $\mathbf{32}_-$ restricts to a representation of $2\rM_{12}$ in which the centre acts nontrivially. In fact, $\mathbf{32}_-$ remains simple upon restriction to $2\rM_{12}$ --- it is the unique quaternionic irrep of $2\rM_{12}$ --- whereas $\mathbf{32}_+$ breaks over $\rM_{12}$ as $\mathbf{16} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{16}}$, where $\mathbf{16}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{16}}$ are the two dual complex irreps of $\rM_{12}$.
The two $462$-dimensional representations of $\PSO(12)$ appear as
$$ \Sym^2(\mathbf{32}_+) = \mathbf{462}_+ \oplus \mathbf{66}, \qquad \Sym^2(\mathbf{32}_-) = \mathbf{462}_- \oplus \mathbf{66}.$$
Let us choose our SVOA $V$ to be the simple current extension of $V_\ev = \Spin(12)_2$ for which the spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V_\odd$ form the representation $\mathbf{462}_+$. Then, upon restriction to $\rM_{12}$, we have
$$ \mathbf{462}_+ |_{\rM_{12}} = \Sym^2(\mathbf{16} \oplus \overline{\mathbf{16}}) \ominus \mathbf{66}, $$
and this has a unique $\rM_{12}$-fixed point (since $\mathbf{16}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{16}}$ are dual irreps and $\mathbf{66}$ is irreducible).
This provides an $\rM_{12}$-fixed spin-$\frac32$ field $\tau$ in $V$.
For comparison, $\mathbf{462}_-$ does not have any $\rM_{12}$-fixed points.
The reader may worry that we seem to have made no choices --- we started with the unique $12$-dimensional irrep of $2\rM_{12}$ --- and somehow broke the symmetry between $\mathbf{462}_+$ and $\mathbf{462}_-$. In fact, the $12$-dimensional irrep $2\rM_{12}$ is unique in the sense that there is a unique conjugacy class of irreducible maps $2\rM_{12} \to \rO(12)$, but there are two conjugacy classes of irreducible maps $2\rM_{12} \to \SO(12)$, exchanged by the outer automorphism of the target. A choice of one of these is what breaks the symmetry between $\mathbf{462}_+$ and $\mathbf{462}_-$.
We remark that $\PSO(12) \times 2$ contains two copies of $\rM_{12}{:}2$, differing by a sign in how they act on the spin-$\frac32$ fields, just like in \S\ref{exist.sp3}. It follows that the superconformal vector is fixed by one $\rM_{12}{:}2$ and antifixed by the other.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(12)_1^2$}\label{exist.spin12.2}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \Spin(12)_1^2$ is $\rP\rO(12)\wr 2 = \rP\rO(12)^2{:}2$. The space of spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V_\odd$ is $\mathbf{32}_+^{\boxtimes 2}$. This choice breaks and lifts each $\rP\rO(12)$ to a copy of $\SO^+(12)$, so that $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$. (As above, the $\circ$ denotes a central product.) As in \S\ref{exist.spin12}, $2\rM_{12}$ has a unique isomorphism class of $12$-dimensional irrep $2\rM_{12} \subset \rO(12)$, which splits into two conjugacy classes of embeddings $2\rM_{12} \subset \SO(12)$. In \S\ref{exist.spin12} we used the one for which the corresponding map $2\rM_{12} \to \SO^+(12)$ factored through $\rM_{12}$; we now use the other one, giving an injection $2\rM_{12} \subset \SO^+(12)$. Its diagonal $2\rM_{12} \subset \SO^+(12)^2$ covers an injection $\rM_{12} \subset \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2} \subset \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$. The representation $\mathbf{32}^+$ of $\SO^+(12)$ remains simple (and quaternionic) upon restriction to this $2\rM_{12}$. It follows that $\mathbf{32}_+^{\boxtimes 2}$ has a unique $\rM_{12}$-fixed point $\tau$. We remark that the $12$-dimensional irrep of $2\rM_{12}$ extends, in two ways differing by a sign, to $2\rM_{12}.2$, and so the inclusion $\rM_{12} \subset \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$ extends, again in two ways differing by a sign, to an inclusion of $\rM_{12}{:}2$. One of these embeddings fixes $\tau$, and the other antifixes it.
The adjoint representation $\mathbf{66}^{\boxplus 2} = \mathfrak{so}(12)^{\boxplus 2}$ of $\SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$ is not simple when restricted to $\rM_{12}$, but becomes simple upon inclusion of the outer automorphism. All together, we see that taking $S = \rM_{12}{:}2 \subset \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$ provides unique spin-$\frac32$ and spin-$2$ fields $\tau$ and $\nu$.
In \S\ref{unique.spin1212} we will give a different description of the superconformal structure, and see that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ is not just $S = \rM_{12}{:}2$ but in fact $2^{10}{:}\rM_{12}{:}2$.
\subsection{Existence for $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$}\label{sp6.exist}
The automorphism group $\PSp(2{\times}6)$ of $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$ extends to $\Aut(V) = \PSp(2{\times}6) \times 2$ upon including $V_\odd$ because
$\mathbf{429} = \Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12})$ descends to $\PSp(2{\times}6)$, and so $V_\odd$ is acted on trivially by the centre of $\Sp(2{\times}6)$.
We choose $S = \rG_2(4)$, embedded into $\PSp(2{\times}6)$ via the 12-dimensional quaternionic irrep $2\rG_2(4) \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)$. The adjoint representation $\mathbf{78} = \Sym^2(\mathbf{12})$ remains simple upon restriction to $S$. On the other hand, a character table computation quickly confirms that $\Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) \ominus \Alt^4(\mathbf{12})$ has a unique $S$-fixed point. Thus we have unique $\rG_2(4)$-fixed fields $\nu$ and $\tau$ as desired.
We remark that $\PSp(2{\times}6) \times 2$ contains two copies of $\rG_2(4){:}2$, differing by a sign by their action on the spin-$\frac32$ fields. (One copy is inside $\PSp(2{\times}6)$ and the other is not. The two copies are perfect analogues of the two copies of
$\rU_3(3){:}2$ inside $\PSp(2{\times}3) \times 2$ described in
\S\ref{exist.sp3}.) It follows that one of these copies but not the other fixes $\tau$.
\subsection{Existence for $\SU(12)_1$}\label{su12.existence}
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \SU(12)_1$ is $\PSU(12){:}2$, extending to a nontrivial double cover $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = 2\PSU(12){:}2$ upon including $V_\odd$. Suzuki's sporadic group $S = \Suz$ embeds into $2\PSU(12) = \SU(12)/\bZ_6$, since its Schur multiplier $6\Suz$ has a $12$-dimensional irrep. The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{su}(12) = \mathbf{143} = (\mathbf{12} \otimes \overline{\mathbf{12}}) \ominus \mathbf{1}$ remains simple upon restriction to $\Suz$, but a character table computation quickly confirms that $\Alt^6(\mathbf{12})$ has a unique $\Suz$-fixed point. Thus we have unique $\Suz$-fixed fields $\nu$ and $\tau$ as desired.
We remark that $2\PSU(12){:}2$ contains two copies of $\Suz{:}2$, differing by a sign in how they act on the spin-$\frac32$ fields. It follows that one of these copies fixes $\tau$ and the other antifixes $\tau$.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$}\label{spin16spin8.existence}
Let $V'$ denote the $N{=}1$ SVOA with even subalgebra $V'_{\ev} = \Spin(8)_1^3$ from \S\ref{exist.spinm}. The inclusion $V' \subset V$ constructed in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions} is conformal, and so the superconformal vector for $V'$ is also a superconformal.
The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{so}(16) \boxplus \mathfrak{so}(8)$ is not simple as an $\Aut_{N=0}(V)$-module, and so any group $S \subset \Aut_{N=0}(V)$ will fix at least two fields of spin-$2$. Thus the methods of this section do not quite apply. But a construction in the flavour of this section will be given in \S\ref{unique.spin16spin8}.
\subsection{Existence for $\Spin(24)_1$}\label{spin24.existence}
Let $V'$ denote the $N{=}1$ SVOA with even subalgebra $V'_{\ev} = \Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$ from \S\ref{spin16spin8.existence}. The inclusion $V' \subset V$ constructed in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions} is conformal, and so the superconformal vector for $V'$ is also a superconformal.
We may also show existence directly, using the methods of this section. $\Aut(\Spin(24)_1) = \mathrm{PO}(24)$, breaking and lifting to $\SO^+(24)$ upon extending from $V_\ev$ to $V = V_\ev \oplus V_\odd$, where $\SO^+(24)$ denotes the image of $\Spin(24)$ in the positive spinor representation $\mathbf{2048}_+$. Take $S = \Co_1$. There are two conjugacy classes of embeddings $S \subset \PSO(24)$, merging inside $\mathrm{PO}(24)$, and we will choose the one such that the double cover $\SO^+(24) \to \PSO(24)$ splits when restricted to $S$. (For the other embedding, $\SO^+(24) \to \PSO(24)$ restricts to the nontrivial double cover of $S$ but $\SO^-(24) \to \PSO(24)$ splits. We saw the same phenomenon happen for $\rM_{12} \subset \PSO(12)$.) The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{so}(24) = \mathbf{276}$ remains simple when restricted to $S$, but $\mathbf{2048}_+$ splits at $\mathbf{1} \oplus \mathbf{276} \oplus \mathbf{1771}$. Thus we have unique $\Co_1$-fixed fields $\nu$ and $\tau$ as desired.
The $N{=}1$ extension of $V_{\ev} = \Spin(24)_1$ is due to \cite{JohnDuncan-thesis,MR2352133}, where it is called $V^{f\natural}$ and shown to be unique and to have automorphism group $\Co_1$. The construction in \cite{MR2352133} presents $V^{f\natural}$ directly as an extension of $\Spin(24)_1$. The construction in \cite{JohnDuncan-thesis} uses $V'$, which is built as a canonical $N{=}1$ subalgebra of the ``supersymmetric $\rE_8$ lattice'' SVOA. This explains the appearance of $\rE_8$ in \S\ref{unique.spin16spin8}.
\section{$\Spin(m)$ cases} \label{sec.spinm3}
In this section we analyze in detail the $N{=}1$ extensions of $\Spin(m)_3$ and $\Spin(m)_1^3$ constructed in~\S\ref{exist.spinm} and~\S\ref{exist.spinm.3}. Henceforth we will use the name ``$\SO(m)_3$'' for the simple current extension of $\Spin(m)_3$ and ``$\Spin(m)^3_1/\bZ_2$'' for the simple current extension of $\Spin(m)_1^3$; see~\S\ref{subsec:small-m} for discussion of these naming choices.
We first show (\S\ref{sec.spinm3auto}) that symmetric group $S_{m+1}$ from \S\ref{exist.spinm} exhausts all of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(\SO(m)_3)$. Then we show (\S\ref{subsec.spinm3unique}) that, up to the action of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(\SO(m)_3) = \rO(m)$, there is a unique conformal vector $\tau$. Finally (\S\ref{unique.spinm1.3}), we show that the $N{=}1$ structure on $\Spin(m)^3_1/\bZ_2$ is unique, and calculate its automorphism group.
\subsection{Automorphism group for $\Spin(m)_3$} \label{sec.spinm3auto}
\begin{proposition}
$\Aut_{N{=}1}(\SO(m)_3) = S_{m+1}$ for the $N{=}1$ structure constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the space of spin-$\frac32$ fields in $\SO(m)_3$ is the $\rO(m)$-irrep $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$, where $\mathbf{m}$ is the vector representation of $\rO(m)$; the subspace of self-adjoint fields is formed by interpreting $\mathbf{m}$ as the real vector representation $\bR^m$ of the compact form of $\rO(m)$.
Note that $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m} \subset \Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$, and identify $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$ with the space of cubic functions on $\bR^m$.
As in \S\ref{exist.spinm}, give $\bR^{m+1}$ its standard coordinates, and embed $\bR^m \subset \bR^{m+1}$ as the set of vectors $x = (x_0,\dots,x_{m+1})$ such that $\sum_i x_i = 0$. In this parameterization, the superconformal vector $\tau$ corresponded to the function
$$ \tau(x) = \sum_{i=0}^m x_i^3.$$
We saw already that this function is in fact in the submodule $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m} \subset \Sym^3(\mathbf{m})$, since $\mathbf{m}$ has no $S_{m+1}$-fixed points, whereas $\tau$ is manifestly $S_{m+1}$-fixed. To prove the proposition, we must show simply that there are no further symmetries stabilizing $\tau$.
We will strongly maximize $\tau(x)$ subject to the constraints
$$ c_1(x) = \sum x_i = 0, \qquad c_2(x) = \sum x_i^2 = m(m+1).$$
By ``strongly maximize,'' we mean to look for points which are maxima with negative-definite Hessian (as opposed to negative-semidefinite).
The first constraint just forces $x$ into our $\bR^m \subset \bR^{m+1}$, and the second constraint cuts down to an $(m-1)$-dimensional sphere $S^{m-1} \subset \bR^m$.
We claim that there are precisely $m+1$ maxima, namely the vectors
$$ \bigl(-1,-1,\dots,-1,m,-1,\dots,-1\bigr).$$
This would complete the proof, since any automorphism of $\tau$ must permute these $m+1$ maxima, and the only such elements of $\rO(m)$ are the elements of $S_{m+1}$.
When maximizing a function subject to constraints, one does not have that the derivative of the function vanishes, but rather that it is in the span of the derivatives of the constraints:
$$\d\tau(x) = \bigl(3 x_0^2,\dots, 3x_m^2\bigr) = a \,\d c_1 + b \,\d c_2 = a\bigl(1,\dots,1\bigr) + b\bigl(2x_0,\dots,2x_m\bigr),$$
i.e.\ there are real numbers $a,b \in \bR$ such that $3x_i^2 = a + 2bx_i$ for all $0 \leq i\leq m$. Summing these equations gives:
$$ 3c_2(x) = \sum 3x_i^2 = (m+1)a + 2b \sum x_i = (m+1)a + 2b c_1(x).$$
After imposing the constraints $c_2(x) = m(m+1)$ and $c_1(x) = 0$, we find that $a = 3m$.
If we instead multiply the equation $3x_i^2 = a + 2bx_i$ by $x_i$ and then sum, we learn that $3\tau(x) = ac_1(x) + 2b c_2(x) = 2b m(m+1)$. Since $\tau$ is an odd function under $x \mapsto -x$, its maxima are positive, and so $b$ is positive.
Substituting $a = 2m$, we have:
$$ 3x_i^2 = 3m + 2bx_i, \qquad \text{i.e.\ } x_i = \frac b 3 \pm \sqrt{ \left( \frac b 3 \right)^2 + m }.$$
In particular, no $x_i$ is zero at any critical point.
The matrix of second derivatives is
$$ H_{ij} = \frac{\partial^2 \tau}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} = 6x_i \delta_{ij}.$$
This matrix is nondegenerate since no $x_i$ is zero. If $x$ is to strongly-maximize $\tau$ subject to the constraints, then this matrix must restrict to a negative-definite matrix on the tangent space $$\rT_x S^{m-1} = \left\{v \in \bR^{m+1} \st \sum v_i = \sum 2 x_i v_i = 0\right\}.$$
Consider the (nontangent) vectors $(1,1,\dots,1)$ and $(\frac1{x_0},\frac1{x_1},\dots,\frac1{x_m})$. The first of these is null for the inner product determined by $H$: its $H$-norm is $\sum 6x_i(1)(1) = 6c_1(x) = 0$. Furthermore, the $H$-dot-product of these two vectors is $\sum 6x_i(1)(\frac1{x_i}) = 6(m+1)$, and so they are linearly independent. Finally, both vectors are $H$-orthogonal to the tangent space $\rT_x S^{m-1}$, since $H(1,\dots,1) = (6x_0,\dots,6x_m) = 3\,\d c_2$ and $H(\frac1{x_0},\dots,\frac1{x_m}) = (6,\dots,6) = 6\,\d c_1$. Thus, in terms of the $H$-norm, we have split $\bR^{m+1}$ as an orthgonal direct sum of an $(m-1)$-dimensional negative-definite space $\rT_x S^{m-1}$ and a two-dimensional space which contains a null vector. Nondegeneracy of $H$ then shows that that $2$-dimensional space must have signature $(1,1)$. All together, we find that $H$ has signature $(1,m)$, which is to say exactly one of the $x_i$ is positive and the other $m$ are negative.
But $x_i = \frac b 3 \pm \sqrt{ ( \frac b 3 )^2 + m }$ with $b$ positive, and so $x_i$ is positive or negative depending on the choice of $\pm$. Thus we find: exactly one of the $\pm$s is $+$ and the other $m$ $\pm$s are $-$.
Summing the $x_i$s then gives
$$ 0 = c_1(x) = (m+1) \frac b 3 - (m-1) \sqrt{ \left( \frac b 3 \right)^2 + m },$$
which solves to
$$ \frac b3 = \frac{m-1}2,$$
and so
$$ x_i = \frac{m-1}2 \pm \sqrt{ \left( \frac{m-1}2\right)^2 + m} = \frac{m-1}2 \pm \sqrt{ \left(\frac{m+1}2\right)^2} = m \text{ or} -1.$$
Thus the (strong) maxima are precisely the ones claimed.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Spin(m)_3$} \label{subsec.spinm3unique}
In \S\ref{subsec.inclusions} we observed that the inclusion $\Spin(m-1)_3 \subset \Spin(m)_3$ of simply connected WZW algebras extends to an inclusion $\SO(m-1)_3 \subset \SO(m)_3$. This inclusion is compatible with the superconformal structures constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm} as follows. Continue to identify the $m$-dimensional vector representation $\mathbf{m}$ of $\SO(m)$ with the subspace of $\bR^{m+1}$ cut out by the equation $\sum_{i=0}^m x_i = 0$, where $x_0,\dots,x_m$ are the coordinates on $\bR^{m+1}$. Then the vector representation of $\SO(m-1)$ is just the subspace for which $x_m = 0$. Write $\tau = \sum_{i=0}^m x_i^3$ for the superconformal vector for $\SO(m)_3$, and $\tau' = \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} x_i^3$ for the superconformal vector for $\SO(m-1)_3$. Then the difference $\tau'' = \tau - \tau' = x_m^3$ lives in the coset algebra $\SO(m)_3 / \SO(m-1)_3$, and is in fact a superconformal vector therein. More generally, we will say that an inclusion $(V',\tau') \subset (V,\tau)$ of $N{=}1$ SVOAs is \define{supersymmetric} if $\tau'' = \tau-\tau' \in V/V'$, and \define{superconformal} if it is both supersymmetric and conformal (i.e.\ if $\tau'' = 0$).
Our strategy to prove the uniqueness of the $N{=}1$ structure on $\SO(m)_3$ will be to show that, for any superconformal vector $\tau$, there is a supersymmetric inclusion from $\SO(m-1)_3$, whose superconformal vector $\tau'$ is unique by induction.
\begin{proposition}
The superconformal vectors for $\SO(m)_3$ form a single orbit under the action by $\Aut_{N{=}0}(\SO(m)_3) = \rO(m)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
A superconformal vector $\tau \in \SO(m)_3$ is in particular a traceless symmetric three-tensor, and so defines, as in \S\ref{sec.spinm3auto}, a cubic function, which we will also call $\tau$, on $\mathbf{m} = \bR^m$.
Let $S^{m-1} \subset \bR^m$ denote the unit sphere, and choose $e_0 \in S$ to maximize $\tau|_{S^{m-1}}$. Complete $e_0$ to an orthonormal basis $e_0,e_1,\dots,e_{m-1}$ of $\bR^m$. We will show that the inclusion $\SO(m-1)_3 \subset \SO(m)_3$ along the subspace spanned by $e_1,\dots,e_{m-1}$ is supersymmetric, for some superconformal vector $\tau'$ on $\SO(m-1)_3$.
We may coordinatize a neighbourhood of $e_0 \in S^{m-1}$ by vectors $\vec y = (y_1,\dots,y_{m-1})$ by projection to $S^{m-1}$:
$$ \frac{e_0 + \sum_{i>0} y_i e_i}{(1 + \| y\|^2)^{1/2}} \in S^{m-1}.$$
Let us Taylor-expand $\tau|_{S^{m-1}}$ near $e_0$. Since $\tau$ is homogeneous cubic, we have
\begin{multline*}
\tau\left(\frac{e_0 + y_i e_i}{(1 + \| y\|^2)^{1/2}} \right) = \frac{\tau\left(e_0 + y_i e_i\right)}{(1 + \delta_{ij}y_iy_j)^{3/2}} \\ = \left( \tau^{(0)} + \tau^{(1)}_i y_i + \frac12 \tau^{(2)}_{ij} y_i y_j + \frac16 \tau^{(3)}_{ijk} y_i y_j y_k \right)
\left( 1 - \frac32 \delta_{ij} y_i y_j + O(y^4) \right)
\\ = \tau^{(0)} + \tau^{(1)}_i y_i + \left( \frac12 \tau^{(2)}_{ij} - \tau^{(0)}\frac32 \delta_{ij} \right) y_i y_j + \frac16 \tau^{(3)}_{ijk} y_i y_j y_k + O(y^4). \end{multline*}
To save space we have dropped the summation signs: a repeated index in a monomial is to be summed over, with all indices ranging over $\{1,\dots,m-1\}$. By ``$O(y^4)$'' we mean of course terms vanishing to fourth order and higher in $\vec y$.
By assumption, $e_0$ is a maximum of $\tau|_{S^{m-1}}$. This implies:
$$ \tau^{(0)}>0, \qquad \tau^{(1)} = 0, \qquad\text{and}\qquad \frac12\left(\tau^{(2)} - 3 \tau^{(0)}\right) \leq 0.$$
By ``$\tau^{(2)} - 3 \tau^{(0)} \leq 0$'' we mean that the symmetric matrix $\tau^{(2)}_{ij} - 3 \tau^{(0)}\delta_{ij}$ is negative semidefinite.
We furthermore know that $\tau$ is a superconformal vector. Thinking of $\tau$ as a symmetric 3-tensor on all of $\bR^m$, the assertion that $\tau$ is a superconformal vector is equivalent to the assertion that a certain ``partial trace'' of $\tau \otimes \tau$ returns some fixed multiple of the identity map on $\Alt^2(\bR^m)$; after rescaling $\tau$, we may assume that multiple to be $\pm1$, and checking the examples from \S\ref{exist.spinm} shows it to be negative. So as not to confuse with the indices $i,j,k \in \{1,\dots,m-1\}$, let us use indices $p,q,r,s,t$ to range over $\{0,\dots,m-1\}$. For instance, the symmetric 3-tensor $\tau_{prq}$ is related to the function $\tau(-)$ by $\tau(y_0 e_0 + y_i e_i) = \frac1{3!} \tau_{prq} y_p y_q y_r$. In coordinates, the equation to be a superconformal vector is then:
$$ \tau_{rps} \tau_{rqt} - \tau_{rpt} \tau_{rqs} = -(\delta_{ps}\delta_{qt} - \delta_{pt}\delta_{qs}).$$
Consider this equation when $p=s=0$, $q=i$, and $t=j$, where $i,j \neq 0$. In terms of the previous Taylor expansion, we find:
$$ 6\tau^{(0)} \tau_{ij}^{(2)} - \tau_{ki}^{(2)} \tau_{kj}^{(2)} = -\delta_{ij}$$
The factor of $6 = 3!$ comes from the combinatorics of Taylor expansion: $\tau(y_0e_0) = \frac1{3!} \tau_{000} y_0^3 = \tau^{(0)}y_0^3$. If we were working in some other basis, then there would also be $\tau^{(1)}\tau^{(1)}$ and $\tau^{(1)}\tau^{(3)}$ terms, but we have assumed $\tau^{(1)}=0$.
Completing the square gives
$$ 1 + \bigl(3\tau^{(0)}\bigr)^2 = \bigl( \tau^{(2)} - 3\tau^{(0)} \bigr)^2,$$
where $1$ and $\tau^{(0)}$ stand for the corresponding scalar matrices, and the right-hand side means matrix multiplication. Thus, for fixed $\tau^{(0)}$, the eigenvalues of $\tau^{(2)}$ are $3\tau^{(0)} \pm \sqrt{1 + (3\tau^{(0)})^2}$.
But $\tau^{(2)} - 3\tau^{(0)}$ is negative semidefinite! It follows that $\tau^{(2)}$ is a scalar matrix:
$$ \tau^{(2)} = 3\tau^{(0)} - \sqrt{1 + (3\tau^{(0)})^2}.$$
In particular, $\tau''(y_0,\vec y) = \tau^{(0)}y_0^3 + \frac12 y_0 \tau^{(2)}_{ij} y_i y_j$ is $\SO(m-1)$-invariant, and so an element of the coset $\SO(m)_3/\SO(m-1)_3$. On the other hand, $\tau' = \tau^{(3)}$ is traceless since $\tau$ was, hence in $\SO(m-1)_3$, and it is not hard to check that it is a superconformal vector. All together, we have written
$$ \tau = \tau' + \tau'', \qquad \tau' \in \SO(m-1)_3, \quad \tau'' \in \SO(m)_3/\SO(m-1)_3.$$
This completes the proof of uniqueness of the superconformal vector $\tau$: $\tau'$ is unique by induction, the space of $\SO(m-1)$-fixed spin-$\frac32$ fields is one-dimensional (since $\Sym^3(\mathbf{m}) \ominus \mathbf{m}$ splits over $\SO(m-1)$ as $\bigl(\Sym^3(\mathbf{m-1}) \ominus (\mathbf{m-1})\bigr) \oplus \bigl(\Sym^2(\mathbf{m-1})\ominus\mathbf 1\bigr) \oplus (\mathbf{m-1}) \oplus \mathbf 1$), and $\tau''$ is necessarily a superconformal vector, setting its normalization. But we may also confirm the uniqueness directly. We have not used that $\tau$ is traceless (except to confirm that $\tau'$ was traceless). The $0$-component of its trace is
$$ 0 = \tau_{0pp} = \tau_{000} + \tau_{0ii} = 6\tau^{(0)} + \tau^{(2)}_{ii} = 6\tau^{(0)} + (m-1)\left(3\tau^{(0)} - \sqrt{1 + (3\tau^{(0)})^2}\right).$$
This unpacks to a quadratic equation for $\tau^{(0)}$, only one of whose solutions is positive.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Uniqueness and automorphisms for $\Spin(m)_1^3$} \label{unique.spinm1.3}
In \S\ref{exist.spinm.3} we wrote down the superconformal vector $\tau = \sum e_{i,i,i} \in \mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$ for the $\bZ_2$-extension $V = \Spin(m)_1^3/\bZ_2$ of $\Spin(m)_1^3$.
\begin{proposition}
The $N{=}1$ superconformal vector $\tau$ on $V$ is unique up to the action of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the conformal embedding $\Spin(m)_1^3 \subset \Spin(3m)_1$. We claim that it extends to an embedding of SVOAs $V \subset \SO(3m)_1$. Indeed, let us write $M$ for the abelian $\Spin(m)_1$-anyon of conformal dimension $1/2$. Its minimal-spin fields form the vector representation $\mathbf{m}$ of $\Spin(m)$, and the $\bZ_2$-extension $\SO(m)_1 = \Spin(m)_1 \oplus M$ is precisely the free fermion algebra $\Fer(m)$. Free fermion algebras tensor well: $\SO(m)_1^3 = \Fer(m)^3 = \Fer(3m) = \SO(3m)_1$. All together $\SO(m)_1^3$ is a $\bZ_2^3$-extension of $\Spin(m)_1^3$, and the $\bZ_2$-extension $V$ that we care about is a subextension. In terms of fields, the spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V$ form the vector space $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$, whereas the spin-$\frac32$ fields in $\SO(3m)_1$ form $\Alt^3(\mathbf{m}^{\boxplus 3})$, and the embedding $V \subset \SO(3m)_1$ is the standard inclusion $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3} \subset \Alt^3(\mathbf{m}^{\boxplus 3})$.
Thus any superconformal vector $\tau$ on $V$ provides a superconformal vector on $\SO(3m)_1$. The superconformal vectors on a free fermion algebra like $\SO(3m)_1 = \Fer(3m)$ have a beautiful classification \cite{MR791865}: they are in bijection with Lie algebra structures on $\mathbf{3m} = \bR^{3m}$ whose Killing form is (minus) the Euclidean inner product; up to isomorphism, they are in bijection with $3m$-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras; the bijection simply interprets the superconformal vector $\tau \in \Alt^3(\mathbf{3m})$ as the Lie bracket. In the case at hand, we start with $\tau \in \mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3} \subset \Alt^3(\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3})$, which is to say that the only nontrivial brackets are of the form $$\bigl[(\text{element from $\mathbf{m}'$}), (\text{element from $\mathbf{m}''$})\bigr] = (\text{element from $\mathbf{m}'''$})$$
where $\mathbf{m}'$, $\mathbf{m}''$, and $\mathbf{m}'''$ are the three ``coordinate'' $\mathbf{m}$s in some order.
In particular, each ``coordinate'' $\mathbf{m} \subset \mathbf{3m}$ is an abelian subalgebra of our to-be-determined semisimple Lie algebra. Over the complex numbers, it is not true that every abelian subalgebra extends to a Cartan subalgebra: the $N^2$-dimensional space of block matrices of the form $\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & B \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ inside $\mathfrak{sl}(2N)$ is the standard counterexample. But it is true for compact groups, which is to say for Lie algebras over $\bR$ with a negative-definite Killing form. It follows that our $3m$-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra has rank at least~$m$. The only possibility is $\mathfrak{su}(2)^m$.
The ``coordinate'' $\mathfrak{su}(2)$s inside $\mathfrak{su}(2)^m$ are canonically determined: they are the $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ subalgebras with maximal centralizer $\mathfrak{su}(2)^{m-1}$. Each of these coordinate $\mathfrak{su}(2)$s intersects each coordinate $\mathbf{m}$ in exactly one dimension (which can be resolved further to two vectors by using the metric). Thus the superconformal vector ends up equipping each $\mathbf{m}$ with a basis-up-to-sign $\{e_1,\dots,e_m\}$, ordered up to simultaneously reordering the three bases, and in this basis
$ \tau = \sum e_{i,i,i} = \sum e_{i} \boxtimes e_i \boxtimes e_i.$
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
When $m\neq 4$, the stabilizer of $\tau$ is $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = 2^{2(m-1)} {:} (S_3 \times S_m)$, where $S_3$ and $S_m$ act by the tensor product of the standard $2$- and $(m-1)$-dimensional representations (the quotient of the permutation representation by the fixed vector).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
When $m \neq 4,8$, the bosonic subalgebra $V_\ev = \Spin(m)_1^3$ has automorphism group $\Aut(V_\ev) = \mathrm{PO}(m)^3 {:} S_3$, lifting to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = 2.\mathrm{PO}(m)^3 {:} S_3 = \rO(m)^{\circ 3} {:} S_3$, where $\mathrm{PO}(m)$ is the projective orthogonal group (isomorphic to $\SO(m)$ when $m$ is odd) and $\rO(m)^{\circ 3}$ denotes the central product $\rO(m)^3 / 2^2$. When $m = 8$, $\Aut(V_\ev)$ is larger than $\mathrm{PO}(m)^3 {:} S_3$ due to the triality automorphism of $\Spin(8)$, but the extension to $V$ breaks these extra automorphisms and we still have $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \rO(m)^{\circ 3} {:} S_3$. The extension $V \subset \SO(3m)_1$ does not break any of these symmetries,
but lifts the central product $\rO(m)^{\circ 3}$ to the product $\rO(m)^3$.
What are the symmetries inside $\rO(m)^3{:}S_3 \subset \rO(3m)$ that preserve $\tau \in \SO(3m)_1$? The basis $\{e_i\}$ suffers a sign ambiguity: for each $i \in \{1,\dots,m\}$, there is a Klein-4 group $2^2$ acting by switching the signs of any two out of the three $e_i$s, and so $2^{2m} \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$. Any other symmetry must rearrange the basis. We may arbitrarily permute the set $\{1,\dots,m\}$, provided we apply the same permutation to all three bases $\{e_i\}$, providing a group $S_m \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$. Together with $2^{2m}$, we find that $2^{2m}{:}S_m$ is the full group of symmetries which do not permute the three $\mathbf{m}$s.
What about permutations $S_3$ permuting the three $\mathbf{m}$s?
The even permutations $A_3$ are harmless, but the odd ones are slightly subtle, at least in our description inside $\Fer(3m) = \SO(3m)_1$: due to the fermionic nature of the fields $e_i$, one should declare, for example, that the transposition $(12)$ acts on each each triple of $e_i$s by the signed permutation $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} & -1 & \\ -1 & & \\ & & -1\end{smallmatrix} \right)$ rather than the plain permutation $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} & 1 & \\ 1 & & \\ & & 1\end{smallmatrix} \right)$. These signs are irrelevant for the purposes of understanding $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3}$ as an abstract $S_3$-module: they arise simply from the embedding $\mathbf{m}^{\boxtimes 3} \subset \Alt^3(\mathbf{m}^{\boxplus 3})$.
Thus we find that the stabilizer of $\tau$ under the $\rO(m)^3{:}S_3$ action is $2^{2m} {:} (S_3 \times S_m)$. Its image in $\rO(m)^{\circ 3}{:}S_3 = (\rO(m)^3{:}S_3) / 2^2$ is the group $2^{2(m-1)}{:}(S_3 \times S_m)$ described in the Proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
When $m = 4$, the automorphism group is $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = 2^6 {:} 3S_6$.
\end{proposition}
The group $2^6{:}3S_6$ is the ``sextet group'' arising as a maximal subgroup of Mathieu's group $\rM_{24}$ and surveyed for example in Chapter~11 of \cite{MR1662447}. The extension $3S_6$ is perfect but not central, and it acts faithfully on $2^6$. This group has an index-two subgroup $2^6{:}3A_6$, and the extension $3A_6$ is central, perfect, and exceptional.
\begin{proof}
When $m = 4$, there is an exceptional isomorphism $\Spin(4)_1 = \SU(2)_1^2$. This does not affect $\Aut(\Spin(4)_1) = \mathrm{PO}(4) = \mathrm{PSU}(2) {:} 2$, but it does contribute extra automorphisms to $\Aut(\Spin(4)_1^3) = \Aut(\SU(2)_1^6)$ that permute the six copies of $\SU(2)_1$ independently. These permutations are compatible with the extension from $V_\ev = \Spin(4)_1^3$ to $V$, so that
$$ \Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \SU(2)^{\circ 6}{:} S_6.$$
The further extension to $\SO(12)_1$ breaks these extra symmetries, and so $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ may be larger than the group $2^6 {:} (S_4 \times S_3)$ predicted by the general case.
There is, manifestly, a map $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to S_6$ given by looking just at the action on the Dynkin diagram of $\SU(2)_1^6$.
We will first calculate the kernel of this map. This kernel doesn't care that $S_6$ is larger than would be predicted from the general-$m$ case. For even $m>4$, in place of $S_6$ we would find $2^3 {:} S_3$ many Dynkin diagram automorphisms, and we would want to understand the map $2^{2(m-1)}{:}(S_m \times S_3) \to 2^3 {:} S_3$. The $S_3$s match, and so equivalently we want to understand the map $2^{2(m-1)}{:}S_m \to 2^3$. As in the proof of the previous Proposition, we may lift from $\rO(m)^{\circ 3} {:} S_3$
to $2^{2m}{:}S_m \subset \rO(m)^3 {:} S_3 \subset \rO(3m)$. Each element of $2^{2m}{:}S_m$ consists of a triple of changes of basis of $\bR^m$, and the map to $2^3$ records whether each change of basis is oriented. An odd element of $S_m$ changes the orientation of $\bR^{3m}$, whereas $2^{2m}{:}A_m$ preserves the orientation of $\bR^{3m}$, and so the kernel is inside $2^{2m}{:}A_m$ and manifestly contains $A_m$. Finally, on the $2^{2m}$ part, the map to $2^3$ is the sum map $2^{2m} \to 2^2 \subset 2^3$, and so has kernel $2^{2(m-1)}$. All together, we find that $\ker \bigl( 2^{2m}{:} (S_m \times S_3) \to 2^3 {:} S_3\bigr) = 2^{2(m-1)}{:}A_m$, and since this automatically contains the kernel of $2^{2m}{:} (S_m \times S_3) \to 2^{2(m-1)}{:} (S_m \times S_3)$, we find
$$ \ker \bigl( \Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to \Aut(\text{Dynkin diagram})\bigr) = 2^{2(m-2)}{:} A_m,$$
for any $m$.
Specializing to $m=4$, we thus have a kernel of shape $2^4{:} A_4$, and the full automorphism group extends this by some subgroup of $S_6$. Unlike the larger alternating groups, $A_4$ is not simple: it has shape $2^2{:}3$. If we were working ``upstairs'' in $\rO(4)^3{:}S_3$ rather than $\rO(4)^{\circ 3}{:}S_3$, then we would have $2^6 {:} 2^2 {:} 3$, and the action of $2^2$ on $2^6$ would be nontrivial. But in the quotient $2^4 {:} 2^2 {:} 3$, the $2^2$ acts trivially on $2^4$, and so
$$ \ker \bigl( \Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to S_6\bigr) = 2^6{:}3, \text{ i.e. } \Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = (2^6{:}3).(\text{subgroup of }S_6)$$
where $3$ acts by three copies of the two-dimensional simple representation on $2^2$. Of course, the subgroup of $S_6$ is precisely the image of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to S_6$. By the general-$m$ case, we know that this image contains $2 \times S_3$, where the $S_3$ permutes the six vertices of the Dynkin diagram in pairs, and the $2$ acts diagonally on the three pairs. In particular, the $2$ acts by an odd permutation, so that the image of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to S_6$ is not contained in $A_6$.
To complete the proof (i.e.\ to identify this image, and to identify the extension), it suffices to write down an $N{=}1$ superconformal vector $\tau' \in V$ with manifest symmetry $2^6{:}3S_6$, since the first Proposition in this section shows that any two superconformal vectors are in the same orbit under $\rO(4)^{\circ3}{:}S_3 \subset \SU(2)^{\circ 6}{:}S_6$. In unpublished work \cite{HarveyMoore-unpub} described in \cite{GregLecture-Freedfest,GregLecture-Readfest}, Harvey and Moore have used the hexacode (c.f.\ Chapter~11 of \cite{MR1662447}) to construct an explicit $\tau'$ which is symmetric under (at least) $2^6{:}3A_6$. (Their motivation was to understand the full superconformal field theory studied in \cite{GTVW}, which has our $N{=}1$ SVOA $V = \SU(2)_1^6/\bZ_2$ as its chiral algebra.)
In brief, one may find a subgroup $S = 2^6{:}3A_6 \subset \SU(2)^{\circ 6}{:}S_6$ which satisfies the conditions used in \S\ref{sec.existence}: it preserves a unique (up to scalar) $\tau' \in V_{3/2}$, but the adjoint representation $\mathfrak{su}(2)^6$ remains simple when restricted to $S$, and so $\tau'$ must be an $N{=}1$ superconformal vector.
This shows that the image of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \to S_6$ contains $A_6$. But we remarked already that the image is not contained in $S_6$, and so must be all of~$S_6$.
One can also see that the symmetry group enhances from $2^6{:}3A_6$ to $2^6{:}3S_6$ as follows. There are two embeddings $2^6{:}3S_6 \subset \SU(2)^{\circ 6}{:}S_6$ containing the subgroup $2^6{:}3A_6$, which differ by the ``sign'' map from $2^6{:}3S_6$ to the centre of $\SU(2)^{\circ 6}{:}S_6$.
Since $\tau'$ is the unique $2^6{:}3A_6$-vector in $V_{3/2}$, either extension to $2^6{:}3S_6$ must fix $\tau'$ up to a phase. It follows that one of the extensions fixes $\tau'$ and the other \define{antifixes} $\tau'$, meaning that it acts on $\tau'$ by the sign representation.
\end{proof}
\section{Leech lattice groups} \label{sec.uniqueness}
This section completes the proof of the Theorem by showing that for each of the WZW algebras $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_2$, $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$, $\SU(6)_2$, $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, $\SU(6)_1^2$, $\Spin(12)_2$, $\SU(12)_1$, $\Spin(12)_1^2$, and $\Spin(24)_1$, the superconformal vector $\tau \in V = V_\ev \oplus V_\odd$ found in Section~\ref{sec.existence} is unique up to the action of $\Aut_{N=0}(V)$, with the claimed stabilizer $\Aut_{N=1}(V)$.
The $V_\ev = \Spin(24)_1$ case is already known, and is one of the main results of \cite{MR2352133}. That paper uses the name $V^{f\natural}$ for the SVOA we have been calling $\SO^+(24)_1$, and we will use that name for the remainder of this Section.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{MR2352133}]
Let $V^{f\natural} = \SO^+(24)_1$ denote the simple current extension of $V^{f\natural}_\ev = \Spin(24)_1$ through either anyon of conformal dimension $\frac32$. Then all superconformal vectors for $V^{f\natural}$ form a single orbit for $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural}) = \SO^+(24)$, with stabilizer $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V^{f\natural}) = \Co_1$. \qed
\end{theorem}
Our strategy will be to derive uniqueness in all other cases from the uniqueness of $V^{f\natural}$. We showed in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions} at the level of non-supersymmetric SVOAs that each of the algebras $V$ in question embeds into $V^{f\natural}$. Choose some SVOA $W$ such that the embedding $V \subset V^{f\natural}$ extends to a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset V^{f\natural}$ (we will choose embeddings from the lists compiled in \cite{MR867023,MR867243}), and suppose furthermore that $W$ is equipped with some $N{=}1$ superconformal vector $\tau_W \in W$. Then any superconformal vector $\tau_V \in V$ will produce a superconformal vector $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W \in V^{f\natural}$, which is unique with known stabilizer by Duncan's theorem. Automorphisms of $V$ and $W$, unless they are broken by the extension, will produce automorphisms of $V^{f\natural}$. Assuming we understand $\Aut_{N{=}1}(W) \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(V^{f\natural}) = \Co_1$, we will have good control over $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ and hence over the $N{=}1$ structure on $V$.
This is exactly what we will do in the ``Suzuki chain'' cases $V_\ev = \SU(12)_1$, $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$, $\Sp(2{\times}3)_2$, and $\SU(6)_1^2$, where we will take $W$ to be $\SO(2)_3$, $\SO(3)_3$, $\SO(4)_3$, $\SO(5)_3$, and $\SO(2)_3^2$, respectively, each time equipped with the $N{=}1$ structure constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm}. The exceptional isomorphisms of even subalgebras $\text{``}\Spin(2)_3\text{''} = \rU(1)_{12}$, $\text{``}\Spin(3)_3\text{''} = \Sp(2{\times}1)_6$, $\Spin(4)_3 = \Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2$, $\Spin(5)_3 = \Sp(2{\times}2)_3$, and $(\SO(2)_3^2)_\ev = \rU(1)_{6}^2$ illustrate in each cases that $W$ is the ``level-rank dual'' of $V$. The automorphism group of $W$ is in each case a symmetric group (\S\ref{sec.spinm3auto}), broken to an alternating group by the extension to $V^{f\natural}$. The automorphism group of $V$ will then be the normalizer-mod-normal of an alternating group in $\Co_1$.
In this way we will recover the larger groups in the \define{Suzuki chain}
$$ \Suz{:}2 \supset \rG_2(4){:}2 \supset \rJ_2{:}2 \supset \rU_3(3){:}2 \supset \rL_2(7){:}2 \supset A_4{:}2 \supset A_3{:}2 $$
of subgroups (except that $\Suz{:}2$ projectively embeds) of $\Co_1$.
The Suzuki chain was first constructed by Thompson and named for its largest member;
details of the construction first appeared in Wilson's article \cite[\S2.2]{MR723071} classifying the maximal subgroups of $\Co_1$.
Thompson's construction goes as follows. There is a unique conjugacy class of inclusions $A_9 \subset \Co_1$. The nontrivial double cover $2\Co_1$ pulls back to the nontrivial double cover $2A_9$, and acts on the $24$-dimensional representation through the inclusion $2A_9 \subset \SO^+(8) \cong \SO(8) \subset \SO(24)$,
where $2A_9 \subset \SO^+(8)$ lifts the standard inclusion $A_9 \subset \SO(8)$, and $\SO(8) \subset \SO(24)$ is diagonal. Now let $m \in \{2,\dots,8\}$ and consider the standard inclusion $A_{m+1} \subset A_9$. Because of the appearance of triality, we find that $A_{m+1} \subset \SO(m)$ maps into $\SO^+(24)$ through an exceptional isomorphism $\Spin(m) \cong (\dots) \subset \SO(24)$.
Now
write $NA_{m+1}$ for its normalizer in $\Co_1$. The $m$th entry in the Suzuki chain arises as the normalizer-mod-normal $NA_{m+1}/A_{m+1}$ of this subgroup, and its derived subgroup as the centralizer-mod-center.
Wilson identifies four more ``Suzuki chain'' groups: for $m = 2,3,4$, the centralizer $CA_{m+1} \subset A_{m+1}$ contains a second copy of $A_{m+1}$, and when $m=2$ there is yet a third copy of $A_3 \subset C(A_3^2)$, and so one can form the normalizers-mod-normals
$$ \frac{NA_3^2}{A_3^2} = \rU_4(3){:}D_8, \quad \frac{NA_4^2}{A_4^2} = 2 \times 2^4.A_5.2, \quad \frac{NA_5^2}{A_5^2} = 2 \times D_{10}.2, \quad \frac{NA_3^3}{A_3^3} = 3^4{:}2S_4^2.$$
The first of these appears in our Theorem. The normalizer-mod-normal construction of the others, and also of the smaller Suzuki-chain groups $\rL_2(7){:}2$, $A_4{:}2$ and $A_3{:}2$, correspond to other interesting sub-VOAs of $V^{f\natural}$, but they do not arise in our Theorem. For instance $NA_4^2/A_4^2$ acts naturally on the coset of a $\PSp(2{\times}1)_6^2 \subset V^{f\natural}$; this coset is the $\bZ_4$ simple current extension of $\Spin(6)_4 = \SU(4)_4$, with even subalgebra the non-simply connected WZW algebra $\SO(6)_4$.
For the other three SVOAs in our Theorem, we study the conformal embeddings $\SU(6)_2 \times \rU(1)_{12} \subset \rU(6)_2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, $\Spin(12)_2 \subset \SU(12)_1$, and $\Spin(12)_1^2 \subset \Spin(24)_1$. Each of these is selected by an order-2 automorphism of the larger VOA, explaining why the corresponding centralizers appear in the Theorem.
We now provide details.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\SU(12)_1$} \label{su12.uniqueness}
Let $V$ denote the simple current extension of $V_\ev = \SU(12)_1$, and set $W = \SO(2)_3 = \rU(1)_3$, with even subalgebra $W_\ev = \rU(1)_{12}$. There is a conformal embedding $V_\ev \otimes W_\ev = \SU(12)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_{12} \subset \Spin(24)_1 \subset \SO(24)_1 = V^{f\natural}$, familiar from level-rank duality \cite{MR867023,MR867243}. We claim that this extends to a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset V^\natural$. There are two things to check. First, the even subalgebra $(V\otimes W)_\ev$ is not just $V_\ev \otimes W_\ev = \SU(12)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_{12}$, but rather $(V_\ev \otimes W_\ev) \oplus (V_\odd \otimes W_\odd)$, and so we need to see that $\SU(12)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_{12}$ extends inside $\Spin(24)_1 = V^{f\natural}_\ev$ to $ V_\odd \otimes W_\odd$. For both $\SU(12)_1$ and $\rU(1)_{12}$, all anyons are abelian and the groups for each are naturally isomorphic to $\bZ_{12}$. For $i \in \bZ_{12}$, let us write $\SU(12)_1(i)$ or $\rU(1)_{12}(i)$ for the corresponding anyon. In this notation,
$V_\odd = \SU(12)_1(6)$ and $W_\odd= \rU(1)_{12}(6)$.
Then $\Spin(24)_1$ decomposes over $\SU(12)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_{12}$ as
$$ V^{f\natural}_\ev = \Spin(24)_1 = \bigoplus_{i \text{ even}} \SU(12)_1(i) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(i), $$
which definitely contains $\SU(12)_1(6) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(6)$. (Of course, $i$ is considered modulo $12$.) Second, we need to confirm that $V^{f\natural}_\odd$ contains $(V \otimes W)_\odd = (V_\odd \otimes W_\ev) \oplus (V_\ev \otimes W_\odd)$. One might expect that $V_\odd$ is the above sum but with odd $i$s, but this is false --- that sum does define a $\Spin(24)_1$-anyon, but it has conformal dimension $\frac12$ (and the extension of $\Spin(24)_1$ through it is the free fermion algebra $\Fer(24) = \SO(24)_1$ and not $V^{f\natural} = \SO^+(24)_1$). The other two $\Spin(24)_1$-anyons decompose as
$$ \bigoplus_{i \text{ even}} \SU(12)_1(i) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(i + 6), \qquad \bigoplus_{i \text{ odd}} \SU(12)_1(i) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(i + 6).$$
In fact, these anyons are exchanged by an outer automorphism of $\Spin(24)_1$, which does not preserve the chosen $\SU(12)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_{12}$ subalgebra. The copy of $V^{f\natural}$ that we want is the one for which $V^{f\natural}_\odd$ is the first of these two. This manifestly contains $(V_\odd \otimes W_\ev) \oplus (V_\ev \otimes W_\odd) = (\SU(12)_1(6) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(0)) \oplus (\SU(12)_1(0) \otimes \rU(1)_{12}(6))$.
Suppose now that $\tau_V$ is any superconformal vector on $V$, and let $\tau_W$ denote the canonical superconformal vector for $W$ constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm}. Consider the $N{=}1$ algebra $V \otimes W$ with superconformal vector $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$. It carries a manifest action by $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V, \tau_V) \times \Aut_{N{=}1}(W) = \operatorname{Stab}_{2\PSU(12){:}2}(\tau_V) \times S_3$. Not every automorphism in $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V \otimes W) = 2\PSU(12){:}2 \times \SO(2){:}2$ lifts to an automorphism of $V^{f\natural}$, and the lift may not be quite canonical.
Rather, the group $2\PSU(12)$ centrally extends to $6\PSU(12) = \SU(12)/\bZ_2$, the cartesian product becomes a central product, and the diagonal ``$2$'' extends but the individual ones do not, so that
$$ \SO^+(24) \supset \frac{6\PSU(12) \times \SO(2)}{\bZ_3} : 2.$$
In particular, all of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(W) = S_3$ lifts to automorphisms of $V^{f\natural}$ preserving the supersymmetry. The lifts of $\bZ_3 \subset S_3$ commute with all of $V$ (and in particular they fix $\tau_V$), whereas the reflections in $S_3$ act nontrivially on $V$ (by the ``${:}2$'' inside $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = 2\PSU(12){:}2$).
The group $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V^{f\natural}) = \Co_1$ contains four conjugacy classes of elements of order $3$. We know which one lifts $\bZ_3 \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(W)$, because the $\Spin(2) \subset \Spin(24)$ in question acts on the 24-dimensional vector representation without fixed points, and this holds for only one of the four conjugacy classes.
The centralizer of this $\bZ_3$ inside $\Co_1$ is isomorphic to $3\Suz$, and $3\Suz \subset 6\PSU(12)$ acts trivially on $W$ and hence fixes $\tau_W$. Of course, $3\Suz \subset \Co_1$ also fixes $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$, and so $3\Suz$ fixes $\tau$. The central ``$3$'' acts nontrivially on $V^{f\natural}$ but trivially on its subalgebra~$V$, and we find that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V, \tau_V) \supset \Suz$.
There is a unique conjugacy class of embeddings $\Suz \subset \Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = 2\PSU(12){:}2$, and we saw in \S\ref{su12.existence} that $\Suz$ preserves a unique superconformal vector~$\tau_V$, and the automorphism group of~$\tau_V$ contains $\Suz{:}2$. Furthermore, the full group $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$, although it doesn't have to centralize $\bZ_3 \subset \Co_1$, must certainly normalize it. The normalizer of this $\bZ_3$ is precisely $\Suz{:}2$.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$}\label{unique.sp61}
We set $V = \PSp(2{\times}6)_1$, with $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, and choose $W = \text{``}\SO(3)_3\text{''} = \PSp(2{\times}1)_6$, with $W_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}1)_6$. We claim that there is a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset V^{f\natural}$. The conformal embedding $V_\ev \otimes W_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}6)_1 \otimes \Sp(2{\times}1)_6 \subset \Spin(24)_1 = V^{f\natural}_\ev$ is well known from level-rank duality.
As in \S\ref{su12.uniqueness}, we may show the stronger SVOA claim by decomposing $V^{f\natural}$ over $V_\ev \otimes W_\ev$. Again one must be a little careful: the usual explanation of level-rank duality, for this rank and level, involves embedding dual pairs of WZW algebras into $\Fer(24)$, which is a simple current extension of $\Fer(24)_\ev = \Spin(24)_1$ but not the one we want. Regardless, the usual story already lets one quickly see that $(V\otimes W)_\ev \subset \Spin(24)_1$, and then one must be careful with the odd part. The spin-$\frac32$ fields of $V^{f\natural}_\odd$ form the $2048$-dimensional positive spinor representation of $\Spin(24)$, and so the claim amounts to observing that the restriction $\mathbf{2048}|_{\Sp(2{\times}6) \times \Sp(2{\times}1)}$ contains $\mathbf{429} \otimes \mathbf{1}$ and $\mathbf{1} \otimes \mathbf{7}$ as direct summands.
Almost all of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) \times \Aut_{N{=}0}(W) = (\PSp(2{\times}6) \times 2) \times (\PSp(2{\times}1) \times 2)$ lifts to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural}) = \SO^+(24)$: the individual ``${\times}2$''s do not, but the diagonal does. (The usual embedding for level-rank duality is $\Sp(2{\times}6) \circ \Sp(2{\times}1) \subset \SO(24)$, but we are using instead $\SO^+(24)$.)
Now let $\tau_V$ be an arbitrary superconformal vector on $V$ and take $\tau_W$ to be the $S_4$-fixed superconformal vector on $W$ constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm}. Then $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$ is a superconformal vector on~$V^{f\natural}$.
It is stabilized by the subgroup of $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V,\tau_V) \times \Aut_{N{=}1}(W,\tau_W) = \Aut_{N{=}1}(V,\tau_V) \times S_4$ which extends to $V^{f\natural}$.
The full stabilizer of $\tau$ is, per Duncan's theorem, a copy of $\Co_1$, and the $A_4 \subset S_4$ subgroup is the unique conjugacy class mapping into $\SO^+(24)$ through the identified embedding of $\Sp(2{\times}1)$.
The centralizer of this $A_4$ inside $\Co_1$ is $\rG_2(4)$ living, as a subgroup of $\SO^+(24)$, inside the $\Sp(2{\times}6)$ centralizing the $\Sp(2{\times}1) \supset A_4$. It follows that $\rG_2(4)$ fixes all of $W$, and so in particular fixes $\tau_W$. But it also fixed $\tau$, and so it fixes $\tau_V$. On the other hand, there is a unique conjugacy class of $\rG_2(4)$s inside of $\Sp(2{\times}6)$, and
we saw in \S\ref{sp6.exist} that any choice of $\rG_2(4)$ fixes a unique superconformal vector, with automorphism group extending to $\rG_2(4){:}2$. But $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V,\tau_V)$ must normalize $A_4 \subset \Co_1$, and so $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = \rG_2(4){:}2$.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$} \label{unique.sp312}
Let $V$ denote the $\bZ_2$ simple current extension of $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_1^2$, and choose $W = \SO(4)_3$ with bosonic subalgebra $W_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}1)_3^2$. These bosonic subalgebras are level-rank dual inside $\Spin(24)_1$, and by decomposing $V^{f\natural}$ over $V_\ev \otimes W_\ev$, one finds that $V \otimes W \subset V^{f\natural}$.
Of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) \times \Aut_{N{=}0}(W) = \Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2}{:}2 \times \Sp(2{\times}1)^{\circ 2}{:}2$, the part that lifts to $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural}) = \SO^+(24)$ is $(\Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2} \times \Sp(2{\times}1)^{\circ 2}){:}2$.
Equip $W$ with its $S_5$-invariant superconformal vector $\tau_W$, and let $\tau_V$ be an arbitrary superconformal vector for $V$. Then $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$ is a superconformal vector on $V^{f\natural}$, and so stabilized by a $\Co_1$. We may identify which $A_5 \subset \Co_1$ is the lift of $A_5 \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(W)$ by factoring it through $\Sp(2{\times}1)^{\circ 2} = \SO(4) \subset \SO^+(24)$. We find that the centralizer in $\Co_1$ of this $A_5$ is a copy of $\rJ_2 \subset \Sp(2{\times}3)^{\circ 2}$, and since it commutes with all of $W$, it certainly preserves $\tau_W$ and hence $\tau_V = \tau - \tau_W$. Thus $\tau_V$ is the superconformal vector constructed in \S\ref{exist.sp3.2}. The full automorphism group $\Aut_{N{=}1}(W)$ must normalize $A_5 \subset \Co_1$, and so is exactly the identified $\rJ_2{:}2$.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Sp(2{\times}3)_2$}\label{unique.sp3}
Let $V = \PSp(2{\times}3)_2$ and $W = \SO(5)_3 = \PSp(2{\times}2)_3$, with even subalgebras $V_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}3)_2$ and $W_\ev = \Sp(2{\times}2)_3$. Again we may construct a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset V^{f\natural}$, extending the level-rank duality $\Sp(2{\times}3)_2 \otimes \Sp(2{\times}2)_3 \subset \Spin(24)_1$. Let $\tau_V$ denote an arbitrary superconformal structure on $V$, and $\tau_W$ the superconformal structure on $W$ constructed in \S\ref{exist.spinm} with automorphism group $S_{6}$. Look at the subgroup $A_6 \subset S_6$. Again by studying how much of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) \times \Aut_{N{=}0}(W)$ lifts to $V^{f\natural}$, we find that $\Aut(\tau_V)$ is precisely the normalizer of $A_6 \subset \Co_1$, modulo $A_6$ of course. The conjugacy class of the embedding $A_6 \subset \Co_1$ is uniquely determined by requesting that the corresponding embedding into $\PSO(24)$ factors through $\PSp(2{\times}2)$. The normalizer-mod-normal of this $A_6$ is precisely $\rU_3(3){:}2$, which, by~\S\ref{exist.sp3}, uniquely determines the superconformal vector.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\SU(6)_1^2$} \label{unique.su612}
Set $V = \SU(6)_1^2 / \bZ_2$, with even subalgebra $V_\ev = \SU(6)_1^2$, and set $W = \rU(1)_3^2 = \text{``}\SO(2)_3^2\text{''}$. This $W$ is a lattice SVOA for the lattice $\sqrt{3}\bZ^2$. The even sublattice of the $\bZ^2$-lattice is a copy of the $\sqrt{2}\bZ^2$ lattice, and so $W_\ev \cong \rU(1)_6^2$.
We will embed $V \otimes W \subset V^{f\natural}$. At the level of Lie algebras this corresponds to the embedding $\mathfrak{su}(6)^2 \times \mathfrak{u}(1)^2 \subset \mathfrak{u}(6)^2 \subset \mathfrak{u}(12) \subset \mathfrak{so}(24)$. Following this, we observe that $\SU(6)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_6 \subset (\rU(6)_1)_\ev = \Spin(12)_1$, where we have used the isomorphism $\rU(n)_1 = \Fer(2n)$ to identify $(\rU(n)_1)_\ev = \Spin(2n)_1$. Let us write $\SU(6)_1(i)$ and $\rU(1)_6(i)$, with $i \in \bZ_6$, for the anyons for these algebras, so that for example $V_\odd = \SU(6)_1(3) \otimes \SU(6)_1(3)$ and $W_\odd = \rU(1)_6(3) \otimes \rU(1)_6(3)$. Then we find that $\Spin(12)_1 = (\rU(6)_1)_\ev$ decomposes over $\SU(6)_1 \otimes \rU(1)_6$ as
$$ \Spin(12)_1 = \bigoplus_{i\text{ even}}\SU(6)_1(i) \otimes \rU(6)_1(i).$$
The nontrivial $\Spin(12)_1$-anyons $\Spin(12)_1(v)$ and $\Spin(12)_1(s^\pm)$ (of conformal dimensions $\frac12,\frac34,\frac34$, respectively) decompose as
\begin{align*}
\Spin(12)_1(v) & = \bigoplus_{i\text{ odd}} \SU(6)_1(i) \otimes \rU(6)_1(i), \\
\Spin(12)_1(s^+) & = \bigoplus_{i\text{ even}} \SU(6)_1(i) \otimes \rU(6)_1(i+3), \\
\Spin(12)_1(s^-) & = \bigoplus_{i\text{ odd}} \SU(6)_1(i) \otimes \rU(6)_1(i+3).
\end{align*}
Finally, $V^{f\natural}$ decomposes over $\Spin(12)_1^2$ as
$$ V^{f\natural} = \bigoplus_{k \in \{0,v,s^+,s^-\}} \Spin(12)_1(k) \otimes \Spin(12)_1(k),$$
where in the sum we have written $\Spin(12)_1(0)$ for the vacuum anyon. (For comparison, $\Fer(24)$ does not contain the $s^\pm$ summands and instead contains $\Spin(12)_1(0) \oplus \Spin(12)_1(v)$ and $\Spin(12)_1(v) \oplus \Spin(12)_1(0)$.)
All together, we find that $V^{f\natural}$ does contain a copy of
$$ V \otimes W = \bigoplus_{i,j \in \{0,3\}} \SU(6)_1(i) \otimes \rU(6)_1(j),$$
as desired.
Now equip $W$ with its superconformal vector $\tau_W$, which is itself the sum of two copies of the superconformal vector for $\rU(1)_3$, and let $\tau_V$ be an arbitrary superconformal vector for $V$. Then $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$ is a superconformal vector for $V \otimes W$ and hence for $V^{f\natural}$, and so is stabilized inside $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural})$ by a copy of $\Co_1$. Not all of
$\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = (2\PSU(6))^{\circ2}{:}2$ and
$\Aut_{N{=}0}(W) = \rO(2)^{\circ 2}{:}2$ extend to $V^{f\natural}$, and some parts extend but only in ways that act on the other tensorand. But the connected subgroups do extend and centralize each other. In particular, $A_3^2 = \Aut_{N{=}1}(W) \cap \SO(2)^{\circ 2}$ lifts to $V^{f\natural}$, where its centralizer is a copy of $3^2{\cdot}\rU_4(3)$. Conversely, $3^2{\cdot}\rU_4(3)$ stabilizes $\tau$ and also $\tau_W$ (since it stabilizes all of $W$), and hence $\tau_V$. The central $3^2 \subset 3^2{\cdot}\rU_4(3)$ acts trivially on $V$, and so we find $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \supset \rU_4(3)$.
This implies that $\tau_V$ is the superconformal vector constructed in \S\ref{exist.su6.2}, and so in particular $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \supset \rU_4(3){:}D_8$. To identify its full automorphism group, we observe that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ must normalize $A_3^2 \subset \Aut_{N{=}1}(W)$, and so $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \subset \rU_4(3){:}D_8$.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1$} \label{unique.spin16spin8}
Let $V = (\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1)/\bZ_2$. The automorphism group of $V_\ev$ is $\Aut(\Spin(16)_1) \times \Aut(\Spin(8)_1) = \PSO(16){:}2 \times \PSO(8){:}S_3$. The space of fields of spin $\frac32$ in $V_\odd$ is $\mathbf{128}_+ \boxtimes \mathbf{8}_+$, where $\mathbf{128}_+$ and $\mathbf{8}_+$ denote the positive half-spin representations of $\Spin(16)$ and $\Spin(8)$, respectively. Thus the choice of $V_\odd$ and breaks and extends $\PSO(8){:}S_3$ to $\SO^+(8){:}2 \cong \rO(8)$, so that
$$ \Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8) = (\SO^+(16) \times \rO(8))/\bZ_2.$$
The WZW embedding $\Spin(16)_1 \times \Spin(8)_1 \subset \Spin(24)$ is conformal; the subalgebra is selected not as a coset, but as the fixed points for a $\bZ_2$ action. The embedding extends to an SVOA embedding $V \subset V^{f\natural}$ (\S\ref{subsec.inclusions}), again selected as the fixed subalgebra for the action of some $\bZ_2 \subset \Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural}) = \SO^+(24)$. The extension $V \subset V^{f\natural}$ breaks and extends $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ to $\Spin(16) \circ \Spin(8) = (\Spin(16) \times \Spin(8)) / \bZ_2^2 \subset \SO^+(24)$.
Let $\tau$ denote any superconformal vector in $\Spin(12)_1^2/\bZ_2$. Then $\tau$ determines a superconformal vector in $V^{f\natural}$ fixed by an order-$2$ element $g$, and conversely $g$ determines $\bigl(V,\tau\bigr)$ as an $N{=}1$ SVOA.
This element $g$ lifts with order $2$ to $\Spin(24)$ and acts on the $24$-dimensional representation with spectrum $1^{16} (-1)^8$. $\Co_1$ has a unique conjugacy class of such elements, called ``$2\mathrm{a}$'' in GAP. This verifies the uniqueness of $\tau$ up to the $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$-action.
The centralizer of $g$ in $\Co_1$ has shape $2^{1+8}_+\cdot \rO_8^+(2)$ in the ATLAS notation \cite{ATLAS}. Quotienting by the central ``$2$'' to achieve a faithful action on $V$, we find that
$$\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) \cap (\SO^+(16) \circ \SO(8)) = 2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2).$$
Thus either $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = 2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2)$ or $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ contains $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2)$ with index $2$. We claim that the latter occurs, and that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = 2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2$.
To prove this, we will describe the embedding $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2 \subset \SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8)$ by starting with the Lie group $\rE_8$. This description is essentially equivalent to the construction from \cite{JohnDuncan-thesis}, reviewed in \S6 of \cite{MR2352133}, which produces $V^{f\natural}$ as the canonical orbifold of the ``supersymmetric $\rE_8$ torus.''
Let $T \subset \rE_8$ denote the maximal torus, and $W$ the Weyl group, which we think of as a subgroup of $\rO(8)$. The normalizer of $T$ is a nonsplit extension $T\cdot W$.
The group $W$ has shape $2 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2$ in the ATLAS notation \cite{ATLAS}.
Let $z \in W$ denote the central element. Since it acts on $T$ as $t \mapsto t^{-1}$, its lifts to $T \cdot W$ are all conjugate, and all have order $2$. Fix such a lift $\tilde z \in T \cdot W$. Then the centralizer of $\tilde z$ in $T \cdot W$ is a group of shape $2^8 \cdot W$, where $2^8 \subset T$ is the $2$-torsion subgroup.
The centralizer of $\tilde z$ in $\rE_8$ is isomorphic to $\SO^+(16)$.
Indeed, a version of this construction works for any simple Lie algebra, and selects the split form of the corresponding Lie group.
All together we find a map $2^8 \cdot W \subset \SO^+(16)$, and of course $W \subset \rO(8)$ automatically. The combined map $2^8 \cdot W \subset \SO^+(16) \times \rO(8)$ covers a map $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2 \subset \SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8)$.
The adjoint representation $\mathfrak{e}_8$ splits over $\SO^+(16) \subset \rE_8$ as $\mathfrak{so}(16) \oplus \mathbf{128}_+$, where the splitting is by central characters: $\tilde z$ acts trivially on $\mathfrak{so}(16)$ and with eigenvalue $-1$ on $\mathbf{128}_+$. Let $\Delta^+$ denote the set of positive roots of $\rE_8$, with respect to some decomposition into positive and negative roots. Then $\mathfrak{e}_8$ decomposes over the maximal torus $T \subset \rE_8$ as $\mathfrak{e}_8 = \mathfrak{t} \oplus \bigoplus_{r \in \Delta^+} \mathbf{1}_r \oplus \mathbf{1}_{-r}$, where $\mathbf{1}_{\pm r}$ is the weight space of weight $\pm r$, and $\mathfrak{t} = \mathbf{8}_0$ is the Cartan subalgebra. The $\tilde{z}$-action exchanges $\mathbf{1}_r$ with $\mathbf{1}_{-r}$, and acts with eigenvalue $-1$ on $\mathfrak{t}$. So $\mathfrak{so}(16)$ has a basis consisting of the vectors $(1 + \tilde z)e_r$, where $r \in \Delta^+$ and $e_r$ is a basis vector of $\mathbf{1}_r$. For comparison, $\mathbf{128}_+$ decomposes as $\mathfrak{t} \oplus \bigoplus_r (1 - \tilde z)e_r$. (Note in particular that the Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{t}$ does not meet $\mathfrak{so}(16)$. The inclusion $\SO^+(16) \subset \rE_8$ takes a maximal torus to a maximal torus, but not to the maximal torus $T$ that we are using. Indeed, $2^8 \subset \SO^+(16)$ is not a subgroup of any maximal torus thereof: its double cover inside $\Spin(16)$ is an extraspecial group $2^{1+8}_+$.)
These decompositions diagonalize the $2^8$ action, which acts on $\mathbf{1}_r$ with character ``$r \mod 2$.'' Since roots are primitive vectors, $2^8$ acts nontrivially on $(1 \pm \tilde z)e_r$, and the only $2^8$-fixed subspace of $\mathfrak{128}_+$ is $\mathfrak{t}$, which is isomorphic to $\mathbf{8}$ as a $(2^8 \cdot W)$-module. Note that $\mathbf{8}$ is simple upon restriction to the even subgroup $2\rO_8^+(2) = W \cap \SO(8)$. Thus $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2)$ has a unique fixed point inside $\mathbf{128}_+ \otimes \mathbf{8}$, which by the earlier remarks must be the superconformal vector $\tau$.
But the same argument shows that $\tau$ is in fact fixed by all of $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2$, and as we remarked above, this is the largest that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V)$ could be. We remark that the inclusion $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2 \subset \SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8)$ can be ``twisted'' by the nontrivial map
$2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2 \to 2 \subset \SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8)$, where the second map selects the centre, thereby producing a second nonconjugate copy of $2^8 \cdot \rO_8^+(2){:}2$ inside $\SO^+(16) \circ \rO(8)$. This latter copy ``antifixes'' $\tau$.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Spin(12)_1^2$} \label{unique.spin1212}
Let $V = \Spin(12)_1^2/\bZ_2$, with even subalgebra $\Spin(12)_1^2$.
The WZW embedding $\Spin(12)_1^2 \subset \Spin(24)$ is conformal; the subalgebra is selected not as a coset, but as the fixed points for a $\bZ_2$ action. The embedding extends to an SVOA embedding $V \subset V^{f\natural}$ (\S\ref{subsec.inclusions}), again selected as the fixed subalgebra for the action of some $\bZ_2 \subset \Aut_{N{=}0}(V^{f\natural}) = \SO^+(24)$, and all of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \SO^+(12)^{\circ 2}{:}2$ extends (via a double cover) to $V^{f\natural}$.
Let $\tau$ denote any superconformal vector in $\Spin(12)_1^2/\bZ_2$. Then $\tau$ determines a superconformal vector in $V^{f\natural}$ fixed by an order-$2$ element $g$, and conversely $g$ determines $\bigl(V,\tau\bigr)$ as an $N{=}1$ SVOA.
This element $g$ lifts with order $2$ to $\Spin(24)$ and acts on the $24$-dimensional representation with spectrum $1^{12} (-1)^{12}$. $\Co_1$ has a unique conjugacy class of such elements, called ``$2\mathrm{c}$'' in GAP. This verifies the uniqueness of $\tau$ up to the $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$-action. The centralizer of $g$ in $\Co_1$ is $2^{11}{:}\rM_{12}{:}2$. Quotienting by the central ``$2$'' to achieve a faithful action on $V$, we find that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V) = 2^{10}{:}\rM_{12}{:}2$, and that $\tau$ is the superconformal vector constructed in \S\ref{exist.spin12.2}.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\Spin(12)_2$}\label{unique.spin12}
The (nonconformal) embedding $\Spin(12)_2 \subset \Spin(24)_1$ is unusual among WZW embeddings. Its level-rank dual is $\text{``}\Spin(2)_{12}\text{''} \subset \rU(1)_{12}$, but that has as its coset all of $\SU(12)_1$, and not just its subalgebra $\Spin(12)_2$. The reason for this unusual behaviour is that the embedding $\Spin(12)_2 \subset \SU(12)_1$ is already conformal, and so has trivial coset. $\Spin(12)_2$ is the fixed points of an outer $\bZ_2$-action on $\SU(12)_1$.
We showed in \S\ref{subsec.inclusions} that the VOA inclusion $\Spin(12)_2 \subset \SU(12)_1$ extends to an SVOA inclusion $\SO^+(12)_2 \subset 6\PSU(12)_1$. Let us repeat the argument: it suffices to study the spin-$\frac32$ fields, and $\Alt^6(\mathbf{12}) = \mathbf{924}$ splits over $\Spin(12)$ as $\mathbf{462}_+ \oplus \mathbf{462}_-$ (with notation as in \S\ref{exist.spin12} and \S\ref{su12.existence}).
Choose an arbitrary superconformal vector $\tau$ on $\SO^+(12)_2$. Its image in $6\PSU(12)_1$ is also a superconformal vector, and so is unique up to $\SU(12)$-automorphisms, with stabilizer $\Suz{:}2$ therein, by \S\ref{su12.uniqueness}. Since $\tau \in \SO^+(12)_2$, it is fixed by the chosen outer automorphism. There are two conjugacy classes of order-$2$ elements in $\Suz{:}2$ covering the outer $2$. They can be distinguished as follows: one of them lifts to an order-$2$ element inside $2\Suz{:}2$ and the other lifts with order $4$. The one that cuts out $\Spin(12) \subset \SU(12)$ lifts with order $2$. The centralizer of any such element is a group of shape $2\rM_{12}{:}2$. It acts on $\SO^+(12)_2$ through $\rM_{12}{:}2$, and preserves $\tau$, and so we find that $\Aut_{N{=}1}(\SO^+(12)_2,\tau) \cong \rM_{12}{:}2$. But $\rM_{12}{:}2$ embeds into $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ in a unique-up-to-conjugation way, preserving a (unique) superconformal vector by \S\ref{exist.spin12}.
\subsection{Uniqueness for $\SU(6)_2$}\label{unique.su6}
Let $V = \SU(6)_2/\bZ_2$, with $V_\ev = \SU(6)_2$, and set $W = \SO(2)_3 = \rU(1)_3$, with $W_\ev = \rU(1)_{12}$. Arguing as above, it is not hard to construct a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset \PSp(2{\times}6)_1$. Write $\tau_W$ for the unique superconformal vector in $W$; then $\Aut_{N{=}1}(W) = S_3$. Choose any superconformal vector $\tau_V$ for $V$. Then $\tau_V + \tau_W = \tau$ is a superconformal vector for
$\PSp(2{\times}6)_1$,
and so its automorphism group therein is $\rG_2(4){:}2$ by \S\ref{unique.sp61}. Consider the $\bZ_3 \subset S_3 = \Aut_{N{=}1}(W)$. It is compatible with the extension, and lifts to an order-$3$ element in $\rG_2(4)$. There are two (conjugacy classes of) such elements: the one coming from our $\rU(1)$ is the unique one acting in the $12$-dimensional representation without fixed points. Its normalizer in $\rG_2(4){:}2$ has shape $3\rM_{21}{:}2^2$, and so $\Aut_{N{=}1}(V,\tau_V) = \rM_{21}{:}2^2$. (The normal ``$3$'' acts nontrivially on $\Sp(2{\times}6)_1$, but trivially on the subalgebra $V \otimes W$.) On the other hand, we saw in \S\ref{exist.su6} that $\rM_{21}$ has a unique conjugacy class of embeddings into $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V)$ and
preserves a unique superconformal vector.
\section{Type $\rE$ cases} \label{sec.typeE}
We now discuss the Type $\rE$ cases. In \S\ref{orbifolds} and \S\ref{exist.e71.2} we construct three different $N{=}1$ structures for $\rE_{7,1}^2$; the first two are constructed by very similar methods, and the last by following the approach from Section~\ref{sec.existence}. We conjecture that these three $N{=}1$ structures are in the same orbit under the action of $\Aut_{N{=}0}(\rE_{7,1}^2/\bZ_2) = \rE_7^{\circ 2}{:}2$, but this is not obvious from the construction, and we do not attempt a proof.
We then explain in \S\ref{subsec.e72} and \S\ref{subsec.failureE} why $N{=}1$ structures for $\rE_{7,2}$ and $\rE_{8,2}$ appear unlikely.
\subsection{Existence for $\rE_{7,1}^2$ from orbifolding} \label{orbifolds}
The goal of this section is to construct an $N{=}1$ structure on the SVOA $V = \rE_{7,1}^2/\bZ_2$, the $\bZ_2$ simple current extension of $V_\ev = \rE_{7,1}^2$; we will in fact construct two $N{=}1$ structures, and it is not obvious whether they are isomorphic. Our first step will be to give a ``free fermionic'' construction of $V$ just as an SVOA. This is reasonable because $V$ is \define{holomorphic}: like $\rE_{8,1}$ and $\SO^+(24)_1 = V^{f\natural}$, $V$ has no nontrivial anyons. Indeed, $\rE_{7,1}$ has only two anyons --- the vacuum and an abelian anyon of conformal dimension $\frac32$ corresponding to the centre of $\rE_7$ --- and so the anyons of $\rE_{7,1}^2$ form a Klein-4 group. The $\bZ_2$-extension cuts down the number of anyons by a factor of $2^2$. (When there are nonabelian anyons, they must be counted weighted by the squares of their quantum dimensions. For the general statement, see \cite{MR1936496}.)
To construct $V$ as an SVOA, we will start with a different holomorphic SVOA of the same central charge, namely the free fermion algebra $\Fer(28) = \SO(28)_1$, and orbifold (aka gauge) a symmetry. Orbifolding has been part of the VOA story from the beginning:
it was pioneered by \cite{MR996026}, who used it in their construction of the moonshine module. The first step is to choose an action of a finite group on the to-be-orbifolded SVOA. We will choose the elementary abelian group $\bZ_2^3$ acting on $\Fer(28)$ as follows: write $28 = 4 \times 7$, and act by four copies of the seven-dimensional ``regular minus trivial'' representation of $\bZ_2^3$. (This seven-dimensional representation is essentially Hamming's error correcting code $\mathrm{Ham}(7,4)$. One choice for the generators of $\bZ_2^3$ is to have them act on $\bR^7$ via the diagonal matrices $\diag(-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1,1)$, $\diag(-1,-1,1,1,-1,-1,1)$, and $\diag(-1,1,-1,1,-1,1,-1)$.)
The second step is to pass to the $\bZ_2^3$-fixed sub-SVOA $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3} \subset \Fer(28)$. (This fixed subalgebra is sometimes called the ``chiral orbifold'' in the VOA literature, whereas what we will construct is called variously the ``full orbifold'' or ``twisted orbifold.'') It is expected that for any rational SVOA and any finite group action, the fixed sub-SVOA is again rational; such a result is not known in general, but is proven for solvable groups in \cite{CarnahanMiyamoto}. In particular, $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$ is rational. Once rationality is known, the main result of \cite{MR1923177} identifies the category of anyons of $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$ as the Drinfel'd centre of a superfusion category $\cat{SVec}^\alpha[\bZ_2^3]$ arising as a twisted form of the finite group $\bZ_2^3$. (The papers \cite{MR1923177,MR1936496,CarnahanMiyamoto} only address the bosonic case, but they imply the corresponding fermionic statements with only a small amount of extra work.)
In particular, the anyons of $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$ are graded by the group $\bZ_2^3$. (If $\bZ_2^3$ were nonabelian, then the anyons would be graded merely by the conjugacy classes in $\bZ_2^3$.) Suppose that we can choose one abelian anyon of each grading, such that the choices are closed under fusion. The \define{orbifold} $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$, if it exists, is the simple current extension of $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$ by these abelian anyons. In the context of orbifolds, the (generators of) the extending anyons are called \define{twist fields}. The double slash in the notation reminds that orbifolding is a two-step process: restrict to a subalgebra, and then choose an extension.
The existence of the orbifold is controlled by the \define{'t Hooft anomaly} of the action of $\bZ_2^3$ on $\Fer(28)$ (and the choices are controlled by choices of how to trivialize this anomaly). The 't Hooft anomaly appears as the ``twisting'' $\alpha$ in the superfusion category $\cat{SVec}^\alpha[\bZ_2^3]$, analogous to a twisted group algebra.
By definition, $\cat{SVec}^\alpha[\bZ_2^3]$ has simple objects $M_g$ indexed by $g \in \bZ_2^3$, and these should fuse compatibly with the group multiplication.
In the bosonic case, the twisting $\alpha$ consists merely of associator data (aka F-matrices, aka 6j-symbols) for the fusion category $\cat{Vec}^\alpha[\bZ_2^3]$, and defines a class in ordinary group cohomology $\H^3(\bZ_2^3;\rU(1))$. In the fermionic case the anomaly is more complicated (cf.\ \cite[Section~4]{GJFIII}), and has three {layers}. In a supercategory, there are two types of simple objects: \define{ordinary} objects, with endomorphism algebra $\bC$, and \define{Majorana} objects, with endomorphism algebra $\Cliff(1)$.
The bottom \define{Majorana layer} of $\alpha$ records which objects in $\cat{SVec}^\alpha[\bZ_2^3]$ are ordinary and which are Majorana; it is a class $\alpha^{(1)} \in \H^1(\bZ_2^3;\bZ_2)$. Next is the \define{Gu--Wen layer} $\alpha^{(2)}$. When all objects are ordinary (i.e.\ when the Majorana layer vanishes), the Gu--Wen layer records whether the isomorphism $M_g \otimes M_h \cong M_{gh}$ is even or odd, and defines a class in $\H^2(\bZ_2^3;\bZ_2)$. (When $\alpha^{(1)}$ does not vanish, $\alpha^{(2)}$ is not a cocycle, but rather solves $\d \alpha^{(2)} = \Sq^2\alpha^{(1)}$.)
Finally there is the \define{Dijkgraaf--Witten layer} $\alpha^{(3)}$ prescribing the associator, which is a 3-cochain on $\bZ_2^3$ with values in $\rU(1)$. When $\alpha^{(1)}$ and $\alpha^{(2)}$ are both trivialized, $\alpha^{(3)}$ is a cocycle for ordinary cohomology. In general, it solves $\d\alpha^{(3)} = (-1)^{\Sq^2\alpha^{(2)}}(\dots)$, where the $(\dots)$ term depends on $\alpha^{(1)}$; an exact formula does not seem to appear in the literature, but could in principle be extracted from \cite[\S5.4]{MR3978827}.
All together, the three layers $\alpha^{(1)},\alpha^{(2)},\alpha^{(3)}$ compile into a class $\alpha \in \SH^3(\bZ_2^3)$ in a generalized cohomology theory called \define{supercohomology}. A supercohomology class with vanishing Majorana layer is said to live in \define{restricted supercohomology}~$\rSH^3(\bZ_2^3)$.
To evaluate $\alpha$, we first note that the action of $\bZ_2^3$ on $\Fer(28)$ consists of four copies of the action on $\Fer(7)$, and that anomalies add under stacking (aka tensoring) of SVOAs. We claim that the Majorana layer for the action of $\bZ_2^3$ on $\Fer(7)$ vanishes, i.e.\ that the anomaly lives in restricted supercohomology. (In fact, the Gu--Wen layer of that action also vanishes, but we will not use this.) Indeed, for actions on free fermions, the Majorana layer merely records the determinant of the corresponding map $\bZ_2^3 \to \rO(7)$. Each element in $\bZ_2^3$ switches the signs of four fermions, and so has positive determinant. The restricted supercohomology group $\rSH^3(\bZ_2^3)$ is an extension of the ordinary cohomology groups $\H^2(\bZ_2^3;\bZ_2)$ and $\H^3(\bZ_2^3;\rU(1))$, each of which is $2$-torsion, and so $\rSH^3(\bZ_2^3)$ is $4$-torsion. Thus the anomaly $\alpha$ of the action of $\bZ_2^3$ on $\Fer(28)$ must vanish, being $4$ times the anomaly of the action on $\Fer(7)$.
Therefore the orbifold SVOA $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$ exists. We will now identify it. In general, there can be multiple non-isomorphic results of orbifolding, because to construct the orbifold requires not just that the anomaly vanishes, but also the choice of a trivialization of the anomaly. In the case of $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$, we will see that such choices do not effect the isomorphism type of the resulting orbifold.
To recognize $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$, first note that the $\bZ_2^3$ symmetry \define{screens} all the free fermions, in the sense that the fixed subalgebra $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$ has no free fermions. Second, each twist field has conformal dimension $1$. Indeed, it is a general fact that, for an order-2 element $g \in \Aut(\Fer(n)) = \rO(n)$, the corresponding twist field has conformal dimension $\frac1{16} \times\dim(\text{$(-1)$-eigenspace of $g$})$. (This is why, for instance, the orbifold $\Fer(16) \sslash (-1)^f = \rE_{8,1}$ includes so many extra spin-$1$ fields.) It follows that $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$ has no free fermions. Finally, not all of the spin-$1$ fields in $\Fer(28)$ are screened: the spin-$1$ fields in $\Fer(28)$ are bilinears in the free fermions, and the ones which are not screened are those for which both free fermions come from the same four-dimensional eigenspace of $\bZ_2^3$; thus the spin-$1$ fields in the fixed subalgebra $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$, a subalgebra of $\Fer(28)\sslash \bZ_2^3$, form the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(4)^7 = \mathfrak{su}(2)^{14}$. This Lie algebra has rank $14$, equal to the central charge of $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$. It is a general fact that in a (unitary) SVOA of central charge $c$, the spin-$1$ fields form a Lie algebra with rank $c$ if and only if the SVOA is a lattice SVOA \cite{MR2097833}, and that the lattice is self-dual if and only if the SVOA is holomorphic, and that the lattice has vectors of length $1$ if and only if the SVOA has free fermions.
All together, we find that $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$ is isomorphic to a lattice SVOA for a self-dual lattice of rank $14$ without any vectors of length $1$. The classification of self-dual lattices of rank $\leq 23$ is available in \cite[Chapter 16]{MR1662447} (and extended to rank $\leq 25$ in \cite{MR1801771}). Inspecting the list, one finds that there is a unique self-dual lattice of rank $14$ without vectors of length $1$: its root system is $\rE_7^2$, extended by a glue vector of length $\sqrt{3}$. This establishes the existence of an isomorphism $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3 \cong \rE_{7,1}^2 / \bZ_2$. (One may also establish such an isomorphism directly without appealing to the classification of lattices: it suffices to understand $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3$ as a simple current extension of its subalgebra $\SU(2)_1^{14}$; the extension adjoins new roots indexed by the Hamming code $\mathrm{Ham}(7,4)$, and one recovers in this way a description of $\mathfrak{e}_7$ as a module over its subalgebra $\mathfrak{su}(2)^7$.)
Having established an isomorphism $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3 \cong \rE_{7,1}^2 / \bZ_2$, to construct an $N{=}1$ structure it suffices to equip $\Fer(28)$ with an $N{=}1$ structure which is invariant under the $\bZ_2^3$-action (as then the superconformal vector will survive the screening to $\Fer(28)^{\bZ_2^3}$). $N{=}1$ structures on $\Fer(28)$ correspond bijectively to $28$-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras \cite{MR791865}, or more precisely to Lie algebra structures on $\bR^{28}$ whose Killing form agrees with (minus) the Euclidean inner product. There are two $28$-dimensional Lie algebras with a fixed-point-free action by $\bZ_2^3$: $\mathfrak{so}(8)$ and~$\mathfrak{g}_2^2$. Each of these equips $\Fer(28) \sslash \bZ_2^3 \cong \rE_{7,1}^2 / \bZ_2$ with an $N{=}1$ structure. The $N{=}1$ structures on $\Fer(28)$ corresponding to~$\mathfrak{so}(8)$ and~$\mathfrak{g}_2^2$ are not isomorphic, but the orbifold involves adding new fields of spin~$1$ and hence new $N{=}0$ automorphisms (compare the construction from \cite{MR996026}: the moonshine module $V^\natural$ has many automorphisms which are not visible from the orbifold construction), and it is not obvious whether the resulting $N{=}1$ structures on $\rE_{7,1}^2 / \bZ_2$ are isomorphic or not.
\subsection{Existence for $\rE_{7,1}^2$ from finite groups}\label{exist.e71.2}
We now construct an $N{=}1$ structure on $V = \rE_{7,1}^2/\bZ_2$ by the employing the strategy from Section~\ref{sec.existence}. It is not obvious whether the result is isomorphic to either of the $N{=}1$ structures constructed in \S\ref{orbifolds}.
The automorphism group of $V_\ev = \rE_{7,1}^2$ is $\rP\rE_7\wr 2 = \rP\rE_7^2{:}2$, where $\rP\rE_7$ denotes the adjoint form of the simply connected group $\rE_7$. Write $\mathbf{56}$ for the smallest irrep of $\rE_7$; it is symplectic. The space of spin-$\frac32$ fields in $V_\odd$ is $\mathbf{56}^{\boxtimes 2}$, and so $\Aut_{N{=}0}(V) = \rE_7^{\circ 2}{:}2$.
The (isomorphism, not conjugacy, classes of) quasisimple subgroups of $\rE_7$ are listed in \cite{MR1653177}. One of them, which following the ATLAS we will call $\rU_3(8)$ (it is recorded as $\PSU_3(8)$ in \cite{MR1653177}), leaves both $\mathbf{56}$ and the adjoint representation $\mathfrak{e}_7 = \mathbf{133}$ simple.
In fact, $\rU_3(8)$ has only one 56-dimensional irrep, but three $133$-dimensional irreps; these are permuted by the outer automorphism group of $\rU_3(8)$, which is isomorphic to $3 \times S_3$, and so we find in fact three conjugacy classes of embeddings $\rU_3(8) \subset \rE_7$. Choose an outer automorphism of order $2$. It fixes one of the three conjugacy classes of $\rU_3(8) \subset \rE_7$, and exchanges the other two; we will use the two that are exchanged to provide a map $\rU_3(8) \subset \rE_7^{\circ 2}$.
By uniqueness, the $56$-dimensional irrep doesn't care about this choice. It follows that $\mathbf{56}^{\boxtimes 2}$ has a unique $\rU_3(8)$-fixed point $\tau$. We can extend the inclusion $\rU_3(8) \subset \rE_7^{\circ 2}$ to an inclusion $\rU_3(8){:}2 \subset \rE_7^{\circ 2}{:}2$ in two different ways, differing by a sign. By uniqueness, one of these extensions fixes $\tau$, and the other antifixes it.
Since we chose the outer automorphism to exchange the $133$-dimensional adjoint representations of the two copies of $\rE_7$, we find that the full adjoint $\mathfrak{e}_7^{\boxplus 2}$ of $\rE_7^{\circ 2}{:}2$ remains simple upon restriction to $\rU_3(8){:}2$. Thus the conformal vector $\nu$ is the unique spin-$2$ field fixed by $S = \rU_3(8){:}2$.
One of the order-3 outer automorphisms of $\rU_3(8)$, called ``$3_1$'' in the ATLAS, commutes with the order-$2$ outer automorphism. Choosing this outer automorphism,
the embeddings $\rU_3(8) \subset \rE_7$ and $\rU_3(8){:}2 \subset \rE_7^{\circ 2}{:}2$ extend (uniquely) to the groups $\rU_3(8){:}3$ and $\rU_3(8){:}6$, respectively. Indeed, $\rU_3(8){:}3$ has three $56$-dimensional irreps: one is quaternionic, and the other two are complex and dual to each other, and the embedding into $\rE_7$ chooses the quaternionic representation. It follows that $\tau$ is in fact preserved by $\rU_3(8){:}6$.
\subsection{Doubt for $\rE_{7,2}$} \label{subsec.e72}
Let $W$ denote the level-$1$ $N{=}1$ minimal model, meaning the minimal-central-charge SVOA generated by a superconformal vector $\tau_W$. Its bosonic subalgebra $W_\ev$ is the level-$2$ Virasoro minimal model of central charge $\frac{7}{10}$, also called the \define{tricritical Ising} algebra. Let $V = \rP\rE_{7,2}$ denote the $\bZ_2$-extension of $\rE_{7,2}$, of central charge $13\frac{3}{10}$. There is a conformal embedding $V \otimes W \subset \rE_{7,1}^2/\bZ_2$. In fact, $W$ is the coset of $V$ inside $\rE_{7,1}^2/\bZ_2$. In particular, the image of $\tau_W$ in $\rE_{7,1}^2$ is the unique spin-$\frac32$ field invariant under the diagonal $\rE_7$-action.
If $V$ admits a superconformal vector $\tau_V$, then $\tau = \tau_V + \tau_W$ will be a superconformal vector on $\rE_{7,1}^2$. Conversely, to give $V$ a supersymmetry is equivalent to finding a supersymmetry on $\rE_{7,1}^2$ such that the embedding $W \subset \rE_{7,1}^2$ is supersymmetric. For this, it would suffice to embed $W \subset \Fer(28)$ supersymmetrically and compatibly with the $\bZ_2^3$-orbifold used in \S\ref{orbifolds}.
There are many close relationships between tricritical Ising, the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_2$, and fermions \cite{MR1354601}, stemming from the fact that $W$ also arises as the coset of $G_{2,1}$ inside $\Fer(7) = \SO(7)_1$. Unfortunately, we were unable to find a suitable supersymmetric embedding $W \subset \Fer(28)$.
Another reason to doubt the existence of an $N{=}1$ structure for $V = \rP\rE_{7,2}$ comes from directly analyzing the equations. The space of spin-$\frac32$ fields is the $\rE_7$-irrep $\mathbf{1463}$, appearing inside $\Sym^2(\mathbf{56}) = \mathfrak{sp}(2{\times}28)$ as
$$ \Sym^2(\mathbf{56}) = \mathbf{1463} \oplus \mathbf{133}.$$
The space of spin-$2$ fields is
$$ V_2 = \mathbf{1}\oplus \mathbf{1539} \oplus \mathbf{7371} \oplus \partial(V_1),$$
where $\partial(V_1)$ means the fields of the form $\frac\partial{\partial z} X(z)$ for $X \in V_1 = \mathbf{133}$.
The OPE $\mathbf{1463} \otimes \mathbf{1463} \to V_2$ includes the map $\mathbf{1463} \otimes \mathbf{1463} \to \mathbf{1}\oplus \mathbf{1539} = \Alt^2(\mathbf{56})$ that sends
$$ A_{ij} \otimes B_{kl} \mapsto A_{ij} \omega^{jk} B_{kl} + B_{ij}\omega^{jk} A_{jl},$$
where $A,B \in \mathbf{1463} \subset \Sym^2(\mathbf{56})$ are thought of as symmetric (complex-valued) matrices, and $\omega^{jk}$ is the symplectic form on the $56$-dimensional representation. Thus if $\tau \in \mathbf{1463} \subset \mathfrak{sp}(2{\times}28)$ is to be a superconformal vector, then it must solve $(\tau\omega)^2 = \mathrm{id}$ when thought of as a $56 \times 56$ matrix. This forces $\tau$ to have spectrum $1^{28} (-1)^{28}$, and its centralizer under the $\Sp(2{\times}28)$-action is necessarily a copy of $\mathrm{GL}(28) \subset \Sp(2{\times}28)$. Conversely, any embedding $\mathrm{GL}(28) \subset \Sp(2{\times}28)$ will provide a candidate superconformal vector (namely the image of the centre of $\mathfrak{gl}(28)$) inside $\Sym^2(\mathbf{56})$. But a necessary condition for it to be a superconformal vector is that it should live inside $\mathbf{1463} \subset \Sym^2(\mathbf{56})$, which is the orthocomplement of the adjoint representation $\mathbf{133} \subset \Sym^2(\mathbf{56})$.
Thus we are faced with an interesting question in Lie theory: choose an element of $\mathfrak{sp}(2{\times}28)$ whose centralizer is a $\mathfrak{gl}(28)$ (these are, up to rescaling, a single conjugacy class); does there exist an $\mathfrak{e}_7$ Lie algebra inside its orthocomplement? More generally, one can ask: choose an element of $\mathfrak{sp}(2{\times}n)$ whose centralizer is a $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$; when does its orthocomplement contain a Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$ such that the defining representation $\mathbf{2n}$ remains simple upon restriction to $\mathfrak{g}$? It is possible to find various Lie subalgebras $\mathfrak{g}$ of the orthocomplement such that $\mathbf{2n}|_{\mathfrak{g}}$ splits as $\mathbf{n} \oplus \mathbf{n}$ or $\mathbf{n} \oplus \bar{\mathbf{n}}$ (for instance, there is a $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ in the orthocomplement; cf.~the MathOverflow conversation \href{https://mathoverflow.net/q/337233/}{\texttt{mathoverflow.net/q/337233/}}), but subalgebras for which $\mathbf{2n}$ remains simple are hard to come by, and no examples have yet turned up.
\subsection{Doubt for $\rE_{8,2}$} \label{subsec.failureE}
Let $V = \rE_{8,2} / \bZ_2$. The spin-$\frac32$ fields form the second smallest fundamental representation $\mathbf{3875}$ of $\rE_8$. We record \cite{MR1117679}:
\begin{align*}
V_1 & = \mathfrak{e}_8 = \mathbf{248} \\
V_{3/2} & = \mathbf{3875} \\
V_2 & = \mathbf{1} \oplus \mathbf{3875} \oplus \mathbf{27000} \oplus \partial(V_1) \\
\Sym^2(V_{3/2}) & = \mathbf{1} \oplus \mathbf{3875} \oplus \mathbf{27000} \oplus \mathbf{147250} \oplus \mathbf{2450240} \oplus \mathbf{4881384}
\end{align*}
Thus to give a superconformal vector for $V$ is to give a real vector $\tau \in \mathbf{3875}$ such that $\tau^2 \in \Sym^2(\mathbf{3875})$ has no components when projected to the $\mathbf{3875}$ and $\mathbf{27000}$ summands.
The $\rE_8$-invariant map $\Sym^2(\mathbf{3875}) \to \mathbf{3875}$ can be thought of as a commutative but nonassociative algebra structure on $\mathbf{3875}$. It is studied in \cite[Section 7]{MR3406824}, where it is shown that $\rE_8$ is exactly the stabilizer of $\star$, and so $(\mathbf{3875},\star)$ can be thought of as a ``Griess algebra'' for the Lie group $\rE_8$.
Any superconformal vector $\tau$ will satisfy in particular $\tau \star \tau = 0$. This equation is easy to solve among complex vectors --- for instance, take $\tau$ to be a highest weight vector --- but not among vectors of nonzero norm and especially not among real vectors. The Conjecture asserting that
$\rE_{8,2} / \bZ_2$ does not admit an $N{=}1$ structure
is based on the belief that indeed there are no real solutions $\tau \in \mathbf{3875}$ to $\tau \star \tau = 0$.
There is a maximal abelian subgroup $2^5 \subset \rE_8$, with normalizer the Dempwolff group $2^5\cdot \mathrm{SL}_5(\bF_2)$ \cite{MR0399193}. Its action on $\rE_{8,2}$ is nonanomalous, being twice the (bosonic) anomaly of $\rE_{8,1}$, and the orbifold $V \sslash 2^5$ is isomorphic to $\Fer(31)$. One would be able to give $V$ an $N{=}1$ structure following the techniques of \S\ref{orbifolds} if there were a 31-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra with an appropriate $2^5$ grading, but such a Lie algebra does not exist.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I thank the anonymous referee for their many helpful comments and suggestions.
I also thank M.\ Bischoff, R.\ Derryberry, J.\ Duncan, D.\ Gaiotto, A.\ Henriques, G.\ Moore, and D.\ Treumann for their conversations and suggestions.
Parts of this work were performed while I was a visitor at the Mathematical Institute at Oxford (supported by the EPSRC grant EP/M024830/1), the International Centre for Mathematical Sciences at Edinburgh, and the Aspen Center for Physics (supported by the NSF grant PHY-1607611).
Research at the Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation.
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum Field Theories are defined in the Minkowski space-time \cite{bogoliubov,bjorken,itzykson,peskin}, and their renormalization, namely the removal of their UV divergences, has been developed accordingly \cite{bogoliubovr,hepp,zimmermann}. The availability of simpler regulators in Euclidean space-time \cite{thooft} and the similarity of the introduction of the renormalized parameters in Quantum Field Theory with critical phenomena \cite{wilson,amit} led to the recasting of the renormalization group method in imaginary time and developing it further in that context. For instance, most of the functional formalism of the renormalization group method to find non-perturbative solutions of Quantum Field Theory models, are presented in Euclidean space-time \cite{wegner,nicoll,polch,wetterich,ellwanger,morris,berges}.
Notwithstanding there are several works about functional renormalization group method aiming at the real time dynamics, the first publications being within the framework of the Closed Time Path formalism about the coarse graining \cite{lombardo,dalvit,anastopoulos}, followed by works addressing a quantum dot \cite{gezzi}, open electronic systems \cite{mitra}, transport processes \cite{jacobs}, damping \cite{zanellad}, inflation \cite{zanellai}, quantum cosmology \cite{calzettac}, critical dynamics \cite{canet,mesterhazy,sieberer} and spectral function \cite{huelsmann}. The renormalization group scheme has bee extended to stochastic field theory \cite{zanellac}, too. The 2PI formalism can be used to discover nonthermal fixed points 2PI \cite{bergesfp} and the renormalization group scheme can be transformed to trace the time dependence \cite{gasenzer}. The field theoretical method has been applied for simple generic quantum mechanical problems, such as a system of coupled harmonic oscillators \cite{aoki,kovacs}. The one-loop renormalizability of the scalar model has been worked out on the one-loop level by the help of the more traditional multiplicative renormalization group method \cite{avinash}. There is lately more activity about the real time dynamics within the traditional formalism of quantum field theory by performing the Wick rotation first on the functional renormalization group flow in quantum gravity \cite{manrique}, in QCD \cite{strodthoff}, in the quark-meson model \cite{kamikado1,tripolt1} and on the mesonic spectral functions \cite{kamikado2,strodthoffsp,wambach}. The analytic continuation of the evolution equations was constructed by the help of higher order derivatives \cite{floerchinger} and the analytic continuation was performed on the propagator \cite{pawlowskiacp}. The analytic continuation is avoided in this work and different renormalization group schemes are worked out directly in Minkowski space-time for the four dimensional $\phi^4$ scalar model.
The main difference between the blocking in imaginary and real time is due to unitarity of the time evolution which makes the Green functions complex. Therefore the running coupling constants, given in terms of the vertex functions evaluated at a subtraction point, become complex, too. It is argued in section \ref{schemess} that the dependence of the complex running parameters on the choice of the subtraction point is stronger for real time dynamics. The results, presented below correspond to subtraction points within the kinematical regime of the quasi-particles. The quasi-particle poles make the Wick rotation singular and the results inaccessible from Euclidean space-time by Wick rotation.
Different multiplicative renormalization group schemes are introduced in section \ref{mults}. The functional renormalization group equation is derived and solved numerically for the bare action and a new crossover scale is identified in section \ref{funcrg}. This work opens more questions than answers, some of them are listed in section \ref{concl}.
\section{Renormalization schemes}\label{schemess}
The renormalization group is designed to find the resolution dependence of the physical quantities. For that end one may follow the evolution of the bare or the effective action action as the function of the maximal resolution, the UV cutoff or the scale where the effective parameters are defined, respectively. The functional renormalization group scheme is designed to follow the dependence of the parameters of the action as the resolution is changed while keeping the physical content of the theory unchanged. This process requires the adjustment of infinitely many parameters which can in principle be realized in a functional setting of the evolution equation, describing the change of the parameters with the resolution. However the limitation of our analytical possibilities forces us to restrict the cutoff-dependence into a smaller ansatz space of action functionals. This is the point where the efficiency of field theory becomes evident: We face an overdetermined problem, namely to find a large number of physical quantities by the help of the restricted set of parameters of the action, to be solved in a approximate manner by suitable chosen parameters. This choice is made by evaluating the action for an appropriately chosen family of field configurations, called subtraction point.
\subsection{Multiplicative and functional schemes}
The renormalization group method emerged first in high energy phyics in the context of renormalizable theories where the momentum scale of the cutoff, $\Lambda$, is far higher than that of physical observables. The overdetermined problem is solved in the corresponding multiplicative renormalization group schemes by neglecting the irrelevant (non-renormalizable) parameters of the bare, cutoff action. Such a simplification allows us to keep the physics fixed in the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$. The $\Lambda$-independent content of the renormalized theory is expressed in terms of the renormalized parameters, defined by the renormalization conditions, imposed on one-particle irreducible vertex functions evaluated at some suitable chosen external momentum, $p_s$, called subtraction point. Hence the multiplicative renormalization group schemes contain two scales, $\Lambda$ and $p_s$ and either of them can be changed giving rise to renormalized trajectories displaying the $\Lambda$ dependence of the bare theory or the $p_s$ dependence of the renormalized parameters. The multiplicative schemes are usually worked out by the help of the perturbation expansion which can be optimized at different scales. The use of the bare or the renormalized perturbation expansion should be used to recover the $\Lambda$ and the $p_s$ dependence, respectively.
The functional renormalization group method for the bare action has three ingredients. (i) The renormalization condition is replaced by the decrease of the cutoff in the generator functional for the Green function, traditionally called blocking. It consists of the elimination of the field components between the higher and the lower cutoff by using perturbation or loop expansion around the free theory. A decisive advantage of the renormalization group method is the possibility of performing an infinitesimal change of the gliding cutoff and using this change as a small parameter to suppress the higher order contributions. The result is an expansion around the evolving, interactive theory. (ii) The blocking preserves the full dynamics below the new cutoff and gives an extremely complicated functional differential equation leading to non-polynomial, non-local blocked action. This problem is well beyond our capabilities hence one projects the evolution equation into a restricted ansatz space for the blocked action. (iii) Finally the choice of the subtraction point, the way the parameters of the action are extracted from the evolution equation, transforms the functional differential equation for the action into a set of coupled differential equations for the functions or the parameters of the restricted action.
The multiplicative schemes differ from the functional scheme in having two well separated scales, $p_s\ll\Lambda$. As a result two restrictions follow for the former: First, the $\ord{\Lambda^{-n}}$ contributions with $n>0$ are neglected in imposing the renormalization conditions and these schemes are applicable only to renormalizable theories. Second, the renormalized coupling strength $g$ has to be small enough to treat the UV divergences of the form $g\ln\Lambda$ and $g\Lambda^n$ as perturbation. Hence the functional scheme is more suitable to handle competitive scales and crossovers without requiring renormalizability and its limitation in strongly coupled theories arises only from the use of the restricted ansatz space for the blocked action.
\subsection{Minkowski space-time}\label{msrss}
The main novelties of the implementation of the renormalization group method in real time are the complexification of the parameters of the theory and the increased sensitivity on the choice of some conventions. The parameters of the action are given in terms of the vertex functions and become complex owing to the unitarity of the time evolution. In particular, the parameters acquire imaginary part when on-shell intermediate states contribute to the vertex function in question according to the optical theorem. Thus we have twice as many real parameters in the action and even the qualitative, topological features of the flow diagram together with the fixed point and the phase structure may be changed.
To find the optimal way to define the running parameters consider for the sake of an example a loop integral of the renormalized perturbation expansion in a weakly coupled theory. The integral is dominated by the energy range $\omega\sim\mr{Re}\omega_\v{p}$ ($\omega\sim\mr{Im}\omega_\v{p}$) in a Minkowski (Euclidean) theory where $\omega_\v{p}=\sqrt{m^2+\v{p}^2}$. The renormalized parameter $m^2$ is defined by the help of the self energy, evaluated at the subtraction point, $\Sigma(p_s)$. The self energy displays a threshold singularity on the mass shell of the quasi-particles, $p^2=m^2$, separating the domain $p^2<m^2$ and $p^2>m^2$ where only virtual and the real particle intermediate states contribute to the self energy, respectively. The subtraction point should be in the latter domain, $p_s^2>m^2$, to pick up the physics of real, propagating particles. The imaginary part of the quasi particle energy is generated by the interactions therefore the quasi-particles have long life-time, $|\mr{Im}\omega_\v{p}|<|\mr{Re}\omega_\v{p}|$, c.f. Fig. \ref{quasip}. The upshot is that the quasi-particle peak is narrower in Minkowski space, the increased importance of the choice of the subtraction point.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{fig1.eps}
\caption{A quasi-particle pole, denoted by the heavy dot, on the physical sheet of the complex energy plane of the dressed propagator. The typical dependence of the absolute magnitude of the renormalized propagator on the Euclidean and the Minkowski energy is shown by the dashed lines along the imaginary and real axes, respectively.}\label{quasip}\end{figure}
The usual classification of the running parameters into relevant, marginal and irrelevant classes according to the sign of their scaling exponents is actually incomplete even for Euclidean theories with real coupling because the scaling exponents, the spectrum of the linearized evolution around the fixed point, can be complex and generate spiralling trajectories around the fixed point. It will be seen below that the coefficients of the coupling constant in the evolution equation of a theory in Minkowski space-time are complex and their phase can induce non-monotonic renormalized trajectories and generate crossover scales.
Any massive theory possesses at least one crossover around the mass scale separating the UV and the IR scaling regimes. This is made more abrupt in the symmetry broken phase where a spinodal instability induces a saddle point contribution to the elimination of the UV field components in Euclidean models with real parameters when the quadratic part of the action becomes unstable for the modes to be eliminated, $D^{-1}_p<0$ for $p^2=\Lambda^2$, $D_p$ being the free propagator \cite{tree,vincent}. The complexification of the parameters of the action makes such a saddle point trivial in Minkowski space-time. In fact, the Fresnel integral, used for a free theory is well defined as long as the integrand is bounded, $\mr{Im} D^{-1}_p>0$, allowing either sign for $\mr{Re} D^{-1}_p$ with vanishing saddle point. This generalises to higher order terms in the local potential, $g_n=\delta^nS/\delta\phi^n_x$. The singularity of the Euclidean theory with real parameters at $\mr{Re} g_n=0$ is smoothened out in Minkowski space-time however new characteristic scales $\Lambda_n$ are generated where $\mr{Im} g_n=0$ by the appearence of complex saddle points. The path integral \eq{blrel} converges and is well defined as long as the imaginary part of the highest order coupling constant is negative. We find two further crossover scales at $\Lambda_{sp}$ and $\Lambda_L$, the left over of the spinodal transition of the Euclidean theory with real parameters where $\mr{Re} D^{-1}_p$ reaches its peak for $p^0=0$ and $|\v{p}|=\Lambda_{ps}$ and the remains of the Landau pole, a peak of $|g_4|$, respectively.
One could in principle extend the Euclidean theories for complex parameters. Such theories display crossovers at $\mr{Re} g_n=0$ and are well defined as long as the real part of the highest order coupling constant is positive. This possibility is not pursued in this work because the quasi-particle dynamics is captured better in Minkowski space-time.
\section{Multiplicative renormalization group}\label{mults}
The Lagrangian of the scalar model, defined by the renormalized perturbation expansion is
\begin{equation}
L=\frac12\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-\frac{m^2}2\phi^2-\frac{g}{4!}\phi^4+\frac{\delta Z}2\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-\frac{\delta m^2}2\phi^2-\frac{\delta g}{4!}\phi^4
\end{equation}
where $m^2$ and $g$ are the renormalized parameters and the counterterms, parametrized by $\delta Z=\ord{g^2}$, $\delta m^2=\ord{g}$ and $\delta g=\ord{g^2}$ are to remove the UV divergences from the renormalized, physical quantities. The Lagrangian of the bare theory is
\begin{equation}
L=\frac12\partial_\mu\phi_B\partial^\mu\phi_B-\frac{m_B^2}2\phi_B^2-\frac{g_B}{4!}\phi_B^4
\end{equation}
with $Z=1+\delta Z$, $Zm_B^2=m^2+\delta m^2$ and $Z^2g_B=g+\delta g^2$ where $\phi_B=\sqrt{Z}\phi$. The usual $\epsilon$ prescription is realized by requiring $\mr{Im} m_B^2,\mr{Im} m^2<0$. The regulator is sharp momentum cutoff, $|\v{p}|<\Lambda$ and the status of the Lorentz symmetry is not pursued in this work.
\subsection{Renormalization conditions}
The renormalization conditions connect the bare and the renormalized theories. The renormalized mass and the wavefunction renormalization constants are defined by the help of the exact propagator \cite{georgi},
\begin{equation}
\langle T[\phi_{-p}\phi_p]\rangle=\frac{i}{p^2-m_B^2-\Sigma_B(p^2)},
\end{equation}
evaluated around the subtraction momentum $p^\mu\approx p^\mu_s=(\omega_s,\v{0})$,
\begin{equation}
p^2-m_B^2-\Sigma_B-p^2\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B=\frac{p^2-m^2}Z,
\end{equation}
with $\Sigma_B=\Sigma_B(p^2_s)$, yielding
\begin{equation}
m^2=Z(m_B^2+\Sigma),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
Z=\frac1{1-\partial_{p^2}\Sigma}.
\end{equation}
The renormalized coupling constant is defined by the help of the four point vertex function,
\begin{equation}
Z^2g=\Gamma_4(p_s,p_s,p_s,p_s).
\end{equation}
The two-loop expressions for the second and the fourth order vertex functions receive contributions from the graphs, depicted in Figs. \ref{g2graphs} and \ref{g4graphs}, respectively. The resulting renormalization conditions are
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rencond}
m^2&=&\frac{m_B^2+\frac{i}2L^{(2)}_{1B}g_B-(\frac14L^{(2)}_{1B}L^{(2)}_{2B}+\frac16L^{(2)}_{3B})g_B^2}{1-\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B}+\ord{g_B^3},\nonumber\\
g&=&g_B+\frac{i}2L^{(4)}_1g_B^2+\left(\frac13\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3B}-\frac12 L^{(4)}_{2B}L^{(2)}_{1B}-\frac12 L^{(4)}_{3B}-\frac14L^{(4)2}_{1B}\right)g_B^3+\ord{g_B^4},\nonumber\\
\frac1Z&=&1+\frac{g_B^2}6\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3B}+\ord{g_B^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{loopints}
L^{(2)}_{1B}&=&\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac1{q^2-m_B^2},\nonumber\\
L^{(2)}_{2B}&=&\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac1{(q^2-m_B^2)^2},\nonumber\\
L^{(2)}_{3B}&=&\int\frac{d^4q_1d^4q_2}{(2\pi)^8}\frac1{(q_1^2-m_B^2)(q_2^2-m_B^2)[(p_s-q_1-q_2)^2-m_B^2]},\nonumber\\
L^{(4)}_{1B}&=&3\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac1{(q^2-m_B^2)[(p_s-q)^2-m_B^2]},\nonumber\\
L^{(4)}_{2B}&=&3\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac1{(q^2-m_B^2)^2[(p_s-q)^2-m_B^2]},\nonumber\\
L^{(4)}_{3B}&=&6\int\frac{d^4q_1d^4q_2}{(2\pi)^8}\frac1{(q_1^2-m_B^2)(q_2^2-m_B^2)[(2p_s-q_1)^2-m_B^2][(p_s-q_1-q_2)^2-m_B^2]}.
\end{eqnarray}
The integration over the energy is for $-\infty<q^0<\infty$ and the spatial momentum is restricted to $|\v{q}|<\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig2a.eps}\hskip1cm
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig2b.eps}\hskip1cm
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig2c.eps}
\caption{Graphs of the two-loop self energy.}\label{g2graphs}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig3a.eps}\hskip1cm
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig3b.eps}\hskip1cm
\includegraphics[scale=.2]{fig3c.eps}\hskip1cm
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{fig3d.eps}
\caption{Graphs of the fourth order vertex function.}\label{g4graphs}\end{figure}
It is sometime advantageous to use the renormalized perturbation expansion. For this end we write the bare propagator
\begin{equation}
\frac1{q^2-m^2_B}=D_{Rq}[1+D_{Rq}(\Sigma_B+q^2\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B)+\ord{g^2}],
\end{equation}
in terms of the renormalized propagator $D_{Rq}=1/(q^2-m^2)$ in the loop integrals. The corrections represent the counterterms for the mass and the wavefunction renormalization constant. The renormalized loop integrals $L^{(j)}_{kR}$ are obtained from $L^{(j)}_{kB}$ by the replacement $m_B^2\to m^2$ in the two-loop calculation except $L^{(2)}_{1B}\approx L^{(2)}_{1R}+g\ell^{(2)}_1$ and $L^{(4)}_{1B}\approx L^{(4)}_{1R}+g\ell^{(4)}_1$ where the $\ord{g}$ counterterms appear,
\begin{eqnarray}
g\ell^{(2)}_1&=&\int_qD^2_{Rq}(\Sigma_B+q^2\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B),\nonumber\\
g\ell^{(4)}_1&=&3\int_qD_{Rq}D_{Rp_s-q}[D_{Rq}(\Sigma_B+q^2\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B)+D_{Rp_s-q}(\Sigma_B+(p_s-q)^2\partial_{p^2}\Sigma_B)].
\end{eqnarray}
It is worthwhile to distinguish the historical definition of renormalizability from the more careful one. The renormalizability was first meant as the possibility of choosing the counterterms in such a cutoff-dependent manner that the UV divergences cancel in the vertex functions in each order of the perturbation expansion and is expressed by using power counting for the primitive non-overlapping divergences. However this is not enough to perform the limit $\Lambda\to\infty$. In fact, the renormalization conditions, \eq{rencond}, are non-linear in the bare parameters and the cancellation of the UV divergences does not guarantee the existence their solution. It may happen that the there are no finite bare parameters to satisfy the renormalization conditions beyond a certain value of the cutoff. Such a value of the cutoff is usually called Landau pole.
\subsection{Gliding cutoff scale with renormalized perturbation expansion}\label{cutren}
The renormalization group scheme where the renormalized trajectory can be found analytically follows the evolution of the bare parameters as the cutoff is changed by the help of the renormalized perturbation expansion. The loop integrals of the renormalized perturbation expansion contain the renormalized mass which is kept constant when the cutoff is moved hence the beta functions of this scheme are independent of the bare mass, allowing their integration in closed form.
To find the dependence of the bare parameters on the cutoff for a fixed renormalized theory we first calculate the derivative of the renormalization conditions \eq{rencond} with respect to $t=\ln\Lambda/\Lambda_0$ by keeping the renormalized parameters fixed. The resulting system of equations is then solved for the bare mass-independent beta functions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_tm_B^2&=&\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1R)}g_B+\beta_{m_B^2}^{(2R)}g_B^2+\ord{g_B^3},\nonumber\\
\partial_tg_B&=&\beta_{g_B}^{(2R)}g_B^2+\beta_{g_B}^{(3R)}g_B^3+\ord{g_B^4},\nonumber\\
\partial_tZ&=&\beta_{ZB}^{(2R)}g_B^2+\ord{g_B^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1R)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R},\nonumber\\
\beta_{m_B^2}^{(2R)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_t\ell^{(2)}_1+\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}L^{(2)}_{2R}+\frac14L^{(2)}_{1R}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{2R}+\frac16\partial_tL^{(2)}_{3R}-\frac14L^{(2)}_1\partial_tL^{(4)}_{1R}+\frac16m^2\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3R},\nonumber\\
\beta_{g_B}^{(2R)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_tL^{(4)}_{1R},\nonumber\\
\beta_{g_B}^{(3R)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_t\ell^{(4)}_1-\frac13\partial_t\partial_{p^2}L^{(2)}_{3R}+\frac12\partial_tL^{(4)}_{2R}L^{(2)}_{1B}+\frac12 L^{(4)}_{2R}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}+\frac12\partial_tL^{(4)}_{3R},\nonumber\\
\beta_Z^{(2R)}&=&-\frac16\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3R}.
\end{eqnarray}
The integration of the one-loop beta functions is trivial: The coupling constant follows the trajectory
\begin{equation}
g_B(\Lambda)=\frac{g_B(\Lambda_0)}{1-g_B(\Lambda_0)\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda_0}},
\end{equation}
with $\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B}>0$ and displays a Landau pole at $\Lambda_L=\Lambda_0\exp(1/g_B(\Lambda_0)\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B})$. The mass, given by
\begin{equation}
m^2_B(\Lambda)=m^2_B(\Lambda_0)-\frac{\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1R)}}{\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B}}\ln\left(1-g_B(\Lambda_0)\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda_0}\right),
\end{equation}
$\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1R)}<0$, approaches $-\infty$ at the Landau pole. Finally, the wavefunction renormalization constant is kept constant by the one-loop beta functions, $Z(\Lambda)=Z(\Lambda_0)$. We rely on the renormalized perturbation expansion hence these results are valid only in a finite cutoff range, as long the radiative corrections are small, $g_B(\Lambda_0)\Lambda^2\ll m_B^2(\Lambda_0)$. The two-loop contributions to the beta functions do not change the scaling laws in an important manner within this cutoff range.
It is pointed out in section \ref{renren} that the coefficients of the $g_B$ powers in the beta functions are actually complex hence the Landau pole of the one-loop beta functions is missed, $|g_B|$ displays a Landau peak at $\Lambda_L=\Lambda_0\exp(1/\mr{Re}(g_B(\Lambda_0)\beta^{(2R)}_{g_B}))$ and the theory is asymptotically free, assuming the absence of saddle points and the convergence of the path integral.
The price paid for the bare mass-independence of this scheme is the optimisation of the perturbation expansion at the fixed, physical scale. To realize an expansion around the evolving interacting theory we need an optimisation at the gliding scale, to be realized by following either the bare parameters as the function of the cutoff or the subtraction scale dependence of the renormalized parameters using the bare or the renormalized perturbation expansion, respectively.
\subsection{Gliding cutoff scale with bare perturbation expansion}\label{cutbare}
The multiplicative scheme which is the closest to the functional renormalization group method is where the cutoff dependence of the bare parameters are established by the bare perturbation expansion. The starting point is the calculation of the derivative of the renormalization conditions \eq{rencond} with respect to $t=\ln\Lambda/\Lambda_0$ by keeping the renormalized parameters fixed. The resulting system of equations is then solved for the mass-dependent beta functions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_tm_B^2&=&\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1B)}g_B+\beta_{m_B^2}^{(2B)}g_B^2+\ord{g_B^3},\nonumber\\
\partial_tg_B&=&\beta_{g_B}^{(2B)}g_B^2+\beta_{g_B}^{(3B)}g_B^3+\ord{g_B^4},\nonumber\\
\partial_tZ&=&\beta_{ZB}^{(2B)}g_B^2+\ord{g_B^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lblist}
\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1B)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1B},\nonumber\\
\beta_{m_B^2}^{(2B)}&=&-\frac14\partial^2_{m_B^2}L^{(2)}_{1B}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1B}+\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1B}L^{(2)}_{2B}+\frac14L^{(2)}_{1B}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{2B}+\frac16\partial_tL^{(2)}_{3B}-\frac14L^{(2)}_1\partial_tL^{(4)}_{1B}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac16m_B^2\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3B},\nonumber\\
\beta_{g_B}^{(2B)}&=&-\frac{i}2\partial_tL^{(4)}_{1B},\nonumber\\
\beta_{g_B}^{(3B)}&=&-\frac13\partial_t\partial_{p^2}L^{(2)}_{3B}-\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1B}\partial_{m_B^2}L^{(4)}_{1B}+\frac12\partial_tL^{(4)}_{2B}L^{(2)}_{1B}+\frac12 L^{(4)}_{2B}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1B}+\frac12\partial_tL^{(4)}_{3B},\nonumber\\
\beta_{ZB}^{(2B)}&=&-\frac16\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3B}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us discuss separately the case of real and complex parameters. Real parameters in Minkowski space-time mean $\mr{Im} g_B=0$, $\mr{Im} m_B^2=-\epsilon$ and the one-loop contributions to the beta functions are real as $\epsilon\to0$. In fact, a loop integral with $\mr{Im} m_B^2=-\epsilon$ may develop finite imaginary part only if the integration contour passes close to the mass-shell. However $\partial_\Lambda$ removes the momentum integration and we are left with the real integrand,
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{m_B^2}^{(1)}&=&-\frac1{8\pi^2}\Lambda\partial_\Lambda\int_0^\Lambda dq\frac{q^2}{\omega_{Bq}}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac1{8\pi^2}\frac{\Lambda^3}{\omega_{B\Lambda}},\nonumber\\
\beta_{g_B}^{(2)}&=&\frac3{16\pi^2}\Lambda\partial_\Lambda\int_0^\Lambda\frac{dqq^2}{\omega_{Bq}}\frac1{q^2+m_B^2-\frac{\omega^2_s}4}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac3{16\pi^2}\frac{\Lambda^3}{\omega_{B\Lambda}}\frac1{\Lambda^2+m_B^2-\frac{\omega^2_s}4},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_{Bq}=\sqrt{m_B^2+q^2}$. This result holds only for $O(d-1)$ invariant momentum cutoff since $\partial_\Lambda$ does not completely eliminate the momentum integration for non rotational invariant cutoff, e.g. $|p_j|<k$, $j=1,\ldots,d-1$ if $d-1\ge2$. There is an UV Landau pole and the one-loop beta functions can be integrated for $\Lambda<\Lambda_L$.
There is a qualitative difference between the one- and the two-loop level results in real time owing to the mass-shell singularity. The point is that $\partial_\Lambda$ does not eliminate the momentum integration in the higher loop integrals even in the case of the $O(d-1)$ invariant cutoff. In particular it is easy to see that $\partial_\Lambda L^{(2)}_{3B}$ and $\partial_\Lambda L^{(4)}_{3B}$ contain momentum integration which generates finite imaginary part for the beta functions and the trajectory becomes complex even for real initial value of $m_B^2(\Lambda_0)$ and $g_B(\Lambda_0)$ when $\omega^2_s>4m_B^2$. The renormalized trajectory remains real and the analytic extension of the Euclidean model when the subtraction point is placed in the virtual regime, $\omega^2_s<4m_B^2$. The mass-shell singularities, indicating the presence of real quasi-particle excitations, render the Wick rotation non-analytic for the physically better justified placing of the subtraction point in the quasi-particle domain. The internal line mass-shell contributions to the beta functions make the renormalized trajectory complex even if we start with real initial conditions.
\subsection{Gliding subtraction scale}\label{renren}
The traditional use of the multiplicative scheme produces the subtraction scale dependence of the renormalized parameters for a fixed cutoff theory by the help of the renormalized perturbation expansion. The solution of the derivative of the renormalization conditions \eq{rencond} with respect to $t=\ln p_s/p_{s0}$ for the derivative of the renormalized parameters and $Z$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_tm^2&=&\beta_{m^2}^{(2)}g^2+\ord{g^3},\nonumber\\
\partial_tg&=&\beta_g^{(2)}g^2+\beta_g^{(3)}g^3+\ord{g^4},\nonumber\\
\partial_tZ&=&\beta_Z^{(2)}g^2+\ord{g^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{m^2}^{(2)}&=&-\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}\partial_{m^2}L^{(2)}_{1R}+\frac{i}2\partial_t\ell^{(2)}_1-\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}L^{(2)}_{2R}-\frac14L^{(2)}_{1R}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{2R}-\frac16\partial_tL^{(2)}_{3R}+\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}L^{(4)}_{1R}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac13m^2\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3R},\nonumber\\
\beta_g^{(2)}&=&\frac{i}2\partial_tL^{(4)}_{1R},\nonumber\\
\beta_g^{(3)}&=&\frac13\partial_{\omega_s^2}\partial_tL^{(2)}_{3R}-\frac14\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}\partial_{m^2}L^{(4)}_{1R}+\frac{i}2\partial_t\ell^{(4)}_1-\frac12\partial_tL^{(2)}_{1R}L^{(4)}_{2R}-\frac12 L^{(2)}_{1R}\partial_tL^{(4)}_{2R}-\frac12\partial_tL^{(4)}_{3R},\nonumber\\
\beta_Z^{(2)}&=&-\frac16\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3R}.
\end{eqnarray}
The $\ord{g}$ term is missing form the beta function of the renormalized mass due to the subtraction scale independence of the leading order graph in the mass renormalization condition. The $p_s$-dependent loop integrals are complex, e.g.
\begin{equation}
\beta_g^{(2)}=i\frac32\int\frac{dq}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{\omega^2_s(\omega_s-q^0)}{(q^2-m^2)[(p_s-q)^2-m^2]^2}
\end{equation}
develops imaginary part for $\omega_s>2m$ and $\mr{Im}\partial_t\partial_{\omega_s^2}L^{(2)}_{3R}\ne0$ when $\omega_s>3m$ and make $m^2$ and Z complex, respectively. To pick up the quasi-particle dynamics we need a subtraction scale $\omega_s$ sightly above $3m$. The resulting complex $m^2$ reflects the finite life-time of quasi-particles and gives the argument about the complex nature of the beta function coefficients of section \ref{cutren}.
\section{Functional renormalization group}\label{funcrg}
A more detailed description of the functional renormalization group method in Minkowski space-time is given below by introducing the renormalization group scheme, indicating the calculation of the evolution equation of the bare action and presenting some typical renormalized trajectory.
\subsection{Renormalization group scheme}
The main ingredients of this scheme, mentioned in section \ref{schemess} are the following:
(i) {\em Blocking:} The blocking is defined without any reference to an UV fixed point by decreases the cutoff, $k\to k-{\Delta k}$, the step size, ${\Delta k}$, playing the role of a small parameter. The field variable,
\begin{equation}
\phi_p=\int d^dxe^{ipx}\phi_x,
\end{equation}
in the Fourier space is split into the sum $\phi\to\phi+\varphi$, where $\phi$ ($\varphi$) belongs to the IR, under the cutoff (UV, beyond the cutoff). The cutoff consists of a choice of the support $P_k$ of the IR field in the momentum space. The change of the action $S_k[\phi]$, corresponding to the cutoff $k$, is given by the blocking relation,
\begin{equation}\label{blrel}
e^{iS_{k-{\Delta k}}(\phi)}=\int D[\varphi]e^{iS_k[\phi+\varphi]}.
\end{equation}
The integration over the UV field can be carried out within the framework of the loop expansion. The leading order expression is
\begin{equation}
e^{iS_{k-{\Delta k}}(\phi)}=\int D[\varphi]e^{iS_k[\phi+\varphi_0]+\frac{i}2\varphi\fdd{S_k[\phi+\varphi_0]}{\varphi}{\varphi}\varphi+\ord{{\Delta k}}},
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_0$ stands for the saddle point and the higher order contributions are suppressed by the small parameter, the $\ord{{\Delta k}}$ volume of the integration domain in the momentum space. We assume $\varphi_0=0$ below for the sake of simplicity and find the exact one-loop evolution equations
\begin{equation}\label{eveq}
\dot S[\phi]=-i\frac{k}2{\mathrm{Tr}}\ln\left[\fdd{S}{\phi}{\phi}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\dot f=\partial_\tau f$, $\tau=\ln(k/k_{in})$, $k_{in}$ being the initial value of the cutoff and the trace is over the UV field space. The initial conditions for the differential equation \eq{eveq} are imposed at $k=k_{in}$. Note that the complex conjugate of the action follows an inverted evolution in real time, more precisely $S[\phi]$ and $-S^*[\phi]$ obey the same evolution equation, reminiscent of the time inversion of the equation of motion.
(ii) {\em Restricted ansatz space:} We truncate the functional differential equation \eq{eveq} onto the $\ord{\partial^2}$ level of the gradient expansion,
\begin{equation}\label{blact}
S[\phi]=\int d^dx\left[\frac{Z_t(\phi_x)}2(\partial_0\phi_x)^2-\frac{Z_s(\phi_x)}2(\v{\partial}\phi_x)^2-U(\phi_x)\right],
\end{equation}
and the local functions
\begin{eqnarray}\label{locfuncts}
Z_t(\phi)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N_Z}\frac{z_{t,2n}}{2n!}\phi^{2n},\nonumber\\
Z_s(\phi)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N_Z}\frac{z_{s,2n}}{2n!}\phi^{2n},\nonumber\\
U(\phi)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N_U}\frac{g_{2n}}{2n!}\phi^{2n},
\end{eqnarray}
$z_{t,n}=z_{t,n,r}+iz_{t,n,i}$, $z_{s,n}=z_{s,n,r}+iz_{s,n,i}$, $g_n=g_{n,r}+ig_{n,i}$, are restricted to $N_Z=1$ and $N_U=2$ in this work.
(iii) {\em Subtraction point:} The parameters of the blocked action are defined by evaluating the evolution equation at a subtraction point, the IR field $\phi_{s,x}=\Phi+\chi_x$, being the sum of a homogeneous and an inhomogeneous components, $\Phi$ and $\chi_p=\Psi(2\pi)^d[\delta(p-p_s)+\delta(p+p_s)]/2$, $p^\mu_s=(\omega_s,\v{0})$, respectively. The sum over plane waves with opposite momentum reflects the impossibility of distinguishing particles and anti-particles in the absence of conserved charge. Note that these renormalization conditions are different than those, used for the multiplicative schemes. In fact, while eqs. \eq{rencond} involve the vertex functions evaluated at the subtraction scale, $p_s$, the blocked action, evaluated at $\phi_s$, defines the parameters by the sum of the vertex functions at external moments $p_s$ and $-p_s$. The simpler renormalization conditions, build on $p_s$ alone, are available only for complex fields where the particle and anti-particles can be distinguished.
Few remarks are in order about the scheme:
(a) One should retain the possible non-trivial saddle points of the blocking \eq{blrel}. Being space-time dependent they induce non-local contributions to the blocked action. Hence the use of the gradient expansion implies the omission of the non-trivial saddle points.
(b) The representation of the local potential by a polynomial of finite order can only be justified for weakly coupled theories.
(c) We need $g_{N_U,r}<0$ to assure the convergence of the path integral. The boundedness of the energy from below requires $g_{N_U,r}\ge0$ in a theory with real parameters. The issue of stability becomes more involved with complex parameters because the quasi-particles of finite life-time can not destabilize the system with unbounded energy and one has to take into account the radiation energy loss to the environment to construct the asymptotic states. This problem is postponed to a later time and the convergence of the path integral, $g_{N_U,i}<0$, is used in this calculation as the only restriction on the parameters.
(d) While the loop expansion requires $g_{2,i}\ne0$ in Minkowski space-time the evolution equation remains integrable in the cutoff at $g_{2,i}=0$.
(e) The IR field is the same on both sides of the evolution equation, \eq{blrel}, hence its cutoff-dependence does not contribute to the left hand side of eqs. \eq{eveq}.
(f) The evolution equation of the functional scheme contains only one-loop contributions hence the closest we can go to the leading order multiplicative scheme of section \ref{cutbare} is to restrict the blocked action to a renormalizable one. The impact of the higher loop contributions to the multiplicative scheme beta functions on the renormalized trajectory can partially be recovered in the functional scheme by allowing non-renormalizable terms in the blocked action. For instance the contributions to the last graphs of Figs. \ref{g2graphs} can be found by considering following two successive blocking steps, $k\to k-{\Delta k}\to k-2{\Delta k}$, and identifying the contribution to the evolution of $g_4$ and $g_2$ in the first and the second step, respectively. But the functional and the multiplicative schemes remain different owing to the keeping of the full cutoff dependence in the former and the ignoring to the $\ord{k^{-n}}$, $n>0$ contributions in the renormalization condition of the latter.
(g) The return to real time in the renormalization group equation poses an unexpected problem, the difficulty of maintaining the boost invariance in non-perturbative schemes \cite{boostinv}. This issue is circumvented here by relying non-relativistic cutoff, $P_k=\{(p^0,\v{p})||p^0|<\Omega_k,|\v{p}|<k\}$, $\Omega_k$ being a suitably chosen non-decreasing function of $k$ and leave the issue of a possible restoration of the boost symmetry in the renormalized theory for a later time. To minimize the symmetry breaking effects of the cutoff the running action is projected back to the symmetric form \eq{blact} after the blocking.
(h) One tends to use the simpler procedure by avoiding the cutoff in energy, $\Omega_k=\infty$ but the energy integrals have to regulated if the wavefunction renormalization constant is field-dependent. This can be understood by performing the Fourier transform in space, $\phi_x\to\phi_{t,\v{p}}$, and treating $\phi_{t,\v{p}}$ as the coordinate of a quantum mechanical problem. The usual quantum mechanical Hamiltonian without operator mixing, i.e. of the form $H=p^2/2m+U(x)$, generate UV finite dynamics. However the field-dependent wave function renormalization constant appears as operator mixing, the emergence of the product of momentum $p$ and coordinate $x$ in the Hamiltonian and leads to UV divergent integrals in perturbation expansion \cite{rgqm}.
(i) The energy cutoff introduces non-causal effects at the cutoff scale. But this is a known feature of any regularization procedure where the cutoff reflects our ignorance and the dynamics is reproduced only in an approximative manner at the cutoff scale.
(j) The loop-integral in the evolution equation is over the set $\Delta P_k=P_k\setminus P_{k-{\Delta k}}$ of the momentum space and the evolution of $Z$ comes from the overlap of two such a region, shifted towards each other. To allow a finite volume for $\Delta P_k$ have need a cutoff where $P_k$ has a curvature-free hypersurface. This is realized by our non-relativistic regulator.
\subsection{Evolution equation}
The left hand side of the evolution equation becomes
\begin{equation}
L=V^{(d)}\left(\frac{Z}4\Psi^2\omega_s^2-\frac{Z''}{32}\Psi^4\omega_s^2-U-\frac{U''}4\Psi^2-\frac{3U^{(4)}}{192}\Psi^4\right)+\left(\frac{Z}2-\frac{Z''}8\Psi^2\right)\int d^dx(\partial\chi_x)^2
\end{equation}
in the $\ord{\chi^2}$ approximation where $V^{(d)}$ denotes the space-time volume and the coefficients of the series \eq{locfuncts} are defined by expanding around $\Phi$. The second functional derivative of the action,
\begin{equation}
\fdd{S}{\chi_p}{\chi_q}=D^{-1}_p\delta_{p,q}-\Sigma_{p,q}
\end{equation}
with $D^{-1}_p=Zp^2+U''$, $\Sigma=\Sigma^{(1)}+\Sigma^{(2)}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{selfe12}
\Sigma^{(1)}_{p,q}&=&-\int d^dr\delta(p-q+r)\chi_r[Z'(r^2+pq)+U^{(3)}],\nonumber\\
\Sigma^{(2)}_{p,q}&=&-\frac12\int\frac{d^dr}{(2\pi)^d}\chi_r\chi_{p-q-r}[Z''(r^2+r(p-q)+pq)+U^{(4)}],
\end{eqnarray}
with $U^{(n)}=\partial^n_\Phi U(\Phi)$ gives the right hand side
\begin{eqnarray}\label{right}
R&=&-\frac12\int\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}\biggl\{\Theta(\Omega-|p^0|)\delta(k-|\v{p}|)\left[D\Sigma^{(2)}+\frac{(D\Sigma^{(1)})^2}2\right]_{p,p}\nonumber\\
&&+\dot\Omega\sum_{\sigma=\pm}\delta(\sigma\Omega-p^0)\Theta(k-|\v{p}|<k)\left[D\Sigma^{(2)}+\frac{(D\Sigma^{(1)})^2}2\right]_{p,p}\biggr\}
\end{eqnarray}
up to $\ord{\chi^2}$. The identification of the coefficients of different powers of $\Psi$, $\chi$ and $\omega_s$ yields a linear equation for the beta functions for the parameters $g_n$, $z_{s,n}$ and $z_{t,n}$, too lengthy to record here.
However the simplified case $Z=1$ and $\Omega=\infty$ is easy to present,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{olbfs}
\dot g_2&=&\mr{sign}(g_{2i})\alpha_{d-1}\frac{k^{d-1}}{4\omega_k}g_4,\nonumber\\
\dot g_4&=&\mr{sign}(g_{2i})\alpha_{d-1}\frac{12k^{d-1}}{\omega_k}g_4^2\left[\frac1{2(\omega_s^2-\omega_k^2)}-\frac1{\omega_k^2}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_d=2\pi^{d/2}/(2\pi)^d\Gamma(d/2)$ and $\omega_k=\sqrt{z_{s,0}k^2+g_2}$. The potentially singular first term in the beta function of $g_4$ emerges from the second graph of Fig. \ref{g4graphs} in a manner similar to the nesting of the Fermi surfaces, the common origin being a narrow shell of three-momentum integration. The beta functions represent the change of the parameters of the theory during an infinitesimal change of the cutoff, $\Delta g_n={\Delta k}\beta_n$ and the continuity of the renormalized trajectory, $\Delta g_n\to0$ as ${\Delta k}\to0$, is a central point of the of the renormalization group method and can be proven rigorously in Euclidean space-time \cite{israel,enter}. It explains for instance that despite the regularity of the physical laws at any given scale the singularities of a critical system do arise from the diverging scale window between the microscopic cutoff. The singularity at $\omega_s^2=\omega_k^2$ is generated by the mass-shell singularities, a real time effect. The discontinuity at $g_{2,i}=0$ is a real time effect, as well and is related to the ill-defined nature of the Minkowski space-time loop integrals with $g_{2,i}=0$. Nevertheless $g_{2,i}$ may cross zero as long as $g_{4,i}<0$, only the perturbation expansion produces an integrable singularity in the form of a saddle point.
The subtraction point
\begin{equation}
\omega_s=\frac{c_s}{\sqrt{|z_{t,0,r}|}}\begin{cases}\sqrt{|z_{s,0,r}k^2+g_{2,r}|}&|z_{s,0,r}k^2+g_{2,r}|>1\cr k\sqrt{|z_{s,0,r}|}&|z_{s,0,r}k^2+g_{2,r}|<1\end{cases}
\end{equation}
containing a dimensionless parameter $c_s$ is chosen to smooth out possible irregularity at the onset of the condensate.
\subsection{Renormalization group flow}
Two typical renormalized trajectories, obtained by integrating numerically the evolution equations from the initial conditions $k=1$ ($\tau=0$) up and downward in the cutoff, are shown below with $\Omega_k=10^4\omega_s$, $c_s=3$ for the dimensionless parameters $\tilde g_2=g_2/k^2$, $\tilde g_4=g_4$, $\tilde Z_t(\tilde\phi)=Z_t(\phi)$, $\tilde\phi=\phi/k$ by the fat line on Figs. \ref{uf}-\ref{zf} for the initial conditions $\tilde Z_t=1+10^{-10}i(1+\tilde\phi^2)$, $\tilde Z_s=1$, $\tilde g_{2,i}=-0.001$, $\tilde g_4,=2-10^{-10}i$ and (a) $\tilde g_{2,r}=0.0001$; (b) $\tilde g_{2,r}=-0.01$. The wave function renormalization constant remains unchanged, $Z_s=1$, when it is field independent in the initial condition. The thin line corresponds to the local potential approximation (LPA) where the running action is truncated to $Z_t=Z_s=1$. The integration of the full evolution equation with wave function renormalization constant was carried out up to $\Lambda_2$, c.f. section \ref{msrss}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4a.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4b.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4c.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4d.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4e.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4f.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4g.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig4h.eps}
\hskip.9cm(a)\hskip5.4cm(b)
\caption{The trajectories of the local potential.}\label{uf}
\end{figure}
Let us comment first the trajectory of the local potential displayed in Fig. \ref{uf}. The initial conditions at $\tau=0$ are selected according to the realization of the symmetry $\phi\to-\phi$: The theory is in the symmetrical phase for (a), $\tilde g_{2,r}\to\infty$ as $k\to0$ and the trajectory (b) belongs to symmetry broken vacuum with $\tilde g_{2,r}\to-\infty$ as $k\to0$. The IR scaling of $g_{2,r}$ is dominated by the trivial classical contribution, $|g_2|\sim1/k^2$ and $g_{2,i}$ remains relatively independent of the symmetry of the vacuum and is driven by the classical scaling only. The coupling constant shows more structure, $g_{4,i}$ revels that the IR-UV crossover actually consists of two characteristic scales in real time dynamics, and $g_{4,i}$ changes rapidly between them. It is natural to assume that the fast decrease of the life-time of two-particle resonance states form the intermediate scaling regime. While the wave function renormalization constant does not make much difference in the IR direction the UV scaling is strongly modified by the non-renormalizable parameter $z_{t,2}$ since it deflects the trajectory from the Gaussian fixed point, seen clearly on the plots of $|g_4|$. Furthermore it lowers the scale where $\mr{sign}(g_{2,i})$ flips and the quasi particles acquire long life-time.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5a.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5b.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5c.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5d.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5e.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5f.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5g.eps}\hskip.5cm\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig5h.eps}
\hskip.9cm(a)\hskip5.4cm(b)
\caption{The trajectories of wave function renormalization constant.}\label{zf}
\end{figure}
The role of the wave function renormalization constant is easiest to understand by inspecting the trajectory of $z_{t,2}$ because the $\phi$-dependent part drives the evolution of $Z$. Both the real and the imaginary parts of $z_{t,2}$ follow the classical scaling law, $z_{t,2}=\ord{k^2}$, apart of some interruptions which introduce characteristic scales. The initial conditions force $z_{t,2,r}=0$ at $\tau=0$ but $z_{t,2,r}$ regains $z_{t,2,r}\sim-k^2$ as we move to the UV direction after a short shooting up. The continuation towards the IR direction of this short, fast changing behaviour quickly settles to a plateau at a positive value and the classical scaling $z_{t,2,r}\sim k^2$ continues on the positive side as soon as we leave the UV scaling regime. The importance of $g_{t,2,r}<0$ above the initial conditions is that the wave function renormalization constant drives the dynamics towards stronger coupling at large cutoff. We can not reach the Landau peak with the present simple calculation because the stronger interactions generate condensate by flipping the sign of $g_{2,i}$. The intermediate scaling between the asymptotic UV and IR scaling regimes originates from the non-monotonic feature of $z_{t,2,i}$. There is another turn of the trajectory of the symmetric phase because $z_{t,2,i}$ crosses zero in the intermediate regime and the classical scaling is realized in the asymptotic IR regime on the negative side, $z_{t,2,i}\sim-k^2$. The marginal, renormalizable parameter $z_{t,0}$ follows the classical scaling, $z_{t,0}=\ord{k^0}$ with little variation in the IR but the stronger interaction, induced by $z_{t,2}$ generates more visible scale dependence as we start to move in the UV directions. We found no trajectory which would extend to $k\to\infty$ without flipping the sign of $g_{2,i}$ or $g_{4,i}$. However one should keep in mind that the integration of the evolution equation upward in the cutoff is not about renormalizability.
\section{Summary}\label{concl}
Different aspects of the renormalization group method in Minkowski space-time are touched upon in this work within the four dimensional $\phi^4$ scalar model. The running parameters, defined by the appropriate vertex functions evaluated at the subtraction point, are found complex. The Euclidean theories possess the discrete symmetry under the complex conjugation of the parameters of the action. The symmetry is broken explicitly by the factor $i$ in front of the Minkowski action in the exponent of the path integral but can be recovered by upgrading the complex conjugation to time inversion. Hence the imaginary part of the running parameters indicate the dynamical breakdown of the time reversal symmetry, reflected by the finite life-time of the quasi-particles.
The pole of the resummed propagator is closer to the real than the imaginary energy axis in weakly coupled theories. Thus the choice of the subtraction point is more important than in Euclidean theories. It is natural to choose the subtraction points within a kinematical regime dominated by quasi-particle excitations. In turn this choice renders the Wick rotation singular and requires to work with real time dynamics in the renormalization group method from the very beginning.
The main novelty of the real time dynamics is that it makes the renormalized trajectory complex. Since the imaginary part of the parameters are generated by the interactions their sign changes easier than for the real part and each sign change introduces a characteristic scale, associated to inhomogeneous saddle points. The path integral is well defined only when the imaginary part of the highest order coupling constant is negative. In our simple calculation the saddle point was assumed to be vanishing and no trajectory was found which can be extended with convergence path integral and without condensate to arbitrary high cutoff.
These results are preliminary, suggesting the need of a more thorough construction of the functional renormalization group method in Minkowski space-time. Few questions, calling for further inquires are the following:
The usual strategy of the renormalization group to obtain Green's functions is the successive elimination of the modes in the path integral. This is certainly a mathematically correct way to deal with multi-dimensional integrals however there is no way to interpret the blocked quantum field theory with lowered cutoff in physical terms. The reason is that the cutoff theory always describes an open dynamics hence its handling requires the Closed Time Path formalism. The quantum fluctuations of the bra and the ket components are independent in a closed dynamics and lead to a formal redoubling of the dynamical variables. These copies of the IR field become coupled by the IR-UV entanglement, leading to involved scaling laws. The extension of the steps, followed in this work, over the Closed Time Path formalism is necessary to handle the open dynamics of cutoff theories, to calculate the expectation values and to find the physically relevant saddle points. A thorough analysis of the phase structure and the possibility of removing the cutoff is needed in this formalism.
The real time dynamics confronts us with an unexpected complication in Quantum Field Theories, namely the difficulties of finding boost invariant non-perturbative regulator \cite{boostinv}. This problem is circumvented here by employing the sharp momentum cutoff, a non-relativistic regulator and the action is projected onto a relativistically invariant form after each blocking. This problem should be clarified rather than swept under the rug and a careful analysis of the status of the boost invariance is required.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
S. Nagy acknowledges financial support from the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office NKFIH (Grant No. KH126497).
|
\section{Introduction}
ACM's consolidated article template, introduced in 2017, provides a
consistent \LaTeX\ style for use across ACM publications, and
incorporates accessibility and metadata-extraction functionality
necessary for future Digital Library endeavors. Numerous ACM and
SIG-specific \LaTeX\ templates have been examined, and their unique
features incorporated into this single new template.
If you are new to publishing with ACM, this document is a valuable
guide to the process of preparing your work for publication. If you
have published with ACM before, this document provides insight and
instruction into more recent changes to the article template.
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can be used to prepare articles
for any ACM publication --- conference or journal, and for any stage
of publication, from review to final ``camera-ready'' copy, to the
author's own version, with {\itshape very} few changes to the source.
\section{Template Overview}
As noted in the introduction, the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can
be used to prepare many different kinds of documentation --- a
double-blind initial submission of a full-length technical paper, a
two-page SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies abstract, a ``camera-ready''
journal article, a SIGCHI Extended Abstract, and more --- all by
selecting the appropriate {\itshape template style} and {\itshape
template parameters}.
This document will explain the major features of the document
class. For further information, the {\itshape \LaTeX\ User's Guide} is
available from
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}.
\subsection{Template Styles}
The primary parameter given to the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class is
the {\itshape template style} which corresponds to the kind of publication
or SIG publishing the work. This parameter is enclosed in square
brackets and is a part of the {\verb|documentclass|} command:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[STYLE]{acmart}
\end{verbatim}
Journals use one of three template styles. All but three ACM journals
use the {\verb|acmsmall|} template style:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmsmall|}: The default journal template style.
\item {\verb|acmlarge|}: Used by JOCCH and TAP.
\item {\verb|acmtog|}: Used by TOG.
\end{itemize}
The majority of conference proceedings documentation will use the {\verb|acmconf|} template style.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmconf|}: The default proceedings template style.
\item{\verb|sigchi|}: Used for SIGCHI conference articles.
\item{\verb|sigchi-a|}: Used for SIGCHI ``Extended Abstract'' articles.
\item{\verb|sigplan|}: Used for SIGPLAN conference articles.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Template Parameters}
In addition to specifying the {\itshape template style} to be used in
formatting your work, there are a number of {\itshape template parameters}
which modify some part of the applied template style. A complete list
of these parameters can be found in the {\itshape \LaTeX\ User's Guide.}
Frequently-used parameters, or combinations of parameters, include:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|anonymous,review|}: Suitable for a ``double-blind''
conference submission. Anonymizes the work and includes line
numbers. Use with the \verb|\acmSubmissionID| command to print the
submission's unique ID on each page of the work.
\item{\verb|authorversion|}: Produces a version of the work suitable
for posting by the author.
\item{\verb|screen|}: Produces colored hyperlinks.
\end{itemize}
This document uses the following string as the first command in the
source file:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[sigconf,authordraft]{acmart}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Modifications}
Modifying the template --- including but not limited to: adjusting
margins, typeface sizes, line spacing, paragraph and list definitions,
and the use of the \verb|\vspace| command to manually adjust the
vertical spacing between elements of your work --- is not allowed.
{\bfseries Your document will be returned to you for revision if
modifications are discovered.}
\section{Typefaces}
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class requires the use of the
``Libertine'' typeface family. Your \TeX\ installation should include
this set of packages. Please do not substitute other typefaces. The
``\verb|lmodern|'' and ``\verb|ltimes|'' packages should not be used,
as they will override the built-in typeface families.
\section{Title Information}
The title of your work should use capital letters appropriately -
\url{https://capitalizemytitle.com/} has useful rules for
capitalization. Use the {\verb|title|} command to define the title of
your work. If your work has a subtitle, define it with the
{\verb|subtitle|} command. Do not insert line breaks in your title.
If your title is lengthy, you must define a short version to be used
in the page headers, to prevent overlapping text. The \verb|title|
command has a ``short title'' parameter:
\begin{verbatim}
\title[short title]{full title}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Authors and Affiliations}
Each author must be defined separately for accurate metadata
identification. Multiple authors may share one affiliation. Authors'
names should not be abbreviated; use full first names wherever
possible. Include authors' e-mail addresses whenever possible.
Grouping authors' names or e-mail addresses, or providing an ``e-mail
alias,'' as shown below, is not acceptable:
\begin{verbatim}
\author{Brooke Aster, David Mehldau}
\email{dave,judy,<EMAIL>}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\end{verbatim}
The \verb|authornote| and \verb|authornotemark| commands allow a note
to apply to multiple authors --- for example, if the first two authors
of an article contributed equally to the work.
If your author list is lengthy, you must define a shortened version of
the list of authors to be used in the page headers, to prevent
overlapping text. The following command should be placed just after
the last \verb|\author{}| definition:
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{McCartney, et al.}
\end{verbatim}
Omitting this command will force the use of a concatenated list of all
of the authors' names, which may result in overlapping text in the
page headers.
The article template's documentation, available at
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}, has a
complete explanation of these commands and tips for their effective
use.
\section{Rights Information}
Authors of any work published by ACM will need to complete a rights
form. Depending on the kind of work, and the rights management choice
made by the author, this may be copyright transfer, permission,
license, or an OA (open access) agreement.
Regardless of the rights management choice, the author will receive a
copy of the completed rights form once it has been submitted. This
form contains \LaTeX\ commands that must be copied into the source
document. When the document source is compiled, these commands and
their parameters add formatted text to several areas of the final
document:
\begin{itemize}
\item the ``ACM Reference Format'' text on the first page.
\item the ``rights management'' text on the first page.
\item the conference information in the page header(s).
\end{itemize}
Rights information is unique to the work; if you are preparing several
works for an event, make sure to use the correct set of commands with
each of the works.
\section{CCS Concepts and User-Defined Keywords}
Two elements of the ``acmart'' document class provide powerful
taxonomic tools for you to help readers find your work in an online
search.
The ACM Computing Classification System ---
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/class-2012} --- is a set of
classifiers and concepts that describe the computing
discipline. Authors can select entries from this classification
system, via \url{https://dl.acm.org/ccs/ccs.cfm}, and generate the
commands to be included in the \LaTeX\ source.
User-defined keywords are a comma-separated list of words and phrases
of the authors' choosing, providing a more flexible way of describing
the research being presented.
CCS concepts and user-defined keywords are required for all short- and
full-length articles, and optional for two-page abstracts.
\section{Sectioning Commands}
Your work should use standard \LaTeX\ sectioning commands:
\verb|section|, \verb|subsection|, \verb|subsubsection|, and
\verb|paragraph|. They should be numbered; do not remove the numbering
from the commands.
Simulating a sectioning command by setting the first word or words of
a paragraph in boldface or italicized text is {\bfseries not allowed.}
\section{Tables}
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class includes the ``\verb|booktabs|''
package --- \url{https://ctan.org/pkg/booktabs} --- for preparing
high-quality tables.
Table captions are placed {\itshape above} the table.
Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best placement for
them is typically the top of the page nearest their initial cite. To
ensure this proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the
environment \textbf{table} to enclose the table's contents and the
table caption. The contents of the table itself must go in the
\textbf{tabular} environment, to be aligned properly in rows and
columns, with the desired horizontal and vertical rules. Again,
detailed instructions on \textbf{tabular} material are found in the
\textit{\LaTeX\ User's Guide}.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table~\ref{tab:freq} is included in the input file; compare the
placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of
this document.
\begin{table}
\caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
\label{tab:freq}
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\
\midrule
\O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\
$\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\
\$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\
$\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of the page's
live area, use the environment \textbf{table*} to enclose the table's
contents and the table caption. As with a single-column table, this
wide table will ``float'' to a location deemed more
desirable. Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table~\ref{tab:commands} is included in the input file; again, it is
instructive to compare the placement of the table here with the table
in the printed output of this document.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Some Typical Commands}
\label{tab:commands}
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Command &A Number & Comments\\
\midrule
\texttt{{\char'134}author} & 100& Author \\
\texttt{{\char'134}table}& 300 & For tables\\
\texttt{{\char'134}table*}& 400& For wider tables\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Math Equations}
You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles:
inline, numbered or non-numbered display. Each of the three are
discussed in the next sections.
\subsection{Inline (In-text) Equations}
A formula that appears in the running text is called an inline or
in-text formula. It is produced by the \textbf{math} environment,
which can be invoked with the usual
\texttt{{\char'134}begin\,\ldots{\char'134}end} construction or with
the short form \texttt{\$\,\ldots\$}. You can use any of the symbols
and structures, from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in
\LaTeX~\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}; this section will simply show a few
examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how this equation:
\begin{math}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{math},
set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when
set in display style. (See next section).
\subsection{Display Equations}
A numbered display equation---one set off by vertical space from the
text and centered horizontally---is produced by the \textbf{equation}
environment. An unnumbered display equation is produced by the
\textbf{displaymath} environment.
Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols and
structures available in \LaTeX\@; this section will just give a couple
of examples of display equations in context. First, consider the
equation, shown as an inline equation above:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{equation}
Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in
the \textbf{displaymath}
environment. Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation:
\begin{displaymath}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} x + 1
\end{displaymath}
and follow it with another numbered equation:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_i=\int_{0}^{\pi+2} f
\end{equation}
just to demonstrate \LaTeX's able handling of numbering.
\section{Figures}
The ``\verb|figure|'' environment should be used for figures. One or
more images can be placed within a figure. If your figure contains
third-party material, you must clearly identify it as such, as shown
in the example below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sample-franklin}
\caption{1907 Franklin Model D roadster. Photograph by Harris \&
Ewing, Inc. [Public domain], via Wikimedia
Commons. (\url{https://goo.gl/VLCRBB}).}
\Description{The 1907 Franklin Model D roadster.}
\end{figure}
Your figures should contain a caption which describes the figure to
the reader. Figure captions go below the figure. Your figures should
{\bfseries also} include a description suitable for screen readers, to
assist the visually-challenged to better understand your work.
Figure captions are placed {\itshape below} the figure.
\subsection{The ``Teaser Figure''}
A ``teaser figure'' is an image, or set of images in one figure, that
are placed after all author and affiliation information, and before
the body of the article, spanning the page. If you wish to have such a
figure in your article, place the command immediately before the
\verb|\maketitle| command:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{teaserfigure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sampleteaser}
\caption{figure caption}
\Description{figure description}
\end{teaserfigure}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Citations and Bibliographies}
The use of {\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08emT\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}\ for the preparation and formatting of one's
references is strongly recommended. Authors' names should be complete
--- use full first names (``Donald E. Knuth'') not initials
(``D. E. Knuth'') --- and the salient identifying features of a
reference should be included: title, year, volume, number, pages,
article DOI, etc.
The bibliography is included in your source document with these two
commands, placed just before the \verb|\end{document}| command:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Wikidata, the sister project of Wikipedia, is a collaborative knowledge base (KB)\footnote{A knowledge base is a centralized repository of data, which stores data in any form, such as in a tabular or graph format.}, which is openly accessible and contains human-readable, as well as, machine-readable data. Wikidata was launched in October 2012 and since then, it has been one of the most often edited knowledge bases with around 20,000 active users\footnote{https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics}. The main goal behind Wikidata's development is to provide structured data for Wikimedia projects to overcome the data inconsistencies of Wikipedia's language versions. Wikidata is designed in a way that anyone can edit, browse, consume, and reuse the data in a fully multilingual form~\cite{vrandecic_rise_2013}.
Wikidata’s content is also stored as a knowledge graph (KG)\footnote{We refer to knowledge graph when we mean a knowledge base which stores the data in graph format.}. Thus, the data are provided in a structured form in the RDF\footnote{RDF is the abbreviation for Resource Description Framework.} format and can be accessed using SPARQL\footnote{SPARQL is the abbrviation for Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language.}. Wikidata is designed a) to be open for anyone to edit (with or without Wikidata account), b) to allow conflicting ideas to coexist, c) to provide data in a language independent form, d) to be controlled by the contributing community, e) to provide data with references, and f) to continuously evolve to address the emerging needs of the users and contributors~\cite{vrandecic_wikidata:_2014}.
As a multilingual knowledge base, Wikidata can provide data in any context and language as long as it is available. Thus, the provided data is already being used by other projects such as, WDAqua-core\footnote{A question answering service for RDF knowledge bases~\cite{diefenbach_wdaqua-core1:_2018}.}, WikiGenomes\footnote{A community created for consuming and curation gene annotation data~\cite{e._putman_wikigenomes:_2017}.} and Open Street Map\footnote{A peer production project that creates an editable global map~\cite{leyh_interlinking_2017}.} and the increasing number of contributors and contributions show the rising interest in Wikidata.
At the same time, the research community interest on Wikidata has accumulated recently, and this is an indication of its growing popularity. Numerous studies have explored Wikidata from various angles, such as its internal structure, including both, data and community, from a data perspective by looking at its completeness and coverage, from a engineering perspective by looking at the needed tools, and by an application perspective by providing case studies in using Wikidata for projects in medicine, linguistics, or geography. However, this research seems to be scattered over different research fields in disciplines and it is challenging to develop a mental map of the existing state of the art of research. Motivated by this observation,we conducted our study, which summarize and reflects on the insights of existing research and give an overall overview of what studies have been carried out so far, and what topics needs to be explored in future research.
A systematic mapping study provides a "map" of a research area. It helps to shape research directions by revealing existing topics which aid to identify white spots ~\cite{felderer_guidelines_2018}\footnote{A mapping study differs from a systematic literature review insofar that the later tackles a specific research question~\cite{petersen_systematic_2008}, therefore, a mapping study can be seen as a pre-study of a systematic literature review.}. It is a way of getting an overall overview of the research performed in an area of interest and classify the relevant research to get a better understanding of which areas have been covered so far and provide a baselines to assist new research efforts \cite{kitchenham_using_2011}.
In our mapping study, we summarize what have been researched so far about Wikidata, when, from which origins and where they were published. We also identify which aspects of Wikidata has got more attention in the research community and which aspects are not yet given much efforts to study, by classifying and categorizing existing research from October 2012 to June 2018. Based on the search results from academic search engines, i.e. ACM, Springer Link, DBLP and Google Scholar, we identified 1,497 search results. All papers were screened and when needed, read in more detail for a more accurate decision for inclusion of the papers in the final data set. Finally, all needed information was extracted from the final set of 67 papers to answer the research questions as listed in the following section. With this mapping study, we make the following contributions: (1) we provide an overall overview of the current state of Wikidata research, (2) we identify the research areas of Wikidata where research needs to be deepen, and (3) we suggest future research areas.
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we explain our approach and research method in more detail. Then in Section 3, we present our findings, and discuss and reflect them in Section 4. In the final Section 5, we provide a conclusion on our research.
\section{Research Method}
\label{sec:method}
Our research method is motivated by our goal to provide a general overview of the field by identifying the topics that are well-studied and derive the open spots in research~\cite{felderer_guidelines_2018}. Mapping studies are insofar a suitable instrument since they provide the ground and directions of the future research as well as educate the members of a community~\cite{kitchenham_educational_2010}.
Our study adopts guidelines for systematic mapping studies which are defined by Petersen et al.~\cite{petersen_guidelines_2015}. In the following, we describe every step to ensure that our results are comprehensible. Next, we introduce our research questions which frame the main goals of the study and inform the data collection process.
\subsection{Research Questions}
\label{subsec:rqs}
In this study we want to provide an overview of Wikidata from a research perspective.
The peer production system Wikipedia, for example, has already drawn research from a myriad of disciplines~\cite{okoli_peoples_2012} and the question is, whether we have the same situation in the context of Wikidata. Our research is guided by the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item [\emph{RQ1}] What high-quality research has been conducted with Wikidata as a major topic or data source?
\item [\emph{RQ2}] What types of research have been published, when (year) and where (journals or conferences)?
\item [\emph{RQ3}] What are the origins of the research (which countries, and institutions)?
\item [\emph{RQ4}] Which aspects of Wikidata are covered by considered research and which aspects are still to be studied?
\end{itemize}
In the following, we describe in more detail, how and where we searched articles, which papers we included or excluded respectively, and finally what categories we derived from the articles.
\subsection{Search Process and Data Sources}
\label{subsec:search}
Data collection is a crucial step in any research since findings are the direct result of the gathered data. We defined the needed keywords which is a first step for searching literature. As the noun ``Wikidata'' is only used as the name of the structured data source so far, and has no further meanings, the search string was simply selected as ``Wikidata'' in order to identify a broad range of related literature. Similarly, as Wikidata was launched in October 2012, the time range was defined from 10/2012 till 06/2018 (some search engines which did not support ``month+year'' format). The search strategy for this study is an automated search using digital libraries. We obtained Wikidata research from the ACM Digital Library (ACM DL)\footnote{ACM DL is available at: \url{https://dl.acm.org/}.}, the Springer Link Digital Library (Springer Link)\footnote{Springer Link is available at: \url{https://link.springer.com/}.}, and the Digital Bibliography \& Library Project (DBLP)\footnote{DBPL is available at: \url{https://dblp.uni-trier.de}.}. ACM DL and DBLP are bibliography search engines specifically for Computer Science. Although, Springer Link provides results from a broader range of fields such as, social sciences and humanities, we decided to extend the scope of the search in order to achieve a more holistic image of the current state of research on Wikidata from different disciplines. Thus, we included search results from Google Scholar Search Engine (Google Scholar) as well\footnote{Semantic Scholar (\url{https://www.semanticscholar.org}) is another source for Wikidata research papers, however, the filtering mechanism of this system was functioning unexpectedly and the results were not reproducible. Although we contacted the SemanticScholar team, the issue could not be solved, and thus, this search engine was not included in the study.}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:search-results}Search results from academic search engines.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|p{1.2cm}|p{1.4cm}|p{1.3cm}|} \hline
Search Engines & Search Results & First Screening & After Selection \\\hline
ACM & 53 & 53 & 21 \\
DBLP & 68 & 44 & 14 \\
SpringerLink & 379 & 329 & 21 \\
Google Scholar & 997 & 699 & 11 \\\hline
\textbf{Total} & 1,497 & 1,125 & 67 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The ACM DL searches keywords everywhere in the text, and only annual date settings are possible. We received 53 articles. Springer Link was also searched with the same keyword and time range as ACM and returned 379 results. The search interface on DBLP does not provide a time range selection, however, it returned the results from 2012 till now, which resulted in 68 papers. Google Scholar Search Engine was searched through \emph{Harzing’s Publish or Perish}\footnote{Harzing's "Publish or Perish" provides an interface to use Google Scholar and export all results in a number of formats. In this study we used the CSV format. The software is available from \url{http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm}.} software with the same criteria. The number of search results from Google Scholar was 997. This large number is caused by the fact that Google Scholar returns technical reports, white papers and theses as well. The total number of articles in the first stage was 1,497 (cp. Table~\ref{tab:search-results}).
\subsection{Criteria Exclusion and Inclusion}
\label{subsec:inc-exc}
We defined inclusion criteria to find the most relevant research papers. The defined criteria for exclusion are duplicates, results in languages other than English and results which are not published in journals or conference proceedings, such as, websites, reports and data sets, theses and books.
In a first step, we already excluded 160 non-English search results (145 from Google Scholar and 15 from Springer Link), second, 132 duplicates (results which were received by more than one search engine), and third, 80 non-papers (citations, refworks, reports, datasets and books). Thus, the remaining 1,125 search results were subject to an inclusion process (cp. Figure~\ref{fig:screening}).
\begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{PapersScreeningProcess.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:screening}Article selection process and the number of included search results.}
\end{figure}
In a second step, we included research papers only, if they are published in academic journals or conference proceedings and are full research papers with at least five pages. The latter criterion is based on the reasoning that articles with four or less pages are considered as short papers, and usually are posters, position or demonstration papers.
After applying the aforementioned criteria on the remaining 1,125 articles, 208 articles were excluded by reading the titles\footnote{The article excluded here were not caught automatically and detected after reading, which were either books, tutorials or teaching material on semantic web technologies, welcome notes of conference or workshop proceedings, blog posts or studies on Wikipedia, DBpedia or YAGO for instance. The dataset can be shared on request.} and, another 833 papers were excluded after reading the abstracts, because they were not focused on Wikidata. After reading the articles in more detail, another 17 could be identified as (bachelor and master) theses and short papers.
In total, a majority of the 1,497 found articles were excluded and only 67 papers remained in our sample. The reason for exclusion of this large number of search results were that we carried out a full text search of the term Wikidata. The search engines returned results which contained this term, even if it was used only once. As we intended to include only papers which focus solely on Wikidata, we had to exclude a large number of results. Another reason was that Google Scholar returned results which were not only papers.
Our further discussion is based on these 67 articles. The resulting data set is available on Zotero\footnote{All papers are available in Zotero: \url{https://www.zotero.org/groups/2212336/wikidata\_study}.}. All papers are also listed in the references section. The ones marked with asterisk, are references that are not part of the mapping study.
\subsection{Data extraction}
\label{subsec:data-ext}
Within the data extraction part of our study, we specified what data we want to extract from our data set. Having a uniform data extraction form reduces both, bias and internal validity threats. We developed a data extraction form, to answer the research questions of this study as stated in Section~\ref{subsec:rqs}.We extracted title, author(s), abstract, date, publisher to answer RQ1, RQ2 and RQ4. However, RQ3 required manual extraction of the institutions and countries where the first author of the paper had performed the research. We focused on institutions rather than the first authors themselves, because some authors published by different institutions. One author, for example, published a research paper from institution A, and later joined institution B and published there. It would be difficult to select one institution as the origin of that author. RQ4 required more insights about each research, and therefore, we read the article in more detail by focusing on the findings. The tools used for data extraction and analysis are Zotero and Microsoft Excel.
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:data-ext}Data extraction form}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{5cm}|r|r|r|} \hline
Data Item & RQ relevance \\\hline
Title & RQ1 \\\hline
Author(s) & RQ2 \\\hline
Abstract & RQ1, RQ4 \\\hline
Date & RQ2 \\\hline
Publisher & RQ2 \\\hline
Origins of the research (countries and institutions) & RQ3 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Research Paper Classification}
\label{subsec:classification}
At this stage, we read the abstract, introduction and conclusion parts of all articles to get more insights about each research for categorization. In a number of cases, further sections of the papers had to be read to get a better understanding of the scope and the topic of the paper. After analyzing 67 papers, we manually categorized the papers as shown in Table~\ref{tab:classification}. In order to define the categories, we started with descriptive labels for each paper. After reading a few papers, we tried to identify categories at a higher level of abstraction. We compared our categories throughout the reading process to make sure that our coding scheme stays consistent.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{tab:classification}Classification of Wikidata research papers.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.6cm}|p{3cm}|p{0.7cm}|p{0.5cm}|} \hline
Sub-categories & Labels & Papers & Sum \\\hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Community-oriented Research} & Design Decision & 3 & \multirow{3}{*}{14} \\\cline{2-3} & WD Community & 5 & \\\cline{2-3}
& Multilingualism & 6 & \\\hline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{Engineering-oriented Research}
& Enhancement Features & 4 & \multirow{2}{*}{9} \\\cline{2-3}
& Vandalism Detection & 5 & \\\hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Application Use Cases} & Medical \& Biological Data & 4 & \multirow{3}{*}{7} \\\cline{2-3}
& Linguistics & 3 & \\\hline
\multirow{2}{2cm}{Knowledge Graph Oriented Research} & Comparison of KGs & 7 & \multirow{3}{*}{15} \\\cline{2-3}
& Common issues of KGs & 3 & \\\cline{2-3}
& Wikidata as Linked Data Provider & 5 & \\\hline
\multirow{2}{2cm}{Data-oriented Research}
& Data Quality Issues & 9 & \multirow{2}{*}{22} \\\cline{2-3}
& Tools \& Datasets & 13 & \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Overview of Data set}
\label{subsec:answeringRQs}
In this section, we describe the resulting dataset of articles in more details. First, we look at the frequency of publications, second, we determine the publication venues and third, we identify where the research was published. Finally, we look at the geographical origin of the Wikidata research.
\begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[height=0.15\textwidth]{PublicationFrequency}
\caption{\label{fig:frequency}Frequency of publications per year.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Frequency of Publication}
\label{subsec:frequency}
The majority (39, 58\%) of the included 67 research papers, are recent researches from 01/2017 till 06/2018 (cp. Figure~\ref{fig:frequency}). This is an indication that Wikidata has gained more awareness in the research community. Starting from 2012, except for 2013, this number has expanded each year. Considering this growth and the number of studies until June 2018 (12), the number of research articles on Wikidata are expected to reach between 40-50 by the end of 2018.
\subsection{Publishers and Publication Types}
\label{sub:publishers}
The most popular publishers for Wikidata research are Springer with 21 articles and ACM with 19 articles, and the most popular journal for publishing Wikidata research articles is The Semantic Web Journal.
Among the 67 papers of this study, most of them (53, 79\%) are published as conference papers and the resthttps://www.overleaf.com/project/5c3f2935235d8259ff21db4e are journal articles (14, 21\%). Thus, conference proceedings are the most popular publication type in Wikidata.
The most popular conferences where Wikidata research was presented are the TheWebConf (The Web Conference)\footnote{Formarly known as International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW)}, ISWC (International Semantic Web Conference), OpenSym (The International Symposium on Open Collaboration), ESWC (Extended Semantic Web Conference)\footnote{Formarly known as European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS)}, WSDM (ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining) and MTSR (Research Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research).
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[%
width=0.2\textwidth]{Conferences}
\caption{\label{fig:conf}Most popular conferences on Wikidata research.}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Geographical Origins of Research}
\label{subsubsec:origins-RQ3}
We found that Europe (70\%) is the dominating contributor in Wikidata research, with Germany being the leading country and United Kingdom the second. America (20\%) has also contributed in research focusing on Wikidata, with the US having the most contributions (cp. Figure \ref{fig:map}).
\begin{figure} \includegraphics[%
width=0.5\textwidth]{Map}
\caption{\label{fig:map}Research contributions from countries and continents.}
\end{figure}
Regarding the most active contributions of institutions, the findings show that University of Southampton has had the most contributions (7 articles), following by the Chile University (4 articles). University of Lyon, TU Dresden and TU Denmark have the same level of contributions (3 articles) on the third place, while the other contributions come across German Universities mainly.
\subsection{Research Topics of Wikidata}
\label{subsubsec:topics-RQ4}
The main research topics of Wikidata which are obtained after classification, are listed in Table \ref{tab:classification} and explained in Section \ref{sec:findings}. While, there exist a number of research topics in Wikidata, there is still potential, as we show in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}, for usage of Wikidata for a variety of purposes.
\section{Findings}
\label{sec:findings}
In this section, we describe the state of the art in each of the defined categories.
The first section (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:desc}) comprises articles that look at Wikidata from a community perspective, the second section (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:newf}) contains articles from engineering perspective, the third section (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:app}) focuses on usage of Wikidata in certain fields, the fourth section (cp. Section~\ref{subsubsec:generalKGs}) discusses Wikidata from a KG perspective, and final section (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:data}) consists research on the data perspective.
\subsection{Community-oriented Research}
\label{subsec:desc}
Is Wikidata just another peer production system? The research in this category reflects on Wikidata's goals and features, existing design decisions (esp. multilingualism), analyzes the Wikidata community and their participation patterns.
\subsubsection{Design Decision}
\label{par:WD-intStr}
The research articles in this section provide mainly an overview on Wikidata and introduce its features and design principles.
One of the first articles on Wikidata is by Vrandečić, who motivates the need for integrating existing structured data from the various Wikipedia language versions into one single repository in order to overcome existing data inconsistencies~\cite{vrandecic_rise_2013}. The main distinguishing features of Wikidata according to Vrandečić et al. are, being available internationally and support for multilingualism, storing links to facts as a secondary database, and the ability to store contradictory facts to represent knowledge diversity~\cite{vrandecic_wikidata:_2014}.
Voß~\cite{vos_classification_2016} discusses extraction and classification of knowledge organization systems based on Wikidata.
\subsubsection{Participation Patterns of the Community}
\label{subsec:participationPatterns}
This section reflects the efforts made to understand who are Wikidata's contributors and what participation patterns do they follow. Steiner~\cite{steiner_bots_2014}, for example, develops an application which is capable of monitoring real-time edit activity of all language versions of Wikipedia and Wikidata.
Müller-Birn et al.~\cite{muller-birn_peer-production_2015} analyze the contribution patterns of the Wikidata community to better understand whether Wikidata community participation pattern follows a peer-production approach like Wikipedia, or a collaborative ontology engineering approach. The study also describes the characteristics of the Wikidata community as, registered users, anonymous (not registered or logged in) and bots. Based on the results of this study, Cuong et al.~\cite{cuong_applicability_2016} study the dynamics of Wikidata community participation process, to know how the participation patterns of the community change over time. Piscopo et al.~\cite{piscopo_wikidatians_2017} extends this line of research by studying the participation patterns of Wikidata community members, from being an editor to becoming a community member and investigate on how these patterns evolve.
In another study Piscopo et al.~\cite{piscopo_what_2017} analyzed the relationship between group composition of bots, and humans (registered or anonymous) and the item quality in Wikidata. In their research, they focussed on the knowledge base but highlighted the importance of considering the knowledge graph in future research.
\subsubsection{Multilingualism}
\label{subsubsec:multiling}
Multilingualism is one of the design principles of Wikidata. Wikidata stores data in a language independent form and aims to provide data to anyone, anywhere in the world. This section comprises studies that focus primarily on this design principle.
Samuel~\cite{samuel_collaborative_2017} describes the multilingual collaborative ontology development process in Wikidata by explaining the development process of a new property and its major steps from being proposed to get approved by the community and finally translated to other languages. Kaffee et al.~\cite{kaffee_glimpse_2017} study the languages covered by Wikidata. Their results suggest that most of the labels and descriptions on Wikidata are only available in a small number of languages like, English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Russian. This stands in contrast to the majority of languages which have close to no coverage. Kaffee et al. in another studies, \cite{kaffee_learning_2018,kaffee_mind_2018}, investigate the generation of open domain Wikipedia summaries from Wikidata in ``underserved languages'' to overcome uneven content distribution. Ta et al. \cite{ta_model_2014} propose a mechanism to enrich Wikidata multilingual content by retrieving ``semantic relations based on alignment between info-box properties and Wikidata properties in various languages''.
Sáez et al.~\cite{saez_automatically_2018} investigate the development of ``fully automatic methods'' where info-boxes for Wikipedia can be generated from Wikidata descriptions.
\subsection{Engineering-oriented Research}
\label{subsec:newf}
This section contains all articles that suggest approaches and features that enhance Wikidata's functionality. These features are programmed for two main purposes: first, for improving the quality by adding new data or by interlinking with other sources, and second, for vandalism detection.
\subsubsection{Enhancement Features}
\label{subsubsec:enhancement}
Wikidata's functionality has evolved gradually with the needs of the community. This section contains research that proposes approaches that ease the process of adding data to Wikidata either manually, or by using external data sources.
Zangerle et al.~\cite{zangerle_empirical_2016} evaluate recommender algorithms, which assist Wikidata contributors in the process of data insertion through property recommendation. Pellissier Tanon et al.~\cite{pellissier_tanon_freebase_2016} introduces the Primary Sources Tool\footnote{For more information, please check~\url{https://github.com/google/primarysources}.} to facilitate the migration of the content from Freebase to Wikidata.
Sergieh et al.~\cite{mousselly_sergieh_enriching_2016} propose an approach to bridge the missing linguistic information gap of Wikidata by aligning Wikidata with FrameNet\footnote{FrameNet is a lexical database of the English language. For more information, please check ~\url{https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/}.} lexicon. Hachey et al.~\cite{hachey_learning_2017} present a neural network model for mapping structured and unstructured data and investigate the generation of Wikipedia biographic summary sentences from Wikidata.
\subsubsection{Vandalism Detection}
\label{subsubsec:vandalism}
Wikidata provides data for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects; thus, the integrity and correctness of data is of high importance. Vandalism detection is, therefore, an essential aspect of a knowledge repository and directly influences the data quality and trustworthiness of a KB. In the following, we provide an overview of research that focuses on detecting vandalism and other efforts for making Wikidata more robust.
In their study, Heindorf et al. \cite{heindorf_vandalism_2016} present a new machine learning-based approach for the automatic detection of vandalism in Wikidata.
Sarbadani et al. \cite{sarabadani_building_2017} develop a vandalism detection mechanism for Wikidata by adapting methods from the Wikipedia vandalism detection literature and extending it to Wikidata’s structured knowledge base. The mechanism used identifies damaging changes and classifies edits as vandalism in real time, using a machine classification strategy.
The ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, held the competition for developing vandalism detection mechanisms for Wikidata, the WSDM Cup 2017.\footnote{More more information, please check ~\url{https://www.wsdm-cup-2017.org/}.} The main goal of this competition was to develop a model for detecting malicious or similarly damaging edits. As a result of participation in WSDM Cup 2017 both, Crescenzi et al.~\cite{crescenzi_production_2017} and Grigorev et al.~\cite{grigorev_large-scale_2017}, presented their own vandalism detection mechanisms\footnote{The competition received five submissions: 1) Buffaloberry by Crescenzi et al.~\cite{crescenzi_production_2017}, 2) Conkerberry by Grigorev~\cite{grigorev_large-scale_2017}, 3) Loganberry by Zhu et al.~\cite{zhu_wikidata_2017}, 4) Honeyberry by Yamazaki et al.~\cite{yamazaki_ensemble_2017}, and 5) Riberry by Yu et al.~\cite{yu_2017}. We included two of the submissions only, because~\cite{zhu_wikidata_2017} and~\cite{yamazaki_ensemble_2017} are short papers and~\cite{yu_2017} is not published.}. Crescenzi et al.~\cite{crescenzi_production_2017} reflected on previous work of Heindorf et al.~\cite{heindorf_vandalism_2016}, an automatic data mining approach for vandalism detection in Wikidata. Grigorev et al.~\cite{grigorev_large-scale_2017} present an approach based on a linear classification model, which according to authors, is faster compared to other existing approaches.
The evaluation of the proposed vandalism detection approaches at the WSDM Cup 2017, is done in~\cite{heindorf_overview_2017}. Heindorf et al.~\cite{heindorf_overview_2017} evaluate their four baseline approaches\footnote{The four baseline approaches are: 1) Wikidata Vandalism Detector (WDVD) approach from~\cite{heindorf_vandalism_2016}, 2) FILTER, a second baseline which contains trained data from 01.05.2013 to 30.04.2016, 3) ORES, the re-implementation of the approach in~\cite{sarabadani_building_2017}, and 4) META, a combination of all approaches in~\cite{heindorf_wsdm_2017}.} along the five submissions. The study finds that the best approach is a semi-automatic scenarios ``where newly arriving revisions are ranked for manual review'' is from~\cite{crescenzi_production_2017}, while, the best approach in a fully automatic detection scenario ``where the decision whether or not to revert a given revision is left with the classifier'' is the baseline approach by the Wikidata Vandalism Detector (WDVD) system~\cite{heindorf_vandalism_2016}.
\subsection{Application Use Cases}
\label{subsec:app}
From the beginning, Wikidata received many attentions from members of various research fields. Many articles described possible use cases for utilizing Wikidata as a central data hub, as we see in the next section.
\subsubsection{Medical and Biological Data}
\label{subsubsec:med}
Recently, especially medical and biological projects have started using Wikidata as a backend data source, to facilitate data exchange, mapping, and consumption. Mitraka et al.~\cite{mitraka_wikidata:_2015}, for example, propose the usage of Wikidata for addressing the crucial challenges in disseminating and integrating knowledge in life sciences contexts, by linking genes, drugs and diseases.
Pfundner et al.~\cite{pfundner_utilizing_2015} have specified an automated process to integrate data from ONC’s\footnote{The Office of the National Coordinator (abbrev. ONC) for Health Information Technology is a division of United States' Department of Health and Human Services.} high priority DDI\footnote{DDI stands for Drug-Drug Interaction, i.e. the effect change of one drug on body by another drug.} list into Wikidata. The authors aim to integrate the data from ONC into Wikidata and then use Wikidata to display the integrated data in articles of different Wikipedia language versions. Burgataller-Muehlbacher et al.~\cite{burgstaller-muehlbacher_wikidata_2016} import all human and mouse genes, and all human and mouse proteins into Wikidata to improve the state of biological data, and facilitate data management and data dissemination using the WDQS of Wikidata.
Although, Wikidata is greatly being used in bioinformatics, it is still a challenging task for biologists to use it efficiently. One major issue is for example, that the ``structured query languages like SPARQL are not commonly part of a researcher’s toolkit''. Thus, E. Putman et al.~\cite{e._putman_wikigenomes:_2017} describe WikiGenomes, a web application based on Wikidata, that facilitates the ``consumption and curation of genomic data by the entire biomedical researcher community''. WikiGenomes provides access to the centralized biomedical data and a simple user interface for non-developer biologists.
\subsubsection{Linguistics}
\label{subsubsec:dict}
Wikidata is also used in the linguistics field, either as a dictionary, or proposing further approaches for linking lexical datasets or relation extraction.
Turki et al.~\cite{turki_using_2017} propose to adopt Wikidata as a dictionary which can be used across multiple dialects of the Arabic language. The authors emphasize that the Arabic language has many dialects and these dialects are not all mutually intelligible, and each one of them has its morphological and phonological and even semantic and lexical particularities. The study explains how it is possible to convert Wikidata into a multilingual multidialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects and describes how Wikidata (as a multilingual multidialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects) can be used by computational linguistics and computer scientists in the Natural Language Processing of the varieties of the Arabic language. Nielsen et al. \cite{nielsen_linking_2018} describe an ongoing effort for linking ImageNet\footnote{``ImageNet is an image dataset organized according to the WordNet hierarchy'' (\url{http://image-net.org/}.} WordNet\footnote{WordNet is a large lexical database of English and contains and groups nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs in the form of sets of cognitive synonyms (synsets). For more information \url{https://wordnet.princeton.edu}.} synsets to Wikidata.
Yu et al.~\cite{yu_meronymy_2017} present a new approach for meronym relations extraction in Wikidata, which is, building a 13-dimensional feature vector for each hyperlink to be classified with different classification algorithms, based on all 13 different three-node motifs. The high interest of this community might have one driver for the development of the Wikibase Lexeme extension which allows for modeling lexical entities. From 2018, Wikidata includes this new type of data: words, phrases, and sentences.
\subsection{Knowledge Graph Oriented Research}
\label{subsubsec:generalKGs}
Wikidata is maintained by an active community of contributors who create a large amount of structured data. The knowledge base relies on the MediaWiki infrastructure. At the meantime, Wikidata's structured data is stored in RDF and is accessible through SPARQL. Wikidata belongs, therefore, to a group of other general purpose knowledge graphs, such as DBpedia, YAGO, and Cyc.
\subsubsection{Wikidata as Linked Data Provider}
\label{subsec:WD-semweb}
We summarize all articles that propose approaches for storing Wikidata's structured data in RDF and on the other hand, suggest how projects in Wikimedia's ecosystem can use the RDF data.
Erxleben et al.~\cite{erxleben_introducing_2014} argue that despite being the data platform in the Wikimedia ecosystem, Wikidata provides its data not in RDF, which affects Wikidata's popularity in the Semantic Web community negatively. Thus, the authors propose an RDF encoding for Wikidata and introduce a tool~\footnote{For more information, please check~\url{https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit}.} for creating such RDF file exports. Similarly, Hernández et al.~\cite{hernandez_reifying_2015} compare various options for reifying RDF triples from Wikidata, and building on that study the efficiency of various database engines for querying Wikidata~\cite{hernandez_querying_2016}.
From 2014, Wikidata stored its data in RDF based on the Erxleben et al.-mapping~\cite{erxleben_introducing_2014} and provided the data via an SPARQL endpoint, the Wikidata Query Service (WDQS)\footnote{The WDQS is available here~\url{https://query.wikidata.org/}.}. Bielefeldt et al.~\cite{bielefeldt_practical_2018} analyzed the access logs from SPARQL endpoint and separate the bot-based from human-based traffic. As expected, the human part is smaller and shows clear trends, e.g. correlated to time of day, in comparison to the bot-based part which is ``highly volatile and seems unpredictable even on larger time scales''.
Yang et al.~\cite{yang_relation_2017} uses the data for improving Wikipedia. They discuss that KGs can help machines to analyze plain texts, and propose a Relation Linking System for Wikidata (RLSW) which links the Wikidata KG to data in plain text format in Wikipedia.
\subsubsection{Comparison of KGs}
\label{comparisonKGs}
Next, we discuss articles which compare Wikidata with other general domain knowledge graphs. Ringler \& Paulheim~\cite{ringler_one_2017}, for example, study DBpedia, Freebase, OpenCyc, Wikidata and YAGO knowledge graphs to find similarities and differences of these KGs. Färber et al. compare in their research, KGs from a data quality perspective (~\cite{farber_comparative_2015, farber_linked_2016}). Razniewski et al.~\cite{razniewski_but_2016} discuss the challenges of asserting completeness in KGs, and outline possible solutions. The authors propose a framework for finding the most suitable KG for a given setting. Abian et al.~\cite{abian_wikidata_2018} compare Wikidata and DBpedia structured data sources, based on the criteria defined in the main data quality frameworks. In a similar study, Thakkar et al.~\cite{thakkar_are_2016} compare DBpedia and Wikidata from a quality assurance perspective and have found that based on the majority of relevant metrics, the quality of Wikidata is higher than DBpedia.
Data quality of Wikidata has also been studied from a KG perspective, as in study from Gad-elrab et al.~\cite{gad-elrab_exception-enriched_2016} which discuss that KGs like DBpedia, Freebase, YAGO and Wikidata are inevitably incomplete. To address this, the authors analyze the former approach of data correlations and propose a method to overcome the problems with former approach.
\subsubsection{Common Issues of KGs}
\label{commonKGs}
Ismayilov et al.~\cite{ismayilov_wikidata_2015} describe the integration of Wikidata into the DBpedia Data Stack in order to use Wikidata through DBpedia extractors. In their study, Chekol \& Stuckenschmidt~\cite{chekol_towards_2018} discuss that KGs, such as YAGO, Wikidata, NELL, and DBpedia, already contain temporal data (facts together with their validity time). The authors propose a ``bitemporal'' model for knowledge graphs, to record the data extraction time from other sources. Currently, only NELL records this time, while, Wikidata only contains the time which is valid about a fact. In another study, Krötzsch discusses the modern knowledge representation technologies and their advantages in information management, such as description logics, and their contribution to knowledge graphs, and motivates Wikidata as a use case~\cite{krotzsch_ontologies_2017}.
\subsection{Data-oriented Research}
\label{subsec:data}
This section contains research which make use of data from the Wikidata knowledge base and the knowledge graph. Some papers belong to KB and some to KG, while all focus on their defined category. We organized the papers in two categories: (1) data quality quality aspects of Wikidata, and (2) the development of new tools and datasets.
\subsubsection{Data Quality}
\label{subsubsec:quality}
The research highlighted in this section, is concerned with improving the data quality of the knowledge graph by providing tools for Wikidata's knowledge base.
Prasojo et al.~\cite{prasojo_managing_2016} discuss “COOL-WD”, a tool for supporting the completeness lifecycle of Wikidata and allow to produce and consume completeness data by ``data completion tracking, completeness analytics, and query completeness assessment.'' Augenstein~\cite{augenstein_joint_2014} discusses that KBs are far from complete and proposes information extraction methods to populate missing knowledge from Web pages to KBs. Galárraga et al.~\cite{galarraga_predicting_2017}
investigate ``different signals to identify the areas where the knowledge base is complete'' and experiment in Wikidata and YAGO to generate completeness information automatically.
Razniewski et al.~\cite{razniewski_doctoral_2017} introduce the problems and limitations of properties in Wikidata and propose entity-specific property ranking for Wikidata.
Ahmeti et al.~\cite{ahmeti_assessing_2014} and Balaraman et al.~\cite{balaraman_recoin:_2018} propose and develop Recoin, a relative completeness tool for evaluating completeness of entities in Wikidata. Recoin uses information from the class structure of the knowledge graph, in order to recommend possible properties for an item on the Wikidata user interface.
Brasileiro et al. \cite{brasileiro_applying_2016} discuss the quality of taxonomic hierarchies in Wikidata to have a consistent data model and representation schema.
Piscopo et al. (\cite{piscopo_provenance_2017, piscopo_what_2017_1}) analyze Wikidata quality from the provenance perspective, the relevance and authoritativeness of Wikidata external references.
\subsubsection{Tools \& Datasets}
\label{subsubsec:ToolsnDS}
This category contains research that resulted in the development of new tools, which mainly use Wikidata as a backend data source. Ontodia~\cite{wohlgenannt_using_2017}, for example, is a ''simple and free online OWL and RDF diagramming tool``. Scholia~\cite{nielsen_scholia_2017} is a tool for handling scientific bibliographic information through Wikidata, and NECKaR~\cite{geis_neckar:_2017} is a named entities classifier based on Wikidata, which provide also a Wikidata-based named entity data set.
Ferrada et al.~\cite{ferrada_querying_2018} present a new web interface for IMGpedia dataset which can query more than 6 million images of IMGpedia through Wikidata, while, Diefenbach et al. (\cite{diefenbach_wdaqua-core0:_2017, diefenbach_wdaqua-core1:_2018}), present and discuss WDAqua-core which is a new Questions Answering component which uses DBpedia and Wikidata. Veen et al.~\cite{veen_linking_2016} use Wikidata to improve access to the collection of Dutch historical newspapers.
More recently, some effort has been investigated to synchronize the data beween OpenStreetMap and Wikidata. Leyh et al. \cite{leyh_interlinking_2017} discuss the opportunities and challenges of Wikidata as a central integration facility by interlinking it with OpenStreetMap. Almeida et al.~\cite{almeida_where_2016} introduce a tool that harmonizes street names from OpenStreetMap\footnote{For mire information please check: \url{https://www.openstreetmap.org/}} and the entities they refer to in Wikidata. Another study, Thornton et al.~\cite{thornton_modeling_2017} explore the potential of Wikidata to serve as a technical metadata repository and how it provides distinct advantages for usage in the domain of digital preservation.
There are also datasets which were developed based on Wikidata for different purposes. Nielsen et al.~\cite{nielsen_inferring_2018} construct a dataset containing pairs of digital photos of objects for a multi-modal knowledge representation.
Klein et al.~\cite{klein_monitoring_2016} develop ``Wikidata Human Gender Indicators'' (WHGI), a biographic dataset, to monitor gender related issues. Spitz et al.~\cite{spitz_so_2016} present an approach for constructing a network of locations from Wikipedia by computing the similarity of locations based on their distances and linking it to Wikidata as a knowledge source.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
Our mapping study shows an increase in the number of published research articles per year, which indicates the growing interest of the research community on Wikidata (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:frequency}). The articles have a prevalence of computer science articles which we expected from the chosen databases which are mainly Computer Science related (ACM, Springer Link, DBLP). However, by including Google Scholar, we expected to identify more research from disciplines such as sociology or communication science. Unfortunately, our results suggest that this approach was less successful. However, as other peer production communities Wikidata provides a valuable opportunity to deepen our understanding of existing community practice. It might be interesting, for example, to explore existing difference to Wikipedia. Furthermore, within various Wikipedia language versions, there is still a resistance to use Wikidata. Further research is needed, to better understand existing reservations. Another interesting less studied aspect in Wikidata is the existing human-bot-collaboration~\cite{muller-birn_peer-production_2015}. Wikidata might be, besides Wikipedia, an interesting use case to better understand the social-technical infrastructure of a peer production community.
Our results suggest that research on Wikidata seems to be entirely concentrated on specific institutions, such as the University of Southampton or the Universidad de Chile, or countries, for example, Germany and USA (cp. Section~\ref{subsubsec:origins-RQ3}). It might be the origin of Wikidata as a European project initiated by members of the Semantic Web community which causes that research on Wikidata is more popular in Europe. We wonder, how this western perspective on knowledge representation might exclude other understandings of knowledge. For example, the indigenous peoples give their knowledge orally from generation to generation. Research, which deals with the question of how this knowledge or the potential occurrence of such knowledge can be represented, would undoubtedly be useful to achieve the aim for becoming a global universal knowledge base, which can be used by anyone for any purpose~\cite{vrandecic_wikidata:_2014}.
While there have been studies on the multilingualism aspect of Wikidata, the data is still not present in every language. Current findings show that there are some dominant languages (e.g. English, French, German, Spanish), while, many other languages as `underserved' (cp. Section \ref{subsubsec:multiling}). This indicates that, although, there have been some efforts in addressing the issue of uneven languages distribution, further studies are needed to overcome the language gap in Wikidata. Furthermore, these studies focus on the descriptions and labels of an item. It might be interesting to understand better when Wikidata's data model fails because a one-to-one relationship between two words from different languages is not possible.
Continuous evolution is one of the design decisions of Wikidata, which means Wikidata grows with its community and tasks, and new features are deployed incrementally~\cite{vrandecic_wikidata:_2014}. The findings suggest only little research on improving the usability of the user interface.
User studies concerning aspects such as the learnability or explainability are still rare on Wikidata. From the authors own experiences on conducting Wikidata workshops, it can be said, that people struggle with understanding Wikidata's central concepts, for example, the difference between a class and an instance. It seems that Wikidata has still untapped potential in becoming accessible for non-technical experts.
Many efforts are made to sustain and improve the quality and completeness of data in Wikidata (cp. Section~\ref{subsubsec:quality}). One issue in this context is, for example, the handling of vandalism and data integrity.
In the context of data quality, we call for more research on the effects of plurality, i.e., the co-existence of contradictory information, in order to enhance the trustworthiness of Wikidata content. However, if anyone can add contradictory information, further research is needed to provide such mechanisms in the user interface as well in the WDQS for providing this information in a possible format.
As opposed to Wikidata, Wikipedia is studied from a variety of disciplines, such as, humanities (e.g, history, literature, philosophy), logic and mathematics, natural sciences (biology, chemistry), social sciences (e.g. communications, education, economics, law, journalism) and interdisciplinary (anthropology, computer science, health, industrial ecology and information science) [14]. While, Wikidata has the competence to be used in different disciplines, the investigations are needed to find out whether Wikidata can be beneficial in the same areas where Wikipedia was used.
Even though our study reveals the usage of Wikidata in various contexts, the uses cases come from the biomedical domain and linguistics mainly (cp. Section~\ref{subsec:app}). It might be valuable to see more use cases from other disciplines, such as social sciences or humanities. It might be valuable, for example, to use Wikidata in educational or museum settings.
\section{Limitations of Research}
\label{subsec:validityThreat}
In this section, we discuss a number of validity threats this study is subject to. To overcome descriptive validity (research design) threats adequate information, we provided all from data collection to data analysis as detailed as possible in the constrains of the publication format. Further, the research was designed in way to minimize the number of missing literature by including results from Google Scholar. Although, Google Scholar results contained many irrelevant results (e.g. citations), it was meaningful nevertheless, because we captured 11 articles not found in the other libraries. Theoretical validity is achieved by capturing the most relevant literature and controlling bias in the data extraction and classification steps~\cite{petersen_guidelines_2015}. We addressed theoretical validity by including peer-reviewed articles only, and to reduce bias, the results were carefully checked by the second author. Interpretive validity is achieved when the conclusions are the result of the given data~\cite{petersen_guidelines_2015}. One of the threats in drawing conclusion is researcher bias, which has been controlled by the second author review. Repeatability can be achieved by providing detailed information of each research step and the data. We provide all our data, the search log on github and the final article sample on Zenodo.\footnote{\textit{This information will be included in the final version of this paper.}}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this mapping study, we have provided an overview of existing research about Wikidata. We identified existing research topics in this field and described potential new research topics for future studies. The literature was collected from digital libraries and academic search engines, and the selected papers were categorized based on research focus relevance.
Research publications accelerated every year which is an indication of the interest of research community. Most of the research contributions come from Europe so far, thus, Wikidata is still predominantly used and studied from a Western perspective. This affects, for example, multilingualism and knowledge diversity in Wikidata. Although, data in Wikidata is available in various languages simultaneously, this applies only for a selected number of languages, i.e. many languages have very few or no coverage in Wikidata. Thus, future directions of research on Wikidata could be to: a) focus on multilingualism aspect of Wikidata and overcome language gaps, b) study knowledge diversity and the effect of plurality on data trustworthiness of Wikidata, c) research on improvement of the usability of user interface, and d) investigate the usage of Wikidata in various disciplines and study it from non-technical perspective.
\begin{acks}
This part will be provided in the camera-ready version.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\section{Introduction}
ACM's consolidated article template, introduced in 2017, provides a consistent \LaTeX\ style for use across ACM publications, and incorporates accessibility and metadata-extraction functionality necessary for future Digital Library endeavors. Numerous ACM and SIG-specific \LaTeX\ templates have been examined, and their unique features incorporated into this single new template.
If you are new to publishing with ACM, this document is a valuable guide to the process of preparing your work for publication. If you have published with ACM before, this document provides insight and instruction into more recent changes to the article template.
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can be used to prepare articles for any ACM publication --- conference or journal, and for any stage of publication, from review to final ``camera-ready'' copy, to the author's own version, with {\it very} few changes to the source.
\section{Template Overview}
As noted in the introduction, the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can be used to prepare many different kinds of documentation --- a double-blind initial submission of a full-length technical paper, a two-page SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies abstract, a ``camera-ready'' journal article, a SIGCHI Extended Abstract, and more --- all by selecting the appropriate {\it template style} and {\it template parameters}.
This document will explain the major features of the document class. For further information, the {\it \LaTeX\ User's Guide} is available from \url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}.
\subsection{Template Styles}
The primary parameter given to the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class is the {\it template style} which corresponds to the kind of publication or SIG publishing the work. This parameter is enclosed in square brackets and is a part of the {\verb|documentclass|} command:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[STYLE]{acmart}
\end{verbatim}
Journals use one of three template styles. All but three ACM journals use the {\verb|acmsmall|} template style:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmsmall|}: The default journal template style.
\item {\verb|acmlarge|}: Used by JOCCH and TAP.
\item {\verb|acmtog|}: Used by TOG.
\end{itemize}
The majority of conference proceedings documentation will use the {\verb|acmconf|} template style.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmconf|}: The default proceedings template style.
\item{\verb|sigchi|}: Used for SIGCHI conference articles.
\item{\verb|sigchi-a|}: Used for SIGCHI ``Extended Abstract'' articles.
\item{\verb|sigplan|}: Used for SIGPLAN conference articles.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Template Parameters}
In addition to specifying the {\it template style} to be used in formatting your work, there are a number of {\it template parameters} which modify some part of the applied template style. A complete list of these parameters can be found in the {\it \LaTeX\ User's Guide.}
Frequently-used parameters, or combinations of parameters, include:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|anonymous,review|}: Suitable for a ``double-blind'' conference submission. Anonymizes the work and includes line numbers. Use with the \verb|\acmSubmissionID| command to print the submission's unique ID on each page of the work.
\item{\verb|authorversion|}: Produces a version of the work suitable for posting by the author.
\item{\verb|screen|}: Produces colored hyperlinks.
\end{itemize}
This document uses the following string as the first command in the source file: \verb|\documentclass[sigconf,screen]{acmart}|.
\section{Modifications}
Modifying the template --- including but not limited to: adjusting margins, typeface sizes, line spacing, paragraph and list definitions, and the use of the \verb|\vspace| command to manually adjust the vertical spacing between elements of your work --- is not allowed.
{\bf Your document will be returned to you for revision if modifications are discovered.}
\section{Typefaces}
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class requires the use of the ``Libertine'' typeface family. Your \TeX\ installation should include this set of packages. Please do not substitute other typefaces. The ``\verb|lmodern|'' and ``\verb|ltimes|'' packages should not be used, as they will override the built-in typeface families.
\section{Title Information}
The title of your work should use capital letters appropriately - \url{https://capitalizemytitle.com/} has useful rules for capitalization. Use the {\verb|title|} command to define the title of your work. If your work has a subtitle, define it with the {\verb|subtitle|} command.
Do not insert line breaks in your title.
If your title is lengthy, you must define a short version to be used in the page headers, to prevent overlapping text. The \verb|title| command has a ``short title'' parameter:
\begin{verbatim}
\title[short title]{full title}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Authors and Affiliations}
Each author must be defined separately for accurate metadata identification. Multiple authors may share one affiliation. Authors' names should not be abbreviated; use full first names wherever possible. Include authors' e-mail addresses whenever possible.
Grouping authors' names or e-mail addresses, or providing an ``e-mail alias,'' as shown below, is not acceptable:
\begin{verbatim}
\author{Brooke Aster, David Mehldau}
\email{dave,judy,<EMAIL>}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\end{verbatim}
The \verb|authornote| and \verb|authornotemark| commands allow a note to apply to multiple authors --- for example, if the first two authors of an article contributed equally to the work.
If your author list is lengthy, you must define a shortened version of the list of authors to be used in the page headers, to prevent overlapping text. The following command should be placed just after the last \verb|\author{}| definition:
\begin{verbatim}
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{McCartney, et al.}
\end{verbatim}
Omitting this command will force the use of a concatenated list of all of the authors' names, which may result in overlapping text in the page headers.
The article template's documentation, available at \url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}, has a complete explanation of these commands and tips for their effective use.
\section{Rights Information}
Authors of any work published by ACM will need to complete a rights form. Depending on the kind of work, and the rights management choice made by the author, this may be copyright transfer, permission, license, or an OA (open access) agreement.
Regardless of the rights management choice, the author will receive a copy of the completed rights form once it has been submitted. This form contains \LaTeX\ commands that must be copied into the source document. When the document source is compiled, these commands and their parameters add formatted text to several areas of the final document:
\begin{itemize}
\item the ``ACM Reference Format'' text on the first page.
\item the ``rights management'' text on the first page.
\item the conference information in the page header(s).
\end{itemize}
Rights information is unique to the work; if you are preparing several works for an event, make sure to use the correct set of commands with each of the works.
\section{CCS Concepts and User-Defined Keywords}
Two elements of the ``acmart'' document class provide powerful taxonomic tools for you to help readers find your work in an online search.
The ACM Computing Classification System --- \url{https://www.acm.org/publications/class-2012} --- is a set of classifiers and concepts that describe the computing discipline. Authors can select entries from this classification system, via \url{https://dl.acm.org/ccs/ccs.cfm}, and generate the commands to be included in the \LaTeX\ source.
User-defined keywords are a comma-separated list of words and phrases of the authors' choosing, providing a more flexible way of describing the research being presented.
CCS concepts and user-defined keywords are required for all short- and full-length articles, and optional for two-page abstracts.
\section{Sectioning Commands}
Your work should use standard \LaTeX\ sectioning commands: \verb|section|, \verb|subsection|, \verb|subsubsection|, and \verb|paragraph|. They should be numbered; do not remove the numbering from the commands.
Simulating a sectioning command by setting the first word or words of a paragraph in boldface or italicized text is {\bf not allowed.}
\section{Tables}
The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class includes the ``\verb|booktabs|'' package --- \url{https://ctan.org/pkg/booktabs} --- for preparing high-quality tables.
Table captions are placed {\it above} the table.
Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best placement for them is typically the top of the page nearest their initial cite. To ensure this proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the environment \textbf{table} to enclose the table's contents and the table caption. The contents of the table itself must go in the \textbf{tabular} environment, to be aligned properly in rows and columns, with the desired horizontal and vertical rules. Again, detailed instructions on \textbf{tabular} material are found in the \textit{\LaTeX\ User's Guide}.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which Table~\ref{tab:freq} is included in the input file; compare the placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of this document.
\begin{table}
\caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
\label{tab:freq}
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\
\midrule
\O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\
$\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\
\$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\
$\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of the page's live area, use the environment \textbf{table*} to enclose the table's contents and the table caption. As with a single-column table, this wide table will ``float'' to a location deemed more desirable. Immediately following this sentence is the point at which Table~\ref{tab:commands} is included in the input file; again, it is instructive to compare the placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of this document.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Some Typical Commands}
\label{tab:commands}
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Command &A Number & Comments\\
\midrule
\texttt{{\char'134}author} & 100& Author \\
\texttt{{\char'134}table}& 300 & For tables\\
\texttt{{\char'134}table*}& 400& For wider tables\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Math Equations}
You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles:
inline, numbered or non-numbered display. Each of
the three are discussed in the next sections.
\subsection{Inline (In-text) Equations}
A formula that appears in the running text is called an
inline or in-text formula. It is produced by the
\textbf{math} environment, which can be
invoked with the usual \texttt{{\char'134}begin\,\ldots{\char'134}end}
construction or with the short form \texttt{\$\,\ldots\$}. You
can use any of the symbols and structures,
from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in
\LaTeX~\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}; this section will simply show a
few examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how
this equation:
\begin{math}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{math},
set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when
set in display style. (See next section).
\subsection{Display Equations}
A numbered display equation---one set off by vertical space from the
text and centered horizontally---is produced by the \textbf{equation}
environment. An unnumbered display equation is produced by the
\textbf{displaymath} environment.
Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols
and structures available in \LaTeX\@; this section will just
give a couple of examples of display equations in context.
First, consider the equation, shown as an inline equation above:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{equation}
Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in
the \textbf{displaymath}
environment. Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation:
\begin{displaymath}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} x + 1
\end{displaymath}
and follow it with another numbered equation:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_i=\int_{0}^{\pi+2} f
\end{equation}
just to demonstrate \LaTeX's able handling of numbering.
\section{Figures}
The ``\verb|figure|'' environment should be used for figures. One or more images can be placed within a figure. If your figure contains third-party material, you must clearly identify it as such, as shown in the example below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sample-franklin}
\caption{1907 Franklin Model D roadster. Photograph by Harris \& Ewing, Inc. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. (\url{https://goo.gl/VLCRBB}).}
\Description{The 1907 Franklin Model D roadster.}
\end{figure}
Your figures should contain a caption which describes the figure to the reader. Figure captions go below the figure. Your figures should {\bf also} include a description suitable for screen readers, to assist the visually-challenged to better understand your work.
Figure captions are placed {\it below} the figure.
\subsection{The ``Teaser Figure''}
A ``teaser figure'' is an image, or set of images in one figure, that are placed after all author and affiliation information, and before the body of the article, spanning the page. If you wish to have such a figure in your article, place the command immediately before the \verb|\maketitle| command:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{teaserfigure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sampleteaser}
\caption{figure caption}
\Description{figure description}
\end{teaserfigure}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Citations and Bibliographies}
The use of {\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08emT\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}\ for the preparation and formatting of one's references is strongly recommended. Authors' names should be complete --- use full first names (``Donald E. Knuth'') not initials (``D. E. Knuth'') --- and the salient identifying features of a reference should be included: title, year, volume, number, pages, article DOI, etc.
The bibliography is included in your source document with these two commands, placed just before the \verb|\end{document}| command:
\begin{verbatim}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
Image-based dynamic reconstruction addresses the modeling and estimation of the spatio-temporal relationships among non-stationary scene elements and the sensors observing them.
This work tackles estimating the geometry (i.e. the Euclidean coordinates) of a temporally evolving set of 3D points using as input unsynchronized 2D feature observations with known imaging geometry.
Our problem, which straddles both trajectory triangulation and image sequencing,
naturally arises in the context of uncoordinated distributed capture of an event (e.g. crowd-sourced images or video) and highlights a pair of open research questions:
{\em How to characterize and model spatio-temporal relationships among the observations in a data-dependent manner?}
{\em What role (if any) may available spatial and temporal priors play within the estimation process?}
The answer to both these questions is tightly coupled to the level of abstraction used to define temporal associations and the scope of the assumptions conferred upon our observations. More specifically, the temporal abstraction level may be quantitative or ordinal (i.e. capture time-stamps vs. sequencing), while the scope of the assumptions may be domain-specific (i.e. temporal sampling periodicity/frequency, choice of shape/trajectory basis) or cross-domain (physics-based priors on motion estimates).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.34, trim={0cm 2.5cm 0cm 1.5cm},clip]{background.jpg}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.39, trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm},clip]{GraphStructure2.jpg}
\caption
Multi-view capture produces a set of unorganized 2D observations. Our graph formulation of dynamic reconstruction jointly estimates sequencing and 3D geometry. Imagery adapted from \cite{rhodin2018learning}.}
\label{fig:Principle}
\end{figure}
Estimating either absolute or relative temporal values for our observations would require explicit assumptions on the observed scene dynamics and/or the availability of sampling temporal information (e.g. image time-stamps or sampling frequency priors).
In the absence of such information or priors, we strive to estimate
observation sequencing based on data-dependent adjacency relations defined by a pairwise affinity measure. Towards this end,
we make the following assumptions: {\em \bf A1}) 2D observations are
samples of the continuous motion of a 3D point set; {\em \bf A2}) the (unknown and arbitrary) temporal sampling density allows
approximate local linear interpolation of 3D geometry;
and {\em \bf A3}) temporal proximity implies spatial proximity, but not {\em vice-versa} (e.g. repetitive or self-intersecting motion).
Under such tenets, we can address multi-view capture scenarios comprised of unsynchronized image streams or the more general case of uncoordinated asynchronous photography.
We solve a dictionary learning instance enforcing a discrete differential geometry model, where each dictionary atom corresponds to a 3D estimate, while the set of sparse coefficients describes the spatio-temporal relations among our observations. Our contributions are:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep,topsep=0pt,parsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt]
\item A graph-theoretic formulation of the dynamic reconstruction problem, where 2D observations are mapped to nodes, 3D geometry are node attributes, and spatio-temporal affinities correspond to graph edges.
\item The definition and enforcement of spatio-temporal priors, (e.g. anisotropic smoothness, topological compactness/sparsity, and multi-view reconstructability) in terms of the discrete Laplace operator.
\item Integration of available per-stream (e.g. intra-video) sequencing info into global ordering priors enforced in terms of the Laplacian spectral signature.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related work}
Dynamic reconstruction in the absence of temporal information is an under-constrained problem akin to single view reconstruction \cite{avidan1999trajectory,avidan2000trajectory,han2004reconstruction,shashua1999trajectory,segal20003d,park20113d}.
Some prior work in trajectory triangulation operate under the assumptions of known sequencing info and/or constrained motion priors. Along these lines,
Avidan and Shashua \cite{avidan2000trajectory} estimate dynamic geometry from 2D observations of points constrained to linear and conical motions.
However, under the assumption of dense temporal motion sampling, the concept of motion smoothness has been successfully exploited \cite{park20103d,park20153d,zhu20113d,zhu2015convolutional,valmadre2012general,zheng2015sparse,zheng2017self,vo2016spatiotemporal,simon2014separable,simon2017kronecker}.
Park et al. \cite{park20103d} triangulate 3D point trajectories by the linear combination of Direct Cosine Transform trajectory bases with the constraint of a reprojection system. Such a trajectory basis method has low reconstructability when the number of the bases is insufficient and/or the motion correlation between object and camera is large. In \cite{park20153d}, Park et al. select number of bases by an N-fold cross validation scheme. Zhu et al. \cite{zhu20113d} apply $L_1$-norm regularization to the basis coefficients to force the sparsity of bases and improve the reconstructability by including a small number of keyframes, which requires user interaction. Valmadre et al. \cite{valmadre2012general} reduce the number of trajectory bases by setting a gain threshold depending on the basis null-space and propose a method using a high-pass filter to mitigate low reconstructability for scenarios having no missing 2D observations. Zheng et al. \cite{zheng2017self,zheng2015sparse} propose a dictionary learning method to estimate the 3D shape with partial sequencing info, assuming 3D geometry estimates may be approximated by local barycentric interpolation (i.e. {\em self-expressive} motion prior) and developed a bi-convex framework for jointly estimating 3D geometry and barycentric weights. However, uniform penalization of self-expressive residual error and fostering symmetric weight coefficients, handicap the approach against non-uniform density sampling. Vo et al. \cite{vo2016spatiotemporal} present a spatio-temporal bundle adjustment which jointly optimizes camera parameters, 3D static points, 3D dynamic trajectories and temporal alignment between cameras using explicit physics priors, but require frame-accurate initial time offset and low 2D noise. Efforts at developing more detailed spatio-temporal models within the context of NRSFM include \cite{agudo2018deformable, agudo2018scalable, agudo2019robust}.
Temporal alignment is a necessary pre-processing step for most dynamic 3D reconstruction methods. Current video synchronization or image sequencing \cite{basha2012photo,moses2013space,wedge2006motion,padua2010linear,elhayek2012feature,caspi2006feature} rely on the image 2D features, foregoing the recovery of the 3D structure. Feature-based sequencing methods like \cite{basha2012photo,wedge2006motion,tresadern2009video} make different assumptions on the underlying imaging geometry. For example, while \cite{basha2012photo} favors an approximately static imaging geometry, \cite{wedge2006motion} prefers viewing configurations with large baselines.
Basha et al. \cite{moses2013space} overcomes the limitation of static cameras and improves accuracy by leveraging the temporal info of frames in individual cameras. Padua et al. \cite{padua2010linear} determines spatio-temporal alignment among a partially order set of observation by framing the problem as mapping of $N$ observations into a single line in $\mathbb{R}^N$, which explicitly imposes a total ordering.
Unlike previous methods, Gaspar et al \cite{gaspar2014synchronization} propose a synchronization algorithm without tracking corresponding feature between video sequences. Instead, they synchronize two videos by the relative motion between two rigid objects. Tuytelaars et al. \cite{tuytelaars2004synchronizing}
determined sequencing based on the approximate 3D intersections of viewing rays under an affine reference frame.
Ji et al. \cite{ji2016spatio} jointly synchronize a pair of video sequences and reconstruct their commonly observed dense 3D structure by maximizing the spatio-temporal consistency of two-view pixel correspondences across video sequences.
\section{Graph-based Dynamic Reconstruction} \label{sec:framework}
For a set of 2D observations in a single image with known viewing parameters, there is an infinite set of plausible 3D geometry estimates which are compliant with a pinhole camera model. We posit that for the asynchronous multi-view dynamic reconstruction of smooth 3D motions, the constraints on each 3D estimate can be expressed in terms of its temporal neighborhood. That is, we aim to enforce spatial coherence among successive 3D observations without the reliance on instance-specific spatial or temporal models. It is at this point that we come to a {\em chicken-egg} problem, as we need to define a notion of temporal neighborhood in the context of uncontrolled asynchronous capture w/o timestamps or sampling frequency priors. To address this conundrum
we use spatial proximity as a proxy for temporal proximity, which (as prescribed by our third assumption, i.e. {\bf A3}) is not universally true. Moreover, given that observed events "happen" over a continuous 1D timeline, we would also like to generalize our notion {\em proximity} into one of {\em adjacency}, so as to be able to explicitly define the notion of a local neighborhood. Towards this end, we pose the dynamic 3D reconstruction problem in terms of discrete differential geometry concepts.
\subsection{Notation and Preliminaries}
\noinden
We consider
$P$ dynamic 3D points $\{\mathbf{X}_p\}$ observed in $N$ images $\{\mathcal I_n\}$
with known intrinsic and extrinsic camera matrices $\mathbf{K}_n$ and $\mathbf{M}_n$. The 2D observation of $\mathbf X_p $ in $\mathcal I_n$ is denoted by $\mathbf{x}_{n,p}$, while its 3D position is denoted by $\mathbf{X}_{n,p}$.
\noindent {\bf Euclidean Structure Matrix.} The position of all 3D points across all images is denoted by the matrix
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{X}_{11} & \dots & \mathbf{X}_{1P} \\
\vdots & \ddots &\vdots \\
\mathbf{X}_{N1} & \dots & \mathbf{X}_{NP}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where each row vector $\mathbf X_{np} \in \mathbb R^3$ specifies the 3D Euclidean coordinates of a point.
Each matrix row $\mathbb{X}_{n,:} \in \mathbb R^{3 \times P}$, represents the 3D shape of the $P$ points in frame $n$.
\noindent {\bf Structure Motion Graph.}
We define a fully connected graph $G = (V,E)$,
and map each input image $\mathcal I_n$ to a vertex $v_n \in V$.
A multi-value function $\phi(\cdot)$ maps a vertex into a point in the {\em shape space}, allowing the interpretation $\mathbb{X} = \left[\phi(v_1);\dots ; \phi(v_N)\right]$.
Edge weight values $e_{ij} \in E$ are defined by an affinity function $\alpha(\cdot)$ relating points in our shape space, such that $e_{ij}= \alpha_{ij} = \alpha\left(\phi(v_i), \phi(v_j)\right)$.
\noindent {\bf Discrete Laplace operator}. The Laplace operator $\Delta$ is a second differential operator in $n-$dimensional Euclidean space, which in Cartesian coordinates equals to the sum of unmixed second partial derivatives.
For a weighted {\em undirected} graph $G = (V,E)$,
the discrete Laplace operator is defined in terms of the Laplacian matrix:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{L} = \mathbb{L}_{[\mathbb{A}]} = \mathbb{D} - \mathbb{A} = diag(\mathbb{A} \cdot \mathbf{1} ) - \mathbb{A}
\label{Laplace}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{A}$ is the graph's symmetric affinity matrix, whose values $\mathbb{A}_{ij}$ correspond to the edge weights $e_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$, and $\mathbb{D}$ is the graph's diagonal degree matrix, whose values are the sum of the corresponding row in $\mathbb{A}$.
\footnote{Alternative definitions have been used in \cite{fogel2014serialrank,wang2013grassmannian,zeng2018deep,sorkine2005laplacian,zheng2016spectral,chen2007directed,chung2005laplacians}.}
$\mathbb{L}$ is positive semi-definite, yielding $\mathbf{x}^\top \mathbb{L}\mathbf{x}\geq 0, \;\forall \mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
When convenient, we obviate the explicit dependence of $\mathbb{L}$ on $\mathbb{A}$.
\noindent {\bf Affinity Matrix Decomposition}. The pairwise affinity function $\alpha(\cdot)$ (relating our 3D estimates) is implicitly defined in terms of the estimated entries $\mathbb{A}_{ij}$. Importantly, these affinity values also encode the graph's local topology (i.e. connectivity). Given the {\em a priori} unknown topology and distribution of our 3D estimates, we make the following design choices: 1) $\mathbb{A}$ is not assumed to be symmetric, yielding a directed structure graph. 2) we explicitly model the decomposition $\mathbb{A}=\mathbb{D}\mathbb{W}$, which follows from Eq. (\ref{Laplace}),
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{L} = \mathbb{D} - \mathbb{A} = \mathbb{D}(\mathbb{I}-\mathbb{W})
\label{LapDecomp}
\end{equation}
This decomposition decouples the estimation of each node's degree value (encoded in $\mathbb{D}$), from the {\em relative} affinity weight values for the node's local neighborhood (encoded in $\mathbb{W}$).
\subsection{Geometric Rationale}
We leverage the interdependencies among our 3D motion estimates $\mathbb X$ and its discrete Laplace operator $\mathbb L$, through an optimization framework for their joint estimation.
In practice, $\mathbb L$ describes the topology of the given structure $\mathbb X$ in terms of an affinity function $\alpha(\cdot)$.
The values $\alpha_{ij}$ constitute the entries of the affinity matrix $\mathbb A_{ij}$ relating the 3D shapes observed at frames $i$ and $j$. These individual values are determined through the estimation of the $\mathbb D$ and $\mathbb W$ variables within our optimization framework. Hence, the affinity $\alpha$ function will not be explicitly defined, but rather its values will be instantiated from the results of our optimization, which builds upon the following geometric observations.
\begin{remark}[Anisotropic Smoothness Prior
The norm of the Laplacian's linear form ($\mathbb {LX}$), tends to vanish when any given function value $\phi(v_i)$ approximates the (affinity-weighted) average of $\phi(v_{j \neq i})$ in its local neighborhood. This follows from the point-wise Laplacian definition
\begin{equation}
\left[\mathbb { LX } \right]_{i,:}=(\Delta\phi)(v_i) = \sum\nolimits_{j}^{N} \mathbb{A}_{ij}\left[\phi(v_i)-\phi(v_j)\right]
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
This implies approximately linear 3D motion segments allow accurate barycentric interpolation from as little as two neighboring 3D motion samples. Conversely, the penalty for poorly approximated non-linear motion segments may be mitigated by the multiplicative contribution of the degree value towards the affinity value, i.e. $\mathbb{A}_{ij} = \mathbb{D}_{ii} \mathbb{W}_{ij}$
\begin{remark}[Collapsing Neighborhood Prior]
The trace of the Laplacian's quadratic form ($\mathbb {X^{\top}LX}$) tends to vanish as the local neighborhood becomes sparser and more compact, this follows from
\begin{equation}
tr(\mathbb{X}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbb{X}) = \sum\nolimits_{i,j}^{N}\mathbb{A}_{ij}||\phi(v_i)-\phi(v_j)||_2^2
\label{EqTraceXLX}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
This implies sparsity in global affinity, while non-zero $\mathbb{A}_{ij}$ values imply proximity among 3D samples $\mathbb{X}_{i,:}$ and $\mathbb{X}_{j,:}$.
\begin{remark}[Spectral Sequencing Prior]
Any line mapping of $V$ into a vector $\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ constitutes an ordering of the graph vertices. Accordingly, when $\mathbf{f}$ is a known and constant affinity preserving mapping, the non-trivial minimization of $\mathbf{f}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbf{f}$ will yield entries in $\mathbb{L}$ approximating the affinities encoded in $\mathbf{f}$. This follows from
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbf{f} = \sum\nolimits_{i,j}^{N}\mathbb{A}_{ij}\left(f_i-f_j\right)^2
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
This implies enforcing global sequencing priors by coupling $\mathbb{L}$'s spectral signature to an input vector $\mathbf f$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\fcolorbox{black}{black}{\includegraphics[scale = 0.34]{XLXterm.jpg}}
\caption{Geometry of {\bf Remarks 1} \& {\bf 2}. At top: Arrows denote selected neighboring samples and dashed lines their convex hull. At bottom: Corresponding graph edge structure.}
\label{fig:XLX}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimization Cost Function}
Based on the geometric properties encoded by the discrete Laplace operator the formulate the optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\underset{\mathbb{X},\mathbb{L}}{\text{min}} \quad \mathcal{S} \left(\mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}\right)+ \mathcal{T} \left(\mathbb{X}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbb{X}\right) + \mathcal{R}\left(\mathbb L, \Theta \right) + \mathcal{O}\left(\mathbb X, \Theta \right),
\label{LapOptOrigXL}
\end{equation}
where
$\Theta=\{ \{\mathbf{x}_{np}\},\{\mathbf{K}_n\},\{\mathbf{M}_n\} \}$ denotes the aggregation of all input 2D observations and their camera parameters. Each cost function term addresses a particular aspect of our optimization. $\mathcal{S}(\cdot)$ fosters local smoothness, $\mathcal{T}(\cdot)$ fosters a linear topological structure, $\mathcal{R}(\cdot)$ fosters strong convergence among viewing rays, while $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$ reduces reprojection errors. For simplicity, we define the problem variables in terms of $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{X}$.
However, given the explicit dependence of $\mathbb{L}$ on $\mathbb{A}$, we'll redefine the joint optimization of Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}), as a tri-convex optimization problem over $\mathbb{X}$, $\mathbb{D}$, and $\mathbb{W}$.
The next two sections describe the functional models ($\mathcal{S}$, $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{R}$, and $\mathcal{O}$) utilized in Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}), the structure of the estimation variables ($\mathbb{X}$, $\mathbb{D}$, and $\mathbb{W}$), and the constraints applicable to them. We present two variants of our general framework, addressing, respectively, the absence and the estimation of global temporal sequencing priors on the elements of $\{\mathcal I_n\}$.
\section{Solving for Asynchronous Photography}
We consider an unordered image set $\{\mathcal I_n\}$, and rely on the {\em Collapsing Neighborhood Prior} to estimate an affinity function matrix whose connectivity approximates a chain-structure connectivity.
We interpret such connectivity as temporal ordering relations among our observations.
\noindent {\bf Enforcing anisotropic smoothness.}
The functional form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S} \left(\mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}\right) = \frac{1}{P}||\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{I}-\mathbb{W})\mathbb{X}||_F^2
\end{equation}
defines the first term of Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}).
Minimizing $\mathcal{S}$ w.r.t. $\mathbb{X}$ {\em attracts} function values $\phi(v_i)$ towards the convex hull defined by all $\phi(v_{j \neq i})$ in its local neighborhood.
Conversely, minimizing $\mathcal{S}$ w.r.t. $\mathbb{L}$ (i.e. $\mathbb{D}$, $\mathbb{W}$) fosters the {\em selection} of neighboring nodes whose mappings $\phi(v_{j \neq i})$ facilitate barycentric interpolation.
Here, selection refers to assigning non-zero values $\mathbb{A}_{ij}$ in the affinity matrix.
The values in each row of $\mathbb{W}$ (i.e. $\mathbb{W}_{i,:}$) represent the relative affinity weights for $v_i$. Hence, we enforce 1) the sum of each row equal to 1, and 2) strict non-negativity of all entries in $\mathbb{W}$.Moreover, $\mathbb{D}$ represents the out-degree for each node in the directed graph, akin to a global density estimate. We decouple node degree values from the relative affinity weights in $\mathbb{W}$. We enforce strictly positive degree values $\mathbb{D}_{ii} \geq \epsilon$, requiring connectivity to at least one adjacent node.
\noindent {\bf Enforcing Neighborhood Locality.}
For a directed graph, we define the trace of the Laplacian quadratic form as
\begin{equation}
tr(\mathbb{X}^\top\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}\mathbb{X}) = \sum\nolimits_{i,j}^{N}\mathbb{A}_{ij}||\mathbb{X}_{i,:}-\mathbb{X}_{j,:}||_2^2\\
\end{equation}
Where
$ \overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}} = \mathbb{L}_{[\mathbb{A}+\mathbb{A}^{\top}]}$ combines the outdegree and indegree Laplacian matrix, and is compliant with the definition in Eq. (\ref{EqTraceXLX}).
Diagonal entries of the $N \times N$ matrix $\mathbb{X}^\top\mathbb{L}_{[\mathbb{A}+\mathbb{A}^{\top}]}\mathbb{X}$ are the Laplacian quadratic form for each dimension of $\phi()$,
and the functional form of $\mathcal T$ in Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) is given by their sum:
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
\mathcal{T} \left(\mathbb{X}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbb{X}\right) = \frac{\lambda_1}{P}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}^{N}\mathbb{D}_{ii}\mathbb{W}_{ij}||\mathbb{X}_{i,:}-\mathbb{X}_{j,:}||_2^2
\label{EqT_XLX}
\end{split}\end{equation}
Minimizing $\mathcal{T}$ w.r.t. $\mathbb{X}$ (i.e. fixing $\mathbb{A}$) {\em attracts} the estimates $\phi(v_{j \neq i})$ of neighboring elements to be {\em near} to $\phi(v_{i})$.
Conversely, minimizing $\mathcal{T}$ w.r.t. $\mathbb{A}$, fosters the {\em selection} of nearby nodes to form a compact neighborhood, as defined by the weighted sum of the magnitude of the difference vectors $\phi(v_i) - \phi(v_{j \neq i})$, $ \forall \mathbb{A}_{ij}\neq 0$.
\noindent {\bf Enforcing Observation Ray Constrains.}
We penalize the distance of a 3D point $\mathbb X_{np}$ to its known viewing ray using
$ \mathbf{d}_{np} = ||(\mathbf{X}_{np} - \mathbf{C}_{n})\times\mathbf{r}_{np}||_2,$
where $\mathbf{r}_{np}$ is a unit vector parallel to the viewing ray $ \mathbf{R}_n^\top \mathbf{K}_n^{-1}[\mathbf{x}_{np}^\top \quad 1]^\top $ and camera pose parameters are given by $\mathbf{M}_n = [\mathbf{R}_n|-\mathbf{R}_n\mathbf{C}_n]$ \cite{zheng2017self}.
The functional form of $\mathcal{O}$ from Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}\left(\mathbb X, \Theta \right) = \sum\nolimits_{n,p}^{N,P} \frac{\lambda_2}{NP}||\mathbf{d}_{np}||_2^2 ,
\end{equation}
which is quadratic for $\mathbb{X}$. The value of $\lambda_2$ depends on the 2D noise level and the mean camera-to-scene distance.\\
\noindent {\bf Enforcing Multi-view Reconstructability}.
Viewing geometry plays a determinant role in the overall accuracy of our 3D estimates (see section \ref{SecRecAcc} for a detailed analysis). Intuitively, for moderate-to-high 2D noise levels, the selection of temporally adjacent cameras with small baselines will amplify 3D estimation error. In order to foster the selection of cameras having favorable convergence angles among viewing rays corresponding to the same feature track, we define the functional form of $\mathbb R$ from Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}\left(\mathbb L, \Theta \right) = \frac{\lambda_3}{NP} \sum\nolimits_{i,j,p}^{N,N,P} \left(\mathbb D_{ii} \mathbb W_{ij} \left(\mathbf r_{ip} \cdot \mathbf r_{jp} \right)\right)^2
\end{equation}
\section{Solving for Unsynchronized Image Streams} \label{sequencing}
Given an image set comprised of the aggregation of multiple image streams, we ascertain partial sequencing (i.e. within disjoint image subsets). We use this info in two different ways: First, we enforce spatial smoothness among successive observations from a common stream. Second, {\em we integrate disjoint local sequences into a global sequencing estimate we enforce through our optimization}. \\
\noindent {\bf Enforcing Intra-Sequence Coherence}.
We define $\mathbb{W} = \mathbb{W}_{var} + \mathbb{W}_{prior}$, where $\mathbb{W}_{var}$ constitutes the variable component of our estimation, while $\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ encodes small additive values for the immediately prior and next frames from the same image stream. The collapsing neighborhood prior will enforce such {\em pseudo-adjacent} 3D estimates to be similar. \\
\noindent {\bf Manipulating the Spectral Signature of $\mathbb{L}$}.
For a given global sequencing prior, in the form of a line embedding $\mathbf f \in \mathbb R^N$ of all our graph nodes, we modify Eq. (\ref{EqT_XLX}) to be
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
\mathcal{T} \left(\mathbf{f}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbf{f}\right) = \frac{\lambda_1}{P}\sum\nolimits_{i,j}^{N}\mathbb{D}_{ii}\mathbb{W}_{ij}\left(\mathbf{f}_{i}-\mathbf{f}_{j}\right)^2.
\end{split}\label{T-fLf}\end{equation}
We now describe how we determine such line embedding $\mathbf f$. \\
\noindent {\bf Integrating Global Sequencing Priors}.
Our goal is to integrate preliminary (e.g. initialization) geometry estimates, $\mathbb{X}^{init}$, with reliable but partial sequencing information (e.g. single video frame sequencing) into a global sequencing prior. Towards this end, we pose image sequencing from a given 3D structure $\mathbb{X}$ as a dimensionality reduction instance, where the goal is to find a line mapping which preserves (as much as possible) pairwise proximity relations among 3D estimates.
While using Euclidean distance as a pairwise proximity measure is suitable for approximately linear motion, non-linear motion manifolds (i.e. repetitive or self-intersecting motions) may collapse temporally distant observations to proximal locations in the line embedding. \\
\noindent {\bf Arc Distance through Dynamic Time Warping}. We define approximate 3D trajectory {\em arc distance} for shapes within sequenced images streams, as the sum of 3D line segment lengths among adjacent observations, see Fig. \ref{fig:DTW}. To generalize this notion across image streams, we perform global approximate inter-sequence registration through Dynamic Time Warping (DTW). Our goal is to assign to each 3D estimate $t^a_i$ along trajectory $a$ the closest line segment $(t^b_j,t^b_{j+1})$ in each of the other trajectories $b \neq a$, without violating any sequencing constraints in our assignments, which we define
\begin{equation}
t^a_i \rightarrow (t^b_j,t^b_{j+1}) \quad \nexists \quad t^a_{k > i} \rightarrow (t^b_{l<j}, t^b_{l+1}) \;\; \forall a \neq b
\end{equation}
Once all assignments are made, inter-sequence arc-length between $t^a_i$ and $t^b_l$ is trivially computed as the sum of 1) distance to the element $t^b_*$ in the line segment $(t^b_j, t^b_{j+1})$ closest to the $t^b_l$, plus 2) the intra-sequence arc distance between $t^b_{*}$ and $t^b_{l}$. Fig. \ref{fig:ArcDistDiff} illustrates the arc distance from points between $t^a_i$ and $t^b_l$ as the length of green line.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[t!]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.19]{DTW.jpg}
\caption{Matching with DTW.}
\label{fig:DTW}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t!]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.19]{ArcD.jpg}
\caption{Arc distance}
\label{fig:ArcDistDiff}
\end{subfigure}}
\caption{Arc distance between two observations of the same 3D point across different image streams.}
\end{figure}
\noindent {\bf Dimensionality Reduction Methods.}
We use arc length to define a pair-wise distance matrix ${\mathbb Z}$, from which we
attain a vector embedding $\mathbf f \in \mathbb R^n$ through Spectral Ranking (SR) \cite{fogel2014serialrank,chung1997spectral} and Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) \cite{abdi2007metric}.
Sequencing is attained by sorting $\mathbf f$.
Alternatively, we interpret ${\mathbb Z}$ as a complete graph's weight matrix and find the approximate shortest Hamiltonian path (SHP).
Table \ref{tab:Kendall} compares these methods operating on ${\mathbb Z}$ and the Euclidean distance matrix ${\mathbb{Z}^E}$, both matrices were computed from $\mathbb{X}^{init}$ and $\mathbb{X}^{opt}$, which denote respectively, the initial 3D structure
and the estimated 3D structure after our optimization.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Linear motion} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Nonlinear motion} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Repeating motion}\\
\hhline{~~------}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & $\mathbb{X}^{init}$ & $\mathbb{X}^{opt}$ & $\mathbb{X}^{init}$ & $\mathbb{X}^{opt}$ & $\mathbb{X}^{init}$ & $\mathbb{X}^{opt}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SR} & $\mathbb{Z}^E$ & 0.9956 & 0.9996 & 0.9807 & 0.9991 & 0.6754 & 0.7140\\
\hhline{~-------}
&$\mathbb{Z}$& 0.9965 & 1 & 0.9570 & 1 & 0.9711 & 0.9934\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{MDS}&$\mathbb{Z}^E$& 0.9943 & 1 & 0.7614 & 0.7044 & 0.6421 & 0.6553\\
\hhline{~-------}
&$\mathbb{Z}$& 0.9961 & 1 & 0.8741 & 1 & 0.9316 & 0.9732\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SHP}&$\mathbb{Z}^E$& 1 & 1 & 0.4368 & 0.9996 & 0.3329 & 0.7912\\
\hhline{~-------}
&$\mathbb{Z}$& 1 & 1 & 0.5325 & 0.9996 & 0.3947 & 0.7934\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Kendall rank correlation {\em vs.} ground truth ordering for sequencing attained from initial and estimated structure.}
\label{tab:Kendall}
\end{table}
\section{Optimization} \label{Sec:Optimization}
Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) is a tri-convex function for variable blocks $\mathbb{X}$, $\mathbb{W}$ and $\mathbb{D}$.
We use the ACS \cite{gorski2007biconvex} strategy, alternatively optimizing over each variable block while fixing the other two. For the first iteration, we initialize $\mathbb{D}$ and $\mathbb{X}$ (to be described), then we alternatively optimize over each variable blocks in the order of $\mathbb{W}$, $\mathbb{D}$ and $\mathbb{X}$ until (thresholded) convergence of our cost function among successive iterations.
\noindent {\bf Optimizing over $\mathbb{X}$}.
While variable blocks $\mathbb{W}$ and $\mathbb{D}$ are fixed, the cost function (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) is a quadratic equation for block $\mathbb{X}$ without any constraints. The solution for this quadratic programming problem is the set of variable values found at the zeros of the derivative of the cost function.
\noindent {\bf Optimizing over $\mathbb{W}$.}
With $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{D}$ fixed, minimizing $\mathcal{S} \left(\mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}\right)$, $\mathcal{T} \left(\mathbb{X}^\top\mathbb{L}\mathbb{X}\right)$, $\mathcal{O}\left(\mathbb X, \Theta \right)$ and $\mathcal{R}\left(\mathbb L, \Theta \right)$, respectively, yield a quadratic equation, linear equation and constant value for $\mathbb{W}$, making the cost function a quadratic equation for $\mathbb{W}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbb{W}}{ \text{min}
& & \frac{1}{P}|| \mathbb{D}( \mathbb{I}- \mathbb{W})\mathbb{X}||_F^2 + \frac{\lambda_1}{P}\sum\limits_{ij}^N\mathbb{D}_{ii}\mathbb{W}_{ij}||\mathbb{X}_{i,:}-\mathbb{X}_{j,:}||_2^2 \\
&&& + \frac{\lambda_3}{NP} \sum\nolimits_{i,j,p}^{N,N,P} \left(\mathbb D_{ii} \mathbb W_{ij} \left(\mathbf r_{ip} \cdot \mathbf r_{jp} \right)\right)^2 \\
& \text{s.t.}
& & \mathbb{W} \mathbf{1}_{N \times 1} = \mathbf{1}_{N \times 1}, \quad \mathbb{W} \geq 0
\label{CostFunForW}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Each row of $\mathbb{W}$ is independent and is solved as a quadratic programming problem with linear constrains. We optimize each row in parallel by the Active-Set method in \cite{chen2014fast}.
\noindent {\bf Optimizing over $\mathbb{D}$.}
When $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{W}$ are fixed, optimizing Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) yields a quadratic equation in terms of the diagonal values of $\mathbb{D}$. We optimize the same equation as Eq. (\ref{CostFunForW}), but with linear constrains $\{tr(\mathbb{D}) = 1, \mathbb{D} \geq 0\}$, normalizing the outdegree sum to one.
\noindent {\bf Optimizing for the spectral sequencing prior} \label{Sec:fLf}
When optimizing over $\mathbb{W}$ or $\mathbb{D}$,
the matrix $\mathbb{X}$ is replaced by a vector $\mathbf{f}$, computed from the current estimate of $\mathbb{X}$, through one of the dimensionality reduction methods described earlier (e.g. MDS applied to $\mathbb Z$)
Hence, the second term becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}^\top\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}\mathbf{f} = \sum\nolimits_{ij}^N\mathbb{D}_{ii}\mathbb{W}_{ij}(\mathbf{f}_{i}-\mathbf{f}_{j})^2\\
\label{fLf}
\end{equation}
When using MDS as the dimensionality reduction method, $\mathbf{f}$ approximately preserves the pairwise Arc distance, allowing direct implementation within Eq. (\ref{fLf}). When using SR, $\mathbf{f}$ corresponds to the graph's Fiedler vector, whose entry values range from -1 to 1; requiring a uniform scaling in order to match the range of the current structure estimate $\mathbb{X}$.
\noindent {\bf Initialization.} \label{Initial}
We initialize the degree matrix to be $\mathbb D_{ii}=1/N$.
We initialize the 3D structure $\mathbb{X}^{init}_{n,:}$ observed in $\mathcal I_{n}$ by the approximate two-view pseudo-triangulation of each viewing ray $\mathbf{r}_{np}$ with its corresponding viewing ray $\mathbf{r^*}_{m \neq n,p}$ from the {\em most convergent} image $\mathcal I_{m}$, which is the $\mathcal I_{m}$ with the minimum aggregated pseudo-triangulation error when considering all commonly observed points.
\section{Structure Reconstruction Accuracy. \label{SecRecAcc}}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.28,trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm},clip]{B_term_Experiment.jpg}
\caption{Convergence angle $\theta$}
\label{fig:Angle between cameras}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1.5em}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.22\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.22]{B_term_Comb.jpg}
\caption{$\mathbb B$ term analysis}
\label{fig:Bterm}
\end{subfigure}}
\hspace{2em}
\centering
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{bt_term_experiment.jpg}
\caption{Incidence angle $\beta$}
\label{fig:Angle between ray and vector of direction changing}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.1em}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{bt_term_Comb.jpg}
\caption{$\mathbf b$ term analysis}
\label{fig:bterm}
\end{subfigure}}
\caption{
In (a,b) error bounds specified in Eq. (\ref{ReconBound}) get "tighter" and reconstruction error is reduced when neighboring viewing rays near orthogonality. In (c,d) as the angle $\beta$ is close to $\pi/2$, both reconstruction error and $\mathbf{||b||}_2$ decrease.}
\label{fig:Term B}
\end{figure*}
We analyze how the Lapalacian linear and quadratic forms influence the accuracy of our estimates of $\mathbb{X}$, assuming:
1) $\mathbb{L}$ is fixed, 2) encodes ground truth temporal adjacency, and 3) noise free 2D observations.
This equates to optimizing Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) while omitting terms $\mathcal O$ and $\mathcal R$, yielding
\begin{equation}
\underset{\mathbb{X}}{\text{min}} \quad \frac{1}{P}||\mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}||_F^2 +\frac{\lambda_1}{P}tr(\mathbb{X}^\top \overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}} \mathbb{X})
\label{Eq:AnalyLapQuad}
\end{equation}
We denote the ground truth structure as $\mathbb{X}^*$ and since each point is independently estimated, we analyze the condition of one point per shape. Then, $\mathbb{X}$ as a point along a viewing ray is
$ \mathbb{X}_{n,:} = \mathbb{X}^*_{n,:} + l_n \mathbf{r}_n, $
where the unknown variables $l_n$ are the signed distance from ground truth along the viewing ray, and $|\mathbf l|$ is the reconstruction error (i.e. depth error).
Eq. (\ref{Eq:AnalyLapQuad}) is an unconstrained quadratic programming problem, solved by setting the derivative over $l$ to zero; yielding to
\begin{align}
\mathbb{B}\mathbf{l} &= \mathbf{b}
\label{Eq:DerivaCost} \\
\mathbb{B} &= (\mathbb{L}^{ \top} \mathbb{L}+ \lambda_1 \overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}) \odot
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{r}_1^\top \mathbf{r}_1 & \dots & \mathbf{r}_N^\top \mathbf{r}_1 \\
\vdots & \ddots &\vdots \\
\mathbf{r}_1^\top \mathbf{r}_N & \dots & \mathbf{r}_N^\top \mathbf{r}_N
\end{bmatrix}
\label{Eq:B term} \\
\mathbf b_n &= (\mathbb{L}^{\top}_{:,n} \mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}^* + \lambda_1\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}_{n,:} \mathbb{X}^*) \mathbf{r}_n
\label{Eq:b term}
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{B}$ is an $N \times N$ matrix and $\mathbf b$ is an $N \times 1$ vector whose $n$-th element is $\mathbf b_n$,
and $\mathbb{L}_{:,n}$ denotes the $n$-th column of $\mathbb{L}$ and $\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}_{n,:}$ denotes the $n$-th row. From Eq. (\ref{Eq:DerivaCost}), we attain the lower and upper bounds for reconstruction error as
\begin{equation}
||\mathbb{B}||_2^{-1}||\mathbf{b}||_2 \leq ||\mathbf{l}||_2 \leq ||\mathbb{B}^{-1}||_2||\mathbf{b}||_2
\label{ReconBound}
\end{equation}
\noindent {\bf Imaging geometry convergence.}
We consider two cameras alternating the
capture of a motion sequence, which are placed sufficiently far
from the motion center $\mathbf{c}$, such that the viewing ray convergence angle for all joints can be approximated by the angle $\theta$ between the cameras to the motion center. We vary $\theta$ from 0 to $\pi$ as in Fig. \ref{fig:Angle between cameras}.and evaluate the reconstruction error and upper bounds, which as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Bterm} decrease as viewing rays approach orthogonality.
\noindent{\bf 3D motion observability.}
The vector $\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}_{n,:} \mathbb{X}^*$ in Eq. (\ref{Eq:b term}), lies on a local motion plane formed by $\mathbb{X}^*_{n,:}$ and it's two neighboring points. Similarly,each row in $\mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}^*$ will also be a vector on a local motion plane. For
smooth motion under dense sampling, a triplet of successive local motion planes can be approximated by a common 3D plane $\pi_n$. Hence, the vector $\mathbb{L}^{\top}_{:,n} \mathbb{L} \mathbb{X}^* + \lambda_1\overset{\text{\tiny$\leftrightarrow$}}{\mathbb{L}}_{n,:} \mathbb{X}^* $ will be contained in $\pi_n$, yielding smaller values of $\mathbf b_n$ as $\pi_n$ and the viewing rays $\mathbf r_n$ near orthogonality.In Fig. \ref{fig:Angle between ray and vector of direction changing}, we consider a circle motion observed by two cameras with constant convergence angle, pointing to the motion center. In this configuration, $||\mathbb{B}||_2^{-1}$ and $||\mathbb{B}^{-1}||_2$ are nearly constant. We vary the angle $\beta$ between the viewing directions and the motion plane $\pi_n$. Fig. \ref{fig:bterm} shows more accurate reconstruction is attained for viewing directions near orthogonal to the motion plane.
\section{Experiments}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.6\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.775]{legend3.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\fbox{\hspace{0.3cm}\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.245\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{Noise.jpg}
\caption{Noise level}
\label{fig:DiffNoise}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.245\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{Framerate.jpg}
\caption{Frame rates}
\label{fig:DiffFreq}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.245\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{MissingJoints.jpg}
\caption{Missing points}
\label{fig:DiffMissing}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.245\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{FrameDrop.jpg}
\caption{Nonuniform density}
\label{fig:DiffFrameDrop}
\end{subfigure}}
\caption{Reconstruction error for motion capture data under different conditions. Reported averages over 20 executions.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!] {0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.06, trim={7cm 7cm 7cm 7cm},clip]{051_1.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.13]{fram51.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.06, trim={7cm 7cm 7cm 7cm},clip]{080_2.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.13]{fram80.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.06, trim={7cm 7.8cm 7cm 6.2cm},clip]{105_5.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.12]{fram105.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.06, trim={7cm 7.8cm 7cm 6.2cm},clip]{118_6.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.138]{fram118.jpg} \quad
\caption{ Juggler.}
\label{fig:Juggler}
\end{subfigure}}
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.368, resolution = 72]{climb_comb.jpg} \quad
\includegraphics[scale = 0.48]{climb_traj.jpg}
\caption{Climb}
\label{fig:Climb}
\end{subfigure}}
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.295, resolution = 72]{Ski_comb1.jpg}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.345]{Ski_traj.jpg}
\caption{Ski}
\label{fig:Ski}
\end{subfigure}}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.8\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&data type & motion type & solver type & number of cameras & number of frames & number of joints & frame rate & kendall rank correlation \\
\hline
Juggler & unsynchronized videos & repeating motion & DLOE+MDS+$\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ & 4 & 80 & 18 & 6.25 & 0.8816 \\
\hline
Climb & unsynchronized images & linear motion & DLOE+MDS+$\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ & 5 & 27 & 45 & N/A & 0.8689\\
\hline
Ski & unsynchronized videos & nonlinear motion & DLOE+MDS+$\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ & 6 & 137 & 17 & N/A & 0.9526\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Experiments on multi-view image capture. All datasets were devoid of concurrent observations. }
\label{fig_MultiViewDatasets}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.52\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.431\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.57, resolution = 72]{segmentation_comb.jpg}
\end{minipage}
\qquad
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.2\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.082, resolution = 72]{segmentation_comb2.png}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.3]{segmentation_traj.jpg}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Event segmentation \label{fig_EventSegmentation}}
\end{subfigure}}
\hspace{0.15cm}
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.29, resolution = 72]{multperson_comb2.jpg}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.1\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.075, resolution = 72]{multperson_AmatComb2.png}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.3]{multperson_traj.jpg}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Multi-Target scenario \label{fig_MultiPerson} }
\end{subfigure}}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.8\textwidth}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&data type & motion type & solver type & number of cameras & number of frames & number of joints & frame rate & kendall rank correlation \\
\hline
dance & unsynchronized videos & nonlinear motion & DLOE+$\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ & 4 & 300 & 15 & 7.5 & 0.9802 \\
\hline
multi-person & independent images & nonlinear motion& DLOE+$\mathbb{W}_{prior}$ & 4 & 100 & 15 & 7.5 & 1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on Dancing and Toddler \cite{joo2017panoptic}. Disjoint Dancing segments form an input datum. Spectral visualization of estimated affinity matrix reveal a triplet of clusters. For Toddler, we use DLOE for instance identification, see text for details.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Motion Capture Datasets} \label{Artificial}
We synthesize 2D features of human 3D motions for 31 joints with frame rates of 120 Hz \cite{muller2007documentation}. We choose 10 sample motions, each having on average $\sim$300 frames. We use the 3D joint positions as ground truth dynamic structure and project them to each frame on four virtual cameras as 2D observations. All cameras have $1000 \times 1000$ resolution and 1000 focal length, are static with a distance of 3 meters around the motion center. The four {\bf cameras are unsynchronized}, with frame rate up to 30 Hz. Accuracy is quantified by mean 3D reconstruction error.
Our method discrete Laplace operator estimation (DLOE) is compared against self-expressive dictionary learning (SEDL)\cite{zheng2017self}, trajectory basis (TB)\cite{park20153d}, high-pass filter (HPF)\cite{valmadre2012general} and the pseudo-triangulation approach in Sec. \ref{Sec:Optimization}. SEDL requires partial sequencing information. TB and HPF require complete ground truth sequencing.
We include a version of our method leveraging ground truth sequencing by enforcing structural constraints on $\mathbb W$ similarly to HPF.
\noindent {\bf Varying 2D noise}. We add white noise on the 2d observation with std. dev. from 1 to 5 pixels. The parameters $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are fixed as 0.0015 and 0.02. Per Fig. \ref{fig:DiffNoise}, reconstruction accuracy degrades as the 2d observation error increases. Our method is competitive with frameworks requiring sequencing info such as TB and HPF.
\noindent {\bf Varying frame rates}. We temporally downsample the motion capture datasets
and perform experiments at frames rates of 30 Hz, 15Hz and 7.5 Hz, without 2D observation noise. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DiffFreq}, without sequencing info, our method outperforms SEDL for lower frame rates. Results for methods using full sequencing info are comparable.\\
\noindent {\bf Missing data}. We randomly decimate 10\% to 50\% of total 3D points before projection onto the virtual cameras. Reconstruction error comparisons are restricted to SEDL and TB, as other methods don't recover missing joints. Per Fig. \ref{fig:DiffMissing}, our method has lower reconstruction error, across all missing data levels, compared to SEDL with partial sequencing info and TB with full sequencing info. \\
\noindent {\bf Non-uniform density}. We randomly drop 10\% to 50\% of total frames from the motion sequence. The reconstruction error increases disproportionately for the other methods compared to ours, as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:DiffFrameDrop}. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.23\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.08, trim={2.5cm 0.8cm 2cm 2cm},clip]{RunningTime.jpg}
\caption{Single iteration run time \label{fig:Running time}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[ht!]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.155, trim={4cm 0cm 4cm 0cm},clip]{ablation.jpg}
\caption{Ablation analysis}
\label{fig:Ablation}
\end{subfigure}}
\caption{Optimization run time and cost function ablation}
\end{figure}
\noindent {\bf Execution run times}. \label{Runtime}
Average run times for our Matlab implementation on an Intel i7-8700K CPU for optimizing each of our three variables are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:Running time}, reconstructing $P=31$ features over a variable number of frames $N$. Time complexity for optimizing over $\mathbb{D}$ using an Active-Set method \cite{chen2014fast} is ${O}(min(3P,N)(PN+a^2))$, where $a$ is the number of non-zero values in the active-set. However, the number of estimation variables for this stage is only $N$. Optimizing $\mathbb{W}$ takes ${O}(min(3P,N)(PN+a^2)N)$ since we use the same solver for each row of $\mathbb{W}$.Optimizing over $\mathbb{X}$ is an unconstrained convex quadratic programming problem equating to solving a linear system of equations with time complexity of ${O}((NP)^3)$.
Average running time for minimizing either $\mathbb{X}$ or $\mathbb{W}$ are smaller due to the sparsity of $\mathbb{W}$.
Total number of iterations depends on initialization quality, reported experiments ran an average of 62.26 iterations. \\
\noindent {\bf Ablation Analysis. } \label{Ablation}
We analyze the contribution of the different terms in Eq. (\ref{LapOptOrigXL}) toward reconstruction accuracy for scenarios of moderate-to-high 2D noise levels. Fig. \ref{fig:Ablation} shows results for multiple variants. The observation ray term $\mathcal O$ is common to all variants. Best performance is achieved by the instance optimizing over all geometric terms.
\subsection{Multi-view Video and Image Datasets} \label{Sec_RealData}
Experiments on imagery with known camera geometry include Juggler\cite{ballan2010unstructured}, Climb \cite{park20103d} and Ski\cite{rhodin2018learning} datasets. {\em We unsynchronized images by removing concurrent observations}, randomly selecting a single camera when multiple images shared a common timestamp. Timestamps were only used for eliminating concurrency.
For Juggler we use as 2D features the joint positions detected by \cite{wei2016convolutional}.
For Climb and Ski we used the provided 2D feature tracks and 2D joint detection locations, respectively.
Fig. \ref{fig_MultiViewDatasets} illustrates our results and describes the experimental setup.
\subsection{Application to Event Segmentation \label{Sec_EventSegmentation}}
We consider the case of dynamic reconstruction of spatially co-located, but temporally disjoint events captured in a single aggregated image set. For such scenario we obtain a Laplacian matrix describing a graph with multiple connected components, one per each event. Importantly, for each component we sequence its images and reconstruct its dynamic 3D geometry. Spectral analysis of the Laplacian matrix visualizes the chain-like topology of each of these events/clusters, see Fig. \ref{fig_EventSegmentation} top right.
\subsection{Application to Multi-Target Scenarios}
Given $M$ subjects observed in $N$ images, our aggregated shape representation $\mathbb X_{i,:} \in \mathbb R^{3MP}$ requires solving data associations of input 2D features among $M$ subjects across $N$ images \cite {vo2018automatic}. To this end, we leverage DLOE's event segmentation capabilities (section \ref{Sec_EventSegmentation}) as follows: {\bf 1}) For each input $\mathcal{I}_n$, we create a proxy image $\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_q$ for each subject observed therein.
{\bf 2}) Execute DLOE on the aggregated set of proxy images $\{{\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{q}| _{N \leq q \leq MN}}\}$
(each observing $P$ 3D points) to reconstruct each subject's motion as a distinct event. {\bf 3}) Associate 3D estimates of $\{{\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_q}\}$ based on their common ancestor $\mathcal{I}_n$, providing a coalesced spatio-temporal context for each reconstructed event. {\bf 4}) Aggregate the 2D features of all sibling ${\tilde{\mathcal{I}}_q}$ into a single 2D shape representation, enforcing data associations from each event. {\bf 5}) Run DLOE on the aggregated representation over the $N$ original input images, to improve the decoupled event reconstructions from step 2.
Fig. \ref{fig_MultiPerson} shows our workflow results for a two-target scenario.
\section{Conclusion}
We presented a data-adaptive framework for the modeling of spatio-temporal relationships among visual data. Our tri-convex optimization framework outperforms state of the art methods for the challenging scenarios of decreasing and irregular temporal sampling. The generality of the formulation and internal data representations suggest robust dynamic 3D reconstruction as a data association framework for video.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
Frozen volatile molecules are found in our Solar System in cold distant regions from the Sun or within bodies sufficiently large to shelter the ices from thermal desorption. Consequently, this includes large ($<10^{3}$ km) icy moons such as Europa or Enceladus, and small ($\sim$km-sized) distant comets. As our mature Solar System is devoid of gas on disc-scales, ices still present today must have been formed during earlier evolutionary phases of our system when gases were still available for adsorption. This implies that cometary ices are made from the gases and ices found in the protoplanetary disc and the prestellar core \citep{GreenbergLi1999, EhrenfreundCharnley2000}. Prestellar ices may be entirely inherited by comets (i.e., pristine), or may be partially or entirely modified en route to and inside the disc and into the comets (i.e., partial or full reset). Recent measurements of a very high ratio of $17$ for D$_{2}$O/HDO relative to HDO/H$_{2}$O in comparison to the statistically expected value of $0.25$ \citep{Altwegg2017a} on comet 67P/Churyumov--Gerasimenko, hereafter 67P/C--G, corroborate the pristinity of cometary water ice. The abundance of highly volatiles species, such as CO, N$_{2}$ and noble gases \citep{Rubin2018} on 67P/C--G rejects the possibility of full reset, as the forming disc is unlikely to ever be sufficiently cold to re-adsorb these molecules. Comets and other icy planetesimals have been postulated to bring water and the ingredients for life to our planet due to their significant late-time dynamics. Hence, understanding their composition and origins may shed light on the emergence of life on Earth, its ubiquity on other planets and in extrasolar systems (as reviewed in \citealt{MummaCharnley2011, AHearn2011b, Bockelee-Morvan2015a}).
The formation of a protostar and its protoplanetary disc is governed by gravitational collapse \citep{Shu1987}. This process is coupled with grain-growth mechanisms transforming $0.1$~$\mu$m-sized dust grains found in prestellar cores to mm-sized dust particles seen in discs. Disc-scale gas and dust hydrodynamic processes subsequently assemble m-sized planetesimals. Cometary bodies may be a normal by-product of planet formation across the disc in the form of remnant building blocks or even primordial rubble piles composed of their own building blocks \citep{AHearn2011b, Davidsson2016}. Once the icy dust/rocks are assembled into a km-sized body, it is unlikely to be significantly thermally processed. Most recent calculations suggest that even a perihelion passage of a comet at $1.2$~au from the Sun will only heat the outermost few tens of cm (at least for the morphology of 67P/C--G; \citealt{Schloerb2015, Capria2017}). Meanwhile, non-catastrophic collisions are also unlikely to generate sufficient energy for significant heating (e.g., \citealt{Jutzi2017, JutziBenz2017, Schwartz2018}). Hence, bulk cometary ices very likely closely resemble disc and prestellar ices and gases \citep{Pontoppidan2014}. Consequently, cometary bulk composition may yield information about the ingredients for Solar-like systems.
For a long time, the Oort cloud comet C/1995~O1 (Hale--Bopp) was the best studied cometary body thanks to its high brightness (total visual magnitude of $\sim 10.5$ at a heliocentric distance of $7$~au). \citet{Bockelee-Morvan2000} used ground-based sub-mm ($80-370$~GHz) facilities to study the chemical composition of Hale--Bopp's coma between February and April 1997 for heliocentric distances in the $0.91-1.2$~au range close to its perihelion on April 1, 1997. These data were used to infer a strong correlation between Hale--Bopp's abundances of CHO- and N-bearing molecules and those derived from interstellar medium (ISM) observations on envelope- or cloud-scales (thousands of au). In contrast, the S-bearing species showed a large scatter. At the time, it was unclear whether such trends would persist for other comets. Now, the \textit{Rosetta} mission has yielded unprecedented detail and wealth of information on another Jupiter-family comet, 67P/C--G (as reviewed in Altwegg et al. in press). The mission accompanied and continuously monitored the comet with its suite of instruments for more than $2$ years pre- and post- its August 12, 2015 perihelion for heliocentric distances starting at $4.4$~au down to $1.24$~au and back out to $3.8$~au (distances of aphelion and perihelion are $5.683$ and $1.243$~au, respectively).
The target of the \textit{Rosetta} mission, comet 67P/C--G, is composed of two lobes that are $4.1\times3.5\times1.6$ and $2.5\times2.1\times1.6$~km in size \citep{Jorda2016}. Thanks to the continuous monitoring of the target by the orbiter, it was realized that there is much variability in the outgassing of ices hidden underneath the surface, which has to do with seasonal and diurnal variations as probed with Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis (ROSINA), Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS), Microwave Instrument for the Rosetta Orbiter (MIRO) and Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System (OSIRIS) instruments aboard \textit{Rosetta} (e.g., \citealt{DeSanctis2015, Lee_S2015, Bockelee-Morvan2015b, Biver2015b, Luspay-Kuti2015, Hassig2015, Filacchione2016a, Filacchione2016b, Fornasier2016, Hansen2016, Bockelee-Morvan2016, Barucci2016, Migliorini2016, Gasc2017, Marshall2017, Filacchione2019}). The bi-lobate geometry of the nucleus and the associated self-shielding, its changing rotational period, backfall of granular material, short-lived outbursts, active sinkhole pits and orbital trajectory change the irradiance of its surface during a single apparition \citep{Keller2015, Vincent2015, Vincent2016, Feldman2016, Keller2017, Kramer2018}, but also in the long term upon repeated approaches to the Sun. Nevertheless, it is possible to extract bulk abundances of the interior ices upon careful data analysis (e.g., \citealt{Calmonte2016}) and to peek at them on special occasions such as cliff collapses \citep{Pajola2017}. The nucleus of 67P/C--G is thought to be homogeneous based on Comet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission (CONSERT) and Radio Science Investigation (RSI) experiment measurements \citep{Kofman2015, Patzold2016}. It seems likely that its shape stems from a merger of two distinct objects (e.g., \citealt{Massironi2015, JutziAsphaug2015, Matonti2019}).
ISM astrochemical studies have also been profiting from new facilities capable of high spatial resolution observations, allowing Solar System-scales ($<100$~au) to be probed for the first time in young star-forming regions (e.g., \citealt{ALMA2015, Ansdell2016}). The closest Solar-like system that is still in its infant embedded phase of formation, the low-mass binary IRAS~16293-2422, has been the target of many observational campaigns over the last few decades with single-dish and interferometric facilities (see \citealt{Jorgensen2016} for a review). The system still finds itself in the earliest, gas-rich, embedded phase of star formation corresponding to the suspected time of cometesimal formation. Now, with ALMA, accurate abundances of several tens of molecules can be determined in the disc-like structures found in this puerile system. This allows the volatiles being incorporated into comets and planetesimals in IRAS~16293-2422 to be directly compared to those found in our Solar System on analogous spatial scales. Early hints for the interstellar -- cometary relation in the context of this protostellar source and comet Hale--Bopp have been investigated by \citet{Schoier2002}, but were unable to access the most inner disc-forming regions based on data from facilities less powerful in comparison to ALMA.
IRAS~16293-2422 is the closest protostellar low-mass system that has been well-characterized physically and chemically \citep{Jorgensen2016}. It is composed of two deeply embedded protostars, A and B, at a short distance of $141$~pc \citep{Dzib2018} with a projected separation of $5\farcs{3}$ ($747$~au). The masses and luminosities have been estimated to be on the order of $18$~$L_{\sun}$, $1.0$~$M_{\sun}$ for source A and $3$~$L_{\sun}$, $0.1$~$M_{\sun}$ for source B, based on previous observations and theoretical models \citep{Jacobsen2018a}. The total amount of mass encompassed by the circumbinary envelope of $\sim50\arcsec$ in size is $\sim4$~$M_{\sun}$ \citep{Jacobsen2018a}. High spatial resolution observations with ALMA have resolved the scales of the two individual discs, i.e., on scales of a few tens of au. The data suggest that the disc around source A is nearly edge-on, while that around source B is face-on (e.g., \citealt{Pineda2012, Zapata2013}). This has also been independently supported via dust continuum polarization studies (e.g., \citealt{Liu2018, Sadavoy2018}). The outer dust disc radius of B is suggested to be about $30-56$~au \citep{Rodriguez2005, Zapata2013, Hernandez-Gomez2019b}. The velocity gradient across the `disc'-domain of source B \citep{Zapata2013} is much shallower than that across A \citep{Girart2014}. It has so-far not been possible to determine the relative ages of the A and B sources using signatures of infall and chemical differentiation (e.g., \citealt{Chandler2005, Zapata2013, Calcutt2018a, Rivilla2019, vanderWiel2019}). It is unlikely for there to be a drastic age gap, as the two protostars are part of a binary system and are both still undergoing gravitational collapse.
To explore the hypothesis of close ties between cometary and protostellar chemical inventories, it is necessary to assume that all low-mass systems evolve analogously. In this paper, comet 67P/C--G will be considered as a representative probe of the bulk cometary ices; and IRAS~16293-2422~B will assume the role of a Solar-like embedded system. The goal of this paper is to compare the chemical inventories of these two targets and thereby test the chemical links that may or may not exist between cometary and interstellar volatiles. This work showcases the synergy of the powerful capabilities of \textit{Rosetta} and ALMA. Section~\ref{methods} describes the data that are used in this paper to obtain the results presented in Section~\ref{results}. The implications of the findings are presented in Section~\ref{discussion} and the conclusions are summarized in Section~\ref{conclusions}.
\section{Methods}
\label{methods}
\subsection{67P/C--G}
\label{67P}
The data on comet 67P/C--G analysed in this work stem from the ROSINA instrument suite aboard the orbiter, which measures the gases stemming from the comet at the distance of the orbiter from the comet surface. This reduces the uncertainties stemming from photodissociation rates, which are required to correct for photodissociation of molecules in the coma when observing with ground-based facilities \citep{Bockelee-Morvan2000}. The ROSINA Double Focusing Mass Spectrometer (DFMS) has a high mass resolution ($m/\Delta m = 3000$ on mass/charge of $28$~u/e at the $1$ per cent peak height) and the ROSINA Reflection-type Time-Of-Flight (RTOF) mass spectrometer has a wide mass range ($1-1000$~u/e), allowing unambiguous identification of small and large molecules \citep{Balsiger2007}.
Here, the averages of the measurements obtained between the 22nd of May and the 2nd of June, 2015 are used as bulk abundances. During this period, the orbiter was at distances in the $100-200$~km range from the comet surface. This specific May 2015 time frame is ideal for measuring the bulk volatile content (\citealt{Calmonte2016}; Altwegg et al. in press). It starts at the final pre-2015-perihelion equinox of the comet and ends prior to the coma becoming significantly polluted with dust as a result of higher activity closer to the Sun. During this period, the Southern hemisphere began experiencing the summer season (which is short, yet intense, in comparison to the summer experienced by the Northern hemisphere). This hemisphere is thought to be less covered by the resettled dust from earlier perihelia \citep{Keller2017}. Finally, during this time, 67P/C--G was within $\sim2$~au from the Sun, thus subjecting it to surface temperatures well above those required for thermal desorption of water. This implies that almost all the volatiles were sublimating at this time, unlike at larger distances when the volatility of molecules affects their observed desorption patterns. Even closer to the Sun, coma abundances become affected by outbursts, which appear to be powered by CO$_{2}$ and in turn, are less representative of the bulk interior.
\subsection{IRAS~16293-2422}
\label{IRAS16293}
In this work, the majority of observational data on IRAS~16293-2422 stem from the large unbiased Protostellar Interferometric Line Survey (PILS\footnote[2]{\url{http://youngstars.nbi.dk/PILS/}}; project-id: 2013.1.00278.S, PI: Jes K. J{\o}rgensen) carried out with ALMA in the $329-363$~GHz frequency range (Band $7$) during Cycle 2 observations, supplemented with ALMA observations in Bands $3$ ($\sim100$~GHz) and $6$ ($\sim230$~GHz) carried out during Cycle 1 (project-id: 2012.1.00712.S, PI: Jes K. J{\o}rgensen; \citealt{Jorgensen2016}). This dataset represents the most complete spectral characterization of the source on (almost) identical spatial scales (the beam size does vary slightly with frequency across the large range observed). PILS was carried out at a spectral resolution of $0.2$~km~s$^{-1}$ ($0.244$~MHz) and restored with a uniform circular beam of $0\farcs{5}$. The data from the main array of $12$~m dishes are combined with data from the Atacama Compact Array (ACA) of $7$~m dishes, hence, resulting in the largest recoverable size of $13\arcsec$. This implies that the PILS dataset can be used to study the emission on the scale of the individual envelopes of the two protostars ($\sim1-3\arcsec$) and on the scale of their discs ($<1\arcsec$). The main position analysed in this work is a one-beam offset position from source B in the SW direction, which optimizes high densities (hence, boosting column densities of the least abundant molecules), while avoiding the self-absorption and dust absorption at the highest available densities found on-source (e.g., \citealt{Coutens2016, Lykke2017, Ligterink2017, Calcutt2018a, Drozdovskaya2018, Manigand2019}). Relative abundances at the half-beam offset position from source B in the same direction are similar to those at the full-beam offset position, but with a factor of $2$ higher column density \citep{Jorgensen2018}. The offset positions in terms of the continuum and molecular emission distributions have been shown in previous publications (e.g., fig.~$7$ of \citealt{Jorgensen2016}; fig.~$2$ of \citealt{Jorgensen2018}; or fig.~$1$ of \citealt{Drozdovskaya2018}). The narrower line widths associated with the dynamical structure near source B reduce line blending. Taking the known physical structure of source B and its disc into account, at $0\farcs{5}$ ($\sim70$~au) from the source, the observations probe the material entering the protoplanetary disc, especially, since infalling velocity signatures are seen \citep{Pineda2012}.
\clearpage
\ctable[
caption = {Quantities of volatiles towards IRAS~16293-2422~B as observed with ALMA on protoplanetary disc-scales\tmark.},
label = {tbl:abunvalues_B}
]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lllll}{
\tnote{\tiny{The assumed source size is $0\farcs{5}$; and $\eta_{\text{BF}}=\text{source size}^{2}/(\text{source size}^{2}+\text{beam size}^{2})$, when the source size is smaller than the beam size; and $\eta_{\text{BF}}=\text{source size}^{2}/\text{beam size}^{2}$, when the beam size is smaller than the source size.}}
\tnote[b]{\tiny{A correction factor for the coupling of line emission with the emission from dense dust at $T_{\text{bg}}$ needs to be accounted for when deriving the column density at the one-beam offset position from source B. \citep{Persson2018} used a consistently derived value of $1.1658$. \citet{Ligterink2017, Fayolle2017} and Manigand et al. (subm.) also consistently corrected for $T_{\text{bg}}=21$~K. \citet{Jorgensen2016, Jorgensen2018, Calcutt2018a, Calcutt2018b} applied correction factors of $1.14$ and $1.05$ for $T_{\text{ex}}=125$~K and $300$~K, respectively (corresponding to $T_{\text{bg}}=21$~K). \citet{Coutens2016, Lykke2017, Drozdovskaya2018, Taquet2018} did not account for this factor in the published column densities, and hence, these values have been corrected in this work through division by $1.14$ or $1.05$ depending on the $T_{\text{ex}}$ of the molecule in question. This has either been explicitly stated by the authors or has been conveyed via private communication. For the column densities of PO, PN, and glycine that are newly derived in this work, these correction factors have been applied. For the column densities of CO, HCN and HNC that are newly derived in this work, these correction factors are not applied due to highly uncertain spatial distributions of these molecules. The accuracy of the derived column densities is $10-20$ per cent. Variations in $T_{\text{ex}}$ of $\sim20$ per cent ($25-60$~K for $T_{\text{ex}}=125-300$~K) change the derived column densities by $<10$ per cent \citep{Jorgensen2018}.}}
\tnote[c]{\tiny{For a $\text{beam size}=0\farcs{2}$, $N(\text{H}_{2}^{18}\text{O})=9.5\times10^{17}$~cm$^{-2}$. Assuming $^{16}\text{O}/^{18}\text{O}=557$ and using $\eta_{\text{BF}}\approx6$, gives $N(\text{H}_{2}\text{O})=N(\text{H}_{2}^{18}\text{O})\times\eta_{\text{BF}}\times(^{16}\text{O}/^{18}\text{O})$ as the value used in this work for a source size of $0\farcs{5}$ under the assumption of homologous emission.}}
\tnote[d]{\tiny{The published column densities have been reduced by a factor of $2.136$ to account for the shift from the half-beam offset position to the full-beam offset position from source B.}}
\tnote[e]{\tiny{Several estimates exist in the literature, but all are only for the circumbinary envelope. \citet{Hily-Blant2010}: $T_{\text{ex}}=8-10$~K, $\text{beam size}=12-18\arcsec$, $N(\text{NH}_{3})=20-3.5\times10^{15}$~cm$^{-2}$. \citet{vanDishoeck1995}: $T_{\text{ex}}=25\pm5$~K, $\text{beam size}=20\arcsec$, $N(\text{NH}_{2}\text{D})=1.9\times10^{14}$~cm$^{-2}$; assuming $\text{D}/\text{H}=0.05-0.005$ gives $N(\text{NH}_{3})=N(\text{NH}_{2}\text{D})\times(\text{H}/\text{D})=3.8-38\times10^{15}$~cm$^{-2}$. \citet{Mundy1990}: $T_{\text{ex}}=15-20$~K, $\text{beam size}=20\arcsec$, $N(\text{NH}_{3})=2\times10^{15}$~cm$^{-2}$. \citet{Mizuno1990}: $T_{\text{ex}}=15$~K, $\text{beam size}=40\arcsec$, $N(\text{NH}_{3})=8\times10^{14}$~cm$^{-2}$; assuming $\text{source size}=20\arcsec$ yields $\eta_{\text{BF}}=0.2$ and gives $N(\text{NH}_{3})/\eta_{\text{BF}}=4\times10^{15}$~cm$^{-2}$. Taking all these estimates for a $\text{beam size}=20\arcsec$ yields a range: $N(\text{NH}_{3})=2.0\times10^{15}-3.8\times10^{16}$~cm$^{-2}$. Now assuming $\text{source size}=0\farcs{5}$ yields $\eta_{\text{BF}}\approx6\times10^{-4}$ and results in the $N(\text{NH}_{3})/\eta_{\text{BF}}$ value used in this work.}}
\tnote[f]{\tiny{Only one estimate exists in the literature, for the circumbinary envelope scales from \citet{Peng2010} for $\text{beam size}=13\farcs{5}$, $N(\text{HCl})=4.7\times10^{13}$~cm$^{-2}$; assuming $\text{source size}=0\farcs{5}$ yields $\eta_{\text{BF}}=1/730$ and results in the $N(\text{HCl})/\eta_{\text{BF}}$ value used in this work.}}
}{
\hline
Species & Name & N (cm$^{-2}$)\tmark[b] \& Assumptions & Reference & $T_{\text{ex}}$ (K)\T\B\\
\hline
H$_{2}$O & Water & source A est. & \citet{Persson2013}\tmark[c] & \T\\
& & $3.3\times10^{21}$ & & $124\pm12$\\
O$_{2}$ & Molecular oxygen & assuming tent. detection & \citet{Taquet2018} & \\
& & $<2.0\times10^{20}$ & & $300$\\
CO & Carbon monoxide & $1.0\times10^{20}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $100-150$\\
CH$_{3}$OH & Methanol & $1.0\times10^{19}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2016, Jorgensen2018}\tmark[d] & $300$\\
H$_{2}$CO & Formaldehyde & $1.9\times10^{18}$ & \citet{Persson2018} & $106\pm13$\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$OH & Ethanol & $2.3\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2018} & $300$\\
CH$_{3}$OCH$_{3}$ & Dimethyl ether & $2.4\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2018} & $125$\\
HCOOCH$_{3}$ & Methyl formate & $2.6\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2018} & $300$\\
CH$_{2}$OHCHO & Glycolaldehyde & $3.2\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2016}\tmark[d] & $300$\\
CH$_{3}$COOH & Acetic acid & $2.8\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2016}\tmark[d] & $300$\\
CH$_{3}$CHO & Acetaldehyde & $1.2\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2018} & $125$\\
c-C$_{2}$H$_{4}$O & Ethylene oxide & $5.4\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Lykke2017} & $125$\\
CH$_{2}$CHOH & Vinyl alcohol & $<1.8\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Lykke2017} & $125$\\
HCOOH & Formic acid & $5.6\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2018} & $300$\\
aGg\textquotesingle-((CH$_{2}$OH)$_{2}$) & aGg\textquotesingle-Ethylene glycol & $5.2\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2016}\tmark[d] & $300$\\
gGg\textquotesingle-((CH$_{2}$OH)$_{2}$) & gGg\textquotesingle-Ethylene glycol & $4.7\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Jorgensen2016}\tmark[d] & $300$\\
CH$_{3}$OCH$_{2}$OH & Methoxymethanol & $1.4\times10^{17}$ & Manigand et al. subm. & $130$\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$CHO & Propanal & $2.2\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Lykke2017} & $125$\\
(CH$_{3}$)$_{2}$CO & Acetone & $1.7\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Lykke2017} & $125$\\
NH$_{2}$CHO & Formamide & $9.5\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Coutens2016} & $300$\\
NH$_{3}$ & Ammonia & circumbinary envelope est. & \citet{Hily-Blant2010}, & \\
& & $<6.1\times10^{19}$ & \citet{vanDishoeck1995}, & $8-30$\\
& & & \citet{Mundy1990}, & \\
& & & \citet{Mizuno1990}\tmark[e] & \\
HCN & Hydrogen cyanide & $5.0\times10^{16}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $120$\\
HNC & Hydrogen isocyanide & $<5.0\times10^{16}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $120$\\
CH$_{3}$CN & Methyl cyanide & $4.0\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Calcutt2018a} & $110\pm10$\\
CH$_{3}$NC & Methyl isocyanide & $2.0\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Calcutt2018b} & $150\pm20$\\
HNCO & Isocyanic acid & $3.7\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Ligterink2017} & $100$\\
HOCN & Cyanic acid & $<3.0\times10^{13}$ & \citet{Ligterink2017} & $100$\\
HC$_{3}$N & Cyanoacetylene & $1.8\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Calcutt2018a} & $100\pm20$\\
H$_{2}$S & Hydrogen sulphide & $1.7\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
OCS & Carbonyl suplhide & $2.5\times10^{17}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
CH$_{3}$SH & Methyl mercaptan & $4.8\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
CS & Carbon monosulphide & $3.9\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
H$_{2}$CS & Thioformaldehyde & $1.3\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
S$_{2}$ & Disulphur & $<1.9\times10^{16}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
SO$_{2}$ & Sulphur dioxide & $1.3\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
SO & Sulphur monoxide & $4.4\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH & Ethyl mercaptan & $<3.2\times10^{15}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
H$_{2}$S$_{2}$ & Disulphane & $<7.9\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
HS$_{2}$ & Disulphanide & $<4.4\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Drozdovskaya2018} & $125$\\
PO & Phosphorus monoxide & $<4.4\times10^{14}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $125$\\
PN & Phosphorus mononitride & $<2.1\times10^{13}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $125$\\
HCl & Hydrogen chloride & circumbinary envelope est. & \citet{Peng2010}\tmark[f] & \\
& & $<3.4\times10^{16}$ & & $80$\\
CH$_{3}$Cl & Methyl chloride & $4.6\times10^{14}$ & \citet{Fayolle2017} & $102\pm3$\\
NH$_{2}$CH$_{2}$COOH & Glycine & $<9.2\times10^{14}$ & this work (Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}) & $300$\B\\
\hline}
\clearpage
\ctable[
caption = {Bulk quantities of volatiles in 67P/C--G as measured with ROSINA\tmark.},
label = {tbl:abunvalues_67P}
]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lll}{
\tnote{All bulk abundances are from \citealt{Rubin2019a}, unless indicated otherwise (see also Altwegg et al. in press).}
\tnote[b]{Schuhmann et al. under rev.}
\tnote[c]{\citet{Calmonte2016}}
\tnote[d]{Rivilla et al. in prep.}
\tnote[e]{\citet{Dhooghe2017}}
\tnote[f]{\citet{Fayolle2017}}
\tnote[g]{Hadraoui et al. (in press) with error bars based on the range of glycine abundances reported in \citet{Altwegg2016}}
}{
\hline
Species & Name & Abundance rel. to H$_{2}$O (\%)\T\B\\
\hline
H$_{2}$O & Water & $100$\T\\
O$_{2}$ & Molecular oxygen & $3.1\pm1.1$\\
CO & Carbon monoxide & $3.1\pm0.9$\\
CH$_{3}$OH & Methanol & $0.21\pm0.06$\tmark[b]\\
H$_{2}$CO & Formaldehyde & $0.32\pm0.10$\tmark[b]\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$OH $+$ CH$_{3}$OCH$_{3}$ & Ethanol $+$ Dimethyl ether & $0.039\pm0.023$\tmark[b]\\
HCOOCH$_{3}$ $+$ CH$_{2}$OHCHO $+$ CH$_{3}$COOH & Methyl formate $+$ Glycolaldehyde $+$ Acetic acid & $0.0034\pm0.0020$\tmark[b]\\
CH$_{3}$CHO $+$ c-C$_{2}$H$_{4}$O $+$ CH$_{2}$CHOH & Acetaldehyde $+$ Ethylene oxide $+$ Vinyl alcohol & $0.047\pm0.017$\tmark[b]\\
HCOOH & Formic acid & $0.013\pm0.008$\tmark[b]\\
aGg\textquotesingle-((CH$_{2}$OH)$_{2}$) $+$ gGg\textquotesingle-((CH$_{2}$OH)$_{2}$) $+$ CH$_{3}$OCH$_{2}$OH & aGg\textquotesingle- and gGg\textquotesingle-Ethylene glycol $+$ Methoxymethanol & $0.011\pm0.007$\tmark[b]\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$CHO $+$ (CH$_{3}$)$_{2}$CO $+$ CH$_{3}$CHCH$_{2}$O & Propanal $+$ Acetone $+$ Propylene oxide & $0.0047\pm0.0024$\tmark[b]\\
NH$_{2}$CHO & Formamide & $0.0040\pm0.0023$\\
NH$_{3}$ & Ammonia & $0.67\pm0.20$\\
HCN $+$ HNC & Hydrogen cyanide $+$ Hydrogen isocyanide & $0.14\pm0.04$\\
CH$_{3}$CN $+$ CH$_{3}$NC & Methyl cyanide $+$ Methyl isocyanide & $0.0059\pm0.0034$\\
HNCO $+$ HOCN & Isocyanic acid $+$ Cyanic acid & $0.027\pm0.016$\\
HC$_{3}$N $+$ HC$_{2}$NC & Cyanoacetylene $+$ Isocyanoacetylene & $0.00040\pm0.00023$\\
H$_{2}$S & Hydrogen sulphide & $1.10\pm0.46$\tmark[c]\\
OCS & Carbonyl sulphide & $0.041^{+0.082}_{-0.020}$\tmark[c]\\
CH$_{3}$SH & Methyl mercaptan & $0.038^{+0.079}_{-0.028}$\tmark[c]\\
H$_{2}$CS & Thioformaldehyde & $0.0027^{+0.0058}_{-0.0024}$\tmark[c]\\
CS$_{2}$ & Carbon disulphide & $0.0057^{+0.0114}_{-0.0028}$\tmark[c]\\
S$_{2}$ & Disulphur & $0.0020^{+0.0040}_{-0.0010}$\tmark[c]\\
SO$_{2}$ & Sulphur dioxide & $0.127^{+0.254}_{-0.064}$\tmark[c]\\
SO & Sulphur monoxide & $0.071^{+0.142}_{-0.037}$\tmark[c]\\
C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH $+$ (CH$_{3}$)$_{2}$S & Ethyl mercaptan $+$ Dimethyl sulphide & $0.00058^{+0.00123}_{-0.00049}$\tmark[c]\\
H$_{2}$S$_{2}$ & Disulphane & $\leq0.0006042^{+0.005778}_{-0.0005778}$\tmark[c]\\
HS$_{2}$ & Disulphanide & $\leq0.000106^{+0.000954}_{-0.0000954}$\tmark[c]\\
PO & Phosphorus monoxide & $0.011^{+0.022}_{-0.0006}$\tmark[d]\\
PN & Phosphorus mononitride & $<0.0011^{+0.0022}_{-0.00006}$\tmark[d]\\
HCl & Hydrogen chloride & $0.014^{+0.045}_{-0.012}$\tmark[e]\\
CH$_{3}$Cl & Methyl chloride & $0.000056^{+0.000298}_{-0.000052}$\tmark[f]\\
NH$_{2}$CH$_{2}$COOH & Glycine & $0.000017^{+0.249983}_{-0.000017}$\tmark[g]\B\\
\hline}
\clearpage
\ctable[
caption = {Correlation coefficients between volatiles towards IRAS~16293-2422~B on disc-scales and in the bulk of 67P/C--G.},
label = {tbl:corr_coeff}
]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}llll}{
}{
\hline
& & Linear scaling & Logarithmic scaling \T\B\\
\hline
CHO-bearing molecules & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $1.0$ & $0.95$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.88$ & $0.88$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $8.1\times10^{-5}$ & $8.1\times10^{-5}$\\
& Sample size & $13$ & $13$\B\\
\hline
CHO-bearing molecules (without CO and H$_{2}$O) & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $1.0$ & $0.91$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.80$ & $0.80$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $3.1\times10^{-3}$ & $3.1\times10^{-3}$\\
& Sample size & $11$ & $11$\B\\
\hline
CHO-bearing molecules (without CO, H$_{2}$O and O$_{2}$) & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $0.61$ & $0.88$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.73$ & $0.73$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $1.5\times10^{-2}$ & $1.5\times10^{-2}$\\
& Sample size & $10$ & $10$\B\\
\hline
N-bearing molecules & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $0.98$ & $0.86$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.93$ & $0.93$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $2.5\times10^{-3}$ & $2.5\times10^{-3}$\\
& Sample size & $7$ & $7$\B\\
\hline
S-bearing molecules & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $0.50$ & $0.49$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.32$ & $0.32$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $3.5\times10^{-1}$ & $3.5\times10^{-1}$\\
& Sample size & $11$ & $11$\B\\
\hline
P- and Cl-bearing molecules & & & \T\B\\
\hline
& Pearson correlation coefficient ($r$) & $0.71$ & $0.44$\T\\
& Spearman's correlation coefficient ($\rho$) & $0.40$ & $0.40$\\
& Spearman's significance (2-tailed) & $6.0\times10^{-1}$ & $6.0\times10^{-1}$\\
& Sample size & $4$ & $4$\B\\
\hline}
\clearpage
\section{Results}
\label{results}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=0.8\textheight,keepaspectratio]{67P_IRAS16293B_CHO_CH3OH_gly_errcorr}
\caption{The abundance of CHO-bearing molecules relative to methanol detected towards the one-beam offset position from IRAS~16293-2422~B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. Each molecule is marked with a unique color. The shaded region corresponds to an order of magnitude scatter about the linear correlation. The Pearson ($r$) and Spearman ($\rho$) correlation coefficients are given in the upper left corner. ``up.lim.'' indicates the values that are protostellar upper limits; and ``Source A'' indicates the value that is an estimate based on IRAS~16293-2422~A.}
\label{fgr:corrplotCHO}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=0.8\textheight,keepaspectratio]{67P_IRAS16293B_N_CH3CN_gly_errcorr}
\caption{The abundance of N-bearing molecules relative to methyl cyanide detected towards the one-beam offset position from IRAS~16293-2422~B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. Each molecule is marked with a unique color. The shaded region corresponds to an order of magnitude scatter about the linear correlation. The Pearson ($r$) and Spearman's ($\rho$) correlation coefficients are given in the upper left corner. ``up.lim.'' indicates the values that are protostellar upper limits; and ``env.'' indicates the value that is an estimate based on the circumbinary envelope.}
\label{fgr:corrplotN}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=0.8\textheight,keepaspectratio]{67P_IRAS16293B_S_CH3SH_gly_errcorr}
\caption{The abundance of S-bearing molecules relative to methyl mercaptan detected towards the one-beam offset position from IRAS~16293-2422~B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. Each molecule is marked with a unique color. The shaded region corresponds to an order of magnitude scatter about the linear correlation. The Pearson ($r$) and Spearman's ($\rho$) correlation coefficients are given in the upper left corner. ``up.lim.'' indicates the values that are protostellar upper limits.}
\label{fgr:corrplotS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=0.8\textheight,keepaspectratio]{67P_IRAS16293B_other_CH3OH_gly_errcorr}
\caption{The abundance of P- and Cl-bearing molecules relative to methanol detected towards the one-beam offset position from IRAS~16293-2422~B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. Each molecule is marked with a unique color. The shaded region corresponds to an order of magnitude scatter about the linear correlation. The Pearson ($r$) and Spearman's ($\rho$) correlation coefficients are given in the upper left corner. ``up.lim.'' indicates the values that are protostellar upper limits; and ``env.'' indicates the value that is an estimate based on the circumbinary envelope.}
\label{fgr:corrplotother}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Correlations between IRAS~16293-2422~B and 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko}
Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO},~\ref{fgr:corrplotN},~\ref{fgr:corrplotS}, and~\ref{fgr:corrplotother} show log-log plots of the observed relative abundances of 67P/C--G and IRAS~16293-2422~B used to search for correlations between bulk cometary volatiles and protoplanetary disc-materials. The volatiles have been partitioned into chemical families based on the elements that they carry. The reference species for computing the relative abundances differ per chemical family and have been chosen based on the interstellar chemical pathways to form such chemically related molecules. The majority of cometary data points represent bulk abundances as derived from ROSINA measurements, as explained in Section~\ref{67P} and published in \citet{Rubin2019a}. The protostellar values represent the material entering the protoplanetary disc around source B that have been derived for a region $0\farcs{5}$ in size and stem from the series of papers from the PILS team at a relative accuracy of $10-20$ per cent. Variations in the $T_{\text{ex}}$ of $\sim20$ per cent ($25-60$~K for $T_{\text{ex}}=125-300$~K) change the derived column densities by $<10$ per cent \citep{Jorgensen2018}. Some previously unpublished and newly derived column densities (or at least upper limits) that are used for this study are presented in Appendix~\ref{columndens_IRAS16293B}. For molecules for which PILS data are insufficient, either estimates or ranges are provided based on earlier observations. All the protostellar and cometary abundances used for the analysis are tabulated in Tables~\ref{tbl:abunvalues_B} and~\ref{tbl:abunvalues_67P}, respectively. The error bars have been computed by considering [minimum, maximum] ratio ranges for the case of asymmetric errors, and via error propagation equations of normally distributed values for the case of symmetric errors. The full inventory of species detected towards IRAS~16293-2422 is provided in Appendix~\ref{molecules_IRAS16293}.
Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO} displays the abundance of CHO-bearing molecules relative to methanol (CH$_{3}$OH) detected towards the one-beam offset position from source B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. The reference species selected is CH$_{3}$OH for the CHO-bearing family, because it is thought to form on grain surfaces via sequential hydrogenation of CO \citep{TielensHagen1982, Fuchs2009} and to be a key precursor to the synthesis of larger O-bearing complex organic molecules \citep{Garrod2008, Fedoseev2017}. The ROSINA mass spectrometer cannot unambiguously distinguish isomers as they have the same mass; hence, the measurements at mass $44$~u/e are a combination of acetaldehyde (CH$_{3}$CHO), ethylene oxide (c-C$_{2}$H$_{4}$O), and vinyl alcohol (CH$_{2}$CHOH); at mass $46$~u/e are a combination of ethanol (C$_{2}$H$_{5}$OH) and dimethyl ether (CH$_{3}$OCH$_{3}$); at mass $60$~u/e are a combination of methyl formate (HCOOCH$_{3}$), glycolaldehyde (CH$_{2}$OHCHO), and acetic acid (CH$_{3}$COOH); and at mass $62$~u/e are a combination of both ethylene glycol forms ((CH$_{2}$OH)$_{2}$) and methoxymethanol (CH$_{3}$OCH$_{2}$OH). Spectroscopic observations have the ability to distinguish isomers; however, the observed protostellar abundances have been summed to make an appropriate comparison with cometary measurements. The cometary value for glycine does not stem from the same period as bulk abundances for the majority of the other species analysed in this work, as continuous data were not available for this molecule during the mission. The value used stems from dedicated models of glycine in 67P/C--G, which inferred it to be desorbing from the nucleus and from icy mantles of dust particles ejected from the nucleus into the coma (i.e., a distributed source, \citealt{Altwegg2016}), while being mixed with water ice in both of these sources (Hadraoui et al. in press). The error bars are based on the range of measured glycine abundances reported in \citet{Altwegg2016}. The protostellar abundances of O$_{2}$, CH$_{2}$CHOH and glycine are upper limits, which means that these points may shift lower along the ordinate. The protostellar abundance of H$_{2}$O is an estimate based on the value derived for source A (see Table~\ref{tbl:abunvalues_B} for details). The C$_{2}$H$_{5}$CHO data point is a currently best-possible estimate, as the ROSINA measurement at mass $58$~u/e is a combination of propanal (C$_{2}$H$_{5}$CHO), acetone ((CH$_{3}$)$_{2}$CO), and propylene oxide (CH$_{3}$CHCH$_{2}$O), while the column density of the latter is currently unavailable for IRAS~16293-2422. The figure appears to display a linear correlation between the two sets of abundances (including those that are upper limits) with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $1.00$ and a Spearman's correlation coefficient of $0.88$ (at a two-tailed significance of $8.1\times10^{-5}$; Table~\ref{tbl:corr_coeff}), which implies that cometary and protostellar CHO-bearing volatiles are related.
Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotN} displays the abundance of N-bearing molecules relative to methyl cyanide (CH$_{3}$CN) detected towards the one-beam offset position from source B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. The ROSINA mass spectrometer measurement at mass $27$~u/e is a combination of hydrogen isocyanide (HNC) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN); at mass $41$~u/e is a combination of methyl isocyanide (CH$_{3}$NC) and methyl cyanide; at mass $43$~u/e is a combination of isocyanic acid (HNCO) and cyanic acid (HOCN); the protostellar values have been summed for these pairs of molecules accordingly. The cometary value for glycine is the best available, as discussed in the above paragraph. The protostellar abundances of HNC, HOCN and glycine are upper limits, which means that these points may shift lower along the ordinate. The HC$_{3}$N data point is a currently best-possible estimate, as the ROSINA measurement at mass $51$~u/e is a combination of cyanoacetylene (HC$_{3}$N) and isocyanoacetylene (HC$_{2}$NC), while the column density of the latter is currently unavailable for IRAS~16293-2422. The protostellar abundance of NH$_{3}$ is an estimated upper limit based on circumbinary envelope-scale observations (see Table~\ref{tbl:abunvalues_B} for details). This figure appears to display a linear correlation between the two sets of abundances (including those that are upper limits) with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $0.98$ and a Spearman's correlation coefficient of $0.93$ (at a two-tailed significance of $2.5\times10^{-3}$; Table~\ref{tbl:corr_coeff}), which implies that cometary and protostellar N-bearing volatiles are related. The reference species selected is CH$_{3}$CN for the N-bearing family, whose origin is still unclear. It can be formed on grain surfaces with some contributions from gas-phase reactions \citep{Calcutt2018a}. CH$_{3}$CN is the analogous 6-atom molecule with a methyl (CH$_{3}$-) functional group to CH$_{3}$OH. CH$_{3}$NC had to be added to the chosen reference species CH$_{3}$CN due to their identical mass being indistinguishable for the ROSINA instrument; however, the protostellar column density of CH$_{3}$NC is two orders of magnitude lower than that of CH$_{3}$CN, and hence, likely only makes a minor difference.
Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotS} displays the abundance of S-bearing molecules relative to methyl mercaptan (CH$_{3}$SH) detected towards the one-beam offset position from source B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. In ROSINA data, the CS peak suffers from interference with the strong signal from abundant CO$_{2}$ at mass $44$~u/e. Over a short fly-by in March 2015, when CO$_{2}$ was scarcer, it was derived that all CS detected by ROSINA can be explained by the fragmentation of primarily CS$_{2}$ and secondarily, of OCS \citep{Calmonte2016}. Therefore, the amount of CS as a radical in cometary ice is small, if existent at all. Summing the abundances of CS$_{2}$ and OCS ices yields an upper limit for the amount of CS radicals incorporated into 67P/C--G at some point since the prestellar phase, assuming that all CS radicals are converted into either OCS or CS$_{2}$ by the time they become constituents of cometary ice. This is the CS upper limit used in Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotS}. Cometary values for H$_{2}$CS, CH$_{3}$SH and C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH do not stem from the same period as bulk abundances for the majority of the other species analysed in this work, as continuous data were not available for these two molecules during the mission. Hence, these two numbers may be somewhat less representative of the bulk, but are the best available (see \citealt{Calmonte2016} for details). The cometary abundances of HS$_{2}$ and H$_{2}$S$_{2}$ are upper limits, which means that these points may shift to the left along the abscissa. The protostellar abundances of S$_{2}$, HS$_{2}$, H$_{2}$S$_{2}$ and C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH are upper limits, which means that these points may shift lower along the ordinate. The C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH data point is a currently best-possible estimate, as the ROSINA measurement at this mass of $62$~u/e is a combination of ethyl mercaptan (C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH) and dimethyl sulphide ((CH$_{3}$)$_{2}$S), while spectroscopy of dimethyl sulphide is not yet available, which inhibits its search in the ALMA data. The figure appears to display a linear correlation between the two sets of abundances (including those that are upper limits) with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $0.50$ and a Spearman's correlation coefficient of $0.32$ (at a two-tailed significance of $0.35$; Table~\ref{tbl:corr_coeff}), which implies that cometary and protostellar S-bearing volatiles are related. These $r$- and $\rho$-values are lower than that of CHO- and N-bearing species, potentially due to the larger fraction of upper limits and best-effort estimates used in the S-bearing family. Furthermore, S-bearing molecules span a smaller range of relative abundances than the CHO- and N-bearing species. The reference species selected is CH$_{3}$SH for the S-bearing family, which is formed on grain surfaces from atomic sulphur and CS hydrogenations \citep{Vidal2017, Lamberts2018}. CH$_{3}$SH is the analogous 6-atom molecule with a methyl (CH$_{3}$-) functional group to CH$_{3}$OH and CH$_{3}$CN.
Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotother} displays the abundance of P- and Cl-bearing molecules relative to methanol detected towards the one-beam offset position from source B versus that measured in 67P/C--G. The cometary abundance of PN is an upper limit, as its mass peak overlaps with those of CHS and $^{13}$CS, and suffers from strong interference with the peak of $^{13}$CO$_{2}$ (Rivilla et al. in prep.). The cometary values for PN, PO and CH$_{3}$Cl do not stem from the same period as bulk abundances for the majority of the other species analysed in this work, as continuous data were not available for these molecules during the mission. Hence, as for H$_{2}$CS, CH$_{3}$SH and C$_{2}$H$_{5}$SH, these numbers may be somewhat less representative of the bulk, but are the best available (see Rivilla et al. in prep. and \citealt{Fayolle2017} for details). The protostellar abundances for PO and PN are the currently best-available upper limit estimates, which will soon be tested with new dedicated ALMA observations (project-id: 2018.1.01496, PI: V{\'i}ctor M. Rivilla). The protostellar abundance of HCl is an estimate based on circumbinary envelope-scale observations (see Table~\ref{tbl:abunvalues_B} for details). The figure appears to display a linear correlation between the two sets of abundances (including those that are upper limits) with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $0.71$ and a Spearman's correlation coefficient of $0.40$ (at a two-tailed significance of $0.6$; Table~\ref{tbl:corr_coeff}), although more data points are desirable. The linear correlation is not one-to-one, but is offset, which may be a result of CH$_{3}$OH being chosen as the reference species. It is not clear what the best reference species is for these exotic species. The correlation tentatively suggests that cometary and protostellar P- and Cl-bearing volatiles are related. These chemical families have never been probed before.
The correlations in Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO},~\ref{fgr:corrplotN},~\ref{fgr:corrplotS}, and~\ref{fgr:corrplotother} vary in strength and significance. The relative abundances investigated span a wide range; hence, the correlation coefficients have also been computed with logarithmic scaling (the coefficients given in the figures are derived with the plotted linear scaling). Table~\ref{tbl:corr_coeff} summarizes all the correlation coefficients and their significance. It can be seen that logarithmic scaling lowers the strength of the correlations somewhat in terms of the Pearson correlation coefficients; however, they remain statistically significant. For the case of CHO-bearing molecules, that span the largest range of relative abundances, the correlation has also been scrutinized upon exclusion of simpler species, specifically H$_{2}$O, CO and O$_{2}$. This results in a significant reduction of the Pearson and Spearman's correlation coefficients to $0.61$ and $0.73$ (at a two-tailed significance of $0.015$), respectively. This supports there being significantly more complex organic CHO-bearing species in the comet than towards the protostar.
Beyond the chemical relevance of the three reference species (CH$_{3}$OH, CH$_{3}$CN, and CH$_{3}$SH) for their respective chemical families, they are also expected to be present predominantly on small scales in the hot inner regions around protostars due to their high desorption energies ($5534$, $4680$, $4000$~K, respectively). This consequently makes these molecules more relevant for tracing disc-materials, rather than those that may be thermally desorbed already at lower temperatures, which are easily attained on larger envelope-scales in the system (as is the case for HCN, for example). The reference species CH$_{3}$OH, CH$_{3}$CN, and CH$_{3}$SH ensure one-to-one correlations in Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO},~\ref{fgr:corrplotN}, and~\ref{fgr:corrplotS} for the CHO-, N-, and S-bearing families, respectively. A choice of a common reference species (such as CH$_{3}$OH or H$_{2}$O) for all molecules preserves the linear correlations for the members of a single chemical family, but introduces a scaling factor to the linear correlation, i.e., it is no longer one-to-one. This can be seen by comparing Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotmerged} with Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotmergedCH3OH} and~\ref{fgr:corrplotmergedH2O}. This is analogous to the offset seen for P-and Cl-bearing molecules when using methanol as the reference species (Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotother}).
\subsection{Caveats}
\subsubsection{Missed reservoirs}
Not all major reservoirs have been probed with the observations discussed in this work. As discussed in the previous Section, it is not possible to probe individual isomers unambiguously with ROSINA measurements for 67P/C--G, as well as the interfering CS and $^{13}$CO$_{2}$. Meanwhile, with ALMA data at radio frequencies that are sensitive to rotational lines of molecules, it is not possible to determine the abundance of symmetric molecules such as N$_{2}$, CH$_{4}$, CS$_{2}$, and CO$_{2}$; and of atoms such as S. Only non-trivial combinations of data from different instruments can tackle these missed reservoirs of volatiles.
\subsubsection{Representability of the targets}
There is no evidence to suggest that 67P/C--G is in any way an atypical comet. Its bilobate shape is similar to that of comet 103P/Hartley 2 \citep{AHearn2011b} among others, and the trans-Neptunian object (486958)~2014~MU$_{69}$ \citep{Stern2019}. The topographically heterogeneous surface of 67P/C--G dominated by smooth-floored pits appears to be most similar to 81P/Wild 2 \citep{Birch2017}. Its dominant volatile has been shown to be water ice that is hidden in the interior and almost completely absent from the surface, which is again typical of all the comets studied thus far \citep{Filacchione2016a}. The low-density and high porosity ($72-74$ per cent) of the nucleus of 67P/C--G is comparable to that of comet 9P/Tempel 1 \citep{Patzold2016}. The coma has been quite tenuous in comparison to the brightest comets that have been observed, such as Hale--Bopp whose production rates were roughly two orders of magnitude higher (Altwegg et al. in press). The chemical richness observed on 67P/C--G is very likely a mere consequence of the superior measurement techniques (long-term monitoring at close distances coupled with high sensitivity of \textit{Rosetta}'s scientific payload). This is supported by the detection of ethylene glycol and formamide on comets C/2012~F6~(Lemmon) and C/2013~R1~(Lovejoy), as well as ethanol and glycolaldehyde in the latter target \citep{Biver2014,Biver2015b}. The determined volatile composition does not show any major differences from that seen in other comets (as reviewed in \citealt{Cochran2015, DelloRusso2016}).
Likewise, there is no firm support for IRAS~16293-2422 being in any way a unique young stellar object in terms of the chemical abundances and diversity that is observed \citep{Jorgensen2004, Taquet2015}. The short distance to this source facilitates the detection of all the minor and weakly-emitting molecules. For example, complex organic molecule abundances towards L483 as observed with ALMA compare well to those of IRAS~16293-2422~B \citep{Jacobsen2018b}. From the point of view of the physical structure, there also does not seem to be anything out of the ordinary within the large morphological diversity that is seen in star-forming regions. Multiplicity appears to be common for Class 0 and I sources \citep{Tobin2016}. Source A has also been suggested to be binary in itself (e.g., \citealt{Hernandez-Gomez2019b}). The deuteration of water as measured via the HDO/H$_{2}$O ratio in IRAS~16293-2422 is in range of other deeply embedded low-mass sources on the same spatial scales (fig.~6 of \citealt{Persson2014}), hence, suggesting no drastic temperature differences at the time of water molecule formation in such systems. Further work remains to be done for a larger sample of isolated protostars and the more classical hot corino sources.
On the other hand, it is thought that binaries that are separated by more than disc-scales will not be significantly impacted by neither the passive (heating of the inner collapsing envelope by the protostellar luminosity) nor active (heating by shocks) heating nor the UV flux of their companion. Such conclusions were reached based on $^{13}$CO observations across samples of low-mass protostars \citep{vanKempen2009, Yildiz2013a, Yildiz2015}. The only parts of low-mass binary systems that will be heated and UV-irradiated on scales of up to $\sim1000$~au are the outflow cavities and the cavity walls. This result even holds for species that are enhanced in abundance by UV (e.g., c-C$_{3}$H$_{2}$; \citealt{Murillo2018c}). In IRAS~16293-2422, source B appears to lie at a projected position that overlaps with the northwest outflow stemming from source A \citep{Kristensen2013, Girart2014, vanderWiel2019}. Unfortunately, the inclination angle of the northwest/southeast outflows of source A with respect to the plane of the sky and with respect to source B or the ``bridge'' remains unknown. However, the emission line profiles near source B do not show any evidence for shocks or outflows impinging onto source B from the outside. Consequently, source A is thought to not affect neither the temperature structure nor the UV field in the vicinity of source B, in contrast to a source such as B1-bW \citep{HiranoLiu2014}. This implies that the binary nature of IRAS~16293-2422 is likely not significant in the context of analyses on disc-scales carried out in this work.
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
\subsection{Chemical links between comets and the ISM}
The ALMA data analysed in Section~\ref{results} are sensitive to the gases present $\sim70$~au away from protostar B. It is anticipated that the observed gases represent the volatiles that are being transported into the forming protoplanetary disc, which have recently been thermally desorbed upon approach to the protostar, and are likely still present in the solid phase in colder regions of the disc. Thus, these ALMA data provide a unique view into the chemical composition of planet- and comet-forming materials in the low-mass source IRAS~16293-2422~B. The focal one $0.5''$-beam offset position of this work represents some of the most accurate and systematically derived relative abundances for volatiles in a forming Solar-like disc due to the use of optically thin isotopologues, no beam dilution and a relative accuracy of $10-20$ per cent on the derived column densities.
The ROSINA data used in Section~\ref{results} pertain to in situ measurements of the coma gases of 67P/C--G with the majority of the uncertainties being $\sim30$ per cent. These measurements are unique due to the continuous monitoring carried out by the \textit{Rosetta} mission, which allows bulk abundances to be derived for the first time rather than mere snap shots at an isolated moment in time. Hence, the cometary values analysed in this study are the most representative available for the building blocks of our Solar System.
Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO},~\ref{fgr:corrplotN},~\ref{fgr:corrplotS}, and~\ref{fgr:corrplotother} display correlations between CHO-, N-, S-, P-, and Cl-bearing volatiles observed in the protostar IRAS~16293-2422~B and comet 67P/C--G with Pearson correlation coefficients in the $[0.50, 1.0]$ and Spearman's correlation coefficients in the $[0.32,0.93]$ ranges. These correlations suggest that volatiles in all low-mass Solar-like systems may be comparable and that some degree of preservation occurs for volatiles from the protostellar phases into comets. This implies that the composition of planetesimals is set, to some extent, in the youngest embedded phase of star formation. Scatter, up to an order of magnitude, is observed. This is particularly noticeable when exploring smaller ranges of relative abundances, such as the case for S-bearing molecules and CHO-bearing complex organic molecules (i.e., excluding H$_{2}$O, CO and O$_{2}$ in Fig.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO}). This may stem from the inclusion of upper limits in the analysis, or may be a natural consequence of the slightly different physical evolution of our Solar System from that of IRAS~16293-2422~B.
Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO} and~\ref{fgr:corrplotN} show that the relative abundance ratios of 67P/C--G tend to be higher than those of IRAS~16293-2422 for CHO- and N-bearing species. This may indicate that relative to the reference species of a molecular family, the molecules considered in this work have been destroyed at the position near IRAS~16293-2422~B investigated with ALMA data in this work. Potential destruction may occur through gas-phase chemistry upon thermal desorption. Alternatively, it may be that more of the investigated molecules have been produced by the time of incorporation into the comet. For example, chemical modeling suggests that CO will be converted to CH$_{3}$OH, CO$_{2}$ and hydrocarbons within protoplanetary discs \citep{Bosman2018b}. Higher relative quantities may stem from older material, which has given chemical reactions more time to produce more chemically complex species at elevated dust temperatures and UV fluxes during collapse through grain-surface chemical reactions (e.g., \citealt{Drozdovskaya2014, Drozdovskaya2016}). Finally, earlier works have indicated that the amount of methanol in comets is generally lower than in protostellar regions \citep{Oberg2011c2d}. This could also result in higher relative abundances being seen for 67P/C--G when using CH$_{3}$OH as a reference species (Figs.~\ref{fgr:corrplotCHO} and~\ref{fgr:corrplotmergedCH3OH}). Only a dedicated model combining cometesimal formation, global physical evolution of the star-disc system, and simultaneous chemistry can shed light on these scenarios.
In comparison to earlier work, the strong correlation between Hale--Bopp's and ISM relative abundances of CHO- and N-bearing molecules (fig.~$3a$ and $3b$ of \citealt{Bockelee-Morvan2000}) have now been confirmed for the case of a Jupiter-family comet, 67P/C--G, and for disc-scale rather than cloud-scale materials. Such correlations for the case of S-bearing species have been established for the first time in this work. This connection may have been missed due to the data on Hale--Bopp (fig.~$3c$ of \citealt{Bockelee-Morvan2000}) being a mere snapshot of its coma composition at the time that the observations were carried out. S-bearing species, especially S$_{3}$ and S$_{4}$, are strongly associated with high dust densities in the coma \citep{Calmonte2016}, potentially implying that remote observations may be picking up S-bearing species originating from the nucleus as well as from a distributed source \citep{CottinFray2008, Altwegg2017b}. Contributions from S-bearing species stemming from the refractory dust may mask the correlation in volatiles. Alternatively, the abundances of S-bearing molecules may be more variable than others across star-forming regions. Most notably, SO and SO$_{2}$ are well-known outflow tracers, which vary in brightness on cloud scales. In the work of \citet{Bockelee-Morvan2000}, ISM observations were a compilation of data on the region L1157-B1 shocked by a nearby low-mass protostar and the hot cores associated with forming high-mass protostars W3(H$_{2}$O), G34.3+0.15, and Orion KL (Hot Core and Compact Ridge). Observations of such a diverse set of targets are sensitive to different spatial scales and are likely to probe several different components of star-forming systems simultaneously. The correlations seen in this work have been strengthened in the case of CHO-bearing molecules, in particular for CO and the estimate for H$_{2}$O, most likely due to the probing of identical spatial scales by the ALMA data on IRAS~16293-2422. This may also be the reason for the reduction of deviation from the linear correlation for HNCO and HC$_{3}$N in the N-bearing family.
When exploring the correlations between cometary and ISM molecules, \citet{Bockelee-Morvan2000} used CH$_{3}$OH to scale quantities for CHO-bearing molecules and HCN for N- and S-bearing species. Hence, CH$_{3}$OH was the only chemically relevant scaling factor used. The choice of normalizing by HCN for N- and S-bearing species was justified on the basis of the comparable D/H ratio as measured in CH$_{3}$OH and HCN. Now, 20 years later, it is not so clear whether this is something that holds true for protostellar sources in general. HCN was also chosen due to its high abundance (or production rate) in Hale--Bopp at that time. Beyond the argument of spatial scales of ISM observations (discussed in the above paragraph, and as HCN is expected to thermally desorb on envelope-scales at cool temperatures), the newly uncovered correlation in S-bearing molecules may have emerged thanks to the choice of a more representative reference molecule (that is CH$_{3}$SH).
Formamide can be classified as either a CHO- or an N-bearing family member. However, it appears to lie closer to the linear correlation seen in the N-bearing species, while it tends to be more of an outlier in the CHO-bearing family. This may suggest that it is more strongly chemically related to CH$_{3}$CN and the N-bearing molecules, rather than CH$_{3}$OH and the CHO-bearing species. Formamide has already been suggested to be closely related to HNCO based on observational data \citep{Bisschop2007, Lopez-Sepulcre2015, Coutens2016}. Laboratory data are indicating that formamide is a result of combined NO hydrogenation and photolysis in CO-rich ices, and therefore linked to the formation of HNCO \citep{Noble2015, Fedoseev2015a, Fedoseev2016}. Theoretical calculations have suggested that the link of HNCO with formamide may stem from the two molecules reacting analogously in a physical environment at a certain temperature, but not necessarily implying a chemical connection \citep{Quenard2018a}.
\subsection{Contributions from disc chemistry}
The emission from gas-phase molecules that are observed with ALMA in IRAS~16293-2422~B is assumed to be directly representative of the ices that are being transported into the `disc-like' structure around the protostar. However, this may not necessarily be the case as a result of the precise transport mechanisms of planetesimals and cometesimals into a protoplanetary disc. The exact location of formation of such bodies cannot be observed directly, and neither can their route into a disc. Only theoretical studies can probe these physical processes and suggest that the enhanced dust temperatures and UV fluxes do chemically alter the volatiles between the prestellar and protoplanetary disc phases during infall \citep{Visser2009, Visser2011, Drozdovskaya2014, Drozdovskaya2016, Hincelin2016, Yoneda2016}. However, what exactly transpires at the disc-envelope boundary still remains unclear, for example. On the other hand, once inside the disc, icy volatiles that are locked up in sufficiently large cometesimals and that remain in the outer parts of the protoplanetary disc for the rest of the time, would no longer be affected by disc chemical processes. Hence, implying that the bulk composition of cometesimals could still be pristine disc-composing materials.
Direct observations of ices in protostellar systems and protoplanetary discs would be more directly comparable to cometary volatiles. Unfortunately, solid state observations have only been possible thanks to unique configurations in a handful of somewhat older (Class II) discs with only H$_{2}$O, CO, OCN$^{-}$, OCS, and tentatively HDO being detected so far \citep{Pontoppidan2005, Honda2009, TeradaTokunaga2012, Terada2012, Aikawa2012, McClure2015}. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is expected to make much greater progress on this topic (for example within the framework of the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) European Consortium (EC) ``Protostars Survey'' Guaranteed Time Observations (GTO) program, PI: Ewine F. van Dishoeck, and the ``IceAge: Chemical Evolution of Ices during Star Formation'' Director’s Discretionary Early Release Science (DD-ERS) program, \citealt{McClure2018}). Such comparisons will be the subject of future work; however, they will always be limited to the most abundant icy volatiles due to the need for large quantities of individual molecules to generate detectable absorption features. The full chemical inventory of such diverse sets of molecules is only possible in the gas phase with facilities such as ALMA.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
In the quest to identify the ingredients that are needed to form Solar-like systems, a comparative study has been carried out between IRAS~16293-2422~B and 67P/C--G. IRAS~16293-2422 is an embedded low-mass binary protostellar system that is thought to be analogous to the youngest stages of formation of our Solar System. Source B is favorably positioned in the sky for a complete and quantitative chemical inventory with observations carried out by ALMA with the PILS survey on protoplanetary disc-scales \citep{Jorgensen2016}. 67P/C--G is a Jupiter-family comet that has been monitored continuously for more than 2 years by the instruments of the \textit{Rosetta} mission allowing an unprecedented characterization of its composition and the first-time derivation of bulk cometary molecular abundances \citep{Rubin2019a}. In this paper, the most complete molecular inventory to date of both targets has been compared in terms of relative abundances. The main conclusions are as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Abundances of CHO-, N- and S-bearing molecules display correlations between the protostellar IRAS~16293-2422~B and the cometary 67P/C--G volatiles relative to CH$_{3}$OH, CH$_{3}$CN, and CH$_{3}$SH, respectively, with some scatter. Tentative correlations between P- and Cl-bearing molecules relative to CH$_{3}$OH are inferred. This suggests preservation of prestellar and protostellar volatiles into cometary bodies upon some degree of chemical alteration.
\item Cometary relative abundances (as measured for 67P/C--G) tend to be higher than protostellar quantities (as observed in IRAS~16293-2422~B) for CHO- and N-bearing species, which may indicate either that volatile molecules are destroyed near the protostar before entry into the protoplanetary disc or that more have been produced by the time of incorporation into the comet. It cannot be excluded that this may stem from variations of solely the reference molecules (CH$_{3}$OH and CH$_{3}$CN) between comets and protostellar regions.
\item Links between Hale--Bopp's and ISM volatiles have been confirmed for the case of 67P/C--G for CHO- and N-bearing molecules on protoplanetary disc-scales. For S-bearing species these may have been missed previously for Hale--Bopp due to the use of an unrepresentative reference molecule, the importance of distributed sources for S-bearing volatiles, the snap-shot nature of cometary ground-based observations or the low spatial resolution ISM data points that encompass many structures of star-forming regions simultaneously.
\item The volatile composition of cometesimals and planetesimals is partially inherited from the pre- and protostellar phases of evolution.
\end{enumerate}
A more direct comparison with bulk cometary volatiles could be achieved by probing protoplanetary disc ices with data from future mission such as the JWST; however, this would always be limited to only the most-abundant icy species, as minor constituents would not generate observable absorption features. The legacy of the detailed in situ study of a comet as was achieved with the \textit{Rosetta} mission should be extended in the future through analogous missions to comets of different dynamic origins and other small bodies of our Solar System.
\section{Acknowledgements}
\label{acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Ambizione grant 180079, the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) Fellowship and the IAU Gruber Foundation Fellowship. MR acknowledges the support of the state of Bern and the SNSF (200020\_182418). JKJ is supported by the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme through ERC Consolidator Grant “S4F” (grant agreement
No. 646908). Research at Centre for Star and Planet Formation is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions to this work of the entire PILS and ROSINA teams, as well as input of Holger~S.~P.~M\"{u}ller with regards to the spectroscopy of glycine, and useful discussions with Nadia Murillo and Matthijs van der Wiel about binary protostellar sources.
This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2013.1.00278.S, ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2012.1.00712.S, ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2016.1.01150.S., ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2011.0.00007.SV, ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2013.1.00061.S, ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2017.1.00518.S, and ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2015.1.01193.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), MOST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
The \emph{Mackey bijection} is a certain one-to-one correspondence between the tempered irreducible unitary representations of a real reductive group and the unitary irreducible representations of its Cartan motion group. Its existence was suggested by George Mackey \cite{Mackey75} in the 1970's (although Mackey stopped short of making a precise conjecture). After a long pause, Mackey's proposal began to be examined in detail over the past dozen years, first for complex groups in \cite{Higson08} and ultimately for all real groups in breakthrough work of Afgoustidis \cite{Afgoustidis15}.
The purpose of this paper is to return to the case of complex groups, and examine the Mackey bijection in greater detail through the theory of group $C^*$-algebras and continuous fields of group $C^*$-algebras. We shall characterize the continuous field that has played a key role in nearly every study of the Mackey bijection, and use our characterization of the field to give a new characterization of the Mackey bijection.
Group $C^*$-algebras have long played a prominent role in the Mackey bijection. Indeed
Mackey's original idea was kept alive by Alain Connes, who noticed a link between Mackey's work and the Connes-Kasparov isomorphism in $C^*$-algebra $K$-theory \cite{ConnesHigson90,BCH94}.
The connection with $K$-theory is made through the deformation to the normal cone construction from geometry, which associates to the inclusion of a maximal compact subgroup $K$ into any Lie group $G$ a smooth, one-parameter family of Lie groups $G_t$, all of them copies of the group $G$ except at $t{=}0$, where
\[
G_0 = K \ltimes \bigl ( \operatorname{Lie}(G) / \operatorname{Lie}(K) \bigr ) .
\]
In the case where $G$ is reductive, $G_0$ is the Cartan motion group. Associated to the deformation to the normal cone construction there is a continuous field of $C^*$-algebras $\{ C^*_r (G_t) \} _{t \in \mathbb{R}} $. It turns out that in the reductive case this continuous field is assembled from \emph{constant} fields of $C^*$-algebras (indeed commutative $C^*$-algebras) by natural operations: extensions, Morita equivalences and direct limits. This immediately proves the Connes-Kasparov isomorphism, and by making the assembly process explicit we obtain an explicit Mackey bijection. For details see \cite{Higson08} and \cite{Afgoustidis16}.
To repeat what we wrote earlier, a principal goal of this paper is to study the continuous field $\{ C^*_r(G_t)\}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}$ in more detail, and indeed to characterize it up to isomorphism in the case where $G$ is a complex reductive group.
To explain the method, it is helpful to start with a toy model case, in which $G$ is a semidirect product group
\[
G =K\ltimes V
\]
associated to the action of a compact group $K$ on a real, finite-dimensional vector space $V$ (this is not a reductive group, of course). Here the deformation to the normal cone associated to the embedding of $K$ into $G$ gives a smooth family of groups $\{ G_t\}$ that is isomorphic to the constant family of groups with fiber $G$. However $\{ G_t\}$ is not \emph{equal} to the constant family; to obtain an isomorphism to the constant family we must use the family of \emph{rescaling morphisms}
\begin{gather*}
\alpha_t \colon G \longrightarrow G \\
\alpha_t(k,v) = (k,tv)
\end{gather*}
for $t{\ne}0$. Applying $\alpha_t$ to the fiber at $t{\ne}0$, and the identity morphism a $t{=}0$, we obtain an isomorphism from the constant family of groups with fiber $G$ into the deformation to the normal cone family.
The same rescaling morphisms induce an isomorphism from the constant field of $C^*$-al\-gebras with fiber $C^*_r(G)$ to the deformation to the normal cone continuous field $\{ C^*_r(G_t)\}$.
Similar rescaling morphisms do not exist at the group level on a real reductive group, except in trivial cases. But one might ask whether they nonetheless exist on the reduced group $C^*$-algebra?
The reason that one might guess that rescaling morphisms exist at the $C^*$-algebra level is that the structure of the $C^*$-algebra is very closely tied to the structure of the tempered dual of $G$, and there is a natural rescaling operation on the tempered dual. Indeed the tempered dual is parametrized by a combination of discrete and continuous parameters, with the latter belonging to vector spaces, or quotients of vectors spaces by finite group actions. So the continuous parameters may be rescaled in the obvious way. Moreover this rescaling operation plays a central role in the Mackey bijection.
Our first main result is that rescaling morphisms for connected complex reductive groups do indeed exist at the $C^*$-algebra level:
\begin{theorem*}
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group.
There is a one-parameter group of automorphisms
\[
\alpha_t \colon C^*_r(G) \longrightarrow C^*_r(G) \qquad (t>0)
\]
that implements the rescaling action on the tempered dual of $G$ in the Mackey bijection.
\end{theorem*}
See Section~\ref{sec-scaling-automorphism}. Our second main result is that, at the level of continuous fields, there is a (unique) extension to $t{=}0$, as follows:
\begin{theorem*} Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group and let $\{ f_t\}$ be a continuous section of the continuous field of $C^*$-algebras associated to the deformation to the normal cone construction for the inclusion of a maximal compact subgroup into $G$. Then the limit
$\lim_{t\to 0} \alpha_t (f_t)$ exists in $C^*_r (G)$, and the formula
\[
\alpha (f_0) = \lim_{t\to 0} \alpha_t(f_t)
\]
defines an embedding of $C^*$-algebras
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0)\longrightarrow C^*_r(G) .
\]
\end{theorem*}
See Theorems~\ref{thm-the-limit-exists} and \ref{thm-embedding} for the precise statements (we have omitted here some details related to the Haar measures on the groups $G_t$, which vary with $t$).
Now, given an embedding of $C^*$-algebras $\alpha\colon B \to A$, there is a simple and obvious way to construct a continuous field of $C^*$-algebras with fibers
\[
A_t = \begin{cases} A & t\ne 0 \\ B & t=0,
\end{cases}
\]
namely we take as continuous sections all those set-theoretic sections for which the formula
\[
t \longmapsto \begin{cases}
a_t & t\ne 0 \\
\alpha(b_0) & t=0
\end{cases}
\]
defines a continuous function from $\mathbb{R}$ to $A$. Let us call this the \emph{mapping cone} continuous field associated to the inclusion.
Using mapping cones, we are able to characterize the continuous field associated to the deformation to the normal cone, as follows:
\begin{theorem*}
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group.
The continuous field of $C^*$-algebras $\{ \, C^*_r (G_t)\, \}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}$ associated to the deformation to the normal cone construction is isomorphic to the mapping cone field for the embedding
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G).
\]
Indeed the morphism
\[
\{ f_t\} \longmapsto \{ \alpha_t (f_t) \} ,
\]
where $\alpha_0{=}\operatorname{id}$, is a bijection from continuous sections of the deformation to the normal cone field to continuous sections of the mapping cone field.
\end{theorem*}
See Section~\ref{subsec-mapping-cone} for further details (including the proper treatment of $\alpha_t$ when $t$ is negative).
To summarize, one might say that the continuous field is nothing more or less than the morphism
\begin{equation*}
\alpha \colon C^*_r (G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G) .
\end{equation*}
What does this tell us about the Mackey bijection? Each tempered irreducible unitary representation of $G$ corresponds to an irreducible representation
\[
\pi \colon C^*_r (G) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{B} (H_\pi)
\]
(in fact the range is the ideal of compact operators, $\mathfrak{K} (H_\pi)$, but that is not relevant here). The composition of this representation of $C^*_r (G)$ with the embedding $\alpha$ above is not necessarily irreducible, so composition with $\alpha$ does not directly determine a map from the tempered dual of $G$ to the unitary dual of $G_0$. However generically the restriction \emph{is} irreducible, and it turns out that this enough to determine a unique Mackey bijection:
\begin{theorem*}
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group.
There is a unique bijection $\mu$ from the tempered unitary dual of $G$ to the unitary dual of $G_0$ with the property that for every $\pi \in G_0$, $\mu(\pi)$ is a subrepresentation of $\pi\circ \alpha$.
\end{theorem*}
See Section~\ref{sec-bijection-characterization}. It is an outstanding problem to provide some sort of conceptual explanation for the Mackey bijection, and we do not know if the approach in this paper will contribute usefully to the solution. At the moment, it seems to us that progress in this direction will depend on understanding the rescaling morphisms $\alpha_t$, or perhaps their infinitesimal generator, more conceptually. Given the way that the rescaling morphisms are defined (see Section~\ref{sec-scaling-automorphism}) that would, in turn, seem to depend on developing some kind of understanding of the relation between the Mackey bijection and the Plancherel measure, which enters into the formula for the inverse of the Fourier transform isomorphism for $G$.
As for the problem of extending the approach of this paper to real groups, it will become evident later in this paper that the major issue is to understand the (normalized) intertwining isomorphisms between unitary principal series representations in much greater detail (and thanks to Harish-Chandra's work, this is in turn related to the theory of the Plancherel measure). In the relatively simple case of complex groups the complexities surrounding intertwiners can be avoided altogether.
\section{Continuous Fields of Reduced Group C*-Algebras}
\label{sec-continuous-fields}
\subsection{Deformation spaces}
\label{subsec-deformation-spaces}
There is a \emph{deformation space} or \emph{deformation to the normal cone} $\mathbb{N}_VM$ associated to the embedding of any smooth manifold $M$ as a closed submanifold of a smooth manifold $V$. It is a smooth manifold itself, and it is equipped with a submersion onto the real line. See for example \cite{Higson08} for an account adapted to the concerns of this paper, although the definition originates elsewhere and much earlier, in algebraic geometry (see \cite{Fulton84} for the algebraic-geometric perspective).
Let us quickly review the construction in the case of interest to us, which is the inclusion of a maximal compact subgroup $K$ into an almost connected Lie group $G$. As a set, the deformation space is defined to be
$$
\deformation{K}{G}=N_G K\times \{0\} \, \, \sqcup\,\, \bigsqcup_{t\ne 0} G\times \{ t\}
$$
where $N_G K$ is the normal bundle to $K$,
\[
N_G K = TG\vert _K \,\big / \,TK.
\]
The deformation space has a unique smooth manifold structure for which
\begin{enumerate}[\rm (i)]
\item The natural map $N_G K\to \mathbb{R}$ is smooth.
\item If $f$ is a smooth function on $G$, then the function
\[
\begin{cases} (g,t) \mapsto f(g) & t \ne 0 \\
(X_k,0)\mapsto f(k)
\end{cases}
\]
is smooth on $\mathbb{N}_G K$.
\item If $f$ is a smooth function on $G$, and if $f$ vanishes on $K$, then the function
\[
\begin{cases} (g,t) \mapsto t^{-1} f(g) & t \ne 0 \\
(X_k,0)\mapsto X_k(f)
\end{cases}
\]
is smooth on $\mathbb{N}_G K$.
\item At every point, local coordinates can be selected from functions of the above types.
\end{enumerate}
The commuting diagram of multiplication operations
\[
\xymatrix{ K\times K \ar[r] \ar[d]& K\ar[d] \\
G \times G \ar[r]&G
}
\]
induces a diagram
\[
\xymatrix{ TK\times TK \ar[r] \ar[d]& TK\ar[d] \\
TG \times TG \ar[r]&TG ,
}
\]
and we obtain from this a multiplication operation
\[
N_G K \times N_G K \longrightarrow N_G K.
\]
It makes the normal bundle into a Lie group, and we obtain from $\mathbb{N}_GK$ a smooth family of Lie groups over $\mathbb{R}$ (that is, a Lie groupoid with object space $\mathbb{R}$ and source and target maps equal to one another).
If we trivialize the tangent bundles on $G$ and $K$ by left translations, then we obtain an identification of bundles and Lie groups
\[
N_G K \cong K \ltimes \lie{g}/ \lie {k}
\]
where on the right is the semidirect product group associated to the adjoint action.
\subsection{The associated continuous field of C*-algebras}
For $t{\in}\mathbb{R}$ let us denote by $G_t $ the fiber over $t$ of the submersion
\[
\mathbb{N}_G K \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}.
\]
It is a Lie group, and for $t{\ne} 0$ it is isomorphic to $G$ itself.
Choose a Haar measure $\mu$ for $G$. Then equip the fibers $G_t$ for $t{\neq} 0$ with the left Haar measure $dg_t = |t|^{-d}dg$,
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-def-of-d}
d = \dim (G/K)
\end{equation}
(we shall use this notation throughout the paper). The Haar measure on $G$ determines an associated Haar measure $dg_0$ on $G_0$, and altogether the Haar measures that we have chosen for the fibers $G_t$ vary smoothly with $t$, in the sense that if $f$ is a smooth and compactly supported function on $\mathbb{N}_G K$, and if $f_t$ denotes the restriction of $f$ to $G_t$, then the integral
\[
\int_{G_t} f_t(g_t) \; dg_t
\]
is a smooth function of $t{\in} \mathbb{R}$. Moreover if $f_1$ and $f_2$ are two smooth and compactly supported functions on $\mathbb{N}_G K$, then the convolution product
\[
(f_{1,t}*f_{2,t}) (g_t) = \int _{G_t } f_{1,t} (\gamma_t ) f_{2,t}(\gamma_t ^{-1}g_t)\; d \gamma_t \qquad (g_t\in G_t)
\]
is a smooth and compactly supported function $\mathbb{N}_G K$, too.
The same convolution formula applied to functions on $G_t$ alone defines a product on $C_c^\infty(G_t)$, and we shall denote by $C^*_r(G_t)$ the reduced $C^*$-algebra completion (in the norm that $C_c^\infty (G_t)$ obtains as left-convolution operators on $L^2 (G_t,dg_t)$, and the adjoint operation it obtains from the operator adjoint operation). Compare \cite[Sec.\;7.2]{Pedersen79}.
\begin{lemma}[See {\cite[Lemma 6.13]{Higson08}}]
Let $G$ be an almost-connected Lie group and let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$.
If $f$ is a smooth and compactly supported function on the deformation space $\deformation{G}{K}$, and if $f_t$ denotes its restriction to $G_t$, then the norm
$\|f_t\|_{C^*_r (G_t)}$
is a continuous function of $t\in \mathbb{R}$. \qed
\end{lemma}
It follows that the smooth and compactly supported functions on $\mathbb{N}_G K$ generate the continuous sections of a continuous field of $C^*$-algebras over $\mathbb{R}$ with fibers $C^*_r (G_t)$ in the sense of \cite[Prop.\;10.2.3]{Dixmier77}. We shall call this the \emph{deformation} continuous field of reduced group $C^*$-algebras associated to the inclusion of $K$ into $G$.
It will be helpful to think of the $C^*$-algebras $C^*_r(G_t)$ as being completely distinct from one another, even though for $t{\ne}0$ they may be viewed as completions of the same space of functions in equivalent norms. When we wish to compare $C^*_r(G_t)$ for different $t{\ne}0$, as we shall in Section~\ref{sec-limit-formula-and-embedding}, we shall do so using the canonical $*$-isomorphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-lambda-t-isomorphism}
\lambda_t \colon C^*_r (G_t)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow C^*_r(G)
\end{equation}
associated to the isomorphisms $G_t{\cong }G$. These are given by the formulas
\[
\lambda_t \colon f \longmapsto \Bigl [ g \mapsto |t|^{-d} f(g,t)
\Bigr ]
\]
for $f\in C_c^\infty (G_t)$. The factor $|t|^{-d}$ accounts for the change in Haar measures.
The isomorphisms $\lambda_t$ may also be described as follows. For $t{\ne}0$ the left translation action of $G_t{\cong} G$ on itself integrates to a $C^*$-algebra representation
\[
\lambda_t \colon C^*_r (G_t) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{B}(L^2 (G,dg)) .
\]
The image is independent of $t$, and is the image of the regular representation of $C^*_r(G)$ itself. So we obtain $*$-isomorphisms as above.
\subsection{The case of reductive groups}
\label{subsec-deformations-for-reductive-groups}
If $G$ is a real reductive group, then the deformation space $\mathbb{N}_GK$ may be given a more concrete form using the following basic structural facts about $G$.
Fix a \emph{Cartan decomposition} $\lie{g} = \lie{k}\oplus \lie{s}$ for the Lie algebra of $G$. Then of course $\lie{g}/\lie{k}\cong \lie{s}$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-motion-group-and-cartan-decomp}
K\ltimes \lie{g}/\lie{k}\cong K\ltimes \lie{s}.
\end{equation}
Next, choose a maximal abelian subspace of $\lie{a}\subseteq \lie{s}$ and an Iwasawa decomposition
\[
G = K A N
\]
where $A = \exp [ \lie{a}]$ (any two Iwasawa decompositions are conjugate by an element of $K$). The smooth map
\begin{gather*}
K \times \lie{a} \times \lie{n} \longrightarrow G \\
(k,X,Y)\longmapsto k \exp(X)\exp(Y)
\end{gather*}
is then a diffeomorphism. See for example \cite{Knapp02} for all this.
If we view $K$ as a submanifold of $K{\times}\lie{a}{\times}\lie{n}$ via the inclusion
\begin{gather*}
K \longrightarrow K \times \lie{a} \times \lie{n} \\
k \longmapsto (k , 0, 0) ,
\end{gather*}
then the functoriality of the deformation space construction (see for example \cite[p.303]{HSSHigson18}) and the commutativity of the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
K \ar@{=}[r]\ar[d] & K\ar[d]\\
K \times \lie{a} \times \lie{n} \ar[r]& G
}
\]
allows us to view $\mathbb{N}_GK$ as the deformation space associated to the inclusion of the zero section into a (trivial) vector bundle. For the latter, see \cite[Ex.\;4.6]{Higson10}. We obtain a diffeomorphism
\[
K \times \lie{a}\times \lie{n} \times \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{N}_GK
\]
given by the formula
\[
(k,X,Y,t) \longrightarrow
\begin{cases}
\bigl ( k \exp(tX)\exp(tY), t \bigr ) & t \ne 0 \\
\bigl((k,[X{+}Y]),0\bigr ) & t = 0.
\end{cases}
\]
Here $[X{+}Y]$ denotes the class in the quotient vector space $\lie{g}/\lie{k}$ associated to the vector $X{+}Y \in \lie{g}$, or equivalently, keeping in mind the isomorphism \eqref{eq-motion-group-and-cartan-decomp}, the projection of $X{+}Y\in \lie{a}\oplus\lie{n} $ onto the summand $\lie{s}$ in the Cartan decomposition $\lie{g}=\lie{k}\oplus\lie{s}$.
This computation has the following consequence that will be of central importance later on:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-smooth-function-on-def-space}
A function $f\colon \mathbb{N}_GK \to \mathbb{C}$ is smooth and compactly supported if and only if the function
\[
(k,X,Y,t) \longmapsto
\begin{cases}
f(k\exp(t^{-1}X)\exp(t^{-1}Y)) & t \ne 0 \\
f(k, [X{+}Y]),0) & t = 0
\end{cases}
\]
is smooth and compactly supported on $K{\times}\lie{a}{\times} \lie{n}{\times} \mathbb{R}$.\qed
\end{lemma}
\section{Structure of Reduced Group C*-Algebras}
\label{sec-group-algebras}
The main purpose of this section is to review the detailed description of the $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r (G)$, which was presented first in \cite{PeningtonPlymen83}. This we shall use throughout the paper. We shall also review the classification of the irreducible unitary representations of the motion group, due to Mackey \cite{Mackey49}, which we shall use in the final section. For completeness we shall also review the structure of $C^*_r (G_0)$; this will not play a significant role in what follows, but among other things the unitary dual of $G_0$ is most easily determined from the structure of $C^*_r (G_0)$.
\subsection{Connected complex reductive groups}
Let $G$ be a complex, connected, reductive group. To describe its tempered unitary dual and reduced group $C^*$-algebra we begin with an Iwasawa decomposition $G=KAN$. Let $M$ be the centralizer in $K$ of $A$, which is a maximal torus in $K$, and let $P$ be the (\emph{Borel} or \emph{minimal parabolic}) subgroup $MAN$. The group $N$ is a normal subgroup of $P$, and as a result of this, if $\sigma$ is a character of $M$, and if $\nu\in \mathfrak{a}^*$, then the formula
\[
\sigma\otimes \exp(i\nu) \colon m\cdot \exp(X)\cdot n \longmapsto \sigma(m)\cdot \exp(i\nu(X))
\]
defines a unitary character of $P$. The \emph{unitary principal series representation} of $G$ associated to $\sigma$ and $\nu$ (and the given choice of minimal parabolic subgroup) is the unitarily induced representation
\[
\pi_{\sigma,\nu} = \Ind_P^G \;\sigma\otimes \exp(i \nu).
\]
We shall need the following explicit description of this representation. The Hilbert space on which it acts is the completion of the space of all smooth functions $\psi \colon G \to \mathbb{C}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-function-in-induced-rep-space}
\psi(gm\exp(X)n)=e^{-(\rho+i \nu)(X)}\sigma(m)^{-1}\psi(g)
\end{equation}
for all $g{\in} G$, $m{\in} M$, $X{ \in} \lie{a}$ and $n{\in} N$, in the norm associated to the inner product
\[
\langle \phi,\psi \rangle = \int_K \overline{\phi(k)} \psi(k)\; d k .
\]
Here $
\rho\in \lie{a}^*$ is the half-sum of the positive restricted roots associated to our choice of $N$ (its presence makes the representation $\pi_{\sigma,\nu}$ unitary; other than that we shall not need any further information about it). The action of $G$ on the functions \eqref{eq-function-in-induced-rep-space} is by left translation.
Thanks to the Iwasawa decomposition, a function satisfying \eqref{eq-function-in-induced-rep-space} is completely determined by its restriction to $K$, and we find that the Hilbert space of our unitary principal series representation identifies, via restriction of functions to $K$, with the Hilbert space
\[
L^2(K)^{\sigma}= \bigl \{ \, \psi :K \stackrel{L^2}\rightarrow \mathbb{C} : \psi (km)= \sigma(m)^{-1}\psi (k)\;\quad \forall m\in M, \; \forall k \in K \, \bigr \} .
\]
We shall work exclusively with this realization from now on. An advantage of this realization is that the Hilbert space for the principal series representation associated to $\sigma$ and $\nu$ depends only on $\sigma$ and not on $\nu$. A disadvantage is that the formula for the action of $G$ is a bit more complicated. To describe it we need the Iwasawa decomposition of elements of $G$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-iwasawa-for-elements}
\qquad g= \kappa(g)\cdot e^{H(g)}\cdot n \quad ( \kappa(g) \in K, \quad X\in \lie{a},\quad n \in N).
\end{equation}
With this notation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-action-of-g-in-compact-form}
( \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(g)\phi) (k)=e^{-(\rho+i \nu)H(g^{-1}k)} \phi(\kappa(g^{-1}k))
\end{equation}
for $\phi\in L^2(K)^\sigma$.
The Weyl group of $K$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-weyl-group}
W = N_K(M) / M ,
\end{equation}
acts by conjugation on $M$, of course, but it also acts by conjugation on $A$ (this is because the complexification of $M$ is $MA$). So $W$ acts on the parameter space $\widehat M \times \lie{a}^*$ for the unitary principal series. The main facts about the unitary principal series of $G$ may then be summarized as follows:
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a connected, complex reductive group.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm (i)]
\item
Every unitary principal series representation is an irreducible, tempered unitary representation of $G$
\item Every irreducible, tempered unitary representation of $G$ is equivalent to some unitary principal series representation.
\item Two unitary principal series representations $\pi_{\sigma',\nu'}$ and $\pi_{\sigma'',\nu''}$ are equivalent if and only if
the pairs $(\sigma',\nu'),(\sigma'',\nu'')\in \widehat M {\times} \lie{a}^*$ are conjugate by an element of $W$. \qed
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
These facts are essentially due to Gelfand and Naimark when $G$ is a classical group \cite{GelfandNaimark50}, and to Harish-Chandra \cite{Harish-Chandra54} in general, although the irreducibility of the unitary principal series in full generality is due to Wallach
\cite{Wallach71}. (The question of whether or not the unitary principal series defines a \emph{closed} subset of the unitary dual, and hence accounts for the full tempered dual, was not initially addressed. But see for example \cite{CCH16} for this issue.)
\begin{definition}
\label{def-iota-notation}
Let $\sigma\in \widehat M$ and let $\nu \in \mathfrak{a}^*$. We shall write
\[
\iota (\sigma,\nu) \in \widehat G_r
\]
for the equivalence class of the irreducible unitary principal series representation
\[
\pi_{\sigma,\nu} = \Ind_{P}^{G} \sigma \otimes e^{i \nu}
\]
of the group $G$.
\end{definition}
Now for $f\in C_c^\infty (G)$, we define
$$
\pi_{\sigma,\nu}(f)\phi=\int_G f(g) \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(g)\phi\; dg
$$
for $\phi\in L^2(K)^\sigma$. The formula defines a $C^*$-algebra representation
\[
\pi_{\sigma,\nu} \colon C^*_r (G) \longrightarrow \mathfrak{B} (L^2 (K)^\sigma ).
\]
\begin{theorem}[See for example {\cite[Cor.\;4.12]{CCH16}}]
\label{thm-reductive-riemann-lebesgue}
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group and let $\sigma\in \widehat M$. There is a $C^*$-algebra morphism
\[
\pi_\sigma \colon C_r^*(G) \longrightarrow C_0 (\mathfrak{a}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) )
\]
such that $\pi_\sigma(f)(\nu) = \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(f)$ for every $\nu\in \lie{a}^*$. \qed
\end{theorem}
Now let $\sigma\in \widehat M$, and denote by $W_\sigma$ the isotropy group of $\sigma$ in the Weyl group $W= N_K(M)/M$. Associate to $\sigma$ its infinitesimal form
\[
\sigma\colon \lie{m} \longrightarrow i \mathbb{R} ,
\]
and then extend this to a linear functional
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-extended-sigma}
\sigma\colon \lie{k} \longrightarrow i \mathbb{R}
\end{equation}
by writing $\lie{k} = \lie{m} \oplus \lie{m}^ \perp$ using any $K$-invariant inner product, and defining $\sigma$ to be zero on $\lie{m}^\perp$.
We may then identify $W_\sigma$ with the Weyl group of the isotropy group $K_\sigma$ for \eqref{eq-extended-sigma}. It follows, in particular, that $W_\sigma$ is itself a Weyl group. Moreover since $G$ is a complex group, we have that
\[
\lie{s} = i\cdot \lie{k} \quad \text{and}\quad
\lie{a} = i \cdot \lie{m}
\]
So we can divide $\lie{a}^*$ into Weyl chambers for the action of $W_\sigma$, and choose one \emph{positive Weyl chamber}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-positive-sigma-weyl-chamber}
\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}\subseteq \lie{a}^*
\end{equation}
which is a fundamental domain for the action of $W_\sigma$ on $\lie{a}^*$.
The morphisms $\pi_\sigma$ in Theorem~\ref{thm-reductive-riemann-lebesgue} determine morphisms
\[
\pi_\sigma \colon C_r^*(G) \longrightarrow C_0 (\mathfrak{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) )
\]
by restriction to the positive Weyl chamber. These assemble into a $C^*$-algebra isomorphism, as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-structure-reductive-reduced-algebra}
Let $G$ be a complex reductive group. The representations of $G$ in the unitary principal series induce a $C^*$-algebra isomorphism
\[
\oplus_{\sigma\in\widehat{M}_{+}} \pi_\sigma \colon C_r^*(G)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_{+}} C_0\bigl (\mathfrak{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma)\bigr ) ,
\]
where $\widehat{M}_+ \subseteq \widehat{M}$ is a positive Weyl chamber for the action of $W$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The general considerations in \cite{CCH16} show that there is an isomorphism
\[
\oplus_{\sigma\in\widehat{M}_{+}} \pi_\sigma \colon C_r^*(G)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_{+}} C_0\bigl (\mathfrak{a}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma)\bigr )^{W_\sigma},
\]
where $W_\sigma$ acts by intertwining automorphisms on $C_0 (\mathfrak{a}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) )$. The required result now follows from the fact that $\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$ is a fundamental domain for the action of $W_\sigma$ on $\lie{a}^*$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The motion group}
The Cartan motion group
\[
G_0 = K\ltimes \lie{g}/\lie{k} \cong K\ltimes \lie{s}
\]
is amenable, and so its tempered dual is equal to the full unitary dual, and the canonical morphism $C^*(G_0)\to C^*_r (G_0)$ from the full to the reduced group $C^*$-algebra is an isomorphism. We shall use $C^*_r(G_0)$ rather than $C^*(G_0)$ in what follows simply to be consistent with our usage for the complex reductive group $G$, which is not amenable unless it is abelian.
Let $\nu \in \lie{s} ^*$. The function $\exp(i \nu)$ is a unitary character on the additive group $\lie{s}$, and so we may form the unitarily induced representation
\[
\pi_\nu = \Ind _{\lie{s}}^{K\ltimes \lie{s}} exp(i \nu)
\]
of the motion group $G_0$. By definition, its Hilbert space is the completion of the space of smooth functions $\psi\colon G_0\to \mathbb{C}$ such that
\[
\psi(k,X) = \psi(k)\exp(-i \nu(X)) \qquad (\forall (k,X)\in G_0)
\]
in the norm induced from the inner product
\[
\langle \phi, \psi\rangle = \int _K \overline{\phi(k)} \psi(k)\; dk .
\]
The action of $G_0$ is by left translation.
Of course the Hilbert space identifies with $L^2 (K)$. Under this identification the subgroup $K\subseteq G_0$ acts by left translation, whereas an element $X\in\lie{s}$ acts by pointwise multiplication by the function $k\mapsto \exp(i \nu(k^{-1}\cdot X))$.
The unitary representation $\pi_\nu$ of $G_0$ integrates to a $C^*$-algebra representation
\[
\pi_\nu \colon C^*_r(G_0)\longrightarrow \mathfrak{K} ( L^2 (K)) ,
\]
and the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma for the ordinary Fourier transform implies the following result:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-riemann-lebesgue1}
There is a morphism $C^*$-algebras
\[
\pi \colon C^*_r(G_0) \longrightarrow C_0(\lie{s}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)))
\]
such that
\[
\pushQED{\qed}
\pi(f)(\nu) = \pi_\nu (f) \qquad (\forall \nu \in \lie{s}^*).
\qedhere
\popQED
\]
\end{lemma}
Now the group $K$ acts on $\lie{s}^*$ by the coadjoint representation and on $L^2 (K)$ by right translation, and these actions combine to give an action of $K$ on the $C^*$-algebra $C_0(\lie{s}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)))$ by $C^*$-algebra automorphisms. The following result describes the $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(G_0)$ up to isomorphism:
\begin{theorem}
[See for example {\cite[Thm\,3.2]{Higson08}}]
The morphism $\pi$ in Lemma \textup{\ref{lem-riemann-lebesgue1}} induces an isomorphism
\[
\pushQED{\qed}
C^*_r(G_0)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow C_0(\lie{s}^*,\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)))^K.
\qedhere
\popQED
\]
\end{theorem}
The representations $\pi_\nu$ are not irreducible, but using the theorem it is not difficult to obtain the following description of the irreducible unitary representations of $G_0$, which is a simple case of a general result due to Mackey (see \cite{Mackey49} or \cite{Mackey55}). See also \cite[Sec.\,3.1]{Higson08}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-mackey-classification}
If $\nu\in \lie{s} ^*$ and if $\tau\in \widehat K_\nu$, then the representation
\[
\Ind_{K_{\nu}\ltimes \lie{s}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}} \tau \otimes e^{i \nu}
\]
is irreducible. Every irreducible unitary representation of $G_0$ is equivalent to one that is obtained in this way, and two representations
\[
\Ind_{K_{\nu'}\ltimes \lie{s}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}} \tau' \otimes e^{i \nu'}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\Ind_{K_{\nu''}\ltimes \lie{s}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}} \tau'' \otimes e^{i \nu''}
\]
are unitarily equivalent if and only if the data $(\tau',\nu')$ and $(\tau'',\nu'')$ are conjugate by an element of $K$. \qed
\end{theorem}
Now let $\lie{a}\subseteq \lie{s}$ and $M\subseteq K$ be as in the previous subsection. Because $G$ is a complex group, we can form $ i\cdot \lie{k} \subseteq \lie{g}$, and in fact
\[
\lie{s} = i \cdot \lie{k} ,
\]
from which it follows that $\lie{a} =i \cdot \lie {m}$, where $\lie{m}$ is the Lie algebra of $M$. It follows from standard facts about compact groups that every element of $\lie{s}$ is conjugate by an element of $K$ to an element of $\lie{a}$, and that two elements in $\lie{a}$ are conjugate to one another by an element of $K$ if and only if they are conjugate by an element of the Weyl group
$
W = N_K(M) / M $.
We can write
\[
\lie{s} = \lie{a} \oplus \lie{a}^\perp
\]
using a $K$-invariant inner product on $\lie{s}$ (the orthogonal complement does not depend of the choice of inner product), and so regard $\lie{a}^*$ as a subspace of $\lie{s}^*$. We see from Theorem~\ref{thm-mackey-classification}, therefore, that every irreducible representation of $G_0$ is equivalent to one of the form
\[
\Ind_{K_{\nu}\ltimes \lie{s}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}} \tau \otimes e^{i \nu}
\]
for some $\nu\in \lie{a}^*$ and some $\tau \in \widehat K_\nu$
Finally, $K_\nu$ is a connected compact Lie group, and $M\subseteq K_\nu$ is a maximal torus. So the irreducible representations of $K_\nu$ are parametrized by their highest weights, which are orbits in $\widehat M$ of the Weyl group
\[
W_\nu = N_{K_\nu}(M)/M,
\]
which is also the isotropy group of $\nu\in \lie{a}^*$ for the action of $W$ on $\lie{a}^*$. So the irreducible unitary representations of $G_0$ are parametrized by elements of the set
\[
\Bigl (\, \bigsqcup_{\nu \in \lie {a}^*} \widehat{M}/ W_\nu \times \{\nu\} \, \Bigr ) / W = \bigl (\, \widehat {M} \times \lie{a}^* \, \bigr ) / W .
\]
For future use we shall introduce the following notation for irreducible representation attached to the parameter $(\sigma, \nu)$:
\begin{definition}
Let $\sigma\in \widehat M$ and let $\nu \in \mathfrak{a}^*$. Let $\tau_\sigma\in \widehat K_{\nu}$ be the irreducible representation with highest weight $[\sigma]\in \widehat{M}/ W_\nu$. We shall write
\[
\pi(\sigma,\nu) \in \widehat G_0
\]
for the equivalence class of the irreducible unitary representation
\[
\Ind_{K_{\nu}\ltimes \lie{s}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}} \tau_\sigma \otimes e^{i \nu}
\]
of the motion group $G_0$.
\end{definition}
\section{Scaling automorphisms}
\label{sec-scaling-automorphism}
In this section we shall construct a one-parameter group of automorphisms
\[
\alpha_t \colon C^*_r (G) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G) .
\]
The automorphisms will be parametrized by the multiplicative group of positive real numbers, rather than the usual additive group of real numbers, and so the group law is $\alpha_{t_1} \circ \alpha_{t_2} = \alpha _{t_1t_2}$.
\subsection{Definition of the scaling automorphisms}
Given the structure theory for $C^*_r (G)$ that was presented in the previous section, the construction is extremely simple.
Let $\sigma \in \widehat{M}_+$. Define, for $t> 0$, an automorphism
\[
\alpha_{\sigma,t}:C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr )
\longrightarrow
C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr )
\]
by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-rescaling-automorphism-def1}
\alpha_{\sigma,t}(f)(\nu)=f(t^{-1}\nu).
\end{equation}
The individual one-parameter groups $\alpha_{\sigma,t}$ may be combined by direct sum into a one-parameter group of automorphisms
\[
\oplus _\sigma \alpha_{\sigma,t} \colon
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr )
\longrightarrow
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr ) ,
\]
and then we define automorphisms $\alpha_t$ of $C^*_r (G)$ by means of the commuting diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-rescaling-automorphism-def2}
\xymatrix@C=50pt{
C^*_r(G) \ar[d]_{\oplus_\sigma \pi_\sigma}^\cong \ar[r]^{\alpha_t} & C^*_r(G) \ar[d]^{\oplus_\sigma \pi_\sigma}_\cong
\\
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr )
\ar[r]_{\oplus_\sigma \alpha_{\sigma,t} }&
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr ) .
}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Scaling automorphisms for negative t}
As we shall soon see, the key property of the rescaling automorphism $\alpha_t$, which is immediate from its definition, is that if $\sigma{\in}\widehat{M}_{+}$ and if $\nu{ \in} \lie{a}^*_{\sigma,+}$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-key-property-of-alpha-t}
\pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\alpha_t(f)) = \pi_{\sigma, t^{-1}\nu}(f)
\end{equation}
for all $f{\in} C^*_r (G)$.
We shall want to extend this to negative $t$, and to this end we define automorphisms
\[
\alpha_t \colon C^*_r (G) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G)
\]
for $t{<}0$ as follows.
First we define $\lie{a}^*_{-,\sigma}$ to be the negative of the Weyl chamber $\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$. This is simply another Weyl chamber for $W_\sigma$, and so all the constructions that we made in Section~\ref{sec-group-algebras} using $\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$ can be repeated for $\lie{a}^*_{-,\sigma}$. In particular there is an isomorphism of $C^*$-algebras
\[
\oplus_{\sigma\in\widehat{M}_{+}} \pi_\sigma \colon C_r^*(G)\stackrel \cong \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_{+}} C_0\bigl (\mathfrak{a}^*_{-,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma)\bigr ) ,
\]
We now define $\alpha_t\colon C^*_r(G)\to C^*_r (G)$ for $t{<}0$ by means of the commuting diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=50pt{
C^*_r(G) \ar[d]_{\oplus_\sigma \pi_\sigma}^\cong \ar[r]^{\alpha_t} & C^*_r(G) \ar[d]^{\oplus_\sigma \pi_\sigma}_\cong
\\
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{-,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr )
\ar[r]_{\oplus_\sigma \alpha_{\sigma,t} }&
\bigoplus_{\sigma\in \widehat M_+} C_0 \bigl ( \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma},\mathfrak{K}(L^2(K)^\sigma) \bigr ) .
}
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha_{\sigma,t}(h)(\nu) = h(t^{-1}\nu)$. The key property \eqref{eq-rescaling-automorphism-def1} now holds for all $t{\ne}0$, for all $\nu\in \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$ and all $f\in C^*_r (G)$.
\section{Limit Formula and Embedding}
\label{sec-limit-formula-and-embedding}
\subsection{Limit formula}
The main result of this section links the scaling automorphisms
\[
\alpha_t \colon C^*_r (G)\to C^*_r (G)
\]
from \eqref{eq-rescaling-automorphism-def2} with the regular representations
\[
\lambda _t \colon C^*_r (G_t) \to C^*_r(G)
\]
from \eqref{eq-lambda-t-isomorphism} as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-the-limit-exists}
If $\{ f_t\} $ is any continuous section of the continuous field $\{C_r^*(G_t\}$, then the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \alpha_t ( \lambda_t ( f_t))
\]
exists in $C^*_r (G)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} Of course we exclude the value $t{=}0$ in forming the limit.
\end{remark}
We shall proving the theorem by carrying out an explicit computation with a suitable collection of continuous sections.
To this end, recall that a collection $\mathcal F$ of continuous sections of the continuous field of $C^*$-algebras $\{ C^*_r (G_t)\}$ is called a \emph{generating family} if for every continuous section $s$, every $\varepsilon > 0$ and every $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ there is some element $f \in \mathcal{F}$ and a neighborhood $U$ of $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\[
t \in U \quad \Rightarrow \quad \| f(t) - s(t) \| < \varepsilon.
\]
The following is an immediate consequence of the fact that $C^*$-algebra isomorphisms are isometric:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-reduce-to-generating-family}
If the limit in Theorem~\textup{\ref{thm-the-limit-exists}} exists for a generating family of continuous sections of $\{C^*_r (G_t)\}$, then it exists for all continuous sections of $\{ C^*_r (G_t)\}$. \qed
\end{lemma}
Recall that if $K$ acts continuously on a complex vector space $W$, then a vector $w{\in}W$ is said to be \emph{$K$-finite} if the linear span of the orbit of $w$ under the action of $K$ is finite-dimensional and the action on this finite-dimensional space is continuous, or equivalently if $ w$ lies in the image under the natural map
\[
\bigoplus_{\tau \in \widehat K}V_\tau \otimes _{\mathbb{C}} \operatorname{Hom}_K(V_\tau, W) \longrightarrow W
\]
of the span of finitely many summands $V_\tau \otimes _{\mathbb{C}} \operatorname{Hom}_K(V_\tau, W)$ (here $V_\tau$ is the representation space for a representative of $\tau \in \widehat K$). We shall call the minimal set of $\tau{\in} \widehat K$ here the \emph{$K$-isotypical support} of $w {\in} W$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-K-finite-generating-family1}
There exists a generating family of continuous sections for the continuous field $\{ C^*_r (G_t)\}$ consisting of smooth and compactly supported functions on $\mathbb{N}_GK$ that are $K$-finite for both the left and right translation actions of $K$ on $\mathbb{N}_GK$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the following argument we shall use right and left convolutions of elements $\phi\in C^\infty (K)$, or even $\phi\in L^2 (K)$, with elements $f\in C_c^\infty (\mathbb{N}_KG)$, defined by
\[
(f*\phi)(g)=\int_K f(gk^{-1})\phi(k)\;dk
\]
and
\[
( \phi*f)(g)=\int_K \phi(k)f(k^{-1}g)\;dk .
\]
Both convolutions are smooth and compactly supported functions on $\mathbb{N}_GK$. The formulas define $C^*$-algebra morphisms from $C^*_r(K)$ into the multiplier algebra of the $C^*$-algebra of continuous sections of $\{ C^*_r(G_t)\}$ that vanish at infinity.
Given a smooth and compactly supported complex function $f$ on $\mathbb{N}_G K$ and $\varepsilon >0$, we can find smooth functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ on $K$ such that
\[
\| f - \phi * f * \psi \| <\varepsilon ,
\]
where the norm is that of the $C^*$-algebra of continuous sections of $\{C^*_r (G_t)\}$ that vanish at infinity. Now recall the Peter-Weyl isomorphism
\[
C^*_r (K) \stackrel \cong \longrightarrow \bigoplus _{\tau \in \widehat K} \operatorname{End} (V_\tau).
\]
We can approximate $\phi$ and $\psi$, viewed as elements of $C^*_r (K)$, by elements $\phi_1 $ and $\psi_1$ of the $C^*$-algebra that map into the algebraic direct sum above, in such a way that
\[
\| f - \phi _1* f * \psi_1 \| <\varepsilon .
\]
The elements $\phi_1,\psi_1\in C^*_r (K)$ are automatically smooth functions on $K$, and the function $ \phi _1* f * \psi_1$ on $\mathbb{N}_G K$ is smooth, compactly supported and left and right $K$-finite. The collection of all elements of this form, for all $f$ and all $\varepsilon>0$, is a generating family, as required.
\end{proof}
In the proofs of the following two lemmas we shall use the fact that if $f\in C_c^\infty (G)$ and $\phi\in C^\infty (K)$, then
\[
\pi_{\sigma,\nu}(f* \phi) = \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(f)\pi_{\sigma}(\phi)
\quad \text{and} \quad
\pi_{\sigma}(\phi* f) = \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\phi) \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(f) ,
\]
where $\pi_{\sigma}(\phi) $ denotes the application to $\phi$ of the representation of $C^*_r(K)$ associated to the restriction of the representation $\pi_{\sigma,\nu}$ to $K$; the latter is independent of $\nu$, and is simply the restriction of the left-regular representation of $K$ to $L^2 (K)^\sigma{\subseteq} L^2 (K)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-K-finite-generating-family2}
Let $\{f_t\}$ be a right $K$-finite continuous section of $\{ C^*_r (G_t)\}$. If for every $\sigma\in \widehat M_+$ the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \pi_\sigma (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))
\]
exists in $C_0 (\mathfrak{a}^*_{+,\sigma} , \mathfrak{K} (L^2 (K)^\sigma) )$, then the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \alpha_t (\lambda_t (f_t))
\]
exists in $C^*_r (G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the Peter-Weyl theorem, the Hilbert space $L^2(K)^\sigma$ has a $K$-isotypical decomposition
\[
L^2 (K)^\sigma \cong \bigoplus _{\tau \in \widehat K} V_\tau \otimes \operatorname{Hom}_K ( V_\tau,\mathbb{C}_\sigma)
\]
It follows that an irreducible representation $\tau {\in} \widehat K $, is included in the $K$-iso\-typical decomposition of $L^2 (K)^\sigma$ if and only if $\sigma$ is a weight of $\tau$, and therefore $\tau$ is included in only finitely many of the spaces $L^2 (K)^\sigma$, as $\sigma$ ranges over $\widehat M$. So if $f$ is right $K$-finite, then the element
\[
\pi_\sigma(\lambda_t(f_t)) \in C_0(\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}, \mathfrak{K}(L^2 (K)^\sigma )
\]
is nonzero for only a finite set of $\sigma{\in}\widehat M$ that is independent of $t$. Therefore under the hypotheses of the lemma the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \bigoplus _{\sigma} \pi_\sigma ( \alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t))) =
\bigoplus _{\sigma} \lim_{t\to 0} \pi_\sigma(\alpha_t(\lambda_t (f_t) ) )
\]
exists: we can commute the limit and the direct sum because only finitely many summands are nonzero. The lemma follows from the fact that $\oplus_\sigma \pi _\sigma$ is isometric.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-K-finite-generating-family3}
Let $\{f_t\}$ be a left and right $K$-finite continuous section of $\{ C^*_r (G_t)\}$ and let $\sigma\in \widehat M$. If the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \langle \phi, \pi_{\sigma , \nu} (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))\psi \rangle
\]
exists for every $\phi,\psi\in L^2(K)^\sigma$, uniformly in $\nu\in \lie{a}^*$, then the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \pi_{\sigma} (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))
\]
exists in $C_0(\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}, \mathfrak{K} (L^2 (K)^\sigma)) $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S\subseteq \widehat K$ be the union of the $K$-isotypical supports of $\{f_t\}$ for the left and right translation actions, and let
\[
L^2(K)^\sigma_S = \operatorname{Image} \Bigl ( \bigoplus_{\tau\in S} V_\tau {\otimes} \operatorname{Hom}_K (V_\tau, L^2 (K)^\sigma)\longrightarrow L^2 (K)^\sigma)\Bigr ) .
\]
This is a finite-dimensional subspace of $L^2 (K)^\sigma$, and the operators $ \pi_{\sigma , \nu}(f_t) $ vanish on its orthogonal complement for all $\nu$ and all $t$. If for any given $\nu\in \lie{a}^*$ the limits
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-matrix-coefficient-limits}
\lim_{t\to 0} \langle \phi, \pi_{\sigma , \nu} (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))\psi \rangle
\end{equation}
exist for all $\phi, \psi\in L^2(K)^\sigma_S$, then the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \pi_{\sigma,\nu} (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))
\]
exists in $\mathfrak{K} (L^2 (K)^\sigma)$. If the limits \eqref{eq-matrix-coefficient-limits} exist uniformly in $\nu$ as $\phi$ and $\psi$ range over an orthonormal basis for $\phi, \psi\in L^2(K)^\sigma_S$, then the limit
\[
\lim_{t\to 0} \pi_{\sigma} (\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))
\]
exists in $C_0(\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}, \mathfrak{K} (L^2 (K)^\sigma))$, as required.
\end{proof}
We shall use the following explicit formula for the Haar integral on $G_t$ (recall here that for $t\neq 0$ the Haar measure on $G_t$ is $|t|^{-d} dg$).
\begin{lemma}[See {\cite[Prop\,8.43]{Knapp02}}]
\label{lem-Haar-measure}
If $G=KAN$ is an Iwasawa decomposition, then the Haar measures on $K$, $\lie{a}$, and $\lie{n}$ can be normalized so that
\[
\begin{aligned}
\quad \qquad \int _{G_t} f(g)\; dg
& =\int_K \int_{\lie{a}}\int_{\lie{n}} f(k\exp(X)\exp(Y)e^{2\rho(X)} |t|^{-d}dk\;dX\;dY
\\
& =\int_K \int_{\lie{a}}\int_{\lie{n}} f(k\exp(tX)\exp(tY)e^{2\rho(tX)} dk\;dX\;dY .\qquad \quad \qed
\end{aligned}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-matrix-coeff-formula}
Let $\sigma{\in} \widehat{M}_+$, let $\nu{\in}\lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$ and let $t{\ne} 0$. If $f_t{\in} C^*_r (G_t)$ is represented by a smooth and compactly supported function on $G_t$, and if $\phi,\psi{\in} C^\infty(K)^\sigma$,
then
\begin{multline*}
\bigl \langle\phi, \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t))) \psi\bigr \rangle
\\
= \int_{\lie{a}} \int_{\lie{n}}
\bigl ( \phi^* {*} f_t {*} \psi \bigr ) \bigl ( \exp(-tY)\exp(-tX) \bigr )
e^{ i\nu(X)} e^{t\rho(X)} \; dX\;dY,
\end{multline*}
where $\phi^*(k) = \overline{\phi(k^{-1})}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
It follows from the definitions of the scaling automorphism $\alpha_t$ and the morphism $\pi_\sigma$ that
\begin{equation*}
\bigl \langle \phi, \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))\psi \bigr \rangle
= \int_{G} f_t(g)\bigl \langle\phi, \pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(g)\psi \bigr \rangle \; |t|^{-d}dg.
\end{equation*}
If we insert into this formula the definition of the $L^2$-inner product, then we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\int_{G} f_t(g)\langle\phi, \pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(g)\psi\rangle \;|t|^{-d}dg
\\
= \int_{G} f_t(g)
\Bigl ( \int_{K}
\phi^*(k^{-1}) \bigl ( \pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(g)\psi\bigr )(k)
\; dk \Bigr )
\; |t|^{-d} dg ,
\end{multline*}
and rearranging, and making the substitution $g:=k\gamma^{-1}$ we get
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-matrix-coefficient-calc1}
\int_{G} f_t(g)\langle\phi, \pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(g)\psi\rangle \;|t|^{-d}dg
\\
= \int_{K} \int_{G} \phi^*(k^{-1}) f_t(k\gamma^{-1})
\bigl( \pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(k\gamma^{-1})\psi\bigr )(k)
\; dk \; |t|^{-d} d\gamma .
\end{multline}
Now, according to the definition \eqref{eq-action-of-g-in-compact-form} of the principal series representations,
\[
\bigl (\pi_{\sigma,t^{-1}\nu}(k\gamma^{-1})\psi \bigr)(k)
=
e^{-(\rho+it^{-1}\nu)H(\gamma)} \psi(\kappa(\gamma)) .
\]
Inserting this into the right-hand side of \eqref{eq-matrix-coefficient-calc1} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-matrix-coefficient-calc2}
\int_K \int_{G} \phi^*(k^{-1}) f_t(k\gamma ^{-1})e^{(-\rho+it^{-1}\nu)H(\gamma )} \psi(\kappa(\gamma ))
\; |t|^{-d} d\gamma \;dk .
\end{equation}
If we use the formula for the Haar measure on $G$ given in Lemma~\ref{lem-Haar-measure}, then we obtain from \eqref{eq-matrix-coefficient-calc2} the integral
\begin{multline*}
\int_K \int_{\lie{a}} \int_{\lie{n}} \int_K
\phi^* (k_1^{-1}) f_t\bigl (k_1\exp(-tY)\exp(-tX)k_2 ^{-1}\bigr ) \\
{\tiny\times} \,\, \phi(k_2 ) e^{(-\rho+it^{-1}\nu)(tX)}e^{2\rho(tX)} \;dk_1 \; dX\;dY\;dk_2 .
\end{multline*}
This is
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\lie{a}} \int_{\lie{n}}
\bigl ( \phi^* {*} f_t {*} \psi \bigr ) \bigl ( \exp(-tY)\exp(-tX) \bigr )
e^{i\nu(X)} e^{\rho(tX)} \; dX\;dY ,
\end{equation*}
as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-matrix-coeff-formula2}
Let $\sigma\in \widehat{M}_+$ and let $\nu\in \lie{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$. For any smooth and compactly supported function $f$ on $\mathbb{N}_GK$, and any $\phi, \psi \in L^2(K)^\sigma$, we have
\[
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \, \langle \phi, \pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)))\psi\rangle=\int_{\lie{a}}\int_{\lie{n}} ({\phi^*}{*}f_0{*}\psi)(e,X+Y)e^{i\nu(X)}\;dX\;dY.
\]
The convergence is uniform in $\nu\in \mathfrak{a}^*_{+,\sigma}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{lem-matrix-coeff-formula} above and Lemma~\ref{lem-smooth-function-on-def-space}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-the-limit-exists}]
According to Lemma~\ref{lem-reduce-to-generating-family}, we only need verify that the limit in the statement of the theorem exists for a generating family of continuous sections, and we shall use Lemma~\ref{lem-K-finite-generating-family1} to work with the generating family of continuous sections $\{ f_t\}$ associated to the smooth, compactly supported, left and right $K$-finite functions on $\mathbb{N}_GK$. Lemma~\ref{lem-matrix-coeff-formula2} shows that for every $\sigma{\in} \widehat{M}_+$ and every $\nu{\in} \lie{a}^*_{\sigma,+}$ the individual matrix coefficients of $\pi_{\sigma,\nu}(\alpha_t (\lambda_t (f)))$ converge to limits as $t{\to}0$, uniformly in $\nu$. Lemmas~\ref{lem-K-finite-generating-family2} and \ref{lem-K-finite-generating-family3} complete the proof.\end{proof}
\subsection{Construction of an embedding morphism}
Let $f\in C^*_r(G_0)$. Extend $f$ in any way to a continuous section $\{f_t\}$ of $\{C^*_r(G_t)\}$ and then form the limit
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-embedding-formula}
\alpha (f)= \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t))
\end{equation}
in $C^*_r(G)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-embedding}
The formula \eqref{eq-embedding-formula} defines an embedding of $C^*$-algebras
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0)\longrightarrow C^*_r (G).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since both $\lambda_t$ and $\alpha_t$ are isometric,
\[
\| \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \alpha_t (\lambda_t(f_t)) \|
=
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \| f_t \| = \| f_0\| .
\]
Moreover if $\{ f'_t\}$ is a second extension of $f$ to a continuous section, then
\[
\| \lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\alpha_t( \lambda_t (f_t)) - \lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\alpha_t( \lambda_t (f'_t))\|
= \| \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \alpha_t( \lambda_t (f_t - f'_t)) \|
= 0 .
\]
So the limit is independent of the extension, and it defines an isometric $*$-homomorphism, as required.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mapping cone fields}
\label{subsec-mapping-cone}
We begin with a very elementary construction:
\begin{definition}
\label{def-mapping-cone-field}
Let $\beta:B\rightarrow A$ be an embedding of a $C^*$-algebra $B$ into a $C^*$-algebra $A$. The \emph{mapping cone} continuous field of $C^*$-algebras over $\mathbb{R}$ associated to $\beta$ has fibers
\[
\operatorname{Cone}(\beta)_{t}=\begin{cases}
A & t\neq 0\\
B & t=0.
\end{cases}
\]
Its continuous sections are all those set-theoretic sections $\{ f_t\}$ for which the function
$$
t\mapsto \begin{cases}
f_t & t\neq 0\\
\beta (f_0) & t=0
\end{cases}
$$
from $\mathbb{R}$ to $A$ is norm-continuous.
\end{definition}
We shall apply this construction to the embedding from Theorem~\ref{thm-embedding}.
\begin{theorem} The fiber isomorphisms
\[
\begin{cases}
\alpha_t\circ \lambda_t \colon C^*_r (G_t) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G) & t \ne 0 \\
\;\;\; \operatorname{id} \colon C^*_r (G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G_0) & t = 0
\end{cases}
\]
define an isomorphism of continuous fields
from the deformation field
$\{C^*_r(G_t)\}$ to the mapping cone field for the embedding
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0)\longrightarrow C^*_r (G).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It suffices to show that for any continuous section $\{f_t\}$ of $\{C^*_r(G_t)\}$, the image section of the mapping cone field is continuous; see \cite[10.2.4]{Dixmier77}. But the image section is $\{ \widehat f_t\}$, where
\[
\widehat f_t =
\begin{cases}
\alpha_t(\lambda_t (f_t)) & t \ne 0 \\
f_0 & t=0 .
\end{cases}
\]
This is obviously a continuous section of the mapping cone field away from $t{=}0$, and continuity at $t{=}0$ is proved using Theorem~\ref{thm-the-limit-exists} and the definition of $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\section{Characterization of the Mackey bijection}
\label{sec-bijection-characterization}
The previous accounts of the Mackey bijection have all been organized around the concept of \emph{minimal $K$-type} of an irreducible representation of $G$. Compare \cite{AfgoustidisAubert19}. In this final section we shall give a different treatment that is organized around the embedding
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r (G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r(G) ,
\]
and hence around the family of rescaling automorphisms $\{ \alpha _t \}$.
\subsection{The principal series as representations of the motion group}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-composition-of-pi-with-alpha}
The composition of the principal series representation $\Ind_P^G \sigma\otimes \nu$ of the connected complex reductive group $G$ with the morphism
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G)
\]
is the unitary representation $\Ind_{M\ltimes \lie{s}} ^{K\ltimes \lie{s}} \sigma\otimes \exp(i \nu)$ of the motion group $G_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The Hilbert space of the representation $\pi=\Ind_{M\ltimes \lie{s}} ^{K\ltimes \lie{s}} \sigma\otimes \exp(i \nu) $ is the completion of the space of smooth functions $f\colon G_0 \to \mathbb{C}$ such that
\[
f(g\cdot (m,X))= \sigma(m)^{-1} \exp(-i \nu (X)) f(g)
\]
in the norm associated to the inner product
\[
\langle f_1,f_2 \rangle = \int _K \overline{ f_1(k)} f_2(k)\; dk .
\]
The action of $G_0$ is by left translation. The Hilbert space identifies with $L^2 (K)^\sigma$ by restriction of functions to $K$, and in this realization the action of $G_0$ is
\[
(\pi(k,X)\psi )(k_1) = \exp (i \nu(k_1^{-1}k\cdot X))\psi(k^{-1}k_1) .
\]
The matrix coefficient associated to $\phi,\psi \in L^2 (K)$ and $f\in C_c^\infty (G_0)$ is therefore
\[
\langle \phi, \pi(f) \psi \rangle = \int _K \int_{K}\int_{\lie{s}} \overline{\phi(k_1)} f(k,X) \exp (i \nu(k_1^{-1}k\cdot X))\phi(k^{-1}k_1) \;dk\;dk_1\; dX .
\]
Making the change of variables $k_2:=k_1^{-1}k$ we get
\[
\langle \phi, \pi(f) \psi \rangle = \int _K \int_{\lie{s}} \int _{K}
\overline{\phi(k_1)} f(k_1k_2,X) \exp (i \nu(k_2\cdot X))\phi (k_2^{-1}) \;dk_1 \; dX \: dk_2 ,
\]
and then the further change of variables $Z:=k_2{\cdot} X$ gives
\[
\langle \phi, \pi(f) \psi \rangle = \int _K \int_{\lie{s}} \int _{K}
\overline{\phi(k_1)} f(k_1k_2,k_2^{-1}{\cdot} Z) \exp (i \nu( Z))\phi (k_2^{-1}) \;dk_1 \; dZ \: dk_2 .
\]
Now let us insert into the integral above the formula
\[
\begin{aligned}
(\phi^*{*} f{*} \psi )(k,Z)
& = \int _K \int _K \overline{\phi(k_1)} f(k_1 \cdot (k,Z)\cdot k_2)\psi(k_2^{-1}) \; dk_1 \; dk_2 \\
& = \int _K \int _K \overline{\phi(k_1)} f(k_1kk_2, k_2^{-1}{\cdot}Z)\ \psi(k_2^{-1}) \; dk_1 \; dk_2 .
\end{aligned}
\]
We obtain
\[
\langle \phi, \pi(f) \psi \rangle =
\int_{\lie{s}} (\phi^*{*} f{*} \psi )(e,Z) \exp (i \nu( Z)) \; dZ.
\]
But Lemma~\ref{lem-matrix-coeff-formula2} shows that this is precisely $\langle \phi, \pi_{\sigma,\nu}{\circ} \alpha (f) \psi \rangle $,
and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
In the following lemma and in the next subsection we shall make use of the classification of irreducible representations of the compact connected group $K_\nu$ by highest weights. Rather than choose a dominant Weyl chamber for the action of the Weyl group $W_\nu$ on $\widehat M$, we shall associate to a given irreducible representation $\tau$ the $W_\nu$ orbit of all possible highest weights for all possible choices of dominant Weyl chamber. We shall use brackets, as in $[\theta]$, to denote this orbit.
The highest weight (or highest weight orbit) $[\theta]$ of an irreducible representation $\tau$ of $K_\nu$ is extremal in the following sense. If $\sigma$ is any weight of $\tau$, then $\sigma$ lies in the convex span of $W_\nu{\cdot} \tau$. Here, to form the convex hull, we view the free abelian group of all weights as a lattice in a vector space via the embedding
\[
\widehat M \subseteq \widehat M\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{R}.
\]
We shall write $[\sigma]\le [\theta]$ to denote the inclusion of $\sigma$ in the convex hull of $W_\nu {\cdot} \theta$. Of course, this partial order depends on $\nu$, but the choice of $\nu$ will be clear from the context.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-decomp-into-irreps}
The composition of the principal series representation
\[
\pi_{\sigma,\nu}=\Ind_P^G \sigma\otimes \exp(i \nu)
\]
of the connected complex reductive group $G$ with the morphism
\[
\alpha \colon C^*_r(G_0) \longrightarrow C^*_r (G)
\]
decomposes as a direct sum
\[
\bigoplus_{[\theta]\in \widehat M / W_\nu}
m(\sigma,\theta) \cdot \pi (\theta, \nu)
\]
as a representation of $G_0$, where the integer $m(\sigma,\theta)$ is the multiplicity with which the weight $\sigma$ occurs in the representation of $K_\nu$ with highest weight $\theta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We showed in the Lemma~\ref{lem-composition-of-pi-with-alpha} that $\pi_{\sigma,\nu}{\circ}\alpha$ is the induced representation $\Ind_{M\ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K\ltimes \lie{s}} \sigma{\otimes} \exp(i \nu)$. Let us analyze this representation by induction in stages \cite[Thm.\;3.3\;p.137]{Mackey55}:
\[
\Ind_{M\ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K\ltimes \lie{s}}\; \sigma{\otimes} \exp(i \nu) \cong
\Ind_{K_\nu \ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K \ltimes \lie{s}}\; \Ind_{M\ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K_\nu \ltimes \lie{s}}\; \sigma{\otimes} \exp(i \nu)
\]
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-composition-of-pi-with-alpha}, we can realize $ \Ind_{M\ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K_\nu \ltimes \lie{s}} \sigma{\otimes} \exp(i \nu) $ on the Hilbert space $L^2 (K_\nu)^\sigma$, and in this realization an element $X\in \lie{s}$ acts as multiplication by the function
\[
k\longmapsto \exp(i \nu (k^{-1} {\cdot} X))\qquad (\forall k\in K_\nu) .
\]
But if $k\in K_\nu$ then by definition, $\nu (k^{-1} {\cdot} X) = \nu(X)$. So the subgroup $\lie{s}$ of $ K_\nu\ltimes \lie{s}$ acts on $L^2 (K_\nu)^\sigma$ by the unitary character $\exp(i\nu)$. It follows that
\[
\Ind_{M\ltimes{\lie{s}}}^{K_\nu \ltimes \lie{s}} \sigma{\otimes} \exp(i \nu) = \bigoplus _{\tau\in \widehat K_\nu} m(\tau) \;\tau{\otimes}\exp(i \nu) ,
\]
where $m(\tau)$ is the multiplicity with which $\tau{\in} \widehat K_\nu$ occurs in $L^2 (K_\nu)^\sigma$. By the Peter-Weyl theorem (or Frobenius reciprocity) $m(\tau)$ is also the multiplicity with which the weight $\sigma$ occurs in $\tau$; compare the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-K-finite-generating-family2}. The lemma follows from this and the classification of irreducible representations of the connected group $K_\nu$ by their highest weights.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Characterization of the Mackey bijection}
\begin{theorem}
There is a unique bijection
\[
\mu \colon \widehat G_r \longrightarrow \widehat G_0
\]
such that for every $\iota \in \widehat G_r$, the element $\mu(\iota )\in \widehat G_0$ may be realized as a unitary subrepresentation of $\iota \circ \alpha$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The existence part of the theorem is handled by the Mackey bijection from \cite{Higson08}, which is the map
\[
\mu\colon \iota(\sigma, \nu) \longmapsto \pi(\sigma, \nu) .
\]
Indeed by Lemma~\ref{lem-decomp-into-irreps}, the representation $\pi(\sigma, \nu)$ occurs within $\iota( \sigma , \nu)$ with multiplicity one.
As for uniqueness, suppose we are given any bijection $\mu$, as in the statement of the theorem. It follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-decomp-into-irreps} that $\mu$ must have the form
\[
\mu \colon \iota(\sigma, \nu )
\longmapsto \pi(\theta, \nu)
\]
for some $\theta \in \widehat M / W _\nu$ with $\theta\ge \sigma$. So for each fixed $\nu\in \mathfrak{a}^*$, we obtain from $\mu$ a bijection of sets
\[
\mu _\nu \colon \widehat M \big / W_\nu
\longrightarrow \widehat M \big / W_\nu
\]
defined by
\[
\mu\colon \iota(\sigma, \nu) \longmapsto \pi(\mu_{\nu}(\sigma), \nu).
\]
We need to show that $\mu_\nu$ is the identity map for all $\nu$.
Now it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-decomp-into-irreps} that $\mu^{-1}_\nu$ has the property that
\[
\mu_\nu \bigl ( [\sigma]\bigr ) \ge [\sigma] \qquad \forall\, [\sigma] \in \widehat M / W_\nu ,
\]
and so of course the inverse bijection
has the property that
\[
\mu_\nu^{-1} \bigl ( [\sigma]\bigr ) \le [\sigma]
\qquad \forall\, [\sigma] \in \widehat M / W_\nu .
\]
for all $\sigma \in \widehat M / W_\nu $. It follows from this that $\mu^{-1}_\nu$ maps each of the finite sets
\[
S_\sigma = \{\, [\theta] \in \widehat M / W_\nu \, : \, [\theta] \le [\sigma] \, \}
\] into itself, and this in turn implies that
$\mu^{-1}_\nu$ is the identity map, as required.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Rudermann-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) exchange interaction is
an indirect magnetic coupling between localized magnetic moments,
mediated by the conduction electrons in a metallic substrate \cite{ruderman54,Kasuya56_Theory_of_metallic_FM_and_AFM,Yosida56_RKKY}.
This type of interaction plays a crucial role in systems displaying
giant magnetorresistance \cite{Baibich88_GMR_in_layered_magnetic_superlattices},
heavy-fermion magnetism and quantum criticality \cite{Doniach77,Hewson_1993,Loehneysen07_Heavy_fermions_and_magnetic_QPTs},
and in dilute magnetic semiconductors \cite{Meilikhov2007,Wang2008}.
More recently, it has also been observed in atomic-scale magnetic
systems fabricated with scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) techniques
\cite{Wahl07_Exchange_Interaction_between_Single_Magnetic_Adatoms,Meier08_Single_atom_magnetization,Zhou2010,Khajetoorians12_Atom_by_atom_engineering_of_nanomagnets,Khajetoorians16_Tailoring_chiral_interactions,Esat16_Chemically_driven_QPT_in_a_Kondo_molecule}%
\begin{comment}
, e.g., through the evolution of the Kondo temperature when the interatomic
distance between Co adatoms in dimer and trimer configurations on
a Cu(100) surface is varied\cite{Wahl07_Exchange_Interaction_between_Single_Magnetic_Adatoms}.
Later, Zhou et al. \cite{Zhou2010} studied the RKKY exchange directly
in dimers and trimers configurations of magnetic adatoms of cobalt
on a Pt(111) surface, by fitting the single-atom magnetization curves,
measured using spin-polarized STM, to first-principles calculations
\end{comment}
. In these atomic-sized structures the RKKY interaction plays a major
role. For instance, it has been recently proposed as a key ingredient
in magnetic atomic chains deposited on conventional superconductors
with a strong Rashba spin-orbit coupling (SOC), systems predicted
to host Majorana-fermion quasiparticles (MQP) \cite{Nadj-Perdge13_Majorana_fermions_in_Shiba_chains,
Klinovaja13_TSC_and_Majorana_Fermions_in_RKKY_Systems,Braunecker13_Shiba_chain}.
These works have triggered a great amount of theoretical and experimental
research seeking to observe MQPs, which could be instrumental in the
fabrication of qubits for topological quantum computaters. In recent
experimental works involving atomic Fe chains ontop of clean Pb(111)
or Pb(110) surfaces, preliminar evidence of MQPs have been reported
\cite{Nadj-Perge2014,Ruby2015,Pawlak2016,Feldman16_High_resolution_Majorana_Shiba_chain}.
Assuming an idealized isotropic free-electron conduction band, the
standard result for the RKKY interaction is $J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}\right)\sim\cos\left(k_{F}r\right)/r^{D}$,
where $k_{F}$ the Fermi momentum and $r=\left|\mathbf{r}\right|$
the distance between the magnetic impurities is obtained \cite{ruderman54,Yosida56_RKKY,Kasuya56_Theory_of_metallic_FM_and_AFM}.
However, the behavior of real adatom systems on metallic surfaces
is strikingly different, and departures from an ideally isotropic
interaction has been reported experimentally. For instance, one of
the most relevant results in the abovementioned Refs. \onlinecite{Wahl07_Exchange_Interaction_between_Single_Magnetic_Adatoms, Meier08_Single_atom_magnetization, Zhou2010, Esat16_Chemically_driven_QPT_in_a_Kondo_molecule}
is the anisotropic character of the RKKY interaction on surfaces.
Considering the growing interest in the fabrication of magnetic devices
with specific functionalities and potential applications in quantum
computing, spintronic and magnetic memories, a detailed characterization
of realistic magnetic interactions would be highly desirable. From
a more fundamental perspective, a realistic characterization of the
RKKY interaction on specific metallic surfaces could also be useful
to simulate, in a controlled manner, the physics of strongly-correlated
materials. For instance, using self-assembled metal-organic networks
deposited on clean metallic surfaces, a controlled study of the celebrated
Kondo lattice model, typically used to understand the exotic low-temperature
behavior of heavy-fermion materials, has become possible with STM
techniques \cite{Tsukahara10_Evolution_of_Kondo_resonance,Komeda14_Adsorbed_molecules_investigated_by_Kondo_resonance,Girovsky2017_Ferrimagnetic_order_in_self_assembled_Kondo_lattice}.
Among the many possible metallic surfaces typically studied with STM,
the surface of Pb has become an ideal platform to study the interplay
between superconductivity and atomic magnetism. The interest is two-fold:
1) Pb becomes a conventional $s$-wave superconductor at low temperatures,
with a standard phonon-mediated pairing mechanism. In addition, its
relative simplicity to grow in films by evaporation techniques makes
it a widely used superconducting material in the laboratory. 2) A large
Rashba SOC exists at the surface of Pb, a property that is known to
induce large Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. This property could
be exploited in order to engineer non-colinear chiral magnetic nanostructures,
such as skyrmions\cite{Khajetoorians16_Tailoring_chiral_interactions,Bouaziz2017}.
Both features could prove extremely useful in novel spintronic devices
\cite{Linder2014,Linder2015,Krupin2005,Chuang2014,Cahay2004}. In
previous works, perturbative approaches combined with numerical and/or
semi-analytical methods for realistic band-structure calculations
have been used for the calculation of the RKKY indirect-exchange interaction
between nuclear moments\cite{Frisken86,Oja89,Patnaik98,Harmon92}.
However, none of these works have focused on magnetic impurities on
Pb, where relativistic effects are unavoidable. On the other hand,
the calculation of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction has been
tackled in previous works using highly idealized model Hamiltonians
\cite{Kim2013,Kundu2015,Kikuchi2016,Bouaziz2017}, which ignore the
real electronic structure. Therefore, there are no systematic studies
of the realistic magnetic interactions on the surface of Pb.
Motivated by the aforementioned experimental advances, in this article
we focus on the derivation of realistic magnetic interactions between
impurities ontop of a clean Pb surface. For concreteness, and in order
to make contact with Refs. \onlinecite{Nadj-Perge2014,Ruby2015, Pawlak2016, Feldman16_High_resolution_Majorana_Shiba_chain},
we have chosen the particular case of Pb(110) surface. However, we
stress that our method is also applicable to other systems. Using
a combination of an analytical approach, i.e., second-order perturbation
theory in the \textit{s-d} exchange interaction $J_{K}$, and density
functional theory (DFT) to obtain the full band structure of Pb(110)
including relativistic SOC effects, we systematically derive the RKKY,
the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) and the anisotropic tensor interactions
between magnetic impurities. Our results show important anisotropy
effects arising both from the rectangular geometry of the (110) unit
cell, and from the strong Rashba SOC originated in the broken inversion
symmetry at the Pb(110) surface.
Since within our perturbative approach only the band structure of
the \emph{clean} Pb(110) surface is needed, the computational cost
can be significatively reduced. This represents one of the main advantages
of our method: the possibility to describe indirect magnetic interactions
realistically (i.e., without having to resort to any \textit{a priori}
model or approximation), combined with low computational cost as compared
to standard self-consistent methods, such as the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker
(KKR) method. Due to the nature of the method, its applicability is
in principle limited to weakly-coupled adatom systems satisfying the
condition $\rho_\text{3D}J_{K}\ll1$, where $\rho_\text{3D}$ is the density
of conduction states per unit volume at the Fermi energy. Such limitation
is, nevertheless, not severe as there exist many examples of systems
fulfilling this condition {[}e.g., metal-organic complexes such as
MnPc molecules \cite{Franke_2011} or iron(II) porphyrin molecules
\cite{Heinrich_2015} deposited ontop of Pb(110), where the organic
ligand of the molecule tends to isolate the effective magnetic moment
from the surface, leading to a small effective coupling $J_{K}${]}.
The only adjustable parameter in our formalism is therefore the \textit{s-d}
exchange parameter $J_{K}$, which is fitted to reproduce experiments\cite{Franke_2011}.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:theory}
we present the theoretical model and the derivation of the generic
RKKY, DM and tensor interactions directly from the conduction-electron
propagators. In Sec. \ref{sec:methods} we give details about the
technical aspects of the \textit{ab initio} calculations and about
the convergence of the RKKY interaction. In Sec. \ref{sec:results}
we present the results, specifically in Sec. \ref{subsec:band_structure_pb110}
we present our results for the band-structure of the clean Pb(110),
and in Sec. \ref{subsec:magnetic_interactions} we show our results
for the magnetic RKKY, DM and tensor interactions. Finally, in Sec.
\ref{sec:summary} we summarize the main results and present the conclusions.
\section{Theoretical Model and Derivation of the Effective Interactions}
\label{sec:theory}
The theoretical model describing two spin impurities on a Pb(110)
surface, located at sites $\mathbf{r}_{1}=\left(x_{1},y_{1},0\right)$
and $\mathbf{r}_{2}=\left(x_{2},y_{2},0\right)$ where $z=0$ is the
coordinate of the surface plane, is
\begin{align}
H & =H_{0}+H_{K}\left(1\right)+H_{K}\left(2\right).\label{eq:H_total}
\end{align}
Here
\begin{align}
H_{0} & =\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}c_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\dagger}c_{\mathbf{k},n},\label{eq:H_0}
\end{align}
is the unperturbed Hamiltonian describing the bands of clean Pb(110).
The quantum numbers $\mathbf{k},n$ are, respectively, the crystal
momentum parallel to the surface belonging to the first Brillouin
zone, and the spin-orbital band index, which results from a combination
of the spin and the azimuthal angular momentum (recall that in the
presence of Rashba and/or Dresselhaus SOC, $s$, the spin projection
along $z$ is no longer a good quantum number. In the absence of Rashba
SOC, the index $n$ splits into $s$ and the usual band index $\alpha$).
The operator $c_{\mathbf{k},n}$ annihilates a fermionic quasiparticle
in the conduction band, and obeys the usual anticommutation relation
$\left\{ c_{\mathbf{k},n},c_{\mathbf{k}^{\prime},n^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =\delta_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}^{\prime}}\delta_{n,n^{\prime}}$.
Finally, $\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}$ is the dispersion
relation computed in the absence of the magnetic impurities.
The Kondo (or \textit{s-d} exchange) interaction between a magnetic
moment and the conduction-electron spin density at point $\mathbf{r}_{j}$
is \cite{Hewson_1993}
\begin{align}
H_{K}\left(j\right) & =J_{K}\mathbf{S}_{j}.\mathbf{s}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\\
& =J_{K}\mathbf{S}_{j}.\sum_{s,s^{\prime}=\left\{ \uparrow,\downarrow\right\} }\Psi_{s}^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\left(\frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}{2}\right)_{ss^{\prime}}\Psi_{s^{\prime}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right),\label{eq:H_K_fermion}
\end{align}
where $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}=\left(\hat{\sigma}_{x},\hat{\sigma}_{y},\hat{\sigma}_{z}\right)$
is the vector of Pauli matrices, and
\begin{align}
\Psi_{s}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right) & =\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)c_{\mathbf{k},n},\label{eq:psi_real_space}
\end{align}
is the field operator which annihilates an electron with spin projection
$s=\left\{ \uparrow,\downarrow\right\} $ along the $z$ axis at point
$\mathbf{r}_{j}$, and $\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}\right)$
are the normalized Bloch wavefunctions computed via DFT (see Section \ref{sec:methods}). The field operator obeys the usual relations:
\begin{align}
\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{*\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s^{\prime}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right) & =\delta\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}-\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\delta_{s,s^{\prime}},\label{eq:completeness}\\
\left\{ \Psi_{s}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}\right),\Psi_{s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\right\} & =\delta\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}-\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\delta_{s,s^{\prime}}.\label{eq:orthogonality}
\end{align}
The idea now is to use knowledge of the \emph{realistic} band structure
of Pb(110), encoded in $\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}$
and $\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)$,
in order to systematically derive all the effective interactions between
$\mathbf{S}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ mediated by the conduction
electrons using second-order perturbation theory in $J_{K}$, and
without resorting to any specific model. In the process, not only
the RKKY exchange is obtained, but also Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and
anisotropic tensor interactions.
We start from the full partition function of the system, which formally
writes as
\begin{align}
Z & =\text{Tr}\left\{ e^{-\beta\left(H_{0}+\sum_{j}H_{K}\left(j\right)\right)}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
& =\text{Tr}_{S}\ \text{Tr}_{\psi}\left\{ e^{-\beta\left(H_{0}+\sum_{j}H_{K}\left(j\right)\right)}\right\} ,\label{eq:Z_partial}
\end{align}
where $\beta=1/T$ (here we have assumed $k_{B}=1$). In Eq. (\ref{eq:Z_partial})
we have split the total trace into partial traces over fermionic (noted
as $\text{Tr}_{\psi}$) and spin (noted as $\text{Tr}_{S}$) degrees
of freedom. This allows to define the quantity $Z_{S}\equiv\text{Tr}_{\psi}\left\{ e^{-\beta\left(H_{0}+\sum_{j}H_{K}\left(j\right)\right)}\right\} $,
where the partial trace over the electrons is taken considering a
particular ``frozen'' configuration of the spins $\mathbf{S}_{1}$
and $\mathbf{S}_{2}$. In the zero-temperture limit $\beta\rightarrow\infty$,
this quantity allows to define an effective spin Hamiltonian where
the electronic degrees of freedom have been integrated out
\begin{align}
Z_{S} & =e^{-\beta H_{\text{eff}}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2}\right]}\;\left(\text{for }\beta\rightarrow\infty\right).\label{eq:Z_S1S2_Heff}
\end{align}
Using the path-integral formalism \cite{negele}, $Z_{S}$ can be
expressed as
\begin{align*}
Z_{S} & =\int\mathcal{D}\left[\bar{c},c\right]\ e^{-\mathcal{S}_{0}\left[\bar{c},c\right]-\sum_{j}\mathcal{S}_{K,j}\left[\mathbf{S}_{j},\bar{c},c\right]},
\end{align*}
where $\bar{c},c$ are Grassmann variables and $\mathcal{S}_{0}\left[\bar{c},c\right]$
and $\mathcal{S}_{K,j}\left[\mathbf{S}_{j},\bar{c},c\right]$ are,
respectively
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{0}\left[\bar{c},c\right] & =\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau\ \bar{c}_{\mathbf{k},n}\left(\tau\right)\left(\partial_{\tau}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}\right)c_{\mathbf{k},n}\left(\tau\right),\label{eq:S0}
\end{align}
the Euclidean action of the unperturbed Pb(110), expressed as an integral
over Matsubara time $\tau$ in the interval $\left[0,\beta\right]$,
and
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{K,j}\left[\mathbf{S}_{j},\bar{c},c\right] & =J_{K}\mathbf{S}_{j}\sum_{s,s^{\prime}}\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau\Psi_{s}^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\tau\right)\frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{ss^{\prime}}}{2}\Psi_{s^{\prime}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\tau\right),\label{eq:SKj}
\end{align}
is the Euclidean action of the \textit{s-d} interaction. The advantage
of the path-integral formalism is that it allows to express $Z_{S}$
as a series expansion in powers of $J_{K}$ as
\begin{align}
Z_{S} & =Z_{0}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{m!}\left\langle \left(\sum_{j}\mathcal{S}_{K,j}\left[\mathbf{S}_{j},\bar{c},c\right]\right)^{m}\right\rangle _{0},\label{eq:Z_expansion}
\end{align}
where the notation $\left\langle A\right\rangle _{0}$ means the average
of operator $A$ with respect to the action $\mathcal{S}_{0}$, i.e.,
$\left\langle A\right\rangle _{0}=\int\mathcal{D}\left[\bar{c},c\right]\ e^{-\mathcal{S}_{0}\left[\bar{c},c\right]}A_{0}/Z_{0}$,
with $Z_{0}=\int\mathcal{D}\left[\bar{c},c\right]\ e^{-\mathcal{S}_{0}\left[\bar{c},c\right]}$
the partition function of unperturbed electrons in Pb(110).
The above Eqs. (\ref{eq:Z_partial})-(\ref{eq:Z_expansion}) are formally
exact, but in order to make progress we need to introduce a truncation
in the infinite series in Eq. (\ref{eq:Z_expansion}), assuming $J_{K}\rightarrow0$.
At second order, and introducing a subsequent cumultant expansion\cite{mahan},
the quantity $Z_{S}$ can be approximated as
\begin{align}
Z_{S} & \approx e^{\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \left(\mathcal{S}_{K,1}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\bar{c},c\right]+\mathcal{S}_{K,2}\left[\mathbf{S}_{2},\bar{c},c\right]\right)^{2}\right\rangle _{0}},\label{eq:Z_cumulant}
\end{align}
(note that the first order term in (\ref{eq:Z_expansion}) has vanished
due to the time-reversal symmetry of the Pb(110) conduction band).
Comparing Eqs. (\ref{eq:Z_S1S2_Heff}) and (\ref{eq:Z_cumulant}),
we obtain the precise analytical form for the effective spin Hamiltonian
at second order in $J_{K}$:
\begin{align}
H_{\text{eff}}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2}\right] & =-\frac{1}{2\beta}\lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty}\left\langle \left(S_{K,1}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\bar{c},c\right]+S_{K,2}\left[\mathbf{S}_{2},\bar{c},c\right]\right)^{2}\right\rangle _{0},\label{eq:Heff_specific}
\end{align}
where the conduction-electrons of the Pb(110) band has been integrated
out. The effective Hamiltonian can be expressed as
\begin{align}
H_{\text{eff}}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2}\right]= & \lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty}\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{8}\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{l}\sum_{i,j=1,2}\nonumber \\
& \text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{i}.\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\right)\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\left(\mathbf{S}_{j}.\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\right)\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)\right\} ,\label{eq:Heff_compact}
\end{align}
where tr\{...\} is the usual trace of a matrix, and $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)$
is the matrix of the unperturbed conduction-electron propagators in
Pb(110)
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right) & g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)\\
g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right) & g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:g0_matrix}
\end{align}
with matrix elements
\begin{align}
g_{0}^{\left(ss^{\prime}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right) & =\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\frac{\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(s^{\prime})}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}\right)}{i\nu_{l}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}}\;\left(s,s^{\prime}=\left\{ \uparrow,\downarrow\right\} \right).\label{eq:g0_ssprime}
\end{align}
In this expression we have introduced the fermionic Matsubara frequencies
$i\nu_{l}=2\pi i\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)/\beta$. Physically, the
Green's function $g_{0}^{\left(ss^{\prime}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)$
measures the probability that an electron created at $\mathbf{r}_{i}$
with spin $s^{\prime}$ arrives at $\mathbf{r}_{j}$ with spin $s$
in the unperturbed surface of Pb(110). Note that in absence of SOC,
the spin-projection labels $s$ and $s^{\prime}$ would be good quantum
numbers and therefore the off-diagonal elements would vanish. Moreover,
due to the SU(2) symmetry in the absence of SOC and externally applied
magnetic fields, $g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)=g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right)$
and therefore the matrix $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)$
would be a scalar proportional to the unit matrix. In what follows,
we introduce a more convenient representation of the propagator matrix
(\ref{eq:g0_matrix}) in terms of the $2\times2$ Pauli matrices \cite{Imamura2004}
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & =g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\mathbf{1}_{2\times2}+g_{0}^{x}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\hat{\sigma}_{x}\nonumber \\
& +g_{0}^{y}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\hat{\sigma}_{y}+g_{0}^{z}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\hat{\sigma}_{z},\label{eq:g0_matrix_Pauli}
\end{align}
where the new propagators $g_{0}^{k}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)$
(with $k=\left\{ 0,x,y,z\right\} $) are linear combinations of the
propagators (\ref{eq:g0_ssprime}), which allow to readily evaluate
the trace in Eq.(\ref{eq:Heff_compact}), and express the Hamiltonian
as
\begin{align}
H_{\text{eff}}\left[\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2}\right] & =J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\mathbf{S}_{1}.\mathbf{S}_{2}+\mathbf{D}_{\text{DM}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right).\left(\mathbf{S}_{1}\times\mathbf{S}_{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& +2\mathbf{S}_{1}.\mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right).\mathbf{S}_{2}+\mathbf{S}_{1}.\mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{1}\right).\mathbf{S}_{1}\nonumber \\
& +\mathbf{S}_{2}.\mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right).\mathbf{S}_{2}.\label{eq:Heff_compact2}
\end{align}
Here we have defined the scalar RKKY exchange-interaction as
\begin{align}
J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{l}\biggl[g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)\nonumber \\
& -\sum_{j=\left\{ x,y,z\right\} }g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)\biggr],\label{eq:J_RKKY}
\end{align}
The next term in Eq. (\ref{eq:Heff_compact2}) corresponds to the
Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction
\begin{align}
D_{\text{DM}}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =i\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{l}\left[g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& \left.-g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)\right]\;\left(j=\left\{ x,y,z\right\} \right),\label{eq:D_DM}
\end{align}
which is an anisotropic vector interaction. Finally, the last terms
are anisotropic tensor interactions of the form
\begin{align}
T^{jk}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{4}\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{l}\left[g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{k}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& \left.+g_{0}^{j}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{r}_{1},i\nu_{l}\right)g_{0}^{k}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)\right],\;\left(j,k=\left\{ x,y,z\right\} \right)\label{eq:T_iso}
\end{align}
which generalize the Ising and the single-ion magneto-crystalline
contributions. Note that in (\ref{eq:Heff_compact2}) we have neglected
the RKKY self-interaction terms $J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\mathbf{S}_{j}^{2}$,
since they are only a renormalization of the energy. %
\begin{comment}
$j$ and $k$ can be either of the cartesian components $x$, $y$
ar $z$.
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{0}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)+g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\right],\label{eq:g00}\\
g_{0}^{z}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)-g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\right],\label{eq:g0z}\\
g_{0}^{x}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)+g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\right],\label{eq:g0x}\\
g_{0}^{y}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[g_{0}^{\left(\uparrow\downarrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)-g_{0}^{\left(\downarrow\uparrow\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}_{j},i\nu_{l}\right)\right].\label{eq:g0y}
\end{eqnarray}
The advantage of the representation \ref{eq:g0_matrix_Pauli} is that
it allows to factorize the spin-spin interaction term using the results
{[}See ref. \cite{Imamura2004} for the case of one and two dimensions{]}
\begin{align*}
\text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{1}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\left(\mathbf{S}_{2}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\right\} & =2\mathbf{S}_{1}.\mathbf{S}_{2}\\
\text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{1}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\left(\mathbf{S}_{2}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{k}\right\} & =2i\left(\mathbf{S}_{1}\times\mathbf{S}_{2}\right)_{k}\\
\text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{1}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{k}\left(\mathbf{S}_{2}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\right\} & =-2i\left(\mathbf{S}_{1}\times\mathbf{S}_{2}\right)_{k}\\
\text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{1}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{k}\left(\mathbf{S}_{2}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{l}\right\} & =2\left(S_{1}^{k}S_{2}^{l}+S_{1}^{l}S_{2}^{k}\right)\qquad\text{for }k\neq l\\
\text{tr}\left\{ \left(\mathbf{S}_{1}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{k}\left(\mathbf{S}_{2}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)\sigma^{k}\right\} & =2\left(2S_{1}^{k}S_{2}^{k}-\mathbf{S}_{1}.\mathbf{S}_{2}\right)
\end{align*}
where we have introduced the cumulant approximation in the second
line. The last term in the above equation defines the \textit{effective
spin Hamiltonian}. For simplicity and to know the form of the this
effective Hamiltonian, it is convenient to define the real-space propagator
\begin{align}
g_{0}^{\left(\alpha\beta\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j},\mathbf{r}_{i},i\nu_{l}\right) & =\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}\frac{\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(\alpha)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(\beta)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{i}\right)}{i\nu_{l}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}n}},
\end{align}
where we have used Matsubara frequencies $\nu_{l}=\frac{2\pi\left(l+1/2\right)}{\beta}$.
where
\end{comment}
Although the three contributions Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso})
are of the same order $\mathcal{O}\left(J_{K}^{2}\right)$, their
relative magnitude strongly depends on the magnitude of the Rashba
SOC parameter $\alpha_{R}$. This can be understood directly at the
level of the propagators $g_{0}^{\left(x,y\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},i\nu_{l}\right)$
appearing in these expressions, which are directly proportional to
the SU(2) symmetry-breaking terms in the Hamiltonian, as shown in
previous works\cite{Imamura2004,Bouaziz2017}. Then, it is easy to
see that
\begin{align*}
J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & \sim\mathcal{O}\left(1\right),\\
\left|\mathbf{D}_{\text{DM}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\right| & \sim\mathcal{O}\left(\alpha_{R}\right),\\
\left\Vert \mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\right\Vert & \sim\mathcal{O}\left(\alpha_{R}^{2}\right),
\end{align*}
\section{Methods and technical considerations}
\label{sec:methods}
A technical point in the derivation of the RKKY interaction Eq. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})
concerns the sum over the band index $n$, whose convergence is very
slow. In principle, this sum runs over an infinite number of bands,
but in practice must be limited by a cutoff energy $E_{c}$ that ensures
the convergence of the involved quantities. Due to its poor convergence
properties, for a reasonable accuracy in the value of $J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)$
an unfeasible large value of $E_{c}$ would be necessary (even for
values of the order of $E_{c}=$100 eV, errors would still be over
100\%). However, it is physically expected that above a certain $E_{c}$
the system wavefunctions are indistinguishable from the corresponding
free-electron wavefunctions at the same energy. In other words, at
sufficiently high energies $\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)}$,
it is expected that
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(0\right)} & \approx\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}^{\text{free}}=\frac{\hbar^{2}\left(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{G}_{n}\right)^{2}}{2m},\\
\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}\right) & \approx\frac{e^{i\left(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{G}_{n}\right).\mathbf{r}}}{\sqrt{V}},
\end{align}
with $\mathbf{G}_{n}$ a reciprocal-lattice vector. Taking this into
account, the RKKY exchange interaction Eq. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY}) at $T=0$
can then be recast as
\begin{align}
J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =J_{\text{RKKY}}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)+J_{\text{RKKY}}^{\text{free}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right),\label{eq:rkkycorr1}
\end{align}
where
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
J_{\text{RKKY}}^{0}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{4}\sum_{s=\left\{ \uparrow,\downarrow\right\} }\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}n}<E_{F}}\times\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}},n^{\prime}}^{E_{F}<\epsilon_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}<E_{c}}\frac{1}{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}n}^{\left(0\right)}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}^{\left(0\right)}}\nonumber \\
& \times\left[\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}^{\left(\bar{s}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}^{*\left(\bar{s}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)-\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(\bar{s})}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}^{\left(\bar{s}\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}n^{\prime}}^{*\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)\right],\\
J_{\text{RKKY}}^{\text{free}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) & =\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{4}\sum_{s=\left\{ \uparrow,\downarrow\right\} }\sum_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}n}<E_{F}}\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}^{E_{c}<\epsilon_{\mathbf{k^{\prime}}}}\left[\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)-\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{*(\bar{s})}\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)\right]\times\frac{e^{i\mathbf{k}^{\prime}.\left(\mathbf{r}_{2}-\mathbf{r}_{1}\right)}}{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}n}^{\left(0\right)}-\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}^{\prime}}^{\text{free}}},
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where in this last equation we have dropped the index $n^{\prime}$
and let $\mathbf{k}^{\prime}$ run over the extended Brillouin zone.
$J_{\text{RKKY}}^{\text{free}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)$
is then a free-electron correction term that can be analytically integrated
and that only depends on states below the Fermi energy and on the
numerical value of $E_{c}$. In this way, instead of summing over
a large number of bands, Eq. (\ref{eq:rkkycorr1}) only needs to be
evaluated until convergence with respect to $E_{c}$ is attained.
The wavefunctions $\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)$
required to calculate the interactions Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso})
for both impurities were obtained from DFT calculations performed
by using the VASP code\cite{vaspcode1,vaspcode2,vaspcode3}. The
Pb (110) substrate was modeled as a periodic slab consisting of an
\textcolor{black}{1$\times$1 surface} with $N$ layers of Pb atoms
and a vacuum layer of 15 Å\ to avoid coupling between surfaces in
different periodic cells. Three top layers were allowed to relax while
the other ones where kept fixed at their bulk lattice coordinates.
Ionic forces were converged to be lower than 0.01 eV/{Å}, with a
cutoff of 150 eV and using a Monhorst-Pack\cite{monkhorstpack} grid
of 10$\times$10$\times$1 $k$-points. All calculations were performed
within the PAW method\cite{vasppaw} and using PBEsol exchange-correlation
functional\cite{pbesol}. Since the interactions (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso})
are highly dependent on the accuracy of the wavefunctions $\psi_{\mathbf{k},n}^{\left(s\right)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)$,
a more stringent convergence condition and a larger number of empty
bands were needed in their calculation. In order to obtain errors
within 5\% we used 120 empty bands and 1600 $k$-points. Calculations
were performed with and without atomic spin-orbit interaction.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Band Structure of Pb(110) and estimation of Rashba coupling parameter}
\label{subsec:band_structure_pb110}
The band structure of Pb(110) bulk and surface was first studied by
Würde \textit{et al}\cite{wurde94} using the empirical tight-binding
method (ETBM) combined with the scattering-theory method to determine
the different surface and resonant states. Given the large atomic
number of Pb, the effect of the spin-orbit interaction cannot be neglected
for this system, and needs to be taken into account. In the present
work the Pb(110) band structure was obtained by self-consistent DFT
calculations by including spin-orbit coupling and by also considering
relaxation effects on the (110) surface. In Figure \ref{fig:pb110_bands}
we show the calculated band structure for a Pb(110) slab with $N=29$
layers. The surface and resonant states (red dots) are identifed as
those for which the sum of the square projections onto the top and
bottom layers of the slab is greater than 30\%. These results are
in excellent agreement with the ETBM calculations of Würde \textit{et
al}. The large gap in the range between -6.5 to -4 eV corresponds
to the marked energy difference between $s$ and $p$ levels in bulk
Pb. Surface states (denoted as S$_{1}$, S$_{2}$ and S$_{3}$ in
Fig. \ref{fig:pb110_bands}) are mainly localized near the edges of
the gaps arising along the X and Y directions, and extend between
-2.4 and 3 eV. Bands S$_{1}$ and S$_{2}$ (S$_{3}$) consist mostly
of $p$-states parallel (perpendicular) to the 110 surface. While
the gap opening at point S for $E$=-2 eV is a consequence of spin-orbit
coupling, the splitting of bands S$_{1}$ and S$_{2}$ arises from
the Rashba shift at S, generated by the breaking of the symmetry along
$z$. Indeed, by using the $\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ approximation
to fit bands S$_{1}$ and S$_{2}$, it is possible to estimate the
Rashba parameter to be $\alpha_{R}=0.97$eV.{Å}.
The excellent agreement with the results by Würde \textit{et al} justifies
the use of the Kohn-Sham orbitals as the wavefunctions $\psi_{\mathbf{k}n}^{(s)}\left(\mathbf{r}_{j}\right)$
appearing in the expression of the unperturbed propagator Eq. (\ref{eq:g0_ssprime})
and in the calculation of the magnetic interactions Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{bandsredux}\caption{(Color online) Calculated band structure for a 29-layer Pb(110) slab
along high symmetry paths of the Brilluoin zone. Surface and resonant
states, represented by red dots, have been obtained by requiring the
density for a given state projected onto the surface layers (top and
bottom) be greater than 0.3. The surface states are labeled as S$_{1}$, S$_{2}$ and S$_{3}$.}
\label{fig:pb110_bands}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Convergence of the RKKY interaction}
\label{subsec:convergence}
In order to ensure the convergence of the RKKY interaction with respect
to the cutoff $E_{c}$, we evaluated the function $J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)$
as in Eq. (\ref{eq:rkkycorr1}). Since the magnitude of the correction
term $J_{\text{RKKY}}^{\text{free}}\left(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}\right)$
varies inversely with the distance between the two impurities, impurities
located at larger distances would require smaller values of $E_{c}$
in order to converge. For this reason the cutoff energy needs to be
optimized for the minimum distance considered, which in our case corresponds
to one half of the $b$ lattice parameter (or, in other words, when
$\left|\mathbf{r_{2}-r_{1}}\right|=0.5 b$). In Fig. \ref{fig2} we
display the total coupling $J_{\text{RKKY}}\equiv J_{\text{RKKY}}\left(0, 0.5 b\ \hat{\mathbf{y}}\right)$
together with $J^{0}\equiv J_{\text{RKKY}}^{0}\left(0,0.5 b\ \hat{\mathbf{y}}\right)$
and its correction $J^{\text{free}}\equiv J_{\text{RKKY}}^{\text{free}}\left(0,0.5 b\ \hat{\mathbf{y}}\right)$,
corresponding to a Pb(110) slab with $N=11$ Pb layers for different
values of the cutoff energy $E_{c}$, taken with respect to $E_{F}$.
Two observations become apparent in the plot. On the one hand, the
slow decreasing rate of the correction terms (actually, oscillatory
and analogous to the integral sin/cosine functions), which makes them
impossible to neglect even for a very high energy cutoff. On the other
hand, we observe that the correction closely compensates the variation
of $J^{0}$ with respect to the cutoff. Despite the fact that for
small values of $E_{c}$ the free electron approximation is still
too crude and the errors large, for values of $E_{c}$ larger than
$E_{F}+20$ eV, the rate of variation of $J^{\text{free}}$ clearly
mirrors $J^{0}$. In this last case, the total $J_{\text{RKKY}}$
becomes flat and converges within a 2\% of error. The same calculations
were repeated for a $N=$17-layer slab, obtaining a similar cutoff
and the same values for $J_{\text{RKKY}}$ (always within 2\% error)
as for the 11-layer case. In the light of these results and for the
sake of simplicity, the rest of our calculations were performed for
an 11-layer slab using a value $E_{c}=$22 eV.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{jvsc_11}\caption{(Color online) Convergence of the RKKY interaction $J_{\text{RKKY}}$
(green squares) computed as in Eq. (\ref{eq:rkkycorr1}), as a function
of the plane-wave cutoff energy $E_{c}-E_{F}$. Convergence is attained
when the free-electron correction $J^{\text{free}}$
(red triangles) exactly mirrors the uncorrected RKKY term $J^{0}$
(blue circles), for $E_{c}=$22 eV above $E_{F}$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Magnetic Interactions}
\label{subsec:magnetic_interactions}
As mentioned earlier, the free parameter $J_{K}$ must be determined
in order to compute the magnetic interactions in Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso}).
Here we estimated $J_{K}$ by combining our DFT calculations with
results from STM experiments studying the Kondo resonance in self-assembled
metal-organic complexes (i.e., MnPc molecules) deposited on Pb(111)\cite{Franke_2011}.
In these experiments the weak character of the magnetic interactions
between the absorbed molecules is established by the close proximity
of the measured subgap quasiparticle peaks (i.e., the ``Shiba peaks'') to the superconducting gap. Furthermore,
in these works the Kondo temperature $T_{K}$ obtained from the Fano
resonance near $E_{F}$ ranges from 200 K to 400 K. If we consider
an intermediate value $T_{K}\approx$ 300 K, $J_{K}$ can then be
extracted from the Kondo temperature formula $k_{B}T_{K}=We^{-1/\rho_\text{3D}J_{K}}$\cite{hewson}.
In this equation the value of the local density of states per unit
volume at the Fermil level, $\rho_\text{3D}$, is obtained from DFT and
corresponds to Pb's located at the (110) surface. Within this model
(which assumes a simplified rectangular flat band) the half bandwidth of the
conduction states is calculated as $W=1/(2\rho_\text{3D}V_{atom}),$ with
$V_{atom}$ being the atomic volume for Pb. From this we obtain $\rho_\text{3D}=0.01\,\mathrm{eV^{-1}}\mathrm{\mathring{A}^{-3}}$
and $J_{K}=10.80\,\mathrm{eV.\mathring{A}^{3}},$thus yielding $\rho_\text{3D}J_{K}\approx0.1$,
which is consistent with our aforementioned assumption of weakly coupled
adsorbates (such as MnPc on a Pb surface).
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{jdt_interactions1fredux}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(Color online) Top (Bottom): RKKY, DM and $T_{12}$ magnetic interaction parameters for configurations
with the reference impurity (blue) placed at the middle of the shorter (longer) bridge between
two Pb atoms on the (110) surface and the second impurity (yellow) at $n.a$/2 ($n.b$/2) lattice parameters
away along $a$($b$)-direction.}
\label{interactions1}
\end{figure}
Once the parameter $J_{K}$ has been obtained, the different magnetic
interactions in Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso}) were calculated
as a function of distance for impurities located along the $a$ and
$b$ directions on the Pb(110) surface. We considered two inequivalent
positions for each impurity at the surface: either locating it halfway on
the bridge between two Pb atoms of the top layer or above a Pb atom
belonging to the layer immediately below [$i.e.$ at $(0.5a,0.5b)$].
In Fig. \ref{interactions1} we plot the RKKY,
DM and anisotropic-tensor ($T_{12}$) interactions locating a reference impurity at
the bridge between two Pb's and letting the second impurity be located at either
inequivalent position, in such a way that the distance between impurities
is either an integer or half integer of one of the in-plane lattice parameters. Top and bottom
panels in Fig. \ref{interactions1} display the calculated interactions
for the reference impurity at a bridge location and the second impurity at different distances
along the $a$ and $b$ directions, respectively. In Fig. \ref{interactions2}
we repeated the calculations but this time locating the reference magnetic impurity
at $(0.5a,0.5b)$. In spite of the fact that all interactions follow the expected
oscillatory behavior, their character departs significantly from the
smooth and monotonic decay of the classical RKKY. It is also worth
noticing the anisotropic character of the interactions: while we still
encounter large peaks for impurities located 4 lattice parameters apart
along $a$, interactions are significantly reduced for the same relative
distance along $b$. This behavior, which at first glance may seem
counterintuitive (since the impurities are at a closer distance along
$b$), can be qualitatively understood by noticing that the flatter
bands along $a$ give rise to a larger density of states along this
direction than along $b$, thus enhancing the magnitude of the interactions.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{jdt_interactions2fredux}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(Color online) Top (Bottom): RKKY, DM and $T_{12}$ magnetic interaction parameters for configurations
with the reference impurity (blue) placed at $(0.5a,0.5b)$ on the (110) surface and the second
impurity (yellow) at $n.a$/2 ($n.b$/2) lattice parameters
away along $a$($b$)-direction.
}
\label{interactions2}
\end{figure}
With the calculated magnetic interactions ($J_\text{RKKY}$, DM, $T_{12}$)
it is then possible to search the spin configurations that minimize
the effective Hamiltonian Eq. \ref{eq:Heff_compact2}, i.e., we can
obtain the classical ground state configuration. In Fig. \ref{gsmagconf}\textcolor{black}{,
top and bottom panels,}\textcolor{red}{{} }we display these configurations
together with their corresponding energies for interacting spins located
at $\mathbf{r}_{1}=\left(0.5a,0.5b,0\right)$ and $\mathbf{r}_{2}=\left(\left(0.5+n\right)a,0.5b,0\right)$,
and at $\mathbf{r}_{1}=\left(0.5a,0.5b,0\right)$ and $\mathbf{r}_{1}=\left(0.5a,(0.5+nb),0\right)$,
respectively. Taking for instance impurities one lattice parameter
apart along the $a$ direction, we see from Fig. \ref{interactions2}
that in this case the dominant interaction is DM, thus favoring a
canted spin configuration as the one shown in Fig. \ref{gsmagconf}.
Analogously, when the impurites are a located two lattice parameters
apart along the $a$ direction, both DM and $T_{12}$ interactions nearly
vanish and the dominant interaction is RKKY, resulting in a collinear
spin configuration, which since $J_{\text{RKKY}}<0$ is ferromagnetic.
Along the direction $b$, the behavior of magnetic ground state energy
is approximately monotonic, and
its value is abruptly reduced after $n=3b$ and beyond. Contrarily,
along the $a$ direction the overall behavior is clearly not monotonic,
and the magnetic energy-gain has a minimum at a distance $n=4a$.
This is a clear deviation from the RKKY interaction mediated by an
idealized parabolic band.
Finally, we note that the order of magnitude of the interactions in
Figs. \ref{interactions1}, \ref{interactions2} and \ref{gsmagconf}
are in agreement with recent experimental works on Fe atoms deposited
ontop of Pt(111)\cite{Khajetoorians16_Tailoring_chiral_interactions}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{spins110_abredux}\caption{(Color online) Top panel: Ground state energies and their corresponding spin configurations
for the magnetic Hamiltonian of Equation \ref{eq:Heff_compact} with
a reference impurity (blue) located at $(0.5a,0.5b)$ interacting
with impurites (yellow) located at $(0.5na,0.5b)$ on the Pb (110)
surface. Bottom panel: Now the impurities interact along the $\mathbf{b}$-direction,
i.e., the second impurity is placed at $(0.5a,0.5nb)$ .}
\label{gsmagconf}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sec:summary}
We have investigated the indirect spin-spin interactions at the (110)
surface of Pb, mediated by conduction electrons. Our study is motivated
by the luring prospect of engineering spin-spin interactions in nanodevices
with specific functionality at the surface of metals. In particular,
the choice of Pb was motivated by its importance in experiments where
superconductivity and strong spin orbit Rashba interactions (which
emerge due to the lack of inversion symmetry at the surface) are combined.
We have been able to estimate the Rashba parameter as $\alpha_{R}\approx0.97$
eV.{Å}.
In this work, assuming impurity spins $\mathbf{S}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{2}$,
weakly coupled to the Pb substrate via a generic \textit{s-d} model
(a situation that corresponds to a large class of experimental systems),
we have developed a method which combines realistic \textit{ab initio}
calculations with low-cost computational effort. Using second-order
perturbation theory and realistic DFT calculations for the electronic
band structure of clean Pb(110), we have been able to systematically
obtain the effective spin Hamiltonian between $\mathbf{S}_{1}$ and
$\mathbf{S}_{2}$ at order $J_{K}^{2}$ with no additional assumptions.
Since our method is perturbative, the underlying electronic structure
of clean Pb(110) obtained within \textit{ab initio} is not modified.
Technically, this means that the method, which is suitable for DFT
band-structure calculations based on a periodic lattice, involves
relatively small unit cells. This fact results in a considerable minimization
of computational effort. It is worth mentioning that in general, the
calculation of realistic nanoscale spin interactions through \textit{ab
initio} methods involve a great deal of computational effort (see,
e.g. Ref. \onlinecite{Ebert09_Ab_initio_calculation_of_exchange_coupling}).
Our method allows to systematically track the contribution of the
conduction-electron propagators into the magnetic interaction functions
{[}see Eqs. (\ref{eq:J_RKKY})-(\ref{eq:T_iso}){]}. In addition to
the well-known RKKY interaction, the presence of Rashba spin-orbit
coupling induces a finite DM and tensor matrix interactions, proportional
$\alpha_{R}$ and $\alpha_{R}^{2}$, respectively. In particular the
DM interaction is responsible for non-collinear magnetism and chiral
effects (see \textcolor{black}{Fig. 5}, where we obtain non-collinear
configurations from the minimization of the effective Hamiltonian).
This type of interactions have been recently investigated in relation
to Majorana proposals and skyrmion systems, which is currently investigated
for magnetic storage technology.
The philosophy of our work is reminiscent to those of Imamura \textit{et
al}\cite{Imamura2004}, Zhu \textit{et al}\cite{Zhu11_Electrically_controllable_magnetism_on_TIs}
and Bouaziz \textit{et al}\cite{Bouaziz2017}, where generic indirect
magnetic interactions are obtained directly from the conduction electrons.
However, in contrast to those works we have not assumed any specific
model Hamiltonian for the conduction electrons. In that sense, this
represents an important improvement since it allows to use the knowledge
of realistic band structure calculations. We point out that in many
cases where Rashba spin-orbit coupling is present, there is a tendency
to use phenomenological 2D conduction band models\cite{Imamura2004,Bouaziz2017}.
However, it is known that bulk electrons cannot be neglected and that
they play an important role in, e.g., the Kondo effect\cite{knorr02,Schneider02_Kondo_phase_shift,Limot04}.
A consequence of neglecting bulk electrons is the unrealistic slow
decay of the RKKY and other indirect exchange interactions. In addition,
in certain cases it has been identified that the presence of van Hove
singularities in the idealized 2D band structure produce anomalous
long-ranged interactions\cite{Bouaziz2017}.
Being a perturbative approach based on the second-order expansion
(the ``RKKY approximation''), our method does not take into account
higher-order scattering terms, and therefore is intrinsically limited
to the weak coupling regime $\rho_\text{3D}J_{K}\rightarrow0$. In that
respect, extensions to include higher-order scattering terms have
been proposed in the past\cite{Lloyd72_Multiple_scattering_method_in_condensed_materials,Ebert09_Ab_initio_calculation_of_exchange_coupling,Bouaziz2017}.
However, it is important to bear in mind that for a magnetic impurity
in the strong-coupling regime, including higher-order scattering terms
might not be enough, and also Kondo correlations, mixed-valence behavior,
charge excitations, and other many-body effects should be addressed
for a proper description. In that respect, Allerdt \textit{et al}\cite{Allerdt15_Kondo_vs_RKKY,Allerdt17_Nonperturbative_effects_exchange_interaction}
have recently considered many-body non-perturbative effects of the
\textit{s-d} exchange on the interaction between quantum impurities
at the surface of metals by implementing the density-matrix renormalization
group (DMRG).
Another important conclusion of our work is the strong anisotropy
of the induced interactions depending on the directionality ($a$
or $b$ directions in Figs. \ref{interactions1} and \ref{interactions2}),
as a result of the symmetry of the Pb(110) surface. This result was
also obtained theoretically\cite{Ebert09_Ab_initio_calculation_of_exchange_coupling}
and experimentally\cite{Zhou2010} in different systems. In addition,
the interaction is non-monotonic with the distance. These two aspects
are in stark contrast with respect to the usually idealized parabolic-band
RKKY.
Finally, we note that the band structure of Pb has been computed for
the normal state, and that the superconducting gap in the spectrum
of quasiparticle excitations of Pb has been ignored. We speculate
that this approximation will not affect our results, as the superconducting
effects should appear at distances of the order of the coherence length
$\xi_{\text{Pb}}\approx80$ nm, which are much larger that the interatomic
distances in our calculations.
In summary, by combining \textit{ab initio} methods with perturbation
theory, we have studied the realistic indirect spin-spin interactions
mediated by conduction electrons in the metallic surface of Pb(110).
We speculate that this approach might be helpful in the design of
weakly-coupled magnetic nanostructures with tailored interactions
in order to obtain specific functionalities.
\acknowledgments{The authors acknowledge financial support from PICT
2017-2081 (ANPCyT-Argentina). A.M.L. acknowledges financial support from PIP 11220150100364 (CONICET - Argentina)
and Relocation Grant RD1158 - 52368 (CONICET - Argentina).}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n}$ denote a complex finite-dimensional irreducible representation of the complex general linear group ${\rm GL}_n$ parametrized by a partition $\lambda$ of length $\ell(\lambda)\leq n$.
Suppose that ${\rm G}_n$ is a closed subgroup ${\rm Sp}_n$ or ${\rm O}_n$, where $n$ is even for ${\rm G}_n={\rm Sp}_n$.
Let $V^{\mu}_{\rm G_n}$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible ${\rm G}_n$-module parametrized by a partition $\mu$ with $\ell(\mu)\leq n/2$ for ${\rm G}_n={\rm Sp}_n$, and by a partition $\mu$ with $\ell(\mu)\leq n$ and $\mu'_1+\mu'_2\leq n$ for ${\rm G}_n={\rm O}_n$. Here $\mu'=(\mu'_i)_{i\geq 1}$ is the conjugate partition of $\mu$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:branching mult}
\left[V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n} : V^{\mu}_{\rm G_n} \right] = \dim {\rm Hom}_{{\rm G}_n}\left(V^{\mu}_{\rm G_n},V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n}\right)
\end{equation}
denote the multiplicity of $V^{\mu}_{\rm G_n}$ in $V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n}$.
In \cite{Lw-1,Lw-2}, Littlewood showed that if $\ell(\lambda)\leq n/2$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Littlewood restriction}
\begin{split}
\left[V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n} : V^{\mu}_{{\rm Sp}_n} \right]&=\sum_{\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}}c^\lambda_{\delta'\mu}, \quad \
\left[V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n} : V^{\mu}_{{\rm O}_n} \right]=\sum_{\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}}c^\lambda_{\delta\mu},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $c^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}$ is the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient corresponding to partitions $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$, and $\mathscr{P}^{(2)}$ denotes the set of partition with even parts. There has been numerous works on extending the Littlewood's restriction rules \eqref{eq:Littlewood restriction} for arbitrary $\lambda$ with $\ell(\lambda)\leq n$ (see \cite{EW,HTW} and also the references therein), but most of which are obtained in an algebraic way and hence given not in a subtraction-free way.
In \cite{Su}, Sundaram gave a beautiful combinatorial formula for \eqref{eq:branching mult} when ${\rm G}_n={\rm Sp}_n$, as the sum of the numbers of Littlewood-Richardson (LR) tableaux of shape $\lambda/\delta'$ with content $\mu$ satisfying certain constraints on their entries, which vanish in a stable range $\ell(\lambda)\leq n/2$. Recently, based on a certain combinatorial model for classical crystals called spinor model introduced by one of the authors \cite{K15,K18-3}, Lecouvey and Lenart obtained another formula for \eqref{eq:branching mult} when ${\rm G}_n={\rm Sp}_n$ in terms of LR tableaux with some flag conditions on their companion tableaux \cite{LL}. A conjectural bijection between these two formulas is also suggested in \cite{LL}. On the other hand, no orthogonal analogue of these formula has been known so far.
The goal of this paper is to give a combinatorial formula for
\eqref{eq:branching mult} when ${\rm G}_n={\rm O}_n$ for arbitrary $\lambda$ and $\mu$ in terms of LR tableaux with certain flag conditions on their companion tableaux which vanish in a stable range $\ell(\lambda)\leq n/2$.
Let us state our result more precisely when $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$ for simplicity since the result for $n-2\mu'_1< 0$ is similar.
Let ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$ be the set of LR tableaux of shape $\lambda/\delta$ with content $\mu^\pi$, where $\mu^\pi$ is the skew Young diagram obtained by $180^\circ$-rotation of $\mu$.
For $U\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$, let $T$ be the companion tableau of $U$ which is of shape $\mu^{\pi}$ (see Section \ref{subsec:notations}).
For $1 \le i \le \mu_1'$ and $1 \le j \le \mu_2'$, let
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sigma_i & = \textrm{the $i$-th entry in the rightmost column of $T$ from bottom}\,, \\
\tau_j & = \textrm{the $j$-th entry in the second rightmost column of $T$ from bottom}\,, \\
m_i & = \min \left\{ n-\sigma_i+1, 2i-1 \right\}, \\
n_j & = \textrm{the $j$-th smallest number in $\{\,j+1,\dots,n\,\} \setminus \{\,m_{j+1},\dots,m_{\mu'_1}\,\}$}\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
(see Example \ref{ex:example for LR undervar}).
\,The main result in this paper is as follows (Theorem \ref{thm:non-levi branching}):
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main intro_revision}
We have
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:main result}
\left[V^{\lambda}_{{\rm GL}_n} : V^{\mu}_{{\rm O}_n} \right]=\sum_{\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}}\underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}\,\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}$ is the number of $U\in {\texttt {\em LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bound condition in main result}
\quad \quad \quad \quad \tau_j + n_j \le n+1 \quad \quad \textrm{for \,\,$1 \le j \le \mu_2'$}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\vskip 1mm
The formula of \eqref{eq:branching mult} for ${\rm G}_n = {\rm O}_n$ in terms of LR tableaux in ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$ (not their companion tableaux) is also given in Corollary \ref{cor:LR version}.
The branching multiplicity \eqref{eq:branching mult} is equal to the one from $D_\infty$ to $A_{+\infty}$ from a viewpoint of Howe duality on a Fock space \cite{Wa}.
To describe this multiplicity, we use the spinor model for crystal graphs of integrable highest weight modules of type $D_\infty$ \cite{K16}.
Unlike the case of ${\rm Sp}_n$ \cite{LL}, we have to develop in addition a non-trivial combinatorial algorithm on the spinor model of type $D$ called {\em separation} in order to have a description of branching multiplicity in terms of LR tableaux satisfying the condition \eqref{eq:bound condition in main result} for $\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$.
This is a key ingredient in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main intro_revision}.
We can also recover the formula \eqref{eq:Littlewood restriction} in the stable range directly from the above formula (see Corollary \ref{cor:littlewood}).
As an interesting byproduct, we obtain a new combinatorial realization for the Lusztig $t$-weight multiplicity $K_{\mu 0}(t)$ of type $B_n$ and $D_n$ with highest weight $\mu$ and weight $0$ or generalized exponents (Theorem \ref{thm:Kostka-Foulkes for BD}). This gives an orthogonal analogue of the result for type $C_n$ in \cite{LL}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:spinor} we review the spinor model for crystals of integrable highest weight modules of type $D_\infty$. In Section \ref{sec:separation}, we develop a separation algorithm for the spinor model of type $D_\infty$. In Section \ref{sec:branching}, we use the separation algorithm to derive a branching formula in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}, and show that it is equivalent to Theorem \ref{thm:main intro_revision}
(see Theorem \ref{thm:main result-flagged}). In Section \ref{sec:genexp}, we give a combinatorial formula for the generalized exponents of type $B_n$ and $D_n$ following the idea in \cite{LL} for type $C_n$. Finally, we give a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} in Section \ref{sec:proof of main}.\vskip 2mm
{\bf Acknowledgement} The authors would like to thank C. Lenart and C. Lecouvey for their interest in this work and helpful discussion on generalized exponents.
Also they wish to thank the anonymous referees for careful reading and helpful comments on the manuscript.
\section{Spinor model} \label{sec:spinor}
\subsection{Crystals} \label{subsec:crystals}
Let us give a brief review on crystals (we refer the reader to \cite{HK,Kas91,Kas95} for more details). Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the Kac-Moody algebra associated to a symmetrizable generalized Cartan matrix $A =(a_{ij})_{i,j\in I}$ indexed by a set $I$.
Let $P^\vee$ be the dual weight lattice, $P = {\rm Hom}_\mathbb{Z}( P^\vee,\mathbb{Z})$ the weight lattice, $\Pi^\vee=\{\,h_i\,|\,i\in I\,\}\subset P^\vee$ the set of simple coroots, and $\Pi=\{\,\alpha_i\,|\,i\in I\,\}\subset P$ the set of simple roots of $\mathfrak{g}$ such that $\langle \alpha_j,h_i\rangle=a_{ij}$ for $i,j\in I$. Let $P_+$ be the set of integral dominant weights.
A {\it $\mathfrak{g}$-crystal} (or simply a {\it crystal} if there is no confusion on $\mathfrak{g}$) is a set $B$ together with the maps ${\rm wt} : B \rightarrow P$, $\varepsilon_i, \varphi_i: B \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\cup\{-\infty\}$ and $\widetilde{e}_i, \widetilde{f}_i: B \rightarrow B\cup\{{\bf 0}\}$ for $i\in I$ satisfying certain axioms.
For $\Lambda\in P_+$, we denote by $B(\Lambda)$ the crystal associated to an irreducible highest weight $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$-module with highest weight $\Lambda$.
Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be crystals. A {\em tensor product $B_1 \otimes B_2$} is defined to be $B_1 \times B_2$ as a set with elements denoted by $b_1 \otimes b_2$, where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& {\rm wt}(b_1 \otimes b_2) = {\rm wt}(b_1) + {\rm wt}(b_2), \\
& \varepsilon_{i}(b_{1} \otimes b_{2}) = \max\{ \varepsilon_{i}(b_{1}), \varepsilon_{i}(b_{2})-\langle {\rm wt}(b_{1}), h_i \rangle \}, \\
& \varphi_{i}(b_{1} \otimes b_{2}) = \max\{ \varphi_{i}(b_{1})+\langle {\rm wt}(b_2), h_i \rangle, \varphi_{i}(b_{2}) \}, \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tensor_product_rule}
\begin{split}
& \widetilde{e}_{i}(b_{1} \otimes b_{2}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde{e}_{i}b_{1} \otimes b_{2} & \textrm{if} \ \varphi_{i}(b_{1}) \ge \varepsilon_{i}(b_{2}), \\ b_{1} \otimes \widetilde{e}_{i}b_{2} & \textrm{if} \ \varphi_{i}(b_{1}) < \varepsilon_{i}(b_{2}), \end{array} \right. \\
& \widetilde{f}_{i}(b_{1} \otimes b_{2}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde{f}_{i}b_{1} \otimes b_{2} & \textrm{if} \ \varphi_{i}(b_{1}) > \epsilon_{i}(b_{2}), \\ b_{1} \otimes \widetilde{f}_{i}b_{2} & \textrm{if} \ \varphi_{i}(b_{1}) \le \epsilon_{i}(b_{2}),\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}}
for $i \in I$. Here, we assume that $\textbf{0} \otimes b_{2} = b_{1} \otimes \textbf{0} = \textbf{0}$. Then $B_1 \otimes B_2$ is a crystal.
For $b_1\in B_1$ and $b_2\in B_2$, we say that {\em $b_1$ is equivalent to $b_2$} if there is an isomorphism of crystals $\psi : C(b_1) \longrightarrow C(b_2)$ such that $\psi(b_1)=b_2$, where $C(b_i)$ is the connected component of $b_i$ in $B_i$ for $i=1,2$, and write $b_1\equiv_{\mathfrak g} b_2$ or simply $b_1\equiv b_2$ if there is no confusion.
\subsection{Littlewood-Richardson tableaux} \label{subsec:notations}
In this subsection, we review some combinatorics related to the Littlewood-Richardson tableaux (LR tableaux, for short) (see \cite{Ful}).
Let $\mathbb{Z}_+$ denote the set of non-negative integers.
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be the set of partitions or Young diagrams.
We let $\mathscr{P}_{\ell}=\{\,\lambda\in\mathscr{P}\,|\,\ell(\lambda)\leq \ell\,\}$ for $\ell\geq 1$,
where $\ell(\lambda)$ is the length of $\lambda$,
let $\mathscr{P}^{(2)}=\{\,\lambda\in\mathscr{P}\,|\,\lambda=(\lambda_i)_{i \geq 1}, \lambda_i\in 2\mathbb{Z}_+ \ (i\geq 1)\,\}$,
and let $\mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}=\{\,\lambda'\,|\,\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}\,\}$,
where $\lambda'$ is the conjugate of $\lambda$.
Put $\mathscr{P}^{(2,2)}=\mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}\cap \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$.
For $\Diamond\in \{(1,1), (2), (2,2)\}$ and $\ell\geq 1$,
we put $\mathscr{P}^{\Diamond}_\ell=\mathscr{P}^\Diamond\cap \mathscr{P}_\ell$.
For a skew Young diagram $\lambda/\mu$, we define ${SST}(\lambda/\mu)$ to be the set of semistandard tableaux of shape $\lambda/\mu$ with entries in $\mathbb{N}$. For $T\in SST(\lambda/\mu)$, let
$w(T)$ be the word given by reading the entries of $T$ column by column from right to left and from top to bottom in each column, and let ${\rm sh}(T)$ denote the shape of $T$.
Let $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}$ be given. For $T\in SST(\lambda)$ and $a\in \mathbb{N}$, we denote by $a \rightarrow T$ the tableau obtained by the column insertion of $a$ into $T$.
For a word $w=w_1\dots w_r$, we define $(w\rightarrow T)=(w_r\rightarrow (\dots \rightarrow(w_1\rightarrow T)))$. For a semistandard tableau $S$, we define $(S\rightarrow T)=(w(S)\rightarrow T)$.
Let $\lambda^\pi$ denote the skew Young diagram obtained from $\lambda$ by $180^\circ$ rotation. Let $H_\lambda$ and $H_{\lambda^\pi}$ be the tableaux in $SST(\lambda)$ and $SST(\lambda^\pi)$, respectively, where the $i$-th entry from the top in each column is filled with $i$ for $i\geq 1$.
For $\lambda,\mu,\nu\in\mathscr{P}$, let $\texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu \nu}$ be the set of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux $S$ of shape $\lambda/\mu$ with content $\nu$. There is a natural bijection from $\texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu \nu}$ to the set of $T\in SST(\nu)$ such that $(T\rightarrow H_\mu)=H_\lambda$, where each $i$ in the $j$th row of $S\in \texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu \nu}$ corresponds to $j$ in the $i$th row of $T$. We call such $T$ a companion tableau of $S\in \texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu \nu}$.
We also need the following anti-version of LR tableaux which will be used frequently in this paper.
\begin{df} \label{df:LR tableaux anti-dominated ver}
{\em
We define $\texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ to be the set of $S\in SST(\lambda/\mu)$ with content $\nu^\pi$ such that $w(T)=w_1\dots w_r$ is an {\em anti-lattice word}, that is,
the number of $i$ in $w_k\dots w_r$ is greater than or equal to that of $i-1$ for each $k\geq 1$ and $1<i\leq \ell(\nu)$.
}
\end{df}
Let us call $S \in \texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ a Littlewood-Richardson tableau of shape $\lambda/\mu$ with content $\nu^\pi$.
As in case of $\texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$, the map from $S\in \texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ to its companion tableau gives a natural bijection from $\texttt{LR}^\lambda_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ to the set of $T\in SST(\nu^\pi)$ such that $(T\rightarrow H_\mu)=H_\lambda$.
From now on, all the LR tableaux are assumed to be the corresponding companion tableaux unless otherwise specified.
Finally, let us recall a bijection
\begin{equation}\label{conjugation of LR}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\psi : {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'} \ar@{->}[r] & {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu^\pi},}
\end{equation}
which may be viewed as an analogue of Halon-Sundaram's bijection \cite{HS} for an anti-dominant content (cf. \cite[Appendix A.3]{Ful}, \cite[Remark 6.3]{LL} and references therein).
Let $S\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'}$ be given, that is, $(S\rightarrow H_{\mu'})=H_{\lambda'}$.
Let $S^1,\dots,S^p$ denote the columns of $S$ enumerated from the right.
For $1\le i\le p$, let $H^i=(S^i \rightarrow H^{i-1})$ with $H^0=H_{\mu'}$
so that $H^{p}=H_{\lambda'}$.
Define $Q(S\rightarrow H_{\mu'})\in SST(\lambda/\mu)$ to be the tableau such that the horizontal strip ${\rm sh}(H^i)'/{\rm sh}(H^{i-1})'$ is filled with $1\leq i\leq p$.
On the other hand, let $U\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ be given, that is,
${\rm sh}(U\rightarrow H_{\mu})=H_{\lambda}$. Let $U_i$ denote the $i$-th row of $U$ from the top, and let $H_i = (U_i\rightarrow H_{i-1})$ with $H_0=H_{\mu}$ for $1\le i\le p$.
Define $Q(U\rightarrow H_{\mu})$ to be tableau such that the horizontal strip ${\rm sh}(H_i)/{\rm sh}(H_{i-1})$ is filled with $1\le i\le p$.
Then for each $S\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'}$, there exists a unique
$U\in SST(\nu^\pi)$ such that $(U\rightarrow H_{\mu})=H_{\lambda}$ and
$Q(U\rightarrow H_{\mu})=Q(S\rightarrow H_{\mu'})$. We define $\psi(S)=U$.
Since the correspondence from $S$ to $U$ is reversible, $\psi$ is a bijection from ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'}$ to ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu^\pi}$.
\begin{ex} \label{ex:companion}
{\rm
Let $\lambda = (7, 6, 4, 3, 2)$, $\mu = (6, 4, 2, 2)$, and $\nu = (2, 2, 2, 1, 1)$.
Let $S\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'}$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
S=\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} & \tl{7} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{6} & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}\quad .
\end{equation*}
The recording tableau $Q(S \rightarrow H_{\mu'})$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 4.2cm Q(S \rightarrow H_{\mu'}) = \hskip -5cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \tl{3} & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\tl{5} & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\quad . \hskip 1cm
\end{equation*}
Then the corresponding $U=\psi(S)\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ with
$Q(U\rightarrow H_{\mu})= Q(S \rightarrow H_{\mu'})$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
U=
\raisebox{3ex}{
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \tl{2} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{3} \\
\tl{3} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{5} & \tl{5} \\
\end{ytableau}}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
\vskip 2mm
\subsection{Spinor models} \label{subsec:spinor}
Let us recall the notion of spinor model of type $D$, which is a combinatorial model for the crystal $\mathbf{B}(\Lambda)$ ($\Lambda \in P_+$) when $\mathfrak g$ is of type $D$ \cite{K16} (cf. \cite{K15, K18-3}). We keep the notations used in \cite{K18-3}.
We often assume that a horizontal line $L$ on the plane is given such that any box in a tableau $T$ is either below or above $L$, and denote by $T^{\texttt{body}}$ and $T^{\texttt{tail}}$ the subtableaux of $T$ placed above and below $L$, respectively.
For example,
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:body and tail}
\begin{split}
T=\raisebox{5ex}{
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none & \none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none[\!\!\!\!\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$ }}]
& \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none[\quad\quad \mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$\ ${}_{\scalebox{0.75}{$L$}}$}}] \\
\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}}\quad\quad\quad
T^{\texttt{body}}=\raisebox{5ex}{
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none \\
\end{ytableau}}\quad
T^{\texttt{tail}}=\raisebox{5ex}{
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}}\quad\quad
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the dotted line denotes $L$.
For a tableau $U$ with the shape of a single column, let {$\textrm{ht}(U)$} denote the height of $U$ and we put $U(i)$ (resp. $U[i]$) to be $i$-th entry of $U$ from bottom (resp. top).
We also write
\begin{equation*} %
U=\left(U(\ell),\dots , U(1)\right)=\left(U[1], \dots, U[\ell] \right),
\end{equation*}
where $\ell={\rm ht}(U)$.
To emphasize gluing and cutting tableaux which appear on the horizontal line L,
we also use the notations
\begin{equation*} %
\begin{split}
& U^{\texttt{body}}\boxplus U^{\texttt{tail}} = U,\quad U \boxminus U^{\texttt{tail}} = U^{\texttt{body}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
For $a,b,c\in \mathbb{Z}_+$, let $\lambda(a, b, c) = (2^{b+c}, 1^a)/(1^b)$.
Let $T$ be a tableau of shape $\lambda(a, b, c)$. We denote the left and right columns of $T$ by $T^{\texttt{L}}$ and $T^{\texttt{R}}$ , respectively.
For $T \in {SST}(\lambda(a, b, c))$ and $0 \le k \le \min\{ a, b \}$, we slide down $T^{\texttt{R}}$ by $k$ positions to have a tableau $T'$ of shape $\lambda(a-k, b-k, c+k)$. We define $\mathfrak{r}_T$ to be the maximal $k$ such that $T'$ is semistandard.
\begin{df}\label{def:jdt}
{\rm
For $T\in SST(\lambda(a,b,c))$ with ${\mathfrak r}_T=0$, we define
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\mathcal E T$ to be the tableau in $SST(\lambda(a-1,b+1,c))$ obtained from $T$ by applying jeu de taquin sliding to the position below the bottom of $T^{\texttt{R}}$, when $a>0$,
\item[(2)] $\mathcal F T$ to be the tableau in $SST(\lambda(a+1,b-1,c))$ obtained from $T$ by applying jeu de taquin sliding to the position above the top of $T^{\texttt{L}}$, when $b>0$.
\end{itemize}
Here we assume that $\mathcal{E}T = \mathbf{0}$ and $\mathcal{F}T = \mathbf{0}$ when $a=0$ and $b=0$, respectively, where ${\bf 0}$ is a formal symbol. In general, for $T \in {SST}(\lambda(a, b, c))$ with $\mathfrak{r}_T=k$, we define $\mathcal{E}T = \mathcal{E}T'$ and $\mathcal{F}T = \mathcal{F}T'$, where $T'$ is obtained from $T$ by sliding down $T^{\texttt{R}}$ by $k$ positions and hence $\mathfrak{r}_{T'}=0$. }
\end{df}
Let
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{equation*} %
\begin{split}
\mathbf{T}(a) & = \left\{\, T \,|\, T \in {SST}(\lambda(a,b,c)),\ b,c \in 2\mathbb{Z}_+,\ \mathfrak{r}_T \le 1 \,\right\}\quad (a\in\mathbb{Z}_+), \\
\overline{\mathbf{T}}(0) & = \bigsqcup_{b, c\, \in 2\mathbb{Z}_+} {SST}(\lambda(0, b, c+1)), \quad \ \ \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}} = \bigsqcup_{a \in \mathbb{Z}_+} {SST}((1^a)), \\
\mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}+} & = \{\, T \, |\, T \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}, \, \mathfrak{r}_T = 0\, \}, \ \ \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-} = \{ \,T \, |\, T \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}, \, \mathfrak{r}_T = 1\, \},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
where we define $\mathfrak{r}_T$ of $T \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$ to be the residue of $\textrm{ht}(T)$ modulo 2.
For $T \in \mathbf{T}(a)$, we define the pairs $(T^{{\texttt{L}}*}, T^{{\texttt{R}}*})$ and $({}^{\texttt{L}} T, {}^{\texttt{R}} T)$ by
\vskip 1mm
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_pairs}
\begin{split}
(T^{{\texttt{L}}*}, T^{{\texttt{R}}*}) & = \ ((\mathcal{F}T)^{\texttt{L}},(\mathcal{F}T)^{\texttt{R}}), \quad \textrm{when $\mathfrak{r}_T = 1$}, \\
({}^{\texttt{L}} T, {}^{\texttt{R}} T) & =
\begin{cases}
((\mathcal{E}^a T)^{\texttt{L}},(\mathcal{E}^a T)^{\texttt{R}}), & \text{if $\mathfrak{r}_T = 0$,} \\
((\mathcal{E}^{a-1} T)^{\texttt{L}},(\mathcal{E}^{a-1} T)^{\texttt{R}}), & \textrm{if $\mathfrak{r}_T = 1$.}
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\vskip 1mm
\begin{df}\label{def:admissibility}
{\rm
Let $a, a' \in \mathbb{Z}_+$ be given with $a \ge a'$. We say a pair $(T,S)$ is {\em admissible}, and write $T \prec S$ if it is one of the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $(T,S) \in \mathbf{T}(a) \times \mathbf{T}(a')$ or $\mathbf{T}(a) \times \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$ with
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& (\text{i}) \ \ \ \ \textrm{ht}(T^{\texttt{R}}) \le \textrm{ht}(S^{\texttt{L}}) - a' + 2\mathfrak{r}_T \mathfrak{r}_S, \\
& (\text{ii}) \ \ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
T^{\texttt{R}}(i) \le {}^{\texttt{L}} S(i), & \textrm{if} \ \mathfrak{r}_T \mathfrak{r}_S = 0, \\
T^{{\texttt{R}}*}(i) \le {}^{\texttt{L}} S(i), & \textrm{if} \ \mathfrak{r}_T \mathfrak{r}_S = 1,
\end{array} \right. \\
& (\text{iii}) \ \ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{}^{\texttt{R}} T(i+a-a') \le S^{\texttt{L}}(i), & \textrm{if} \ \mathfrak{r}_T \mathfrak{r}_S = 0, \\
{}^{\texttt{R}} T(i+a-a'+\varepsilon) \le S^{{\texttt{L}}*}(i), & \textrm{if} \ \mathfrak{r}_T \mathfrak{r}_S = 1,
\end{array} \right. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
for $i \ge 1$. Here $\varepsilon = 1$ if $S \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-}$ and $0$ otherwise, and we assume that $a' = \mathfrak{r}_S$, $S = S^{\texttt{L}} = {}^{\texttt{L}} S = S^{{\texttt{L}}*}$ when $S \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$.
\item[(2)] $(T,S) \in \mathbf{T}(a) \times \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$ with $T \prec S^{\texttt{L}}$ in the sense of (1), regarding $S^{\texttt{L}} \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-}$.
\item[(3)] $(T,S) \in \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0) \times \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$ or $\overline{\mathbf{T}}(0) \times \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-}$ with $(T^{\texttt{R}}, S^{\texttt{L}}) \in \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{df}
\vskip 2mm
\begin{rem}\label{rem:admissibilty for spin column}
{\rm
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For $T\in {\bf T}(a)$, we assume that the subtableau of single column with height $a$ is below L and hence equal to $T^{\texttt{tail}}$.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
T=\ \raisebox{6ex}{
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none & \none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none[\ \mathrel{\!\!\!\!\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$ }}]
& \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none[\quad\quad \mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$\ ${}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$L$}}$}}] \\
\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}}\quad\quad \in {\bf T}(2)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\item[(2)] Let $S \in \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$ be given, and let $\varepsilon$ be the residue of ${\rm ht}(S)$ modulo 2.
We may assume that $S= U^{\texttt{L}}$ for some $U\in {\bf T}(\varepsilon)$, where $U^{\texttt{R}}(i)$ ($i\ge 1$) are sufficiently large.
Then we have $S = U^{\texttt{L}} = {}^{\texttt{L}} U$.
We assume that $S^{\texttt{tail}}=U^{\texttt{tail}}$, which is non-empty when $\varepsilon=1$.
If $\varepsilon=1$, then $U^{\texttt{L}*}$ is obtained from $S$ by adding $U^{\texttt{R}}(1)$ to the bottom of $S$ since $\mathfrak{r}_U=1$. Note that $\mathfrak{r}_S=\varepsilon=\mathfrak{r}_U$.
This implies that $T\prec S$ if and only if $T\prec U$ for $T\in {\bf T}(a)$. So we may understand the admissibility conditions in Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1) for $(T,S) \in \mathbf{T}(a) \times \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$ as induced from the ones for $(T,U) \in \mathbf{T}(a) \times \mathbf{T}(\varepsilon)$ (cf. Example \ref{ex:spin minus}).
\item[(3)] Let $T\in \overline{\bf T}(0)$ be given. We assume that $T^{\texttt{L}}, T^{\texttt{R}}\in {\bf T}^{\rm sp-}$ so that $T^{\texttt{tail}}$ is non-empty.
This means that $\left( T^{\texttt{L}} \right)^{\texttt{tail}}$ and $\left( T^{\texttt{R}} \right)^{\texttt{tail}}$ are non-empty in the sense of (2).
\end{itemize}
}
\end{rem}
\vskip 2mm
From now on we assume that $\mathfrak g$ is the Kac-Moody Lie algebras of type $D_\infty$, whose Dynkin diagram, set of simple roots $\Pi=\{\,\alpha_i\,|\,i\in I\,\}$, and fundamental weight $\Lambda_i$ $(i\in I)$ are
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.16in} \hskip -3cm
\hskip 2cm \begin{picture}(24,5.8)
\put(6,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(6,4){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(8,2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(10.4,2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(14.85,2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(17.25,2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(19.4,2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\bigcirc$}}
\put(6.35,0.3){\line(1,1){1.35}} \put(6.35,3.7){\line(1,-1){1.35}}
\put(8.4,2){\line(1,0){1.55}} \put(10.82,2){\line(1,0){0.8}}
\put(13.2,2){\line(1,0){1.2}} \put(15.28,2){\line(1,0){1.45}}
\put(17.7,2){\line(1,0){1.25}} \put(19.8,2){\line(1,0){1.25}}
\put(12.5,1.95){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(22,1.95){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$\cdots$}}
\put(6,5){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{0}$}}
\put(6,-1.2){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{1}$}}
\put(8.2,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{2}$}}
\put(10.4,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{3}$}}
\put(14.8,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{k-1}$}}
\put(17.15,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_k$}}
\put(19.5,1){\makebox(0,0)[c]{\tiny $\alpha_{k+1}$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\Pi=\{\, \alpha_0=-\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2, \ \alpha_i=\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1} \ (i\geq 1)\, \},\\
&\Lambda_i =
\begin{cases}
\Lambda_0+\epsilon_1, & \text{if $i=1$}, \\
2\Lambda_0+\epsilon_1+\cdots+\epsilon_i, & \text{if $i>1$}.
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{center}
Here we assume that the index set for simple roots is $I=\mathbb{Z}_+$, and the weight lattice is $P=\mathbb{Z}\Lambda_0\oplus \left( \bigoplus_{i\geq 1}\mathbb{Z}\epsilon_i \right)$.
Let $\mathfrak{l}$ be the subalgebra of ${\mathfrak g}$ associated to $\Pi\setminus\{\alpha_0\}$, which is of type $A_{+\infty}$.
Let $\mathbf{B}$ be one of $\mathbf{T}(a)$ $(a \in \mathbb{Z}_+)$, $\mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$, and $\overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$. Let us describe the $\mathfrak g$-crystal structure on $\mathbf{B}$.
Let $T \in \mathbf{B}$ given.
Recall that $SST(\lambda)$ ($\lambda\in\mathscr{P}$) has an $\mathfrak l$-crystal structure \cite{KN}.
So we may regard $\mathbf{B}$ as a subcrystal of an $\mathfrak{l}$-crystal $\bigsqcup_{\lambda \in \mathscr{P}} {SST}(\lambda)$ and hence define $\widetilde{e}_i T$ and $\widetilde{f}_i T$ for $i \in {I} \setminus \{ 0 \}$.
Let ${\rm wt}_{\mathfrak l}(T)=\sum_{i\geq 1}m_i\epsilon_i$ be the $\mathfrak l$-weight of $T$, where $m_i$ is the number of occurrences of $i$ in $T$.
Next, we define $\widetilde{e}_0 T$ and $\widetilde{f}_0 T$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] When $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}}$, we define $\widetilde{e}_0$ to be the tableau obtained from $T$ by removing a domino
%
\raisebox{-.6ex}{{\tiny ${\def\lr#1{\multicolumn{1}{|@{\hspace{.6ex}}c@{\hspace{.6ex}}|}{\raisebox{-.3ex}{$#1$}}}\raisebox{-.6ex}
{$\begin{array}[b]{c}
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ 1 }\\
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ \!2\!}\\
\cline{1-1}
\end{array}$}}$}}
if $T$ has
\raisebox{-.6ex}{{\tiny ${\def\lr#1{\multicolumn{1}{|@{\hspace{.6ex}}c@{\hspace{.6ex}}|}{\raisebox{-.3ex}{$#1$}}}\raisebox{-.6ex}
{$\begin{array}[b]{c}
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ 1}\\
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ \!2\!}\\
\cline{1-1}
\end{array}$}}$}}
on its top, and \textbf{0} otherwise. We define $\widetilde{f}_0 T$ in a similar way by adding
\raisebox{-.6ex}{{\tiny ${\def\lr#1{\multicolumn{1}{|@{\hspace{.6ex}}c@{\hspace{.6ex}}|}{\raisebox{-.3ex}{$#1$}}}\raisebox{-.6ex}
{$\begin{array}[b]{c}
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ 1 }\\
\cline{1-1}
\lr{ \!2\!}\\
\cline{1-1}
\end{array}$}}$}}.
\item[(2)] When $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{T}(a)$ or $\overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$, we define $\widetilde{e}_0 T=\widetilde{e}_0 \left( T^{\texttt{R}} \otimes T^{\texttt{L}} \right)$ regarding $\mathbf{B} \subset \left( \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}} \right)^{\otimes 2}$ by tentor product rule \eqref{eq:tensor_product_rule}. We define $\widetilde{f}_0 T$ similarly.
\end{itemize}
Put
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\textrm{wt}(T) &=
\begin{cases}
2\Lambda_0 + \textrm{wt}_{\mathfrak{l}}(T), & \textrm{if $T \in \mathbf{T}(a)$ or $\overline{\bf T}(0)$}, \\
\Lambda_0 + \textrm{wt}_{\mathfrak{l}}(T), & \textrm{if $T\in {\bf T}^{\rm sp}$}.
\end{cases},\\
\varepsilon_i (T) & = \max \{\, k \, | \, \widetilde{e}_i^k T \neq \textbf{0}\, \} \quad
\varphi_i (T) = \max \{\, k \, | \, \widetilde{f}_i^k (T) \neq \textbf{0}\, \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then $\mathbf{B}$ is a $\mathfrak{g}$-crystal with respect to $\widetilde{e}_i$ and $\widetilde{f}_i$, $\varepsilon_i$, and $\varphi_i$ for $i \in I$.
By \cite[Proposition 4.2]{K16}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \mathbf{T}(a) \cong \mathbf{B}(\Lambda_{a}) \ \ (a \ge 2), \\
& \mathbf{T}(0) \cong \mathbf{B}(2\Lambda_{0}), \quad \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0) \cong \mathbf{B}(2\Lambda_{1}), \quad \mathbf{T}(1) \cong \mathbf{B}(\Lambda_{0}+\Lambda_1), \\
& \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-} \cong \mathbf{B}(\Lambda_1), \quad \mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}+} \cong \mathbf{B}(\Lambda_0).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
For $n\geq 1$, let
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)=\{\,\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_n)\,|\,\mu_i\in\mathbb{Z}_+, \ \mu_1\geq\ldots \geq \mu_{n},\
\mu'_1+\mu'_2\leq n\,\},
\end{equation*}
where $\mu'=(\mu'_1, \mu'_2, \cdots )$ is the conjugate partition of $\mu$.
Recall that $\mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$ parameterizes the complex finite-dimensional representations of the orthogonal group ${\rm O}_n$.
We may also use $\mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$ to parametrize $P_+$ for $\mathfrak g$.
More precisely, for $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$, if we put
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda(\mu) = n\Lambda_0+\mu'_1\epsilon_1+\mu'_2\epsilon_2 + \cdots,
\end{equation*}
then we have $P_+=\{\,\Lambda(\mu)\,|\, \mu\in \bigsqcup_n \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)\,\}$ the set of dominant integral weights for $\mathfrak g$.
For $\mu \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$, let $q_\pm$ and $r_\pm$ be non-negative integers such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
n-2\mu'_1 = 2q_+ + r_+, & \textrm{if} \ n-2\mu'_1 \ge 0, \\
2\mu'_1 - n = 2q_- + r_-, & \textrm{if} \ n-2\mu'_1 < 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $r_\pm = 0, 1$.
Let $\overline{\mu} = (\overline{\mu}_i) \in \mathscr{P}$ be such that
$\overline{\mu}'_1 = n-\mu'_1$ and $\overline{\mu}'_i = \mu'_i$ for $i \ge 2$ and let $M_+ = \mu'_1$ and $M_- = \overline{\mu}'_1$.
Put
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hat{T}}
\widehat{\mathbf{T}}(\mu, n) =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{T}(\mu_1) \times \cdots \times \mathbf{T}(\mu_{M_+}) \times \mathbf{T}(0)^{\times q_+} \times (\mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp+}})^{\times r_+}, & \textrm{if} \ n - 2\mu'_1 \ge 0, \\
\mathbf{T}(\overline{\mu}_1) \times \cdots \times \mathbf{T}(\overline{\mu}_{M_-}) \times \overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)^{\times q_-} \times (\mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-})^{\times r_-}, & \textrm{if} \ n - 2\mu'_1 < 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{T}(\mu, n) =
\{\, \mathbf{T} = (\dots,T_2,T_1) \in \widehat{\mathbf{T}}(\mu, n) \, | \, T_{i+1} \prec T_{i} \ (i \ge 1) \,\}.
\end{equation*}
When considering $\mathbf{T} = (\dots,T_2,T_1) \in \widehat{\mathbf{T}}(\mu, n)$,
it is often helpful to imagine that $T_1, T_2, \dots$ are arranged from right to left on a plane, where the horizontal line $L$ separates $T_i^{\texttt{body}}$ and $T_i^{\texttt{tail}}$ simultaneously.
\begin{ex}
{\em
Let $n=8$ and $\mu = (4, 3, 3, 2) \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_8)$ and let ${\bf T} = (T_4,T_3, T_2, T_1)$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
& \begin{ytableau}
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none[\!\!\!\!\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$}}] &\none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}]& \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none[\ \mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{\quad $\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots\dots\dots}$\ ${}_{\scalebox{0.75}{$L$}}$}}] \\
\none &\tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\none &\tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\none &\tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \quad\quad \\
&\ \hskip 5mm T_4 \hskip 9mm T_3 \hskip 9mm T_2 \hskip 8mm T_1 \hskip 13mm
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\vskip 3mm
Then we can check that $T_4 \prec T_3 \prec T_2 \prec T_1$. Thus, ${\bf T} \in {\bf T}(\mu, 8)$.
where the dotted line denotes the common horizontal line L.
}
\end{ex}
We regard $\widehat{\bf T}(\mu,n)$ as a $\mathfrak g$-crystal by identifying ${\bf T}=(\dots,T_2,T_1)\in \widehat{\bf T}(\mu,n)$ with $T_1\otimes T_2\otimes \dots$, and regard ${\bf T}(\mu,n)$ as its subcrystal. Then we have the following.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:fundamental_theorem} \cite[Theorem 4.3--4.4]{K16}
For $\mu \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$,
$\mathbf{T}(\mu, n)$ is a connected crystal with highest weight $\Lambda(\mu)$. Furthermore,
we have $$\mathbf{T}(\mu, n) \cong \mathbf{B}(\Lambda(\mu)).$$
\end{thm}
\qed
We call $\mathbf{T}(\mu, n)$ the {\em spinor model for $\mathbf{B}(\Lambda(\mu))$} (in type $D_\infty$).
From now on, we fix $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$ throughout the paper.
\section{Separation algorithm} \label{sec:separation}
We introduce a combinatorial algorithm on ${\bf T}(\mu, n)$, so-called {\em separation}, which plays a crucial role in this paper.
Let us briefly explain its motivation and the result in this section.
First, we observe that the multiplicity \eqref{eq:branching mult} is equal to the number of $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight elements ${\bf T} \in {\bf T}(\mu, n)$ with highest weight $\lambda'$, that is, $\widetilde{e}_i {\bf T} = {\bf 0} \, (i \neq 0)$ and ${\bf T} \equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\lambda'}$ from the see-saw pairs in the Howe duality of $({\rm O}_n, D_{\infty})$ \cite{Wa}.
To have a combinatorial description of ${\bf T}$, we then introduce an algorithm which gives an injective map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:separation}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
{\bf T} \ \ar@{|->}[r] & \ (H_{(\delta')^{\pi}}\,,\, U)},
\end{equation}
where $\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n$ and $U \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'}$.
So this reduces our problem to characterizing the image of $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight elements under the map \eqref{eq:separation}.
The idea of considering such a map, which we call {\em separation}, is basically from \cite{K18-3}, where the second author explains the stable branching rules \cite{HTW} in terms of crystals.
The separation algorithm for types $B$ and $C$ is already present in \cite{K18-2}.
Roughly speaking, it is given by sliding horizontally the tails of ${\bf T}$ (using the jeu de taquin sliding) to the leftmost one as far as possible so that the resulting tableau gives $U$ and the remaining one in the body gives $H_{(\delta')^\pi}$.
Also, the characterization of the image of \eqref{eq:separation} is given in \cite{LL} when ${\bf T}(\mu,n)$ is of type $C$.
However, the separation algorithm for types $B$ and $C$ does not work well on the spinor model of type $D$ due to more involved conditions for admissibility in ${\bf T}(\mu,n)$.
To overcome this difficulty, we introduce an operator {\em sliding} \eqref{eq:definition_S} which is given by a non-trivial sequence of jeu de taquin slidings, and also moves a tail in ${\bf T}$ by one position to the left horizontally (see Example \ref{ex:illustration of S}).
A key property is that our sliding is compatible with the type $A$ crystal structure on ${\bf T}(\mu,n)$ so that we obtain another $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element $\widetilde{\bf T}$ and ${\bf T}=\widetilde{\bf T}\otimes U$ as an element in a crystal of type $A$, where $U$ is the leftmost column in ${\bf T}$ (see Lemmas \ref{lem:sliding one step} and \ref{lem:sliding one step-2}).
Hence this enables us to define the map \eqref{eq:separation} by applying the sliding successively.
We refer the reader to Examples \ref{ex:3.13} and \ref{ex:separation for negative case} for its illustration.
\subsection{$\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight elements} \label{subsec:l-highest weight element}
\begin{df} \label{df:l-highest weight elements}
{\em
Let
\begin{equation*}%
{\bf H}(\mu,n)=\{\,{\bf T}\,\,|\,\,{\bf T}\in \mathbf{T}(\mu, n),\ \widetilde{e}_i{\bf T}={\bf 0}\ (i\neq 0)\,\},
\end{equation*}
and call ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ an {\em $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element}.
}
\end{df}
The goal of this subsection is to give some necessary conditions for ${\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$ to be in ${\bf H}(\mu,n)$,
which will be used when we define the separation algorithm.
Note that for ${\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$, we have ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ if and only if ${\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_\lambda$ for some $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}$. Hence ${\bf H}(\mu,n)$ parametrizes the connected $\mathfrak l$-crystals in ${\bf T}(\mu,n)$.
In this subsection, we assume that $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$ (The case when $n-2\mu'_1 < 0$ will be considered in subsection \ref{subsec:negative case}).
Suppose that $n=2l+r$, where $l\geq 1$ and $r=0,1$.
Let ${\bf T} \in {\bf T}(\mu, n)$ be given and write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T notation}
{\bf T} = (T_l, \dots, T_1,T_0),
\end{equation}
where
$T_i\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ for some $a_i\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ ($1\leq i\leq l$), and $T_0\in {\bf T}^{\rm sp+}$ (resp. $T_0=\emptyset$) when $r=1$ (resp. $r=0$).
Let ${\rm sh}(T_i) = \lambda(a_i, b_i, c_i)$ and $\mathfrak{r}_{T_i} = \mathfrak{r}_i$ for $1\leq i\leq l$.
The lemma below follows directly from the tensor product rule \eqref{eq:tensor_product_rule}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}
Put $U_0=T_0$, $U_{2k-1} = T_k^{\texttt{R}}$ and $U_{2k} = T_k^{\texttt{L}}$ for $1\leq k\leq l$.
Then ${\bf T}$ is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element if and only if $(U_i, \dots, U_0)$ is a $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element for $i\geq 0$, where we understand $(U_i, \dots, U_0)=U_0\otimes \dots \otimes U_i$ as an element of an $\mathfrak l$-crystal. \qed
\end{lem}
\begin{df} \label{def:pseudo_H}
{\rm Let ${{\bf{H}}}^\circ(\mu, n)$ be a subset of ${\bf T}(\mu, n)$ consisting of ${\bf T} = (T_i)$ satisfying the following conditions: for each $i\geq 1$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[({\rm H0})] $T_0[k]=k$ for $k\geq 1$,
\item[({\rm H1})] $T_i^{\texttt{L}}$ and $T_i^{\texttt{R}}$ are of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& T^{\texttt{R}}_i = \left(1, 2, \dots , b_i + c_i - 1 , T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)\right)\boxplus \emptyset ,\\
& T^{\texttt{L}}_i = \left(1, 2, \dots , c_i - 1 , c_i \right)\boxplus \left( T_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) , \dots ,T_i^{\texttt{L}}(1) \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\item[({\rm H2})] the entries $T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)$ and $T_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i)$ satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm (i)} \ \ & \textrm{if} \ \mathfrak{r}_i = 0, \textrm{then} \ T^R_i(1) = b_i+c_i, \\
{\rm (ii)} \ \ & \textrm{if $\mathfrak{r}_i = 1$, then}
\left\{\begin{array}{l} T^{\texttt{R}}_i(1) = b_i+c_i \ \textrm{or} \ T^{\texttt{R}}_i(1) \ge c_{i-1}+1+\mathfrak{r}_{i-1}, \\ T_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) = c_i + 1. \end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Here we assume that $c_0=\infty$ and ${\mathfrak r}_0=0$.
}
\end{df}
\begin{lem} \label{cor:highest_weight_element}
For ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$, we have either $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) < T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$ or $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) > T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$ for each $i$.
Furthermore, $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) > T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$ implies ${\mathfrak r}_i{\mathfrak r}_{i+1}=1$, and
${\mathfrak r}_i{\mathfrak r}_{i+1}=0$ implies $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) < T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Let $i=1,\dots,l-1$ be given. If $\mathfrak{r}_{i}\mathfrak{r}_{i+1} = 0$, then by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) and (H1), we have $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) = b_{i+1}+c_{i+1} \le c_i < T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
Suppose that $\mathfrak{r}_{i}\mathfrak{r}_{i+1} = 1$.
By (H2)(ii), we have $T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)=c_i+1$, and $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1)=b_{i+1}+c_{i+1}$ or $\geq c_i+2$.
If $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1)\geq c_i+2$, then it is clear that $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) > T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
So we assume that $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) = b_{i+1}+c_{i+1}$.
Note that $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) = b_{i+1}+c_{i+1} \le c_i+2$ by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i).
If $b_{i+1} + c_{i+1} = c_i +2$, then $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) > T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
If $b_{i+1} + c_{i+1} < c_i +2$, then $b_{i+1} + c_{i+1} \le c_i$ since both $b_{i+1}+c_{i+1}$ and $c_i$ are even.
So $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) < T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
Finally, suppose that $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) > T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$.
If $\mathfrak{r}_{i}\mathfrak{r}_{i+1} =0$, then by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) we have $T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1}(1) \leq T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i+1)<T^{\texttt{L}}_i(a_i)$ which is a contradiction. This proves the lemma.
\qed
\vskip 1mm
Now we verify that the ${\mathfrak l}$-highest weight elements satisfy Definition \ref{def:pseudo_H}(H0)--(H2).
In particular, the admissibility in Definition \ref{def:admissibility} implies the condition (H2).
\begin{prop} \label{prop:highest_weight_vectors}
We have
${\bf{H}}(\mu, n) \subset {\bf{H}}^\circ(\mu, n).$
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Suppose that ${\bf T} \in {\bf H}(\mu, n)$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}, it is clear that $T_0$ satisfies (H0).
Let $w(T_0)w(T_1)\dots w(T_l)=w_1w_2\dots w_\ell$, and
\begin{equation} \label{prop:eq1}
P_l=\left( w_\ell \rightarrow (\dots \rightarrow (w_3 \rightarrow (w_2 \rightarrow w_1))) \right),
\end{equation}
By definition of ${\bf H}(\mu,n)$, we have $P_l=H_\nu$ for some $\nu\in \mathscr{P}$.
Let $h_l$ be the height of the rightmost column of $\nu$.
Let us use induction on $l$ to show that ${\bf T} \in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu, n)$.
We also claim that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:eq0}
h_l=c_l + {\mathfrak r}_l.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $l=1$.
Since ${\bf T}$ is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element and ${\bf T} \equiv_{\mathfrak{l}} {\bf T}^{\texttt{R}} \otimes {\bf T}^{\texttt{L}}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}, it is straightforward to check that ${\bf T}$ satisfies (H1) and (H2). It is clear that $c_1=h_1+{\mathfrak r}_1$.
Suppose that $l > 1$. Let ${\bf T}_{l-1} = (T_{l-1}, \dots, T_1,T_0)$ and let $P_{l-1}$ be the tableau in \eqref{prop:eq1} corresponding to ${\bf T}_{l-1}$.
By induction hypothesis, ${\bf T}_{l-1}$ satisfies (H1) and (H2). Put $${P}^{\flat}_{l} = (w(T^{\texttt{R}}_l) \rightarrow P_{l-1}).$$
Then ${P}^\flat_{l}=H_\eta$ for some $\eta\in\mathscr{P}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}, and
${P}_{l} = (w(T^{\texttt{L}}_l) \rightarrow {P}^\flat_{l})$.
{\em Case 1}. Suppose that $\mathfrak{r}_l = 0$.
Note that by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i), we have $b_l + c_l \le c_{l-1}$.
Also, by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii), $T^{\texttt{R}}_l(i) \le {}^{\texttt{L}} T_{l-1}(i)$ for $1 \le i \le b_l+c_l$.
By (H1) on ${\bf T}_{l-1}$, we have ${}^{\texttt{L}} T_{l-1}[k] = k$ for $1\le k\le \overline{c}_{l-1}$, where $\overline{c}_{l-1}=c_{l-1}+\mathfrak{r}_{l-1}$.
Hence
\begin{equation} \label{prop:eq2}
T^{\texttt{R}}_l(i) \le c_{l-1}-i+\mathfrak{r}_{l-1}+1,
\end{equation}
for $1 \le i \le b_l+c_l$.
Then \eqref{prop:eq2} implies that each letter of $w(T^{\texttt{R}}_l)$ is inserted to create a box to the right of the leftmost column of $P_{l-1}$ when we consider the insertion $(w(T^{\texttt{R}}_l) \rightarrow P_{l-1})$.
Since ${P}^\flat_{l}=H_\eta$, we have $T^{\texttt{R}}_l[k]=k$ for $1\le k \le b_l+c_l$.
By semistandardness of $T^{\texttt{body}}_l$, we have
\begin{equation*} \label{prop:eq3}
(T_l^{\texttt{L}})^{\texttt{body}}(i) \le T_l^{\texttt{R}}(i),
\end{equation*}
for $i\geq 1$.
This implies that each letter of $w((T^{\texttt{L}}_l)^{\texttt{body}})$ is inserted to create a box to the right of the leftmost column of $P^\flat_{l}$ when we consider the insertion $w((T^{\texttt{L}}_l)^{\texttt{body}}) \rightarrow P^\flat_{l})$, and
$T^L_l[k] = k$ for $1 \le k \le c_l$.
Hence ${\bf T}$ satisfies (H1), (H2), and \eqref{prop:eq0}.
{\em Case 2.} Suppose that $\mathfrak{r}_l = 1$.
When $\mathfrak{r}_{l-1} = 0$, we see that $T_l$ satisfies the conditions (H1) and (H2) by the same argument in the previous case. In particular, \eqref{prop:eq2} implies that $T^{\texttt{R}}_l(1) = b_l + c_l$. Since $T^{\texttt{L}}_l(a_l) \le T^{\texttt{R}}_l(1)$ and $P^\flat_{l}=H_\eta$, we also have $T^{\texttt{L}}_l(a_l) = c_l + 1$ and \eqref{prop:eq0}.
Now assume that $\mathfrak{r}_{l-1} = 1$.
When $\mathfrak{r}_{l}\mathfrak{r}_{l-1} = 1$, we need to consider the $*$-pair $(T_l^{{\texttt{L}}*}, T_l^{{\texttt{R}}*})$ of $T_l$ in \eqref{eq:def_pairs} (recall Definition \ref{def:admissibility}). Then,
by Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) and the condition (H1) on ${\bf T}_{l-1}$, we have
\begin{equation*} %
T^{{\texttt{R}}*}_l(i) \le {}^{\texttt{L}}T_{l-1}(i) = c_{l-1}-i+2.
\end{equation*}
We claim that $T^{\texttt{R}}_l[k] = k$ for $ 1\le k \le b_l+c_l-1$.
Let $k$ be such that $T^{{\texttt{R}}*}_l(i) = T^{\texttt{R}}_l(i)$ for $1\leq i\leq k-1$, and $T^{{\texttt{R}}*}_l(i) = T^{\texttt{R}}_l(i+1)$ for $i\ge k$.
Since $(\mathcal{F}T_l, T_{l-1}, \dots, T_1) \equiv_{\mathfrak{l}} (T_l, T_{l-1}, \dots, T_1)$, which is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element,
we see from Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt} that
each letter of $w(T^{\texttt{R}*}_l)$ is inserted to create a box to the right of the leftmost column of $P_{l-1}$ when we consider the insertion $(w(T^{\texttt{R}*}_l) \rightarrow P_{l-1})$, and $T^{R*}_l[i] = i$ for $1\le i \le b_l+c_l-1$.
This implies that $T^R_l(k)$ is between $m$ and $m+1$ for some $m \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, and hence $k=b_l+c_l$ since $(w(T^{\texttt{R}*}_l) \rightarrow P_{l-1})$ is an ${\mathfrak l}$-highest weight element. This proves the claim, and $T^{\texttt{R}}_l$ satisfies (H1).
Furthermore, the claim implies that $T^{\texttt{R}}_l(1)$ satisfies (H2)(ii) because $P^\flat_l$ is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element.
We consider $T^{\texttt{L}}_l$. By the same argument as in {\em Case 1}, we have $T^{\texttt{L}}_l[j] = j$ for $1\le j \le c_l$, and $k=1$ (in the previous argument) implies that $T^{\texttt{L}}_l(a_l) \le b_l + c_l - 1$.
Therefore, we have $T^{\texttt{L}}_l(a_l) = c_l+1$ since the tableau obtained by $(T^{\texttt{L}}_l(a_l) \rightarrow (w(T_l^{\texttt{body}}) \rightarrow P^\flat_{l}))$ is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element. Finally, we can check easily that \eqref{prop:eq0} holds.
\qed
\begin{ex}{\rm
Let $\mathbf{T} = (T_2, T_1)\in {\bf T}(2,2)$ with $\mathfrak{r}_{1} = \mathfrak{r}_{2} = 1$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\tl{$T_2^{\texttt{L}}$} \ ] & \none[\ \tl{$T_2^{\texttt{R}}$}] & \none & \none & \none[\tl{$T_1^{\texttt{L}}$} \ ] & \none[\ \tl{$T_1^{\texttt{R}}$}]
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We have $w(T_1)w(T_2)=(12341235)(1415)$ and the corresponding tableau \eqref{prop:eq1} is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \none & \none\\
\tl{2} & \tl{2} & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\tl{4} & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\tl{5} & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus ${\bf T}$ is an $\mathfrak{l}$-highest weight element.}
\end{ex}
\subsection{Sliding algorithm}\label{subsec:sliding}
In this subsection, we introduce a combinatorial algorithm which moves a tail in ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$ by one position to the left horizontally preserving the ${\mathfrak l}$-crystal equivalence or Knuth equivalence.
Then we obtain $\widetilde{\bf T} \in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu}, n-1)$ from ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu}, n-1)$ by applying the slidings repeatedly, where $\widetilde{\mu}=(\mu_2,\mu_3,\dots)$.
This is a key observation to define the separation inductively in the next subsection.
\vskip 2mm
We need the following set given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{E}^n := \underset{{(u_n, \dots, u_1) \in \mathbb{Z}_+^n}}{\bigsqcup}
{SST}(1^{u_n}) \times \dots \times {SST}(1^{u_1}).
\end{equation*}
Let $(U_n, \dots, U_1) \in \mathbf{E}^n$ given.
For $1 \le j \le n-1$ and $\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}$, we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:E_j and F_j}
\mathcal{X}_j (U_n, \dots, U_1) =
\begin{cases}
(U_r, \dots, \mathcal{X}(U_{j+1}, U_j), \dots, U_1),
& \textrm{if $\mathcal{X}(U_{j+1}, U_j) \neq \mathbf{0}$,} \\
\mathbf{0}, & \ \textrm{if $\mathcal{X}(U_{j+1}, U_j) = \mathbf{0}$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{X}(U_{j+1}, U_j)$ is understood to be $((\mathcal{X}U)^{\texttt{L}},(\mathcal{X}U)^{\texttt{R}})$ for $U\in SST(\lambda(a,b,c))$ with ${\mathfrak r}_U=0$ and $(U^{\texttt{L}},U^{\texttt{R}})=(U_{j+1},U_j)$ (see Definition \ref{def:jdt}).
Then ${\bf E}^n$ is a regular $\mathfrak{sl}_n$-crystal with respect to $\mathcal{E}_j$ and $\mathcal{F}_j$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$ \cite[Lemma 5.1]{K18-2}.
Furthermore, ${\bf E}^n$ can be viewed as an ${\mathfrak l}$-crystal by identifying
$(U_n,\dots, U_1)=U_1\otimes \dots \otimes U_n$ with respect to $\widetilde{e}_i$ and $\widetilde{f}_i$ for $i\geq 1$. Then the operators ${\mathcal X}_j$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$ commutes with $\widetilde{e}_i$ and $\widetilde{f}_i$ so that ${\bf E}^{n}$ becomes a $({\mathfrak l},\mathfrak{sl}_n)$-bicrystal.
{Let us assume that $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$ satisfies $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$.}
The case when $n-2\mu'_1<n$ will be discussed in subsection \ref{subsec:negative case}.
Consider the following embedding of sets given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:identification}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
{\bf T}(\mu,n) \ \ar@{->}[r] & \ \mathbf{E}^{n} \\
\mathbf{T} = (T_l, \dots, T_1,T_0) \ar@{|->}[r] & (T_l^{\texttt{L}}, T_l^{\texttt{R}}, \dots, T_1^{\texttt{L}}, T_1^{\texttt{R}},T_0) }.
\end{equation}
We identify $\mathbf{T} = (T_l, \dots, T_1,T_0)\in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$ with its image ${\bf U}=(U_{2l},\dots,U_1,U_0)$ under \eqref{eq:identification} so that $T_0=U_0$ and $(T_{i+1}, T_i)$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
(T_{i+1}, T_i)
=(U_{j+2}, U_{j+1}, U_j, U_{j-1})
=(T^{\texttt{L}}_{i+1},T^{\texttt{R}}_{i+1},T^{\texttt{L}}_i,T^{\texttt{R}}_i),
\end{equation*}
with $j=2i$ for $1\leq i\leq l-1$.
Let ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$ be given.
Our first step is to define an operator ${\mathcal S}_j$ on ${\bf T}$ for $j=2,4,\dots,2l-2$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definition_S}
\mathcal{S}_j =
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i}, & \text{if $U_{j+1}(1) < U_j(a_i)$},\\
\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i-1}\mathcal{F}_{j-1}, & \text{if $U_{j+1}(1) > U_j(a_i)$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that the operator $\mathcal{S}_j$ is well-defined by Corollary \ref{cor:highest_weight_element}.
We assume that $\mathcal{S}_j$ is the identity operator when $a_i=0$.
Let us describe $\mathcal{S}_j$ more explicitly.\vskip 2mm
\begin{lem}\label{lem:description of S}
Under the above hypothesis, we have
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal S}_j{\bf U}=\left(\dots, U_{j+2},\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j}, U_{j-1},\dots \right),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $U_{j+1}(1) < U_j(a_i)$, then
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{U}_{j+1}=U_{j+1}\boxplus U_j^{\texttt{\em tail}},\quad
\widetilde{U}_{j}=U_j\boxminus U_j^{\texttt{\em tail}},
\end{equation*}
\item[(ii)] if $U_{j+1}(1) > U_j(a_i)$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{U}_{j+1} &= \left(U_{j+1}(b_i+c_i), \dots, U_{j+1}(3) ) \boxplus ( U_{j+1}(2), \,U_j(a_i-1), \dots, U_{j}(1)\right), \\
\widetilde{U}_{j} &=(U_j(a_i+c_i), \dots, U_j(a_i), U_{j+1}(1))\boxplus \emptyset.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Suppose that $U_{j+1}(1) < U_j(a_i)$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_j{\bf U}=\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i}{\bf U}
=(\dots,\mathcal{F}^{a_i}(U_{j+1}, U_i),\dots)
=(\dots,U_{j+1}\boxplus U_j^{\texttt{tail}}, U_j\boxminus U_j^{\texttt{tail}},\dots),
\end{equation*}
which is given by cutting $U_j^{\texttt{tail}}$ and then putting it below $U_{j+1}$.\vskip 2mm
Next, suppose that $U_{j+1}(1) > U_j(a_i)$.
By Lemma \ref{cor:highest_weight_element}, we have ${\mathfrak r}_i{\mathfrak r}_{i+1}=1$.
Then we have
$\mathcal{S}_j{\bf U}
=\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i-1}\mathcal{F}_{j-1}{\bf U}$.
Ignoring the components other than $(T_{i+1},T_i)$, we have
\begin{equation*} %
\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i-1}\mathcal{F}_{j-1}&\left( T_{i+1}, T_i \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i-1}\left( U_{j+2}, U_{j+1},\mathcal{F}(U_j, U_{j-1}) \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i-1}\left( U_{j+2}, U_{j+1}, U^*_j, U^*_{j-1} \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\left( U_{j+2}, \mathcal{F}^{a_i-1}(U_{j+1}, U^*_j), U^*_{j-1} \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\mathcal{E}_{j-1}\left( U_{j+2}, U_{j+1} \boxplus {U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U^*_j\boxminus{U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U^*_{j-1} \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\left( U_{j+2}, U_{j+1}\boxplus {U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, \mathcal{E}(U^*_j\boxminus{U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U^*_{j-1}) \right) \\
= &\mathcal{E}_j\left( U_{j+2}, U_{j+1}\boxplus {U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U_j^{\uparrow}\boxminus{U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U_{j-1} \right) \\
= & \left( U_{j+2}, \mathcal{E}(U_{j+1}\boxplus {U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}, U_j^{\uparrow}\boxminus{U}_j^{*\texttt{tail}}), U_{j-1} \right) \\
= & \left( U_{j+2},\widetilde{U}_{j+1},\widetilde{U}_{j}, U_{j-1} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:calculation_operator_S2}
\begin{split}
& U^*_{j-1} = T^{\texttt{R}*}_i=(U_{j-1}(b_i+c_i), \dots, U_{j-1}(2)) \boxplus \emptyset, \\
& U^*_j = T^{\texttt{L}*}_i=(U_j(a_i+c_i), \dots, U_j(a_i), U_{j-1}(1)) \boxplus ( U_j(a_i-1), \dots, U_{j}(1)),\\
& U^{\uparrow}_j = (U_j(a_i+c_i), \dots, U_j(a_i) ) \boxplus ( U_j(a_i-1), \dots, U_{j}(1)).\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This proves the lemma.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
Let us call this algorithm to obtain $(\widetilde{U}_{j+1},\widetilde{U}_j)$ from $(U_{j+1},U_j)$ {\em sliding algorithm}.%
\begin{cor}\label{cor:spinor after S}
Under the above hypothesis, we have the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For $j=2$, there exists unique ${T}, S\in {\bf T}(0)$ such that
$({T}^{\texttt{\em L}},{T}^{\texttt{\em R}})=(\widetilde{U}_2, {U}_1)$ and
$({S}^{\texttt{\em L}},{S}^{\texttt{\em R}})=({U}_1, {U}_0)$ if $U_0$ is non-empty.
\item[(2)] For $j=2i$ with $1\leq i\leq l-1$, there exists a unique ${T}\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ such that
$({T}^{\texttt{\em L}},{T}^{\texttt{\em R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j})$ and the residue of ${T}$ is 0 if $U_{j+1}(1) < U_j(a_i)$ and 1 if $U_{j+1}(1) > U_j(a_i)$.
\item[(3)] The pair $(U_{2l},\widetilde{U}_{2l-1})$ forms a semistandard tableau when the columns are put together horizontally along L.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } (1) and (3) follow directly from Definition \ref{def:admissibility} and the description of $(\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j})$ in Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}.
By definition of $\mathcal{S}_j$, it is not difficult to see that
$(\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j})$ forms a semistandard tableau, say $T$ of shape $\lambda(a_i,b'_i,c'_i)$ for some $b'_i, c'_i\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ such that
$(T^{\texttt{L}},T^{\texttt{R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j})$.
The residue of $T$ follows immediately from the description of $(\widetilde{U}_{j+1}, \widetilde{U}_{j})$ in Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}. This proves (2).
\qed
\begin{cor}\label{cor:l-equivalence under S}
We have ${\mathcal S}_j{\mathcal S}_k={\mathcal S}_k{\mathcal S}_j$ for $j\neq k$, and ${\mathcal S}_2{\mathcal S}_4\dots{\mathcal S}_{2l-2}{\bf U}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}{\bf U}$.
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Since ${\mathcal S}_{j}$ changes only $U_j, U_{j+1}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}, it is clear that ${\mathcal S}_j{\mathcal S}_k={\mathcal S}_k{\mathcal S}_j$ for $j\neq k$. The ${\mathfrak l}$-crystal equivalence follows from the fact that ${\bf E}^{n}$ is a $({\mathfrak l},\mathfrak{sl}_n)$-bicrystal.
\qed
\begin{ex} \label{ex:illustration of S}
\mbox{}
{\rm
(1) The following is an illustration of ${\mathcal S}_j$ when $U_{j+1}(1)<U_j(a_i)$
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 0.7cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none\\
\none & \none & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \tl{\red 1} & \tl{3} & \none\\
\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{\blue {\bf 2}} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{\red 2} & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{\red {\bf 3}} & \none & \none\\
\none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{\red 5} & \none & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \none[] & \none[\quad \tl{$U_{j+1}$}] & \none & \none & \none[\tl{$U_j$} \quad ] & \none[] & \none
\end{ytableau}
\end{split} \quad {\xmapsto{\hspace*{1.5cm}}} \quad
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none &\none & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] &\none & \tl{\blue 2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] \\
\none &\tl{1} & \tl{\red 3} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\tl{4} & \tl{\red 5} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none &\none[\ \ \ \ ] & \none[\quad \tl{$\widetilde{U}_{j+1}$}] & \none & \none & \none[\tl{$\widetilde{U}_j$}\quad ] & \none[] & \none
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
(2) The following is an illustration of ${\mathcal S}_j$ when $U_{j+1}(1)>U_j(a_i)$
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 5mm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \tl{\red 1} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \tl{\blue {\bf 4}} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{\red 2} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{\red {\bf 3}} & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \tl{\red 6} & \none \\
\tl{6} & \none & \none & \tl{\red 8} & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[ ] & \none[\quad \tl{$U_{j+1}$}] & \none & \none & \none[\tl{$U_j$}\quad ] & \none[ ]
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \ {\xmapsto{\hspace*{0.25cm}}}\ \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 1} & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 2} & \tl{2} \\
\none & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \tl{\red 3} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \tl{\blue 4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.4}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.4}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \tl{\red 6} & \none \\
\tl{6} & \none & \none & \tl{\red 8} & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \ \xmapsto{\hspace*{0.25cm}}\ \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 1} & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 2} & \tl{2} \\
\none & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \tl{\red 3} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.4}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.4}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{\blue 4} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \tl{\red 6} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{6} & \tl{\red 8} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \ \xmapsto{\hspace*{0.25cm}}\ \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 1} & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 2} & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red 3} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{\blue 4} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \tl{\blue 1} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \tl{\red 6} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{6} & \tl{\red 8} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\ \ \ \ ] & \none[\quad \tl{$\widetilde{U}_{j+1}$}] & \none & \none & \none[\tl{$\widetilde{U}_j$}\quad ] & \none[]
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
Now consider
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S U}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal S}_2{\mathcal S}_4\dots{\mathcal S}_{2l-2}{\bf U}=(U_{2l},\widetilde{U}_{2l-1},\widetilde{U}_{2l-2},\dots,\widetilde{U}_{3},\widetilde{U}_{2},U_1,U_0)\in {\bf E}^{n},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{U}_j$ is given in Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tilde U}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\bf U}&= (\widetilde{U}_{2l-1},\widetilde{U}_{2l-2},\dots,\widetilde{U}_{3},\widetilde{U}_{2},U_1,U_0)\in {\bf E}^{n-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:sliding one step}
There exists a unique $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$
corresponding to $\widetilde{\bf U}$ under \eqref{eq:identification}, where $\widetilde{\mu}=(\mu_2,\mu_3,\dots)$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Let us define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def of tilde T}
\widetilde{\bf T}=
\begin{cases}
(\widetilde{T}_{l-1},\dots,\widetilde{T}_1,\widetilde{T}_0), & \text{if $n=2l$},\\
(\widetilde{T}_{l},\dots,\widetilde{T}_1,\widetilde{T}_0), & \text{if $n=2l+1$},\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] if $n=2l$, then let $\widetilde{T}_0=U_1$ and let $\widetilde{T}_i\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq l-1$ such that
$(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i}),$
given in Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(2),
\item[(2)] if $n=2l+1$, then let $\widetilde{T}_0=\emptyset$, $\widetilde{T}_1\in {\bf T}(0)$ and $\widetilde{T}_{i+1}\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq l-1$ such that
$(\widetilde{T}_1^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_1^{\texttt{R}})=({U}_{1}, {U}_0)$,
$(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i})$,
given in Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(1) and (2), respectively.
\end{itemize}
We have $\widetilde{\bf T}\in \widehat{\bf T}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$.
Let us show that $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$.
For simplicity, let us assume that $n=2l$ since the proof for $n=2l+1$ is almost identical.
By Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(1), we have $\widetilde{T}_1\prec \widetilde{T}_0$.
So it suffices to show that $\widetilde{T}_{i}\prec \widetilde{T}_{i-1}$ for $2\leq i\leq l-1$.
This can be checked in a straightforward way
using the fact that ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$ and Lemma \ref{lem:description of S} as follows.
Consider a triple $(T_{i+1}, T_i, T_{i-1})$ in ${\bf T}$.
Recall that each $T_i$ satisfies (H1) and (H2).
Without loss of generality, let us consider $(T_3, T_2, T_1)$, which can be identified
with $(U_6, U_5, U_4, U_3, U_2, U_1)$ under the map \eqref{eq:identification}.
Put
$$\mathcal{S}_{2}\mathcal{S}_{4}(T_{3}, T_2, T_{1}) = (\widetilde{U}_6, \widetilde{U}_5, \widetilde{U}_4, \widetilde{U}_3, \widetilde{U}_2, \widetilde{U}_1).$$ Note that $\widetilde{U}_1 = U_1$ and $\widetilde{U}_6=U_6$. Let $\lambda(a_j, b_j, c_j)$ be the shape of $T_j$ for $j=1, 2, 3$. Let $\widetilde{T}_j$ be the tableau corresponding to $(\widetilde{U}_{j+2}, \widetilde{U}_{j+1})$ for $j=1, 2, 3$ in \eqref{eq:def of tilde T}.
We consider the following four cases. The other cases can be checked in a similar manner.
{\bf\em Case 1. $(\mathfrak{r}_{3}, \mathfrak{r}_2 , \mathfrak{r}_{1})=(0,0,0)$.}
In this case, the operators $\mathcal{S}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}_4$ are just sliding $T_2^{\texttt{tail}}$ and $T_{1}^{\texttt{tail}}$ to the left horizontally.
Note that
$\widetilde{T}_1 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_{1}, c_{1}-b_2-c_2, b_2+c_2))$ and
$\widetilde{T}_2 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_2, c_2-b_{3}-c_{3}, b_{3}+c_{3}))$.
It is straightforward to check that $\widetilde{T}_2\prec \widetilde{T}_1$.\vskip 2mm
{\bf\em Case 2. $(\mathfrak{r}_{3}, \mathfrak{r}_2 , \mathfrak{r}_{1})=(1,1,0)$.}
If $U_5(1) < U_4(a_2)$, then the proof is the same as in {\em Case 1}.
So we assume that $U_5(1) > U_4(a_2)$.
Note that $\widetilde{T}_1 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_{1}, c_{1}-b_2-c_2, b_2+c_2))$ and $\widetilde{T}_2 \in SST(\lambda(a_2, c_2-b_{3}-c_{3}+4, b_{3}+c_{3}-2))$.
By Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(2), $\widetilde{T}_2$ and $\widetilde{T}_1$ have residue $1$ and $0$ respectively. We see that Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) holds on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$.
By \cite[Lemma 3.4]{K18-3}, we have $U_5(1)=\widetilde{U}_4(1) \le \widetilde{U}_3(a_1+1)=U_3(1)$, which together with (H1) on $T_2$ implies Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$.
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(iii) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$ follows from
the one on $(T_2, T_{1})$, (H1) and (H2) on $T_2$. Thus $\widetilde{T}_2\prec\widetilde{T}_1$. \vskip 2mm
{\bf\em Case 3. $(\mathfrak{r}_{3}, \mathfrak{r}_2 , \mathfrak{r}_{1})=(0,1,1)$.}
If $U_3(1) < U_2(a_{1})$, then the proof is the same as in {\em Case 1}.
So we assume that $U_3(1) > U_2(a_1)$.
Note that
$\widetilde{T}_2 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_{1}, c_{1}-b_2-c_2+4, b_2+c_2-2))$ and
$\widetilde{T}_1 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_2, c_2-b_{3}-c_{3}, b_{3}+c_{3}))$.
By Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(2), $\widetilde{T}_2$ and $\widetilde{T}_1$ have residue $0$ and $1$ respectively.
We see that Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) holds on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$.
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$ follows from
(H1) on $T_2$.
Also, Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(iii) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$
follows from the one on $(T_2, T_1)$. Thus $\widetilde{T}_2\prec\widetilde{T}_1$. \vskip 2mm
{\bf\em Case 4. $(\mathfrak{r}_{3}, \mathfrak{r}_2 , \mathfrak{r}_{1})=(1,1,1)$.}
If $U_3(1) < U_2(a_{1})$ or $U_5(1) < U_4(a_2)$, then the proof is the same as the one of {\em Case 1}-{\em Case 3}.
So we assume that $U_3(1) > U_2(a_1)$ and $U_5(1) > U_4(a_2)$.
Note that
$\widetilde{T}_2 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_{1}, c_{1}-b_2-c_2+4, b_2+c_2-2))$ and
$\widetilde{T}_1 \in {SST}(\lambda(a_2, c_2-b_{3}-c_{3}+4, b_{3}+c_{3}-2))$ and both have residue $1$.
Since $\mathfrak{r}_2 = 1$, we have $b_2 \ge 2$ and $c_2+2 \le b_2+c_2$,
which implies Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$.
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) and (iii) on $(\widetilde{T}_2,\widetilde{T}_1)$ follow from the same argument as in {\em Case 2}. Thus $\widetilde{T}_2\prec\widetilde{T}_1$.
This completes the proof.
\qed
\begin{cor}\label{cor:sliding one step}
If ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$, then we have $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$.
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Since $\widetilde{\bf T}$ corresponds to $\widetilde{\bf U}$, we have $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$ by Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
\subsection{Separation algorithm}\label{subsec:separation}
{Let us assume that $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$.}
Suppose that ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ is given, which corresponds to ${\bf U}\in {\bf E}^n$ under \eqref{eq:identification}.
Let us define a tableau $\overline{\bf T}$ satisfying the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(S1)] $\overline{\bf T}$ is Knuth equivalent to ${\bf T}$, that is, $\overline{\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}{\bf T}$,
\item[(S2)] $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}\in SST(\mu')$ and $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}\in SST((\delta')^\pi)$ for some $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$.
\end{itemize}
We define $\overline{\bf T}$ inductively on $n$. If $n\leq 3$, then let $\overline{\bf T}$ is given by putting together the columns in ${\bf U}$ horizontally along L.
Suppose that $n\geq 4$.
By Corollary \ref{cor:sliding one step}, there exists a unique ${\bf S}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$ corresponding to $\widetilde{\bf U}$ in \eqref{eq:tilde U}. By induction hypothesis, there exists $\overline{\bf S}$ satisfying (S1) and (S2). Then we define $\overline{\bf T}$ to be the tableau obtained by putting together the leftmost column in ${\bf T}$ and $\overline{\bf S}$ (horizontally along L).
\begin{lem}\label{lem:ov{T} is well-defined}
The tableau $\overline{\bf T}$ satisfies {\em (S1)} and {\em (S2)}.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
By \eqref{eq:S U} and \eqref{eq:tilde U}, the leftmost columns in ${\bf T}$ and $\overline{\bf S}$ are $U_{2l}$ and $\widetilde{U}_{2l-1}$, respectively. By Corollary \ref{cor:spinor after S}(3), we conclude that $\overline{\bf T}$ is semistandard.
The condition (S1) holds since
$$\overline{\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}\overline{\bf S}\otimes U_{2l}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} {\bf S}\otimes U_{2l}
\equiv_{\mathfrak l}\widetilde{\bf U}\otimes U_{2l}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}{\bf U}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}{\bf T}.$$
The condition (S2) follows directly from the definition of ${\mathcal S}_j$.
\qed \vskip 2mm
Roughly speaking, we may obtain $\overline{\bf T}$ from ${\bf T}$ by applying ${\mathcal S}_j$'s as far as possible so that no subtableau below L is movable to the left.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:shape after separation}
\raisebox{.9ex}{$\eta=$}
\resizebox{.38\hsize}{!}{
\def\lr#1{\multicolumn{1}{|@{\hspace{.75ex}}c@{\hspace{.75ex}}|}{\raisebox{-.04ex}{$#1$}}}
\def\l#1{\multicolumn{1}{|@{\hspace{.75ex}}c@{\hspace{.75ex}}}{\raisebox{-.04ex}{$#1$}}}
\def\r#1{\multicolumn{1}{@{\hspace{.75ex}}c@{\hspace{.75ex}}|}{\raisebox{-.04ex}{$#1$}}}
\raisebox{-.6ex}
{$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\cline{8-9}
& & & & & & &\l{\ \ } & \r{ } & \\
\cline{6-7}
& & & & & \l{\ \ } & & & \r{ }\\
\cline{5-5}
& & & & \l{\ \ } & & & & \r{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{}_{(\delta')^\pi} } \\
\cline{3-4}
& & \l{\ \ } & & & & & & \r{ } & \\
\cline{2-2}\cdashline{1-10}[0.5pt/1pt]\cline{6-9}
& \l{\ \ } & & & \r{\ \ } & & & \\
\cline{4-5}
& \l{\ \ } & \r{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {}_{\mu'}} & & & & & \\
& \l{\ \ } & \r{\ \ } & & & & & \\
\cline{3-3}
& \lr{\ \ } & & & & & & \\
\cline{2-2}
\end{array}$}}\ \ \raisebox{-.7ex}{$L$}
\end{equation}
\begin{ex} \label{ex:3.13}
{\rm
Let $n=8$ and $\mu = (4, 3, 3, 2) \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_8)$.
Let $\mathbf{T} = (T_4, T_3, T_2, T_1) \in {\bf H}(\mu,8)$ and ${\bf U}=(U_8,\dots,U_1)$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
&\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}]& \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \quad\quad
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none &\none \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none &\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none &\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none \\
\tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{4} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \\
&\ T_4 \hskip 9mm T_3 \hskip 9mm T_2 \hskip 8mm T_1 \hskip 13mm
U_8 \hskip 4mm U_7 \hskip 4mm U_6 \hskip 4mm U_5 \hskip 4mm U_4 \hskip 4mm U_3 \hskip 4mmU_2 \hskip 4mm U_1 \hskip 4mm
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Applying ${\mathcal S}_6{\mathcal S}_4{\mathcal S}_2$ to ${\bf U}$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} &\none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none \\
\tl{1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} &\none & \tl{4} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The sequence of columns except the leftmost one (in gray) corresponds to ${\bf S}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},7)$ with $\widetilde{\mu}=(3,3,2)$.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} &\none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] &\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] &\tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none &\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 4} &\none & \tl{4} & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Applying this process again to ${\bf S}$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none \\
\none &\none &\none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} &\none & \tl{2} & \none \\
\none &\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \none & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none \\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] &\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] &\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} &\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 1} &\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 3} &\none & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \tl{5} &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 4} &\none & \tl{4} & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{\color{gray} 5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $\overline{\bf T}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none &\none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} \\
\none &\none & \none &\none & \tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} &\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} & \tl{5} &\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \tl{4} & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
\vskip 5mm
\begin{prop}\label{prop:body and tail}
Let ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ be given with $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em body}}=H_{(\delta')^\pi}$ for some $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$,
\item[(2)] $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}}\in \texttt{\em LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'}$ if ${\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\lambda'}$ for some $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } (1) We have ${\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}\overline{\bf T}$,
and $\overline{\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}\otimes \overline{\bf T}^\texttt{tail}$. Since ${\rm sh}(\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}})=(\delta')^\pi$ for some $\delta\in\mathscr{P}^{(2)}$, we should have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{(\delta')^\pi}$.
(2) It follows from the fact that
$\overline{\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{(\delta')^\pi}\otimes \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}
\equiv_{\mathfrak l}\left(\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}\rightarrow H_{(\delta')^\pi}\right)=H_{\lambda'}$.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
Let us call this combinatorial algorithm to obtain $(\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}},\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}})$ from ${\bf T}$ {\em separation algorithm}
\subsection{Separation algorithm when $n-2\mu'_1<0$}\label{subsec:negative case}
In this subsection, we consider the separation in the case $n-2\mu'_1<0$.
In this case, we need to deal with the tableaux with odd height in $\overline{\bf T}(0)$ and ${\bf T}^{\texttt{sp}-}$.
This is the reason why we consider the separation in this case separately.
\vskip 2mm
Let us assume that $n-2\mu'_1< 0$.
Recall that $\overline{\mu} = (\overline{\mu}_i) \in \mathscr{P}$ be such that $(\overline{\mu}')_1 = n-\mu'_1$ and $(\overline{\mu}')_i = \mu'_i$ for $i \ge 2$.
Let ${\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$ be given.
Suppose that $n=2l+r$, where $l\geq 1$ and $r=0,1$.
By \eqref{eq:hat{T}}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T notation-2}
{\bf T} = (T_l, \dots,T_{m+1},T_m,\dots,T_1,T_0),
\end{equation}
where $T_i\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ for some $a_i\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ ($m+1\leq i\leq l$), $T_i\in \overline{\bf T}(0)$ ($1\leq i\leq m$), and $T_0\in {\bf T}^{\rm sp-}$ (resp. $T_0=\emptyset$) when $r=1$ (resp. $r=0$). Here $m=q_-$ in \eqref{eq:hat{T}}.
Under \eqref{eq:identification}, we identify ${\bf T}$ with
\begin{equation*}
{\bf U}=(U_{2l},\dots,U_{2m+1},U_{2m},\dots,U_1,U_0).
\end{equation*}
We may also assume that $U_i\in {\bf T}^{\textrm{sp}-}$ for $0\leq i\leq 2m$.
The following is an analogue of Definition \ref{def:pseudo_H} when $n-2\mu'_1<0$.
\begin{df}\label{def:pseudo_H-2}
{\rm
Let ${\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$ be the set of ${\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $U_i[k]=k$ ($k\geq 1$) for $0\leq i\leq 2m$,
\item[(2)] $T_i$ satisfies (H1) and (H2) in Definition \ref{def:pseudo_H} for $m+1\leq i\leq l$.
\end{itemize}
}
\end{df}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:highest_weight_vectors-2}
We have
${\bf{H}}(\mu, n) \subset {\bf{H}}^\circ(\mu, n).$
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Let ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ be given.
By Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt} and the admissibility of $T_{i+1}\prec T_i$ for $0\leq i\leq m-1$, we have $U_i[k]=k$ ($k\geq 1$) for $0\leq i\leq 2m$. Hence ${\bf T}$ satisfies (1).
The condition (2) can be verified by almost the same argument as in Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors}.\qed
Now, let us define the tableau $\overline{\bf T}$ satisfying (S1) and (S2) in subsection \ref{subsec:separation}. We use induction on $n$.
Suppose that $n=3$, that is, ${\bf U}=(U_2,U_1,U_0)$. Take $U = H_{(1^a)}$ for some sufficiently large $a>0$. Then there exists a unique $T_0^\sharp\in {\bf T}(1)$ such that $((T_0^\sharp)^{\texttt{L}},(T_0^\sharp)^{\texttt{R}})=(U_0,U)$.
Let ${\bf T}^\sharp=(T_1,T_0^\sharp)$. One can check that $T_1\prec T_0^\sharp$, and hence ${\bf T}^\sharp\in {\bf H}(\mu,4)$.
Let $\overline{{\bf T}^\sharp}$ be the tableau defined in subsection \ref{subsec:separation}.
Then we define $\overline{\bf T}$ to be the one obtained from $\overline{{\bf T}^\sharp}$ by removing the rightmost column $U$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}, $\overline{\bf T}$ does not depend on the choice of $U$ for all sufficiently large $a$, and hence is well-defined.
\begin{ex} \label{ex:spin minus}
{\rm Let $n=3$ and $\mu=(2,1)$.
\begin{equation*}
\quad {\bf T}=\hskip -8mm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup{mathmode,boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \tl{2} & \none & \tl{2} \\
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{3} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{6} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \xrightarrow{\hspace*{0.3cm}}\ {\bf T}^\sharp=\
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{1}] \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{2}] \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{3}] \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{4}] \\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{5}] \\
\none & \tl{2} & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{6}] \\
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{3} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{7}] \\
\tl{2} & \tl{6} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{8}] \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \overset{\mathcal{S}}{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{0.3cm}}}\ \overline{{\bf T}^\sharp}=\
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$1$}] \\
\none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$2$}] \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$3$}] \\
\none & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$4$}] \\
\none & \none & \tl{3} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$5$}] \\
\none & \none & \tl{4} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$6$}] \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{5} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$7$}] \\
\tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{6} & \none[\color{gray} \tl{$8$}] \\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\ \xrightarrow{\hspace*{0.3cm}}\ \overline{\bf T} = \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=0.9em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{5} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{6} \\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \none \\
\tl{7} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
Suppose that $n\geq 4$.
Let $${\bf V}=(U_{2l},\dots,U_{2m+1},U_{2m},U),$$ where $U=H_{(1^a)}$ for a sufficiently large $a$.
Note that there exists $T\in {\bf T}(1)$ such that $(T^{\texttt L},T^{\texttt R})=(U_{2m},U)$.
Since ${\bf U}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$ by Lemma \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors-2}, we have ${\bf V}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\eta,N)$, where $\eta=\overline{\mu}\cup\{1\}=(\overline{\mu}_1,\dots,\overline{\mu}_{\ell},1)$ with $\ell=\ell(\overline{\mu})=l-m$ and $N=2\ell+2$.
Since $N-2\eta'_1=2\ell+2-2(\mu'_1+1)=0$, we may apply the sliding algorithm in subsection \ref{subsec:sliding} (see \eqref{eq:S U}) to have
$$\widetilde{{\bf V}}=(\widetilde{U}_{2l},\widetilde{U}_{2l-1}\dots,\widetilde{U}_{2m+1},\widetilde{U}_{2m},U).$$
Let
$$\widetilde{\bf U}=(\widetilde{U}_{2l-1}\dots,\widetilde{U}_{2m+1},\widetilde{U}_{2m},U_{2m-1},\dots,U_1,U_0)\in {\bf E}^{n-1}.$$
We have the following analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:sliding one step-2}
Under the above hypothesis, there exists a unique $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$ corresponding to $\widetilde{\bf U}$ under \eqref{eq:identification}, where $\widetilde{\mu}=(\mu_2,\mu_3,\dots)$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } For $m\leq i\leq l-1$, there exists a unique $\widetilde{T}_i\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ ($a_i\in\mathbb{Z}_+$) such that
$(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i})$ by Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}. Also, for each $0\leq i\leq 2m-2$, there exists a unique $T\in \overline{\bf T}(0)$ such that $(\widetilde{T}^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}^{\texttt{R}})=({U}_{i+1}, {U}_i)$ since $T_{j+1}\prec T_j$ for $0\leq j\leq 2m-1$ \eqref{eq:T notation-2}.
Let us define
\begin{equation*} %
\widetilde{\bf T}=(\widetilde{T}_{l-1},\dots,\widetilde{T}_m,\widetilde{T}_{m-1},\dots,\widetilde{T}_1,\widetilde{T}_0)
\end{equation*}
as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] let $\widetilde{T}_i\in {\bf T}(a_i)$ such that $(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=(\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i})$ for $m\leq i\leq l-1$,
\item[(2)] if $n=2l$, then let $\widetilde{T}_0=U_1$ and $\widetilde{T}_i\in \overline{\bf T}(0)$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ such that
$(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=({U}_{2i+1},{U}_{2i})$,
\item[(3)] if $n=2l+1$, then let $\widetilde{T}_0=\emptyset$ and $\widetilde{T}_{i}\in \overline{\bf T}(0)$ for $1\leq i\leq m$ such that
$(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}},\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}})=({U}_{2i-1},{U}_{2i-2})$.
\end{itemize}
It is clear that $\widetilde{T}_{i+1}\prec \widetilde{T}_i$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}, we have $\widetilde{T}_{i+1}\prec \widetilde{T}_i$ for $m\leq i\leq l-2$. Finally, by definition of $\widetilde{\bf V}$, one can check without difficulty that $\widetilde{T}_m\prec \widetilde{T}_{m-1}$. Therefore, $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf T}(\widetilde{
\mu},n-1)$. Since $\widetilde{\bf T}$ is also an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element, we have $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$ by Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}.
\qed\vskip 2mm
Let ${\bf S}=\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},n-1)$ in Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}. By induction hypothesis, there exists $\overline{\bf S}$ satisfying (S1) and (S2). Then we define $\overline{\bf T}$ to be the tableau obtained by putting together the leftmost column in ${\bf T}$ and $\overline{\bf S}$ (horizontally along L).
By the same arguments as in Lemma \ref{lem:ov{T} is well-defined}, we conclude that $\overline{\bf T}$ satisfies (S1) and (S2) in subsection \ref{subsec:separation}.
Hence Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail} also holds in this case as follows by the same arguments.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:body and tail-2}
Let ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n)$ be given with $n-2\mu'_1<0$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em body}}=H_{(\delta')^\pi}$ for some $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$,
\item[(2)] $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}}\in \texttt{\em LR}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\delta'}$ if ${\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\lambda'}$ for some $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\qed
\begin{ex} \label{ex:separation for negative case}
{\rm
Let $n=9$ and $\mu = (4, 3, 3, 2, 1) \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_9)$.
We have $n-2\mu'_1 < 0$ and $\overline{\mu} = (4, 3, 3, 2)$.
Let $\mathbf{T} \in {\bf T}(\mu, 9)$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 3cm{\bf T} = \hskip -4cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{3} \\
\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \tl{4} &\none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \tl{6} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}]\\
\none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} \\
\none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \tl{7} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \\
T_4 \hskip 7.5mm T_3 \hskip 8mm T_2 \hskip 8mm T_1 \hskip 6.5mm T_0 \hskip 3.5mm
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
It corresponds to
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 2cm{\bf U} = \hskip -3cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{6} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.45}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4}\\
\tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{5} \\
\tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{7} & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \\
U_8 \hskip 3.5mm U_7 \hskip 3.5mm U_6 \hskip 3.5mm U_5 \hskip 3.5mm
U_4 \hskip 3.5mm U_3 \hskip 3.5mm U_2 \hskip 3.5mm U_1 \hskip 3.5mm U_0
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Putting $U=H_{(1^8)}$ at the rightmost column and applying the sliding algorithm, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{1}]\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{2}] \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{3}]\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{4}]\\
\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{5}]\\
\none & \none & \none & \none &\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{6}]\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{7}]\\
\none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \none & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{4} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{2} & \none[\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\scalebox{0.3}{\dots\dots}$}}] & \tl{6} & \none & \none[\color{gray} \tl{8}]\\
\tl{1} & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \none & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \none & \tl{4} & \none & \none & \none & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau} \\
\widetilde{U}_8 \hskip 3.6mm \widetilde{U}_7 \hskip 3.6mm \widetilde{U}_6 \hskip 3.5mm \widetilde{U}_5 \hskip 3.5mm
\widetilde{U}_4 \hskip 3.5mm \widetilde{U}_3 \hskip 3.5mm \widetilde{U}_2 \hskip 3.5mm \widetilde{U}_1 \hskip 3.5mm \widetilde{U}_0 \hskip 3.5mm U\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then $\widetilde{\bf U}=(\widetilde{U}_7,\widetilde{U}_6,\widetilde{U}_5,\widetilde{U}_4,\widetilde{U}_3,\widetilde{U}_2,\widetilde{U}_1,\widetilde{U}_0)$ corresponds to $\widetilde{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\widetilde{\mu},8)$, with $\widetilde{\mu}=(3,3,2,1)$. Repeating this process to $\widetilde{\bf U}$ as in Example \ref{ex:3.13} (recall subsection \ref{subsec:separation}),
we get $\overline{\bf T}$
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 4cm\overline{\bf T}=\hskip -4cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{4} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{6}\\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} & \tl{7} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{4} & \tl{4} & \tl{6} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 2cm\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}=\hskip-3cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} \\
\tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} & \tl{7} & \none \\
\tl{4} & \tl{4} & \tl{6} & \none & \none \\
\tl{5} & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\quad\quad\quad\quad
\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}=\quad
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{2} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{1} & \tl{3} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{2} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{6}\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
\begin{rem}
\mbox{}
{\rm
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] In \cite{JK20}, the authors define the separation algorithm (of type $D$) for an arbitrary element in ${\bf T}(\mu, n)$, generalizing the one (on the highest weight elements) in this paper and discuss its other application.
\vskip 1mm
\item[(2)] For types $B$ and $C$, the operator $\mathcal{S}_j$ is always $\mathcal{F}_j^{a_i}$ by Lemma \ref{cor:highest_weight_element}. Then, it is not difficult to check that the separation algorithm in this paper coincides with the one in \cite[Section 5.1]{K18-2} for types $B$ and $C$ (cf. Corollary \ref{cor:l-equivalence under S}).
\end{itemize}
}
\end{rem}
\section{Branching multiplicities}\label{sec:branching}
\subsection{Combinatorial description of branching multiplicities} \label{subsec:combi_branching}
Suppose that $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_{n}$ and $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_{n}$ are given.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LR branching for d}
\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})
=\left\{\,{\bf T}\,\,\left|\,\,{\bf T}\in {\bf H}(\mu,n),\ {\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\lambda'}\,\right.\right\}.
\end{equation}
Let $c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d}) = |\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})|$.
Then $c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$ is equal to the multiplicity of irreducible highest weight $\mathfrak l$-module with highest weight $\sum_{i \ge 1}\lambda_i^{'}\epsilon_i$ in the irreducible highest weight $\mathfrak g$-module with highest weight $\Lambda(\mu)$.
Let ${\bf \delta}^{\texttt{rev}} = (\delta_1^{\texttt{rev}},\dots,\delta_n^{\texttt{rev}})$ be the reverse sequence of $\delta=(\delta_1, \dots,\delta_n)$, that is, $\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_i=\delta_{n-i+1}$, for $1\leq i\leq n$. We put $p=\mu'_1$, $q=\mu'_2$, and $r=(\overline{\mu})'_1$ if $n-2\mu'_1<0$.
\begin{df}\label{bounded orthogonal LR}
{\rm
For $S \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$,
let $s_1\leq \dots \leq s_p$ denote the entries in the first row, and $t_1\leq \dots \leq t_q$ the entries in the second row of $S$.
Let $1 \le m_1 < \cdots < m_p < n$ be the sequence defined inductively from $p$ to $1$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
m_i = \max\{\,k\,|\,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_k\in X_i,\ \delta^{\texttt{rev}}_k<s_i\,\},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
X_i =
\begin{cases}
\{\,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{i},\dots,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{2i-1}\,\}\setminus \{\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{m_{i+1}},\dots,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{m_p}\}, & \text{if $1\leq i\leq r$}, \\
\{\,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{i},\dots,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{n-p+i}\,\}\setminus \{\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{m_{i+1}},\dots,\delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{m_p}\}, & \text{if $r<i\leq p$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
(we assume that $r=p$ when $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$).
Let $n_1<\dots<n_q$ be the sequence such that $n_j$ is the $j$-th smallest integer in $\{j+1, \cdots, n\}\setminus \{ m_{j+1}, \cdots, m_p \}$ for $1 \le j \le q$.
Then we define $\overline{{\texttt {LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ to be a subset of ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ consisting of $S$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eq:condition_on_second_row}
t_j > \delta_{n_j}^{\texttt{rev}},
\end{equation}
for $1 \le j \le q$.
We put $\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu} = |\overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}|$.
}
\end{df}
\begin{rem} \label{rem:existence m_i}
{\rm
Let $S \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ be given.
Let us briefly explain the well-definedness of the sequence $(m_i)_{1\le i\le p}$ in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}.
We may assume that $n - 2\mu'_1 \ge 0$ since the arguments for $n - 2\mu'_1 < 0$ are similar.
It is enough to verify that $\delta_i^{\texttt{rev}} < s_i$ for $1 \le i \le p$.
Let
$H'=(s_1 \rightarrow (s_2 \rightarrow \dots (s_p \rightarrow H_{\delta'})))$.
Then ${\rm sh}(H')/{\rm sh}(H_{\delta'})$ is a horizontal strip of length $p$.
If there exists $s_i$ such that $\delta_i^{\texttt{rev}} \ge s_i$, then we should have
$\ell(\lambda)>n$, which is a contradiction to $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n$.
By definition of $m_i$, we also note that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
i \le m_i \le 2i-1 & \textrm{for $1 \le i \le r$}, \\
i \le m_i \le n-p+ i & \textrm{for $r < i \le p$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $r=p$ when $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{ex} \label{ex:example for LR var}
{\rm
Let $n=8$, $\mu = (2, 2, 2, 1, 1) \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_8)$, $\lambda = (5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2) \in \mathscr{P}_8$
, and $\delta = (4,2,2,2,2) \in \mathscr{P}_8^{(2)}$. Note that $n-2\mu_1' = -2 < 0$ and $r = (\overline{\mu})_1' = 3$.
Let us consider the Littlewood-Richardson tableau $S \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'}$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 5cm S=\hskip-5cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{4} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split} \quad . \quad\quad\quad
\end{equation*}
Then the sequences $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le 5}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le 3}$ are $(1, 3, 5, 7, 8)$
and $(2, 4, 6)$, respectively, and $S$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:condition_on_second_row}:
\begin{equation*}
t_1 = 2 > 0 = \delta_{n_1}^{\texttt{rev}}, \quad t_2 = 4 > 2 = \delta_{n_2}^{\texttt{rev}}, \quad
t_3 = 4 > 2 = \delta_{n_3}^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation*}
Hence $S \in \overline{{\texttt {LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$.
}
\end{ex}
Now we are in a position to state the main result in this paper.
The proof is given in Section \ref{sec:proof of main}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main1}
For $\mu \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$ and $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n$,
we have a bijection
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\texttt{{\em LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d}) \ar@{->}[r] & \ \bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}} \overline{\texttt{{\em LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'} \\
\mathbf{T} \ar@{|->}[r] & \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}}
}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
\vskip 3mm
\begin{cor}\label{cor:main result}
Under the above hypothesis, we have
\begin{equation*}
c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
Let us give another description of $c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$ which is simpler than $\overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$, and also plays an important role in Section \ref{sec:genexp}.
\begin{df}\label{flagged orthogonal LR+}{\rm
For $U\in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$ (see subsection \ref{subsec:notations}), let
$\sigma_1>\dots>\sigma_p$ denote the entries in the rightmost column and $\tau_1>\dots>\tau_q$ the second rightmost column of $U$, respectively.
Let $m_1<\dots<m_p$ be the sequence defined by
\begin{equation*}
m_i=
\begin{cases}
\min\{n-\sigma_i+1,2i-1\}, & \text{if $1\leq i\leq r$},\\
\min\{n-\sigma_i+1,n-p+i\}, & \text{if $r< i\leq p$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and let $n_1<\dots<n_q$ be the sequence such that $n_j$ is the $j$-th smallest number in $\{\,j+1,\dots,n\,\}\setminus\{\,m_{j+1},\dots,m_{p}\,\}$.
Then we define $\underline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$ to be the subset of ${\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^\pi}$ consisting of $U$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:flagged conditions}
\tau_j + n_j\le n+1,
\end{equation}
for $1\leq j\leq q$.
We put
$\underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}=|\underline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}|$.
}
\end{df}
\begin{ex} \label{ex:example for LR undervar}
{\rm
We keep the assumption in Example \ref{ex:example for LR var} and consider the Littlewood-Richardson tableau $U \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda}_{\delta \mu^{\pi}}$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 5cm U = \hskip -6cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none \\
\none & \tl{1} \\
\none & \tl{2} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{3} \\
\tl{3} & \tl{4} \\
\tl{6} & \tl{6} \\
\none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\quad .
\end{equation*}
The sequences $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le 5}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le 3}$ are $(1, 3, 5, 7, 8)$
and $(2, 4, 6)$, respectively. Then $U$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:flagged conditions}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\tau_1 + n_1 = 6 + 2 = 8 \le 8+1 = n+1, \\
\tau_2 + n_2 = 3 + 4 = 7 \le 8+1 = n+1, \\
\tau_3 + n_3 = 2 + 6 = 8 \le 8+1 = n+1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence $U \in \underline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu \delta}$.
}
\end{ex}
Now, one can show that $\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}= \underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}$
by using the bijection $\psi$ \eqref{conjugation of LR}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:equivalence}
The sequences $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le q}$ for $S$ in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} are equal to the ones for $U=\psi(S)$ in Definition \ref{flagged orthogonal LR+}.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
We assume that $n - 2\mu_1' \ge 0$. The proof for the case $n - 2\mu_1' < 0$ is similar.
Suppose that $S\in \texttt {LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ is given. Let $s_1\leq \dots \leq s_p$ denote the entries in the first row of $S$.
Let $(m'_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ and $(n'_j)_{1 \le j \le q}$ be the sequences for $S$ in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}.
Put $U=\psi(S)$. Let $\sigma_1>\dots>\sigma_p$ be the rightmost column of $U$ and let $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le q}$ be the sequences for $U$ as in Definition \ref{flagged orthogonal LR+}.
It is enough to show that $m_i' = m_i$ for $1 \le i \le p$, which clearly implies $n_j' = n_j$ for $1 \le j \le q$.
Let us enumerate the column of $\delta'$ by $n, n-1,\dots,1$ from left to right.
Consider the vertical strip $V^i:={\rm sh}(H^i)/{\rm sh}(H^{i-1})$ filled with $i$ for $1\leq i\leq p$ (recall \eqref{conjugation of LR} below).
By definition of $\psi$ \eqref{conjugation of LR}, we see that the upper most box in $V^i$ is located in the $(n-\sigma_i+1)$-th column in $\delta'$.
Let $i\in \{1,\dots,p\}$ be given.
First, we have $ m_i' \le n-\sigma_i + 1$ by definition of $m_i'$. Since $m_i' \le 2i-1$, we have $m_i' \le m_i=\min\{n-\sigma_i+1,2i-1\}$.
Next, we claim that $m_i\le m'_i$. If $n-\sigma_i+1 \le 2i-1$, then
we have $\delta_{n-\sigma_i+1}^{\texttt{rev}} < s_i$, and hence $m_i\le n-\sigma_i+1 \le m_i'$ by definition of $m_i'$.
If $n-\sigma_i+1 > 2i-1$, then we have $m_i = 2i-1 = m_i'$. This proves that $m_i = m'_i$.
\qed
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main result-flagged}
For $\mu\in {\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)$, $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_{n}$ and $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_{n}$, the bijection $\psi : {\texttt {\em LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\nu'} \longrightarrow {\texttt {\em LR}}^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu^\pi}$ in \eqref{conjugation of LR} induces a bijection from $\overline{\texttt {\em LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ to $\underline{\texttt{\em LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$.
\end{thm}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Let $S \in {\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ given and put $U=\psi(S)$. We keep the conventions in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:equivalence}.
By definition of $\psi$, the second upper most box in \red{$V^j$} is located at the $(n-\tau_j+1)$-th column in $\delta'$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:equivalence}, we see that $\delta_{n_j}^{\texttt{rev}} < t_j$ if and only if
$n-\tau_j + 1 \ge n_j$ or $\tau_j + n_j \le n+1$.
Therefore, $S\in \overline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ if and only if $U\in \underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$.
\qed
\begin{ex} \label{ex:bijection}
{\rm
Let $n=8$, $\mu = (2, 2, 2, 1, 1) \in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_8)$, $\lambda = (5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2) \in \mathscr{P}_8$, and $\delta = (4,2,2,2,2) \in \mathscr{P}_8^{(2)}$. Let $S$ be the Littlewood-Richardson tableau in Example \ref{ex:example for LR var}.
We enumerate the columns of $S$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\tl{\red{1}} & \none &\tl{\red{3}} &\none & \tl{\red{3}} &\none & \tl{\red{3}} &\none & \tl{\red{5}} \\
\tl{\blue{2}} & \none &\tl{\blue{4}} &\none & \tl{\blue{4}} & \none & \none &\none & \none \\
\none & \none &\none &\none & \none & \none &\none &\none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$S^5$}] & \none &\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$S^4$}] & \none & \none[\scalebox{0.6}{$S^3$}] & \none &\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$S^2$}] &\none & \none[\scalebox{0.6}{$S^1$}] \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then the insertion and recording tableaux are given by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 1cm S \rightarrow H_{\delta'} \ = \hskip -1.5cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$8$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$7$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$6$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$5$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$4$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$3$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$2$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.5}{\color{gray}{$1$}}] \\
\none & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] & \none[\scalebox{0.75}{\color{gray}{$\vdots$}}] \\
\none & \none[\tl{1}] & \none[\tl{1}] & \none[\tl{1}] & \none[\tl{1}] & \none[\tl{1}] & \red{\tl{1}} & \none \\
\none & \none[\tl{2}] & \none[\tl{2}] & \none[\tl{2}] & \none[\tl{2}] & \none[\tl{2}] & \blue{\tl{2}} & \none \\
\none & \none[\tl{3}] & \red{\tl{3}} & \red{\tl{3}} & \red{\tl{3}} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none[\tl{4}] & \blue{\tl{4}} & \blue{\tl{4}} & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \red{\tl{5}} & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none\\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split} \quad , \ \
\hskip 0.5cm Q(S \rightarrow H_{\delta'}) \ =
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{1}} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{2}} & \tl{\blue{3}} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{3}} & \tl{\blue{4}} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{4}} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{\red{5}} & \tl{\blue{5}} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\quad . \hskip 1cm
\end{equation*}
Then $\psi(S)$ is obtained by
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 2.5cm \left(
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{8}\cdots$}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{1}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{1}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{1}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{1}}] & \tl{\red{1}} \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{7}\cdots$}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{2}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{2}}] & \tl{\red{2}} & \tl{\blue{2}} & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{6}\cdots$}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{3}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{3}}] & \tl{\red{3}} & \tl{\blue{3}} & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{5}\cdots$}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{4}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{4}}] & \tl{\red{4}} & \none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{4}\cdots$}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{5}}] & \none[\color{black}{\tl{5}}] & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{3}\cdots$}}] & \tl{\red{6}} & \tl{\blue{6}} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{2}\cdots$}}] & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{\color{gray}{$\tl{1}\cdots$}}] & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none[\quad \scalebox{0.7}{$\psi(S) \rightarrow H_{\delta}$}] & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split} \quad ,
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{1}} \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{2}} & \tl{\blue{3}} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{3}} & \tl{\blue{4}} & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \tl{\red{4}} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \tl{\red{5}} & \tl{\blue{5}} & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none[\quad \scalebox{0.7}{$Q(\psi(S) \rightarrow H_{\delta})$}] & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\right)
\ \xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\ar@{->}[r] & } \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none \\
\none & \tl{\red{1}} \\
\none & \tl{\red{2}} \\
\tl{\blue{2}} & \tl{\red{3}} \\
\tl{\blue{3}} & \tl{\red{4}} \\
\tl{\blue{6}} & \tl{\red{6}} \\
\none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split} = \psi(S). \hskip 13.5cm
\end{equation*}
(Here the numbers in gray denote the enumeration of columns of $\delta'$.)
Thus we have
\begin{equation*}
(\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3, \sigma_4, \sigma_5) = (6, 4, 3, 2, 1), \quad \ \ (\tau_1, \tau_2, \tau_3) = (6, 3, 2). \quad \ \
\end{equation*}
Note that the enumeration of the rows of $U := \psi(S)$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$U_1$}] &\none &\none & \tl{\red{1}}&\none&\none \\
\none &\none &\none & \none&\none&\none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$U_2$}] &\none &\none & \tl{\red{2}}&\none&\none \\
\none &\none &\none & \none&\none&\none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$U_3$}] &\none &\tl{\blue{2}} & \tl{\red{3}}&\none&\none \\
\none &\none &\none & \none&\none&\none \\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$U_4$}] &\none &\tl{\blue{3}} & \tl{\red{4}}&\none&\none \\
\none &\none &\none & \none&\none&\none\\
\none[\scalebox{0.6}{$U_5$}] &\none &\tl{\blue{6}} & \tl{\red{6}}&\none&\none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}.
\end{equation*}
Under the above correspondence,
we observe that $\sigma_i \ (1 \le i \le 5)$ and $\tau_j \ (1 \le j \le 3)$ record
the positions of $s_i$ and $t_j$ in $\delta'$, respectively, and vice versa.
For example, the entry $\tau_2$ in $U^4$ is located at $(n-\tau_2+1)$-th row in $\delta$,
which implies that $t_2$ is located at $(n-\tau_2+1)$-th column in $\delta'$.
This correspondence implies $\psi(S) \in \underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$ (cf. Example \ref{ex:example for LR undervar}).
}
\end{ex}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:main result-2}
Under the above hypothesis, we have
\begin{equation*}
c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } This follows from $\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}= \underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}$.
\qed \vskip 2mm
We have another characterization of $\underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}$ in terms of usual LR tableaux (not companion tableaux) by considering the bijection between LR tableaux and their companion ones.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:LR version}
Let $U$ be an LR tableau of shape $\lambda/\delta$ with content $\mu^\pi$
and let $\sigma_i$ be the row index of the leftmost $\mu'_1-i+1$ in $U$ for $1 \le i \le \mu_1'$, and $\tau_j$ the row index of the second leftmost $\mu'_2-j+1$ in $U$ for $1 \le j \le \mu_2'$.
Let $m_1<\dots<m_{\mu'_1}$ be the sequence given by
$m_i=\min\{n-\sigma_i+1,2i-1\}$,
and let $n_1\le\dots\le n_{\mu'_2}$ be the sequence such that
$n_j$ is the $j$-th smallest number in
$\{\,j+1,\dots,n\,\}\setminus\{\,m_{j+1},\dots,m_{\mu'_1}\,\}$.
Then,
$\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$ is equal to the number of $U$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\tau_j + n_j \le n+1,
\end{equation*}
for $1\leq j\leq \mu'_2$.
\end{cor}
We may recover the Littlewood's formula \eqref{eq:Littlewood restriction} from Corollary \ref{cor:main result-2}.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:littlewood}
Under the above hypothesis, if $\ell(\lambda) \le \frac{n}{2}$, then
\begin{equation*}
c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}c^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}.
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } We claim that $\texttt{LR}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^{\pi}}=\underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$.
Let $U \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu^{\pi}}$ be given.
Let $H'= (\sigma_1\rightarrow (\dots \rightarrow ( \sigma_p \rightarrow H_\delta)))$.
Note that $\sigma_i+i-1\le \ell({\rm sh}(H'))=\ell(\lambda)\leq \frac{n}{2}$ for $1\le i\le p$.
So we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma bound}
n-\sigma_i+1 \ge 2i\quad (1 \le i \le p).
\end{equation}
Otherwise, we have
$n-i < \sigma_i + i -1 \le \frac{n}{2}$ and hence $\frac{n}{2} < i \le p=\mu'_1\le \ell(\lambda)$, which is a contradiction.
By definition $m_i$ and $n_j$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m for stable}
m_i = 2i-1, \quad n_j = 2j,
\end{equation}
for $1 \le i \le p$ and $1 \le j \le q$.
By \eqref{eq:sigma bound} and \eqref{eq:m for stable} we have
\begin{equation*}
\tau_j\leq \sigma_j\leq n-2j+1\quad (1\leq j\leq q),
\end{equation*}
which implies that $U$ satisfies \eqref{eq:flagged conditions}, that is, $U \in \underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$. This proves the claim.
By Theorem \ref{thm:main result-flagged}, we have ${c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}= \underline{c}^\lambda_{\delta\mu}$.
\qed
\begin{rem}{\rm
For ${\bf T}=(T_l,\dots,T_0)\in \texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$, let ${\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}=(T^{\texttt{tail}}_l,\dots ,T^{\texttt{tail}}_0)$.
We may regard ${\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ as a column-semistandard tableau of shape $\mu'$ by putting together $T^{\texttt{tail}}_i$'s horizontally.
It is shown in \cite[Theorem 4.8]{K18-3} that if $\ell(\lambda)\leq n/2$, then the map sending ${\bf T}$ to ${\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ gives a bijection
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d}) \ar@{->}[r] & \ \bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}} {\texttt{{LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}
}.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:equivalence} and \eqref{eq:m for stable}, we have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}={\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ if $\ell(\lambda)\leq n/2$, and hence Theorem \ref{thm:main1} recovers \cite[Theorem 4.8]{K18-3}.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}{\rm
Let us briefly recall Sundaram's formula for \eqref{eq:branching mult} when ${\rm G}_n = {\rm Sp}_n$ \cite{Su}.
She constructs a bijection between the set of oscillating tableaux appearing in Berele's correspondence for ${\rm Sp}_n$ \cite{Be} and the set of pairs of the standard tableaux and LR tableaux with the symplectically fitting lattice word. Then it is shown that these LR tableaux count the branching multiplicity \eqref{eq:branching mult}. We remark that
Lecouvey-Lenart provide a conjectural bijection between the Sundaram's LR tableaux and the flagged LR tableaux for type $C_n$ in \cite{LL}.
Recently, an orthogonal analogue of the above bijection \cite{Su} is given for ${\rm SO}_{2n+1}$ \cite{J}, where oscillating tableaux are replaced by vacillating tableaux, and the Sundaram's LR tableaux are replaced by so-called alternative orthogonal LR tableaux, which are in (highly non-trivial) bijection with $\texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$.
However, as far as we understand, alternative orthogonal LR tableaux do not seem to yield a formula similar to Sundaram's one, and recover Littlewood's restriction formula directly.
It would be very interesting to clarify this point.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} \label{rem:for types B and C}
{\rm
We may have an analogue of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} for types $B$ and $C$, that is, a multiplicity formula with respect to the branching from $B_\infty$ and $C_{\infty}$ to $A_{+\infty}$, respectively.
More precisely, let ${\bf T}^{\mathfrak g}(\mu, n)$ be the spinor model for the integrable highest weight module over the Kac-Moody algebra of types $B_\infty$ and $C_\infty$ when $\mathfrak g= \mathfrak b$ and $\mathfrak c$, respectively, corresponding to $\mu\in\mathscr{P}({\rm G}_n)$ via Howe duality.
Here $\mathscr{P}({\rm G}_n)$ denotes the set of partitions parametrizing the finite-dimensional irreducible representations of an algebraic group ${\rm G}_n$ (see \cite[Section 2]{K18-3} for more details).
For $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n$, let $\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g)$ be the set of ${\bf T}\in {\bf T}^{\mathfrak g}(\mu, n)$ which is an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element with highest weight $\lambda'$ (cf. \eqref{eq:LR branching for d}).
Let $\delta\in \mathscr{P}_n^{\Diamond}$ be given, where $\Diamond = (1)$ for $\mathfrak g=\mathfrak b$ and $\Diamond=(1,1)$ for $\mathfrak g=\mathfrak c$ (here we understand $\mathscr{P}^{(1)}=\mathscr{P}$).
Put
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'} &
= \left\{ S \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'} \,\Big|\, s_i > \delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{2i}\ (1 \le i \le \mu'_1) \right\},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $s_1\leq \dots \leq s_{\mu'_1}$ are the entries in the first row of $S$.
We may apply the same arguments in Section \ref{sec:separation} to ${\bf T}^{\mathfrak g}(\mu, n)$.
Then by Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors} and Lemma \ref{lem:ov{T} is well-defined}, we have for ${\bf T} = (T_l, \dots, T_1) \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g)$ that
$${\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}= (T_l^{\texttt{tail}}, \dots, T_0^{\texttt{tail}}) \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'},$$ for some $\delta\in \mathscr{P}_n^\Diamond$.
Furthermore, the map
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g) \ar@{->}[r] & \ \bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^\Diamond} \overline{\texttt{{LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'} \\
\mathbf{T} \ar@{|->}[r] & {\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}
}
\end{equation*}
is a bijection.
The map $\psi$ in \eqref{conjugation of LR} induces a bijection from $ \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'}$ to $\underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta \mu}$, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:flag condition for types B and C}
\begin{split}
\underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta \mu} &
= \left\{ U \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda}_{\delta \mu^\pi} \,\Big|\, \sigma_i+2i \leq n+1\ (1 \le i \le \mu'_1) \right\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_1 > \dots > \sigma_{\mu'_1}$ are the entries in the rightmost column of $U$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g) = \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^\Diamond}\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}=\sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^\Diamond}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu},
\end{equation*}
where $c^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g) = |\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak g)|$,
$\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu} = |\overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta' \mu'}|$, and
$\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu} = |\underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}|$.
This is a generalization of \cite[Theorem 4.8]{K18-3} for types $B$ and $C$, which also recovers \cite[Theorem 6.8]{LL} for type $C$.
}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Branching multiplicities of non-Levi type} \label{sec:duality}
We assume that the base field is $\mathbb{C}$.
Let $V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_n}$ denote the finite-dimensional irreducible ${\rm GL}_n$-module corresponding to $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n$, and $V_{{\rm O}_n}^\mu$ the finite-dimensional irreducible module ${\rm O}_n$-module corresponding to $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$.
Then we have the following new combinatorial description of $\left[ V_{\rm{GL}_n}^{\lambda} : V_{{\rm O}_n}^{\mu} \right]$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:non-levi branching}
For $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_{n}$ and $\mu\in {\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\left[ V_{\rm GL_n}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm O_n}^{\mu} \right]
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } It follows from the fact
$\left[ V_{\rm GL_n}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm O_n}^{\mu} \right] = c_{\lambda}^{\mu}(\mathfrak{d})$ \cite[Theorem 5.3]{K18-3}, and
Corollaries \ref{cor:main result} and \ref{cor:main result-2}.
\qed
\begin{ex} \label{ex:4.17}
{\rm %
Let us compare the formula in Theorem \ref{thm:non-levi branching} with the one by Enright and Willenbring in \cite[Theorem 4]{EW}.
Let $\mu, \nu \in {\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mu & = (\LaTeXunderbrace{d, \LaTeXoverbrace{2, \dots, 2}^{a}, \LaTeXoverbrace{1, \dots, 1}^{b}, \LaTeXoverbrace{0, \dots, 0}^{c}}_{n}), \\
\nu & = (\LaTeXunderbrace{d, \LaTeXoverbrace{2, \dots, 2}^{c}, \LaTeXoverbrace{1, \dots, 1}^{b}, \LaTeXoverbrace{0, \dots, 0}^{a}}_{n}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*} where $a, b, c, d$ are positive integers with $d \ge 2$.
Then we have for $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n$
\begin{equation*}
\left[ V_{\rm GL_n}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm O_n}^{\mu} \right]
= \sum_{\xi \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(2)}} c^{\lambda'}_{\xi' \mu'}
- \sum_{\upsilon \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(2)}} c^{\lambda'}_{\upsilon' \nu'},
\end{equation*}
(see \cite[Section 7 (7.11)]{EW}).
Suppose that $n=8$, $a = b = d= 2, c = 3$ and $\lambda = (5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 0, 0) \in \mathscr{P}_8$. Then it is straightforward to check that for $\xi, \upsilon \in \mathscr{P}_8^{(2)}$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
c^{\lambda'}_{\xi' \mu'} & = \begin{cases}
1, & \textrm{if $\xi = (4, 2, 2, 2, 2)$ or $(4, 4, 2, 2)$}, \\
0, & \textrm{otherwise},
\end{cases} \\
c^{\lambda'}_{\upsilon' \nu'} & = \begin{cases}
1, & \textrm{if $\upsilon = (4, 2, 2, 2)$}, \\
0, & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence we have
\begin{equation*}
\left[ V_{\rm GL_8}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm O_8}^{\mu} \right]
=
\sum_{\xi \in \mathscr{P}_8^{(2)}} c^{\lambda'}_{\xi' \mu'}
- \sum_{\upsilon \in \mathscr{P}_8^{(2)}} c^{\lambda'}_{\upsilon' \nu'}
= 2 - 1 = 1.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, the following tableaux $S_{\alpha}$ and $S_{\beta}$ are the unique tableaux in $\texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\alpha' \mu'}$ and $\texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\beta' \mu'}$, respectively, where $\alpha = (4, 2, 2, 2, 2)$ and $\beta = (4, 4, 2, 2)$:
\begin{equation*}
\hskip 3cm S_{\alpha}=\hskip-3.5cm
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{4} & \tl{4} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}\quad\quad\quad\quad
S_{\beta}= \
\begin{split}
\ytableausetup {mathmode, boxsize=1.0em}
\begin{ytableau}
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\tl{1} & \tl{1} & \tl{3} & \tl{3} & \tl{5} \\
\tl{2} & \tl{2} & \tl{4} & \none & \none \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none \\
\end{ytableau}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We see that $S_{\alpha} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\alpha' \mu'}$ and $\psi(S_{\alpha}) \in \underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\alpha \mu}$
(see Examples \ref{ex:example for LR var} and \ref{ex:bijection}).
On the other hand, for $S_{\beta}$, the sequence $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le 5}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le 3}$ are given by
$(1,3,5,6,8)$ and $(2,4,7)$, respectively.
Then $S_{\beta} \notin \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\beta' \mu'}$ since $t_3 = 4 = \delta_{n_3}^{\texttt{rev}}$.
We can also check that $\psi(S_{\beta}) \notin \underline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda}_{\beta \mu}$ (cf. Example \ref{ex:bijection}).
By Theorem \ref{thm:non-levi branching}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\left[ V_{\rm GL_8}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm O_8}^{\mu} \right]
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_8}\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}
= \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}
= 1.
\end{equation*}
}
\end{ex}
\begin{rem} \label{rem:for symplectic groups}
{\em
\mbox{}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For ${\rm G}_n = {\rm Sp}_n$, we also have
\begin{equation*}
\left[ V_{\rm GL_n}^{\lambda} : V_{\rm Sp_n}^{\mu} \right] = \sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}=\sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu},
\end{equation*}
where $\overline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$ and $\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}$ are given in Remark \ref{rem:for types B and C}.
\vskip 2mm
\item[(2)] The flag condition in \eqref{eq:flag condition for types B and C} is different from the one in \cite[Section 6.3]{LL} because we use the bijection \eqref{conjugation of LR} whose image is the set of LR tableaux with anti-lattice word (cf. \cite[Theorem 6.2]{LL}).
\end{itemize}
}
\end{rem}
\vskip 2mm
\section{Generalized exponents}\label{sec:genexp}
\subsection{Generalized exponents} \label{subsec:generalized exponent}
Let $\mathfrak g$ be a simple Lie algebra of rank $n$ over $\mathbb{C}$,
and $G$ the adjoint group of $\mathfrak{g}$.
Let $S({\mathfrak g})$ be the symmetric algebra generated by $\mathfrak{g}$,
and $S(\mathfrak{g})^G$ the space of $G$-invariants with respect to the adjoint action.
Let $\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g})$ be the space
of polynomials annihilated by $G$-invariant differential operators with constant coefficients and no constant term.
It is shown by Kostant \cite{Ko} that $S(\mathfrak{g})$ is a free $S(\mathfrak{g})^G$-module generated by $\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g})$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
S(\mathfrak{g})=S(\mathfrak{g})^G\otimes \mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g}).
\end{equation*}
Let $t$ be an indeterminate.
Let $\Phi^+$ denote the set of positive roots and $\Phi=\Phi^+\cup -\Phi^+$ the set of roots of $\mathfrak g$.
We define the graded character of $S(\mathfrak{g})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:char of S(g)}
{\rm ch}_t S(\mathfrak{g}) =\dfrac{1}{(1-t)^n\prod_{\alpha\in \Phi}(1-te^\alpha)}.
\end{equation}
Then it is also shown in \cite{Ko} that the graded character of $\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g})$ is determined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S(g) and H(g)}
{\rm ch}_t S(\mathfrak{g}) = \frac{{\rm ch}_t\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g})}{\prod_{i=1}^n(1-t^{d_i})},
\end{equation}
where $d_i=m_i+1$ for $i=1,\dots ,n$ and $m_i$ are the classical exponents of $\mathfrak{g}$.
For $\mu\in P_+$, let $V_{\mathfrak g}^{\mu}$ be the irreducible representation of $\mathfrak{g}$ with highest weight $\mu$.
The generalized exponent associated to $\mu\in P_+$ is a graded multiplicity of $V^\mu_{\mathfrak g}$ in $\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak g)$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
E_t(V_{\mathfrak g}^\mu)
= \sum_{k\geq 0} \dim{\rm Hom}_{\mathfrak{g}}(V_{\mathfrak g}^{\mu},\mathcal{H}^k(\mathfrak{g})) t^k,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{H}^k(\mathfrak{g})$ is the $k$-th homogeneous space of degree $k$.
It is shown in \cite{He} that
\begin{equation*}%
E_t(V_{\mathfrak g}^{\mu}) = K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak g}(t),
\end{equation*}
where $K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak g}(t)$ is the Lustig $t$-weight multiplicity for $V_{\mathfrak g}^\mu$ at weight $0$.
In other words, we have
\begin{equation*}
{\rm ch}_t\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{g}) = \sum_{\mu\in P_+} K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak g}(t) {\rm ch}V_{\mathfrak g}^{\mu}.
\end{equation*}
In \cite{LL}, a new combinatorial realization of $K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak{sp}_{n}}(t)$ is given
in terms of the LR tableaux which give a branching formula for \eqref{eq:Littlewood restriction} for ${\rm G}_n={\rm Sp}_n$. The goal of this section is to give combinatorial formulas for $K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak{so}_{n}}(t)$ following the idea in \cite{LL} as a main application of Theorem \ref{thm:main1}.
\subsection{Combinatorial model of generalized exponents for $\mathfrak{so}_n$} \label{subsec:combi model of generalized expoentns}
Suppose that $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}_n$ for $n\geq 3$, that is, ${\mathfrak g}=\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}, \mathfrak{so}_{2m}$ for some $m$.
We assume that the weight lattice for $\mathfrak{g}$ is $P=\bigoplus_{i=1}^m\mathbb{Z}\epsilon_i$ so that
$\Phi^+$ is
$\{\,\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j, \epsilon_k \,|\,1\leq i < j\leq m, 1\leq k\leq m\,\}$, and
$\{\,\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j \,|\,1\leq i < j\leq m\,\}$
when $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}$, and $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}_{2m}$, respectively.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Delta^{\mathfrak g}_t=
\dfrac{1}{\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(1-tx_ix_j)}.
\end{equation*}
By using the Littlewood identity (when $t=1$), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Littlewood identity}
\Delta^{\mathfrak g}_t =
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}t^{|\lambda|/2} {\rm ch}V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_n},
\end{equation}
where $|\lambda|=\sum_{i\geq 1}\lambda_i$ for $\lambda=(\lambda_i)_{i\geq 1}$.
Note that \eqref{eq:char of S(g)} can be obtained from $\Delta^{\mathfrak g}_t$ by specializing it with respect to the torus of ${\rm SO}_n$ (see for example \cite[Section 2.2]{LL}).
For $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$, put
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:double branching}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right\rdbrack =
\begin{cases}
\left[V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right]+
\left[V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^{\overline{\mu}}_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right],&
\text{if $\mu\neq \overline{\mu}$},\\
\left[V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right], & \text{if $\mu=\overline{\mu}$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:formula for K}
For $\mu\in \mathscr{P}_m$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}}(t)}{\prod_{i=1}^m(1-t^{2i})} &=
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{2m+1}}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{2m+1}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m+1}}\right\rdbrack
t^{|\lambda|/2},\\
\frac{K_{\mu 0}^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}(t)}{(1-t^m)\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}(1-t^{2i})} &=
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{2m}}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{2m}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m}}\right\rdbrack
t^{|\lambda|/2},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we regard $\mu$ in $K^{\mathfrak g}_{\mu 0}(t)$ as a dominant integral weight $\mu_1\epsilon_1+\dots + \mu_m\epsilon_m\in P_+$.
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Suppose that $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}$.
For $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m+1})$ with $\ell(\mu)\leq m$, we have
${\rm ch}V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m+1}}={\rm ch}V^{\overline{\mu}}_{{\rm O}_{2m+1}}={\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}}$.
By taking restriction of \eqref{eq:Littlewood identity} with respect to ${\rm O}_{2m+1}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S(g)-B}
{\rm ch}_t S(\mathfrak{g})=
\sum_{\substack{\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m+1}) \\ \ell(\lambda)\leq m}}
\left(
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{2m+1}} t^{|\lambda|/2}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{2m+1}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m+1}}\right\rdbrack
\right)
{\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}}.
\end{equation}
Next, suppose that $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}_{2m}$.
For $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m})$ with $\ell(\mu)< m$, we have
${\rm ch}V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m}}={\rm ch}V^{\overline{\mu}}_{{\rm O}_{2m}}={\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}$.
For $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m})$ with $\ell(\mu)=m$, we have
${\rm ch}V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m}}=
{\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}+{\rm ch}V^{{\mu}^\sigma}_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}$, where $\mu^\sigma = \mu_1\epsilon_1+\dots+\mu_{m-1}\epsilon_{m-1}-\mu_m\epsilon_m$.
Similarly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:S(g)-D}
\begin{split}
{\rm ch}_t S(\mathfrak{g})= &
\sum_{\substack{\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m}) \\ \ell(\mu)< m}}
\left(
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{2m}} t^{|\lambda|/2}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{2m}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m}}\right\rdbrack
\right)
{\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}} \\
& +
\sum_{\substack{\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_{2m}) \\ \ell(\mu)= m}}
\left(
\sum_{\nu\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{2m}} t^{|\nu|/2}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{2m}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{2m}}\right\rdbrack
\right)
\left({\rm ch}V^\mu_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}} + {\rm ch}V^{\mu^\sigma}_{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}} \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now, combining \eqref{eq:S(g) and H(g)} and \eqref{eq:S(g)-B}, \eqref{eq:S(g)-D}, we obtained the identities.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
Suppose that $P=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n\mathbb{Z} \epsilon_i$ is the weight lattice of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$.
For $1\leq i\leq n-1$, let $\varpi_i=\epsilon_1+\dots+\epsilon_i$ be the $i$th fundamental weight.
Let $\mu \in \mathscr{P}_n$ be given. We identify $\mu$ with $\mu_1\epsilon_1+\cdots+\mu_n\epsilon_{n}$.
Let $SST_n(\mu)$ (resp. $SST_n(\mu^\pi)$) be the subset of $SST(\mu)$ (resp. $SST(\mu^\pi)$) consisting of $T$ with entries in $\{1,\dots,n\}$, which is a $\mathfrak{gl}_n$-crystal with highest weight $\mu$.
For $T\in SST_n(\mu)$ or $SST_n(\mu^\pi)$, put
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(T)= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\varphi_i(T)\varpi_i, \quad
\varepsilon(T)= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\varepsilon_i(T)\varpi_i.
\end{equation*}
\begin{df}\footnote{In this paper, we use the notation $\rho$ as a partition, not the half sum of positive roots.} \label{df:distinguished}
{\rm
For $\rho \in \mathscr{P}_n$, we say that $T$ is {\em $\rho$-distinguished} if
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(T)=\lambda -\rho, \quad \varepsilon(T)= \delta -\rho,
\end{equation*}
for some $(\lambda,\delta)\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_n\times \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n$.
}
\end{df}
We put
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
D_n(\mu) & = \{\,T\in SST_n(\mu^{\pi})\,|\, \text{$T$ is $\rho$-distinguished for some $\rho\in\mathscr{P}_n$}\,\},\\
\mathscr{P}_T & = \{\,\rho\in \mathscr{P}_n\,|\, \text{$T$ is $\rho$-distinguished}\,\}\quad\text{($T\in D_n(\mu)$)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:rho_T}
For $T \in D_n(\mu)$, there exists a unique $\rho_T \in \mathscr{P}$ such that $\mathscr{P}_T = \rho_T + \mathscr{P}^{(2,2)}_n$, where $\rho_T$ is determined by
\begin{equation*}
\rho_T = \sum_{\substack{1\leq i\leq n-1\\ i\equiv 0\mod{2}}}(\varepsilon_{i}(T) \ \textrm{mod $2$})\varpi_{i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } It follows from the same argument as in \cite[Lemma 4.4, Proposition 4.5]{LL} with Definition \ref{df:distinguished}.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
\begin{df} \label{df:distinguished elements with flag conditions}
{\em
We define $\underline{D}_n(\mu)$ to be the subset of $D_n(\mu)$ consisting of $T$ satisfying the condition \eqref{eq:flagged conditions}.
}
\end{df}
\vskip 2mm
\begin{prop}\label{prop:formula for K-2}
For $\mu\in \mathscr{P}_m$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{n}}
\left\ldbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right\rdbrack t^{|\lambda|/2}
=\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^m(1-t^{2i})}\sum_{T\in \mathbb{D}_n(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:distinguished set}
\mathbb{D}_n(\mu)=
\begin{cases}
\underline{D}_n(\mu)\sqcup \underline{D}_n(\overline{\mu}), & \text{if $\mu\neq \overline{\mu}$},\\
\underline{D}_n(\mu), & \text{if $\mu=\overline{\mu}$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Recall that we have bijections for $\mu\in \mathcal{P}({\rm O}_n)$
\begin{equation*}
\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})
\quad\longrightarrow
\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}} \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}
\quad\longrightarrow
\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}}\underline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu},
\end{equation*}
where the first one is given in Theorem \ref{thm:main1} and the second one in Theorem \ref{thm:main result-flagged}.
By definition of $\underline{D}_n(\mu)$, we have a bijection
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bijection for ge-1}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\mathscr{P}_n^{(1,1)}}\bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}}\underline{\texttt {LR}}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu}
\ar@{->}[r] & \bigsqcup_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}\{\,T\,\}\times\mathscr{P}_T \\
T \ar@{|->}[r] & (T,\lambda-\varphi(T))=(T, \delta-\varepsilon(T))
}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:rho_T}, we have a bijection
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bijection for ge-2}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\bigsqcup_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}\{\,T\,\}\times\mathscr{P}_T \ar@{->}[r] & \bigsqcup_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}\{\,T \,\}\times\mathscr{P}_n^{(2,2)} \\
(T,\rho) \ar@{|->}[r] & (T,\rho-\rho_T)
}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have from \eqref{eq:bijection for ge-1} and \eqref{eq:bijection for ge-2}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{n}}
\left\lbrack V^\lambda_{{\rm GL}_{n}}:V^\mu_{{\rm O}_{n}}\right\rbrack t^{|\lambda|/2}
&= \sum_{\lambda\in \mathscr{P}^{(1,1)}_{n}}\sum_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}_n}\underline{c}^{\lambda}_{\delta\mu} t^{|\lambda|/2}
= \sum_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}\sum_{\rho\in \mathscr{P}_T} t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho|/2} \\
&= \sum_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2}\sum_{\kappa\in \mathscr{P}_n^{(2,2)}}t^{|\kappa|/2} \\
&= \sum_{T\in \underline{D}_n(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2} \frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^m(1-t^{2i})},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
which implies the identity.
\qed\vskip 2mm
We have the following new combinatorial formulas for $K^{\mathfrak{so}_{n}}_{\mu 0}(t)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:Kostka-Foulkes for BD}
For $\mu\in \mathscr{P}_m$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
K^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m+1}}_{\mu 0}(t)& = \sum_{T\in \mathbb{D}_{2m+1}(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2}, \\
K^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}_{\mu 0}(t)& = \frac{1}{1+t^m} \sum_{T\in \mathbb{D}_{2m}(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbb{D}_n(\mu)$ is given in \eqref{eq:distinguished set}.
\end{thm}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } It follows from Propositions \ref{prop:formula for K} and \ref{prop:formula for K-2}.
\qed
\begin{rem}{\rm
Since $K^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}_{\mu 0}(t)$ is a polynomial in $t$, the polynomial
$$
\sum_{T\in \mathbb{D}_{2m}(\mu)}t^{|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|/2}
$$
is divisible by $1+t^m$.
From the positivity of Kostka-Foulkes polynomial $K^{\mathfrak{so}_{2m}}_{\mu 0}(t)$, one may expect a decomposition of $\mathbb{D}_{2m}(\mu)= X_1\sqcup X_2$ together with a bijection $\tau : X_1 \longrightarrow X_2$ such that
$$
|\varphi(\tau(T))+\rho_{\tau(T)}|= 2m +|\varphi(T)+\rho_T|.
$$
}
\end{rem}
\vskip 2mm
\begin{rem}
{\em
In \cite{LL}, Lecouvey--Lenart provide a bijection between the distinguished tableaux for type $C_n$ and the symplectic King tableaux with weight $0$ (see \cite[Section 6.4]{LL} for more details).
We do not know whether there is an analogue of the above bijection which maps an orthogonal distinguished tableau (Definition \ref{df:distinguished elements with flag conditions}) to an orthogonal tableau (with weight 0), which is from already known models (for example, \cite{KS,KW, KT,O1,P2, Su2}) or a new one. In this case, the flag condition \ref{eq:flagged conditions} would be quite complicated under this correspondence if exists.
}
\end{rem}
\section{Proof of Main Theorem}\label{sec:proof of main}
\subsection{Outline}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} is organized as follows.
In subsection \ref{subsec:pf_main1}, we consider the case of $n-2\mu_1' \ge 0$, which is easier to deal with.
\vskip 2mm
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] ({\em Well-definedness})
First, we show that $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}\in \overline{\texttt{{LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ (Corollary \ref{cor:well-definedness}).
%
To do this, we study some properties of the sequences $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ and $(n_j)_{1 \le j \le q}$ associated to $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ with respect to sliding (Lemmas \ref{lem:sequence m_i} and \ref{lem:sequence n_i}), which implies that $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition_on_second_row}.
\vskip 2mm
\item[(2)] ({\em Injectivity})
Second, we show that the map
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:bijection in 6.1}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d}) \ar@{->}[r] & \ \bigsqcup_{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}} \overline{\texttt{{LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'} \\
\mathbf{T} \ar@{|->}[r] & \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}
}.
\end{equation*}
is injective by using Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail} (Lemma \ref{lem:injective}).
\vskip 2mm
\item[(3)] ({\em Surjectivity})
Finally, we prove the above map is surjective, that is, for ${\bf W} \in \overline{\texttt{{LR}}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$, there exists ${\bf T} \in \texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$ such that $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} = {\bf W}$.
%
We use induction on $n$. The initial step when $n=4$ is proved in Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case}.
Then based on this step, we construct ${\bf T} \in \texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$ in general in Lemma \ref{lem:surjective}
\end{itemize}
\vskip 2mm
In subsection \ref{subsec:negative case proof}, we consider the case of $n-2\mu_1' < 0$.
The proof is almost identical to the case of $n-2\mu_1' \ge 0$, but the major difficulty occurs when we consider the columns with odd height in $\overline{\mathbf{T}}(0)$ and $\mathbf{T}^{\textrm{sp}-}$ (cf.~Remark \ref{rem:admissibilty for spin column}(2)--(3)).
To overcome this, we reduce the problems to the ones in the case of $n-2\mu_1' \ge 0$ so that we may apply the results (or the arguments in the proof) in subsection \ref{subsec:pf_main1}.
\vskip 2mm
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} when $n-2\mu_1' \ge 0$} \label{subsec:pf_main1}
Let $\mu\in {\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)$ and $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_{n}$ be given. We assume that $n-2\mu'_1 \ge 0$.
The proof for the case $n-2\mu'_1 < 0$ will be given in subsection \ref{subsec:negative case proof}. We keep the notations in Sections \ref{sec:separation} and \ref{sec:branching}.
Suppose that $n=2l+r$, where $l\geq 1$ and $r=0,1$. Let ${\bf T} \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ be given
with ${\bf T} = (T_l, \dots, T_1,T_0)$ as in \eqref{eq:T notation}.
Let us assume that $r=0$ since the argument for $r=1$ is almost identical.
Write $\widetilde{\bf T} = (\widetilde{T}_{l-1}, \dots, \widetilde{T}_1,\widetilde{T}_0)$.
Let $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{(\delta')^\pi}$ for some $\delta\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$.
Let $s_1\leq \dots \leq s_p$ denote the entries in the first row, and $t_1\leq \dots \leq t_q$ the entries in the second row of $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:trivial invariant}
Suppose that $\overline{\bf T}=(U_{2l},\dots,U_1)\in {\bf E}^n$ under \eqref{eq:identification}.
If $T_{i+1}^{\texttt{\em R}}(1)<T_i^{\texttt{\em L}}(a_i)$, then
\begin{equation*}
U_{2i} = T_{i}^{\texttt{\em L}} \boxminus T_{i}^{\texttt{\em tail}}.
\end{equation*}
In this case, $T_{i}^{\texttt{\em tail}}$ is the $(l-i+1)$-th column of $\overline{\bf{T}}^{\texttt{\em tail}}$ from the left.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
If $T_{i+1}^{\texttt{R}}(1) < T_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i)$, then by definition we have $\widetilde{T}_i$ has residue $0$. By Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}, $\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)<\widetilde{T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{L}}(a_{i-1})$. Inductively, we have $U_{2i} = T_{i}^{\texttt{L}} \boxminus T_{i}^{\texttt{tail}}$. By applying this argument together with Lemma \ref{lem:sliding one step}, we obtain the second statement.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
For simplicity, let us put ${\mathbb T}=\widetilde{\bf T}$.
Let $\widetilde{\mu}=(\mu_2, \mu_3, \dots)$ and $\zeta=(\delta_1, \dots, \delta_{n-1}) \in \mathscr{P}_{n-1}^{(2)}$.
By Lemmas \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}, \ref{lem:sliding one step} and
Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail},
we have
$\overline{\mathbb{T}}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{(\zeta')^\pi}$ and
$\overline{\mathbb T}^{\texttt{tail}} \in \texttt{LR}^{\xi'}_{\zeta'\widetilde{\mu}'}$
where $\xi$ is given by $(\overline{\mathbb{T}}^{\texttt{tail}} \rightarrow H_{\zeta'}) = H_{\xi'}$.
Let $\widetilde{s}_1\leq \dots \leq \widetilde{s}_{p-1}$ be the entries in the first row of $\overline{\mathbb T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ and let $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1 \le i \le p-1}$ (resp. $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$) be the sequence associated to $\overline{\mathbb{T}}^{\texttt{tail}}$ (resp. $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$) in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}.
Note that $s_i = \widetilde{s}_{i-1}$ for $2\leq i\leq p$.
Put $\texttt{T}_i = T_{l-i+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq l$ and
$\widetilde{\texttt{T}}_j = \widetilde{T}_{l-j}$ for $1\leq j\leq l-1$.
Assume that $\texttt{T}_i\in {\bf T}(\texttt{a}_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq l$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:sequence m_i}
Under the above hypothesis, the sequences $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ and $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1 \le i \le p-1}$ satisfy the relation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inductive m_i}
m_i = \widetilde{m}_{i-1}+\tau_i+1 \quad (2 \le i \le p),
\end{equation}
where $\tau_i$ is given by
\begin{equation*} %
\tau_i =
\begin{cases}
1, & \textrm{{\em if} $\texttt{\em T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{\em R}}(1)<\texttt{\em T}_i^{\texttt{\em L}}(\texttt{\em a}_i)$,} \\
0, & \textrm{{\em if} $\texttt{\em T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{\em R}}(1)>\texttt{\em T}_i^{\texttt{\em L}}(\texttt{\em a}_i)$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Fix $i \ge 2$.
If $\texttt{T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{R}}(1)<\texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(\texttt{a}_i)$, then
by Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}(i) and \ref{lem:trivial invariant}
\begin{equation*}
m_i = 2i-1, \quad \quad \widetilde{m}_{i-1} = 2i-3.
\end{equation*}
If $\texttt{T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{R}}(1)>\texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(\texttt{a}_i)$, then we have by Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}(ii) $m_i < 2i-1$. This implies $m_i = \widetilde{m}_{i-1}+1$. Hence we have \eqref{eq:inductive m_i}.
\qed
\begin{lem} \label{lem:sequence n_i}
For $1\leq i \leq q$, we have
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:description of second condition}
t_i = \texttt{\em T}_i^{\texttt{\em L}}(\texttt{\em a}_i-1) > \texttt{\em T}^{\texttt{\em R}}_{i}(1) = \delta^{\texttt{\em rev}}_{n_i}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } By Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}, it is easy to see that $t_i = \texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(\texttt{a}_i-1)$.
Next we claim that $\texttt{T}^{\texttt{R}}_{i}(1) = \delta^{\texttt{rev}}_{n_i}$, which implies the inequality since ${\mathfrak r}_{\texttt{T}_{i}}\leq 1$.
We use induction on $n$.
For each $i$, we define $\theta_i$ to be the number of $j$'s with $i+1\leq j\leq p$ such that $m_j < 2i+1$.
Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:description of n_i}
n_i = 2i + \theta_i.
\end{equation}
If $\theta_i = 0$, then $n_i = 2i$ and $m_{i+1}=2i+1$, which implies that
\begin{equation*}
\texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) < \texttt{T}_{i+1}^{\texttt{L}}(\texttt{a}_{i+1}).
\end{equation*} By applying Lemma \ref{lem:trivial invariant} on $\widetilde{\bf T}$, we have $\delta_{2i}^{\texttt{rev}} = \texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)$.
If $\theta_i > 0$, then we have by definition of $\theta_i$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:theta > 0}
\texttt{T}_{i-1}^{\texttt{R}}(1) > \texttt{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(\texttt{a}_i).
\end{equation}
Let $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1\leq i\leq p-1}$ and $(\widetilde{n}_i)_{1\leq i\leq q-1}$ be the sequences in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} associated to $\widetilde{\bf T}$.
Let $\widetilde{\theta}_i$ be defined in the same way with respect to $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1\leq i\leq p-1}$.
By definition of $\widetilde{\theta}_i$ and Lemma \ref{lem:sequence m_i}, we have {for $j \ge i+2$},
\begin{equation*}
m_j < 2i+1 \ \Longrightarrow \ \widetilde{m}_{j-1} < 2i-\tau_j \le 2i-1.
\end{equation*}
Thus we have $\widetilde{\theta}_i = \theta_i-1$.
By induction hypothesis, \eqref{eq:description of n_i}, and \eqref{eq:theta > 0}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\texttt{T}^{\texttt{R}}_i(1) = \widetilde{\texttt{T}}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) = \widetilde{\delta}_{\widetilde{n}_i}^{\texttt{rev}}=\widetilde{\delta}_{2i+\widetilde{\theta}_i}^{\texttt{rev}} = \delta_{2i+\theta_i}^{\texttt{rev}} = \delta_{n_i}^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation*}
\qed
\begin{cor}\label{cor:well-definedness}
Under the above hypothesis, we have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}}\in \overline{\texttt{\em LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu'\delta'}$.
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
It follows from Remark \ref{rem:existence m_i} and Lemma \ref{lem:sequence n_i}.
\qed
\begin{lem} \label{lem:injective}
The map ${\bf T} \longmapsto \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}}$ is injective on $\texttt{{\em LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } Let ${\bf T}, {\bf S} \in \texttt{{LR}}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$ be given.
Suppose that $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} = \overline{\bf S}^{\texttt{tail}}$.
We first claim that $\overline{\bf T}=\overline{\bf S}$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail}(1), we have
$\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{\delta'}$ and
$\overline{\bf S}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{\chi'}$ for some $\delta, \chi\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$.
Since $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} = \overline{\bf S}^{\texttt{tail}}$ and
$(\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}\rightarrow H_{\delta'})=
(\overline{\bf S}^{\texttt{tail}}\rightarrow H_{\chi'})=H_{\lambda'}$,
we have $\delta=\chi$. Hence $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}}=\overline{\bf S}^{\texttt{body}}$, which implies $\overline{\bf T}=\overline{\bf S}$. Since the map ${\bf T}\mapsto \overline{\bf T}$ is reversible, we have ${\bf T}={\bf S}$. \qed
\vskip 3mm
Now, we will verify that the map in Theorem \ref{thm:main1} is surjective.
Let ${\bf W} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$ be given for some $\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(2)}$.
Let ${\bf V}= H_{(\delta')^{\pi}}$ and ${\bf X}$ be the tableaux of a skew shape $\eta$ as in \eqref{eq:shape after separation} with $n$ columns such that
$$
{\bf X}^{\texttt{body}}={\bf V},\quad {\bf X}^{\texttt{tail}}={\bf W}.
$$
The semistandardness of ${\bf X}$ follows from Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} and Remark \ref{rem:existence m_i}. %
Let $V_i$ and $W_i$ denote the $i$-th column of ${\bf V}$ and ${\bf W}$ from right, respectively.
Let us first consider the following, which is used in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:surjective}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:fundamental case}
Assume that $n=4$ and $\mu_1' = 2$.
Then there exists ${\bf T} = (T_2, T_1) \in \texttt{\em LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ such that
$\overline{\bf T}={\bf X}$, that is,
$\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em body}} = {\bf V}$ and $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}} = {\bf W}$. In fact, ${\bf T} = (T_2, T_1)$ is given as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] If $m_2 = 3$, then
\begin{equation*}
(T_2^{\texttt{\em L}},T_2^{\texttt{\em R}}) = (V_4 \boxplus W_2, V_3), \ \ (T_1^{\texttt{\em L}},T_1^{\texttt{\em R}}) = (V_2 \boxplus W_1, V_1).
\end{equation*}
\item[(2)] If $m_2 = 2$, then
\begin{equation*}
(T_2^{\texttt{\em L}},T_2^{\texttt{\em R}}) = (V_4 \boxplus W_2,V_3^{\diamond}), \quad (T_1^{\texttt{\em L}},T_1^{\texttt{\em R}}) = (V_2^{\diamond} \boxplus W_1^{\diamond}, V_1),
\end{equation*}
where $V_3^{\diamond}$, $V_2^{\diamond}$ and $W_1^{\diamond}$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& V_3^{\diamond} = \left(\dots, V_3(2), V_3(1), W_1(a_1), V_2(1)\right) \boxplus \emptyset, \\
& V_2^{\diamond} = \left(\dots, V_2(4), V_2(3)\right), \quad W_1^{\diamond} = (W_2(2), W_1(a_1-1), \dots W_1(1)).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } By Remark \ref{rem:existence m_i} and definition of them, $T_1$ and $T_2$ are semistandard. Also, the residue ${\mathfrak r}_i$ of $T_i$ is by Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} at most $1$ for $i = 1, 2$.
It suffices to verify that $T_2\prec T_1$ since this implies
$\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}} = {\bf V}$ and
$\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} = {\bf W}$ by construction of ${\bf T}$.
Let $a_i$ be the height of $W_{i}$ for $i=1,2$.
We have
$V_i = (1, 2, \dots, \delta_i^{\texttt{rev}})$ for $1\leq i\leq 4$,
with
$\delta_1^{\texttt{rev}} \le \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}} \le \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}} \le \delta_4^{\texttt{rev}}$.
Let $w({\bf X}) = w_1w_2\cdots w_m$. Put
\begin{equation*}
P_k = (w_k \rightarrow ( \cdots \rightarrow (w_3 \rightarrow (w_2 \rightarrow (w_1)))))
\end{equation*}
for $k \le m$. Suppose that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& w(V_1)w(V_2)w(V_3) = w_1w_2\cdots w_{s}, \\
& w(V_1)w(V_2)w(V_3)w(W_1)w(V_4)=w_1w_2\cdots w_{t},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
for some $s \le t \le m$.
{\bf\em Case 1. $m_2 = 3$.}
We first assume that ${\mathfrak r}_1{\mathfrak r}_2 = 0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] ${\mathfrak r}_1 = 0, \ {\mathfrak r}_2=0$ :
It is obvious that $T_2 \prec T_1$.
\item[(ii)] ${\mathfrak r}_1 = 0, \ {\mathfrak r}_2=1$ :
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) follows from $\delta_2^{\texttt{rev}} \le \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}$. Also, Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) follows from $s_2 \ge \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}} \ge \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}$. The semistandardness of ${\bf W}$ implies Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(iii). Thus we have $T_2 \prec T_1$.
\item[(iii)] ${\mathfrak r}_1 = 1, \ {\mathfrak r}_2=0$ : We may use the same argument as in (ii) to have $T_2 \prec T_1$.
\end{itemize}
Next, we assume that ${\mathfrak r}_1{\mathfrak r}_2 = 1$.
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) holds by definition of ${\bf T}$.
Since ${\mathfrak r}_1 = 1$ and ${\mathfrak r}_2 = 1$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:range of V_i(a_i)}
\delta_3^{\texttt{rev}} < W_1(a_1) \le \delta_4^{\texttt{rev}}, \quad
\delta_1^{\texttt{rev}} < W_2(a_2) \le \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:insertion V_i(a_i)}
\text{$(W_1(a_1) \rightarrow P_s)$ and $(W_2(a_2) \rightarrow P_t)$
are $\mathfrak l$-highest weight elements}.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:range of V_i(a_i)} and \eqref{eq:insertion V_i(a_i)}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 1 V_1(a_1) and V_2(a_2)}
W_1(a_1) = \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}+1, \quad W_2(a_2) = \delta_1^{\texttt{rev}}+1.
\end{equation}
This implies Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii).
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(iii) follows from
the semistandardness of ${\bf W}$ and \eqref{eq:case 1 V_1(a_1) and V_2(a_2)}.
Thus we have $T_2 \prec T_1$.
\vskip 3mm
{\bf\em Case 2. $m_2 = 2$.}
Since $m_2 = 2$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 2 delta_2 < delta_3}
\delta_2^{\texttt{rev}} < \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation}
Otherwise, we have $W_1(a_1) > \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}$, which contradicts to $m_2=2$.
By definition of $m_2$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:range of V_1(a_1)}
\delta_2^{\texttt{rev}} < W_1(a_1) < \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation}
Note that if $W_1(a_1) = \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}$, then by \eqref{eq:case 2 delta_2 < delta_3} the tableau $(W_1(a_1) \rightarrow P_s)$ cannot be an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element.
Since $(W_1(a_1) \rightarrow P_s)$ is an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 2 V_1(a_1)}
W_1(a_1) = \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}+1.
\end{equation}
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delta_2+2 <= delta_3}
\delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}+2 \le \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation}
Since $W_2(a_2) \le W_1(a_1) < \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}$ and
$W_1(a_1) = \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}+1$, we have ${\mathfrak r}_2=1$. Also, since $\delta_3^{\texttt{rev}} \le \delta_4^{\texttt{rev}}$, it is clear that ${\mathfrak r}_1=1$.
Note that
\begin{equation*}
\delta_1^{\texttt{rev}} < W_2(a_2) \le W_1(a_1) = \delta_2^{\texttt{rev}}+1 < \delta_3^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation*}
This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:case 2 V_2(a_2)}
W_2(a_2) = \delta_1^{\texttt{rev}}+1,
\end{equation}
since $(W_2(a_2) \rightarrow P_t)$ is an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element.
Now, Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(i) follows from \eqref{eq:delta_2+2 <= delta_3}, and
Definition \ref{def:admissibility}(1)-(ii) and (1)-(iii) follow from
\eqref{eq:case 2 V_1(a_1)}, \eqref{eq:delta_2+2 <= delta_3}, \eqref{eq:case 2 V_2(a_2)} and the semistandardness of ${\bf W}$. Hence we have $T_2\prec T_1$.
\qed
\vskip 3mm
Let ${\mathbb X}$ be the tableau obtained from ${\bf X}$ by removing its leftmost column. Let $\widetilde{\mu}=(\mu_2, \mu_3, \dots)$ and $\zeta=(\delta_1, \dots, \delta_{n-1}) \in \mathscr{P}_{n-1}^{(2)}$.
Since ${\mathbb X}$ is an $\mathfrak l$-highest weight element
by Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt},
we have
${\mathbb X}^{\texttt{body}}=H_{(\zeta')^\pi}$ and
${\mathbb X}^{\texttt{tail}} \in \texttt{LR}^{\xi'}_{\zeta'\widetilde{\mu}'}$,
where $\xi$ is given by $({\mathbb X}^{\texttt{tail}} \rightarrow H_{\zeta'}) = H_{\xi'}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:inductive step}
We have
$
{\mathbb X}^{\texttt{\em tail}} \in \overline{\texttt{\em LR}}^{\xi'}_{\zeta'\widetilde{\mu}'}.
$
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Let $(m_i)_{1\leq i\leq p}$ and $(n_i)_{1\leq i\leq q}$ be the sequences associated to ${\bf X}^{\texttt{tail}}={\bf W} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}$.
Let $\widetilde{s}_1\leq \dots \leq \widetilde{s}_{p-1}$ and $\widetilde{t}_1\leq \dots \leq \widetilde{t}_{q-1}$ be the entries in the first and second rows of ${\mathbb X}^{\texttt{tail}}$, respectively.
We define a sequence $1 \le \widetilde{m}_1 < \dots < \widetilde{m}_{p-1} \le n-1$ inductively as in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} with respect to $(\widetilde{s}_i)_{1 \le i \le p-1}$.
Note that the sequence $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1 \le i \le p-1}$ is well-defined by Remark \ref{rem:existence m_i}.
By Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}, we observe that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:m_i induction}
\widetilde{m}_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \textrm{if $i=1$}, \\
m_{i+1}-1, & \textrm{if $i>1$ and $m_{i+1} < 2i+1$}, \\
m_{i+1}-2, & \textrm{if $i>1$ and $m_{i+1} = 2i+1$}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Let $(\widetilde{n}_i)_{1\leq i\leq q-1}$ be the sequence with respect to $(\widetilde{m}_i)_{1\leq i\leq p-1}$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{n}_i = \textrm{the $i$-th smallest integer in $\{ i+1, \dots, n-1 \} \setminus \{ \widetilde{m}_{i+1}, \dots,\widetilde{m}_{p-1}\}$}.
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eq:m_i induction}, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inductive relation of n_i}
\widetilde{n}_i \le n_{i+1}-1,
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{t}_i = t_{i+1} > \delta_{n_{i+1}}^{\texttt{rev}}=\widetilde{\delta}_{n_{i+1}-1}^{\texttt{rev}} \ge \widetilde{\delta}_{\widetilde{n}_i}^{\texttt{rev}}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we have ${\mathbb X}^{\texttt{tail}} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\xi'}_{\zeta'\widetilde{\mu}'}$.
\qed
\vskip 3mm
\begin{lem} \label{lem:surjective}
There exists ${\bf T} \in \texttt{\em LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ such that $\overline{\bf T}={\bf X}$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em body}} = {\bf V}, \quad \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}} = {\bf W}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
We use induction on $n\geq 2$. We may assume that $\mu_1' \neq 0$.
Let us first consider $n=3$.
Note that ${\bf V} = (V_3, V_2, V_1)$, and ${\bf W}$ is a tableau of single-columned shape.
Define $(T_2,T_1)$ by
\begin{equation*}
(T_2^{\texttt{L}},T_2^{\texttt{R}}) = (V_3 \boxplus {\bf W},V_2), \quad T_1 = V_1.
\end{equation*}
Clearly $T_1$ and $T_2$ are semistandard.
By Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}, the residue of $T_2$ is at most $1$.
It is easy to check that $T_2 \prec T_1$.
Therefore, ${\bf T} = (T_2, T_1) \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ and $\overline{\bf T}={\bf X}$.
Next, consider $n=4$.
When $\mu_1' = 1$, apply the same argument as in the case of $n=3$.
When $\mu_1' = 2$, we apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case}.
Suppose that $n > 4$. Let us assume that $n=2l$ is even since the argument for $n$ odd is almost the same.
By Lemma \ref{lem:inductive step} and induction hypothesis, there exists ${\mathbb T}\in \texttt{LR}^{\widetilde{\mu}}_{\xi}(\mathfrak d)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\mathbb T}^{\texttt{body}} = {\mathbb X}^{\texttt{body}}, \quad
\overline{\mathbb T}^{\texttt{tail}} = {\mathbb X}^{\texttt{tail}},
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{\mu}$ and ${\xi}$ are as in Lemma \ref{lem:inductive step}.
Now, let us construct ${\bf T}=(T_l, \dots, T_1) \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ from ${\mathbb T}$, which satisfies $\overline{\bf T}={\bf X}$,
by applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case} repeatedly.
Let ${\mathbb T} = (\widetilde{T}_{l-1}, \dots, \widetilde{T}_1,\widetilde{T}_0)$
and let $a_i$ be the height of $\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{tail}}$ for $1\leq i\leq l-1$.
Put
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb U}=(\widetilde{U}_{2l-1},\dots,\widetilde{U}_2,\widetilde{U}_1),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{U}_{1} = \widetilde{T}_0,\quad (\widetilde{U}_{2i+1},\widetilde{U}_{2i}) = (\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}, \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}) \quad (1\leq i\leq l-1).
\end{equation*}
Let us define
\begin{equation*}
{\bf U}=(U_{2l},\dots,U_2,U_1).
\end{equation*}
First, let $U_1=\widetilde{U}_1$ and let $U_{2l}$ be the leftmost column of ${\bf X}$.
For $1\leq i\leq l-1$, let $(U_{2i+1},U_{2i})$ be defined in the following way.
Suppose that $a_i= 0$. Then we put
\begin{equation*}
U_{2i+1} = \widetilde{U}_{2i+1},\quad U_{2i} = \widetilde{U}_{2i}.
\end{equation*}
Suppose that $a_i\neq 0$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors}, we have $\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) \neq \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)$ for $1\leq i \leq l$.
If $\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) > \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:shift the tails-1}
\begin{split}
U_{2i+1} =
\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}} \boxminus \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{tail}}, \quad
U_{2i} =
\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}} \boxplus \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{tail}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) < \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1)$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:shift the tails-2}
\begin{split}
U_{2i+1} & =
\left(\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}} \cup \left\{\widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) , \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i)\right\}\right) \boxplus \emptyset, \\
U_{2i} & =
\left( \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}} \ \setminus \, \left\{ \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(1), \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(2) \right\} \right) \boxplus
\left( \left( \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{tail}} \ \setminus \, \left\{ \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{L}}(a_i) \right\} \right)\cup \left\{ \widetilde{T}_i^{\texttt{R}}(2) \right\}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we identify a semistandard tableau of single-columned shape with the set of its entries.
Set
\begin{equation} \label{eq:definition of T}
{\bf T} = (T_l, T_{l-1}, \dots, T_1), \ \text{where $(T_{i}^{\texttt{L}},T_{i}^{\texttt{R}}) = (U_{2i}, U_{2i-1})$ for $1\leq i \leq l$.}
\end{equation}
We can check without difficulty that $T_i$ is semistandard, and
the residue ${\mathfrak r}_i$ of $T_i$ is at most $1$ by Lemma \ref{lem:sequence n_i} and \eqref{eq:inductive relation of n_i}.
Next we show that $T_{i+1}\prec T_i$ and $(T_{i+1},T_i)\in {\bf H}^\circ((\mu'_{l-i},\mu'_{l-i+1}),4)$ for $1\leq i\leq l-1$, which implies that ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$. The proof is similar to the case of $n=4$ in Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case}.
Let us prove $T_{i+1} \prec T_i$ inductively on $i$.
For $i=1$, it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case}.
Suppose that $T_{i}\prec T_{i-1}\prec \dots \prec T_1$ holds for given $i\geq 2$.
Consider
\begin{equation*} %
{\bf X}_i = (U_{2i+2}, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i}, U_{2i-1}).
\end{equation*}
By the admissibility on $\mathbb T$, ${\bf X}_i^{\texttt{tail}}$ is semistandard.
It follows from \eqref{eq:shift the tails-1}, \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2}, Definition \ref{def:pseudo_H}(H1) on $\mathbb T$ and the induction hypothesis that ${\bf X}_i^{\texttt{body}}$ is equal to
$H_{\rho'^{\pi}}$,
for some $\rho = ({2a}, {2b}, {2c}, {2d})$ with $a \ge b \ge c \ge d \ge 0$, except the entries in the southeast corner and the next one to the left.
We remark that the map
\begin{equation*}
{\bf X}_i=(U_{2i+2}, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}, \widetilde{U}_{2i}, U_{2i-1}) \longmapsto
(U_{2i+2}, {U}_{2i+1}, {U}_{2i}, U_{2i-1})=(T_{i+1},T_{i})
\end{equation*}
is the same as the map ${\bf X} \mapsto {\bf T}$ in Lemma \ref{lem:fundamental case}.
\vskip 3mm
{\bf\em Case 1.} {\em $\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) < \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1)$ and $\widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) < \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1)$.}
First, we show that $\mathfrak{r}_{i}=\mathfrak{r}_{i+1}=1$.
By \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2} and \cite[Lemma 3.4]{K18-3}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 1 residue}
U_{2i+2}(a_{i+1}) = \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(2) < \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1) \le \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1) = U_{2i+1}(1).
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2}, \eqref{eq:case 1 residue} and Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors}, we have $\mathfrak{r}_{i+1}=1$. Also, we have $\mathfrak{r}_i=1$ by similar way.
Next, we verify Definition \ref{def:admissibility} (1)-(i), (ii) and (iii) for $(T_{i+1}, T_i)$.
The condition (1)-(i) follows from \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2}.
In this case, $T^{\texttt{R*}}_{i+1}$ and ${}^{\texttt{L}} T_i$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
T^{\texttt{R*}}_{i+1} = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}^{\texttt{body}} \cup \left\{\, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \emptyset,
\quad {}^{\texttt{L}} T_i = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i} \, \setminus \, \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \emptyset .
\end{equation*}
By Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors} and the admissibility on $\mathbb{T}$, we have $T^{\texttt{R*}}_{i+1}(k) \le {}^{\texttt{L}} T_i(k)$. So the condition (1)-(ii) holds.
Now, we consider the condition (1)-(iii). In this case, ${}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1}$ and $T^{\texttt{L*}}_i$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1} & = \left( \widetilde{U}^{\texttt{body}}_{2i+1} \cup \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \left( \left( \widetilde{U}^{\texttt{tail}}_{2i+3} \setminus \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) \, \right\} \right) \cup \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1) \, \right\} \right) \\
T^{\texttt{L*}}_i & = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i} \, \setminus \, \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1) \,\right\} \right) \boxplus \left( \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}^{\texttt{tail}} \, \setminus \, \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \cup \left\{ \, T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) \, \right\} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:T_i^R(1)}
T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\widetilde{U}_{2i-1}(a_{i-1}+1), & \textrm{if} \ \widetilde{U}_{2i-1}(a_{i-1}) > \widetilde{U}_{2i-2}(1) , \\
\widetilde{U}_{2i-2}(1), & \textrm{if} \ \widetilde{U}_{2i-1}(a_{i-1}) < \widetilde{U}_{2i-2}(1).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that we have by \cite[Lemma 3.4]{K18-3} and the admissibility of $\mathbb{T}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 1 admissible condition (1)-(iii)}
{}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1}(a_{i+1}) = \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1) \le T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) = T^{\texttt{L*}}_i(a_i).
\end{equation}
Then the condition (1)-(iii) for $(T_{i+1}, T_i)$ follows from \eqref{eq:case 1 admissible condition (1)-(iii)}, Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors} and the admissibility of $\mathbb{T}$.
Finally, we have $(T_{i+1},T_i)\in {\bf H}^\circ((\mu'_{l-i},\mu'_{l-i+1}),4)$ by \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2}, induction hypothesis and Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors}.
{\bf\em Case 2.} {\em $\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) > \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1)$ and $\widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) < \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1)$.}
Since $\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) > \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1)$, we have by the admissibility of $\mathbb{T}$
\begin{equation*}
U_{2i+2}(a_{i+1}) = \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(2) < \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1) \le \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i+1) = U_{2i+1}(1).
\end{equation*}
Thus the residue $\mathfrak{r}_{i+1}$ is equal to $1$.
If the residue $\mathfrak{r}_i = 0$, then the admissibility of $(T_{i+1}, T_i)$ follows immediately from the one of $\mathbb{T}$, and we have $(T_{i+1},T_i)\in {\bf H}^\circ((\mu'_{l-i},\mu'_{l-i+1}),4)$ by \eqref{eq:shift the tails-1}, \eqref{eq:shift the tails-2}, induction hypothesis and Proposition \ref{prop:highest_weight_vectors}.
We assume $\mathfrak{r}_i = 1$. Then ${}^{\texttt{L}} T_i$, $T^{\texttt{R*}}_{i+1}$, $T^{\texttt{L*}}_i$ and ${}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1}$ are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 2 pairs for admissibility}
\begin{split}
T^{\texttt{R*}}_{i+1} = \left( \widetilde{U}^{\texttt{body}}_{2i+1} \, \setminus \, \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i+1) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \emptyset \, , \quad \quad \ \ \
{}^{\texttt{L}} T_i = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i} \cup \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \emptyset \, , \quad \quad & \\
{}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1} = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}^{\texttt{body}} \, \setminus \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i+1) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \left( \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i+3}^{\texttt{tail}} \, \setminus \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) \, \right\} \right) \cup \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i+1) \, \right\} \right), & \\
T^{\texttt{L*}}_i = \left( \widetilde{U}_{2i} \cup \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \boxplus \left( \left( \widetilde{U}^{\texttt{tail}}_{2i+1} \, \setminus \, \left\{ \, \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) \, \right\} \right) \cup \left\{ \, T_i^{\texttt{R}}(1) \, \right\} \right),\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \ \ &
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $T^{\texttt{R}}_i(1)$ is given as in \eqref{eq:T_i^R(1)}.
By applying \cite[Lemma 3.4]{K18-3} on $\mathbb{T}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case 2 inequality 1}
{}^{\texttt{R}} T_{i+1}(a_{i+1}) = \widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i+1) \le T_i^R(1) = T^{\texttt{L*}}(a_i).
\end{equation}
Now we apply a similar argument with {\em Case 1} to \eqref{eq:case 2 pairs for admissibility} with \eqref{eq:case 2 inequality 1} to obtain the admissibility of $(T_{i+1}, T_i)$ and $(T_{i+1},T_i)\in {\bf H}^\circ((\mu'_{l-i},\mu'_{l-i+1}),4)$ in this case.
{\bf\em Case 3.} {\em $\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) < \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1)$ and $\widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) > \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1)$.}
The proof of this case is almost identical with {\em Case 2}. We leave it to the reader.
{\bf\em Case 4.} {\em $\widetilde{U}_{2i+1}(a_i) > \widetilde{U}_{2i}(1)$ and $\widetilde{U}_{2i+3}(a_{i+1}) > \widetilde{U}_{2i+2}(1)$.}
In this case, the claim follows immediately from \eqref{eq:shift the tails-1}, and the admissibility of $\mathbb{T}$.
Therefore, we have ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:description of S}, we have ${\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l}\widetilde{\bf T}\otimes U_{2l}$ and $\widetilde{\bf T}=\mathbb{T}$ since ${\bf T}\in {\bf H}^\circ(\mu,n)$. This implies
\begin{equation}
{\bf T}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} {\mathbb T} \otimes U_{2l} \equiv_{\mathfrak l} {\mathbb X}\otimes U_{2l} \equiv_{\mathfrak l} {\bf X},
\end{equation}
and hence ${\bf T}\in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d})$.
Since
$\overline{\mathbb T}={\mathbb X}$, it follows from the inductive definition of $\overline{\bf T}$ that
$\overline{\bf T} = {\bf X}$.
\qed
\vskip 3mm
{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} when $n-2\mu_1' \ge 0$.}
The map
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LR map}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}\xymatrixrowsep{0pc}\xymatrix{
\texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak{d}) \ \ar@{->}[r] & \underset{{\delta \in \mathscr{P}_{n}^{(2)}}}{\bigsqcup}\overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\delta'\mu'}\\
{\bf T} \ar@{|->}[r] & \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} }
\end{equation}
is well-defined by Corollary \ref{cor:well-definedness}.
Finally it is bijective by Lemmas \ref{lem:injective} and \ref{lem:surjective}.
\qed
\vskip 3mm
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} when $n-2\mu'_1 < 0$} \label{subsec:negative case proof}
Let $\mu\in {\mathcal P}({\rm O}_n)$ and $\lambda\in \mathscr{P}_{n}$ be given.
We assume that $n-2\mu_1' < 0$.
Let ${\bf T} \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ be given with ${\bf T} = (T_l, \dots,T_{m+1},T_m,\dots,T_1,T_0)$ as in \eqref{eq:T notation-2}.
We also use the convention for ${\bf T}$ in subsection \ref{subsec:pf_main1}.
Let $\overline{\bf T}$ be the one defined in Section \ref{subsec:negative case}.
Then we have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} \in \texttt{LR}^{\lambda'}_{\mu' \delta'}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail-2}(2).
Let $\texttt{L}=2\mu'_1-n$.
Choose $\kappa=(\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$1$}},\dots,\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$\texttt{L}$}})\in \mathscr{P}^{(2)}$ such that $\kappa_i$ is sufficiently large.
Let $\eta, \chi\in \mathscr{P}$ be given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:eta and xi}
\begin{split}
\eta &= \kappa \cup \lambda = (\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$1$}},\dots,\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$\texttt{L}$}},\lambda_1,\lambda_2\dots),\\
\xi &= \kappa \cup \delta =(\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$1$}},\dots,\kappa_{\scalebox{0.5}{$\texttt{L}$}},\delta_1,\delta_2\dots).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:m_i and n_i 2}
We have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{\em tail}} \in \overline{\texttt{\em LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu' \delta'}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }
Put ${\bf T} = (U_{2l}, \dots, U_{2m+1}, U_{2m}, \dots, U_0)$ under \eqref{eq:identification}.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{B} & = (U_{2m}^{\downarrow}, \dots, U_0^{\downarrow}, H_{(1^{\kappa_{\scalebox{0.3}{$\texttt{L}$}}})}, \dots, H_{(1^{\kappa_{\scalebox{0.3}{$1$}}})}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*} where $U_i^{\downarrow} = (\dots, U_i(3), U_i(2)) \boxplus (U_i(1))$ for $0 \le i \le 2m$.
By the choice of $\kappa$, \,$\mathbb{B}$ is an ${\mathfrak l}$-highest weight element,
and we note that
\begin{equation*}
\mu_1' = l+m+1, \quad \quad (\texttt{L}+2m+1) - 2(2m+1) = 0,
\end{equation*}
where $\texttt{L}+2m+1$ is the number of columns of $\mathbb{B}$ and $2m+1$ is the length of the first row of $\mathbb{B}^{\texttt{tail}}$.
Hence by Lemma \ref{lem:surjective}, there exists
${\bf B} = \left(X_{2m}, \dots, X_0, Y_{\texttt{L}}, \dots, Y_1\right) \in \texttt{LR}^{\dot{\mu}}_{\dot{\eta}}(\mathfrak d)$
such that $\overline{\bf B} = \mathbb{B}$, where $\dot{\mu}' = (2m+1)$ and $\dot{\eta}$ is determined by $\mathbb{B} \equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\dot{\eta}'}$.
Put
${\bf A} := \left(U_{2l}, \dots, U_{2m+1}, X_{2m}, \dots, X_0, Y_{\texttt{L}}, \dots, Y_1\right)$.
By construction of ${\bf B}$ and Corollary \ref{cor:l-equivalence under S} (cf. Remark \ref{rem:admissibilty for spin column}), it is straightforward that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lemma 6.9 eq1}
{\bf A} \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\eta}(\mathfrak d), \quad \quad \overline{\bf A}^{\texttt{tail}} = \overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}.
\end{equation}
Let $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ be the sequence associated to $\overline{\bf A}^{\texttt{tail}}$, which is given as in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}.
Since by the construction $m_i \le \texttt{L}$ for all $1 \le i \le p$,
the sequence $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$ can be viewed as the sequence associated with $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$ in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR}.
Put $(n_i)_{1 \le i \le q}$ to be the sequence defined in Definition \ref{bounded orthogonal LR} with respect to $(m_i)_{1 \le i \le p}$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:sequence n_i} with \eqref{eq:lemma 6.9 eq1}, the sequence $(n_i)_{1\le i \le q}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition_on_second_row} with respect to $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}}$. Hence we have $\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu' \delta'}$.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
Hence the map \eqref{eq:LR map} is well-defined by Proposition \ref{prop:body and tail-2}(2) and Lemma \ref{lem:m_i and n_i 2}.
It is also injective since Lemma \ref{lem:injective} still holds in this case.
So it remains to verify that the map is surjective.
Let ${\bf W} \in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu' \delta'}$ be given for some $\delta \in \mathscr{P}_n^{(2)}$.
Let ${\bf V}= H_{(\delta')^{\pi}}$ and ${\bf X}$ be the tableau of a skew shape $\eta$ as in \eqref{eq:shape after separation} with $n$ columns such that
${\bf X}^{\texttt{body}}={\bf V}$ and ${\bf X}^{\texttt{tail}}={\bf W}$.
As in the case of $n-2\mu'_1\geq 0$, ${\bf X}$ is semistandard.
Put
\begin{equation} \label{eq:construction of Y and Z}
\begin{split}
{\bf Y} & =(Y_{\texttt{L}}, \dots, Y_1),\\
{\bf Z} & = (X_n,\dots,X_1,Y_{\texttt{L}}, \dots, Y_1),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $Y_i = H_{(1^{\kappa_i})}$ for $1\leq i \leq \texttt{L}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Z LR}
We have ${\bf Z}^{\texttt{\em tail}}\in \overline{\texttt{\em LR}}^{\eta'}_{\mu' \xi'}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent{\bfseries Proof. } By construction of ${\bf Z}$, we have ${\bf Z}\equiv_{\mathfrak l} H_{\eta'}$.
Let $(m_i)_{1\leq i\leq p}$ and $(n_i)_{1\leq i\leq q}$ be the sequences associated to ${\bf W}\in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\lambda'}_{\mu' \delta'}$.
Since $\kappa_i$ is sufficiently large, we have
${\bf Z}^{\texttt{tail}}\in \overline{\texttt{LR}}^{\eta'}_{\mu' \xi'}$ with respect to the same sequences $(m_i)_{1\leq i\leq p}$ and $(n_i)_{1\leq i\leq q}$.
\qed
\vskip 2mm
Note that ${\bf Z}\in {\bf E}^{M}$ where $M=n+\texttt{L}=2\mu'_1$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:Z LR}, we may apply Theorem \ref{thm:main1} for $M-2\mu'_1=0$ to conclude that there exists a unique ${\bf R}\in {\bf T}(\mu,M)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:+inductive step 1}
\overline{\bf R} = {\bf Z}.
\end{equation}
Suppose that ${\bf R}=(R_{M},\dots,R_1)\in {\bf E}^{M}$ under \eqref{eq:identification}.
Put
${\bf S} = (R_{2\texttt{L}}, \dots, R_1)$.
Note that $2\texttt{L}<M$ with $M-2\texttt{L}=n$, and ${\bf S}\in {\bf T}((1^\texttt{L}),2\texttt{L})$.
If $\overline{\bf S} = (\overline{S}_{2\texttt{L}}\dots, \overline{S}_1)\in {\bf E}^{2\texttt{L}}$,
then we have by Corollary \ref{cor:l-equivalence under S} and \eqref{eq:+inductive step 1}
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:U}
(\overline{S}_{\texttt{L}}\dots, \overline{S}_1) = {\bf Y}.
\end{equation*}
Now, we put
\begin{equation*}
{\bf T} = (R_M,\dots,R_{2\texttt{L}+1}, \overline{S}_{2\texttt{L}},\dots,\overline{S}_{\texttt{L}+1}) \in {\bf E}^n,
\end{equation*}
under \eqref{eq:identification}.
Then it is straightforward to check that ${\bf T} \in {\bf T}(\mu,n)$.
Since ${\bf Z}\in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\eta}(\mathfrak d)$, we have ${\bf T} \in \texttt{LR}^{\mu}_{\lambda}(\mathfrak d)$ by construction of ${\bf T}$ and Lemma \ref{lem:criterion_highest_weight_elt}. Finally, by \eqref{eq:+inductive step 1} and Corollary \ref{cor:l-equivalence under S}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{body}} = {\bf X}^{\texttt{body}}, \quad
\overline{\bf T}^{\texttt{tail}} = {\bf X}^{\texttt{tail}}.
\end{equation*} Hence, the map \eqref{eq:LR map} is surjective.
\qed
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Lorentz Invariance is a fundamental symmetry of the Standard Model (SM), however it is not expected to be conserved necessarily at the high energy scale of quantum gravity (e.g. in string theory \cite{Kostelecky:1988zi} or quantum loop gravity \cite{Gambini:1998it}) where spacetime could undergo violent fluctuations.
Quantum field theories with non-commutative geometries
introduce a fundamental length-scale, hence exhibiting Lorentz Invariance violation (LIV) \cite{Carroll:2001ws}.
Cosmologies with spacetime varying couplings are natural in some grand unified theories and lead to signatures of LIV \cite{Kostelecky:2002ca}.
Remnants from the symmetry breaking would manifest themselves at a lower energy, and constitute an appealing signature.
Such signatures are predicted within the “Standard Model Extension” (SME) \cite{Colladay:1996iz}\cite{Colladay:1998fq}, an Effective Field Theory (EFT) considering all possible Lorentz- and CPT-violating operators in the Lagrangian (CPT breaking implies Lorentz violation for local theories \cite{Greenberg:2002uu}) in a model-independent way, preserving gauge invariance, renormalizability, locality and observer causality.
The SME was tested with atomic clocks, penning traps, matter and antimatter spectroscopy, colliders and astroparticle experiments (for a review, see \cite{Liberati:2013xla}), and an impressive set of results was compiled \cite{Kostelecky:2008ts}.
At hadron colliders the quark sector can be probed. The quark sector is constrained mostly with flavour measurements from neutral meson mixing. The most recent search for LIV and CPT breaking in the b-quark sector was performed recently at LHCb, using changes in $B_{(s)}$ mixing with sidereal time \cite{Aaij:2016mos}. Within the SME, values of the coefficients can be species-dependent and need not be the same for each quark flavour.
The top quark sector remains a vastly unexplored area for LIV searches, with only one actual measurement ever performed. The D\O~experiment at Tevatron measured Lorentz violating (and CPT-conserving) SME coefficients in the top quark sector \cite{Abazov:2012iu}, and found no evidence for LIV with 10\% absolute uncertainty.
The LHC is a top factory, producing top quark pairs ($t\bar{t}$) with a high cross section, and provides a unique opportunity for measuring precisely SME coefficients in the top sector.
In this paper, we will derive the expected sensitivity to SME coefficients using the top pair production signature.
\section{Theoretical setup}
\label{sec:1}
The SME describes the interaction of Lorentz-violating ``background fields'' with the SM particles \cite{Colladay:1998fq}. They can arise in theories like the string scenario \cite{Kostelecky:1988zi}, where certain fields acquire a non-zero vacuum expectation value thereby spontaneously breaking the Lorentz symmetry.
Within the SME, the EFT Wilson coefficients are identified with such vacuum expectation values and are constant in a given inertial frame, taken by convention to be the sun-centered frame \cite{Bluhm:2001rw}. The sun-centered frame can be considered as inertial in the lifetime of a physics experiment. The origin is placed at the sun center, the Z-axis directed north and parallel to the earth rotation axis, the X-axis is pointing to the vernal equinox of year 2000 in the celestial sphere, while X- and Y-axis are defining the equatorial plane, lying at an angle of $\approx23^{\circ} $ relative to the ecliptic.
In this paper, we are interested in the Lorentz violating CPT-even part of the Lagrangian density modifying the top quark kinematics \cite{Berger:2015yha}:
\begin{equation}
\label{LIVLagrangianDirac}
\mathcal{L} \supset \frac{1}{2}i(c_L)_{\mu\nu} \bar{Q}_t \gamma^{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{D}^{\nu} Q_t
+ \frac{1}{2}i(c_R)_{\mu\nu} \bar{U}_t \gamma^{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{D}^{\nu} U_t
\end{equation}
where $(c_L)_{\mu\nu}$ and $(c_R)_{\mu\nu}$ are 4$\times$4 matrices containing top quark SME coefficients (constant in the sun-centered rest frame), $Q_t$ is the third generation left-handed quark doublet, $U_t$ is the right-handed charge-2/3 top singlet, and $D^\nu$ is the gauge-covariant derivative.
A laboratory frame on earth moves around the earth rotation axis, thus the matrices $c_{\mu\nu}$ are oscillating within this frame during a sidereal day.
Top quark interactions with $c_{\mu\nu}$ result in a distinctive signature: the cross section for $t\bar{t}$ production is modulating with sidereal time in the frame of the experiment, thus exhibiting Lorentz violation. The first dedicated search for such signature in the top sector was performed by D\O~\cite{Abazov:2012iu}.
\section{Top pair production in the SME}
\label{sec:2}
The matrix elements for $t\bar{t}$ production in the SME were calculated analytically \cite{Berger:2015yha} at leading order in perturbative QCD, assuming narrow-width approximation. Under the hypothesis that the parton distribution functions in the proton are not modified (which is the case if only the top quark receives non-zero SME coefficients), and since the phase space expression stays identical (neglecting second order modification of the dispersion relation), the ratio of SME over SM cross section is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqFt}
w = \frac{|\mathcal{M}_{SME}|^2}{|\mathcal{M}_{SM}|^2}
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{M}_{SME}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{SM}$ the matrix elements for $t\bar{t}$ production in the SME and in the SM. In the laboratory frame, the ratio is expressed as $w(t) = 1 + f(t)$, with:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqFt2}
\begin{split}
f(t) = (c_{L,\mu\nu}+c_{R,\mu\nu}) R^{\mu}_{\alpha}(t) R^{\nu}_{\beta}(t) \Big(\frac{\delta_p P}{P} + \frac{\delta_v P}{P} \Big) ^{\alpha\beta}\\
+ c_{L,\mu\nu} R^{\mu}_{\alpha}(t) R^{\nu}_{\beta}(t) \Big( \frac{\delta F}{F} + \frac{\delta \bar{F}}{\bar{F}} \Big)^{\alpha\beta}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $P$ is the SM matrix element squared for $t\bar{t}$ production (either quark-antiquark annihilation or gluon fusion), $F$ and $\bar{F}$ are the SM matrix elements for top and antitop decay, while $\delta_p P$, $\delta_v P$, $\delta F$, $\delta \bar{F}$ are the SME modifications in the matrix element due respectively to propagator, production vertex, and in the top and antitop decay.
The rotation matrix $R(t)$ implements the change of reference frame from the laboratory frame to the sun-centered canonical, and depends on the sidereal time, owing to the earth rotation around its axis with an angular velocity $\Omega=7.29 \times 10^{-5} rad \cdot s^{-1}(SI)$ (the earth boost due to its revolution around the sun is negligible relative to the top quark boost produced in collisions).
In the following developments, for definiteness we will consider the rotation matrix constructed with the CMS experiment \cite{Chatrchyan:2008aa} as laboratory frame. CMS is located at an azimuth of approximately $\theta = 101.28 ^{\circ}$ on the LHC ring; the latitude of the CMS interaction point is $\lambda = 46.31^{\circ}$, and the longitude is $\ell = 6.08 ^{\circ} E$. Because the ATLAS experiment \cite{Aad:2008zzm} is located at the opposite azimuth on the LHC ring, both experiments would lead to similar results in the following studies.
Samples of $t\bar{t}$ with dilepton decay $t\bar{t} \rightarrow b e^{\pm} \nu \bar{b} \mu^{\mp} \bar{\nu}$ are generated with $\mbox{\textsc{MadGraph}-aMC@NLO}$ 2.6 \cite{Alwall:2014hca} at leading order.
The ratio $w$ can be considered as an event weight, to be applied to simulation events generated at leading order in QCD. Each simulated event is given a weight $w$, depending on the event kinematics and on the sidereal timestamp (attributed to the event according to its event number). The selection criteria required on reconstructed particles are taken from \cite{Khachatryan:2016kzg}.
Two jets are selected, arising from b-quark hadronization, with transverse momenta $p_T > 30$ GeV and pseudorapidity $|\eta|<2.4$. Two leptons are required to have $p_T>20$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.4$. No requirement on missing transverse momentum is imposed, instead the selection on the invariant mass $m_{e\mu}>20$ GeV is applied to reject Drell-Yan background of $\tau$ lepton pairs with low invariant mass.
The $t\bar{t}$ dilepton channel \cite{Aaboud:2016pbd} provides a sensitivity similar to the sensitivity of the lepton+jet channel \cite{Khachatryan:2016kzg}, that was used in the D\O~analysis~\cite{Abazov:2012iu}.
\section{Anatomy of the LIV signatures in $t\bar{t}$}
The function $f(t)$ is computed in $t\bar{t}$ simulated events. In eq.~\ref{eqFt2}, we average terms relative to the event kinematics (that do not depend on time): $<A_P^{\alpha\beta}> = <( \frac{\delta_p P}{P} + \frac{\delta_v P}{P} )^{\alpha\beta}>$ and $<A_F^{\alpha\beta}> = <(\frac{\delta F}{F} + \frac{\delta \bar{F}}{\bar{F}})^{\alpha\beta}>$.
Off-diagonal elements in the matrices $A_P$ and $A_F$ are much smaller than the in-diagonal elements, and are neglected in calculating the sinusoidal functions $f(t)$.
Four benchmark scenarios of SME coefficients, taken from \cite{Abazov:2012iu}, are studied: \\
1) $c_{L,\mu\nu}\neq 0$ while $c_{R,\mu\nu}=0$, \\
2) $c_{R,\mu\nu} \neq 0$ while $c_{L,\mu\nu}=0$, \\
3) $d_{\mu\nu} = (c_{L,\mu\nu}-c_{R,\mu\nu})/2 \neq 0$ while $c_{\mu\nu} = (c_{L,\mu\nu}+c_{R,\mu\nu})/2=0$.\\
4) $c_{\mu\nu} \neq 0$ while $d_{\mu\nu} = 0$.
The matrices $c_{\mu\nu}$ ($\mu$ or $\nu = T,X,Y,Z$) are assumed to be symmetric (the antisymmetric part can be absorbed in other SME terms in the Lagrangian) and traceless (the trace is Lorentz invariant).
Coefficients of the type $c^{TT}$ impact only the total $t\bar{t}$ cross section \cite{Berger:2015yha} and are not considered further, since there is no handle to extract them in genuine $t\bar{t}$ production.
Similarly, $c^{ZZ}$ coefficients are not studied here, since by construction there is no sensitivity induced by earth rotation in the direction transverse to the equatorial plane.
As a consequence, there is no sensitivity to $c^{TZ}=c^{ZT}$ coefficient either.
Eventually, $c^{TX}=c^{XT}$ and $c^{TY}=c^{YT}$ could be measured, but according matrix elements contributing in $A_P$ and $A_F$ are found to be negligible and these coefficients are not considered further.
The analysis will focus on the sinusoidal signals expected for $c_{XZ} =c_{ZX} \neq 0$ and $c_{YZ} =c_{ZY} \neq 0$ with harmonics at a period of one sidereal day; $c_{XX} =-c_{YY} \neq 0$ and $c_{XY} =c_{YX} \neq 0$ with a period of half a sidereal day.
Amplitudes of the $f(t)$ functions, at selected center-of-mass energies in p--p collisions, are shown in Fig~\ref{fig:1}.
Amplitudes of $f(t)$ are found to be the same in the scenarios $c_{XY} =c_{YX}$ and $c_{XX} =-c_{YY}$ on the one hand, as well as in the scenarios $c_{XZ} =c_{ZX}$ and $c_{YZ} =-c_{ZY}$ on the other hand (although phases of the sinusoidal functions are different). Larger amplitudes of $f(t)$ are found in the benchmark scenarios $c_{XY} = c_{YX}$ and $c_{XX} = -c_{YY}$: this confirms that the experiment have higher sensitivity to $c_{\mu\nu}$ components along directions purely in the equatorial plane.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\label{ampl:1}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{amplEnergy_XX.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{amplEnergy_XZ.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:1}Amplitude of $f(t)=\sigma_{SME}/\sigma_{SM}-1$ in p--p collisions at center-of-mass energies corresponding to Tevatron, LHC, HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC energies, using CMS location as laboratory frame, for $c_{\mu \nu}$ benchmarks.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is observed on Fig~\ref{fig:1} that the amplitude of $f(t)$ function is growing with $\sqrt{s}$.
The simulation samples used in the SME weights computation were generated according to differential SM cross sections, involving a convolution of the SM matrix element and the parton distribution function.
Since the energy carried by the incoming particles relies on the parton distribution function at a given center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$, the raising of $f(t)$ with $\sqrt{s}$ was investigated by generating dedicated samples turning off parton distribution functions in the proton, thus any remaining increase in amplitude could be attributed to the SME matrix element expression.
An enhancement of the $f(t)$ amplitude as the square of the center-of-mass energy was found with these samples, compatible with the expressions for the matrix elements given in \cite{Berger:2015yha}.
At Tevatron, $p\bar{p}\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ production was initiated mainly by $q\bar{q}$ annihilation while at the LHC, with the increase of $\sqrt{s}$, $gg$ fusion is dominant in $pp\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ production owing to higher gluon luminosity in the proton.
We compared the $f(t)$ amplitudes obtained for $p\bar{p}$ collisions at D\O~and $pp$ collisions in the CMS laboratory frame, in samples generated at the same center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, and examine separately $gg$ and $q\bar{q}$ production mechanisms.
We find relatively larger amplitude for $f(t)$ in $q\bar{q}$ and in $gg$ production mechanisms, and for a given $\sqrt{s}$, the experiment's position can favor one benchmark scenario or the other.
Overall, the increase in center-of-mass-energy has a dominant impact on the amplitude, while the change in detector position and production mechanism induces a smaller change.
We scanned the latitude and azimuth of potential experiments on earth (the longitude does not impact the amplitude owing to the earth rotation). It was found that both ATLAS or CMS sit in a dip for the projected sensitivity on the benchmarks $c_{XX} =-c_{YY} \neq 0$ and $c_{XY} =c_{YX} \neq 0$. In general, ATLAS and CMS sensitivity to SME coefficients will be similar since they are located at opposite azimuthal angle in the LHC ring.
\section{Sensitivity at the LHC and future colliders}
In this section, projected sensitivity at the LHC and future colliders will be studied and compared with Tevatron results.
The D\O~analysis \cite{Abazov:2012iu} at Tevatron was performed with a luminosity of 5.3 $fb^{-1}$ of $p - \bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV.
The LHC produces $p-p$ collisions, with about 150 $fb^{-1}$ of data recorded at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV during Run 2 \cite{Sirunyan:2019osb}.
The High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), expected to start data taking in 2026, will deliver 3 $ab^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV \cite{ApollinariG.:2017ojx}.
The High Energy LHC (HE-LHC) is a future collider option that could take place after the HL-LHC, using the same tunnel with upgraded magnets, to achieve an expected center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=27$ TeV and 15 $ab^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity \cite{Zimmermann:2651305}.
Eventually the Future Circular Collider, in its hadron collider stage (FCC-hh), is an even higher energy option, where a new 100 km tunnel nearby CERN would be built to achieve the unprecedented center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=100$ TeV and 15 $ab^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity \cite{Benedikt:2651300}.
For simplicity, we assume the same coordinates as the CMS detector for an experiment at the LHC and future colliders (LHC Run 2, HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC).
The SM cross section for $t\bar{t}$ production is computed at the center-of-mass energy of each collider scenario with Top++ \cite{Czakon:2011xx}, at next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy in perturbative QCD.
The hypothesis is made that the efficiencies for selecting reconstructed particles are identical to those of \cite{Khachatryan:2016kzg} at the LHC and beyond.
This can be regarded as optimistic if considering the increasing number of collisions piling up with the hard process at higher and higher instantaneous luminosity (from about 30 pileup events at the LHC to 1000 at the FCC). However pileup mitigation techniques have been proved to work very efficiently, and more ideas are being explored to keep pileup impact under control at the future detectors \cite{Benedikt:2651300}.
We study the $e\mu$ final state, where the background is arising mainly from single top production, and the Drell-Yan production is efficiently suppressed by requiring two leptons of different flavour.
The same signal to background ratio as in \cite{Khachatryan:2016kzg} is also assumed (this $t\bar{t}$ channel is usually very clean with $s/b \approx 15$). This approximation could be refined by computing the cross section of the main backgrounds with fixed order QCD calculation, however the present value of the ratio is believed to be reasonably stable at higher center-of-mass energies.
The expected contributions for the LIV signal, SM $t\bar{t}$ production and single top background are fitted with a $\chi^2$ method to the Asimov dataset \cite{Cowan:2010js}, using bins of one sidereal hour. The Asimov dataset represents fake data constructed from the sum of all contributions excluding the signal.
We perform the study for the above mentioned colliders and SME coefficient benchmarks.
We obtain the projected precision on the SME coefficients. As a cross-check, we find sensitivity of the same order of magnitude as with $\chi^2$ method, when using $\mbox{\textsc{HistFactory}}$ \cite{Cranmer:2012sba} implementing the LHC test-statistics in a likelihood fit \cite{CMS-NOTE-2011-005}.
Systematic uncertainties are rounded from \cite{Khachatryan:2016kzg}: 2\% is attributed to the luminosity, 4\% on the inclusive measurement of $t\bar{t}$ production, and 30\% on the small single top background.
Projected precision on the SME parameters is shown on table~\ref{tab:1}.
\begin{table}[th!]
\caption{Comparison of expected precision in the measurement of the SME parameters in $t\bar{t}$ signature for D\O, LHC Run 2, HL-LHC, HE-LHC, FCC experiment.}
\label{tab:1}
\scalebox{0.73}{ \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
& D$\emptyset$ & LHC (Run II) & HL-LHC & HE-LHC & FCC\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$\Delta c_{LXX} , \Delta c_{LXY}$ & $1\times 10^{-1}$ & $7\times 10^{-4}$ & $2\times 10^{-4}$ & $2\times 10^{-5}$ & $5\times 10^{-6}$ \\
$\Delta c_{LXZ} , \Delta c_{LYZ}$ & $8\times 10^{-2}$ & $3\times 10^{-3}$ & $5\times 10^{-4}$ & $9\times 10^{-5}$ & $2\times 10^{-5}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$\Delta c_{RXX} , \Delta c_{RXY}$ & $9\times 10^{-2}$ & $3\times 10^{-3}$ & $5\times 10^{-4}$ & $8\times 10^{-5}$ & $5\times 10^{-5}$ \\
$\Delta c_{RXZ} , \Delta c_{RYZ}$ & $7\times 10^{-2}$ & $1\times 10^{-2}$ & $2\times 10^{-3}$ & $4\times 10^{-4}$ & $8\times 10^{-5}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$\Delta c_{XX} , \Delta c_{XY}$ & $7\times 10^{-1}$ & $1\times 10^{-3}$ & $2\times 10^{-4}$ & $3\times 10^{-5}$ & $9\times 10^{-6}$ \\
$\Delta c_{XZ} , \Delta c_{YZ}$ & $6\times 10^{-1}$ & $4\times 10^{-3}$ & $7\times 10^{-4}$ & $1\times 10^{-4}$ & $3\times 10^{-5}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$\Delta d_{XX} , \Delta d_{XY}$ & $1\times 10^{-1}$ & $6\times 10^{-4}$ & $1\times 10^{-4}$ & $2\times 10^{-5}$ & $8\times 10^{-6}$ \\
$\Delta d_{XZ} , \Delta d_{YZ}$ & $7\times 10^{-2}$ & $2\times 10^{-3}$ & $4\times 10^{-4}$ & $8\times 10^{-5}$ & $2\times 10^{-5}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\vspace{0.1cm}
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
The expected precision found by performing the likelihood fit using D\O~location, the value of $A_P$ and $A_F$ matrices in \cite{Whittington:2012wsa} and the total number of observed events quoted in \cite{Abazov:2012iu}, is found to be compatible with the observed results in D\O~analysis, with an absolute precision of the order of 10\%, thus validating the procedure.
The precision on the SME coefficients is expected to be improved by up to three orders of magnitude from D\O~to the LHC Run II, depending on the coefficients.
An additional expected improvement is found at future hadron colliders, with up to two more orders of magnitude at the FCC. Overall, performing sidereal time analysis of $t\bar{t}$ production at present and future hadron colliders will greatly improve existing bounds on Lorentz-violating $c_{\mu\nu}$ coefficients for the top quark in the SME.
It has to be noted that parton distribution functions in the proton at 100 TeV are subject to high uncertainties at large momentum transfer \cite{Rojo:2016kwu}.
The expected results are also subject to other approximations relative to the performance of future detectors, the treatment of pileup, and the cross sections for top quark processes.
Although we consider that the adopted approximations are reasonable, results of this phenomenology study should mainly be considered as providing an order of magnitude for the sensitivity rather than a precise and definitive answer, that will be given by future experiments.
The improvement found in the expected precision of the SME coefficients at the LHC and future colliders is explained by a combination of three factors:
1) the increase in SM $t\bar{t}$ cross sections with $\sqrt{s}$ relative to Tevatron,
2) the higher expected number of events produced in collisions with the greater volume of integrated luminosity, and
3) the increase in the SME over SM matrix elements for $t\bar{t}$ production and decay with $\sqrt{s}$, leading to an increase of the amplitude of the function $f(t)$ in eq.~\ref{eqFt2}.
The present analysis can be refined in several ways to improve sensitivity to LIV in the experiments. In addition to the $e\mu$ channel of $t\bar{t}$ decay, the same flavour dilepton channel and the lepton+jets channel could be used. Eventually, the $c_{\mu\nu}$ coefficients are modifying top quark kinematics, thus differential cross sections or multivariate analysis making use of kinematic $t\bar{t}$ observables could be used to improve sensitivity.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we highlighted the physics potential of the LHC and future hadron colliders for LIV searches with $t\bar{t}$ production.
Bounds on the top quark $c_{\mu\nu}$ coefficients in the SME can be improved by up to three orders of magnitude already at the LHC, and the total improvement is expected to reach five orders of magnitude at future colliders such as the FCC.
Other proposed searches in the top sector \cite{Berger:2015yha} are targeting CPT violation at hadron colliders, by measuring the charge asymmetry between single top and antitop events as a function of sidereal time.
This search is experimentally very challenging,
and would deserve dedicated sensitivity studies, that are postponed to a later paper.
Other LIV processes of interest would deserve detailed studies. The LHC is often thought of as a top factory, however the production of QCD and electroweak particles has also a very high cross section. By studying the production of QCD jets, $W^{\pm}$ and $Z$ bosons at present and future hadron colliders, poorly constrained areas of the SME could be probed at an unprecedented sensitivity.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Alan Kosteleck\'y for enlightening discussions.
\bibliographystyle{spphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Functional logic languages \cite{AntoyHanus10CACM}
provide fast software prototyping and development,
simple elegant solutions to otherwise complicated problems,
a tight integration between specifications and code
\cite{AntoyHanus12PADL},
and an ease of provability \cite{AntoyHanusLibby17EPTCS,Hanus18PPDP}
unmatched by other programming paradigms.
Not surprisingly, these advantages place heavy demands on their
implementation. Theoretical results must be proven and efficient models of execution must be developed.
For these reasons,
the efficient implementation of functional logic languages
is an active area of research with contributions from many sources.
This paper is one such contribution.
Compilers of high-level languages transform a \emph{source} program
into a \emph{target} program which is in a lower-level language.
This transformation maps constructs available
in the source program language into simpler, more primitive, constructs
available in the target program language.
For example, pattern matching can be translated into a sequence
of \emph{switch} and assignment statements available in C, Rust, or Java.
We use this idea to map Curry into a C-like language.
Our target language is not standard C, but a more abstract language that
we call \emph{ICurry}. The ``I'' in ICurry stands for ``imperative'',
since a design goal of the language is to be easily mappable into an
imperative language.
There are advantages in choosing ICurry over C.
ICurry is simpler than C. It has no arrays, \emph{typedef}
declarations, types, explicit pointers, or dereferencing operations.
ICurry is more abstract than concrete low level languages.
Because of its simplicity and abstraction,
it has been mapped with a modest effort to C, C\raise 0.5ex\hbox{\tiny ++}{}, and Python.
Section~\ref{Curry} is a brief overview of Curry, with focus on the
features relevant to ICurry or to the examples.
Section~\ref{The Model} discusses an operational model of execution for
functional logic computations. This model can be implemented
relatively easily in ICurry or in common imperative languages.
Section~\ref{FlatCurry} presents \emph{FlatCurry}, a format
of Curry programs similar to ICurry. FlatCurry has been used
in the translation of Curry into other, non-imperative, languages, but it is not
suitable for the translation of Curry into an imperative language.
Section~\ref{ICurry} defines ICurry and
discusses its use and generation.
A detailed algorithm for obtaining
ICurry from FlatCurry is presented in Appendix A.
Section~\ref{Related Work and Conclusion} addresses related work
and offers our conclusion.
\section{Curry}
\label{Curry}
Curry is a declarative language
that joins the most appealing features of functional and
logic programming.
A \emph{Curry program} declares \emph{data types},
which describe how information is structured,
and defines \emph{functions} or \emph{operations},
which describe how information is manipulated.
For example:
\begin{curry}
data List a = Nil | Cons a (List a)
\end{curry}
declares a polymorphic type \code{List} in which \code{a}
is a type parameter standing for the type of the list elements.
The symbols \code{Nil} and \code{Cons}
are the \emph{constructors} of \code{List}.
The values of a list are either \code{Nil}, the empty list,
or \code{Cons$\;e\;l$}, a pair in which $e$
is an element and $l$ is a list.
Since lists are ubiquitous, a special notation eases writing and
understanding them. We use \code{[\,]} to denote the empty list
and $(e\,\code{:}\,l)$ to denote the pair.
A finite list is written \code{[$e_1$,$\ldots$,$e_n$]},
where $e_i$ is a list element. For example,
\code{[1,2,3]} $=$ \code{1:2:3:[\,]}.
\emph{Functions} are defined by rewrite rules of the form:
\begin{equation}
\label{rewrite-rule}
\begin{array}{@{}l l @{}}
f\; \bar p & \mid c_1 = e_1 \\
& \cdots \\
& \mid c_n = e_n
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $f$ is a function symbol, $\bar p$ stands for a sequence
of zero or more expressions made up only of constructor symbols and variables,
``$|\; c_i$'' is a condition, and $e_i$ is an expression.
Conditions in rules are optional.
The expressions in $\bar p$ are called \emph{patterns}.
For example, consider:
\begin{equation}
\label{length-rules}
\vbox { \hbox {\hspace*{-2em}
\begin{curry}
abs x | x < 0 = -x
| x >= 0 = x $\vrule width0pt depth1.5ex$
length [] = 0
length (_:xs) = 1 + length xs
\end{curry}
}}
\end{equation}
where
\code{abs} computes the absolute value of its argument
and shows some conditions, and
\code{length} computes the length of its argument
and shows some patterns.
In contrast to most other languages, the textual order of the
rewrite rules in a program is irrelevant---all the rules
that can be applied to an expression are applied.
An emblematic example is a function, called \emph{choice},
and denoted by the infix operator \ccode{?}, which chooses
between two \emph{alternatives}:
\begin{curry}
x ? y = x
x ? y = y
\end{curry}
Therefore, \code{0\,?\,1} is an expression that produces \code{0}
and \code{1} non-deterministically.
In Curry, there are many other useful syntactic and semantic features,
for example, rewrite rules can have nested scopes with local definitions.
We omit their description here, since they are largely irrelevant
to our discussion, with the exception of \emph{let blocks} and
\emph{free variables}.
Let blocks support the definition of circular expressions
which allows the construction of cyclic graphs.
Fig.~\ref{let-example-graph} shows an example of a let block
and the corresponding graph.
Expression \code{oneTwo} evaluates to the
infinite list \code{1:2:1:2:$\ldots$}
\newcommand{}{}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vspace*{-.25in}
\hspace*{0.5in}
\begin{minipage}{2in}
\tt
\begin{tabbing}
oneTwo = \= let \= x = 1 : y \\
\> \> y = 2 : x \\
\> in x
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{1in}
\begin{minipage}{2in}
\[
\begin{xy}
0;<0.6mm,0mm>:
(10,0)*+{\mbox{\tt 2}}="2";
(0,10)*+{\mbox{\tt 1}}="1";
(20,10)*+{\mbox {\tt :}}="lc";
(10,20)*+{\mbox{\tt :}}="uc";
{\ar@{-} "uc";"lc"};
{\ar@{-} "uc";"1"};
{\ar@{-} "lc";"2"};
**\crv{(20,10)&(25,5)&(30,0)&(30,5)&(30,25)&(30,30)&(25,30)&(15,30)&(10,30)&(10,25)&(10,20)}
\end{xy}
\]
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{let-example-graph}
Example of a let block with mutually recursive variables
and the graph it defines.
}
\end{figure}
Free variables abstract unknown information and are
``computationally inert'' until the information
they stand for is required during a computation.
When this happens, plausible values for a variable are
non-deterministically produced by narrowing
\cite{AntoyEchahedHanus00JACM,Reddy85}.
Free variables might occur in initial expressions, conditions,
and the right-hand side of rules, and need to be declared by the
keyword \code{free}, unless they are anonymous (denoted by \ccode{\raise-.8ex\hbox{-}{}}).
For instance, the following program
defines list concatenation
which is exploited to define an operation that returns
some element of a list having at least two occurrences:
\begin{curry}
(++) :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
[] ++ ys = ys
(x:xs) ++ ys = x : (xs ++ ys)$\vrule width0pt depth1.5ex$
someDup :: [a] -> a
someDup xs | xs == _$\;$++$\;$[x]$\;$++$\;$_$\;$++$\;$[x]$\;$++$\;$_
= x where$\;$x$\;$free
\end{curry}
\section{The Execution Model}
\label{The Model}
A \emph{program} is a graph rewriting system
\cite{EchahedJanodet97GraphRewriting,Plump99Handbook}
over a \emph{signature}, partitioned into \emph{constructor} and \emph{operation} symbols.
We briefly and informally review the underlying theory.
A \emph{graph} is a set of \emph{nodes}, where a node is an object
with some attributes, and an identity by virtue of being an element in a set.
Key attributes of a node are a \emph{label} and a sequence of \emph{successors},
A label is either a symbol of the signature or a variable.
A successor is another node, and the sequence of successors may be empty.
Exactly one node of a graph is designated as the graph's \emph{root}.
Each node of a graph corresponds to an expression in the Curry program.
A \emph{graph rewriting system} is a set of rewrite rules
following the \emph{constructor discipline} \cite{Odonnell-85}.
A \emph{rule} is a pair of graphs, $l \to r$,
called the left- and right-hand sides respectively.
Rules are unconditional without loss of generality \cite{Antoy01PPDP}.
A \emph{rewrite step} of a graph $e$
first identifies both a subgraph $t$ of $e$, and
a rule $l \to r$ in which
$t$ is an instance of $l$, then replaces $t$ with
the corresponding instance of $r$.
The identification of the subgraph $t$ and the rule $l \to r$
is accomplished by a \emph{strategy} \cite{Antoy05JSC}.
For example, given the rules (\ref{length-rules}),
a step of \code{length [3,4]} produces \code{1+length[4]}
where the subgraph reduced in the step is the whole graph,
and the rule applied in the step is the second one.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{-3em}
\hspace*{1.0in}
\xymatrix@1@C=5pt@R=6pt@M=3pt{
& \mbox{\tt +} \ar@{-}[ddl] \ar@{-}[ddr] \\ \\
\mathtt{coin} & & \mathtt{coin} \\
& \makebox[0pt]{\tt coin+coin}
}
\hspace{6em}
\xymatrix@1@C=5pt@R=6pt@M=3pt{
& \mbox{\tt +} \ar@{-}@/_2ex/[dd] \ar@{-}@/^2ex/[dd] \\ \\
& \mathtt{coin} \\
& \makebox[0pt]{\tt x+x where x=coin}
}
\caption{\label{sharing-pict}
Graphical and textual representation of expressions.
In Curry, all the occurrences of the same variable are shared.
Hence, the two occurrences of \code{x} stand for the same node.
The expression \code{coin} is conventionally an integer constant with two values,
\code{0} and \code{1}, non-deterministically chosen.
The sets of values produced by the two expressions differ.
}
\end{figure}
A \emph{computation} of an expression $e$
is a sequence of rewrite steps starting with $e$,
$e = e_0 \to e_1 \to \ldots$~
Expression $e$ is referred to as \emph{top-level}, and
each $e_i$ as a \emph{state} of the computation of $e$.
A \emph{value} of a computation is a state in which every node is labeled by
a constructor symbol.
Such expression is also called a \emph{constructor normal form}.
Not every computation has values.
We have modeled a functional logic program as a graph rewriting system
\cite{EchahedJanodet97GraphRewriting,Plump99Handbook}.
Functional logic computations are executed in this model
by rewriting which consists of two relatively simple operations:
the construction of graphs and the replacement of subgraphs
with other graphs.
The most challenging part is selecting the subgraph
to be replaced in a way that does not consume computational resources
unnecessarily. This is a well-understood problem \cite{Antoy05JSC}
which is largely separated from the model.
In an implementation of the model,
the expressions are objects of a computation and are
represented by dynamically linked structures.
These structures are similar to those used for
computing with lists and trees. The nodes of such a structure are in
a bijection with the nodes of the graph they represent. Unless a
distinction is relevant, we do not distinguish between a graph and
its representation.
The occurrence of a symbol, or variable, in the textual representation
of an expression stands for the node labeled by the occurrence.
Distinct occurrences may stand for the same node,
in which case we say that the occurrences are \emph{shared}.
The textual representation accommodates this distinction,
therefore it is a convenient, linear notation for a graph.
Fig.~\ref{sharing-pict} shows two graphs and their corresponding
textual expressions.
\section{FlatCurry}
\label{FlatCurry}
\emph{FlatCurry} \cite{flatcurry} is an intermediate language used
in a variety of applications.
These applications include implementing Curry by compiling into other languages,
like Prolog \cite{Hanus18PAKCS} or Haskell \cite{BrasselHanusPeemoellerReck11}.
FlatCurry is also the basis for specifying the operational semantics
of Curry programs \cite{AlbertHanusHuchOliverVidal05},
building generic analysis tools \cite{HanusSkrlac14},
or verifying properties of Curry programs \cite{Hanus17LOPSTR,Hanus18PPDP}.
The FlatCurry format of a Curry program removes some syntactic constructs,
such as nested scopes and infix notation,
that make source programs more human readable.
This removal still preserves the program's meaning.
We ignore some elements of FlatCurry,
such as imported modules or exported symbols, which are not
directly related to the execution model presented in
Section \ref{The Model}.
Instead, we focus on the declaration of data constructors, the
definition of functions, and the construction of expressions.
These are the elements that play a central role in our execution model.
FlatCurry is a machine representation of Curry programs.
As such, it is not intended to be read by human.
For example, each variable is identified by an integer,
there is only prefix function application, and
pattern matching is broken down into a cascade of case distinctions.
In the examples that follow,
we present a sugared version of FlatCurry in which
variables have symbolic names, typically the same as in Curry;
the application of familiar infix operators is infix;
and indentation, rather than parentheses and commas,
show structure and grouping.
The intent is to make the examples easier to read
without altering the essence of FlatCurry.
In FlatCurry,
data constructors are introduced by a type declaration.
A type $t$ has attributes such as a name and a visibility,
and chief among these attributes is a set of constructors $c_1, c_2, \ldots c_n$.
Each constructor $c_i$ has similar attributes, along with an arity and type
of each argument, which are not explicitly used in our discussion.
The same information is available for operation symbols,
but operations contain their code.
\begin{figure}[t]
\[
\begin{array}{lcl@{~~~~}l}
D & ::= & f(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = e & \mbox{(function definition)} \\
e & ::= & x & \mbox{(variable) } \\
& | & c(e_1,\ldots,e_n) & \mbox{(constructor call) } \\
& | & f(e_1,\ldots,e_n) & \mbox{(function call) } \\
& | & \mathit{case}~e~\mathit{of}~\{p_1\to e_1; \ldots; p_n \to e_n\}
& \mbox{(case expression) } \\
& | & e_1~\mathit{or}~e_2 & \mbox{(disjunction) } \\
& | & \mathit{let}~\{x_1 = e_1;\ldots;x_n = e_n\} ~\mathit{in}~ e
& \mbox{(let binding) } \\
& | & \mathit{let}~x_1,\ldots,x_n ~\mathit{free~ in}~ e
& \mbox{(free variables) } \\
p & ::= & c(x_1,\ldots,x_n) & \mbox{(pattern)}
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Abstract syntax of function definitions in FlatCurry}
\label{fig:flatcurry}
\end{figure}
The abstract syntax of FlatCurry operations is summarized
in Fig.~\ref{fig:flatcurry}.\footnote{In contrast to some other
presentations of FlatCurry (e.g., \cite{AlbertHanusHuchOliverVidal05,Hanus13}),
we omit the difference between rigid and flexible case expressions.}
Each operation is defined by a single rule with a linear left-hand side,
i.e., the argument variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are pairwise different.
The right-hand side of the definition consists of (1) variables
introduced by the left-hand side or by a \emph{let block}
or by a $\mathit{case}$ pattern,
(2) constructor or function calls,
(3) $\mathit{case}$ expressions, (4) disjunctions,
(5) $\mathit{let}$ bindings, or (6) introduction of free variables.
The patterns $p_i$ in a $\mathit{case}$ expression
must be pairwise different constructors applied to variables.
Therefore, deep patterns in source programs are
represented by nested $\mathit{case}$ expressions.
Case expressions closely resemble definitional trees.
We recall that a \emph{definitional tree} of some operation $f$,
of arity $n$, is a hierarchical structure of expressions of the form
$f\;p_1\;\ldots\;p_n$, where $p_i$ is a pattern.
Since $f$ is constant and provides no information,
except to ease readability, we also call these expressions patterns.
The pattern at the root of the tree is $f\;x_1\;\ldots\;x_n$,
where the $x_i$'s are distinct variables.
The patterns at the leaves
are the left-hand sides of the rules of $f$,
except from the names of the variables.
For ease of understanding,
in pictorial representations of definitional trees
we add the right-hand side of the rules too.
If $f\;p_1\;\ldots\;p_n$ is a branch node, $\beta$, of the tree,
a variable $x$ in some $p_j$ is singled out.
We call the variable $x$ \emph{inductive}.
The pattern in a child of $\beta$ is $f\;p_1\;\ldots\;q_j\;\ldots\;p_n$
where $q_j$ is obtained from $p_j$ by replacing $x$ with
$c\;y_1\;\ldots\; y_k$, where $c$ is a constructor of the type of $x$
and each $y_i$ is a fresh variable.
For example, consider the usual operation \code{zip} for
zipping two lists:
\begin{equation}
\label{zip-rules}
\vbox { \hbox {\hspace*{-2em}
\begin{curry}
zip [] y = []
zip (x1:x2) [] = []
zip (x1:x2) (y1:y2) = (x1,y1) : zip x2 y2
\end{curry}
}}
\end{equation}
The corresponding definitional tree is shown below
where the inductive variable is boxed.
\newcommand{\boxit}[1]{\raisebox{-1.5pt}{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern1.5pt
\vbox{\kern1.5pt\hbox{#1}\kern1.5pt}\kern1.5pt\vrule}\hrule}}}
\begin{displaymath}
\label{def-tree-example}
\kern-1em
\xymatrix@1@C=-2pt@R=8pt@M=3pt{
& \mbox{\tt zip \boxit{x} y} \ar@{-}[dl] \ar@{-}[dr] \\
\mbox{\tt zip [] y} \ar[ddd]
& & \mbox{\tt zip (x1:x2) \boxit{y}} \ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr] \\
& \mbox{\tt zip (x1:x2) []} \ar[dd] & & \mbox{\tt zip (x1:x2) (y1:y2)} \ar[dd] \\
\\
\mbox{\tt []} & \mbox{\tt []} & & \mbox{\tt (x1,y1) : zip x2 y2}
}
\end{displaymath}
\noindent
The FlatCurry code of the rules of operation \code{zip},
closely corresponds to the code below.
This would be harder for the programmer to write than (\ref{zip-rules})
and less readable, but is semantically equivalent.
Every program can be transformed into an equivalent program in which
every operation has a definitional tree \cite{Antoy01PPDP}
which can be obtained from the operation's rules
with a relatively simple algorithm \cite{Antoy05JSC}.
\begin{curry}
zip x y = case x of
[] -> []
(x1:x2) -> case y of
[] -> []
(y1:y2) -> (x1,y1) : zip x2 y2
\end{curry}
Expressions are the final relevant element of FlatCurry.
As the code of \code{zip} shows, an expression can be a literal,
like \code{[]}; an application of constructors and operations
to expressions possibly containing variables, like
\code{(x1,y1)\,:\,zip x2 y2}; or a case expression,
like \code{case y of $\ldots$}~
FlatCurry also has \emph{let blocks}
to support the construction of cyclic graphs,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{let-example-graph}.
FlatCurry programs cannot be directly mapped to code in
a C-like target language. There are two problems:
case expressions as arguments of a symbol application,
and let blocks with shared or mutually recursive variables.
A contrived example of the first is:
\begin{curry}
3 + case x of True -> 1; False -> 2
\end{curry}
An example of the second is shown in Fig.~\ref{let-example-graph}.
ICurry proposes a solution to these problems
in a language-independent form which is suitable for the imperative paradigm.
\section{ICurry}
\label{ICurry}
In this section we define ICurry,
discuss how to map it to imperative code that implements
our earlier model of computation,
and show how to obtain it from FlatCurry.
\subsection{ICurry Definition}
\emph{ICurry} is a format of Curry programs similar in intent to FlatCurry.
The purpose of both is to represent a Curry program into a format
with a small number of simple constructs.
Properties and manipulations of programs can be more easily investigated
and executed in these formats.
ICurry is specifically intended for compilation into a low-level language.
Each ICurry construct can be translated into
a similar construct of languages such as C, Java or Python.
This should become apparent once we describe the constructs.
ICurry's data consists of nested applications of symbols represented as graphs.
ICurry's key constructs provide
the declaration or definition of symbols and
variables, construction of graph nodes, assignment,
and conditional executions of these constructs.
Rewriting steps are implemented in two phases,
once the redex and rule are determined. First, the replacement of the redex
is constructed. This is defined by the right-hand side of the rule.
Then, the successors pointing to the root of the redex
are redirected \cite[Def. 8]{EchahedJanodet97GraphRewriting},
through assignments, to point to the root
of the replacement.
The declaration of data constructors in ICurry is identical to that
in FlatCurry as described earlier.
However, the constructors of a type are in an arbitrary, but fixed, order.
Therefore, we can talk of the first, second, etc., constructor of a type.
This index is an attribute of constructor symbols which we call the \emph{tag}.
The tag is used to provide efficient pattern matching
and to simplify the execution of some strategy.
We will return to this topic in Sect.~\ref{ICurry Use}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\[
\begin{array}{lcl@{~~~~}l}
D & ::= & f = blck & \mbox{(function definition)} \\
blck & ::= & decl_1 \ldots decl_k ~ asgn_1 \ldots asgn_n ~ stm & \mbox{(block) } \\
decl & ::= & \mathit{declare}~x & \mbox{(local variable declaration) } \\
& | & \mathit{free}~x & \mbox{(free variable declaration) } \\
asgn & ::= & v = exp & \mbox{(variable assignment) } \\
stm & ::= & \mathit{return}~ exp & \mbox{(return statement) } \\
& | & \mathit{exempt} & \mbox{(failure statement) } \\
& | & \mathit{case}~x~\mathit{of}~\{c_1\to blck_1; \ldots; c_n \to blck_n\}
& \mbox{(case statement) } \\
exp & ::= & v & \mbox{(variable) } \\
& | & \mathit{NODE}(l,exp_1,\ldots,exp_n) & \mbox{(node construction) } \\
& | & exp_1~\mathit{or}~exp_2 & \mbox{(disjunction) } \\
v & ::= & x & \mbox{(local variable)} \\
& | & v[i] & \mbox{(node access) } \\
& | & \mathit{ROOT} & \mbox{(root of function call)} \\
l & ::= & c & \mbox{(constructor symbol)} \\
& | & f & \mbox{(function symbol)} \\
& | & LABEL(v) & \mbox{(node label symbol)} \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Abstract syntax of function definitions in ICurry}
\label{fig:icurry}
\end{figure}
The abstract syntax of operations in ICurry is summarized
in Fig.~\ref{fig:icurry}.
In FlatCurry, the body of a function is an expression.
In ICurry, it is a block of statements, the last of which returns an expression.
We describe expressions first.
Expressions are nested symbol applications represented as graphs.
Therefore,
an expression is either a \emph{variable}, which refers to a node in a graph,
or a \emph{symbol application}.
ICurry makes an application explicit with a \emph{directive},
\code{NODE}, that constructs a graph node
from its label (1st argument) and its successors (remaining
arguments), and returns a reference to the node.
Accordingly, there are directives to access node components:
assuming $x$ is a variable referring to a node,
$\code{LABEL}(x)$ retrieves the label, and
$x[k]$ retrieves the $k$-th successor of the node.
A variable is either \emph{free} or \emph{local}.
The ICurry format distinguishes between constructor and
function application, and between full and partial application.
We do not discuss these details in this paper.
It is expected that by providing this additional information,
processors will be able to generate low-level code more easily,
and the generated code should be easier to optimize.
In ICurry, there are only a handful of statement kinds:
\emph{declaration} of a variable, and \emph{assignment} to a variable,
\emph{return}, and \emph{case} expressions.
Following FlatCurry, variables are represented by integers.
A declaration introduces a variable.
An assignment to a variable is a reference to a graph node.
Successors of a node referenced by $x$ are accessed through
the $x[\ldots]$ construct.
Arguments passed to functions are accessed through local variables.
The return statement is intended to return an expression,
the result of a function call.
Case expressions in ICurry are structurally similar to those
in FlatCurry, but with two differences for algebraically defined types,
which have a finite number of data constructors.
First, the branches of a case expression are in tag order.
We will justify this decision in Sect.~\ref{ICurry Use}.
Second, the set of branches of a case expression is complete,
i.e., there is a branch for each constructor of the type.
ICurry code begins with a declaration, and possible assignment, of some variables.
It is then followed by either a case statement, or a return statement.
Each branch of the case expression may declare and assign variables,
and may lead to either another case statement, or a return statement.
Below, we present two examples.
The first example is the code of function \code{oneTwo},
a constant, of Fig.~\ref{let-example-graph}:
\begin{curry}
function oneTwo
declare x
declare y
x = NODE(:, NODE(1), y)
y = NODE(:, NODE(2), x)
x[2] = y
return x
\end{curry}
Symbol application is explicit through \code{NODE}.
The notation \code{x[2]} stands for the second successor
of \code{x}, which is not yet known when the node
referenced by \code{x} is constructed (since the value of \code{y}
is not yet specified at that point).
This allows constructing nodes with a varying number of successors.
The second example is the code of \code{head},
the usual function returning the head of a non-empty list:
\begin{equation}
\label{head-rules}
\vbox { \hbox {\hspace*{-2em}
\begin{curry}
head (x:_) = x
\end{curry}
}}
\end{equation}
The rule of \code{head} for the argument \code{[]}
is missing in the Curry source code.
Consequently, the case branch for the argument
\code{[]} is missing in FlatCurry, too.
ICurry has a distinguished expression, \code{exempt},
to capture the absence of a rule:
\begin{curry}
function head
declare arg
arg = ROOT[1]
case LABEL(arg) of
[] -> exempt
: -> return arg[1]
\end{curry}
where \code{ROOT} is a reference to the root of the expression being
evaluated. This expression is rooted by \code{head}, which is the reason
why it is passed to function \code{head}.
\subsection{ICurry Use}
\label{ICurry Use}
The stated goal of ICurry is to be a format of Curry programs suitable
for translation into a low-level language. Below, we briefly report
our experience in translating ICurry into various target languages.
Table \ref{size-table} shows the size of a Curry program that translates
ICurry into a target language.
The numerical values in the table, extended from \cite{Wittorf18},
count the lines of code of the translator.
The table is only indicative since ``lines of code''
is not an accurate measure, and
some earlier compilers use older variants of ICurry that have
evolved over time.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{ | l | r | }
\hline
C & 441 \\
\hline
Python & 342 \\
\hline
Java & 790 \\
\hline
JavaScript & 632 \\
\hline
JSON & 232 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{size-table}
Number of Curry source lines of code for various
translators from ICurry to a target language.
}
\end{figure}
In all these cases, each ICurry construct has a direct translation
into the target language.
The following details refer to the translation into C.
Declarations and assignment are the same as in C.
The ICurry statements are translated as follows:
(1) the ICurry \emph{return} is the same as in C,
(2) an ICurry \emph{case statement} is translated into a C
\emph{switch statement} where the case selector is the tag of a node,
and (3) the ICurry \emph{exempt} statement is translated into
code that, when executed, terminates the executing computation
without producing any result.
This is justified by the facts that the evaluation strategy executes only
needed steps, and that failures in non-deterministic programs
are natural and expected, therefore they should be silently ignored.
The translation into JSON is used by Sprite \cite{AntoyJost16},
a Curry system under development, whose target language is C\raise 0.5ex\hbox{\tiny ++}.
The JSON format is more convenient when the client of ICurry code
is not coded in Curry.
The ICurry case expressions of a function's
code contain a branch for each constructor in the argument's type
and a branch for each of the following: the choice symbol, the
failure symbol, any function symbol \cite[Fig. 2]{AntoyJost16}, and
any free variable.
A dispatch table, which is addressed by the argument's label's tag, efficiently selects the
branch to be executed.
The behavior of the additional branches is described below, and
is the same across all the functions of a program.
A choice symbol in a pattern matched position results in
the execution of a pull-tabbing step \cite{Antoy11ICLP,BrasselHuchAPLAS07}.
A failure is propagated to the context.
A function symbol triggers the evaluation of the expression
rooted by this symbol.
Finally, a free variable
is instantiated to a choice of \emph{shallow} patterns
of the same type as the variable.
As an example, the evaluation of
\code{head x where x free}, instantiates \code{x}
to \code{[] ? (y:ys) where y, ys free}.
The alternative, \code{[]}, will result in failure.
This can be determined at compile time and removed during optimizations.
A similar approach is described in \cite{Wittorf18} where compilers
from Curry to Python and to C are developed.
As the table above indicates,
the compilers (written in Curry) are quite compact.
We observe that FlatCurry covers the complete language,
since it is the basis for robust Curry implementations,
like PAKCS and KiCS2, and the natural/operational semantics
of Curry are defined in FlatCurry \cite{AlbertHanusHuchOliverVidal05}.
ICurry contains the same information as FlatCurry except type
information, since the type correctness of a program
has been verified at the point of the compilation process
in which ICurry is used.
\subsection{ICurry Generation}
\label{ICurry Generation}
Current Curry distributions such as PAKCS \cite{Hanus18PAKCS} and
KiCS2 \cite{BrasselHanusPeemoellerReck11} provide a package with
the definition of FlatCurry and a rich API for its
construction and manipulation.
Therefore, the ICurry format of a Curry program is conveniently obtained
from the FlatCurry format of that program.
A fundamental difference between the two formats concerns expressions.
Expressions in FlatCurry may contain \emph{cases} and \emph{lets} as
the arguments of a function application.
These are banned in ICurry which allows only nested functional application.
The reason is that the latter can be directly translated into various
imperative languages, where the former cannot.
Therefore, any \emph{case} and \emph{let} constructs that are the arguments
of a function application are replaced by calls to
newly created functions.
These new functions execute these constructs at the top level.
This transformation takes FlatCurry into ICurry,
but it could be executed from FlatCurry into itself,
or even from source Curry into itself.
Our contrived example below shows the latter for ease of understanding.
The code of function \code{g} is irrelevant, therefore, it is not shown:
\begin{curry}
f x = g x (case x of ...)
\end{curry}
is transformed into:
\begin{curry}
f x = g x (h x)
h x = case x of ...
\end{curry}
The offending \emph{case}, as an argument of the application of \code{g}, has been
replaced by a call to a newly created function, \code{h}.
In function \code{h}, the \emph{case} is no longer an argument of a function
application.
The second major difference between FlatCurry and ICurry concerns
case expressions. FlatCurry matches a selector against
shallow constructor expressions,
where ICurry matches against constructor symbols.
Furthermore, the set of these symbols is complete and ordered in ICurry.
The transformation is relatively simple, except it may require non-local information.
A function in a module $M$ may pattern match on some instance of
a type $t$ that is not declared in $M$. Therefore, the constructors of $t$
must be accessed in some module different from that being compiled.
A third significant difference between FlatCurry and ICurry concerns
\emph{let blocks}. They are banned in ICurry, and replaced by
the explicit construction of nodes, and by the assignment of
these nodes' references to local variables.
An algorithm to translate FlatCurry into ICurry is
shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:flatcurry2icurry}.
\section{Related Work and Conclusion}
\label{Related Work and Conclusion}
Our work is centered on the compilation of Curry programs.
As in many compilers, our approach is transformational.
To compile a Curry program $P$, we translate $P$ into a language,
called \emph{target}, for which a compiler already exists.
This is the same route followed
by other Curry compilers like PAKCS \cite{Hanus18PAKCS}
and KiCS2 \cite{BrasselHanusPeemoellerReck11}.
PAKCS translates source Curry code into Prolog, leveraging the
existence of native free variables and non-determinism
in Prolog.
KiCS2 translates source Curry code into Haskell, leveraging the
existence of first-class function and their efficient
demand-driven execution in Haskell.
Both of these compilers use FlatCurry as an intermediate language.
They have the same front end which translates Curry into FlatCurry.
The use of FlatCurry simplifies the translation process,
but is still appropriate to express Curry computations without much effort .
FlatCurry has some relatively high-level constructs
that can be mapped directly into Prolog and Haskell,
because these languages are high-level too.
Before ICurry, a Curry compiler targeting a C-like language
would handle certain high-level constructs of FlatCurry
in whichever way each programmer would choose.
This led to both duplications of code and unnecessary differences.
ICurry originates from these efforts.
It abstracts the ideas that, over time, proved to be simple and effective
in a language-independent way.
With ICurry, the effort to produce a Curry compiler
targeting an imperative language is both shortened,
because more of the front end can be reused,
and simplified, because the
starting point of the translation is
independent of the target and is well understood.
Our work is complementary to, but independent of, other efforts toward
the compilation of Curry programs.
These efforts include the development
of evaluation strategies \cite{AntoyEchahedHanus00JACM},
or the handling of non-determinism \cite{Antoy11ICLP,BrasselHuchAPLAS07}.
Future work should investigate ICurry to ICurry transformations
that are likely to optimize the generated code.
For example, different orders of the declaration of variables
in a let block lead to different numbers of assignments.
Also, cases expressions as arguments of function
call can be moved outside the call in some situations rather than be
replaced by a call to a new function.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments}
This material is based in part upon work supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.~1317249.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{\sf Introduction}
Given a finite dimensional algebra $A$ over an algebraically closed field $k$, Han's conjecture relates two homological invariants associated to $A$:
its global dimension and its Hochschild homology. In the commutative case -- non necessarily finite dimensional but finitely generated -- the finiteness of the global dimension is equivalent to the fact that $A$ is geometrically regular \cite{AUSLANDERBUCHSBAUM,Se}. In general we are going to say that an algebra with finite global dimension is {\em smooth}.
On the other hand, we consider Hochschild homology of $A$. Let $A^e=A\otimes A^{op}$ be the enveloping algebra. Let us recall that given an $A$-bimodule $X$ -- or equivalently a left or right
$A^e$-module --, the Hochschild homology of $A$ with coefficients in $X$ is
$H_*(A,X)=\mathsf{Tor}^{A^e}_*(A,X)$; it is functorial in both variables.
Han's conjecture \cite{HAN} states that for $A$ finite dimensional, $A$ is smooth if and only if $H_n(A,A)=0$ for $n>>0$. The direct implication is true.
Next we recall some previous results. Well before being formulated, Han's conjecture has been proved for commutative algebras which are finitely generated, which encompasses finite dimensional commutative algebras, see \cite{BACH,AVRAMOVVIGUE}. Y. Han proved the conjecture for monomial algebras in \cite{HAN}. P.A. Bergh and D. Madsen have shown that it holds in characteristic zero for graded finite dimensional local algebras, Koszul algebras and graded cellular algebras \cite{BERGHMADSEN2009}. They have also obtained a confirmation of Han's conjecture in \cite{BERGHMADSEN2017} for trivial extensions of several sorts of algebras, by proving that their Hochschild homology is non zero in large enough degrees. P.A. Bergh and K. Erdmann proved in
\cite{BERGHERDMANN} that quantum complete intersections - at a non-root of unity - satisfy Han's conjecture, as well as A. Solotar and
M. Vigu\'{e}-Poirrier \cite{SOLOTARVIGUE} for a generalisation of quantum complete intersections and for a family of algebras which are in some
sense opposite to these last ones.
Later, A. Solotar, M. Su\'{a}rez-Alvarez and Q. Vivas proved in \cite{SOLOTARSUAREZVIVAS} Han's conjecture for quantum generalized Weyl algebras
(out of a few exceptional cases). In \cite{CIBILSREDONDOSOLOTAR} null-square projective algebras extensions were considered, the present paper goes further in this direction.
Concerning the commutative case, it is worth to mention that in characteristic zero, in positive degrees $HH_n(A)$ has a decomposition,
called Hodge decomposition, as a direct sum of subspaces, see for example \cite{GS, Ronco, Vigue}. One of them is the $n$-th exterior power of the $A$-module of K\"ahler differentials, $\Omega^n_{A|k}$ and another one is $D_n(A|k)$, the Andr\'e-Quillen homology of the commutative $k$-algebra $A$. When $A$ is smooth, in positive degrees $HH_n(A)= \Omega^n_{A|k}$ and the other summands annihilate.
In fact, the main condition for smoothness is that $D_n(A|k)=0$ for positive $n$ \cite{Iyengar}, and the Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence
for Andr\'e-Quillen homology relating $D_n(A|k)$, $D_n(A|B)$ and $D_n(B|k)$ for any extension of algebras $k\subseteq B \subseteq A$ plays an
important role.
In the non commutative setting Andr\'e-Quillen homology does not exist, but A.~Kaygun has proved recently in \cite{KAYGUN,KAYGUNe}
the existence of a
Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence starting in degree one for Hochschild homology for any extension of $k$-algebras
$B\subseteq A$, such that $A$ is $B$-flat. It relates the
ordinary Hochschild homologies of $A$ and $B$ with the relative Hochschild homology of $A$ with respect to $B$.
In this paper, with different hypotheses we also obtain a long exact sequence of
Jacobi-Zariski type for large enough degrees.
We consider split extension algebras in relation with Han's conjecture. By definition, a split extension algebra over a field $k$ is a $k$-algebra of the form $A=B\oplus M$, where $B$ is a subalgebra of $A$ and $M$ is a two-sided ideal of $A$.
As a consequence of our work, we prove that in some cases, adding or deleting arrows to a quiver -- even adding or deleting certain relations --
does not change the situation with respect to Han's conjecture, see also \cite{CIBILSLANZILOTTAMARCOSSOLOTAR}. Indeed, these processes are special cases of split extension algebras, see Example \ref{examples split}.\ref{all}. In a subsequent work, conditions will be given for these operations to fit within the framework of the theory we provide in this paper.
\normalsize
Next we describe the contents of this article. In Section \ref{section rrbr}, in order to compute the relative Hochschild (co)homology introduced by G. Hochschild in \cite{HOCHSCHILD1956}, we construct a reduced relative bar resolution of a split extension algebra.
We use it particularly when $M$ is $B$-tensor nilpotent, that is if there exists $n$ such that $M^{\otimes_B n}=0$.
In Section \ref{nearly} we obtain a Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence in the following situation.
A $B$-bimodule $M$ is called bounded if $M$ is $B$-tensor nilpotent, of finite projective dimension as $B$-bimodule and projective either as
left or as right $B$-module. A split bounded extension algebra is a split extension $A=B\oplus M$ where $M$ is bounded.
For these algebras we obtain a Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence in large enough degrees. We set up techniques based on nearly exact sequences of complexes, see Definition
\ref{sequence nearly exact}.
Actually the relative resolution of Section \ref{section rrbr} provides a nearly exact sequence, which in turn gives the required Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence in large enough degrees.
In Section \ref{Han} we prove our main result: the class $\mathcal{H}$ of finite dimensional algebras which verify Han's conjecture is closed under split bounded extensions. More precisely if $A=B\oplus M$ is such an extension, then $A\in\mathcal{H}$ if and only if $B\in\mathcal{H}$. We point out that this result does not depend on the associative structure of $M$, but on properties of its $B$-bimodule structure, see Definitions \ref{bounded} and \ref{split bounded extension}.The proofs make use of the Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence, and of the reduced relative bar resolution.
\section{\sf A reduced relative bar resolution for split extension algebras}\label{section rrbr}
Let $B\subset A$ be an extension of algebras over a field $k$. In this context G. Hochschild introduced in \cite{HOCHSCHILD1956}
relative homological algebra, which corresponds to consider the exact category of $A$-modules with respect to $B$-split short exact sequences, see \cite{QUILLEN,BUHLER}. More precisely, an\emph{ induced module} is an $A$-module of the form $A\otimes_BM$, where $M$ is a left $B$-module. An $A$-module $P$ is \emph{relative projective} if
any $A$-morphism $X\to P$ which has a $B$-section has an $A$-section.
Equivalently, $P$ is relative projective if it is an $A$-direct summand of an induced module.
There are enough relative projectives since for any $A$-module $X$ the canonical $A$-map $A\otimes_B X\to X$ has a $B$-section.
Of course if $B=k$ we recover the ordinary definition, and if $B=A$ all modules are relative projective.
A relative projective resolution of an $A$-module $X$ is a sequence
$$\cdots\stackrel{d}{\to}P_2\stackrel{d}{\to}P_1\stackrel{d}{\to}P_0\to X \to 0$$
where each $P_i$ is a relative projective $A$-module, the $d$'s are $A$-morphisms, $d^2=0$ and there exists a $B$-contracting homotopy, see \cite[p. 250]{HOCHSCHILD1956}.
Two relative projective resolutions of $X$ are homotopic and the functor $A\otimes_B -$ is exact,
so that for $X$ and $Y$ respectively right and left $A$-modules, the functor $\mathsf{Tor}_*^{A|B}(X,Y)$ is well defined. For $X$ and $Y$ left $A$-modules, the functor $\mathsf{Ext}^*_{A|B}(X,Y)$ is well defined.
Consider the extension of enveloping algebras $B^e\subset A^e$. For $X$ an $A$-bimodule, the relative Hochschild homology and cohomology vector spaces are defined in \cite{HOCHSCHILD1956} respectively as follows:
$$H_*(A|B,X)= \mathsf{Tor}_*^{A^e|B^e}(X,A)\mbox{\ \ and\ \ }H^*(A|B,X) = \mathsf{Ext}^*_{A^e|B^e}(A,X).$$
Observe that in \cite{HOCHSCHILD1956} those vector spaces are defined with respect to the extension $B\otimes A^{op}\subset A^e$. This turns out to be equivalent since the relative canonical resolution of $A$ is relative projective in both situations, and the canonical contracting homotopies agree.
Being derived functors, they can be computed using an arbitrary relative projective resolution. In particular these vector spaces are the homology and the cohomology of the following chains and cochains complexes $C_*(A|B,X)$ and $C^*(A|B,X)$:
$$\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes_{B^e} A^{\otimes_Bn}\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes_{B^e}A \stackrel{b}{\to} X_B\to 0,$$
$$0\to X^B\stackrel{b}{\to}\mathsf{Hom}_{B^e}(A,X)\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to}\mathsf{Hom}_{B^e}(A^{\otimes_Bn},X)\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots$$
where $$X_B= X\otimes_{B^e}B= X/\langle bx-xb\rangle = H_0(B,X),$$
$$X^B=\mathsf{Hom}_{B^e}(B,X)=\{x\in X\mid bx=xb \mbox{ for all } b\in B\}= H^0(B,X),$$
and where the formulas for the boundaries and coboundaries are the ordinary ones.
\begin{defi}
An extension of algebras $B\subset A$ is \emph{split} if there is a morphism of algebras $\pi: A\to B$ which is a retraction to the inclusion, that is $\pi(b)=b$ for all $b\in B$.
\end{defi}
Clearly $B\subset A$ is split if and only if there exists a two-sided ideal $M$ of $A$ such that $A=B\oplus M$.
Next we provide some examples of split extensions. In the last example we add arrows to the quiver of a bound quiver algebra. Note that in relation to the finitistic dimension conjecture, E.L. Green, C. Psaroudakis and {\O}. Solberg \cite{GREENPSAROUDAKISSOLBERG} have considered the case of adding exactly one arrow, which leads to a trivial extension.
\begin{exams}\label{examples split}
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let $B$ be an algebra, let $N$ be a $B$-bimodule and let $T$ be the tensor algebra $$T=T_B(N)=B\oplus\ N\ \oplus\ N\otimes_BN\ \oplus \cdots.$$ Let $T^{>i}=N^{\otimes_Bi+1}\ \oplus\ N^{\otimes_Bi+2} \oplus \cdots $
We have $T=B\oplus T^{>0}$, that is $T$ is a split extension. Moreover, if $J\subset T^{>0}$ is a two-sided ideal of $T$, then $B\subset T/J$ is a split extension as well.
\item \label{quiver} Let $Q$ be a finite quiver, that is $Q=(Q_0,Q_1,s,t)$ where $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ are finite sets called respectively vertices and arrows, and $s,t:Q_0\to Q_1$ are maps called respectively source and target. Let $A=kQ/I$ be a bound quiver algebra, where $kQ$ is the path algebra of $Q$ and $I$ is an admissible two-sided ideal of $kQ$, see \cite{GABRIEL1972,GABRIEL1973,GABRIEL1980} and \cite{ASSEMSIMSONSKOWRONSKY,SCHIFFLER}. The extension $B=kQ_0\subset A$ is split.
\item \label{all} Let $B=kQ/I$ be a bound quiver algebra, and let $F$ be a finite set of new arrows, that is $F$ is a finite set with two maps
$s,t:F\to Q_0$. Let $Q_F$ be the quiver with the same vertices than $Q$, while its arrows are $Q_1\sqcup F$.
Let $B_F= kQ_F/\langle I\rangle_{kQ_F}$, where the denominator is the two-sided ideal of $kQ_F$ generated by $I$. It is easily proven that $B_F= T_B(N)$ where
\begin{equation}\label{N F}
N=\bigoplus_{a\in F} Bt(a)\otimes s(a)B.
\end{equation}
Let $J\subset B_F^{>0}$ be a two-sided ideal of $B_F$. The algebra $$A=B_F/J = B\oplus (B_F^{>0}/J)$$ is also a split extension.
\end{enumerate}
\end{exams}
The first item of the next result is a generalisation of a reduced bar resolution obtained in \cite[Lemma 2.1]{CIBILS1990}.
\begin{theo}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split extension of algebras.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a \emph{reduced relative bar resolution} of $A$ as $A$-bimodule
\begin{equation}\label{rrbr}\cdots\stackrel{d}{\to}A\otimes_BM^{\otimes_Bn}\otimes_BA\stackrel{d}{\to}\cdots\stackrel{d}{\to}A\otimes_BM\otimes_BA\stackrel{d}{\to}A\otimes_BA
\stackrel{d}{\to}A\to 0\end{equation}
where the formulas for the $d$'s are those of the ordinary bar resolution, see \cite{HOCHSCHILD1945,HOCHSCHILD1956}.
\suspend{enumerate}
In what follows the formulas for the (co)boundaries are the ordinary ones.
\resume{enumerate}
\item Let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule. The homology of the following chain complex $C_*^M(A|B,X)$ is $H_*(A|B,X)$.
\begin{equation}{ C_*^M(A|B,X) }: \ \ \cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes_{B^e} M^{\otimes_Bn}\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes_{B^e}M \stackrel{b}{\to} X_B\to 0\end{equation}
\item The cohomology of the following cochain complex $C_M^*(A|B,X)$ is \\$H^*(A|B,X)$.
\begin{equation}0\to X^B\stackrel{b}{\to}\mathsf{Hom}_{B^e}(M,X)\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to}\mathsf{Hom}_{B^e}(M^{\otimes_Bn},X)\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
By construction, the bimodules involved in the first item are induced bimodules, hence they are relative projective. Let $a=a_B+a_M$ be the decomposition of $a\in A=B\oplus M$, and let
$$t(a_1\otimes m_2\otimes\cdots\otimes m_{n+1}\otimes a_{n+2})=1\otimes (a_1)_M\otimes m_2\otimes\cdots\otimes m_{n+1}\otimes a_{n+2}.$$
It is easily proven that $t$ is a well defined $B^e$-morphism, which is a contracting homotopy.
The second item is obtained by applying the functor $X\otimes_{A^e}-$ to the resolution, and the following canonical isomorphism where $Z$ is a $B$-bimodule
$$X\otimes_{A^e}\left(A\otimes_BZ\otimes_BA\right)= X\otimes_{B^e}Z.$$
The last item is obtained analogously.\hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}\label{contraction homotopy A}
For later use, we record that the contracting homotopy $t$ in the previous proof is also a right $A$-module map.
\end{rema}
A $B$-bimodule $M$ is \emph{$B$-tensor nilpotent} if there exists $n$ such that $M^{\otimes_B n}=0$. Moreover $n$ is the index of $B$-tensor nilpotency if $M^{\otimes_B n-1}\neq 0$. For instance, let $kQ$ be the path algebra of a quiver $Q$. The $kQ_0$-bimodule $\langle Q_1\rangle\subset kQ$ is $kQ_0$-tensor nilpotent if and only if there is no oriented cycle in $Q$.
\begin{coro}\label{tensor nilpotent H vanish in large degrees}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split extension, where $M$ is $B$-tensor nilpotent of index $n$. Let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule. For $*\geq n$ we have
$$H_*(A|B,X)=0\mbox{\ \ and\ \ }H^*(A|B,X) =0.$$
\end{coro}
Let $C_*(A,X)$ be the ordinary chain complex
\begin{equation} C_*(A,X): \cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes A^{\otimes n}\stackrel{b}{\to}\cdots \stackrel{b}{\to} X\otimes A \stackrel{b}{\to} X\to 0\end{equation}
whose homology is the Hochschild homology $H_*(A,X)$ of an $A$-bimodule $X$.
Towards obtaining a Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence for a split extension algebra, we observe the following.
\begin{prop}\label{sequence of complexes}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split extension of algebras, and let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule. For $*\geq1$, there is a sequence of chain complexes
\begin{equation}\label{the sequence}
0\to C_*(B,X)\stackrel{\iota}{\to} C_*(A,X)\stackrel{\kappa}{\to} C_*^M(A|B,X)\to 0
\end{equation}
where $\iota$ is injective, $\kappa$ is surjective and $\kappa\iota=0$.
In degree $0$ we have the sequence
$$0\to X \stackrel{1}{\to} X\to X_B\to 0.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The definition of the map $\iota$ is clear, and it is also clear that $\iota$ is an injective map of complexes. The map $\kappa$ given by
$$x\otimes a_1\otimes\cdots\otimes a_n \mapsto x\otimes_{B^e}\left[ \left(a_1\right)_M\otimes_B\cdots\otimes_B \left(a_n\right)_M\right]$$
is surjective, and $\kappa\iota=0$.
The verification that $\kappa$ is a map of complexes does not raise any difficulty. It uses extensively that $(aa')_M= a_Ma'_M+a_Ba'_M+a_Ma'_B$ for $a,a'\in A$ and that the first tensor product in $C_*^M(A|B,X)$ is over $B^e$.\hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}
Considering $C_*(A|B,X)$ instead of $C_*^M(A|B,X)$, and $\kappa'$ given by
$$x\otimes a_1\otimes\cdots\otimes a_n \mapsto x\otimes_{B^e}\left[ a_1\otimes_B\cdots\otimes_B a_n\right]$$
does not give in general $\kappa'\iota=0$.
\end{rema}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split extension. In the ensuing decomposition of the vector space $A^{\otimes n}$, let $[M_pB_q]$ be the direct sum of the direct summands containing $p$ tensorands in $M$ and $q$ tensorands in $B$, with $p+q=n$. For instance
-- omitting the $\otimes$ signs -- we have that
$$[M_2B_2]= MMBB \oplus MBMB \oplus MBBM \oplus BMBM \oplus BMMB\oplus BBMM$$
which is a direct summand of $A^{\otimes 4}$.
We set
\begin{equation}\label{K}
K_{n,0} = \mathsf{Ker} (X\otimes M^{\otimes n}\twoheadrightarrow X\otimes_{B^e} M^{\otimes_B n}).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemm}\label{defect}
In the situation of Proposition \ref{sequence of complexes},
$$
\arraycolsep=1mm\def2{2}
\begin{array}{llll}
\mathsf{Ker} \kappa = \bigoplus_{\substack{p+q=n\\p\geq 0 \ q>0}}\ X\otimes [M_pB_q] \ \oplus\ K_{n,0}\\
\mathsf{Im} \iota = X\otimes [M_0B_n]\\
\mathsf{Ker}\kappa/\mathsf{Im} \iota= \bigoplus_{\substack{p+q=n\\p>0\ q>0}}\ X\otimes [M_pB_q] \ \oplus\ K_{n,0}.
\end{array}
$$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Consider the direct sum decomposition $$X\otimes A^{\otimes n} = \bigoplus_{\substack{p+q=n\\p\geq 0\ q\geq 0}}\ X\otimes [M_pB_q].$$
If $q>0$, then $\kappa\left(X\otimes [M_pB_q]\right)=0$, hence $$\bigoplus_{\substack{p+q=n\\p\geq 0\ q>0}}\ X\otimes [M_pB_q]\subset \mathsf{Ker} \kappa.$$
Instead if $q=0$, then $\kappa_{\big |{X\otimes M^{\otimes n}}}$ is not zero in general and its kernel is denoted $K_{n,0}$. It follows that $\mathsf{Ker} \kappa$ is as stated.
In turn, in the above direct sum decomposition of $X\otimes A^{\otimes n}$, the direct summand for $p=0$ and $q=n$ is clearly $\mathsf{Im} \iota$. This vector space is one of the direct summands obtained above for $\mathsf{Ker} \kappa$. The decomposition of $\mathsf{Ker}\kappa/\mathsf{Im} \iota$ follows.
\hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
\section{\sf Nearly exact sequences and the Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence}\label{nearly}
In this section we will prove that if a sequence as (\ref{the sequence}) has zero homology for large enough degrees at the second page
of the associated spectral sequence, then there is a long exact sequence in homology starting at this precise degree.
\begin{defi}\label{sequence nearly exact}
A sequence of chain complexes concentrated in non negative degrees
$$0\to C_*\stackrel{\iota}{\to} D_*\stackrel{\kappa}{\to} E_*\to 0$$
is \emph{$m$-nearly exact} if
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]$\iota$ is injective,
\item[-] $\kappa$ is surjective,
\item[-]$\kappa\iota=0$,
\item[-] the chain complex $\mathsf{Ker} \kappa/\mathsf{Im} \iota$ with boundary induced by the boundary of $D$, is exact in degrees $\geq m$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
We will prove later on that under some hypotheses, the sequence of Proposition \ref{sequence of complexes} is nearly exact.
\begin{theo}\label{long exact sequence}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{nearly exact}
0\to C_*\stackrel{\iota}{\to} D_*\stackrel{\kappa}{\to} E_*\to 0
\end{equation}
be a $m$-nearly exact sequence of chain complexes. There is a long exact sequence as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\dots \stackrel{\delta}{\to} H_{m+1}(C) \stackrel{\iota}{\to} H_{m+1}(D) \stackrel{\kappa}{\to} H_{m+1}(E) \stackrel{\delta}{\to} H_{m}(C) \stackrel{\iota}{\to} H_{m}(D).
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
We will use standard results on spectral sequences, see for instance \cite{MCCLEARY} or \cite{WEIBEL}.
The homological double complex arising from the sequence (\ref{nearly exact}) with the standard change of signs, has the complexes $E$, $D$ and $C$ at columns $p=0$, $1$ and $2$ respectively. Firstly we claim that this complex has zero homology in total degrees $\geq m+1$. Indeed, consider the spectral sequence given by the filtration by the rows. At the first page the columns corresponding to $p=0,2$ are zero since $\iota$ is injective and $\kappa$
is surjective. At column $p=1$ we have the homology vector spaces of the sequence (\ref{nearly exact}) corresponding to the complex
in the middle. Since the sequence is $m$-nearly exact, at the second page the column $p=1$ has zeros in degrees $\geq m$, and
zeros elsewhere. This proves the claim.
Secondly we consider the filtration by columns. In page $1$ of the corresponding spectral sequence, let $\iota_1$ and $\kappa_1$ be the horizontal maps induced by $\iota$ and $\kappa$ at the homology level of the complexes of the sequence (\ref{nearly exact}). They are the morphisms of the intended long exact sequence. We assert that in degrees $\geq m+1$ there is exactness at
the column corresponding to the homology of $D$. Indeed, the vector spaces at the second page at column $p=1$ are
$\mathsf{Ker} \kappa_1/\mathsf{Im} \iota_1$. At these spots the differentials $d_2$ come from zero and go to zero. Hence these vector spaces live forever in the subsequent pages of the spectral sequence. We proved before that the complex has no homology in total degrees $\geq m+1$, hence these vector spaces vanish in degrees $\geq m+1$.
Finally we turn to the connecting homomorphism $\delta$. In the second page of the spectral sequence just considered, at columns $p=0,2$ we have respectively $\mathsf{Coker}\kappa_1$ and $\mathsf{Ker}\iota_1$. We assert that the differentials $d_2: \mathsf{Ker}\iota_1 \to \mathsf{Coker} \kappa_1$ from total degree $m+1$ to total degree $m$ are isomorphisms, as well as in larger degrees. Indeed, in these degrees $\mathsf{Ker} d_2$ and $\mathsf{Coker} d_2$ live forever in the spectral sequence, hence they vanish by the same argument than above. We assert that composing $d_2^{-1}$ with the inclusion of $\mathsf{Ker}\iota_1$ and the canonical projection to $\mathsf{Coker}\kappa_1$ provides the required connecting homomorphism $\delta$ of the long exact sequence for these degrees. Indeed, by construction $\mathsf{Ker}\delta=\mathsf{Im} \kappa_1$ and $\mathsf{Im} \delta= \mathsf{Ker}\iota_1$. \hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
For the next result we assume that the $B$-bimodule $M$ verifies that for $*>0$ we have $\mathsf{Tor}_*^B(M, M^{\otimes_B n})=0$ for all $n$. Note that this is fulfilled if $M$ is either a left or a right projective $B$-module.
\normalsize
\begin{prop}\label{F}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split algebra, let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule and consider the sequence (\ref{the sequence}) as a double complex after performing the standard change of signs. Let $E^2_{1,*}$ be the second page
of the spectral sequence obtained by filtering by rows.
There is a double complex $C_{*,*}$ which total homology is $E^2_{1,*}$. The filtration by columns of $C_{*,*}$ yields a spectral sequence. If $M$ verifies that for $*>0$ we have $\mathsf{Tor}_*^B(M, M^{\otimes_B n})=0$ for all $n$, the terms at page $1$ are
$$F^1_{p,q}= \mathsf{Tor}^{B^e}_{p+q}(X,M^{\otimes_Bp}) \mbox{ for } p,q>0$$
and $0$ otherwise.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{defect},
$$E^1_{1,n}=\bigoplus_{\substack{p+q=n\\p>0\ q>0}}\ X\otimes [M_pB_q] \ \oplus\ K_{n,0}.$$ The differential of this column is deduced from the one of $C_*(A,X)$. Clearly this column is the total complex of the double chain complex.
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_{p,q}=X\otimes [M_pB_q]$ for $p,q>0$,
\item $C_{p,0}=K_{p,0}$ for $p>0,$
\item $0$ at other spots.
\end{itemize}
We modify momentarily $C_{*,*}$ at its bottom line as follows: \\
\centerline{$C'_{*,*}= X\otimes [M_pB_q]$ for $p>0, q\geq 0$, and $0$ at other spots,}\\
with differentials still inherited from $C_*(A,X)$.
We assert that the homology of the column $p=1$ of $C'_{*,*}$ is $\mathsf{Tor}^{B^e}_*(X,M)$. To this purpose, we next recall a specific projective resolution of $M$ as a $B^e$-module which is provided in the proof of Proposition 4.1 of \cite{CIBILS2000}. We have that the functor $X\otimes_{B^e}-$ applied to it yields the mentioned column, proving this way the assertion. As before, we omit the tensor product sign $\otimes$ over $k$.
Let
$${}^qM^p=\underbrace{B\cdots B}_q M\underbrace{ B\cdots B}_p$$
and consider the following complex of free $B^e$-modules:
$$\cdots\stackrel{d}{\to}\displaystyle \bigoplus_{\substack{ p+q=n+1\\ p>0\ q>0}} {}^qM^p\stackrel{d}{\to}\cdots\stackrel{d}{\to}\ {}^1M^2\oplus {}^2M^1 \ \stackrel{d}{\to}\ {}^1M^1 \ \stackrel{d}{\to} M\to 0,$$
where the first differential is special, namely $d(b\otimes m\otimes b')=bmb'$. In larger degrees, the differential is the differential of the total complex of the double complex which has ${}^qM^p$ at the spot $(q,p)$, with vertical and horizontal differentials ${}^qM^p \to {}^qM^{p-1}$ and ${}^qM^p \to {}^{q-1}M^{p}$ given respectively by
\vskip1mm
$b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p\mapsto \\ (-1)^{q+1}[b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p+\\
\sum (-1)^i b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots \otimes b'_ib_{i+1} \otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p]$
\vskip1mm
and
\vskip1mm
$b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p\mapsto \\
\sum (-1)^i b_1\otimes \cdots \otimes b_ib_{i+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes b_q\otimes m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p+\\
(-1)^q b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p.$
\vskip1mm
We make precise that the vertical and horizontal differentials ${}^qM^1 \to {}^qM^{0}$ and ${}^1M^p \to {}^{0}M^{p}$ are given respectively by
\vskip1mm
$b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m \otimes b'_1\mapsto (-1)^{q+1}b_1\otimes \cdots\otimes b_q\otimes m b'_1$
\vskip1mm
and
\vskip1mm
$b_1\otimes m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p\mapsto
- b_1m \otimes b'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b'_p.$
\vskip1mm
\normalsize
For the column $p=2$ of $C'_{*,*}$, let $F_\bullet \to M$ be the previous projective resolution of $M$ by free bimodules. Its tensor product over $B$ with the left bar resolution
$$\cdots \to BBM\to BM\to M\to 0$$ of $M$ provides the following double complex $\mathbf D$:
\vskip3mm
\begin{tikzcd}
& \vdots \arrow[d] & \vdots \arrow[d] & \vdots \arrow[d] & \\
0 & BBM\otimes_BM \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & BBM\otimes_BF_0 \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & BBM\otimes_BF_1 \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & \cdots \arrow[l] \\
0 & BM\otimes_BM \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & BM\otimes_BF_0 \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & BM\otimes_BF_1 \arrow[d] \arrow[l] & \cdots \arrow[l] \\
0 & M\otimes_BM \arrow[l] \arrow[d] & M\otimes_BF_0 \arrow[l] \arrow[d] & M\otimes_BF_1 \arrow[l] \arrow[d] & \cdots \arrow[l] \\
& 0 & 0 & 0 &
\end{tikzcd}
\vskip3mm
The bar resolution has a right $B$-module contracting homotopy. Hence the columns of $\mathbf D$ are acyclic and its total complex $\mathsf{Tot}(\mathbf{D})$ is exact.
However the bimodules of the bottom row and of the left column are not projective in general, while the others are. In order to obtain the required projective resolution of $M\otimes_B M$ as a bimodule, we proceed as in \cite{CIBILS2000}. Let $\mathbf S$ be the double subcomplex of $\mathbf D$ given by the bottom row and the left column. We claim that $\mathsf{Tot}(\mathbf{D/S}) \to M\otimes_BM$ is a free resolution of $M\otimes_BM$ as a $B$-bimodule.
First note that the homology of the bottom row is precisely $\mathsf{Tor}_*^B(M,M)$, which is zero in positive degrees by hypothesis. Hence $\mathsf{Tot}(\mathbf S)$ is exact in positive degrees, while in degree zero its homology is $M\otimes_B M$: indeed, observe that for surjective morphisms $f: Y\to X$ and $g:Z\to X$, and $(f,g): Y\oplus Z\to X$ we have that
$$\frac{\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits (f,g)}{\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits f\oplus\mathop{\rm Ker}\nolimits g} \mbox{ is isomorphic to } X$$
by the map induced by $f$ or by $g$.
Next we consider the long exact sequence associated to the exact sequence of complexes
$$0\to \mathbf S \to \mathbf D\to \mathbf {D/S}\to 0.$$
It shows that $\mathsf{Tot}(\mathbf{D/S})$ is acyclic except in its last term where the homology is $M\otimes_B M$. This provides the required resolution of $M\otimes_B M$.
Next we iterate the process by tensoring the last resolution with the left bar resolution of $M$. As before, we use that $\mathsf{Tor}_*^B(M,M\otimes_B M)=0$ in positive degrees to infer a projective resolution of the $B$-bimodule $M\otimes_B M\otimes_B M$.
This shows that the homology of the $p$-th column is $\mathsf{Tor}^{B^e}_{*}(X,M^{\otimes_Bp})$.
\normalsize
In order to return to $C_{*,*}$, note that by (\ref{K}) we have $$(X\otimes M^{\otimes p})/K_{p,0} = X\otimes_{B^e} M^{\otimes_B p} = \mathsf{Tor}^{B^e}_0(X,M^{\otimes_Bp}).$$
Hence replacing the bottom row of $C'$ by $K_{*,0}$ yields surjective maps at the bottom stage of each column, therefore we have zero homology at spots of the bottom row of $C$. \hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
Next we provide sufficient conditions to ensure that the sequence (\ref{the sequence}) of Proposition \ref{sequence of complexes} is nearly exact.
\begin{defi}\label{bounded}
Let $B$ be an algebra. A $B$-bimodule $M$ is \emph{bounded} if
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $M$ is $B$-tensor nilpotent,
\item [-] $M$ is of finite projective dimension as a $B^e$-module,
\item [-] $M$ is either a left or a right projective $B$-module.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
\begin{rema}
Let $B$ be an algebra, and let $M$ be a $B$-bimodule with a \emph{$B$-associative structure,} that is an associative map of $B$-bimodules $M\otimes_B M\to M$. Then $B\oplus M$ is a split extension algebra. Of course all split extensions occurs this way.
We underline that in the requirement that $M$ is bounded, the $B$-associative structure of $M$ is not involved. \end{rema}
\begin{defi} \label{split bounded extension} A \emph{ split bounded extension} $B\oplus M$ is a split extension where $M$ is bounded.
\end{defi}
\begin{prop}\label{it is nearly exact}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split bounded extension. Let $n$ be the index of $B$-tensor nilpotency of $M$. Let $u$ be the projective dimension of $M$ as a $B^e$-module, and let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule.
The sequence (\ref{the sequence}) is $nu$-nearly exact.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We consider the spaces $F_{p,q}^1= \mathsf{Tor}^{B^e}_{p+q}(M^{\otimes_Bp}, X) \mbox{ for } p,q>0$ of Proposition \ref{F}. On the one hand $F_{p,q}^1=0$ for $p\geq v$.
On the other hand, from \cite[Chapter IX, Proposition 2.6]{CARTANEILENBERG} we infer that since $M$ is projective either as left or as right
$B$-module, and is of projective dimension $u$ as a $B$-bimodule, then $M^{\otimes_Bp}$ is of projective dimension $\leq$
$pu$. Hence if $p+q\geq pu$, then $F_{p,q}^1=0$.
As a consequence, if $p+q\geq nu$, then $F_{p,q}^1=0$. By Proposition \ref{F} we obtain that if $*\geq nu$ then $E^2_{1,*}=0$, which means that the column of homologies from the middle of the sequence (\ref{the sequence}) has in turn no homology in degrees $\geq nu$, that is the sequence is $nu$-nearly exact.\hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{proof}
The previous result and Theorem \ref{long exact sequence} prove the following.
\begin{theo}\label{JZ nosotros}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split bounded extension as in Proposition \ref{it is nearly exact}, and let $X$ be an $A$-bimodule. There is a Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence as follows.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dots \stackrel{\delta}{\to} & H_{nu+1}m(B,X) \stackrel{\iota}{\to} H_{nu+1}(A,X) \stackrel{\kappa}{\to} H_{nu+1}(A|B,X) \stackrel{\delta}{\to} \\& H_{nu}(B,X)\stackrel{\iota}{\to} H_{nu}(A,X).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
\section{\sf Han's conjecture}\label{Han}
A finite dimensional algebra is called \emph{smooth} if it is of finite global dimension. As it is mentioned in the Introduction,
the word smooth is originated in commutative algebra and is useful here for brevity. Note that for noetherian rings, the left and right global dimensions are equal, see \cite{AUSLANDER}.
Han's conjecture states that for $A$ a finite dimensional algebra, $H_*(A,A)$ vanishes in large enough degrees if and only if $A$ is smooth. Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the class of finite dimensional algebras which verify Han's conjecture. Our aim is to prove the following.
\begin{theo}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split bounded extension of finite dimensional algebras.
$A\in\mathcal{H}$ if and only if $B\in\mathcal{H}.$
\end{theo}
The proof relies on the next result.
\begin{prop}
Let $A=B\oplus M$ be a split bounded extension of finite dimensional algebras.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{1} $H_*(A,A)$ vanishes in large enough degrees if and only if $H_*(B,B)$ vanishes in large enough degrees.
\item $A$ is smooth if and only if $B$ is smooth.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rema} For a split extension $A=B\oplus M$, it is trivial that if $H_*(A,A)$ vanishes in large enough degrees, then the same happens
for $H_*(B,B)$. Indeed, $H_*(-,-)$ is a functor on the category of algebras. Hence $H_*(B,B)$ is a direct summand of $H_*(A,A)$.
\end{rema}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Recall that $n$ is the index of $B$-nilpotency of $M$, and $u$ is the projective dimension of $M$ as a $B^e$-module. We claim that $H_*(A,A)$ and $H_*(B,B)$ are isomorphic if $*\geq nu+1$.
Recall that by Corollary \ref{tensor nilpotent H vanish in large degrees} we have that $H_*(A|B,A)$ vanishes for $*\geq n$. Hence the Jacobi-Zariski long exact sequence of Theorem \ref{JZ nosotros} shows that $H_*(B,A)$ and $H_*(A,A)$ are isomorphic for $*\geq nu+1$.
On the other hand
$H_*(B,A)= H_*(B,B)\oplus H_*(B,M)$. Moreover, $$H_*(B,M)=\mathsf{Tor}_*^{B^e}(B,M).$$
Hence if $*\geq u$, then $H_*(B,M)=0$ and $H_*(B,A)= H_*(B,B)$.
\item
The bimodule $M$ is projective from at least one side, we will suppose that $M$ is right projective.
First we prove that if $A$ is smooth then $B$ is smooth. Let $\pi:A\to B$ be the retraction algebra map of $B\subset A$, with kernel $M$. Let $Y$ be a right $B$-module, and let $\overline{Y}$ be the $A$-module obtained by restricting scalars through $\pi$. We have $Y=\overline{Y}$ as right $B$-modules and $\overline{Y}M=0$.
Let $P_*\to \overline{Y}$ be a finite right $A$-projective resolution of $\overline{Y}$. It remains of course exact when considering it as an exact sequence of right $B$-modules. Moreover, if $P$ is a right projective $A$-module then it is also projective as a right $B$-module. Indeed, this is true for the free rank one $A$-module $B\oplus M$. Then the standard arguments enable to conclude.
To prove that if $B$ is smooth then so is $A$, we begin by proving that any induced $A$-module $Z=A\otimes_BY$ is of finite projective dimension. Let $Q_*\to Y$ be a finite left $B$-projective resolution of $Y$. The functor $A\otimes_B-$ is exact since $A$ is right projective. Moreover if $Q$ is a left projective $B$-module, then $A\otimes_BQ$ is a left projective $A$-module, this follows from the fact that
this is true for $Q=B$. Therefore $A\otimes_BQ_*\to A\otimes_BY$ is a finite left $A$-projective resolution of the induced module $Z$.
Let $X$ be a left $A$-module. We claim that there exists an exact sequence of $A$-modules
$0\to Z_n\to Z_{n-1}\to\cdots\to Z_0\to X\to 0$
where the $A$-modules $Z_i$ are induced. This claim ends the proof, indeed each $Z_i$ is of finite projective dimension by the previous assertion, hence $X$ is of finite projective dimension.
To prove the claim, consider the relative reduced bar resolution \ref{rrbr}, which is finite since $M$ is $B$-tensor nilpotent. Moreover
its contracting homotopy is a right $A$-module map, see Remark \ref{contraction homotopy A}. Consequently the relative reduced bar resolution remains exact by applying the functor $-\otimes_AX$. For some $n$ we obtain
$$0{\to}A\otimes_BM^{\otimes_Bn}\otimes_BX{\to}\cdots{\to}A\otimes_BM\otimes_BX{\to}A\otimes_BX
{\to} X\to 0.$$
Note that all the $A$-modules except $X$ are induced $A$-modules.\hfill $\diamond$ \bigskip
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
|
\section*{Supplemental Information: Sub-microsecond entangling gate between trapped ions via Rydberg interaction}
\section{Theory of STIRAP process for two interacting ions}
\label{theory}
For one ion, we have already demonstrated high-efficiency population transfer between $|0\rangle$ and $|r\rangle$ via STIRAP \cite{higgins2017}. As shown in Fig. 1(a) of the main manuscript, when two laser fields $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ resonantly couple $|0\rangle$ and $|r\rangle$ via the intermediate state $|e\rangle$, the three single-atom eigenstates and eigenenergies (in the rotating-wave frame) are
\begin{eqnarray*}
| \phi_\mathrm{dark} \rangle = \Omega_2 |0\rangle - \Omega_1 |r\rangle, &\quad & E_\mathrm{dark} = 0 \\
| \phi_+ \rangle = \Omega_1 |0\rangle + \left(\Delta + \sqrt{\Omega_1^2 + \Omega_2^2 + \Delta^2}\right)|e\rangle + \Omega_2 |r\rangle, &\quad & E_+ = \frac{1}{2} \left(\Delta + \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 4 \Omega_1^2 + 4 \Omega_2^2}\right) \\
| \phi_- \rangle = \Omega_1 |0\rangle + \left(\Delta - \sqrt{\Omega_1^2 + \Omega_2^2 + \Delta^2}\right)|e\rangle + \Omega_2 |r\rangle, &\quad & E_- = \frac{1}{2} \left(\Delta - \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 4 \Omega_1^2 + 4 \Omega_2^2}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
The eigenstate $| \phi_\mathrm{dark} \rangle$ is a superposition of $|0\rangle$ and $|r\rangle$, and the amplitudes and phases of $|0\rangle$ and $|r\rangle$ are determined by the ratio $\Omega_1/\Omega_2$ of the Rabi frequencies. It is called dark state because it does not involve $|e\rangle$. At the beginning of the STIRAP sequence (Fig. 3(b) of the main manuscript), $\Omega_1/\Omega_2=0$ and the initial state $|0\rangle$ is identical to $| \phi_\mathrm{dark} \rangle$. Then the laser fields change gradually and the state follows the dark eigenstate to the final state $| r \rangle$ when $\Omega_2/\Omega_1=0$. To transfer the population back to $|0\rangle$, the reverse pulse sequence is applied. Decoherence is caused by spontaneous decay of the Rydberg state, finite laser linewidth, and further population transfer inefficiency results from transitions between adiabatic eigenstates driven by the time-dependent Hamiltonian. The latter effect is minimised when $\Delta=0$ and the laser Rabi frequencies change sinusoidally.
For two non-interacting ions, the two-ion state follows $ | \phi_\mathrm{dark} \phi_\mathrm{dark} \rangle \equiv |\phi_\mathrm{dark}\rangle_1 |\phi_\mathrm{dark}\rangle_2$ when STIRAP is applied. However, in the presence of the Rydberg interaction, $ | \phi_\mathrm{dark} \phi_\mathrm{dark} \rangle$ is resonantly coupled to $ | \phi_+ \phi_- \rangle$ and $| \phi_- \phi_+ \rangle$, and the coupling strength is
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi_\mathrm{dark} \phi_\mathrm{dark} | \hat{V}_\mathrm{dd}| \phi_+ \phi_- \rangle \approx \frac{V_\mathrm{max}}{2} \left(\frac{\Omega_1 \Omega_2}{\Omega_1^2 + \Omega_2^2}\right)^2
\end{equation}
When both $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ are non-zero (during STIRAP), the eigenstate has a significant $|e\rangle$-component and decays fast to ground state ($\Gamma_e \simeq 2\pi \times 4.5\,\mathrm{MHz}$). To suppress population $\rho_e$ in $|e\rangle$, a detuning $\Delta \gg V_\mathrm{max}$ needs to be used to separate the eigenenergies of the bright (lossy) eigenstates and the dark eigenstate, since $ \rho_{e,\mathrm{max}} \sim \frac{V_\mathrm{max}^2}{16 \Delta^2}$. The energy shift of the dark state caused by this unwanted coupling is small, $\delta_{E,\mathrm{max}} \sim \frac{V_\mathrm{max}^2}{32 \Delta}$. Additionally, $\Delta \ll \Omega_\mathrm{max}$ is required for adiabaticity.
In the next sections, the STIRAP process with all known error sources is simulated numerically to understand and estimate the gate errors in our experiment.
\section{Numerical simulation}
\label{simulation}
\subsection{Rydberg interaction gate}
During the gate process, six atomic levels are considered, $\{|1\rangle,|0\rangle,|e\rangle,|s\rangle,|p\rangle,|g\rangle\}$, where $|g\rangle$ is the other sublevel of the ground state $5S_{1/2}$. The states $\{|1\rangle,|0\rangle,|e\rangle,|s\rangle,|p\rangle\}$ are described in Fig.~1 in the main manuscript. Spontaneous decay can finish in both sublevels of $5S_{1/2}$ ($|1\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$). The UV laser coupling Hamiltonian is described by
\begin{equation}
H_L = \frac{1}{2} \Omega_1 (t) (|0\rangle \langle e| + |e\rangle \langle 0|) + \frac{1}{2} \Omega_2 (t) (|e\rangle \langle s| + |s\rangle \langle e|)
\end{equation}
and the Hamiltonian of the MW field is
\begin{equation}
H_\mathrm{MW} = \frac{1}{2} \Omega_\mathrm{MW} (|s\rangle \langle p| + |p\rangle \langle s|)
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian describing the interaction between two ions in Rydberg states is
\begin{equation}
H_I = V_\mathrm{dd} (|sp\rangle \langle ps| + |ps\rangle \langle sp|)
\end{equation}
This yields the total Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H(t) = (H_L(t) + H_\mathrm{MW})_1 \otimes I_2 + I_1 \otimes (H_L(t) + H_\mathrm{MW})_2 + H_I
\end{equation}
The spontaneous decay process from the $|e\rangle$, $|s\rangle$ and $|p\rangle$ to $|1\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$ is described by the collapse operators
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{e,1} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_e}{2}} |1\rangle \langle e|,\quad C_{e,g} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_e}{2}} |g\rangle \langle e| \\
C_{s,1} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_s}{2}} |1\rangle \langle s|,\quad C_{s,g} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_s}{2}} |g\rangle \langle s| \\
C_{p,1} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_p}{2}} |1\rangle \langle p|,\quad C_{p,g} =\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_p}{2}} |g\rangle \langle p|
\end{eqnarray*}
As described in the main text, the initial state is $\frac{1}{2}(|00\rangle+|01\rangle+|10\rangle+|11\rangle)$, and the corresponding Master equation evolution is simulated by the QuTiP \cite{qutip} function Lindblad Master Equation Solver in Python. The interaction strength and the spontaneous decay rates are calculated from atomic matrix elements. The contributions of different error sources are estimated by setting each individual error source to zero and calculate the fidelity difference. More details are discussed in section~\ref{error}.
\subsection{One- or two-ion Rabi oscillations}
The parameters used in the simulation of the Rabi oscillations in Fig.~2 in the main manuscript are as follow: (b) $\Omega_\mathrm{MW}=0$, $\Omega_1= 2\pi\times 18.1\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\Omega_2= 2\pi\times 22.0\,\mathrm{MHz}$, no interaction is observed. (c) $\Omega_\mathrm{MW}= 2\pi\times 134\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\Delta_\mathrm{MW}= 2\pi\times 178\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\Omega_1= 2\pi\times 20.0\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\Omega_2= 2\pi\times 25.6\,\mathrm{MHz}$. (d) $\Delta_\mathrm{MW}=0$, $\Omega_\mathrm{MW}= 2\pi\times 178\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\Omega_1= 2\pi\times 20.0\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\Omega_2= 2\pi\times 28.2\,\mathrm{MHz}$. (b)-(d) UV laser linewidth $\Gamma_l = 50\,\mathrm{kHz}$, intermediate state linewidth $\Gamma_e=2\pi\times 4.5\,\mathrm{MHz}$, Rydberg state lifetimes $\tau_s = 3.5\,\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $\tau_p = 12\,\mu \mathrm{s}$. All parameters are calculated from the corresponding atomic matrix elements (e.g., interaction strength and lifetime at $300\,K$ temperature) or determined by independent measurements (e.g., Rabi frequencies of the laser fields).
\section{Gate error analysis and scaling}
\label{error}
From the numerical simulation described in section~\ref{simulation}, we estimate the contribution from all known error sources. The finite Rydberg state lifetime is an intrinsic error and it contributes $\sim 3.5\%$ error in our experiment. This contribution is proportional to $\Gamma_r T $, with the natural lifetime $\Gamma_r \propto n^{-3}$ and gate time $T \propto V^{-1} \propto n^{-4} r^3$. Therefore $\epsilon_r \sim n^{-7} r^3$ and it can be reduced by using higher Rydberg states and smaller ion-separations which can be achieved by trapping more ions.
The UV laser linewidth of $\Gamma_l \approx 2 \pi \times 10\, \mathrm{kHz}$ contributes $\sim 3\%$ error. This error is $\epsilon_l \sim \Gamma_l T \propto \Gamma_l n^{-4} r^3$. It can be reduced by narrowing the laser linewidths, using higher Rydberg states and smaller ion-separations.
Scattering from the intermediate state $|e\rangle$ is normally not a problem in STIRAP. However, as described in section~\ref{theory}, the dark state has finite $|e\rangle$-population $ \rho_e \propto \frac{V^2}{\Delta^2}$ in presence of strong Rydberg interaction. The contribution to gate error $\epsilon_e \propto \rho_e T \propto \Delta^{-2} n^4 r^{-3}$, in the experiment $\epsilon_e \approx 0.8\%$. It increases with stronger interaction and can only be reduced by large intermediate state detuning $\Delta$.
Transitions between adiabatic basis states result from a too fast variation of the time-dependent Hamiltonian. The speed at which the parameters are varied is $\propto \frac{1}{T}$ and the minimum separation of the adiabatic eigenstates $\approx \left( \Omega - \Delta/2 \right)$. The transition probability, and corresponding error are thus $\epsilon_\Omega \propto \frac{1}{\left( \Omega_\mathrm{max} - \Delta/2 \right)^2 T} \propto \left( \Omega_\mathrm{max} - \Delta/2 \right)^{-2} n^4 r^{-3}$. This gives 5.5\% error in the experiment. To reduce this error, we need high laser Rabi frequencies ($\Omega_\mathrm{max}$) and $\Omega_\mathrm{max} \gg \Delta$. The error may also be reduced by using more complex pulse sequences like composite STIRAP pulses or shortcuts to adiabaticity.
The maximum dressed state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|s\rangle+|p\rangle\right)$ is used in the experiment. Its polarisability is orders of magnitudes larger than that of the low lying states. Thus the trapping potential of ions in the Rydberg state is different from the ground state \cite{higgins2017}. For each motional Fock state the Rydberg transition frequency is different and cooling to motional ground state is required. The imperfect sideband cooling (98\% in motional ground state) results in an error of 0.3\%. It can be reduced by using a zero-polarisability dressed state with equal and opposite contributions from $|s\rangle$ and $|p\rangle$ (the polarisabilities of $|s\rangle$ and $|p\rangle$ states have opposite signs). The dressed-state polarisability can be measured precisely by spectroscopy and tuned to nearly zero by tuning the MW frequency (the theory value of dressed Rydberg state polarisability is confirmed by our recent experiment \cite{pokorny2019}). For higher Rydberg states ($n \sim 60$) with narrower linewidths, we expect to measure the polarisability to a precision of $10^{-34} \mathrm{C^2 m^2 J^{-1}}$ level and thus achieve a residual polarisability below this value ($10^{-34} \mathrm{C^2 m^2 J^{-1}}$). In that case the error caused by polarisability in a Doppler cooled large ion crystal can be reduced below $10^{-4}$.
In the current experiment, the main error source is the slow MW power fluctuation of $\sim 3\%$. The dressed state energy level depends on the MW Rabi frequency, and thus when averaging over many measurement cycles, this fluctuation contributes $\sim 10\%$ dephasing error. The error is $\epsilon_\mathrm{MW} \propto \delta \Omega_\mathrm{MW} T \propto \delta \Omega_\mathrm{MW} n^{-4} r^3$. As the MW power can be measured to $< 0.01 \%$ precision and controlled instantly, this error can be reduced to $10^{-5}$ level with good power stabilization of the MW field. Alternatively, using a much stronger MW field (in the current experiment we attenuate the MW power by $36\,\mathrm{dB}$) or a bi-chromatic MW field to couple many Rydberg states may result in dressed states that have large dipole moments and are not sensitive to MW power fluctuations.
The error from coupling to motional modes is extremely small and is discussed in the next section (section~\ref{motion}).
Our simulations show that the total gate error can be reduced to less than 0.2\% with technically-achievable parameters. We assume using a high Rydberg state $n = 60$ and improved experimental parameters of $r=2.3\mu \mathrm{m}$, $\Omega_1 = 2\pi\times 1000\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $\Omega_2 = 2\pi\times 1414\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\Delta = 2\pi\times 100\,\mathrm{MHz}$. Such small ion-separation can be realised in a 100-ion crystal. In such a large crystal cooling to ground state is challenging and therefore we consider using a zero-polarisability state (the electric dipole moment of this state is $\approx$75\% of the maximumly-dressed state). Higher UV laser Rabi frequencies should be possible: the UV output powers are $60\,\mathrm{mW}$ at $306\,\mathrm{nm}$ and $50\,\mathrm{mW}$ at $243\,\mathrm{nm}$, with beam waists of $\sim 8\,\mu \mathrm{m}$ at the ion position. The highest UV Rabi frequencies measured in our experiment are $\sim 60\,\mathrm{MHz}$, and the focusing on the ions could be improved by more than a factor of 10. Also, the output power of the UV lasers can be improved: a $243\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser with up to $1.4\,\mathrm{W}$ output power in continues-wave mode has been demonstrated \cite{burkley2019}. The $306\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser in our experiment is generated by second-harmonic generation from a $612\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser, which is generated by sum-frequency generation of $1550\,\mathrm{nm}$ and $1010\,\mathrm{nm}$ lasers. The $1.4\,\mathrm{W}$ output power of the $1010\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser is the main limitation, while a system with output power of $165\,\mathrm{W}$ has been demonstrated \cite{upa2014}. Alternatively, when the interaction is sufficiently strong, other gate protocols like a Rydberg blockade gate can be used to achieve high fidelity without using extremely high UV laser powers.
\section{Gate error scaling in large ion crystals}
\label{motion}
Rydberg ions may couple to phonon modes due to non-zero polarisability as well as the strong interaction between Rydberg ions. Both will decrease the gate fidelity. In this section we consider only the latter effect as the former can be mitigated by using MW-dressing to produce a zero-polarisability Rydberg state (as discussed in Section II). We theoretically analyse the scaling of the Rydberg gate errors with the number $N$ of ions. We will show that the Rydberg gate is robust in large ion crystals at intermediate temperatures ($10 \sim 100\mu$K, which can be reached by Doppler Cooling).
In Rydberg states, the long-range dipole-dipole interaction between the $j$-th and $k$-th ion is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:expansion}
V_{jk}=\frac{C_3}{|d_j+x_j-d_k-x_k|^3}\approx \frac{C_3}{R_{jk}^3} -\frac{3C_3}{R_{jk}^4}(x_j-x_k),
\end{equation}
where $d_j$ are equilibrium positions of ions and $x_j$ is deviations from the equilibrium position $d_j$. The equilibrium separation between two ions is $R_{jk}=|d_j-d_k|$. We have expanded the interaction potential up to the linear order in the $x_j$. Using the normal coordinate $Q_p$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_p=\sum_mb^{(p)}_mx_j,\\
x_m=\sum_p b^{(p)}_m Q_p,
\end{eqnarray}
In the interaction picture ($H_0=\sum_p\nu_pa^{\dagger}_pa_p$), the interaction Hamiltonian can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}_{jk}\approx W_{jk} -\frac{3W_{jk}}{R_{jk}}\sum_pB_{jk}^{(p)}(a_pe^{-i\nu_p t}+a_p^{\dagger}e^{i\nu_pt}),
\end{equation}
where $W_{jk}=C_3/R_{jk}^3$, $Q_p=l_p(a_p+a_p^{\dagger})$ with $l_p=\sqrt{\hbar/2M\nu_p}$ and $B_{jk}^{(p)}=(b_j^{(p)}-b_k^{(p)})l_p$. $M$ and $\nu_p$ are the atomic mass and mode frequency.
The evolution operator of the system, $U=\mathcal{T}e^{-i\int_0^t V_{jk}(\tau)d\tau}$, can be evaluated explicitly using the Magnus expansion,
\begin{eqnarray}
U&=&\exp\left[-iW_{jk} t-i\left( \frac{3W_{jk}}{R_{jk}}\right)^2\sum_p\left(B_{jk}^{(p)}\right)^2 \frac{\sin \nu_p t -\nu_p t}{\nu_p^2} +\sum_p(f_p a_p^{\dagger} -f_p^* a_p)\right], \nonumber\\
&=& \exp\left[-i\left(W_{jk} -\sum_pg_p^2\nu_p \right) t -i\sum_p g_p^2\sin\nu_pt+\sum_p(f_p a_p^{\dagger} -f_p^* a_p)\right]
\label{eq:evolution}
\end{eqnarray}
with $g_p = \frac{3W_{jk}B_{jk}^{(p)}}{R_{jk}\nu_p}$ and $f_p=g_p(e^{i\nu_pt}-1)$.
To evaluate how motional modes affect the gate evolution and fidelity, we trace over the phonon part (the last term in the exponent of operator $U$) in the density matrix, and obtain
the respective coherence factor $C(t)$
\begin{eqnarray}
C(t)=\textrm{Tr}\left[e^{-H_0\beta}e^{\sum_p(f_p a_p^{\dagger} -f_p^* a_p)} \right]
= \exp\left[-G(t)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $G(t)=\sum_pg_p^2\coth\frac{\beta\nu_p}{2}(1-\cos\nu_pt)$ is the time-dependent exponent of the coherence factor $C(t)$, and $\beta = 1/k_BT$ with $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant. After tracing, the evolution operator becomes
\begin{equation}
U=C(t)\exp[-i\Phi -i\varphi(t)],
\end{equation}
where $\Phi = \left(W_{jk} -\sum_pg_p^2\nu_p \right) t$ and $\varphi(t) = \sum_p g_p^2\sin\nu_pt$.
In the ideal situation, a fidelity one gate requires $C(t)=1$, $\Phi = \pi$ and $\varphi = 0$. Deviations from these values cause errors, which are expected to be small, as $g_p\propto l_p/R_{jl}\ll 1$. For example, typically the distance $R_{jk}\sim 4\mu$m and $l_p\sim 10$nm, i.e. $g_p\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$.
In order to achieve the desired gate one needs to control the interaction $W_{jk}$ (e.g. via distance $R_{jk}$ or Rydberg states), such that $\Phi=\pi$. However this does not guarantee $C(t)=1$, or conversely $G(t)=0$. In the following, we will analyse the exponent $G(t)$ of the coherence factor for an idealised equally spaced crystal and a one-dimension (1D) ion crystal in a harmonic potential.
\subsection{An equally spaced ion crystal}
We start with an idealised crystal, where the ions are equally spaced. The phonon modes of the crystal are obtained by evaluate the Hessian matrix,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{mn}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\xi+\sum\limits_{k\neq m}^N\frac{2}{a^3|k-m|^3}, & n=m \\ -\frac{2}{a^3| m-n|^3},&n\neq m \end{array}\right.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $a$ is the neighbouring ion spacing.The length and frequency is scaled with respect to $l=\left(\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 M \omega^2}\right)^{1/3}$ and trap frequency $\omega$. The vibration mode of the ideal crystal can be determined by assuming vibration of each ion is given by $z_m=1/\sqrt{N} e^{i(qma -\nu_qt)}$. The mode energy is obtained as
\begin{equation}
\nu_q = \sqrt{\xi + \frac{4\textrm{Z}(3)}{a^3} +\sum_m\frac{4\cos (mqa)}{m^3}},
\end{equation}
where $q=2\pi j_q/aN$ ($j_q=0,1,\cdots N-1$) is the wave number. $\textrm{Z}(x)$ is zeta function and $\textrm{Z}(3)\approx 1.2$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=5.9in]{ring_G_factor}
\caption{Exponent $G(t)$ for an equally spaced ion crystal. (a) Time evolution of the exponent $G(t)$ at temperature $T=1\,\mu$K (solid) and $T=100\,\mu$K (dashed). We consider 2 (blue), 3 (red), and 20 (black) ions. (b) $G_{\rm{max}}$ as a function of $N$ at temperature $T=1\,\mu$K (dashed) and $T=100\,\mu$K (solid). All curves saturate when $N>10$. (c) $G_{\rm{max}}$ vs temperature for ion number $N=2$ (dotted), 10 (dashed) and 100 (solid). We also see the saturation of $G_{\rm{max}}$ as a function of ion number $N$. The neighbouring spacing between ions is $5\mu$m. The trapping frequency is $2\pi\times 0.8$ MHz. }
\label{fig:ring_G}
\end{figure}
Now consider the situation where two neighbouring ions are excited to Rydberg states. The exponent $G(t)$ reads explicitly,
\begin{eqnarray}
G(t)
= \frac{9\hbar}{M}\left(\frac{C_3}{a^4}\right)^2\sum_p\frac{(1-\cos pa)(1-\cos\nu_p t)}{N\nu_p^3}\coth\frac{\beta\nu_p}{2}.
\label{eq:factorG}
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ring_G}(a), we plot the exponent as a function of time for different temperature $T$ and ion number $N$. The curve shows that the maximal value of $G(t)$ increases slowly as we increase the temperature $T$ and $N$. In the following we analyse the scaling of $G(t)$ with $N$ and $T$ by calculating the upper bound $G_{\rm{max}}=2\sum_p g_p^2\coth\frac{\beta\nu_p}{2}$. This corresponds to all phonon modes being in phase, i.e. $\cos\nu_p=-1$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ring_G}(b), $G_{\rm{max}}$ saturates when $N>10$, after a rapid growth when $N$ is small. This confirms that the fidelity is not reduced significantly by increasing the number of ions. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ring_G}(c), we show $G_{\rm{max}}$ as a function of temperature. For the idealised crystal, $G_{\rm{max}}$ increases very slowly for intermediate temperatures. $G_{\rm{max}}$ increases quickly when $T>50\,\mu$K. Note that the curves for $N=10$ and 100 are almost identical, i.e. confirming that $G_{\rm{max}}$ saturates with increasing $N$.
\subsection{1D trapped ion crystal}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6.0 in]{Trapped_G_factor}
\caption{(Color online) Exponent $G(t)$ for a 1D trapped ion crystal. (a) Time evolution of $G(t)$ for 2 (black), 10 (green) and 100 (red) ions. The solid line corresponds to $T=100\,\mu$K and dashed $1\,\mu$K. (b) $G(t_g)$ vs $N$ for temperatures $T$=1 (dotted), 50 (dashed) and 100 $\mu$K (solid). (c) $G(t_g)$ vs $T$ for $N$ =2 (dotted), 10 (dashed) and 100 (solid). In the calculation, the distance between the middle two ions is 2.3 $\mu$m and the interaction energy is $2\pi \times 21.9$ MHz.}
\label{fig:trapped_G}
\end{figure}
For 1D ion crystals confined in a harmonic potential, we obtain the coherence factor after numerically solving the corresponding Hessian matrix. As the ion spacing depends on locations of the ions, we implement the entangling gate with two ions in the centre of the crystal. In the analysis, we will fix the spacing between these two ions to be 2.3 $\mu$m even when the length of the ion crystal is varied. For two-ion crystals, this yields the trap frequency $2\pi\times 2.56$ MHz. When we increase the number of ions, the trap frequency that requires to maintain the same ion spacing decreases.
Time evolution of the exponent $G(t)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:trapped_G}(a). The oscillation of the exponent depends on ion number and temperature. The increase of $G(t)$ with ion number becomes apparent at higher temperatures. We note that the maximal value of the exponent is larger than the idealised crystal case under same conditions. This is because in the idealised crystal all ions contribute equally [with weight $1/\sqrt{N}$] to the collective phonon modes. In the inhomogeneous crystal the central ions coupled more strongly to the relevant vibrations, i.e. $B_{jk}^{(p)}$ becomes larger in the respective exponent $G(t)$.
The gate time is largely determined by the interaction between Rydberg ions. With the interaction energy to be $2\pi\times 21.9$ MHz, the resulting gate time is $\tau_g\approx 22.8\,$ns. In Fig.~\ref{fig:trapped_G}(a), the time evolution of the exponent $G(t)$ is shown. Though the value is slightly increased, the qualitative behaviour of the exponent is similar to that of the idealised crystal.
We shall stress that the gate error shown here is evaluated based on the dipole-dipole interaction between two Rydberg ions. The error is caused by the large gradient of the dipolar interaction [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:expansion})]. However, it is noteworthy that interaction potentials with tailored gradients can be engineered by mixing multiple Rydberg states with MW fields~\cite{Marcuzzi2014}. This would present a further way to reduce mechanical effects and increase the gate fidelity.
\section{Double ionisation by black-body radiation}
Large orbit sizes ($\sim n^2$) in Rydberg states mean that Rydberg electrons are very sensitive to external electromagnetic fields. An immediate effect is that black-body radiation (BBR) will affect the lifetime of Rydberg states, hence the gate fidelity. In general, one would expect that the ionisation rate increases with higher temperature. Here we estimate ionisation rates of the direct BBR photoionisation through a semiclassical approach~\cite{Beterov2009}. The main requirement is that the principal quantum number $n\gg 1$ and angular quantum number $L$ is not very large. This is the situation explored in our experiment, where Rydberg $S$ and $P$ states are excited. Further, taking into account of the fact that the ionisation mainly takes place from the initial state to states close to the double ionisation threshold. One can derive a temperature dependent ionisation rate~\cite{Beterov2009}
\begin{equation}
W_{nL}\approx \frac{\alpha^3k_BT_b}{\hbar\pi^2}\left[\frac{2.8}{n^{7/3}}+\frac{2.09L^2}{n^{11/3}}\right]\log\left[\frac{1}{1-\exp(-\hbar\omega_{nL}/k_BT_b)}\right],
\end{equation}
where $k_B$, $\alpha$ and $\omega_{nL}$ are the Boltzmann constant, fine structure constant and ionisation frequency in SI units, respectively. $T_b$ is temperature of the black-body radiation in Kelvins.
As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:sr_ionisation}(a) the ionisation rate at low temperatures increases with principal quantum number $n$, (at 300K the BBR double-inonisation rate given by theory can account for ionisation rate we observe in our experiment.). However at higher temperatures the dependence on $n$ is non-monotonic. The ionisation rate first increases and then decreases with $n$. This result is interesting because higher Rydberg states lead to stronger two-body interactions, hence faster gate. In this case, the impact of double ionisation turns out to be weaker [Fig.~\ref{fig:sr_ionisation}(b)]. The data suggest that one can place the ion trap in cryogenic environment to suppress the temperature dependent double ionisation. This allows us to achieve fast Rydberg gates with even higher gate fidelities.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=5. in]{Sr_ionisation}
\caption{(Color online) Double ionisation rate $\Gamma_i$ of Sr$^+$. (a) $\Gamma_i$ of Rydberg $nS$ state at blackbody temperature $T_b = 100$ K (dotted), $200$ K (dashed) and 300 K (solid). (b) $\Gamma_i$ as a function of the blackbody temperature $T_b$. At lower temperature, the ionisation rate increases with $n$ gradually. At higher temperature (e.g. $T_b=300$ K), the ionisation rate $\Gamma_i$ depends on $n$ non-monotonically. }
\label{fig:sr_ionisation}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a fundamental problem in differential geometry to understand which abstract Riemannian manifolds can be realised as embedded submanifolds of a Euclidean space. In a seminal work, Nash showed that every sufficiently smooth Riemannian manifold can be isometrically embedded in some higher dimensional Euclidean space, see \cite{nash1956imbedding}. A similar result was later on obtained by Günther, see \cite{gunther1991isometric}. While these results are of broad generality, they give little information about the dimension of the ambient Euclidean space and the extrinsic geometry of the embedded manifold. On the other hand, stronger results can be obtained in more restrictive settings: In 1916, Weyl conjectured that any sufficiently smooth Riemannian metric $h$ on the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ with positive Gauss curvature $K_h$ may be realised as a convex surface in $\mathbb{R}^3$. This problem, which is now known as the Weyl problem, was solved by Lewy in 1938 if $h$ is analytic, see \cite{lewy1938existence}, and in a landmark paper by Nirenberg assuming merely that $h$ is of class $C^4$, see \cite{nirenberg1953weyl}. As had been proposed by Weyl, Nirenberg used the continuity method in his proof. It is easy to see that there exists a smooth family of positive curvature metrics $h_t, t\in[0,1],$ such that $h_1=h$ and $h_0$ is the round metric. Evidently, the round metric is realised by the round sphere $\mathbb{S}^2\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ and it thus suffices to show that the set of points $t$ for which the Weyl problem can be solved is open and closed in $[0,1]$. In order to show that this set is open, Nirenberg used a fix point argument which is based on proving existence and estimates for a linearised equation. To show that the set is closed, he established a global $C^2-$estimate for solutions of fully non-linear equations of Monge-Ampere type which provided a global curvature bound. Here, the positivity of the Gauss curvature translates into ellipticity of the equation. We remark that a similar result was independently obtained by Pogorelov using different techniques which had been devised by Alexandrov. He also studied the isometric embedding problem in the hyperbolic space, see \cite{pogorelov1973extrinsic}. \\
Nirenberg's result has been generalized subsequently in various ways: In the degenerate case $K_g\geq 0$, Guan and Li, see \cite{guan1994weyl}, as well as Hong and Zuily \cite{hong1995isometric}, showed that there exists a $C^{1,1}-$embedding into the Euclidean space. On the other hand, Heinz established an interor $C^2-$estimate which allowed him to relax the regularity assumption in \cite{nirenberg1953weyl} to $g\in C^3({\mathbb{S}^2})$, see \cite{heinz1959elliptic,heinz1962weyl}. Using similar techniques, Schulz further weakened the assumption to $g\in C^{2,\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^2)$, see \cite{schulz2006regularity}. An excellent survey of the isometric embedding problem in the Euclidean space is also given in \cite{hong1995isometric}. Finally, we note that the isometric embedding problem for more general target manifolds, particularly with warped product metrics, has been studied. We refer to the works of Guan and Lu, see \cite{guan2017curvature}, Lu, see (\cite{lu2016weyl}), as well as Li and Wang, see \cite{li2016weyl}. \\
It is a natural extension of the Weyl problem to consider isometric embedding problems for surfaces with boundary. In \cite{hong1999darboux}, Hong considered Riemannian metrics on the disc $(D,h)$ with both positive Gauss curvature $K_h$ and positive geodesic curvature of the boundary $k_h$ and showed that $(D,h)$ may be isometrically embedded into $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that the image of the boundary is contained in the half space $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^3|x_3=0\}$. In \cite{guan2007isometric}, Guan studied a similar embedding problem into the Minkowski space. These boundary value problems are reminiscent of the classical free boundary problem for minimal surfaces, see for instance \cite{nitsche1985stationary}. However, in the case of minimal surfaces, the variational principle forces the contact angle to be $\pi/2$ while there is no additional information in \cite{hong1999darboux} about the contact angle between the embedding of $\partial D$ and the supporting half-space. In order to make this distinction precise, we call surfaces that meet a supporting surface at a contact angle of $\pi/2$ free boundary surfaces (with respect to the supporting surface) and define free boundary problems to be geometric boundary problems which require the solution to be a free boundary surface. If the supporting surface is a half-space, then free boundary problems can often be solved using a reflection argument. Consequently, it is more interesting to consider free boundary problems for more general support surfaces, the simplest less trivial one being the unit sphere. In recent years, there has been considerable activity in the study of free boundary problems with respect to the unit sphere. For example, Fraser and Schoen studied free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit ball, see \cite{fraser2011first,fraser2012minimal,fraser2016sharp}, Lambert and Scheuer studied the free boundary inverse mean curvature flow and proved a geometric inequality for convex free boundary surfaces, see \cite{lambert2016inverse,lambert2017geometric} and also \cite{volkmann2014monotonicity}, Wang and Xia proved the uniqueness of stable capillary surfaces in the unit ball, see \cite{wang2019uniqueness}, while Scheuer, Wang and Xia proved certain Alexandrov-Fenchel type inequalities, see \cite{scheuer2018alexandrov}. \\
In this paper, we study a free boundary isometric embedding problem with respect to the unit sphere. More precisely, we show the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
Let $k\geq 4$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and $h\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{ D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))$ be a Riemannian metric on the unit disc $D$ with positive Gauss curvature $K_h$ and geodesic curvature $k_h$ along $\partial D$ equal to $1$. Then there exists an isometric embedding $F:D\to\overline{B^3(0)}$ such that $F(\partial D)\subset \mathbb{S}^2$ and $F(D)$ meets $\mathbb{S}^2$ orthogonally along $F(\partial D)$. Moreover, such an embedding is unique up to rotations and reflections through planes that contain the origin.
\label{main theorem fbie}
\end{thm}
It is easy to check that the condition $k_h=1$ is necessary. However, we expect that the regularity assumption and the condition $K_h>0$ may be weakened in a similar way as for the classical Weyl problem. Before we give an overview of the proof, we provide some motivation to study this problem besides its intrinsic geometric interest. In general relativity, the resolution of the classical Weyl problem is used to define the so-called Brown-York mass. To be more precise, let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian three-manifold with boundary $\partial M$ and assume that $\partial M$ is a convex sphere. Nirenberg's theorem then implies that $\partial M$ may be isometrically embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and we denote the mean curvature of $\partial M$ as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ by $H_e$ and the mean curvature of $\partial M$ as a subset of $M$ by $H$. The Brown York mass is then defined to be
$$
m_{BY}(M):=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\partial M} (H_e-H)\text{d}vol_h
$$
where $h$ is the metric of $\partial M$. It had already been proven by Cohn-Vossen in 1927 that an isometric embedding of a convex surface is unique up to rigid motions provided it exists, see \cite{cohn1927zwei}, and it follows that the Brown-York mass is well-defined.
Under the assumption that $\partial M$ is strictly mean convex and that $(M,g)$ satisfies the dominant energy condition $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$, where $\operatorname{Sc}$ denotes the scalar curvature of $(M,g)$, Shi and Tam proved in \cite{shi2002positive} that the Brown-York mass is non-negative using the positive mass theorem for asymptotically flat three-manifolds. Moreover, they showed that equality holds precisely if $(M,g)$ is isometric to a smooth domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$. In fact, they proved that the positive mass theorem is equivalent to the positivity of the Brown-York mass. A weaker inequality, which still implies the positive mass theorem, was proven by Hijazi and Montiel using spinorial methods, see \cite{hijazi2014holographic}. They showed that
$$
\int_{\partial M} \bigg(\frac{H_e^2}{H}-H\bigg)\text{d}vol_h\geq 0.
$$
We would also like to mention that Liu and Yau introduced a quasi-local mass in the space-time case and proved positivity thereof, see \cite{liu2003positivity,liu2006positivity}. Their mass was later on generalized and further studied by Wang and Yau, see \cite{wang2006generalization,wang2009isometric}. On the other hand, Lu and Miao derived a quasi-local mass type inequality in the Schwarzschild space, see \cite{lu2017minimal}. \\
In order to give an application of Theorem \ref{main theorem fbie}, we instead consider a compact three manifold $(M,g)$ with a non-smooth boundary $\partial M=S\cup \Sigma$. Here, $S$ and $\Sigma$ are compact smooth surfaces meeting orthogonally along their common boundary $\partial \Sigma=\partial S$. We assume that $\partial \Sigma$ is strictly mean convex, has positive Gauss curvature and geodesic curvature along the boundary equal to $1$ (this is for instance satisfied if $S$ is a totally umbilical constant mean curvature surface). We may then isometrically embed $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ with free boundary in the unit sphere and we again denote the mean curvature and second fundamental form of $\Sigma$ with respect to $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $M$ by $H_e, A_e$ and $H,A$, respectively. Moreover, $K^S, H^S$ denote the Gauss and mean curvature of $S$ with its induced metric. Using a similar argument as in \cite{hijazi2014holographic} we can prove the following.
\begin{prop}
Let $(M,g)$ be a manifold with boundary $\partial M=S\cup \Sigma$ where $S,\Sigma$ are smooth discs that meet orthogonally along $\partial \Sigma=\partial S$. Assume that $\Sigma$ is strictly mean convex and has positive Gauss curvature as well as geodesic curvature along $\partial D$ equal to $1$, that $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ on $M$ and that $H^S\geq 2$ as well as $K^S\leq 1$. Let $H_e$ be the mean curvature of the embedding of $\Sigma$ which is obtained as the solution of the free boundary isometric embedding problem. Then the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{H_e^2}{H^\Sigma}-H^\Sigma\bigg)\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}\geq 2\int_{\partial \Sigma}\bigg(\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\Sigma}A_e^\Sigma-\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\Sigma}A^\Sigma\bigg)\operatorname{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}.
\label{weak inequality}
\end{align}
\label{proposition fbie}
\end{prop}
The dominant energy condition $H^S\geq 2$ seems natural in the context of positive mass type theorems for manifolds with boundary, see for instance \cite{almaraz2014positive}. However, we expect that the condition $K^S\leq 1$ is redundant and that the right hand side of (\ref{weak inequality}) can be estimated from below by $0$. More generally, we are lead to expect the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}
Let $(M,g)$ be a manifold with boundary $\partial M=S\cup \Sigma$ where $S,\Sigma$ are smooth discs that meet orthogonally along $\partial \Sigma=\partial S$. Assume that $\Sigma$ is strictly mean convex, has positive Gauss curvature as well as geodesic curvature along $\partial \Sigma$ equal to $1$ and that the dominant energy condition $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ on $M$ and $H^S\geq 2$ on $S$ holds. Then the following inequality holds
$$
\int_{\Sigma} (H_e-H)\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}\geq 0.
$$
Equality holds if and only if $(M,g)$ is isometric to a domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and if the isometry maps $S$ to a subset of $\mathbb{S}^2$.
\end{conj}
A positive answer to this conjecture would mean that in certain cases, mass can be detected without having to consider the complete boundary of an enclosed volume. This leads us to define a new free boundary Brown-York type quasi-local mass in section 6. Moreover, by arguing as in \cite{shi2002positive}, it seems that the conjecture is equivalent to a positive mass type theorem for asymptotically flat manifolds which are modelled on a solid cone.
\\
We now describe the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem fbie}. As in \cite{nirenberg1953weyl}, we use the continuity method and smoothly connect the metric $h$ to the metric $h_0$ of the spherical cap whose boundary has azimuthal angle $\pi/4$. In particular, the free boundary isometric embedding problem can be solved for $h_0$. We then need to show that the solution space is open and closed. Contrary to the argument by Nirenberg, the non-linearity of the boundary condition does not allow us to use a fixed point argument. We instead use a power series of maps, as Weyl had initially proposed, where the maps are obtained as solutions of a linearised first order problem which has been studied by Li and Wang in \cite{li2016weyl}. Another difficulty arises from the fact that the prescribed contact angle makes the problem seemingly overdetermined. We thus solve the linearised problem without prescribing the contact angle and recover the additional boundary condition from the constancy of the geodesic curvature and a lengthy algebraic computation. Regarding the convergence of the power series, we prove a-priori estimates using the Nirenberg trick. Here, it turns out that a recurrence relation for the Catalan numbers plays an important part, too. In order to show that the solution space is closed, we observe that the Codazzi equations imply a certain bound for the normal derivative of the mean curvature at the boundary which allows us to employ the maximum principle argument to prove a global $C^2-$estimate for any isometric embedding. \\
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the setting and provide some preliminaries. We also show that the space of metrics on $D$ with positive Gauss curvature and geodesic curvature along $\partial D$ being equal to $1$ is path connected. In Section 3, we study the linearised problem and show that the solution space is open. In Section 4, we prove a global curvature estimate and show that the solution space is closed. In Section 5, we combine the results from Section 3 and 4 and solve the isometric embedding problem. We also prove that the embedding is unique up to rigid motions. Finally, in Section 6, we give a proof of Proposition \ref{proposition fbie} and discuss an explicit example. We then define a new quasi-local mass and give some evidence for its non-negativity.
\\\textbf{Acknowledgements.} The author would like to thank his PhD supervisor Guofang Wang for suggesting the problem and for many helpful conversations.
\section{Setting and Preliminaries}
Let $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and fix an integer $k\geq 2$. Let $D$ be the unit 2-disc and consider a Riemannian metric $h$ defined on $\overline{D}$ of class $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{D})$ such that the Gauss curvature $K_h$ is positive and the geodesic curvature of $\partial D$ satisfies $k_h=1$. We would like to find a map
$ F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ which isometrically embeds the Riemannian manifold $(\bar{D},g)$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that the boundary $ F(\partial D)$ meets the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ orthogonally. More generally, let $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ be the space of all Riemannian metrics $\tilde h\in (C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))$ enjoying the same curvature properties as $h$. Up to a diffeomorphism of $\overline{D}$, we may write the metric $h$ in isothermal coordinates, see \cite{deturck1981some}. This means that there exists a non-vanishing, function $\tilde E\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{D})$ such that
\begin{align}
\tilde h=\tilde E^2(dx^2+dy^2)=\tilde E^2(dr^2+r^2d\varphi^2). \notag
\end{align}
Here, $(x,y)$ denote Euclidean coordinates on $D$ whereas $(\varphi,r)$ denote polar coordinates centred at the origin. It is easy to see that a map $\tilde F$ isometrically embeds $(\overline{D},\tilde h)$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ with free boundary in the unit sphere if and only if it solves the following boundary value problem
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
& d \tilde F\cdot d \tilde F=\tilde h \quad \text{ in } D, \\
& |\tilde F|^2=1 \quad \quad\hspace{.2cm} \text{ on } \partial D,
\\
& \partial_r \tilde F= \tilde E \tilde F \quad \hspace{.2cm} \text{ on } \partial D.
\end{cases}
\label{fbp}
\end{align}
We will prove the existence of such a map $F$ corresponding to the metric $h$ using the continuity method. More precisely, we define the solution space $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}\subset \mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ to be the space which contains all metrics $\tilde h\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ for which there exists a map $\tilde F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{D},,\mathbb{R}^3)$ solving the problem (\ref{fbp}). We will easily see later on that the space $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ is non-empty but we would of course like to show that $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}=\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$. In order to do so, we equip $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ with the $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))-$topology and show that $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ is path-connected, open and closed. It actually turns out that $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ is not only path-connected but that the paths can be chosen to be analytic maps from the unit interval to $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$.
\begin{lem}
The space $\mathcal G^{k,\alpha}$ is path connected. Moreover, the connecting path can be chosen to be analytic with respect to the time variable.
\label{pathconnect}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $h_0,h_1\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ and choose isothermal coordinates with conformal factors $E_0,E_1$, respectively. For $t\in[0,1]$, we define a family of Riemannian metrics $h_t$ connecting $h_0$ and $h_1$ to be
\begin{align}
h_t= E_t^2(dx_1^2+dx_2^2)= E_t^2(dr^2+r^2d\varphi^2),
\end{align}
where \begin{align}
E_t:=\frac{E_0 E_1}{(1-t) E_1+ tE_0}
\end{align}
denotes the conformal factor of the metric $h_t$. As $E_0,E_1$ are positive, $E_t$ is well-defined. A straight-forward computation reveals that given a metric $h$, the Gauss curvature and the geodesic curvature of $\partial D$ satisfy the formulae
\begin{align}
k_{h}=-\frac1r\partial_r\bigg(\frac{1}{rE}\bigg)\bigg|_{r=1}, \qquad K_h=-\frac{1}{ E^2}\Delta_e\log E,
\end{align}
see \cite{han2006isometric}. Here, $\nabla_e,\Delta_e$ denote the gradient and Laplacian with respect to the Euclidean metric. This implies
\begin{align*}
k_{h_t}=-\frac{1}{r}\partial_r\bigg((1-t)\frac{1}{rE_0}+t\frac{1}{r E_1}\bigg)\bigg|_{r=1}=1.
\end{align*}
To see that the Gauss curvature is positive, we let $K_0:=K_{h_0}$ and $K_1:=K_{h_1}$ and compute
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_e \log E_t\\=&\Delta_e \log E_0 + \Delta_e \log E_1 -\Delta_e \log(tE_0+(1-t) E_1)\\
=& -K_0E_0^2-K_1E_1^2 -\frac{t\Delta_e E_0+(1-t)\Delta_e E_1}{tE_0+(1-t)E_1}+\frac{|t\nabla_e E_0+(1-t)\nabla_e E_1|_e^2}{(tE_0+(1-t)E_1)^2}
\\\leq& -K_0E_0^2-K_1 E_1^2
\\&+\frac{1}{tE_0+(1-t) E_1}\bigg(tE_0^3K_0+(1-t) E_1^3K_1-t\frac{|\nabla_e E_0|_e^2}{E_0}-(1-t)\frac{|\nabla_e E_1|_e^2}{ E_1}\bigg)
\\&+\frac{1}{(tE_0+(1-t)E_1)^2}\bigg(t^2|\nabla_e E_0|_e^2+(1-t)^2|\nabla_e E_1|_e^2+2t(1-t)|\nabla_e E_0|_e|\nabla_e E_1|_e\bigg)
\\=&-\frac{(1-t) E_1 E_0^2K_0+t E_0E_1^2K_1}{tE_0+(1-t) E_1}
\\&-\frac{1}{(tE_0+(1-t) E_1)^2}\bigg(t(1-t)\frac{ E_1}{E_0}|\nabla_e E_0|_e^2+t(1-t)\frac{E_0}{E_1}|\nabla_e E_1|_e^2-2t(1-t)|\nabla_e E_0|_e|\nabla_e E_1|_e\bigg)
\\<&0.
\end{align*}
In the last inequality, we used Young's inequality and the strict positivity of $K_0,K_1,E_0,E_1$. In particular, $K_{h_t}$ is positive for every $t\in[0,1]$. As the path $h_t$ is clearly analytic in $t$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Openness of the Solution Space}
In this section, we show that the solution space $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ is open. Let $h\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ and assume that there is a map $F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ satisfying (\ref{fbp}) with respect to the metric $h$. Since the Gaussian curvature $K=K_h$ is strictly positive, it follows that $F(\overline{ D})$ is strictly convex. We will now show that for any $\tilde h\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$, which is sufficiently close to $h$ in the $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))-$topology for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$, there exists a solution $\tilde F\in C^{3,\alpha}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ of (\ref{fbp}). In order to do so, we use Lemma \ref{pathconnect} to find a path $h_t$, connecting $h$ and $\tilde h$ in $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ and observe that $h_t$ and all of its spacial derivatives are analytic in $t$.
\subsection{The linearised problem}
We define a family of $C^{3,\alpha}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)-$maps $F_t:[0,1]\times \overline D\to\mathbb{R}^3$ which satisfies $F_0=F$ and is analytic in $t$, that is,
\begin{align}
F_t=\sum_{l=0}^\infty \Psi^l\frac{t^l}{l!}, \label{taylor}
\end{align}
where $\Psi_l\in C^{3,\alpha}(\overline{ D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ are solutions to certain linearised equations. Clearly, if (\ref{fbp}) is solvable up to infinite order at $t=0$ and if $F_t$ and all its time derivatives converge in $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{{D}},\mathbb{R}^3)$ for every $t\in[0,1]$, then it follows that $\tilde F:=F_1$ is a solution of (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $\tilde h$. More precisely, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
Consider two metrics $h,\tilde h\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ with conformal factors $E,\tilde E$ and let $h_t:[0,1]\to\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ be the connecting path from Lemma \ref{pathconnect} with conformal factor $E_t$. Let $F$ be a solution of the free boundary problem (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $h$ and suppose that $F_t$ as defined in (\ref{taylor}) converges in $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ uniformly. Then the following identities hold
\begin{align*}
\frac{d^l}{dt^l}h_t\bigg|_{t=0}&=\operatorname{Id}\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}\partial^i_tE_t\partial_t^{l-i}E_t \bigg|_{t=0}, \\
\frac{d^l}{dt^l}(dF_t\cdot dF_t)\bigg|_{t=0}&=2dF\cdot d\Psi^l+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}d\Psi^{l-i}\cdot d\Psi^{i}, \\
\frac{d^l}{dt^l}|F_t|^2\bigg|_{t=0}&=2F\cdot \Psi^l+ \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \Psi^{i}, \\
\frac{d^l}{dt^l} \partial_rF_t\bigg|_{t=0}&=\partial_r \Psi^l, \\
\frac{d^l}{dt^l} E_tF_t\bigg|_{t=0}&=\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\Psi^{l-i}\bigg|_{t=0}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from straight-forward calculations.
\end{proof}
We are thus led to consider the following boundary value problem: For any $l\in\mathbb{N}$ we seek to find maps $\Psi^l$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
& dF\cdot d\Psi^l+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}d\Psi^{l-i}\cdot d\Psi^{i} =\frac12\operatorname{Id}\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\partial_t^{l-i}E_t \big|_{t=0} \text{ in } D,\\
& F\cdot \Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \Psi^{i}=0 \hspace{0.35cm} \text{ on } \partial D, \\
& \partial_r \Psi^l =\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\Psi^{l-i}\big|_{t=0} \hspace{0.1cm}\qquad \text{ on } \partial D.\end{cases}
\label{linearizedequations}
\end{align}
The first equation is understood in the sense of symmetric two-tensors, which means that we use the convention $d^1d^2=d^2d^1:=\operatorname{Sym}(d^1\otimes d^2)$, where $d^1,d^2$ are the dual one-forms of the given coordinate system. For convenience, we have set $\Psi^0:=F$. The motivation to consider this boundary value problem comes from the next lemma.
\begin{lem}
Consider two metrics $h,\tilde h\in\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ with conformal factors $E,\tilde E$ and let $h_t:[0,1]\to\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ be the connecting path from Lemma \ref{pathconnect}. Let $F$ be a solution of the free boundary problem (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $h$ and suppose that there exists a family $\Psi^l\in C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$, $l\in\mathbb{N}$ satisfying (\ref{linearizedequations}). Furthermore, assume that $F_t$ as defined in (\ref{taylor}) converges in $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ uniformly. Then there holds
$$
\begin{cases}
& d F_t\cdot d F_t=h_t \qquad \qquad\quad\hspace{0.1cm}\text{ in } D, \\
& |F_t|^2=1, \quad \partial_r F= E_tF_t \quad \text{ on } \partial D.
\end{cases}
$$
for any $t\in[0,1]$. Here, $E_t$ is the conformal factor of the metric $h_t$.
\label{existence criterion}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the previous lemma and well-known facts about analytic functions.
\end{proof}
We now modify the approach of \cite{li2016weyl} to find solutions of (\ref{linearized equations}).
For ease of notation, we fix an integer $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and define $\Psi:=\Psi^k$. For a given coordinate frame $(\partial_1,\partial_2)$ with dual one-forms $(d^1,d^2)$ we define $u_i:=\Psi\cdot \partial_iF$ and $v:=\Psi \cdot \nu$, where $\nu$ is the unit normal of the surface $F(\overline{D})$ pointing inside the larger component of $B_1(0)-F(D)$.\footnote{With this choice of unit normal, strict convexity implies that the second fundamental form is strictly positive.} We then consider the one-form
\begin{align*}
w:=\Psi\cdot dF=u_id^i.
\end{align*}
We denote the second fundamental form of the surface $F$ with respect to our choice of unit normal $\nu$ by $A=(A_{ij})_{ij}$ and compute
\begin{align*}
\nabla_h w&= \partial_ju_id^i d^j -\Gamma^l_{i,j}u_ld^id^j\\
&=\partial_iF\cdot\partial_j\Psi d^i d^j +\Gamma^l_{i,j}\Psi\cdot \partial_lF d^i d^j -\Psi\cdot \nu A_{ij}d^i d^j-\Gamma^l_{i,j}u_ld^i d^j \\
&=\partial_i F\cdot\partial_j\Psi d^i d^j-v A_{ij}d^i d^j,
\end{align*}
where $\nabla_h$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of $h$ and $\Gamma^l_{i,j}$ denote the Christoffel-Symbols of $h$ in the chosen coordinate chart. In the second equation, we used the fact $\partial_i\partial_j F= \Gamma^{l}_{i,j}\partial_l F-A_{ij}\nu$. Hence, if $\tilde q \in C^{k,\beta}(\overline{D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))$ is a symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor and $\psi\in C^{k+1,\beta}(\overline{D})$, $\Phi\in C^{k,\beta}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ where $0<\beta\leq \alpha$, the system
\begin{align*}
\begin{cases}
& dF_0\cdot d\Psi=\tilde q \hspace{0.05cm}\text{ in } D,\\
& F\cdot \Psi=\psi \hspace{0.05cm}\text{ on } \partial D, \\
& \partial_r \Psi =\Phi \hspace{0.05cm}\text{ on } \partial D,\end{cases}
\end{align*}
is equivalent to (keeping in mind $\partial_r F= E F$)
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
&\partial_1u_{1}-\Gamma^l_{1,1}u_l=\tilde q_{11}-v A_{11} \text{ in }D,\\
&\partial_1u_{2}+\partial_2u_{1}-2\Gamma^l_{1,2}u_l=2(\tilde q_{12}-v A_{12})\text{ in }D,\\
&\partial_2u_{2}-\Gamma^l_{2,2}u_l=\tilde q_{22}-v A_{22}\text{ in }D,\\
& Ew(\partial_r)=\psi \text{ on } \partial D, \\
& \partial_r \Psi =\Phi \hspace{0.0cm}\text{ on } \partial D.\end{cases}
\label{linearized equations}
\end{align}
This system is evidently over-determined. However, it turns out that it suffices to solve the first four lines, as in the special situation of (\ref{linearizedequations}), the last equation will be automatically implied by the constancy of the geodesic curvature along $\partial D$. Another way of writing the first three lines of (\ref{linearized equations}) is $\text{Sym}(\nabla_h w)=\tilde q-v A$. Since $F(\overline{D})$ is strictly convex, the second fundamental form $A$ defines a Riemannian metric on $\overline{D}$. We can thus take the trace with respect to $A$ to find
\begin{align*}
v = \frac12\operatorname{tr}_A(\tilde q-\text{Sym}(\nabla_h w) ).
\end{align*}
Given $b\in\{0,1\}$, we define $\mathcal{A}^{b,\beta}_A\subset C^{b,\beta}(\overline{D},\operatorname{Sym}(T^*\overline{D}\otimes T^*\overline{D}))$ to be the sections of the bundle of trace-free (with respect to $A$) symmetric (0,2)-tensors of class $C^{b,\beta}$ and define $\mathcal{B}^{b,\beta}_A=C^{b,\alpha}(\overline{{D}},T^*\overline{D})$ to be the one-forms of class $C^{b,\beta}$. Next, we define the operator ${L}:\mathcal B^{1,\beta}_A\to\mathcal A^{0,\beta}_A$ by
\begin{align*}
{L}(\omega):=\operatorname{Sym}(\nabla_h \omega)-\frac12\operatorname{tr}_A(\operatorname{Sym}(\nabla_h \omega))A
\end{align*}
for $\omega\in\mathcal{B}$ and we are left to find a solution $w$ for the equation ${L}(w)=\tilde q-\frac12 \operatorname{tr}_A(\tilde q)A=:q$. We note that $\mathcal A^{b,\beta}_A$ and $\mathcal{B}^{b,\beta}_A$ are both isomorphic to $\mathcal{C}^{b,\beta}:=C^{b,\beta}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^2)$ via the isomorphisms:
\begin{align*}
&(u_1,u_2)\mapsto u_idx^i, \\
&(a_1,a_2)\mapsto a_1dx^1dx^1+a_2(dx^1dx^2+dx^2dx^1)-A_{22}^{-1}(A^{11}a_1+2A^{12}a_2)dx^2 dx^2.
\end{align*}
Here, $x_1,x_2$ are the standard Euclidean coordinates. At this point, we emphasize that $(A^{ij})_{ij}$ denotes the \textit{inverse} of the second fundamental form $A$ in the sense of a Riemannian metric on $\overline{D}$ and \textit{not} the quantity $h^{il}h^{jm}A_{lm}$. We also define inner products on $\mathcal A^{b,\beta}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}^{b,\beta}_{A}$, respectively, namely,
\begin{align*}
&\langle \omega^0,\omega^1\rangle_{\mathcal{B}_A}:=\int_D KA^{ij}\omega^0_i\omega^1_j\text{d}{vol}_h=\int_D K\langle \omega^0,\omega^1\rangle_A\text{d}vol_h, \\
&\langle q^0,q^1\rangle_{\mathcal{A}_A}:=\int_D KA^{ij}A^{lm}q^0_{il}q^1_{jm}\text{d}{vol}_h=\int_D K\langle q^0,q^1\rangle_A\text{d}{vol}_h
\end{align*}
for $q^0,q^1\in\mathcal{A}^{b,\beta}_A$ and $\omega^0,\omega^1\in \mathcal{B}^{m,\beta}_A$. The particular choice of the inner product does not really matter as the strict convexity implies that these inner products are equivalent to the standard $L^2-$product with respect to the metric $h$. However, it will turn out that our choice implies a convenient form for the adjoint operator of ${L}$.
As was observed by Li and Wang in \cite{li2016weyl}, the operator ${L}$ is elliptic. For the convenience of the reader, we provide a brief proof.
\begin{lem}
The operator $L$ is a linear elliptic first order operator.
\label{ellipticity}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We regard $L$ as an operator from $\mathcal{C}^{1,\beta}$ to $\mathcal{C}^{0,\beta}$. The leading orger part of the operator which we denote by $\tilde L$ is then given by
\begin{align}
\tilde L(u_1,u_2)=(\partial_1 u_1-\frac{A_{11}}{2}A^{ij}\partial_i u_j,\partial_1 u_2+\partial_2 u_1-A_{12}A^{ij}\partial_i u_j).
\end{align}
In order to compute the principal symbol at a point $p\in D$, we may rotate the coordinate system such that $A$ is diagonal. It then follows that
\begin{align}
\tilde L(u_1,u_2)=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac12 & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\partial_1 \begin{pmatrix}
u_1 \\ u_2
\end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\frac{A_{11}}{2A_{22}} \\ 1 & 0.
\end{pmatrix}\partial_2 \begin{pmatrix}
u_1 \\ u_2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Given $\xi \in S^1$, the principal symbol is thus given by
$$
\sigma_L(\xi)=\sigma_{\tilde L}(\xi)
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}\xi_1 & -\frac{A_{11}}{2A_{22}}\xi_2 \\
\xi_2 & \xi_1
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Consequently, $4\det(\sigma_L(\xi))=\xi^2_1+\xi_2^2 A^2_{11}/A^2_{22}>0$, as $F(D)$ is strictly convex.
\end{proof}
We now proceed to calculate the adjoint of ${L}$ denoted by ${L}^*$. Let $\omega\in \mathcal B^{1,\beta}_A$ and $q\in \mathcal A^{1,\beta}_A$. We denote the outward co-normal of $\partial D$ by $\mu=\mu^i\partial_i$ and the formal adjoint of $\nabla_h$, regarded as an operator mapping $(0,1)-$ to $(0,2)-$tensors by $-\operatorname{div}_h$, regarded as an operator mapping $(0,2)-$tensors to $(0,1)-$tensors. Moreover, we denote the musical isomorphisms of $h$ and $A$ by $\sharp_A,\sharp_h,\flat_A,\flat_h$. Using integration by parts and the fact that $a$ is trace free with respect to $A$, i.e. $A^{ij}a_{ij}=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{adjoint equation}
\begin{aligned}
\langle L(\omega),q\rangle_{\mathcal{A}_A}=&\int_D K\langle \nabla_h \omega,q\rangle_A \text{d}{vol}_h-\frac12\int_D KA^{ij}A^{lm} \operatorname{tr}_A(\text{Sym}(\nabla_h \omega))A_{il}q_{jm}\text{d}{vol}_h
\\=&\int_D K\langle \nabla_h \omega, q^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h}\rangle_h \text{d}{vol}_h
\\=&-\int_D \langle \omega,\operatorname{div}_h(K q^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h})\rangle_h\text{d}{vol}_h+\int_{\partial D} \langle \omega,\iota_\mu q^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h}\rangle_h \text{d}{vol}_h
\\=&-\int_D \langle \omega,\operatorname{div}_h(Kq^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h})\rangle_h\text{d}{vol}_h+\int_{\partial D} K\langle \omega,\iota_\mu q^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h}\rangle_h \text{d}{vol}_h
\\=&-\int_D K\langle \omega,\frac1K(\operatorname{div}_h(Kq^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h}))^{\flat_A\sharp_h}\rangle_A\text{d}{vol}_h+\int_{\partial D} K\langle \omega,\iota_{\mu^{\flat_h}}q^{\sharp_A} \rangle_A d\operatorname{vol}_h.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Consequently, the adjoint operator $L^*:\mathcal{A}^{1,\beta}_A\to\mathcal{B}^{0,\beta}_A$ is given by
\begin{align}
{L}^*(q)=-\frac1K(\operatorname{div}_h(Kq^{\sharp_A\sharp_A\flat_h\flat_h}))^{\flat_A\sharp_h}. \label{adjoint operator}
\end{align}
As ${L}^*$ is the adjoint of an elliptic operator, it is elliptic itself. We now take a closer look at the boundary term. We consider isothermal polar coordinates $(\varphi,r)$ centred at the origin with conformal factor $E$ and compute at $\partial D$ using the free boundary condition
\begin{align}
-A_{r\varphi}=\partial_\varphi\partial_r F\cdot \nu=\partial_\varphi (EF)\cdot \nu=0, \label{A cond boundary}
\end{align}
since $F,\partial_\varphi F$ are both tangential at $\partial D$. This evidently implies that $A^{r\varphi}\equiv 0$ on $\partial D$. Combining this with $\operatorname{tr}_A(q)=0$ and denoting $\omega=\omega_id^i$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial D} K\langle \omega,\iota_{\mu^{\flat_h}}q^{\sharp_A} \rangle_A \text{d}{vol}_h&=
\int_{\partial{D}}KA^{ij}A^{lm}\omega_i\mu^{\flat_h}_lq_{jm}\text{d}{vol}_h
\\&=\int_{\partial D} KA^{rr}\mu^{\flat_g}_r(A^{\varphi\varphi}\omega_\varphi q_{\varphi r}+A^{rr}\omega_rq_{rr})\text{d}{vol}_h
\\&=\int_{\partial D}^{} KA^{rr}A^{\varphi\varphi}\mu^{\flat_h}_r(\omega_\varphi q_{\varphi r}-\omega_rq_{\varphi\varphi})\text{d}{vol}_h
\\&=\int_{\partial D}^{} \frac{1}{E^2}\mu^r(\omega_\varphi q_{\varphi r}-\omega_rq_{\varphi\varphi})\text{d}{vol}_h
\\&=\int_{\partial D} (\langle \omega,\iota_\mu q\rangle_{(\partial D,h)}-\omega(\mu)\operatorname{trace}_{(\partial D,h)}(q))\text{d}{vol}_h.
\end{aligned}
\label{boundary integral}
\end{equation}
We thus define the boundary operators $R_1:\mathcal{B}^{1,\beta}_A\to C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)$, $R_1^*:\mathcal{A}^{1,\beta}_A\to C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)$, $R_2:\mathcal{B}^{1,\beta}_A\to C^{1,\beta}(\partial D,T^*\partial D)$, $R^*_2:\mathcal{A}^{1,\beta}_A\to C^{1,\beta}(\partial D, T^*\partial D)$ via
\begin{align*}
& R_1(\omega):=\omega(\mu), \qquad\qquad\hspace{0.2cm} R_2(\omega):=e^*\omega,\\
& R^*_1(q):=\operatorname{trace}_{(\partial D,h)}(q), \quad R^*_2(q):=e^*\iota_\mu q.
\end{align*}
Here, $e:\partial D\to\overline{{D}}$ denotes the inclusion map and the spaces $C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)$ and $C^{1,\beta}(\partial D,T^*\partial D)$ are evidently isomorphic.
Next, we define the operators $\mathcal{L}:\mathcal{B}^{1,\beta}_A\to\mathcal{A}^{0,\beta}_A\times C^{1,\beta}(\partial D), \omega\mapsto (L\omega,R_1(\omega))$ and $\mathcal{L}^*:\mathcal{A}^{1,\beta}_A\to \mathcal{B}^{0,\beta}_A\times C^{1,\beta}(\partial D, T^*\partial D), q\mapsto (L^*(q),R_2^*(a))$. For $\omega^0,\omega^1\in \mathcal{B}^{0,\beta}_A,q^0,q^1\in\mathcal{A}^{0,\beta}_A$ and $\psi\in C^{1,\beta}(\partial D),\zeta \in C^{1,\beta}(\partial D, T^*\partial D)$ we define the inner products
\begin{align*}
\langle\langle (q^0,\psi),q^1\rangle\rangle_{\mathcal{A}_A} &:= \langle q^0,q^1 \rangle_{\mathcal{A}_A}+\int_{\partial D} \psi R^*_1(q^1)\text{d}{vol}_h\\
\langle\langle \omega^0,(\omega^1,\zeta)\rangle\rangle_{\mathcal{B}_A}&:=\langle \omega^0,\omega^1 \rangle_{\mathcal{B}_A} +\int_{\partial D}\langle\zeta, R_2(\omega^0)\rangle_{(\partial D,h)} \text{d}{vol}_h
\end{align*}
and note that by (\ref{adjoint equation}) and (\ref{boundary integral}) there holds
\begin{align}
\langle \langle \mathcal{L}(\omega),q\rangle\rangle_{\mathcal{T}_A}=\langle\langle \omega,\mathcal{L}^*(q)\rangle\rangle_{\mathcal{U}_A}
\label{boundary adjoint}
\end{align}
for any choices $\omega\in \mathcal{B}_A^{1,\beta}$ and $q\in\mathcal{A}_A^{1,\beta}$.
\subsection{Existence of solutions to the linearised problem}
First order elliptic boundary problems satisfy a version of the Fredholm alternative, see \cite{wendlandelliptic}. However, the boundary operator needs to satisfy a certain compatibility condition, the so-called Lopatinski-Shapiro condition, which is for instance defined in Chapter 4 of \cite{wendlandelliptic}. It is not hard to prove that both $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}^*$ satisfy this condition. However, in order not to interrupt the flow of the argument, we postpone the proof to the appendix. We are now in the position to prove the following solvability criterion. From now on, all norms are computed with respect to the isothermal Euclidean coordinates on $D$.
\begin{lem}
\label{Fredholm}
Let $q\in\mathcal{A}^{0,\beta}_A$, $\psi \in C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)$. Then the existence of a one-form $w\in \mathcal{B}^{1,\beta}_{A}$ with $\mathcal{L}(w)=(q,\psi)$ is equivalent to the identity
\begin{align}
\langle q,\hat q \rangle_{\mathcal{T}_A}+\int_{\partial D} \psi R^*_1(q)\text{d}{vol}_h=0
\end{align}
for any $\hat q\in \ker(\mathcal{L}^*)$. Moreover, $w$ satisfies the estimate
\begin{align}
|w|_{C^{1,\beta}(\overline{D})}\leq c( |q|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline{D})}+|\psi|_{C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)}+|w|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline{D})})
\end{align}
where $c$ depends on $\beta$, $|A|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}$, $|h|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ but not on $q$ and $\psi$. Moreover, if $q$ is of class $C^{b,\beta}$ and $\psi$ of class $C^{b+1,\beta}$ for some integer $1\leq b\leq k-1$, then $w$ is of class $C^{b+1,\beta}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We can regard the operators $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}^*$ as mappings from $C^{1,\beta}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^2)\to C^{0,\beta}(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^2)\times C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)$. According to Lemma \ref{ellipticity} and Lemma \ref{lopatinski condition}.1, the operators $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}^*$ are elliptic operators that satisfy the Lopatinski-Shapiro condition and are consequently Fredholm operators, see \cite[Theorem 4.2.1]{wendlandelliptic}. The existence of a $C^{1,\alpha}$ solution under the given hypothesis now follows from the identity (\ref{boundary adjoint}) and \cite[Theorem 1.3.4]{wendlandelliptic}. Moreover, \cite[Theorem 4.1.2]{wendlandelliptic} provides us with the a-priori estimate. We can then differentiate the equation and regularity follows from standard elliptic theory. \end{proof}
In order to complete the proof of the existence of solutions to the first four lines of the linearised equation (\ref{linearized equations}), we need to show that the kernel of $\mathcal{L}^*$ is empty. Let $\hat q\in\mathcal{A}_A^{1,\beta}$ such that $\mathcal{L}^*(\hat q)=0$. We first transform (\ref{adjoint operator}) into a more useful form.
\begin{lem}
The $(0,3)$ tensor $\nabla_h \hat q$ is symmetric. In particular, in any normal coordinate frame there holds
\begin{align}
0=\partial_1\hat q_{22}-\partial_2\hat q_{12} \label{a1der}
\end{align}
as well as
\begin{align}
0=\partial_1\hat q_{12}-\partial_2\hat q_{11}. \label{a2der}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
See page 10 in \cite{li2016weyl}.
\end{proof}
Let $\times$ be the Euclidean cross product. Naturally, taking the cross product with the normal $\nu$ defines a linear map on the tangent bundle of $F(\overline{ D})$. We define the $(1,1)$-tensor $Q$ via
\begin{align*}
Q:=X_ld^l:=h^{ij}\hat q_{il} \nu\times \partial_jFd^l=\nu\times \iota_{dF}\hat q. \end{align*}
Using the properties of the cross product, we find in any coordinate system
\begin{align}
X_1&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{det(h)}}(-\hat q_{12}\partial_1F+\hat q_{11}\partial_2F), \label{A1}
\\X_2&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{det(h)}}(-\hat q_{22}\partial_1F+\hat q_{12}\partial_2F). \label{A2}
\end{align}
The next lemma is a variation of Lemma 7 in \cite{li2016weyl}.
\begin{lem}
\label{maxprinciple}
Let $Y\in C^1(\overline{D},\mathbb{R}^3)$ be a vector field satisfying $Y\cdot \partial_r F=0$ on $\partial D$ and define the one-form
$$\omega=Q\cdot Y=X_i\cdot Y d^i.$$
If $Y$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.10}
dF\cdot \overline{\nabla}Y=0
\end{eqnarray}
in the sense of symmetric $(0,2)$-tensors, then $\omega\equiv 0$. Here, $\overline{\nabla}$ denotes the connection of the flat space $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We compute
\begin{eqnarray}
d\omega&=&\partial_j(X_i\cdot Y)d^j\wedge d^i \nonumber\\
&=&(\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_j}X_i\cdot Y+X_i\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_j}B)d^j\wedge d^i\nonumber\\
&=&((\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1}X_2-\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2}X_1)\cdot Y+X_2\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1}Y-X_1\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2}Y)d^1\wedge d^2\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
We fix a point $p\in D$ and choose normal coordinates centred at $p$.
Equation \eqref{3.10} reads
$$
\partial_1F\cdot\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1} Y=\partial_2F\cdot\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2} Y=\partial_1F\cdot\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2} Y+\partial_2F\cdot\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1} Y=0.
$$
Together with $(\ref{A1})$ and $(\ref{A2})$ it follows that
$$X_2\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1}Y-X_1\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2}Y=\hat q_{21}\partial_2 F\cdot \overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1}Y+\hat q_{12}\partial_1F\cdot \overline{\nabla }_{\partial_2}Y=0,$$
where we also used that $\hat q$ is symmetric. Moreover, we may also choose the direction of the normal coordinates to be principal directions, that is, $A_{12}$=0. Using (\ref{A1}) and (\ref{A2}) we thus find
\begin{align*}
\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_1}X_2-\overline{\nabla}_{\partial_2}X_1&=(-\partial_1\hat q_{22}+\partial_2\hat q_{12})\partial_1F+(\partial_1\hat q_{12}-\partial_2\hat q_{11})\partial_2F
-(\hat q_{22}A_{11}+\hat q_{11}A_{22})\nu=0
\end{align*}
where we have used (\ref{a1der}) and (\ref{a2der}) and $\operatorname{tr}_A(\hat q)=0$. Hence $d\omega(p)=0$ and since $p$ was arbitrary we conclude that $\omega$ is closed. Since the disc is contractible, $\omega$ is also exact and consequently there exists $\zeta\in C^{2,\beta}(\overline{ D})$ satisfying
$$
\omega=d\zeta=\partial_l\zeta d^l.
$$
This implies that $\partial_l\zeta=X_l\cdot Y$. As $R^*_2(\hat q)=0$, we have $\hat q_{r\varphi}=0$ on $\partial D $ where $\varphi,r$ denote isothermal polar coordinates. It follows that $\partial_\varphi\zeta=X_\varphi\cdot Y=\hat q_{rr}\partial_rF\cdot Y=0$ on $\partial D$. In particular, $\zeta$ is constant on $\partial D$. We can now argue as in the proof of Lemma 7 in \cite{li2016weyl} to show that $\zeta$ satisfies a strongly elliptic equation with bounded coefficients. The strong maximum principle implies that $\zeta$ attains its maximum and minimum on the boundary. Since $\zeta$ is constant on $\partial D$, $\zeta$ is constant on all of $\overline{D}$ and consequently $\omega=d\zeta=0$.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to prove the first existence result:
\begin{lem}
Let $\tilde q\in C^{k-1,\beta}(\overline D,\operatorname{Sym}(T^*D\otimes T^*D))$ and $\psi\in C^{k,\beta}(\partial D)$. Then there exist a map $\Psi\in C^{k,\beta}(\overline D,\mathbb{R}^3)$ which satisfies
\begin{align*}
d\Psi\cdot dF= \tilde q \text{ in } D, \\
\Psi\cdot F = \psi \text{ on } \partial D.
\end{align*}
Moreover, the one-form $w:=u^id^i$ with $u^i:=\Psi\cdot \partial_iF$ satisfies the estimate
\begin{align}
|w|_{C^{1,\beta}(D)}\leq c( |\tilde q|_{C^{0,\beta(D)}}+|\psi|_{C^{1,\beta}(\partial D)}+|w|_{C^0(D)}),
\label{aprioriest}
\end{align}
where $c$ depends on $|h|_{C^{2}(\overline{ D})}$ as well as $|A|_{C^{1}(\overline{ D})}$.
\label{existlem}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have seen that it is sufficient to prove the existence of a smooth one-form $w$ solving $\mathcal{L}(w)=(q,\psi)$, where $q=\tilde q-\frac12 \operatorname{tr}_A(\tilde q)A$, which then uniquely determines the map $\Psi$. Moreover, there holds $|q|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline{ D})}\leq c |\tilde q|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline{ D})}$ where $c$ solely depends on $|A|_{C^1(\overline{ D})}$. Hence, according to Lemma (\ref{Fredholm}) it suffices to show that $\ker{(\mathcal{L}^*)}$ is empty. Let $\hat q\in\ker(\mathcal{L}^*)$ and $Q$ be defined as above. Denote the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^3$ by $e_i$ and define the vector fields $Y_i:=e_i\times F$. Since $\partial_rF=EF$ on $\partial D$ there holds $B_i\cdot \partial_rF=0$ on $\partial D$. We denote the group of orthogonal matrices by $O(3)$. It is well-known that $T_{\operatorname{Id}}(O(3))=\operatorname{Skew}(3)$ which is the space of skew-symmetric matrices. The operator $Y\mapsto e_i\times Y$ is skew-symmetric as one easily verifies and it follows that there exists a $C^1-$family of orthogonal matrices $\mathcal{I}(t)$ such that $\mathcal{I}(0)=\operatorname{Id}$ and $\mathcal{I}'(0)(F)=Y_i$. But then every $\mathcal{I}(t)(F)$ is a solution to the free boundary value problem (\ref{fbp}) for the metric $h$ and we deduce
\begin{align*}
0=\frac12\frac{d}{dt} d\mathcal{I}(t)(F)\cdot d\mathcal{I}(t)(F)\bigg|_{t=0}=dY_i\cdot dF=\overline{\nabla}Y_i\cdot dF
\end{align*}
as the connection $\overline{\nabla}$ and the vector-valued differential $d$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ can be identified with each other. Hence the hypotheses of Lemma (\ref{maxprinciple}) are satisfied and $Y_i\cdot Q $ vanishes identically on $D$. Of course, we also have $Q\cdot \nu\equiv 0$ and $Q=0$ implies $\hat q=0$ so it suffices to show that $\nu,Y_1,Y_2,Y_3 $ are linearly independent on a dense subset of $D$. At any point $p\in D$, the vector fields $Y_i$ span the space $F(p)^\perp$ so we need to show that $\nu\notin F(p)^\perp$ on a dense subset of $D$. Applying the Gauss-Bonnet formula we obtain
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Length}(\partial D)+\int_D K\text{d}{vol}_h=2\pi,
\end{align*}
that is, $\operatorname{Length}(\partial D)< 2\pi$. According to the Crofton-formula there also holds
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Length}(F(\partial D))=\frac14\int_{S^2} \#(F(\partial D)\cap \xi^\perp)d\xi.
\end{align*}
One easily verifies that the set of great circles which intersect $F(\partial D)$ exactly once is of measure zero. It follows that $F$ has to avoid a great circle and after a rotation we can assume that $F(\partial D)$ is contained in the upper hemisphere. Now the convexity of $F$ implies that $F$ lies above the cone $C:=\{tF(p)|t\in[0,1], p\in\partial D\}$ and only touches it on the boundary, see \cite{lambert2016inverse}. On $\partial D$, there holds $\nu\cdot F=0$. If this were to happen at an interior point $p$, then the tangent plane $T_{F(p)}{F(\overline D)}$ would meet a part of $\mathbb{S}^2$ above the cone $C$, and strict convexity then implies that $F$ has to lie on one side of the tangent plane. This is, however, a contradiction as $F(\partial D)=\partial C$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
By induction, we are now able to find $C^2-$solutions $\Psi^k$ to the first four lines of (\ref{linearized equations}) which however do not yet satisfy the condition
\begin{align*}
\partial_r \Psi^l =\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\Psi^{l-i}\bigg|_{t=0} \text{ on } \partial D.
\end{align*}
We now show that this additional boundary condition is implied by the constancy of the geodesic curvature in the $t-$direction.
\begin{lem}
Let $\Psi^l$, $l\in\mathbb{N}$, be a sequence of $C^2-$solutions of
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
& dF\cdot d\Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}d\Psi^{l-i}\cdot d\Psi^{i}=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Id}\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\partial_t^{l-i}E_t\big|_{t=0} \text{ in } D,\\
& F\cdot \Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \Psi^{i}=0 \text{ on } \partial D.
\label{equation improved bc}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Then there also holds
\begin{align*}
\partial_r \Psi^l =\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\Psi^{l-i}\bigg|_{t=0} \text{ on } \partial D.
\end{align*}
\label{improvedbc}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We choose isothermal polar coordinates $(\varphi,r)$ centred at the origin and define $\partial_1:=\partial_\varphi$ as well as $\partial_2:=\partial_r$. Differentiating the boundary condition in (\ref{equation improved bc}) we find
\begin{align}
\label{diffbc}
\partial_1F\cdot \Psi^l+F\cdot \partial_1\Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\big(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \Psi^{i}+\Psi^{l-i}_\cdot \partial_1\Psi^{i})=0.
\end{align}
We need to show the following three equations:
\begin{align}
\partial_2 \Psi^l\cdot F &=\bigg(\partial_t^lE_t+\sum_{i=0}^{l-2}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\Psi^{l-i}\cdot F \bigg)\bigg|_{t=0} \label{bc1}, \\
\partial_2 \Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F &=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \partial_1F\bigg|_{t=0} \label{bc2}, \\
\partial_2 \Psi^l\cdot \nu &=\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_t\Psi^{k-i}\cdot \nu \bigg|_{t=0} \label{bc3},
\end{align}
where we have used that $|F|^2=1$, $F\cdot\Psi^1=0$ and $F\cdot \partial_1F=F\cdot \nu=0$ on $\partial D$. We prove the statement by induction and start with $l=1$. Since $\partial_2 F=EF$ we find
\begin{align*}
\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot F=\frac1E\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_2F=\partial_tE_{t}\big|_{t=0}
\end{align*}
by the differential equation (\ref{equation improved bc}). This proves (\ref{bc1}). Next, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1F=-\partial_1\Psi^1\cdot \partial_2F=-E\partial_1\Psi^1\cdot F=E\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1F
\end{align*}
where we have used the equation (\ref{equation improved bc}), the free boundary condition of $F$ and (\ref{diffbc}). This proves (\ref{bc2}).
Now let $\zeta:=rE_t$. Since $k_g\equiv 1$ for all $t\in[0,1]$ there holds $1=-\partial_2(\zeta^{-1})$. Differentiating in time we obtain
\begin{align*}
0=-\partial_t\partial_2\bigg(\frac{1}{\zeta}\bigg)=\partial_2\bigg(\frac{\partial_t\zeta}{\zeta^2}\bigg)=\bigg(\frac{\partial_t\partial_2\zeta}{\zeta^2}-2\frac{\partial_t\zeta\partial_2\zeta}{\zeta^3}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Since $\partial_2 \zeta=\zeta^2$, there holds $\zeta\partial_t\partial_2\zeta=2\zeta^2\partial_t\zeta$. According to (\ref{equation improved bc}), we have $\zeta\partial_t\zeta=\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^1$ at $t=0$. Differentiating yields $\zeta\partial_t\partial_2\zeta+\zeta^2\partial_t \zeta=\partial_1\partial_2F\cdot \partial_1\Psi^1+\partial_1F\cdot \partial_1\partial_2\Psi^1$ at $t=0$. Using that $\zeta=E_t$ on $\partial D$, $E_t=E$ for $t=0$ and $$\partial_1\partial_2F\cdot \partial_1\Psi^1=\partial_1(EF)\cdot\partial_1\Psi^1=\partial_1EF\cdot \partial_1\Psi^1+E\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi=\partial_1EF\cdot \partial_1\Psi^1+\partial_tE_{t}E^2\bigg|_{t=0}$$ we obtain
\begin{align}
\partial_1F\cdot \partial_1\partial_2\Psi^1=2\partial_tE_{t}E^3|_{t=0}-\partial_1EF\cdot
\partial_1\Psi^1. \label{3bc ident 1}
\end{align}
We compute
\begin{align*}
\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1F&=\partial_1(\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1F)-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F \\
&=-\partial_1(\partial_1\Psi^1\cdot \partial_2F)-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F\\
&=-\partial_1(\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot EF)-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F\\
&=\partial_1(\Psi^1\cdot E\partial_1F)-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F\\
&=\partial_1E \Psi^1\cdot \partial_1F +E\Psi^1 \cdot \partial_1\partial_1F +E \partial_1F\cdot \partial_1\Psi^1-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F\\
&=-\partial_1E \partial_1\Psi^1\cdot F +E\Psi^1 \cdot \partial_1\partial_1F +\partial_tE_{t}E^2\big|_{t=0}-\partial_2\Psi^1\cdot \partial_1\partial_1F
\end{align*}
which together with (\ref{3bc ident 1}) implies that
\begin{align}
\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot ({-\partial_2\Psi^1+E\Psi^1})-\partial_tE_{t}E^2|_{t=0}=0.
\end{align}
An easy calculation shows that $\partial_1\partial_1F=-A_{11}\nu+\partial_1EE^{-1}\partial_1F-E\partial_2F$. Furthermore, we have already shown that
$$
-\partial_2\Psi^1+E\Psi^1=-\partial_tE_{t}F\big|_{t=0}+\nu\cdot(-\partial_2\Psi^1+E\Psi^1+\partial_tE_{t}F\big|_{t=0})\nu =-\partial_tE_{t}F\big|_{t=0}+\nu\cdot(-\partial_2\Psi^1+E\Psi^1) \nu
$$
which together with the above, $F\cdot \partial_2F=E$ and $F\cdot\partial_1F=0$ implies that
$$
A_{11}(\partial_2\Psi^1-E\Psi^1)\cdot \nu=0.
$$
Since $A_{11}>0$ and $E=E_t|_{t=0}$ the claim follows. Now let $l>1$ and assume that the assertion has already been shown for any $i<l$. The next part of the proof is a bit technical and may be omitted when reading the article for the first time. Let $l>1$ and assume that the assertion has already been shown for any $i<l$. At $t=0$, there holds
\begin{align*}
\partial_2\Psi^lF\notag =&\frac1E\partial_2\Psi^l\cdot \partial_2F\\
=&\frac{1}{2E}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^l \binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_2\Psi^i\bigg)\\
=&\frac{1}{2E}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^l \binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}\\&-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg[\sum_{j=0}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\Psi^{l-i-j}\bigg]\cdot\bigg[\sum_{m=0}^{i}\binom{i}{m}\partial_t^{m}E_{t}\Psi^{i-m}\bigg]\partial_2\Psi^{i-m}\cdot \partial_2\Psi^i\bigg)\\
=&\frac{1}{2E}\bigg(2E\partial_t^{l}E_{t}-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}F\cdot\Psi^{i-j}
\\&-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i} \sum_{j=0}^{l-i-1}\sum_{m=0}^{i-1}\binom{l-i}{j}\binom{i}{m}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_t^{m}E_{t}\Psi^{l-i-j}\cdot\Psi^{i-m}\bigg)
\\=&\frac{1}{2E}\bigg(2E\partial_t^{l}E_{t}-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\sum_{j=0}^{l-i-1}\binom{l}{i+j}\binom{i+j}{j}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}F\cdot\Psi^{l-i-j}
\\& - \sum_{i=0}^{l-2}\sum_{j=0}^{l-2-i}\binom{l}{i+j}\binom{i+j}{j}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\sum_{m=1}^{l-1-i-j}\binom{l-i-j}{m}\Psi^{l-i-j-m}\cdot\Psi^m \bigg)
\\=&\frac{1}{2E}\bigg(2E\partial_t^{l}E_{t}-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i+l-i-1}\binom{i+l-i-1}{l-i-1}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\partial_t^{l-i-1}E_{t}F\cdot\Psi^{l-i-(l-i-1)}
\\& + 2\sum_{j=0}^{l-2}\binom{l}{j}\binom{j}{0}E_{t}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}F\cdot\Psi^{l-j} \bigg)
\\=& \partial_t^{l}E_{t}+\sum_{j=0}^{l-2}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}F\cdot\Psi^{l-j},
\end{align*}
which proves (\ref{bc1}). In the first equation we used that $F$ satisfies the free boundary condition, in the second equation we used the $(2,2)$-component of the differential equation for $\Psi^l$ and in the third equation we used that the claim holds for any $i<l$. The fourth equation follows from extracting the terms involving $F$ and using $|F|^2=1$ and $\Psi^0=F$. The fifth equation follows from rearranging the sums, changing indices and rewriting the binomial coefficients. In the sixth equation we use the boundary condition for each $\Psi^{l-i-j-n}$ and cancel the terms which appear twice. Finally, we use that $\Psi^1\cdot F=0$. We proceed to show (\ref{bc2}). We have
\begin{align*}
\partial_2\Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F=&-\partial_1\Psi^l\cdot \partial_2F -\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_2\Psi^i+\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg) \\
=&-E\partial_1\Psi^l\cdot F-\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_2\Psi^i+\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg) \\
=&E\Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F+\frac E2\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^{i}+\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^{i}\bigg) \\
&-\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\sum_{j=0}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^{i-j}+\sum_{j=0}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\Psi^{i}\cdot\Psi^{l-i-j}\bigg) \\
=&E\Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F-\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^{b-j}+\sum_{j=1}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\Psi^{i}\cdot\Psi^{l-i-j}\bigg)
\\
=& E\Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F -\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\sum_{j=0}^{l-i-1}\binom{l-i}{j}\partial_1\Psi^{l-i-j}\cdot\Psi^j+\sum_{j=1}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{j}\partial_1\Psi^{l-i-j}\cdot\Psi^j\bigg) \\
=&E\Psi^l\cdot \partial_1F +\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}2\partial_1F\cdot\Psi^{l-i},
\end{align*}
which proves (\ref{bc2}). In the first equation we have used the $(1,2)$ component of the differential equation for $\Psi^l$, in the second equation we used the free boundary condition and the third equation follows from the differentiated boundary condition (\ref{diffbc}) for $\Psi^l$ and the induction hypothesis. The fourth equation follows from using the $j=0$ terms to cancel out the second term. The fifth equation follows from changing indices and recomputing the binomial coefficients, whereas the last equation follows from the differentiated boundary condition for $\Psi^{l-1}$. Differentiating
$$
\partial_2\zeta=\zeta^2
$$
$l$ times with respect to $t$ we obtain
$$
\partial_2\partial_t^l\zeta\bigg|_{t=0}=\partial_t^l\zeta^2\bigg|_{t=0}=\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^i\zeta\partial_t^{l-i}\zeta\bigg|_{t=0}.
$$
There also holds
$$
\partial_t^l\zeta \zeta\bigg|_{t=0} =\frac12\partial_t^l \zeta^2\bigg|_{t=0}-\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^i \zeta \partial_t^{l-i}\zeta\bigg|_{t=0}.
$$
Hence, using that $\zeta=E$ on $\partial D$, the identity $\partial_2\zeta=\zeta^2$ for the lower order terms and the $(1,1)$ component of the differential equation for $\Psi^l$ we obtain at $t=0$
\begin{align*}
&\partial_2\bigg(\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg)\\=&\zeta\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^i\zeta_{0,i}\partial_t^{l-i}\zeta +\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_t^{l-i}\zeta\sum_{j=0}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^i\zeta\partial_t^{i-j}\zeta+\sum_{m=0}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{m}\partial_t^m\zeta\partial_t^{l-i-m}\zeta\bigg)
\end{align*}
and finally, also evaluated at $t=0$,
\begin{align}
&\partial_1\partial_2F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l+\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^l+\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\partial_1\Psi^i+\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^i\bigg)\notag\\=&\zeta\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^i\zeta\partial_t^{l-i}\zeta +\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_t^{l-i}\zeta\sum_{j=0}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^j\zeta\partial_t^{i-j}\zeta+\sum_{m=0}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{m}\partial_t^m\zeta\partial_t^{l-i-m}\zeta\bigg).
\label{firsteqncomp}
\end{align}
We calculate
\begin{align}
\partial_1\partial_2F\cdot \partial_1\Psi^l=\partial_1EF\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l+E\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l \label{f12terms}
\end{align}
as well as
\begin{align}
&\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^l\notag\\=&\partial_1(\partial_1F\cdot\partial_2\Psi^l)-\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\partial_2\Psi^l \notag
\\=&-\partial_1(\partial_1\Psi^l\cdot \partial_2F +\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_2\Psi^i+\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i)) -\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\partial_2\Psi^l \notag
\\=&: -\partial_1(E\partial_1\Psi^l\cdot F)-\partial_1(*)-\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\partial_2\Psi^l \notag
\\=&\partial_1\bigg(E\partial_1F\cdot \Psi^l +\frac E2\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^i+\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i)\bigg)-\partial_1(*)-\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\partial_2\Psi^l_2 \notag
\\=&\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot \notag (E\Psi^l-\partial_2\Psi^l)+E\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l\\&+\partial_1E\bigg(\partial_1F\cdot \Psi^l+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^i+\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i)\bigg) \notag
\\&+\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg[E\bigg(\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^i+\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^i)+E\bigg(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i+\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg) \notag
\\&-\bigg(\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_2\Psi^i+\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg)-\bigg(\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^i+\partial_1\partial_2\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^i\bigg)\bigg] \notag
\\=&:\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot (E\Psi^l-\partial_2\Psi^l)+E\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi^l+\Gamma+I+II+III+IV. \label{tau12terms}
\end{align}
In the second equation we used the $(1,2)$ component of the differential equation for $\Psi^l$ and in the fourth equation we used the differentiated boundary condition. Now $\Gamma$ and the first term on the left hand side of (\ref{f12terms}) cancel out because of the differentiated boundary condition, $IV$ cancels out the third term on the LHS of (\ref{firsteqncomp}). Moreover, we have at $t=0$
$$
2E\partial_1F\cdot\partial_1\Psi+II= E\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}.
$$
Combining all of this and noting that $E=\zeta$ on $\partial D$ we are left with, again at $t=0$,
\begin{align}
&\notag\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot (E\Psi^l-\partial_2\Psi^l) +I+III\\=&\frac12\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}\sum_{j=0}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_t^{i-j}E_{t}+\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\sum_{n=0}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{n}\partial_t^{n}E_{t}\partial_t^{l-i-n}E_{t}\bigg). \label{eqwrhs}
\end{align}
We now proceed to calculate the term $I+III$. Using the induction hypothesis and changing the order of summation we deduce at $t=0$
\begin{align*}
I+III=&-\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{i}\binom{i}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-i}\cdot\Psi^{i-j}
+\sum_{j=1}^{l-i}\binom{l-i}{j}
\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\Psi^{l-i-j}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^i
\\=&-\frac12\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{l-j-1}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\Psi^{i}
+\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{i}\bigg)
\\=&-\frac12\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\Psi^{i}
+\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{i}\bigg)
\\&+\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\partial_1\partial_1F\cdot \Psi^{l-j}.
\end{align*}
Differentiating the boundary condition (\ref{diffbc}) again and using the $(1,1)$ component of the differential equation for $\Psi^{l-j}$ we conclude
\begin{align*}
&-\frac12\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\Psi^{i}
+\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\partial_1\partial_1\Psi^{i}\bigg)
\\=&\frac12\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_1\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^{i}
+\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_1\Psi^{l-j-i}\cdot\partial_1\Psi^{i}\bigg)
\\=&\frac12\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{j}\partial_t^{j}E_{t}\bigg(\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_t^{l-j-i}E_{t}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}
+\sum_{i=0}^{l-j}\binom{l-j}{i}\partial_t^{l-j-i}E_{t}\partial_t^{l}E_{t}\bigg),
\end{align*}
which is exactly the right hand side of (\ref{eqwrhs}). Here, one should note the symmetry of the two terms in the sum. Hence, we conclude that at $t=0$
$$
0= \partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\bigg(E\Psi^l-\partial_2\Psi^l+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\cdot \Psi^{l-i}\bigg)
= \partial_1\partial_1F\cdot\bigg(-\partial_2\Psi^l+\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\cdot \Psi^{l-i}\bigg).
$$
Since we already know that the only potentially non vanishing component of the second term in the product is the normal component and since $F\cdot \nu=0$ on $\partial D$ we conclude as before that
$$
0=A_{11}\nu\cdot\bigg(-\partial_2\Psi^l+\sum_{i=0}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^{i}E_{t}\cdot \Psi^{l-i}\bigg)
$$
at $t=0$. The lemma is proven.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A-priori estimates and convergence of the power series}
We have now shown the existence of solutions to the linearised equation (\ref{linearized equations}) for any order $l\in\mathbb{N}$. The final ingredient to prove that the solution space is open is an a-priori estimate for the maps $\Psi^l$. This will establish the convergence of the power series.
\begin{lem}
Let $l\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\Psi^l$ be a solution of (\ref{linearizedequations}). Then $\Psi^l$ satisfies the estimate
\begin{align*}
|\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq c\bigg(&
\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}|\partial_t^iE_{t}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}|\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+ \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}|\Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\cdot |\Psi^{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}
\\&+\sum_{i=1}^{l}\binom{l}{i}|\partial_t^iE_{t}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}|\Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}
\bigg)\bigg|_{t=0},
\end{align*}
where $c$ only depends on $\alpha$, the $C^{3,\alpha}-$data of $F$ and the $C^{2,\alpha}-$data of $h$. As usual, all norms are taken with respect to Euclidean isothermal coordinates on $D$.
\label{aprioriestimate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We fix some $l\in\mathbb{N}$ and define $\Psi:=\Psi^l$ and let
$$
\psi=-\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}\Psi^{l-i}\cdot \Psi^{i}, \qquad \Phi:=\sum_{i=1}^{l}\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\Psi^{l-i}\bigg|_{t=0}
$$
as well as
$$
q:=\bigg(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}\partial_t^iE_{t}\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}-\frac12 \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}d\Psi^{l-i}\cdot d\Psi^{i}\bigg)\bigg|_{t=0}.
$$
Let $\partial_1,\partial_2$ be any coordinate system on $D$. As before, we define $w=u_id^i$ and $u_i:=\Psi\cdot \partial_i F$ as well as $v=\Psi\cdot \nu$. $\psi$ and $\Phi$ are at least of class $C^2$ while $q$ is at least of class $C^1$. We thus may choose $\beta=\alpha$ in Lemma (\ref{existlem}) to obtain the a-priori estimate
$$
|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq c( | q|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|\psi|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\partial D)}+|w|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}),
$$
where $c$ depends on $\alpha$, $|A|_{C^1(\overline{D})}$ and $|h|_{C^1(\overline{D})}$. By
choosing $w$ to be orthogonal to the kernel of $\mathcal{L}$ a standard compactness argument implies the improved estimate
\begin{align}
|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq c( | q|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|\psi|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\partial D)})
\label{improvedest}.
\end{align}
We will use this estimate later. The functions $u_i$ satisfy the following three equations
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{A_{11}}(\partial_1u_{1}-\Gamma^i_{1,1}u_i-q_{11})&=\frac{1}{A_{22}}(\partial_2u_{2}-\Gamma^i_{2,2}u_i-q_{22}), \notag \\
\partial_1u_{2}+\partial_2u_{1}-2\Gamma^i_{1,2}u_i-2q_{12}&=2\frac{A_{12}}{A_{11}}(\partial_1u_{1}-\Gamma^i_{1,1}u_i-q_{11}), \label{neumannbc}
\\\partial_1u_{2}+\partial_2u_{1}-2\Gamma^i_{1,2}u_i-2q_{12}&=2\frac{A_{12}}{A_{11}}(\partial_2u_{2}-\Gamma^i_{2,2}u_i-q_{22}). \notag
\end{align}
Additionally, the following boundary conditions hold
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
& Ew(\partial_r)=\psi \quad\hspace{0.1cm}\text{ on } \partial D \\
& \partial_r \Psi =E\Psi+\Phi \text{ on } \partial D.\end{cases}
\label{pde}
\end{align}
For the sake of readability, we define $Q$ to be a quantity which can be written in the form
$Q(\zeta)=\rho_{ijm}\zeta^{ijm}$, where $\rho_{ijm},\zeta^{ijm}$ are functions defined on $D$. In practice, $\rho$ will only depend on $h$ and $F$ and $\zeta$ will be one of $u_i,q_{ij},\partial_i u_j,\partial_i q_{jm}$. Although the meaning of $Q$ will be different in every equation, we have the uniform estimate
$$
|Q(\zeta)|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq c|\zeta|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}.
$$
where $c$ only depends on $|h|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|A|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$. Differentiating the first equation with respect to $\partial_1$ and the second equation with respect to $\partial_2 $ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\partial_1\partial_1u_1&=\frac{A_{11}}{A_{22}}\partial_1\partial_2u_2+Q(u_i)+Q(\partial_i u_j)+Q(q_{ij})+Q(\partial_iq_{jm}),\\
\partial_2\partial_2u_1&=-\partial_2\partial_1u_2+2\frac{A_{12}}{A_{11}}\partial_2\partial_1u_1
+Q(u_i)+Q(\partial_i u_j)+Q(q_{ij})+Q(\partial_iq_{jm}).
\end{align*}
Multiplying the second inequality by $A_{11}/A_{22}$ and adding the equalities we infer
\begin{align}
\partial_1\partial_1u_1+\frac{A_{11}}{A_{22}}\partial_2\partial_2u_1-2\frac{A_{12}}{A_{22}}\partial_1\partial_2u_1=Q(u_i)+Q(\partial_i u_j)+Q(q_{ij})+Q(\partial_iq_{jm}).
\label{u1equation}
\end{align}
Similarly, one obtains
\begin{align}
\partial_1\partial_1u_2+\frac{A_{11}}{A_{22}}\partial_2\partial_2u_2-2\frac{A_{12}}{A_{22}}\partial_1\partial_2u_2=Q(u_i)+Q(\partial_i u_j)+Q(q_{ij})+Q(\partial_iq_{jm}).\label{u2equation}
\end{align}
One easily verifies that the strict convexity implies that these equations are uniformly elliptic. Hence in Euclidean coordinates, the Schauder theory for elliptic equations implies the interior estimate
\begin{align}
|w|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D_{1/2})}\leq c(|w|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})})
\leq c(|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}),
\label{interiorest}
\end{align}
where $c$ depends on $\alpha$, $|g|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$, $|A|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|A^{-1}|_{C^{0}(\overline{ D})}$. Next, we choose polar coordinates $(\varphi,r)$ and note that $u_\varphi=(u_x,u_y)\cdot(-y,x)$ and $u_r=(u_x,u_y)\cdot(x,y)/r$, where $(x,y)$ denote the Euclidean coordinates on $D$, are well-defined functions on the annulus $D\setminus D_{1/4}$ and that the ellipticity of (\ref{u1equation}) and (\ref{u2equation}) remains unchanged if we write $\partial_\varphi,\partial_r$ in terms of $\partial_x,\partial_y$. Consequently, $u_r$ and $u_\varphi$ satisfy a strongly elliptic equation with respect to Euclidean coordinates. Moreover, for any $j\in\mathbb{N}$ there is a constant $c_j$ only depending on $j$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{equivalent norms}
|w|_{c^{j,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/2})}\leq c_j(|u_r|_{C^{j,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/2})}+|u_\varphi|_{C^{j,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/2})})\leq c_j^2|w|_{C^{j,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/2})}.
\end{align}
We now apply the Schauder theory for elliptic equations to $u_r$ and $u_\varphi$. There holds $u_r=\psi$ on $\partial D$ which implies
\begin{align}
|u_r|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}\leq c ((|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|\psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D)}+|u|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D_{1/4})}),
\label{urest}
\end{align}
where $c$ has the same dependencies as before.
On the other hand, equation (\ref{neumannbc}) yields at $\partial D$ that
$$
\partial_ru_\varphi=Q(u_i)+Q(\partial_i u_r)+Q(q_{ij}).
$$
Consequently, the Schauder estimates for equations with Neumann boundary conditions, see \cite{nardi2013schauder} for instance, gives
$$
|u_\varphi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}\leq c ((|w|_{C^{1,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|u_r|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|w|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D_{1/4})}).
$$
Combining this with (\ref{urest}) we can remove the $u_r$ term on the right hand side. Then, the interior estimate (\ref{interiorest}), the estimate (\ref{improvedest}) and (\ref{equivalent norms}) imply
\begin{align}
|w|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq c (|w|_{C^{2,\alpha}({ D\setminus D_{1/2})}}+|u_\varphi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})}+|u_r|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D\setminus D_{1/4})})\leq c(|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|\psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}),
\end{align}
where $c$ has the usual dependencies. Finally, we need an estimate for $v$. There holds
$$
v = \frac12\operatorname{tr}_A(\text{Sym}(\nabla_h w) -\tilde q)
$$
which immediately yields
$$
|v|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq C (|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|u|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})})
\leq C (|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{D})}+|\psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}).
$$
In order to proceed, we use the Nirenberg trick in the following way: We differentiate the first equation of (\ref{linearized equations}) twice in $\partial_1$ direction, the second equation in $\partial_1$ and $\partial_2$ direction and the third one twice in $\partial_2$ direction. If we then multiply the second equation by $(-1)$ and add all three equations the terms involving third derivatives cancel out and we get
\begin{align*}
\partial_1\partial_1(v A_{22})&+\partial_2\partial_2(v A_{11})-2\partial_1\partial_2(v A_{12})
\\=2\partial_1\partial_2q_{12}&-\partial_1\partial_1q_{22}-\partial_2\partial_2q_{11}+Q(\partial_i\partial_j u_n)+Q(\partial_i u_j)+Q(u_i)+Q(q_{ij})+Q(\partial_i q_{jn}).
\end{align*}
One readily verifies that this equation is uniformly elliptic. Moreover, the Gauss-Codazzi equations imply that the second order derivatives of the second fundamental form on the left hand side cancel out. Similarly, one may check that no third order terms of the metric $h$ appear on the right hand side. On the other hand, in polar coordinates we have
$$
\partial _r v=\partial_r\Psi\cdot \nu+\Psi\cdot \partial_r\nu=\Phi\cdot \nu +E\Psi\cdot \nu +A_{rr}u_r=\Phi\cdot \nu+Ev+A_{rr}u_r,
$$
where we used Lemma \ref{improvedbc} and $A_{\varphi r}=0$ on $\partial D$.
Hence the Schauder estimates with Neumann boundary conditions imply
$$
|v|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq C(|w|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|2\partial_1\partial_2q_{12}-\partial_1\partial_1q_{22}-\partial_2\partial_2q_{11}|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|\Phi|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|v|_{C^{1,\alpha}}(\overline{ D}))
$$
where the derivatives are taken with respect to Euclidean coordinates. Combining this with the previous estimates we obtain the final estimate
$$
|\Psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq C(|q|_{C^{1,\alpha}}+|2\partial_1\partial_2q_{12}-\partial_1\partial_1q_{22}-\partial_2\partial_2q_{11}|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|\Phi|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+|\psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}).
$$
One easily verifies that the term $2\partial_1\partial_2q_{12}-\partial_1\partial_1q_{22}-\partial_2\partial_2q_{11}$ does not contain any third derivatives of $\Psi^i$, $i< l$, and it follows that
\begin{align*}
|\Psi|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq C\bigg(&
\sum_{i=0}^l\binom{l}{i}|\partial_t^iE_{t}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}|\partial_t^{l-i}E_{t}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+ \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\binom{l}{i}|\Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\cdot |\Psi^{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}
\\&+\sum_{i=1}^{l}\binom{l}{i}|\partial_t^iE_{t}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}|\Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}
\bigg)\bigg|_{t=0}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We now iteratively use this a-priori estimate to show that the power series (\ref{taylor}) converges in $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})$. To this end, recall that the conformal factors of the metrics $h,\tilde h$ are given by $E,\tilde E$.
\begin{lem}
Given $F,E,\tilde E$ and $\hat\epsilon>0$ small enough there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$ depending only on $|F|_{C^{3,\alpha}(\overline{ D})},|E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})},|\tilde E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}, \alpha$ and a number $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$ which additionally depends on $\hat\epsilon$ such that given $|E-\tilde E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}<\tilde{\epsilon}$ the following estimate holds
$$
|\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq l! (\Lambda\hat\epsilon)^l.
$$
\label{finalestimate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us define
$$
\hat{\Psi}^i:=\frac{1}{i!}\Psi^i, \qquad \hat E_{i}:=\frac{1}{i!} \partial_t^iE_{t}\bigg|_{t=0}.
$$
Then Lemma \ref{aprioriestimate} becomes
\begin{align}
\notag |\hat\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}\leq c\bigg(&
\sum_{i=0}^l|\hat E_{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}|\hat E_{l-i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}+ \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}|\hat \Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})} |\hat\Psi^{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}
\\&+\sum_{i=1}^{l}|\hat E_{i}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}|\hat \Psi^{l-i}|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})} \label{condensed apriori}
\bigg).
\end{align}
Without loss of generality we assume that $c\geq 1$. We will need the following recursive estimate.
\begin{lem}
Let $y_i$ be a sequence of positive numbers, $\hat\epsilon,\gamma,c>0$ and assume that $$y_i\leq \hat\epsilon^i\gamma^{i-1}c^{i-1}\prod_{j=2}^{i}(4-6/j)$$ for $i<l$, where $l\in\mathbb{N}$. Then there holds
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{l-1} y_iy_{l-i}
\leq \hat\epsilon^l\gamma^{l-2}c^{l-2}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j).
$$
\label{recursiveestimate}
\end{lem}
We will prove the lemma later on. We now show that for any number $l$ the following two estimates hold
\begin{equation}
|\hat \Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq (\Lambda\hat\epsilon)^l, \qquad |\hat\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq
\hat\epsilon^{l}\gamma^{l-1}c^{l-1}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j).
\label{induction argument}
\end{equation}
Using the explicit definition of $E$ (see Lemma \ref{pathconnect}) one computes that
$$
\partial_t^iE_{t}\bigg|_{t=0}=(-1)^i\frac{E}{\tilde E^{i-1}}(E-\tilde E)^ii!.
$$
Hence, given $\bar\epsilon>0$, we can chose $\tilde \epsilon$ small enough such that
$$
|\partial_t^i E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\bigg|_{t=0}\leq i!\bar{\epsilon}^i
$$
and consequently
\begin{align}
|\hat E_{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}D)}\leq \bar{\epsilon}^i. \label{1Eest}
\end{align}
Moreover,
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^l|\hat E_{i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}|\hat E_{l-i}|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}\leq (l+1)\bar{\epsilon}^l. \label{sumEest}
\end{align}
We can chose $c$ sufficiently large such that $|F|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq c$. Together with (\ref{condensed apriori}) this implies
\begin{align*}
|\hat \Psi^1|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}\leq 2c\bar\epsilon+c^2\bar{\epsilon}<\hat\epsilon
\end{align*}
provided $\bar{\epsilon}<\frac{\hat\epsilon}{2(c+c^2)}$. In particular, for any $\gamma\geq 1$ we have
$$
|\hat \Psi^1|_{C^{2,\alpha}}<\gamma^{0}c^{0}\hat\epsilon^1\prod_{j=2}^{1}(4-6/j).
$$
This proves (\ref{induction argument}) for $l=1$.
Now given $l\geq 2$ let us assume that we have already shown that
$$
|\hat\Psi^i|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq \gamma^{i-1}c^{i-1}\hat\epsilon^i\prod_{j=2}^{i}(4-6/j)
$$
for any $i<l$.
Then the a-priori estimate (\ref{condensed apriori}), Lemma \ref{recursiveestimate} as well as (\ref{1Eest}) and (\ref{sumEest}) imply
\begin{align}
|\hat\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}\leq c\bigg((l+1)\bar\epsilon^l+ \hat\epsilon^l\gamma^{l-2}c^{l-2}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j)
+\sum_{i=1}^{l}\bar{\epsilon}^i
\gamma^{l-i-1}c^{l-i-1}\hat\epsilon^{l-i-1}\prod_{j=2}^{l-i}(4-6/j)
\bigg). \label{firstineq}
\end{align}
If we also ensure that $\bar{\epsilon}<\hat\epsilon/2$ then $\gamma,c\geq1$ implies
$$
(l+1)\bar\epsilon^l\leq\hat\epsilon{^l} \gamma^{l-2}c^{l-2}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j).
$$
Furthermore, we have the trivial estimate
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^{l}\bar{\epsilon}^i
\gamma^{l-i-1}c^{l-i-1}\hat\epsilon^{l-i-1}\prod_{j=2}^{l-i}(4-6/j)
&\leq \gamma^{l-2}c^{l-1}\hat\epsilon^{l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j)\sum_{i=1}^l2^{-i}
\\&\leq \gamma^{l-2}c^{l-1}\hat\epsilon^{l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j).
\end{align*}
Combining this with (\ref{firstineq}) we obtain
$$
|\tilde\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq 3\gamma^{l-2}c^{l-1}\hat\epsilon^{l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j)\leq
\gamma^{l-1}c^{l-1}\hat\epsilon^{l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j),
$$
provided that $\gamma\geq 3$. Thus, we can choose $\Lambda:=4\gamma c$ to obtain
$$
|\tilde\Psi^l|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D}}\leq \Lambda^l\hat\epsilon^l
$$
and (\ref{induction argument}) is proven.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \eqref{recursiveestimate}]
We may assume that $\hat\epsilon=c=\gamma=1$. We are then left to show the following identity
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\prod_{j=2}^{i}(4-6/j)\prod_{n=2}^{l-i}(4-6/n)=\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j).
$$
There holds
$$
\prod_{j=2}^{l}(4-6/j)=\frac{2^{l-1}}{l!}\prod_{j=2}^{l}(2j-3)
=\frac{2^{l-1}}{l!}\frac{(2(l-1))!}{2^{l-1}(l-1)!}
=\tilde y_{l-1}
$$
where $\tilde y_{j}$ is the $j$-th Catalan number. For the Catalan numbers, the well-known recurrence relation
$$
\tilde y_{l-1}=\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\tilde y_{i-1}\tilde y_{l-i-1}
$$
holds, see for instance \cite{stanley2015catalan}. This immediately implies the above identity.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to prove that the solution space is open.
\begin{thm}
Let $h,\tilde h\in\mathcal \mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ and let $F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ be a solution of the free boundary problem (\ref{fbp}) for $h$. Then there exists a constant ${\epsilon}>0$ depending only on $\alpha$, the $C^{2,\alpha}-$data of $E$ and the $C^{3,\alpha}-$data of $F$ such that there is a solution $\tilde F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ to (\ref{fbp}) for $\tilde h$ provided $|h-\tilde h|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq \epsilon$. In particular, the space $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ is open with respect to the $C^{2,\alpha}-$topology.
\label{openness}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $E,\tilde E$ be the conformal factors of $h,\tilde h$ respectively and $h_t$ the connecting analytic path, see Lemma \ref{pathconnect}. We can find the solutions $\Psi^l$ of (\ref{linearizedequations}) as before and define $F_t:\overline D\times[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^3$ by
$$
F_t:=F+\sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{\Psi^l}{l!}t^l.
$$
Then, we first require $|E-\tilde E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}\leq\delta$ for some small number $\delta$ such that $|\tilde E|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ can be bounded by $2|E|_{C^{2,\alpha}}$. Let $\Lambda$ be the constant from Lemma \ref{finalestimate} and $\hat\epsilon :=(2\Lambda))^{-1}$. Lemma \ref{finalestimate} then gives a number $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$ such that
$$
|\Psi^k|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq k! 2^{-k}
$$
provided
$|E-\tilde E|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq \tilde\epsilon$. Choosing $\epsilon:=\operatorname{min}(\bar\epsilon,\delta)$ it follows that $F_t$ converges in $C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ and then Lemma \ref{existence criterion} implies that $\tilde F:=F_1$ is a solution of (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $\tilde h$. Standard elliptic regularity theory now yields the claimed regularity for $\tilde F$.
\end{proof}
\section{Closedness of the Solution Space}
In this section, we will show the closedness of the solution space $\mathcal {G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ with respect to the $C^{k,\alpha}-$topology, provided $k\geq 4$. We suspect that this can be weakened to $k\geq 3$ using a more refined $C^2-$estimate, compare \cite{heinz1962weyl}.
Let $h_i\in \mathcal {G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ be a sequence of metrics which converges to a metric $\tilde h\in \mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$ in $C^{4,\alpha}$. We now use a compactness argument to show that $\tilde h\in\mathcal {G}_*^{k,\alpha}$. The main ingredient consists in proving an a-priori estimate for $|F_i|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}$, where $F_i$ are solutions of (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $h_i$.
\subsection{A global curvature estimate}
We fix $i\in\mathbb{N}$ and write $F=F_i$ and $h=h_i$ for ease of notation. Since $F$ is an isometric embedding of a compact disc, it is bounded in $C^1$ in terms of the $C^0-$norm of the metric $h$, that is,
$$
|F|_{C^{1}(\overline{ D})}\leq c|h|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}.
$$
Furthermore, in any coordinate chart there holds
$$
\partial_i\partial_j F =\Gamma^l_{ij}\partial_l F -A_{ij}\nu
$$
and it is easy to see that the second fundamental form can be expressed in terms of the Gauss curvature and the mean curvature. In fact, if $\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ are principal directions, then the following identities hold
$$
\kappa_1=\frac{H}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{H^2}{4}-K},\qquad \kappa_1=-\frac{H}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{H^2}{4}-K}.
$$ Hence, the following lemma is true.
\begin{lem}
Let $g\in\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ and $F$ be a solution of (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $g$. Then there is a constant $c$ which only depends on $|g|_{C^2(\overline{ D})}$ and $|H|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$ in a non-decreasing way such that
$$
|F|_{C^2(\overline{ D})}\leq c.
$$
\label{closelem1}
\end{lem}
We will prove an estimate for $H$ using the maximum principle. Since $F(\overline{ D})$ is strictly convex, it follows that $H>0$.
In order to control $H$ in the interior, we will make use of Heinz' interior curvature estimate for graphical surfaces, see Lemma 4 in \cite{heinz1962weyl} (a weaker version was also proven by Pogorelov in \cite[Theorem 3, Section 8, Chapter 2]{pogorelov1973extrinsic}). In our setting the estimate can be stated as follows.
\begin{lem}
Let $h$ be as in the previous lemma, $\delta>0$ and define $D_\delta:=\{x\in D | \operatorname{dist}_h(x,\partial D)\geq\delta\} $. Let $F$ be an isometric embedding of $(\overline{D},h)$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$. Then there is a constant $c$ which only depends the $C^{3,\alpha}-$data of $h$ and $\delta$ such that
\begin{align*}
|H|_{C^0(D_\delta)}\leq c.
\end{align*}
\label{interiorestimateH}
\end{lem}
We now combine the interior estimate with a geometric observation at the boundary to show the following global estimate.
\begin{lem}
Let $h\in\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ and let $F$ be a solution of (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $h$. Then there exists a constant $c$ which only depends on $|h|_{C^{4}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$ in a non-decreasing way such that
\begin{align*}
|H|_{C^0(\overline{D})}\leq c.
\end{align*}
\label{clselem2}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We choose Fermi-coordinates $h=\zeta^2ds^2+dt^2$ about the boundary with $\zeta(s,0)=1$. Since the geodesic curvature is equal to $1$, it follows that $\partial_t \zeta(\cdot,0)=-1$. One may compute that the only non-vanishing Christoffel symbols at the boundary are
$$
\Gamma^{s}_{st}=-1, \qquad \Gamma^t_{ss}=1.
$$
In this coordinate chart, the mean curvature is given by
$$
H=\frac{A_{11}}{\zeta^2}+A_{22}.
$$
Since $A_{12}$ vanishes on $\partial D$, see (\ref{A cond boundary}), the Gauss-Codazzi equations imply
$$
\partial_tA_{11}=-H.
$$
In particular, there holds $\partial_tA_{11}\leq 0$.
Hence, differentiating the Gauss equation and using $\partial_t \zeta=-1$ it follows that
\begin{align*}
\partial_t A_{22}A_{11}\geq \partial_t A_{11}A_{22}+\partial_t A_{22}A_{11}-2\partial_t A_{12}A_{12}=\partial_t (K\zeta^2)=\partial_t K-2K
\end{align*}
on $\partial D$, where we used that $A_{22}>0$ and $A_{12}\equiv 0 $ on $\partial D$. Consequently, we obtain
\begin{align}
\partial_t H&=-2A_{11}+\partial_tA_{11}+\partial_tA_{22} \notag
\\&\geq -3H+\frac{\partial_tK-2K}{2A_{11}}\notag
\\&=-3H+\frac{\partial_tK-2K} {2K}A_{22}\notag
\\&\geq -\Lambda^2H.
\label{boundaryestee}
\end{align}
with $\Lambda^2=3+|K|_{C^{2}(\overline{ D})}(1+|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})})$. Here, we have also used the fact $A_{22},A_{11}\leq H$.
Let $\delta>0$ be a constant to be chosen less than the injectivity radius of $\partial D$ (which is uniformly bounded from below in terms of $\Lambda$). Given $t\leq \delta$ we define the function $\psi:=e^\rho H$, where $\rho(s,t):=c_0t+\frac12c_1 t^2$ with $c_0:=\Lambda^2+1$ and $c_1$ to be chosen. On $\partial D$, there holds
\begin{align*}
e^{-\rho}\partial_t\psi =c_0H+\partial_tH\geq c_0H-\Lambda^2H=H>0
\end{align*}
where we used (\ref{boundaryestee}). It follows that $\psi$ cannot attain its maximum on the boundary. In order to prove the lemma, it now suffices to show that we can choose $\delta$ and $c_1$ such that if $\psi$ attains its maximum for $t<\delta$, then $H$ can be bounded by a quantity which only depends on $\Lambda$. Because otherwise Lemma \ref{interiorestimateH} implies that $|H|\leq \Theta$ in $D_\delta$ for some constant $\Theta>0$ which only depends on $|h|_{C^{3,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ as well as $\delta$ and given $(s,t)$ with $t<\delta$ there exists some $s'$ such that
\begin{align*}
H(s,t)\leq \psi(s,t)\leq \psi(s',\delta)\leq e^{c_0\delta+\frac12c_1\delta^2}\Theta.
\end{align*}
So let us make appropriate choices for $\delta$ and $c_1$, it will become clear in the course of the proof why these choices are reasonable. Given $\tilde\epsilon>0$ we define
\begin{align*}
\upsilon_1(\tilde\epsilon):=1-\tilde\epsilon-\sqrt{\tilde\epsilon/2}\qquad\qquad \upsilon_2(\tilde\epsilon):=-3/2\upsilon_1(\tilde\epsilon)+\upsilon_1^2(\tilde\epsilon)+1/2
\end{align*}
and note that $\upsilon_1,\upsilon_2$ are continuous functions of $\tilde\epsilon$ satisfying $\upsilon_1(0)=1,\upsilon_2(0)=0$. Hence we can choose $\epsilon<\frac{1}{10}$ such that
\begin{align}
32 \Lambda^2 c_0^2\upsilon_2(\epsilon)>-1. \label{gammaproperty}
\end{align}
Next, we choose $c_1:=\frac{3}{\epsilon}c_0^2$ and $\delta:=\frac{c_0}{c_1}$ and note that $\epsilon,c_0$ and $\delta$ all only depend on $\Lambda$. Now we assume that $\psi$ attains its maximum at $(s_0,t_0)$ with $t_0<\delta$. We choose normal coordinates in the directions $\partial_s,\partial_t$ and note that this preserves the geodesic in direction $\partial_t$. We denote the normal coordinate system by $\partial_1,\partial_2$. At the maximum point, the Gauss-Codazzi equations imply
\begin{align}
\partial_2 A_{11}=\partial_1A_{12},\qquad\qquad \partial_2 A_{12}=\partial_1 A_{22}.
\label{GCE}
\end{align}
Moreover, we have
\begin{align}
0&=e^{-\rho}\partial_1 \psi=\partial_1 H=\partial_1 A_{11}+\partial_1 A_{22},
\label{firstmax} \\
0=&e^{-\rho}\partial_2 \psi=\partial_2 A_{11}+\partial_2 A_{22}+\partial_2\rho H.
\label{secondmax}
\end{align}
As has been shown in Lemma 9.3.3. in \cite{han2006isometric}, there also holds
\begin{align*}
A^{ij}\partial_{ij}H=-\frac{2}{K}(\partial_lA_{11}\partial_lA_{22}-\partial_l A_{12}\partial_l A_{12}) +H^2-4K+\frac{\Delta_gK}{K}.
\end{align*}
Since $\partial_{ij} \psi$ is negative semi-definite and $A^{ij}$ is positive definite we obtain
\begin{align}
0\geq& e^{-\rho} A^{ij}\partial_{ij}\psi \notag\\
=&-\frac{2}{K}(\partial_lA_{11}\partial_lA_{22}-\partial_l A_{12}\partial_l A_{12})+H^2-4K+\frac{\Delta_gK}{K} \notag
\\&+2A^{ij}\partial_i H\partial_j\rho+HA^{ij}(\partial_{ij}\rho+\partial_{i}\rho\partial_j\rho) \notag
\\=&-\frac{2}{K}(-2(\partial_1A_{22})^2-(\partial_2 A_{11})^2-(\partial_2 A_{22})^2 -\partial_2\rho H\partial_2 A_{22})+H^2-4K+\frac{\Delta_gK}{K} \notag
\\&+HA^{22}(\partial_{22}\rho-\partial_{2}\rho\partial_2\rho)\notag
\\\geq&\frac{4}{K}((\partial_1A_{22})^2+(\partial_2A_{22})^2+3/2\partial_2\rho H\partial_2A_{22} \notag
+1/2(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2)+H^2-6\Lambda^2\\&+H\frac{A_{11}}{K}(\partial_{22}\rho-\partial_{2}\rho\partial_2\rho).
\label{finalineq}
\end{align}
The first equation is a straight-forward computation and in the second equation we used the Gauss-Codazzi equation (\ref{GCE}) and (\ref{firstmax})-(\ref{secondmax}). In the third inequality, we used (\ref{secondmax}) again and the fact that the terms involving only intrinsic quantities are bounded. Now we first assume that $A_{11}\geq\epsilon A_{22}$. Since the parabola
$y\mapsto y^2+3/2yH\partial_2\rho+1/2H^2(\partial_2\rho)^2$ becomes minimal for $y_0=-\frac34H\partial_2\rho$, we deduce
\begin{align}
\frac{4}{K}((\partial_1A_{22})^2+(\partial_2A_{22})^2+3/2\partial_2\rho H\partial_2A_{22}
+1/2(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2)\geq -\frac{1}{4K}(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2\geq -\frac{H^2}{2K}c_0^2 ,
\label{firstc1}
\end{align}
where we used the trivial estimate $(\partial_1A_{22})^2\geq0$ and $\partial_2\rho=c_0+c_1t\leq 2c_0$. On the other hand, we have
$A_{11}=A_{11}/2+A_{11}/2\geq \epsilon A_{11}/2+\epsilon A_{22}/2=\epsilon H/2$ and hence
\begin{align}
\frac{A_{11}}{K}H(\partial_{22}\rho-\partial_{2}\rho\partial_2\rho)\geq \frac{\epsilon H^2}{2K}(\partial_{22}\rho-\partial_{2}\rho\partial_2\rho)\geq \frac{H^2}{2K}(\epsilon c_1-c_0^2)
\label{firstc2}
\end{align}
where we used that $4\epsilon<1$. Combining (\ref{finalineq}),(\ref{firstc1}),(\ref{firstc2}) and $c_1=\frac{3}{\epsilon}c_0^2$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
0\geq H^2-6\Lambda^2
\end{align*}
and we are done. So let us assume that $A_{11}<\epsilon A_{22}$. By discarding the last term, (\ref{finalineq}) becomes
\begin{align}
3\Lambda^2 \geq\frac{2}{K}((\partial_1A_{22})^2+(\partial_2A_{22})^2+3/2\partial_2\rho H\partial_2A_{22}
+1/2(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2)+1/2H^2. \label{secondcstart}
\end{align}
We may further assume that $\Lambda^2<\epsilon H^2$ as there is nothing to prove otherwise and obtain from the Gauss equation
\begin{align}
K+A_{12}^2=A_{11}A_{22}\leq\epsilon A_{22}^2\leq \epsilon H^2 \label{mestimate}
\end{align}
as well as
\begin{align*}
A_{22}-A_{11}=A_{22}+A_{11}-2A_{11}=H-2\frac{K+A_{12}^2}{A_{22}}\geq H-\epsilon\frac{ H^2}{H}\geq H/2,
\end{align*}
where we used $\epsilon<1/10$ and $A_{22}=(1-\epsilon)A_{22}+\epsilon A_{22}\geq A_{22}/2+A_{11}/2\geq H/2$. Now, differentiating the Gauss equation and using (\ref{secondmax}) as well as the Gauss-Codazzi equation (\ref{GCE}) we obtain
\begin{align*}
\partial_2 K=\partial_2A_{22}A_{11}+\partial_2A_{11}A_{22}-2\partial_2A_{12}A_{12}
=\partial_2A_{22}(A_{11}-A_{22})-\partial_2\rho HA_{22}-2\partial_1A_{22}A_{12}
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align}
\partial_2A_{22}=-\frac{1}{A_{22}-A_{11}}\bigg(\partial_2\rho HA_{22}+\partial_2 K+2\partial_1A_{22}A_{12}\bigg). \label{continue}
\end{align}
Next, we can assume that
\begin{align}
(\partial_1A_{22})^2<\frac18{(\partial_2\rho)^2H^2} \label{derestimate}
\end{align} because otherwise we can estimate as before
\begin{align*}
\frac{2}{K}((\partial_1A_{22})^2+(\partial_2A_{22})^2+3/2\partial_2\rho H\partial_2A_{22}
+1/2(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2)\geq 0.
\end{align*}
Proceeding with the term (\ref{continue}) we obtain
\begin{align*}
\partial_2A_{22}&\leq -\frac{A_{22}}{A_{22}-A_{11}}\partial_2\rho H+\frac{1}{A_{22}-A_{11}}(|\partial_2K|
+2|\partial_1A_{22}||A_{12}|)
\\&\leq -\partial_2\rho H+\frac{1}{H}\bigg(\Lambda^2\partial_2\rho+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\partial_2\rho H\sqrt{\epsilon}H\bigg)
\\&\leq -\partial_2\rho H+\frac{1}{H}(\epsilon \partial_2\rho H^2+\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\partial_2\rho H^2)
\\&=-\upsilon_1(\epsilon)\partial_2\rho H.
\end{align*}
In the second inequality we used the trivial estimate $-\frac{A_{22}}{A_{22}-A_{11}}\leq -1$, the uniform bound for $\partial_2 K$ as well as $\partial_2\rho\geq 1$ and (\ref{mestimate}) as well as (\ref{derestimate}). In the third inequality we used $\Gamma\leq \epsilon H^2$ and the last equality is the definition of $\upsilon_1$. Since the parabola $y\mapsto y^2+3/2yH\partial_2\rho+1/2H^2(\partial_2\rho)^2$ decreases until it reaches the critical point $y_0\frac{3}{4}\partial_2 \rho H$ it follows that
\begin{align*}
\frac{2}{K}((\partial_1A_{22})^2+(\partial_2A_{22})^2+3/2\partial_2\rho H\partial_2A_{22}
+1/2(\partial_2\rho)^2 H^2)\geq \frac{2}{K}(\upsilon_2(\epsilon)H^2(\partial_2\rho)^2)\geq -H^2/4,
\end{align*}
where we again used the trivial estimate $(\partial_1A_{22})^2\geq 0$ as well as the definition of $\upsilon_2$, the estimate $\partial_2\rho\leq 2c_0$ and (\ref{gammaproperty}). Combining this with (\ref{secondcstart}) we obtain
\begin{align}
H^2\leq 12\Lambda^2
\end{align}
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Krylov-Evans type estimate}
In order to conclude this section, we need to improve the $C^2-$estimate to a $C^{2,\alpha}-$estimate. As can be seen in \cite{han2006isometric}, the potential function
$$
f:=\frac12 F\cdot F
$$
can be used to estimate the second fundamental form $A$. Namely, there holds
$$
\partial_i\partial_j\rho=\Gamma^l_{i,j}\partial_l\rho -A_{ij}F\cdot \nu +h_{ij}.
$$
Using the previous lemmas, it is clear that $|A|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{D})}$ can be estimated in terms of $|h|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|\rho|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ provided that $|F\cdot \nu|$ can be uniformly bounded from below. Furthermore, taking the determinant of both sides of the equation implies that $\rho$ satisfies the following Monge-Ampere type equation
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}
&\det(\partial_{ij}f-\Gamma^l_{ij}\partial_lf-h_{ij})=\det(h)K(F\cdot \nu)^2
\text{ on }D, \\
&\partial_r f = \partial_r F\cdot F \text{ on }\partial D.
\end{cases}
\label{MAP}
\end{align}
This suggests to use a Krylov-Evans type estimate. Unfortunately, the free boundary condition implies that $F\cdot \nu=0 $ on $\partial D$. But we can easily overcome this difficulty.
\begin{lem}
Let $h\in{\mathcal G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ and let $F$ be a solution of the free boundary problem (\ref{fbp}) with respect to $h$. Then there exists a constant $c$ which only depends on $ |h|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})},|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$ and $\alpha$ such that
\begin{align*}
|F|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq c.
\end{align*}
\label{close3est}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $(\varphi,r)$ be isothermal polar coordinates centred at the origin with conformal factor $E$. We consider the Gauss map $\nu:\overline D\to \mathbb{S}^2\subset\mathbb{R}^3$. Since $F$ is strictly convex, it follows that $\nu$ is an embedding which is evidently strictly convex, too. Let $\hat h:=\nu^*g_e$ be the pull-back metric of $g_e$ via $\nu$. Recall that $A_{r\varphi}=0$ on $\partial D$, see (\ref{A cond boundary}). Consequently, on $\partial D$ there holds $\partial_\varphi \nu=E^{-2}A_{\varphi\varphi}\partial_\varphi F$ and $\partial_r \nu=E^{-2}A_{\varphi\varphi} \partial_r F$. It follows that $\hat\mu=E^{-1}\partial_r F=\mu$ is the outward co-normal of $\partial D$ with respect to $\hat h$. Consequently, the geodesic curvature of $\hat h$ of $\partial D$ is given by
$$
k_{\hat h}=\frac{E^3}{ A^2_{\varphi\varphi}} \partial_\varphi\partial_\varphi \nu\cdot \partial_r F=\frac{E^2}{A_{\varphi\varphi}} \partial_\varphi\partial_\varphi F\cdot
\mu=\frac{1}{A_{\varphi\varphi}},
$$
where we used the fact that $k_h=1$. It then follows from the previous lemma that $k_{\hat{h}}\geq \Xi^{-1}$ for some constant $\Xi$ which can be uniformly bounded by $|h|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma \ref{existlem} we may assume (after a suitable rotation) that $\nu(\overline{ D})$ is contained in the strict upper hemisphere $\mathbb{S}^2_+$ and that $\nu^3$ attains its strictly positive minimum $\tilde c$ in at least two points $p_1,p_2\in\nu(\partial D)$. It then follows that there has to be another point $p\in\nu(\partial D)$ where $k_{\hat h}\leq k_{\tilde c}=\sqrt{1-\tilde c^2}\tilde c$, where $k_{\tilde c}$ is the curvature of the curve $\{\tilde p\in\mathbb{S}^2|p^3=\tilde c\}$. Consequently, $\nu^3\geq 1/(2\Xi)=:\tilde c$.\footnote{A similar result is also due to Fenchel, see \cite{fenchel1929krummung}.} As we have seen in the proof of Lemma (\ref{existlem}), $F\cdot \nu$ vanishes precisely at the boundary. This implies that $ F\cdot \nu\leq 0$
and it follows that $\hat F\cdot \nu>\hat c>0$, where $\hat F:=-F+e_3$. Of course, $\hat F$ satisfies estimates comparable to $F$. We define the function $\hat{f}:=\frac12 \hat F\cdot \hat F$ and obtain
\begin{align}
&\det(\partial_{ij}\hat f-\Gamma^l_{ij}\partial_l\hat f-h_{ij})=\det hK(\hat F\cdot \nu)^2
\text{ on }D, \\
&\partial_r \hat f = E-EF\cdot e_3 \text{ on }\partial D.
\end{align}
Since $\hat F\cdot \nu>\hat c>0$, the equation is uniformly elliptic and the ellipticity constant can be estimated in terms of $|h|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$. Now, the Krylov-Evans type estimate Theorem 6 from \cite{trudinger1984boundary} implies
$$
|\hat f|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{D})}\leq \tilde c,
$$
where $\tilde c$ depends on $\alpha$, $|g|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$, the ellipticity constant, $|f|_{C^2(D)}$ and the boundary data, that is, $|E-EF\cdot e_3|_{C^2(D)}$. However, all these terms can be estimated in terms of $|h|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})}$ and $|1/K|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}$. From this, the claim follows easily.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to show the following compactness theorem:
\begin{thm}
Let $h_i\in \mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ be a family of Riemannian metrics that converges in $C^{4,\alpha}$ to a Riemannian metric $\tilde h\in \mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$, where $k\geq 4$. Then $g\in \mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$.
\label{closeness}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $K_i$ denote the curvature of the metric $h_i$. The convergence implies that there is a number $\Lambda$ such that
$ |g_i|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\overline{ D})},|1/K_i|_{C^0(\overline{ D})}\leq\Lambda$ for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$. Lemma \ref{close3est} then implies the uniform estimate
$$
|F_i|_{C^{2,\alpha}(D)}\leq c,
$$
where $F_i$ are the respective solutions of (\ref{fbp}). Hence, according to the Arzela-Ascoli theorem, we can choose a subsequence converging in $C^2$ to a map $F\in C^2$ which is a solution to the free boundary problem (\ref{fbp}) for $\tilde h$. Then, standard elliptic theory implies the claimed regularity.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main result}
We are now in the position to prove the main result. We first use the continuity method to establish that $\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}=\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$.
\begin{thm}
Let $k\geq4$, $0<\alpha<1$ and $h\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{ D},\operatorname{Sym}(\mathbb{R}^2))$ be a Riemannian metric with positive Gaussian curvature and with geodesic curvature along $\partial D$ equal to $1$. Then there exists a solution $F\in C^{k+1,\alpha}(\overline{ D})$ of the free boundary value problem (\ref{fbp}).
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} It suffices to show that $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}=\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$. According to Lemma \ref{pathconnect}, ${\mathcal{G}}^{k,\alpha}$ is path-connected while Theorem \ref{openness} and Theorem \ref{closeness} imply that $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ is open and closed. We consider coordinates $(\theta,\varphi)\in(0,\pi/4)\times(0,2\pi)$ and define the map
$$
F_0(\theta,\varphi)=(\sin(\theta)\sin(\varphi),\sin(\theta)\cos(\varphi),\sqrt{2}-\cos(\theta)).
$$
The image of $F_0$ has positive curvature, geodesic curvature along the boundary to $1$ and meets the unit sphere orthogonally. We denote the pullback metric to $D$ by $h_0$. Hence, $h_0\in\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ which means that $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}$ is a non-empty, open and closed subset of a path-connected space which clearly implies that $\mathcal{G}_*^{k,\alpha}=\mathcal{G}^{k,\alpha}$.
\end{proof}
Similarly to the isometric embedding problem for closed convex surfaces, we are also able to show uniqueness up to rigid motions that leave $\mathbb{S}^2$ invariant.
\begin{thm}
Let $h$ and $F$ be as in the previous theorem. Then $F$ is unique up to rotations and reflections through planes containing the origin.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We assume that $\tilde F$ is another solution of (\ref{fbp}). We denote the Gauss curvature of $h$ by $K$, and the second fundamental forms of $F$ and $\tilde F$ by $A=(A_{ij})_{ij}$ and $\tilde A=(\tilde A_{ij})_{ij}$, respectively. The respective normals $\nu$ and $\tilde \nu$ are chosen in a way such that the respective mean curvatures, denoted by $H$ and $\tilde H$, share the same sign. We now use a variation of the argument in \cite{pigola2003some}. As we have seen before, after a rotation and reflection, we can assume that both $F$ and $\tilde F$ are contained in the open upper hemisphere, that $\nu$ and $\tilde \nu$ both point downwards and that $F\cdot \nu$ and $\tilde F \cdot \tilde \nu$ vanish precisely at the boundary. Next, we choose a local orthonormal frame $e_1,e_2$ of $(D,h)$ and proceed to define the following two vector fields:
$$
X:=F\cdot dF(e_i)\tilde A_{ij}e_j-\tilde A_{jj}f\cdot dF(e_i)e_i, \qquad
Y:=\bigg(A_{ij}F\cdot dF(e_j)-HF\cdot dF(e_i)\bigg)e_i.
$$
It is easy to see that these definitions do not depend on the choice of the orthonormal frame. Using the conformal property of the position vector field in $\mathbb{R}^3$ one computes (see Proposition 1.2 and Proposition 1.8 in \cite{pigola2003some}) that
\begin{align}
\operatorname{div}_h X&=-2\tilde H-2KF\cdot \nu+F\cdot \nu \det(A-\tilde A), \label{1div}
\\\operatorname{div}_h Y&=-2H-2KF\cdot \nu . \label{2div}
\end{align}
Finally, if $(\varphi,r)$ denote isothermal polar coordinates, $\mu$ the outward co-normal of the Riemannian manifold $(D,h)$ and $E$ the conformal factor of $h$, an easy computation which uses the free boundary condition and $A_{r\varphi}=\tilde A_{r\varphi}=0$ shows
\begin{align*}
X\cdot \mu=-\frac{1}{E^2}\tilde A_{\varphi\varphi} \qquad
Y\cdot \mu =-\frac{1}{E^2} A_{\varphi\varphi}
\end{align*}
on $\partial D$.
Hence, integrating (\ref{1div}) and (\ref{2div}) over $M$, applying the divergence theorem and subtracting both equations one finds that
$$
\int_{\partial D} \frac{1}{E^2} (A_{\varphi\varphi}-\tilde A_{\varphi\varphi})\text{d}vol_h=2 \int_D (H-\tilde H) \text{d}vol_h +\int_D F\cdot \nu\det(A-\tilde A)\text{d}vol_h.
$$
Interchanging the roles of $F$ and $\tilde F$ and performing the same computation again we find that
$$
\int_D (F\cdot \nu+\tilde F \cdot \tilde \nu) \det(A-\tilde A)\text{d}vol_h=0.
$$
Now, since $F\cdot \nu,\tilde F \cdot \tilde \nu$ are positive up to a set of measure $0$ and since $\det(A)=\det(\tilde A)=K$ combined with $A,\tilde A>0$ implies that $\det(A-\tilde A)\leq 0$, we find that
$$
\det(A-\tilde A)\equiv 0.
$$
Hence, $F$ and $\tilde F$ share the same second fundamental form and consequently only differ by a rigid motion. Since both of their boundaries are contained in the unit sphere, this rigid motion must be a composition of a rotation and a reflection through a plane containing the origin.
\end{proof}
\section{A possible application to quasi-local mass}
In this section, we show a geometric inequality in the spirit of \cite{hijazi2014holographic} for a boundary component of compact Riemannian three-manifolds whose boundary consists of two components meeting orthogonally and which satisfies a certain dominant energy condition. Unfortunately, this inequality contains an undesirable boundary term, comes without a rigidity statement and requires a somewhat restrictive assumption. We then consider an explicit example in the Schwarzschild space, solve the free boundary isometric embedding problem and verify a simpler, less restrictive inequality in the spirit of \cite{shi2002positive}. Henceforth, we define a new Brown-York type quasi-local mass for manifolds with two boundary components meeting orthogonally and conjecture its positivity under the dominant energy condition.
\subsection{A geometric inequality}
In the rest of this section, let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian three-manifold with boundary $\partial M=\Sigma \cup S$. Here, $\Sigma$ and $S$ are compact, smooth surfaces that meet orthogonally along their common boundary $\partial \Sigma=\partial S$. Let $\operatorname{Sc}$ be the scalar curvature of $(M,g)$, $h_\Sigma$ and $h_S$ be the respective induced metrics, $K^\Sigma, K^S$ be the respective Gauss curvatures and $A^\Sigma,A^S,H^\Sigma,H^S$ be the respective second fundamental forms and mean curvatures. We assume that $K^\Sigma>0$ and that $k_h:=k_{h_\Sigma}=1$. This is for instance the case if there holds $A^S=h_S$. Using Theorem \ref{main theorem fbie}, the isometric embedding problem with free boundary in the unit sphere may then be uniquely solved for $\Sigma$ (up to rigid motions). We denote the image of the isometric embedding again by $\Sigma$ and its Euclidean mean curvature by $H_e$. It follows that $\mathbb{S}^2\setminus\partial\Sigma$ has two components and we define $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ to be the one with less area.
It is a well-known fact that every three-manifold admits a spin structure. Hence, let $\slashed{S}M$ be the spinor bundle of $M$ and $\slashed{S}\Sigma$ and $\slashed{S}S$ be the induced spinor bundles of $S$ and $\Sigma$, respectively. We denote the spin connection and Dirac operator by $\slashed{\nabla},\slashed{D}, \slashed{\nabla}^\Sigma,\slashed{D}^\Sigma$ etc., the clifford multiplication by $\slashed{\upsilon},\slashed{\upsilon}^\Sigma$ etc. and denote the induced hermitian inner product of the spin bundle by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$. We need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
Let $\psi$ be a spinor on $M$ of class $C^1$. Assume that $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ and that both $S$ and $\Sigma$ are strictly mean convex. Then the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{2}{H^\Sigma}\langle\slashed{D}^\Sigma\psi,\slashed{D}^\Sigma\psi\rangle -\frac{H^\Sigma}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol}_{h_\Sigma}\geq
\int_S\bigg(\frac{H^S}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle -\frac{2}{H^S}\langle\slashed{D}^S\psi,\slashed{D}^S\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol}_{h_S}.
\end{align}
\begin{proof}
We consider an exhausting sequence of manifolds $M^i\subset M$ with smooth boundary $\partial M^i$ which are obtained by leaving $M$ unchanged outside the tubular neighbourhood $B_{\delta_i}(\partial\Sigma):=\{p\in M|\operatorname{dist}_g(p,\partial \Sigma)<\delta_i\}$ and smoothing the corner near $\partial \Sigma$ for some sequence $\delta_i\to 0$. One may check that this construction can be performed in a way such that $\partial M^i$ is strictly mean convex. Now, Proposition 10 in \cite{hijazi2014holographic} implies that
$$
\int_{\partial M^i} \bigg(\frac{2}{H^{\partial M^i}}\langle\slashed{D}^{\partial M^i}\psi,\slashed{D}^{\partial M^i}\psi\rangle -\frac{H^{\partial M^i}}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol}_{h_{\partial M^i}}\geq0.
$$
On the other hand, there holds
$$
\slashed{D}^{\partial M^i} \psi=\frac{H^{\partial M^i}}{2}\psi-\slashed{D}\psi-\slashed{\nabla}_\nu\psi,
$$
where $\nu$ is the outward normal of $\partial M^i$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{\partial M^i\cap B_{\delta_i}(\partial \Sigma)} \bigg(\frac{2}{H^{\partial M_i}}\langle\slashed{D}^{\partial M^i}\psi,\slashed{D}^{\partial M^i}\psi\rangle -\frac{H^{\partial M^i}}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol_{h_{\partial M^i}}}\\=&
\int_{\partial M^i\cap B_{\delta_i}(\partial \Sigma)} \bigg(\frac{2}{H^{\partial M^i}}|\slashed{D}\psi-\slashed{\nabla}_\nu\psi|^2 -2\operatorname{Re}\langle\slashed{D}\psi-\slashed{\nabla}_\nu\psi,\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol_{h_{\partial M^i}}}.
\end{align*}
The approximation may be chosen in a way such that $H^{\partial M^i}$ can be bounded from below independently of $i$ and the last integral consequently approaches $0$ as $i\to\infty$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}
\end{lem}
We are now in the position to prove the following geometric inequality.
\begin{prop}
Let $(M,g)$ be a manifold with boundary $\partial M=S\cup \Sigma$ where $S,\Sigma$ are smooth discs that meet orthogonally along $\partial \Sigma=\partial S$. Assume that $\Sigma$ is strictly mean convex and has positive Gauss curvature as well as geodesic curvature along $\partial D$ equal to $1$, that $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ on $M$ and that $H^S\geq 2$ as well as $K^S\leq 1$. Let $H_e$ be the mean curvature of the embedding of $\Sigma$ which is obtained as the solution of the free boundary isometric embedding problem (\ref{fbp}). Then the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{H_e^2}{H^\Sigma}-H^\Sigma\bigg)\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}\geq 2\int_{\partial \Sigma}\bigg(\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\Sigma}A_e^\Sigma-\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\Sigma}A^\Sigma\bigg)\operatorname{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}.
\label{related inequality}
\end{align}
\label{geometric ineq}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the uniformization theorem that $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ and $S$ are conformally equivalent. Up to a diffeomorphism, there consequently holds $h_S=E^2h_{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}$ for some function $E\in C^\infty(\mathbb{S}_\Sigma)$ and since $S$ and $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ share the same boundary $\partial \Sigma$ we may arrange that $E=1$ on $\partial S$. Here, $h_{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}$ is the round metric.
Let $\tilde \rho$ be a unit-length parallel spinor on $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\rho$ its restriction to $\Sigma$. Let $\hat \rho$ be the restriction of $\tilde \rho$ to $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$. Since $\mathbb{S}^2\subset\mathbb{R}^3$ is totally umbilical and has constant mean curvature, it follows that $\hat \rho$ is a twistor spinor, that is,
$$
\slashed{\nabla}_X^{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}\hat\rho+\frac{1}{2}\slashed{\upsilon}^{\mathbb{S}(X)_\Sigma}\slashed{D}^{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}\hat\rho=0
$$
for any vector field $X$ on $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$. It is well-known that the twistor equation is conformally invariant, see \cite{kuhnel1997twistor}, in the sense that that $\bar\rho=E^{1/2}\hat\rho$ is a twistor spinor on $S$. Since $E=1$ on $\partial \mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ it follows that we can find a $C^1-$spinor $\psi$ on $M$ such that $\psi_{|\Sigma}=\rho$ and $\psi_{|S}=\bar\rho$. Since $\tilde \rho$ is parallel, it follows that $\slashed{D}^\Sigma \rho=\frac{H_e}{2}\rho$ and consequently
$$
\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{2}{H^\Sigma}\langle\slashed{D}^\Sigma\psi,\slashed{D}^\Sigma\psi\rangle -\frac{H^\Sigma}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol}_{h_\Sigma}=\frac12\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{H_e^2}{H^\Sigma}-H^\Sigma\bigg)\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}.
$$
On the other hand, we consider the integrated form of the well-known Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula, see for instance \cite{hijazi2001eigenvalues}, which states that
\begin{align}
\int_{\partial \Sigma} \langle \bar\rho, \slashed{D}^{\partial \Sigma}\bar\rho\rangle \text{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}-\frac12 \int_{\partial \Sigma} H^{\partial \Sigma} |\bar\rho|^2\text{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}=\int_{S} \bigg(|\slashed{\nabla}^S \bar\rho|^2+\frac{K^S}{2}|\bar\rho|^2-|\slashed{D}^S\bar\rho|^2\bigg)\text{d}vol_{h_{S}}.
\label{lichnerowicz}
\end{align}
Here, $H^{\partial \Sigma}$ denotes the mean curvature of $\partial \Sigma$ as a subset of $S$.
The twistor equation implies that $|\slashed{\nabla}^S \bar\rho|^2-|\slashed{D}^S\bar\rho|^2/2=0$. On the other hand, since $\bar\rho=\hat\rho$ on $\partial \Sigma$ and $\slashed{D}^{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}\hat\rho=\hat\rho$ as well as $K^{\mathbb{S}_\Sigma}=1$ it follows from replacing $S$ by $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ and $\bar\rho$ by $\hat\rho$ in (\ref{lichnerowicz}) that
$$
\int_{\partial \Sigma} \langle \bar\rho, \slashed{D}^{\partial \Sigma}\bar\rho\rangle \text{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}=\frac12 \int_{\partial \Sigma} H_e^{\partial \Sigma} \text{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}.
$$
Here, we also used that $|\hat\rho|=1$. Consequently, using $H^S\geq 2$ and $K^S\leq 1$ we find
\begin{align*}
\int_S\bigg(\frac{H^S}{2}\langle\psi,\psi\rangle -\frac{2}{H^S}\langle\slashed{D}^S\psi,\slashed{D}^S\psi\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol_{h_S}}&\geq \int_S\bigg(K^S\langle\bar\rho,\bar\rho\rangle -\langle\slashed{D}^S\bar\rho,\slashed{D}^S\bar\rho\rangle\bigg)\text{d}{vol_{h_S}}
\\&= \int_{\partial \Sigma} (H_e^{\partial \Sigma}-H^{\partial\Sigma}) \text{d}vol_{h_{\partial \Sigma}}.
\end{align*}
Finally, since $\Sigma$ is a free boundary surface with respect to both $\mathcal{S}_\Sigma$ and $S$ it follows that $H_e^{\partial \Sigma}=\operatorname{tr}_{\partial \Sigma}A_e^\Sigma$ as well as $H^{\partial \Sigma}=\operatorname{tr}_{\partial \Sigma}A^\Sigma$.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}
The term on the right hand side of (\ref{related inequality}) is somewhat undesirable and the exemplary computation (\ref{evidence}) below suggests that one might be able to estimate it from below by $0$. Additionally, we also expect the restrictive assumption on the Gauss curvature of $S$ to be unnecessary. Since we are using an approximation argument, our method cannot be used to prove a rigidity statement. However, we expect that equality can only occur if there is an isometry which maps $S$ to $\mathbb{S}_\Sigma$ and $(M,g)$ to the compact domain enclosed by $\Sigma\cup \mathbb{S}_\Sigma$.
\end{rema}
\subsection{An example in the Schwarzschild space} In order to shed more light on which geometric inequality we might be able to expect, we consider an explicit example. Let $(M_S,g_S):=(\mathbb{R}^3,\phi^4g_e)$ be the spatial Schwarzschild manifold with mass parameter $m_{ADM}>0$, where $\phi(x)=1+m_{ADM}/(2|x|)$ and $x$ is the position vector field in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The Schwarzschild manifold models a single static black hole as an asymptotically flat manifold with ADM-mass $m_{ADM}$ and vanishing scalar curvature. We consider the embedded disc $\Sigma=\operatorname{Im}(\Phi)$, where $\Phi:[0,\pi/4]\times[0,2\pi)\to M$, $(\theta,\varphi)\mapsto \gamma(\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sqrt{2}-\cos\theta)$ for some parameter $\gamma>0$. $\Sigma$ divides $\mathbb{S}^2_\gamma$ in two components and we define $S$ to be the one with less area. We then define $M$ to be the domain enclosed by $\Sigma\cup S$ and $g=g_S$. Let $r(x):=|x|$ be the radial function of Schwarzschild. There holds $r^2=\gamma^2(3-2^{3/2}\cos\theta)$ as well as
$\partial_r\cdot\nu_e=r^{-1}(1-\sqrt{2}\cos\theta)$, where $\nu_e$ is the downward normal of $\Sigma$ with respect to the Euclidean background metric. Using the stereographic projection we can find conformal coordinates $x_1,x_2$ on a disc $D$ such that
$$
\cos\theta=\frac{2}{1+x_1^2+x_2^2}-1.
$$
and the induced metric $h$ (by $g_S$) on $\Sigma$ is given by
$$
h=\gamma^2(\cos\theta+1)^2\phi^4(r)(dx_1^2+dx_2^2)=:\tilde E^2(d\hat r^2+\hat r^2d\varphi^2).
$$
Here $\hat r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2=2/(\cos\theta+1)-1$. We proceed to compute
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} r^2(\hat r)=\gamma^2\bigg(3+2^{3/2}-\frac{2^{5/2}}{1+\hat r^2}\bigg), &\qquad \partial_r\cdot \nu_e(\hat r)=\frac{1}{r(\hat r)}\bigg(1+\sqrt{2}-\frac{2^{3/2}}{1+\hat r^2}\bigg), \\
\tilde E(\hat r)=&\phi^2(r(\hat r))\frac{2\gamma}{1+\hat r^2}.
\end{aligned}
\label{example quantities}
\end{equation}
The condition $0\leq\theta\leq\pi/4$ transfers to $0\leq \hat r\leq\sqrt{\frac{2^{3/2}}{\sqrt{2}+1}-1}=\sqrt{3-2^{3/2}}=\sqrt{2}-1$. We then compute the geodesic curvature of the boundary $\hat r=\sqrt{2}-1$ to be
\begin{align}k_h&=\frac{1}{\gamma\phi^2(\gamma)}\bigg(1-\frac{m_{ADM}}{\gamma\phi(\gamma)}\bigg).
\end{align}
It can be checked that the equation $k_h=1$ has one positive solution for $m_{ADM}=1/{3^{3/2}}$, no positive solutions for $m_{ADM}>{3^{-3/2}}$ and two solutions for $0<1/{3^{3/2}}<m_{ADM}$.\footnote{It does not seem to be obvious how one should interpret this threshold.} The two solutions correspond to the $\pm 1$ symmetry of the Schwarzschild manifold. One may also check that $K_h>0$. An explicit example is given by $\gamma=9/32$ and $m_{ADM}=3/16$. In order to solve the isometric embedding problem for the disc $(\Sigma,h)$, we consider functions $\psi(\hat{r}),\zeta(\hat{r})$ and the map
$F(\hat{r},\varphi)=\gamma(\psi\sin\varphi,\psi\cos\varphi,\zeta)$. Let $E=\gamma^{-1}\tilde E$, the isometric embedding equation becomes
$$
\psi^2=E^2\hat{r}^2, \qquad \psi'^2+\zeta'^2=E^2.
$$
The isometric embedding condition uniquely determines $\psi:=E\hat{r}$ and we can find $\zeta$ if and only if $E^2-\psi'^2=E^2-(\partial_{\hat{r}} (E(\hat{r}))^2$. A simple argument shows that this is implied by the facts $K_h>0$ and $k_h=1$. One also easily checks that $\zeta(\sqrt{2}-1)$ can be chosen in a way such that $F(\Sigma)$ meets $\mathbb{S}^2$ orthogonally. We proceed to compute $\nu_e=\zeta(\psi'^2+\zeta'^2)^{-\frac12}(\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,-\psi'/\zeta')$ as well as
\begin{align*}
H_e&=\frac{\zeta'}{\gamma\sqrt{\psi'^2+\zeta'^2}}\bigg(-\frac{\psi}{E^2\hat{r}^2}+\frac{1}{E^2}(\psi''-\frac{\psi'}{\zeta'}\zeta'')\bigg).
\end{align*}
One may also check that the mean curvature of $\Sigma$ as a subset of $(M,g)$ is given by
$$H=\frac{1}{\phi^2(r(\hat{r}))}\bigg(\frac2\gamma-\frac{2m}{\phi(r(\hat{r}))r^2(\hat{r})}\partial_r\cdot\nu_e\bigg).$$
Using (\ref{example quantities}), a numerical computation then shows that for any admissible pair $(m_{ADM},\gamma)$ there holds
\begin{align}
\int_{\Sigma} H_e\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}=2\pi \gamma \int_{0}^{\sqrt{2}-1}H_eE^2\hat{r}\text{d}\hat{r}>2\pi \gamma^2 \int_{0}^{\sqrt{2}-1}H E^2\hat{r}\text{d}\hat{r}=\int_\Sigma H\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}.
\end{align}
For instance, if $m_{ADM}=3/16$ and $\gamma=9/32$ one obtains
$$
\int_{\Sigma} H_e\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}\approx3.46,\qquad\qquad \int_\Sigma H\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}\approx3.37.
$$
We also notice that the mean curvature of the support surface $S$ with respect to the Schwarzschild metric is
$$
H^{S}=\frac{1}{\phi^2(a)}\bigg(\frac{2}{a}-\frac{2m_{ADM}}{a^2\phi(a)}\bigg)=2k_h=2.
$$
Hence, $(M,g)$ satisfies the dominant energy condition $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ and $H^S\geq 2$, which should be compared with Proposition \ref{geometric ineq}. One may also check that $K^S=4$ and
\begin{align}
\int_{\partial \Sigma} (\operatorname{tr}_{\partial \Sigma}A^\Sigma_e-\operatorname{tr}_{\partial \Sigma}A^\Sigma_e)\text{d}vol_{h_{\partial_\Sigma}}>0
\label{evidence}
\end{align}
for any admissible choices of $(m,\gamma)$ which give further evidence that the alterations to Proposition \ref{geometric ineq} proposed in the corresponding remark should be true.
\subsection{A new quasi-local mass}
Motivated by the insights of the previous subsections we now define a new quasi-local mass for compact three-manifolds $(M,g)$ with boundary $\partial M=\Sigma\cup S$. Contrary to the classical Brown-York mass, our definition will not require an isometric embedding of the full boundary which suggests that the presence of curvature may in certain situations be measured by only looking at the boundary component $\Sigma\subset \partial M$.
\begin{defi}
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian three-manifold with boundary $\partial M=\Sigma\cup S$ such that $S$ and $\Sigma$ meet orthogonally and $\Sigma$ has positive Gauss curvature and satisfies $k_{h_\Sigma}=1$. Then the free boundary Brown-York mass mass is defined by
\begin{align}
m^{FB}_{BY}(M):=\int_{\Sigma} (H_e-H)\text{d}vol_{h_\Sigma}. \label{fbBY}
\end{align}
\end{defi}
As was observed in \cite{hijazi2014holographic}, a straight forward application of Hölder's inequality shows that if $\Sigma\subset M$ is strictly mean convex and $m^{FB}_{BY}(M)\geq 0$ one recovers
$$
\int_\Sigma \bigg(\frac{H_e^2}{H}-H\bigg)\text{d}{vol}_{ h_\Sigma}\geq 0.
$$
In light of the previous subsections it thus natural to make the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}
Let $(M,g)$ be as in the previous definition. If $\Sigma$ is strictly mean convex and if $(M,g)$ satisfies the dominant energy condition $\operatorname{Sc}\geq 0$ as well as $H^S\geq 2$ then there holds $m^{FB}_{BY}(M)\geq 0$ with equality if and only if $M$ is the Euclidean domain bounded by a part of the unit sphere and a convex free boundary surface.
\end{conj}
If one revisits the argument in \cite{shi2002positive} one may observe that a positive answer to the previous conjecture is equivalent to a positive mass type theorem for asymptotically flat manifolds modelled on a solid cone over the embedding of $\Sigma$. Here, the mass is understood as in \cite{almaraz2014positive}. However, proving such a result seems to be surprisingly hard, especially since there appears to be no geometrically invariant formulation of the dominant energy condition on the boundary component.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
Spintronics,
where the electron's spin degree of freedom is used as information carrier rather than its charge, has attracted enormous interest because of its promising applications in the next generation of electronic technologies. In this context, spin-related transport phenomena arising in various magnets have been intensively investigated in the last two decades. In ferromagnetic metals, a transverse voltage drop can be induced by a longitudinal charge current. This phenomenon is the so-called anomalous Hall effect (AHE)~\cite{Nagaosa2010}, being one of the most competitive pathways for realizing spintronics. Nevertheless, the energy consumption is inevitable in the AHE since the driving force has to be an external electric field. In this light, direct coupling between spin and heat in the field of \textit{spin caloritronics}~\cite{Bauer2012,Boona2014} is more energy-efficient as spin currents can be generated by harvesting waste heat. Therefore, spin caloritronics usually known as ``green" spintronics offers exciting prospects for energy conversion and information processing.
The anomalous Nernst effect (ANE)~\cite{Nernst1887,D-Xiao2006,Lee2004,Weischenberg2013,L-Dong2018} $-$ the thermoelectric counterpart of the AHE $-$ is a celebrated effect from the realm of spincaloritronics. It leads to the generation of a transverse spin-polarized charge current $j_y$ along the $y$ direction when a temperature gradient $\nabla_x T$ is applied along the $x$ direction, and therefore the ANE can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
j_{y}=-\alpha_{yx}\nabla_x T,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{yx}$ is known as the anomalous Nernst conductivity (ANC). Although ferromagnets are commonly considered as the prime sources of anomalous Nernst currents, in fact, their efficiency comes to doubt as the density of thermoelectric modules based on ferromagnets is severely limited by the effect of intrinsic stray fields from neighboring units. Strikingly, the ANE has been recently witnessed in noncollinear antiferromagnets, such as Mn$_{3}$Sn~\cite{Ikhlas2017,XK-Li2017}, even though the net magnetization in many of such compounds vanishes. The physics behind is the ultimate source of the ANE in the Berry curvature of electronic states, which is promoted by breaking of proper symmetries, rather than the net magnetization itself. Since antiferromagnets exhibit much faster dynamics than ferromagnets, \textit{antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics}, in analogy to antiferromagnetic spintronics~\cite{Baltz2018,Zelezny2018,Jungwirth2018,Smejkal2018}, is becoming an attractive research field. The ANC in Mn$_{3}$Sn is considerably larger than that in 3d transition-metal ferromagnets (e.g., Fe and Co)~\cite{Ikhlas2017,XK-Li2017}, while it is still one order of magnitude smaller than that in the full-Heusler ferromagnet Co$_{2}$MnGa, which exhibits the largest ANC reported to date~\cite{Sakai2018,Guin2019}. Since the ANC is sensitive to the details of the electronic structure for a given magnetic material, finding antiferromagnets which host large ANE is a crucial step to realize antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics.
In addition to Mn$_{3}$Sn, the antiperovskite Mn$_{3}X$N ($X$ = Ga, Zn, Ag, Ni, etc.) presents another important class of noncollinear antiferromagnets, which was known since the 1970s~\cite{Bertaut1968,Fruchart1978}. Many unique physical properties have been found in Mn$_{3}X$N, including the magnetovolume effects~\cite{Gomonaj1989,Gomonaj1992,WS-Kim2003, Lukashev2008,Lukashev2010,Takenaka2014,SH-Deng2015,Zemen2017a}, magnetocaloric effects~\cite{Y-Sun2012,Matsunami2014,KW-Shi2016,Zemen2017}, magneto-optical effect~\cite{XD-Zhou2019} and AHE~\cite{XD-Zhou2019,Gurung2019,K-Zhao2019,Huyen2019}. However, the ANE, being a practical scheme for spin caloritronics~\cite{Bauer2012,Boona2014}, has not been reported till now in this class of materials. This motivated us to explore the ANE in Mn$_{3}X$N in order to find a superior antiferromagnetic host material which couples spin transport with heat most efficiently.
In this work, using state-of-the-art first-principles calculations, we systematically study the ANE in noncollinear antiferromagnetic antiperovskite Mn$_{3}X$N ($X$ = Ga, Zn, Ag, and Ni). We first show that the ANE depends strongly on the spin order, which characterizes the 120$^\circ$ noncollinear spin structure (Fig.~\ref{fig1}). Using group theory analysis and Berry curvature calculations, we demonstrate that the ANE in Mn$_{3}X$N vanishes in the R1 phase while it assumes its maximal value in the R3 phase. The system Mn$_{3}$NiN has an ANC that is as large as $\sim$2 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$, which is nearly one order of magnitude larger than that in the noncollinear antiferromagnet Mn$_{3}$Sn ($\sim$0.2 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$)~\cite{Ikhlas2017,XK-Li2017} and is close to the reported largest ANC in the ferromagnet Co$_{2}$MnGa ($\sim$4.0 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$)~\cite{Sakai2018,Guin2019}. The pronounced ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN originates from the steep slope of the anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC) at the Fermi energy, and can be understood from the Mott relation. Moreover, the ANE in Mn$_{3}$NiN can be tuned by strain, electric, and magnetic fields. This pronounced and tunable ANE suggests Mn$_3$NiN as an ideal material platform for realizing highly efficient spin thermoelectric devices based on noncollinear antiferromagnets rather than traditional ferromagents as schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.8\columnwidth]{fig1_resub}
\caption{(Color online) Crystal and magnetic structures of Mn$_{3}X$N. (a)--(c) Different spin orders in Mn$_3X$N as classified by the R1, R2, and R3 phases. The yellow, blue, and purple spheres represent Mn, $X$, and N atoms, respectively. The red arrows label the directions of the spin magnetic moments of Mn atoms, which lie on the (111) plane highlighted in green. The azimuthal angle $\varphi$, defined as the spin order parameter, measures the rotation of spins away from the face diagonals of the cube. (d)--(f) Top view of the noncollinear spin order in the (111) plane. $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, $\mathcal{M}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{M}_{3}$ in (d) are three mirror symmetries; $\mathcal{TM}_{1}$, $\mathcal{TM}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{TM}_{3}$ in (f) are the symmetries combining mirror and time-reversal ($\mathcal{T}$) operations. The $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ rotation with respect to the $z$ axis is always present in (d)--(f).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
\section{Result and Discussion}\label{sec2}
Mn$_{3}X$N forms an antiperovskite crystal structure that hosts a noncollinear antiferromagnetic order, as displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The nonmagnetic $X$ and N atoms occupy the corners and the center of the cube, respectively, whereas the three magnetic Mn atoms are located on the face centers. The spin magnetic moments of Mn atoms lie on the (111) plane and form a 120$^{\circ}$ noncollinear spin structure. Interestingly, all three spins can simultaneously rotate within the (111) plane, depending on the temperature $T$~\cite{Bertaut1968,Fruchart1978}. In order to quantitatively describe the noncollinear spin structure, we introduce the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ as spin order parameter, measuring the rotation of the spins away from the face diagonals of the cube. Taking Mn$_{3}$NiN as an example~\cite{Fruchart1978}, the three spins align along the face diagonals of the cube for $T<$ 163 K, which is called R1 phase ($\varphi=0^{\circ}$) (Figs.~\ref{fig1}a and~\ref{fig1}d). When 163 K $<T<$ 266 K, the R3 phase ($\varphi=90^{\circ}$) can appear (Figs.~\ref{fig1}c and~\ref{fig1}f), for which the three spins point to the center of the triangle formed by neighboring magnetic atoms. The R1 and R3 phases are also called $\Gamma^{5g}$ and $\Gamma^{4g}$ spin configurations, respectively~\cite{Bertaut1968,Fruchart1978}. An intermediate R2 phase ($0^{\circ} < \varphi < 90^{\circ}$) (Figs.~\ref{fig1}b and~\ref{fig1}e) is expected to emerge during the phase transition between the R1 and R3 phases~\cite{Gomonaj1989,Gomonaj1992}. Such temperature-dependent noncollinear spin structure may also be realized in other Mn$_{3}X$N ($X$ = Ag, Ga, Zn) compounds~\cite{Bertaut1968,Fruchart1978,Gomonaj1989,Gomonaj1992}.
The R3 phase of Mn$_{3}X$N could have the weak ferromagnetism along the crystallographic [111] direction, and the calculated total spin magnetic moment is only 0.006 $\mu_{B}$ (0.002 $\mu_{B}$ per Mn site). The weak spin ferromagnetism is not responsible for the emergence of the ANE, while the noncollinear spin order is the ultimate source as we demonstrate later by using group theory. In practice, the directions of spin magnetic moments are constrained within the (111) plane such that we actually consider a fully compensated antiferromagnet which has vanishing total spin magnetization. Our calculations also show that the total orbital magnetic moment is not vanishing; however, one cannot merely say that it induces the ANE in Mn$_{3}X$N. The orbital magnetization is very closely related to the AHE and ANE via the Berry curvature of the electronic states~\cite{D-Xiao2006,L-Dong2018}. It is the symmetry properties of the Berry curvature which are perceived as the main origin of the emergence of the orbital magnetization, AHE, or ANE in both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic materials. The orbital ferromagnetism arises hand in hand with the ANE since both are allowed by symmetry, and it would be improper to argue that orbital magnetism is the origin of the effects discussed in Mn$_{3}X$N. It would be different from the case of Ref.~\cite{Solovyev1997}, in which it is the combination of the antiferromagnetic order with lowered crystal symmetry and spin-orbit interaction which breaks the necessary symmetry for the emergence of the orbital magnetization and magneto-optical effects.
\begin{table}[b!]
\centering
\caption{Magnetic point groups and symmetry-allowed elements of the anomalous Nernst conductivity (ANC) tensor for Mn$_{3}X$N as a function of the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ that defines the noncollinear spin order. The magnetic point groups are calculated by the \textsc{isotropy} code~\cite{Stokes}.}
\label{tab1}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
Azimuthal angle $\varphi$ & $0^{\circ}$&$30^{\circ}$&$60^{\circ}$&$90^{\circ}$&$120^{\circ}$&$150^{\circ}$&$180^{\circ}$ \\
\hline
Magnetic point group & $\bar{3}1m$ & $\bar{3}$ & $\bar{3}$ & $\bar{3}1m^{\prime}$ & $\bar{3}$ & $\bar{3}$ & $\bar{3}1m$ \\
Nonzero ANC element & -- & $\alpha_{xy}$ & $\alpha_{xy}$ & $\alpha_{xy}$ & $\alpha_{xy}$ & $\alpha_{xy}$ & -- \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The ANE in Mn$_{3}X$N can be anticipated to significantly depend on the spin order. To demonstrate this, we first employ group theory to analyze the influence of the different spin orders on the Berry curvature, which is the key quantity in calculating the ANC [see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:IANC} and~\eqref{eq:BerryCur}]. Since the ANC is a pseudovector, it can be written in a vector notation, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[\bar{\alpha}^{x},\bar{\alpha}^{y},\bar{\alpha}^{z}]\equiv[\alpha_{yz},\alpha_{zx},\alpha_{xy}]$, where the vector components correspond one-by-one to the off-diagonal elements of the Nernst conductivity tensor, i.e., $\bar{\alpha}^{x/y/z}\equiv\alpha_{yz/zx/xy}$. Similarly, the Berry curvature can be written as $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{n}=[\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x},\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y},\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{z}]\equiv[\Omega^{n}_{yz},\Omega^{n}_{zx},\Omega^{n}_{xy}]$, where $n$ is the band index. Both properties are translationally invariant such that it is sufficient to restrict our analysis to magnetic point groups. Table~\ref{tab1} lists the evolution of the magnetic point group with the spin order parameter $\varphi$. One can see that the magnetic point group exhibits a period of $\pi$ and there are three non-repetitive elements, $\bar{3}1m$ [$\varphi=n\pi$], $\bar{3}1m^{\prime}$ [$\varphi=(n +\frac{1}{2})\pi$], and $\bar{3}$ [$\varphi \neq n\pi$ and $\varphi \neq (n +\frac{1}{2})\pi$] with $n \in \mathbb{N}$, which we shall discuss one by one. First, $\bar{3}1m$ contains three mirror planes: $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, $\mathcal{M}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{M}_{3}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}d). $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ is parallel to the $yz$ plane, which changes the sign of $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y}$ and $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{z}$ but preserves $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x}$. This implies that $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y}$ and $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{z}$ are odd functions of $k_{x}$, while $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x}$ is an even function. By integrating the Berry curvature over the entire Brillouin zone, we arrive at $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[\bar{\alpha}^{x},0,0]$. In addition, $\bar{3}1m$ contains a three-fold rotation symmetry $\mathcal C_{3}$ around the [111] direction that relates $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ to the other two mirror planes $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{3}$. Since any component of the ANC normal to the $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ axis, for example $\bar{\alpha}^{x}$, is forced to be zero, it finally results in $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[0,0,0]$ under the group $\bar{3}1m$. Therefore, the ANE is forbidden by symmetry in the R1 phase ($\varphi=n\pi$). Second, in contrast to $\bar{3}1m$, all mirror planes are absent in the group $\bar{3}$ and only the $\mathcal{C}_3$ axis is preserved (Fig.~\ref{fig1}e). This leads to vanishing $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x}$ and $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y}$, and there exists $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[0,0,\bar{\alpha}^{z}]=[0,0,\alpha_{xy}]$ in the R2 phase [$\varphi \neq n\pi$ and $\varphi \neq (n +\frac{1}{2})\pi$]. Third, $\bar{3}1m^{\prime}$ contains operations combining time and space symmetries: $\mathcal{TM}_{1}$, $\mathcal{TM}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{TM}_{3}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}f). As mentioned above, $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y}$ and $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{z}$ are odd but $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x}$ is even with respect to $\mathcal{M}_{2}$. By considering further that all components $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{i}$ are odd under the time-reversal operation $\mathcal{T}$, we find that $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{y}$ and $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{z}$ are even under $\mathcal{TM}_2$ whereas $\bar{\Omega}_{n}^{x}$ is odd, giving rise to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[0,\bar{\alpha}^{y},\bar{\alpha}^{z}]$. Since $\bar{\alpha}^{y}$ is forced to be zero due to the $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ operation, only $\bar{\alpha}^{z}$ is nonzero in the R3 phase [$\varphi=(n +\frac{1}{2})\pi$]. The symmetry-allowed ANC elements and the corresponding magnetic point groups are summarized in Table~\ref{tab1}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{fig2_resub}
\caption{(Color online) Anomalous Nernst conductivity (ANC) and Berry curvature in Mn$_{3}X$N. (a) ANC as a function of the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ at the temperature $T$ = 200 K. (b) ANC as a function of temperature when $\varphi=90^\circ$ (R3 phase), where the shaded regions indicate the temperature regimes in which the R3 phase exists in Mn$_{3}$NiN and Mn$_{3}$AgN. The solid lines in (a) and (b) are the polynomial fittings. (c)--(f) The Berry curvature (in arbitrary units) of Mn$_{3}$NiN on the $k_{z} = 0$ plane when $T$=200 K for the azimuthal angles of $\varphi$ = 0$^\circ$, 30$^\circ$, 60$^\circ$, and 90$^\circ$, respectively. The dashed black lines mark the first Brillouin zone.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
Although group theory is particularly powerful to identify the shape of the ANC tensor, it does not help us to evaluate the magnitude of the symmetry-allowed elements of the ANC, which are sensitive to details of the electronic structure. In the following, first-principles calculations are used as a quantitative method to predict the ANE in Mn$_{3}X$N. Fig.~\ref{fig2}a presents the intrinsic ANC as a function of the spin order parameter $\varphi$ at a temperature of 200 K. The ANC vanishes when $\varphi=n\pi$ but turns out to be finite if $\varphi\neq n\pi$, which is in full accordance with the above symmetry arguments. Nevertheless, the ANC in Mn$_{3}X$N displays a curve that has a period of $2\pi$ in $\varphi$ and gives rise to the maxima at $\varphi=(n +\frac{1}{2})\pi$. In order to understand this observation, we evaluate the total Berry curvature as the weighted sum $\Omega_{xy}(\bm{k})=\sum_{n}W_{n}(\bm{k})\Omega^{n}_{xy}(\bm{k})$ over all bands with weights $W_n$ given by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:WnT}. Figs.~\ref{fig2}c--\ref{fig2}f show the resulting momentum-space distribution in the $k_z=0$ plane. One can see that in the R1 phase ($\varphi=0^\circ$) the symmetrically distributed hot spots, which have same magnitude but opposite sign, cancel out each other, leading overall to a vanishing ANC. In the R2 phase (e.g., $\varphi=30^\circ$ and $60^\circ$), however, the distribution of these hot spots becomes more asymmetric with increasing $\varphi$. Eventually, in the R3 phase with $\varphi=90^\circ$, the difference between the positive and negative microscopic contributions reaches a maximum, manifesting in the largest ANC. Additionally, as the ANC inherits its symmetry properties from the Berry curvature, the ANC follows the relation $\alpha_{xy}(\varphi) = -\alpha_{xy}(\varphi+\pi)$, which discloses that the spin order at $\varphi+\pi$ is the time-reversed counterpart of the one at $\varphi$, and the ANC is odd under time-reversal symmetry. Since the R3 phases with $\varphi=90^\circ$ and $\varphi=270^\circ$ have the same absolute value but opposite sign of $\alpha_{xy}$, they can be naturally chosen as two neighboring thermoelectric modules, in which the directions of electric fields reverse, without suffering from any of the obstructive stray fields known from ferromagnetic thermopiles (cf. Figs.~\ref{fig4}b and~\ref{fig4}c).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{fig3_resub}
\caption{(Color online) Origin of the large ANE in Mn$_{3}$NiN and its tunability by various fields. (a) The ANC recorded for various ferromagnets and two antiferromagnets (Mn$_{3}$Sn and Mn$_{3}$NiN). Part of the data is taken from the previous works.~\cite{Sakai2018,Guin2019a,Noky2018,Noky2018a} (b)--(c) The AHC and ANC of Mn$_{3}$NiN as a function of energy. The ANC $\alpha_{xy}$ is calculated at the temperature $T=200$ K using the formula of Berry curvature [Eqs.~\eqref{eq:IANC}] and also the generalized Mott relation [Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Mott1}]. (d) The ANC $\alpha_{xy}$ of Mn$_{3}$NiN as a function of canting angle $\theta$ and strain $\delta$ at $T=200$ K. The positive and negative values of $\theta$ indicate the canting of all three spins along the $[111]$ and $[\bar{1}\bar{1}\bar{1}]$ directions, respectively.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
Being a thermal transport phenomenon, the ANE should rely substantially on the actual temperature. Fig.~\ref{fig2}b shows how temperature influences the ANE in the R3 phase of Mn$_{3}X$N. Mn$_{3}$GaN and Mn$_{3}$ZnN are not appealing since their ANC is much smaller than that of Mn$_{3}$NiN and Mn$_3$AgN below 300 K. The ANC in Mn$_{3}$AgN increases monotonically with increasing temperature and it exceeds the value in Mn$_{3}$NiN for $T>$ 150 K, however, the N{\'e}el temperature of Mn$_{3}$AgN of below 55 K is rather low~\cite{Fruchart1978}. The R3 phase of Mn$_3$NiN is realized in a broad range of temperatures from 163 K to 266 K~\cite{Fruchart1978}, in which the ANC varies from 1.98 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$ to 1.47 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$. The ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN is nearly one order of magnitude larger than that in noncollinear antiferromagnetic Mn$_{3}$Sn ($\sim$0.2 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$). The pronounced ANC that we predict for Mn$_{3}$NiN is substantially larger than for most of the typical ferromagnets (0.01$\sim$1 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$), and the calculated value is only slightly smaller than for the two ferromagnetic Weyl semimetals Co$_{2}$FeGe~\cite{Noky2018} and Co$_{2}$MnGa~\cite{Sakai2018,Guin2019}, as summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig3}a. Here, we stress that Co$_{2}$FeGe and Co$_{2}$MnGa as intrinsic ferromagnets do not play any role for antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics as they are not free of parasitic stray fields.
Next, we demonstrate the underlying physical mechanism of the large ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN by relating the ANC $\alpha_{xy}$ to the anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC) $\sigma_{xy}$ via the generalized Mott formula~\cite{D-Xiao2006}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mott1}
\alpha_{xy}=-\frac{1}{e}\int d\varepsilon\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu}\sigma_{xy}\frac{\varepsilon-\mu}{T},
\end{equation}
where $e$ is the elementary positive charge, $\varepsilon$ is the energy, $\mu$ is the chemical potential of the electrons, and $f(\varepsilon)=1/[\text{exp}((\varepsilon-\mu)/k_{B}T)+1]$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. In the zero temperature limit, the integral in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Mott1} can be carried out by the Sommerfeld expansion to the lowest order term~\cite{Ashcroft1976}. Then, the standard Mott formula, which relates the ANC to the energy derivative of the AHC, is obtained:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mott2}
\alpha_{xy} = -\dfrac{\pi^{2}k_{B}^{2}T}{3e}\left.\frac{d\sigma_{xy}}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=\mu}.
\end{equation}
As can be seen from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Mott2}, we can expect a large ANC in a given system if the corresponding AHC changes rapidly with energy at the Fermi level for $\mu=\varepsilon_F$. Figs.~\ref{fig3}b and~\ref{fig3}c present the variation of $\sigma_{xy}$ and $\alpha_{xy}$ in Mn$_3$NiN as a function of the energy $\varepsilon$, respectively. The AHC amounts to a moderate value of $\sigma_{xy}(\varepsilon_{F})=291$ S/cm, but the slope of the curve at $\varepsilon_{F}$ is very large. It thus results in a prominent ANC of $\alpha_{xy}(\varepsilon_{F})=1.80$ AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$. Furthermore, $\alpha_{xy}$ can increase up to 2.0 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$ by slightly moving $\varepsilon_{F}$ upward by 0.01 eV, which could be easily realized by electron doping, e.g., in the alloy Mn$_{3}$Ni$_{1-x}$Cu$_{x}$N~\cite{K-Zhao2019}. If a relatively heavy doping concentration is achieved, the ANC can reach up to -4.08 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$ at -0.30 eV and even up to -4.87 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$ at 0.34 eV, the latter exceeding the ANC in ferromagnetic Co$_{2}$MnGa ($\sim$4.0 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$)~\cite{Sakai2018,Guin2019}. Overall, the origin of the prominent ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN is rooted in the large energy derivative of the AHC at the Fermi level in accordance with the Mott relation.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{fig4_resub}
\caption{(Color online) Schematics of the anomalous Nernst effect and thermopile structures. (a) Anomalous Nernst effects (ANE). (b) Thermopile made out of an array of thermoelectric modules that use the ANE in collinear ferromagnets. (c) Center panel: Unconventional thermopile based on the ANE in chiral noncollinear antiferromagnets; Left and right panels: The two noncollinear antiferromagnetic domain walls, as seen from the (111) plane of cubic Mn$_{3}X$N, are mutual partners connected by time-reversal symmetry.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
In the light of practical applications of antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics, it is particularly important to understand how to control and design the ANE in Mn$_3X$N by various external means, including strain, electric, and magnetic fields. First, a strain field could become active due to the lattice mismatch between the thin film of the sample and a substrate, for example, in Mn$_{3}$NiN~\cite{Boldrin2019a,Boldrin2019} and another noncollinear antiferromagnet Mn$_{3}$Pt~\cite{ZQ-Liu2018}. Since the AHE can be effectively tuned by strain fields~\cite{Boldrin2019,ZQ-Liu2018}, we anticipate that the ANE is susceptible in a similar way. Here, we consider strain along the [111] direction, quantified by $\delta = d/d_0$, where $d$ and $d_{0}$ are the distances between two neighboring (111) planes in the strained and unstrained cases, respectively. Considering the Poisson effect, the lattice within the (111) plane should shrink (expand) when $\delta>1$ ($\delta<1$) and the constant volume approximation is used. The ANC as a function of $\delta$ is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig3}d, in which one can see that tensile strain suppresses $\alpha_{xy}$ and even changes its sign, while compressive strain leads to a larger $\alpha_{xy}$ for $0.98<\delta<1.0$. If the thin film grows epitaxially along the (111) direction, substrates with larger lattice constants would be beneficial to generate a larger ANC. Second, the magnitude of ANC could be altered by an electric field since the Fermi energy will be shifted if a gate voltage is applied. Fig.~\ref{fig3}c clearly shows that the ANC depends on the position of the Fermi energy. The role of gate voltage can be replaced by alloying (e.g., Mn$_{3}$Ni$_{1-x}$Cu$_{x}$N~\cite{K-Zhao2019}) which also introduces electron or hole doping. Third, as proposed in Mn$_{3}$Sn~\cite{Rout2019}, an external magnetic field normal to the (111) plane can induce an out-of-plane spin canting (i.e., pointing to the [111] direction) to form a noncoplanar spin structure, which is responsible for emergence of the topological Hall effect. Interestingly, hydrostatic pressure plays a similar role like the magnetic field, and even induces a larger spin canting angle in Mn$_{3}$Ge~\cite{Sukhanov2018}. Fig.~\ref{fig3}d shows that $\alpha_{xy}$ increases with the increasing of the canting angle $\theta$ from $0^{\circ}$ to $2^{\circ}$, while $\alpha_{xy}$ reduces rapidly to zero when $|\theta|>4^\circ$. Following the same rationale as for the tunability of the AHE in noncollinear antiferromagnets~\cite{Boldrin2019,ZQ-Liu2018,Rout2019,Sukhanov2018}, we thereby demonstrated that the prominent ANE in Mn$_3$NiN can be controlled by various external fields, offering great prospects for energy-efficient applications based on antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics.
Finally, we design a thermopile structure based on noncollinear antiferromagnets (e.g., Mn$_{3}$NiN) and compare it with the conventional ones composed of collinear ferromagnets (Fig~\ref{fig4}). Fig.~\ref{fig4}a depicts the basic principle of the ANE, that is, a transverse charge current is generated by a longitudinal thermal current and both of these currents are perpendicular to the direction of magnetization. Exhibiting the ANE, collinear ferromagnets are usually made into a thermopile in which the directions of magnetization in neighboring thermoelectric modules have to be opposite to form an electrical circuit (Fig.~\ref{fig4}b). However, this obstructs the miniaturization of the devices as the density of thermoelectric modules is severely limited by the inherent stray fields in neighboring modules. This issue can be solved if noncollinear antiferromagnets are used instead, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig4}c. The antiferromagnetic domain walls with inverted spin patterns, in which the charge currents flow into opposite directions (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig2}a), can be arranged much closer to maximize the coverage of heat source without suffering from parasitic stray field. Consequently, the antiferromagnetic thermopile structure is superior to the conventional ferromagnetic one, uncovering the bright prospects of \textit{antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics} for materials science and devices physics.
\section{Summary}\label{sec3}
In conclusion, employing first-principles calculations together with a group theory analysis, we investigated the spin order-dependent ANE in noncollinear antiferromagnets Mn$_{3}X$N with $X$ = Ga, Zn, Ag, and Ni. By using group theory, we uncovered that the ANE can emerge in Mn$_{3}X$N, except for the R1 phase characterized by the spin order parameter $\varphi=n\pi$. The first-principles calculations supported the group theory analysis and further revealed that the R3 phase [$\varphi=(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi$] has the largest ANC $\alpha_{xy}$. The asymmetrical distribution of the hot spots of Berry curvature explained well the variation of $\alpha_{xy}$ with $\varphi$. Mn$_{3}$NiN was identified to be the most interesting material among all four Mn$_{3}X$N compounds because its noncollinear state exists over a broad range of temperatures (163 K to 266 K), for which $\alpha_{xy}$ amounts to as much as 1.98 AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$. The giant ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN originated from a pronounced energy variation of the AHC at the Fermi level, which can be well understood by the Mott relation. Moreover, we demonstrated that both magnitude and sign of the ANE can be controlled by designing external perturbations in terms of strain, electric field, or magnetic field. It should be stressed that the ANC in Mn$_{3}$NiN is one order of magnitude larger than that in the famous noncollinear antiferromagnet Mn$_{3}$Sn. Thus, our results promote the chiral magnet Mn$_{3}$NiN as an ideal material platform for establishing antiferromagnetic spin caloritronics as an intriguing pathway for energy conversion and information processing.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors thank helpful discussion with Guang-Yu Guo. W.F. and Y.Y. acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11874085, 11734003, and 11574029) and the National Key R\&D Program of China (No. 2016YFA0300600). W.F. also acknowledges the funding through an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship. X.Z. thanks the supports from Graduate Technological Innovation Project of Beijing Institute of Technology (Grant No. 2019CX10018). Y.M. and S.B. acknowledge the funding under SPP 2137 ``Skyrmionics" (project MO 1731/7-1), collaborative Research Center SFB 1238, and Y.M. acknowledges the funding from project MO 1731/5-1 and SFB/TRR 173 of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). We also gratefully acknowledge the J{\"u}lich Supercomputing Centre and JARA-HPC of RWTH Aachen University for providing computational resources under project jiff40.
\end{acknowledgments}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{The calculated anomalous Nernst conductivities, $|\alpha_{xy}|$ or $|\alpha_{yz}|$ (AK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$), in a traditional ferromagnet (bcc Fe), ferromagnetic Weyl semimetals (Co$_{2}$FeGe and Co$_{2}$MnGa), compensated ferrimagnets (Ti$_{2}$MnAl and Ti$_{2}$MnIn), and a noncollinear antiferromagnet (Mn$_{3}$Sn). To compare the experimental value of Co$_{2}$MnGa, the Fermi energy has been shifted to the energy $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{F}+0.07$ eV and $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{F}+0.08$ eV in the present and previous~\cite{Guin2019} works, respectively.}
\label{tab2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lllllll}
\hline
& Fe & Co$_2$FeGe & Co$_2$MnGa & Ti$_2$MnAl & Ti$_2$MnIn & Mn$_3$Sn \\
& (300 K) & (300 K) & (300 K) & (300 K) & (300 K) & (200 K) \\
\hline
$|\alpha_{xy}|$ & 0.49 & 3.46 & 4.01 &1.24 &0.29 & 0.25 \\
& 0.40\footnotemark[1] & 3.16\footnotemark[2] & 4.00\footnotemark[3] & 1.31\footnotemark[4]
& 0.22\footnotemark[4] & 0.28\footnotemark[5] \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\footnotemark[1]{Ref. [\citenum{GY-Guo2017}] (theory),}
\footnotemark[2]{Ref. [\citenum{Noky2018}] (theory),}
\footnotemark[3]{Refs. [\citenum{Sakai2018,Guin2019}] (theory and experiment),}
\footnotemark[4]{Ref. [\citenum{Noky2018a}] (theory),}
\footnotemark[5]{Ref. [\citenum{Ikhlas2017}] (experiment).}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
If there exist integers $a_{uv},\;u=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,s,\;v=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$ ($j$ and $s$ being positive integers $ \geq 2$), such that the relations
\begin{equation}
\sum_{u=1}^sa_{u1}^r=\sum_{u=1}^sa_{u2}^r=\cdots =\sum_{u=1}^sa_{uj}^r, \label{basicchn}
\end{equation}
are satisfied when $r=1,\,2,\,\dots,\,k$, we write,
\begin{equation}
a_{11},\,a_{21},\ldots,\,a_{s1} \stackrel{k}{=} a_{12},\,a_{22},\ldots,\,a_{s2} \\
\stackrel{k}{=} \ldots \stackrel{k}{=} a_{1j},\,a_{2j},\ldots,\,a_{sj}. \label{basicchnnot1}
\end{equation}
A solution of \eqref{basicchn} is said to be nontrivial if the $j$ sets $\{a_{uv},\,u=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,s\}$, $v=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, are distinct. The least value of $s$ for which there exists a nontrivial solution of \eqref{basicchn} is denoted by $P(k,\,j)$. Relations of type \eqref{basicchn} are known as multigrade chains.
The first example of multigrade chains was obtained in 1851 by Prouhet \cite[p. 449]{HW} who gave a rule to separate the first $j^{k+1}$ positive integers into $j$ sets that provide a multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1} with $s=j^k$. Relevant excerpts from Prouhet's original note are given in \cite[pp. 999-1000]{BP}. As a numerical example, Prouhet noted that the integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,27$ can be separated into three sets satisfying the relations,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
1,\,6,\,8,\,12,\,14,\,16,\,20,\,22,\,27 &\stackrel{2}{=}2,\,4,\,9,\,10,\,15,\,17,\,21,\,23,\,25\\
&\stackrel{2}{=}3,\,5,\,7,\,11,\,13,\,18,\,19,\,24,\,26.
\end{aligned}
\label{chn27ex1}
\end{equation}
While Prouhet himself did not give a proof, his result has subsequently been proved by several authors in various ways \cite{Le, Ng, Ro1, Wr2, Wr3}.
It has been proved by Wright \cite{Wr1} that $P(k,\,j) \leq (k^2+k+2)/2$ when $k$ is even and $P(k,\,j) \leq (k^2+3)/2$ when $k$ is odd. However, Wright's method proves only the existence of solutions of \eqref{basicchn} and cannot be used to construct actual examples of multigrade chains. When $j=2$, it has been shown that $P(k,\,2)=k+1$ when $k \leq 9$ \cite[p. 440, \;p. 449]{HW} and also when $k=11$ \cite{CW}. Further, it has been shown that $P(k,\,j)=k+1$ for $k=2,\,3$ and $5$ and for all values of $j$ \cite[p. 437]{HW}.
Numerous papers have been published on Prouhet's problem, especially concerning the particular case of equations \eqref{basicchn} when $j=2$ and this problem is now referred to as the Prouhet-Tarry-Escott problem. Gloden has written an entire book on multigrade equations and multigrade chains \cite{Gl} and the problem has been the subject of two survey articles \cite{Bo, RN} both of which contain extensive bibliographies. Further, Prouhet's problem has been linked to various other problems \cite{AMZ, BP, BOR, Ce, GGG}. However, despite the passage of time since the publication of Prouhet's note in 1851 and the attention bestowed on the problem, until now Prouhet's original result has not been improved.
A remarkable feature of Prouhet's solution of the equations \eqref{basicchn} is that the integers $a_{uv},\;u=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,s,\;v=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, are a permutation of the first $N$ consecutive positive integers where $N=j^{k+1}$. The problem of separating $N$ consecutive integers into sets with equal power sums has been considered in two articles \cite{Ro2, Ro3} by Roberts who has shown that ``if $q$ is a factorization of $n$ whose factors have least common multiple $L_q$ then the first $n$ nonnegative integers can be split into $L_q$ classes with equal $t$-th power sums for all $t$ satisfying
\[
0 \leq t < q^*-\max_{0 < s < L_q} \nu_s,
\]
where $q^*$ is the number of factors in $q$ and $\nu_s$ is the number of them that divide $s$".
The maximum possible value of $t$ is relatively small and is the smallest exponent in the canonical prime factorization of $n$.
In this paper we will show that the consecutive positive integers $1,\,2,\,\,\ldots,$ $2j^k$ can be separated into $j$ sets of $2j^{k-1}$ members satisfying the relations \eqref{basicchnnot1}. In fact, we show that this can, in general, be done in at least $\{(j-1)!\}^{k-1}$ ways. For $j > 2$, the integer $2j^{k}$ is much smaller than $j^{k+1}$ and the result is thus a significant improvement over Prouhet's solution of \eqref{basicchnnot1}.
We also show that there exist infinitely many other positive integers $N=js$ such that the positive integers $1,\,\,2,\,\ldots,\,N$ can be separated into $j$ sets, each set containing $s$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of \eqref{basicchnnot1} and, in general, this can be done in several ways. The theorems in this paper give much better results as compared to the results obtained by Roberts \cite{Ro2, Ro3}.
\section{Some preliminary lemmas}
\begin{lem} If there exist integers $a_{uv},\;u=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,s,\;v=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$ such that
\begin{equation}
a_{11},\,a_{21},\ldots,\,a_{s1} \stackrel{k}{=} a_{12},\,a_{22},\ldots,\,a_{s2} \\
\stackrel{k}{=} \ldots \stackrel{k}{=} a_{1j},\,a_{2j},\ldots,\,a_{sj},
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&Ma_{11}+K,\,Ma_{21}+K,\ldots,\,Ma_{s1}+K \\
& \quad \stackrel{k}{=} Ma_{12}+K,\,Ma_{22}+K,\ldots,\,Ma_{s2}+K \\
&\quad\stackrel{k}{=} \ldots \\
& \quad \stackrel{k}{=} Ma_{1j}+K,\,Ma_{2j}+K,\ldots,\,Ma_{sj}+K,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $M$ and $K$ are arbitrary integers.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
When $j=2$, this is a simple consequence of the binomial theorem and is a well-known lemma \cite{Do}. When $j > 2$, then also, the lemma follows immediately from the binomial theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}For any arbitrary positive integer $j> 1 $, the first $2j$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets, each set containing two integers, such that the sum of the integers in each set is the same.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The $j$ sets $\{u,\,2j+1-u\},\;u=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, have the same sum $2j+1$. Since the integers in these $j$ sets are the first $2j$ consecutive positive integers, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} For any arbitrary positive integers $m$ and $j> 1 $, the first $2mj$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets, each set containing $2m$ integers, such that the sum of the integers in each set is the same.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} This is a straightforward generalisation of Lemma 2. We first divide the consecutive integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,2mj$ into $2j$ blocks, each block consisting of $m$ consecutive integers -- the first block being $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,m$. Next for each integer $u, \; 1 \leq u \leq j$, we construct a set consisting of the $m$ integers of the $u^{\rm th}$ block and the $m$ integers of the $(2j+1-u)^{\rm th}$ block. We thus get $j$ sets, each set consisting of $2m$ integers, such that the sum of the integers in each set is $m(2mj+1)$. This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} For any arbitrary positive integer $j> 1 $, the first $j^2$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets, each set containing $j$ integers, such that the sum of the integers in each set is the same.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} If we separate the first $j^2$ consecutive positive integers into the $j$ sets,
\begin{align*}
&\{1,&&j+2,&& 2j+3,&& 3j+4,&& \ldots,& (j-1)j+j\},\\
&\{j+1,&&2j+2,&& 3j+3,&& 4j+4,&& \ldots,& j\},\\
&\{2j+1,&&3j+2,&& 4j+3,&& 5j+4,&& \ldots,& j+j\},\\
\vdots \\
&\{(j-1)j+1,&&2,&& j+3,&& 2j+4,&& \ldots,& (j-2)j+j\},
\end{align*}
it would be observed that each of the numbers $u,\; u=1,\,\ldots,\,j$,
occurs as a summand in one and only one member of each set
and the same is true for each of the numbers $uj,\; u=1,\,\ldots,\,j-1$. It follows that the sum of the members in each set is the same, the common sum being $j(j^2+1)/2$. Further, each set contains $j$ integers and it is readily seen that the integers in all the $j$ sets put together are just a permutation of the first $j^2$ consecutive positive integers. Thus the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} Any solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1} yields a solution of the multigrade chain
\begin{equation}
b_{11},\,b_{21},\ldots,\,b_{t1} \stackrel{k+1}{=} b_{12},\,b_{22},\ldots,\,b_{t2} \\
\stackrel{k+1}{=} \ldots \stackrel{k+1}{=} b_{1j},\,b_{2j},\ldots,\,b_{tj} \label{basicchnnot1b}
\end{equation}
where $t=js$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $h_1,\,h_2,$ $\ldots,\,h_j$ be an arbitrary set of $j$ distinct integers. We take the integers $b_{u1},\;u=1,\,2,\,\,\ldots,\,t$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&a_{11}+h_1,\;a_{21}+h_1,\,\ldots,\,a_{s1}+h_1, \\
&a_{12}+h_2,\;a_{22}+h_2,\,\ldots,\,a_{s2}+h_2,\\
&\vdots \\
&a_{1j}+h_j,\;a_{2j}+h_j,\,\ldots,\,a_{sj}+h_j.
\end{aligned}
\label{setb1}
\end{equation}
For any given integer $v$ where $2 \leq v \leq j$, we replace $h_1,\,h_2,$ $\ldots,\,h_j$ in the set of integers \eqref{setb1} by $h_v,\,h_{v+1},\,\ldots,\,\,h_{v+j-1}$ respectively where we take $h_m=h_{m-j}$ when $m > j$, and the resulting integers are taken to be the integers $b_{uv},\;u=1,\,2,\,\,\ldots,\,t$. We will now show that, with these values of $b_{uv}$, the relations \eqref{basicchnnot1b} are satisfied.
The proof is by the multinomial theorem. In view of the relations \eqref{basicchnnot1}, it is readily seen that the relations \eqref{basicchnnot1b} are true for exponents $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,k$. Further, when we consider the relation \eqref{basicchnnot1b} for the exponent $k+1$, on expanding the terms of the first set, that is, $b_{u1}^{k+1},\;u=1,\,\ldots,\,t$, and adding only the terms involving $h_1^r,\,h_2^r,\,\ldots,\,h_j^r$ where $1 \leq r \leq k+1$, we get
\[
\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{u=1}^s \binom{k+1}{r}a_{u1}^{k+1-r}h_1^r+\sum_{u=1}^s \binom{k+1}{r}a_{u2}^{k+1-r}h_2^r+\cdots+\sum_{u=1}^s \binom{k+1}{r}a_{uj}^{k+1-r}h_j^r\\
& \quad =(h_1^r+h_2^r+\cdots+h_j^r)\sum_{u=1}^s \binom{k+1}{r}a_{u1}^{k+1-r}.
\end{aligned}
\]
It is now easy to see that the terms involving $h_i^r,\;i=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, where $1 \leq r \leq k+1$, add up to the same common sum in each set. Further, the terms independent of $h_i$ add up to $\sum_{u=1}^s\sum_{v=1}^ja_{uv}^{k+1}$ in each set. It is thus seen that the relations \eqref{basicchnnot1b} are also true for the exponent $k+1$. This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Multigrade chains consisting only of the first $N$ consecutive positive integers}
In Section 3.1 we give three theorems which show that there exist infinitely many integers $N=js$ such that the consecutive positive integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,N$ can be separated into $j$ sets, each set consisting of $s$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of \eqref{basicchnnot1} for a certain value of $k$. In Section 3.2 we give some numerical examples of such multigrade chains.
\subsection{}
\begin{thm} If $N=2j^k$ where $j \geq 2$ and $k \geq 1$, the first $N$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets in at least $\{(j-1)!\}^{k-1}$ ways, each set consisting of $2j^{k-1}$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} The proof is by induction. It follows from Lemma 2 that the result is true when $k=1$.
We now assume that the result is true when $k=n$, that is,
we assume that there exist integers $a_{uv},\;u=1,\ldots,\,s,\;v=1,\ldots,\,j,$ where $s=2j^{n-1}$ such that
\begin{equation}
a_{11},\,a_{21},\ldots,\,a_{s1} \stackrel{n}{=} a_{12},\,a_{22},\ldots,\,a_{s2} \\
\stackrel{n}{=} \ldots \stackrel{n}{=} a_{1j},\,a_{2j},\ldots,\,a_{sj}, \label{mchn1}
\end{equation}
and the integers $a_{ij}$ are a permutation of the first $2j^n$ positive integers.
On applying Lemma 1 with $M=j,\;K=-j$ to the relations \eqref{mchn1}, we get the multigrade chain,
\begin{equation}
b_{11},\,b_{21},\ldots,\,b_{s1} \stackrel{n}{=} b_{12},\,b_{22},\ldots,\,b_{s2} \\
\stackrel{n}{=} \ldots \stackrel{n}{=} b_{1j},\,b_{2j},\ldots,\,b_{sj}, \label{mchn2}
\end{equation}
where the integers $b_{ij}$ are a permutation of the integers $0,\,j,\,2j,\,\ldots,\,2j^{n+1}-j$.
We now apply Lemma 5 to the relations \eqref{mchn2} taking the integers $h_1,\,h_2,$ $\ldots,\,h_j$, as the integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, and we get the multigrade chain,
\begin{equation}
c_{11},\,c_{21},\ldots,\,c_{t1} \stackrel{n+1}{=} c_{12},\,c_{22},\ldots,\,c_{t2} \\
\stackrel{n+1}{=} \ldots \stackrel{n+1}{=} c_{1j},\,c_{2j},\ldots,\,c_{tj}, \label{mchn3}
\end{equation}
where $t=2j^n$ and the integers $c_{uv},\;u=1,\ldots,\,t,\;v=1,\ldots,\,j$, are obtained by adding each of the integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$ to each of the integers $0,\,j,\,2j,\,\ldots,\,2j^{n+1}-j$. It follows that the integers $c_{uv}$ are the consecutive integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,2j^{n+1}$. Thus, the first $2j^{n+1}$ positive integers have been separated into $j$ sets, each set consisting of $2j^n$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1} with $k=n+1$.
In fact, we may take the integers $h_1,\,h_2,\,\ldots,\,h_j$ to be any permutation of the integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,j$, and we still get a multigrade chain of type \eqref{mchn3} consisting of the consecutive integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,2j^{n+1}$. For getting distinct multigrade chains of type \eqref{mchn3}, we may keep $h_1=1$ as fixed while permuting the remaining $j-1$ integers in $(j-1)!$ ways. Thus, starting from the multigrade chain \eqref{mchn1}, we get $(j-1)!$ distinct multigrade chains \eqref{mchn3} consisting of the consecutive integers $1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,2j^{n+1}$. The theorem now follows by induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm} If $N=2mj^k$, the first $N$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets in at least $\{(j-1)!\}^{k-1}$ ways, each set consisting of $2mj^{k-1}$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} By Lemma 3, the result is true for $k=1$. The remaining proof is similar to that of Theorem 6 and is accordingly omitted.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm} If $N=j^{k+1}$ where $j \geq 2$ and $k \geq 1$, the first $N$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets in at least $\{(j-1)!\}^{k-1}$ ways, each set consisting of $j^k$ integers, such that the $j$ sets provide a solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} By Lemma 4, the result is true for $k=1$. As in the case of Theorem 7, the remaining proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 6 and is omitted. This gives yet another proof of Prouhet's result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{}
We now give a few numerical examples. Since $18=2.3^2$, in view of Theorem 6, the consecutive integers 1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,18 can be separated into 3 sets -- each set consisting of 6 integers -- to yield two multigrade chains valid for exponents and 1 and 2. These two multigrade chains are as follows:
\begin{equation}
1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16 \stackrel{2}{=} 2, 6, 7, 10, 15, 17 \stackrel{2}{=}3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18, \label{chn18ex1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} 1, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16 \stackrel{2}{=} 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18 \stackrel{2}{=}2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 17. \label{chn18ex2}
\end{equation}
We note that the smallest exponent in the canonical prime factorization of 18 is 1, and hence the method described by Roberts \cite{Ro2, Ro3} does not generate the above multigrade chains.
As a second example, in view of Theorem 8, the first 27 consecutive positive integers can be separated into three sets -- each set having 9 integers -- to yield two multigrade chains. These two multigrade chains are as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
1,\, 6,\, 8,\, 11,\, 13,\, 18,\, 21,\, 23,\, 25&\stackrel{2}{=}2,\, 4,\, 9,\, 12,\, 14,\, 16,\, 19,\, 24,\, 26\\
&\stackrel{2}{=}3,\, 5,\, 7,\, 10,\, 15,\, 17,\, 20,\, 22,\, 27.
\end{aligned}
\label{chn27ex2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
1,\, 5,\, 9,\, 12,\, 13,\, 17,\, 20,\, 24,\, 25&\stackrel{2}{=} 2,\, 6,\, 7,\, 10,\, 14,\, 18,\, 21,\, 22,\, 26\\
&\stackrel{2}{=}3,\, 4,\, 8,\, 11,\, 15,\, 16,\, 19,\, 23,\, 27.
\end{aligned}
\label{chn27ex3}
\end{equation}
It is interesting to observe that both of the above multigrade chains are distinct from the one given by Prouhet. In fact,\, there is a fourth multigrade chain comprising of the first 27 positive integers. It is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
1,\, 5,\, 9,\, 11,\, 15,\, 16,\, 21,\, 22,\, 26 &\stackrel{2}{=} 2,\, 6,\, 7,\, 12,\, 13,\, 17,\, 19,\, 23,\, 27\\
&\stackrel{2}{=}3,\, 4,\, 8,\, 10,\, 14,\, 18,\, 20,\, 24,\, 25.
\end{aligned}
\label{chn27ex4}
\end{equation}
\section{An open problem}
It follows from the Theorems 6, 7 and 8 that, for any given positive integers $k \geq 1$ and $j \geq 2$, there exist infinitely many integers $N$ such that the first $N$ consecutive positive integers can be separated into $j$ sets that provide a solution of the multigrade chain \eqref{basicchnnot1}. Accordingly for $k \geq 1$ and $j \geq 2$, we define $N(k,\,j)$ to be the least positive integer $N$ with this property. An immediate consequence of Theorem 6 is that $ N(k,\,j) \leq 2j^k$. It would be of interest to determine the integer $N(k,\,j)$.
It is readily proved that $N(1,\,j)=2j$, $N(2,\,2)=8$ and $N(2,\,3)=18$. Thus, in these cases $N(k,\,j)=2j^k$. In fact, it appears that $N(k,\,j)=2j^k$ for arbitrary positive integers $k \geq 1$ and $j \geq 2$ but this remains to be proved.
\begin{center}
\Large
Acknowledgments
\end{center}
I wish to thank the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Prayagraj for providing me with all necessary facilities that have helped me to pursue my research work in mathematics.
|
\section{Scaling symmetry and massless scalar on de Sitter}
\noindent{\bf Point particle and scaling solution.}
In this note we investigate the system of a massless minimally coupled scalar (MMCS) field $\Phi$
in de Sitter space coupled to a scalar point charge. The action for the MMCS in an arbitrary
curved space is given by,
\begin{equation}
S_0[\Phi] =\int \! d^4x \,\sqrt{-g} \, \biggl[
-\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu} \! \left(\partial_\mu\Phi\right)\left(\partial_\nu\Phi\right) \biggr]
\,,
\label{scalar field action}
\end{equation}
where~$g^{\mu\nu}$ is the inverse of the metric
tensor~$g_{\mu\nu}$, $g\!=\!{\rm det}[g_{\mu\nu}]$, the metric signature is $(-,+,+,+)$
and its coupling to the point particle~$\chi^\mu \!=\! \chi^\mu(\tau)$ is modeled by the action,
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm int}[\chi,\Phi] = -
\int \! d\tau \, \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu}\dot\chi^\mu(\tau)\dot\chi^\nu(\tau)} \,
\lambda\Phi(\chi(\tau)) \, ,
\label{point particle action}
\end{equation}
where~$\tau$ is an affine parameter,~$\lambda$
is a dimensionless coupling, and~$\dot\chi^\mu(\tau) \!=\! d\chi^\mu(\tau)/d\tau$.
We assume that the point particle is at rest, sitting at the origin of the coordinate system
on flat spatial slices of the Poincar\'{e} patch,~$\chi^\mu(\tau) \!=\! (\tau,0,0,0)$. The equation of
motion for the MMCS descends from variation of the action~(\ref{scalar field action}) and~(\ref{point particle action}),
\begin{equation}
\square \Phi(x)
= -\frac{1}{a^2} \Bigl( \partial_0^2 + 2 a H \partial_0
- {\nabla}^2 \Bigr) \Phi(x)
= \lambda \frac{\delta^3(\vec x)}{a^3}
\, ,
\label{covariant equation of motion}
\end{equation}
where~$a(\eta)\!=\! -1 / (H\eta)$ is the scale factor of de Sitter space with $\eta$ confrormal time,
$H=(\partial_0a)/a^2$ the (constant) Hubble rate, $\partial_0=\partial/\partial \eta$ and $ {\nabla}^2$
is the Laplacian.
While the sourceless equation would respect all of the isometries of de Sitter,
the point source~(\ref{covariant equation of motion}) breaks spatial special conformal transformations
and spatial translations, leaving us with only {\it four} isometries, namely spatial rotations
and dilatations, $x^\mu \!\to\! e^{\alpha} x^\mu$ with $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$.
It is most natural to assume that the solution of~(\ref{covariant equation of motion}) satisfies the background isometries,
and that it depends only on the rotation-invariant and dilatation-invariant combination of
coordinates~$X\!=\!aHr$, $r=\|\vec x\|$, {\it i.e.} $\Phi(\eta,\vec x) \rightarrow \Phi(X)$,
also known as the {\it scaling solution},
upon which the equation of motion~(\ref{covariant equation of motion}) away from the origin turns into an
ordinary one,
\begin{equation}
\Biggl[ (1 \!-\! X^2) \frac{d}{d X}
+ \frac{2}{X} (1 \!-\! 2X^2)
\Biggr] \frac{d}{d X} \Phi(X) = 0 \, .
\label{massless scaling eq}
\end{equation}
This equation is integrated straightforwardly, and its general solution is
\begin{equation}
\Phi(X) = -\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi X} - \frac{\lambda H}{8\pi}
\ln\biggl( \frac{1\!-\!X}{1\!+\!X} \biggr)
+ \Phi_0 \, .
\label{scaling solution}
\end{equation}
One integration constant is completely fixed by the $\delta$-function source term by means of
the Green's integral theorem, while the remaining trivial constant~$\Phi_0$ remains undetermined.
A closer examination of the solution in~(\ref{scaling solution}) reveals some worrisome
features. Most notably, the solution exhibits a logarithmic
singularity at the horizon! At a first glance there seems to be nothing wrong with our
assumptions. Perhaps it is that strong infrared effects that are known to exist for
MMCS in de Sitter conspire to create, in a manner of speaking, a classical wall of fire -- a barrier
at which the geodesic equation for a test particle becomes singular.
That~(\ref{scaling solution}) cannot be a physical solution can be seen by considering the energy-momentum tensor,
$T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\Phi \partial_\nu\Phi
-\frac12 g_{\mu\nu}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha\Phi \partial_\beta\Phi$,
accompanying the solution~(\ref{scaling solution}), which in spherical coordinates reads,
\begin{equation}
{T^\mu}_\nu = H^2
\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{1}{2}(1\!+\! X^2)\! & - X & 0 & 0
\\
X & \!\frac{1}{2}(1\!+\! X^2)\! & 0 & 0
\\
0 & 0 & \!-\frac{1}{2}(1\!-\!X^2)\! & 0
\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \!-\frac{1}{2}(1\!-\!X^2)
\end{pmatrix}\!
\Bigl( \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial X} \Bigr)^2
\,.
\label{energy momentum}
\end{equation}
Near the horizon it diverges quadratically, as can be easily seen from,
\begin{equation}
\Bigl(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial X}\Bigr)^2
\;\;\overset{X\to1}{\sim}\;\;\frac{\lambda^2 H^2}{64\pi^2}\frac{1}{(1\!-\!X)^2}
\,.
\end{equation}
This divergence of the diagonal terms would generate
a large classical backreaction onto the background space-time.
In particular, there is a positive radial energy density flux~${T^r}_0$,
which also diverges quadratically at the horizon.
While the divergence at the origin $\propto 1/(ar)^4$ is the usual divergence
generated by a point charge
that is dealt with in the usual way, the divergence at the Hubble horizon cannot be a
part of the physical solution.
In order to shed light on the origin of the problem, in the next section we consider the
equivalent problem
for a massive scalar and construct a solution that is regular everywhere except at the origin.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Massive scalar on de Sitter.}
A massive scalar field satisfies the equation of motion,
\begin{equation}
\Bigl( \square - m^2 \Bigr) \Phi(x)
= \lambda\frac{\delta^3(\vec{x})}{a^3} \, .
\label{eom: massive}
\end{equation}
This equation still possesses dilatation symmetry, and thus admits a scaling solution
that away from the origin satisfies a homogeneous equation,
\begin{equation}
\Biggl[ (1 \!-\! X^2) \frac{d^2}{d X^2}
+ \frac{2}{X} (1 \!-\! 2X^2) \frac{d}{d X}
- \frac{m^2}{H^2}
\Biggr] \Phi(X) = 0 \, .
\end{equation}
The general solution can be written in terms of two hypergeometric functions,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-0.7cm}
\Phi(X) =
-\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi X} \times
{}_2F_1\biggl( \biggl\{ \frac{1}{4} \!+\! \frac{\nu}{2} , \frac{1}{4} \!-\! \frac{\nu}{2} \biggr\} ,
\biggl\{ \frac{1}{2} \biggr\} , X^2 \biggr)
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{0.7cm}
+ \frac{\lambda H}{2\pi} \times
\frac{\Gamma\bigl( \frac{3}{4} \!+\! \frac{\nu}{2} \bigr) \,
\Gamma\bigl( \frac{3}{4} \!-\! \frac{\nu}{2} \bigr)}
{\Gamma\bigl( \frac{1}{4} \!+\! \frac{\nu}{2} \bigr) \,
\Gamma\bigl( \frac{1}{4} \!-\! \frac{\nu}{2} \bigr)} \times
{}_2F_1\biggl( \biggl\{ \frac{3}{4} \!+\! \frac{\nu}{2} , \frac{3}{4} \!-\! \frac{\nu}{2} \biggr\} ,
\biggl\{ \frac{3}{2} \biggr\} , X^2 \biggr) \, ,
\qquad
\label{massive solution}
\end{eqnarray}
where,
\begin{equation}
\nu = \sqrt{ \frac{9}{4} \! - \! \frac{m^2}{H^2} } \, .
\label{nu}
\end{equation}
The constant in front of the first hypergeometric function is fixed by the source in~(\ref{eom: massive}),
while the second one is fixed by the requirement of regularity at the horizon.
Moreover, the behaviour of the solution for~$X\!\to\!\infty$ is regular.
One can add to~(\ref{massive solution}) a homogeneous solution that breaks scaling symmetry,
but such contributions tend to be subdominant at late times.
Examining the result~(\ref{massive solution}) in the small mass limit is instructive for understanding
the issues involved in the massless scaling solution~(\ref{scaling solution}),
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\Phi(X) \overset{m\to0}{\sim}
-\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi X} \,
- \frac{\lambda H}{8\pi} \ln \biggl( \frac{1 \!-\! X}{1 \!+\! X} \biggr)
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm}
- \frac{\lambda H}{2\pi} \biggl[ \frac{3H^2}{2m^2} + \ln(2) - \frac{7}{6} \biggr]
+ \frac{\lambda H}{8\pi} \ln\bigl(1 \!-\! X^2 \bigr)
\, ,
\qquad
\label{massless limit}
\end{eqnarray}
The first line in this expansion comes from the first line of the full
solution~(\ref{massive solution}), and reproduces the massless
solution~(\ref{scaling solution}) up to a constant. The second line above
comes from the small mass expansion of the second line in~(\ref{massive solution}).
It is clear there is no singularity at the horizon even in this limit.
However, it is also clear that this limit is singular
due to the constant term~$\sim1/m^2$. One might try to employ the observation
that the massless solution~(\ref{scaling solution}) is defined up to
a constant in order to remove the divergent term above. This though does
not work, as~(\ref{massless limit}) with the divergent constant removed simply
does not satisfy the massless equation of motion~(\ref{massless scaling eq}).
The proper conclusion is that the scaling
solution of our problem is singular in the massless limit, and~(\ref{scaling solution})
does not represent a valid physical solution. In other words, there is no scaling solution
for the massless case that is regular away from the origin.
The physical interpretation of this behavior
is clear: the point source generates a large amount of classical infrared scalar modes such
that it breaks scaling (dilatation) symmetry in the limit of small mass. This is
the reason behind why the na\^ive scaling solution~(\ref{scaling solution}) we found in the massless
case has a pathological behavior at the horizon. The small mass behavior
in~(\ref{massless limit}) is reminiscent of the well understood massless limit
of the MMCS propagator in de Sitter space, which we briefly recap in the following.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Scalar propagator in de Sitter.}
The small mass behavior in~(\ref{massless limit})
is reminiscent of the better known example in linear quantum physics in
de Sitter space. There exists a de Sitter invariant two-point Wightman function
for a massive scalar in
de Sitter~\cite{Chernikov:1968zm},
\begin{equation}
\bigl\langle \hat{\phi}(x) \hat{\phi}(x') \bigr\rangle
\!=\! \frac{H^2\, \Gamma\bigl( \frac{3}{2} \!+\! \nu \bigr) \,
\Gamma\bigl( \frac{3}{2} \!-\! \nu \bigr)}{(4\pi)^2}
\times {}_2F_1 \biggl(
\biggl\{ \frac{3}{2} + \nu , \frac{3}{2} - \nu \biggr\} , \biggl\{ 2 \biggr\} ,
1 - \frac{y}{4}
\biggr) \, ,
\label{massive Wighman function on de Sitter}
\end{equation}
where~$\nu$ is again the one from~(\ref{nu}), and~$y$
is the de Sitter invariant function of the coordinates,
\begin{equation}
y(x;x') = a(\eta) a(\eta') H^2 \Bigl[ \| \vec{x} \!-\! \vec{x}^{\,\prime} \|^2
- \bigl( \eta\!-\! \eta' \!-\! i\varepsilon \bigr)^2 \Bigr] \, .
\end{equation}
The small mass expansion of this expression is,
\begin{equation}
\bigl\langle \hat{\phi}(x) \hat{\phi}(x') \bigr\rangle
\overset{m\to0}{\sim}
\frac{H^2}{(2\pi)^2 } \biggl[ \,
\frac{1}{y}
- \frac{1}{2} \ln(y)
+ \frac{3 H^2}{2 m^2}
+ \ln(2)-\frac{11}{12} \, \biggr] \, ,
\end{equation}
which tells us there is no physical and finite de Sitter invariant solution for the massless scalar field
due to strong infrared effects. However, demanding that the state respects only
spatial homogeneity and isotropy yields a perfectly physical
behavior~\cite{Linde:1982uu,Starobinsky:1982ee,Vilenkin:1982wt,Ford:1984hs,Allen:1985ux,Allen:1987tz,Onemli:2002hr,Onemli:2004mb},
\begin{equation}
\bigl\langle \hat{\phi}(x) \hat{\phi}(x') \bigr\rangle
=
\frac{H^2}{(2\pi)^2 } \biggl[ \,
\frac{1}{y}
- \frac{1}{2} \ln(y)
+ \frac{1}{2} \ln(aa')
+1-\gamma_E \biggr] \, ,
\label{massless scalar propagator}
\end{equation}
where the (non-universal) constant is fixed by taking the $D=4$ limit of the massless scalar propagator
from~\cite{Glavan:2015ura}.
This lesson prompts us to look for a physical solution in the case at hand which does not respect
the background isometries to resolve the conundrum.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Breaking of dilatation symmetry.}
\label{Breaking of scaling symmetry}
Here we derive the solution of~(\ref{covariant equation of motion}) by using the Green's function method.
Let us assume that the scalar point charge starts
acting on the scalar field at some initial moment of time~$\eta_0$. We use the method
of Green's function to determine the reaction of the scalar field to this charge.
The retarded Green's functions for a massless scalar field on de Sitter space
can be straightforwardly obtained from~(\ref{massless scalar propagator}),
\begin{equation}
G_R(x;x') =
- \frac{\theta(\Delta\eta)}{2\pi}
\biggl[
\frac{\delta\bigl( \Delta\eta^2 \!-\! \| \Delta\vec{x} \|^2 \bigr)}{a(\eta) \, a(\eta')}
+
\frac{H^2}{2} \theta\bigl( \Delta\eta\!-\! \| \Delta\vec{x} \| \bigr)
\biggr] \, ,
\end{equation}
where~$\Delta\eta\!=\! \eta\!-\! \eta'$, and~$\Delta\vec{x}\!=\! \vec{x}\!-\! \vec{x}^{\,\prime}$.
The scalar potential that solves~(\ref{covariant equation of motion})
is now obtained by integrating the retarded Green's function against
the point source,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\eta,r) = \int_{\eta_0}^{0}\! d\eta' \int \! d^3x' \, a^4(\eta') \,
G_{R}(x;x') \, \times \lambda\frac{\delta^3(\vec{x}')}{a^3(\eta')} \, ,
\end{equation}
which evaluates to,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\eta,r) = \theta\bigl( \eta\!-\!\eta_0 \!-\!r \bigr) \biggl[ -\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi X}
- \frac{\lambda H}{4\pi} \ln \biggl( \frac{a}{1 \!+\! X} \biggr) \biggr]
\, ,
\label{Green's function solution}
\end{equation}
where~$\eta_0=-1/H$ such that $a(\eta_0)=1$.
The step function in front of the solution accounts
for causality, restricting the effect of the interaction to within the forward light cone of the source.
Of course, Green's second identity includes surface integrations of the Green's function (and its derivative) times the solution (and its derivative) on the initial value surface. Eq.~(\ref{Green's function solution})
has implicitly assumed that the solution and its first time derivative vanish at $\eta = \eta_0$.
It is more natural to take the initial values from the term inside the square brackets,
in which case the solution becomes,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\eta,r) = -\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi X}
- \frac{\lambda H}{4\pi} \, \ln \biggl(\frac{a}{1 \!+\! X} \biggr)
\, .
\label{Green's function solution:2}
\end{equation}
From the point of view of a local observer on de Sitter, Eq.~(\ref{Green's function solution:2})
is valid on the entire manifold.
The solution~(\ref{Green's function solution:2}) is the {\it principal result} of this letter.
It can be obtained by adding to~(\ref{scaling solution}) a homogeneous solution,
$\Phi_h=\frac{\lambda H}{8\pi}\ln[(1\!-\!X^2)/a^2]$,
resulting in a solution that is {\it regular everywhere} except at the origin.
However, the scaling symmetry is broken by the term $\propto \ln(a)$.
It should be noted that at late times
and at large radial separations the dominant contribution is time-independent and grows
logarithmically with the comoving distance,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\eta,r) \overset{r\to\infty}{\sim}
\frac{\lambda H}{4\pi} \ln\bigl( Hr \bigr) \, .
\end{equation}
The energy-momentum tensor for~(\ref{Green's function solution:2}) reads,
\begin{equation}
{T^\mu}_\nu \!=\! \frac{\lambda^2H^4}{32\pi^2}\!
\begin{pmatrix}
\!- \Theta^2\!-\!\Psi^2\! & -2\Theta\Psi & 0 & 0
\\
2\Theta\Psi & \!\Theta^2\!+\!\Psi^2\! & 0 & 0
\\
0 & 0 & \!\!\!\Theta^2\!-\!\Psi^2\!\! & 0
\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \!\!\Theta^2\!-\!\Psi^2\!
\end{pmatrix}
\!,\;\;
\label{energy momentum:2}
\end{equation}
with $\Psi\!=\!\frac{1}{X^2}\!+\!\frac{1}{1+X}, \Theta\!=\!X\Psi\!-\!1$.
It is regular everywhere away from the origin
and decays as $\sim \!1/X^2$ for large radial distances. Remarkably,
the energy-momentum tensor in~(\ref{energy momentum:2})
respects dilatation symmetry, even though the field profile in~(\ref{Green's function solution:2}) does not.
This is a cosmological example
of the phenomenon of (perturbative) {\it symmetry non-inheritance}, which has attracted
significant attention in recent literature~\cite{Herdeiro:2014goa,Smolic:2015txa,Cvitan:2015aha,Smolic:2016dmh,Barjasic:2017oka}.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Summary and discussion.}
\label{Summary and discussion}
We investigate the classical response of a massless scalar field to a static point-like scalar charge on de Sitter.
The point charge breaks spatial special conformal isometries, as well as spatial translations of de Sitter space.
The resulting equation~(\ref{covariant equation of motion}) possesses only four isometries, namely
spatial rotations and dilatations, also known as global scaling transformations.
We show that any solution that respects all four isometries
exhibits a logarithmic singularity at the Hubble horizon,
making this na\^ive solution~(\ref{scaling solution}) unphysical.
Inspired by the quantum case of a massless scalar propagator on de Sitter,
we then show that the classical physical solution~(\ref{Green's function solution:2}) necessarily breaks scaling symmetry and it is regular everywhere except at the point charge location.
Remarkably, the energy-momentum tensor associated with this solution {\it does} respect dilatation symmetry.
Therefore, our solution provides an example of the phenomenon of symmetry
non-inheritance in gravitational systems~\cite{Herdeiro:2014goa,Smolic:2015txa,Cvitan:2015aha,Smolic:2016dmh,Barjasic:2017oka}.
Our analysis can be generalized to
$D$ space-time dimensions, in which case the na\^ive scaling solution also exhibits a logarithmic singularity at the
horizon,~\footnote{The scaling solution which generalizes~(\ref{scaling solution}) to $D$ dimensions is,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(X)=-\frac{\lambda H^{D-3}\Gamma\left(\frac{D-3}{2}\right)}{4\pi^\frac{D-1}{2}X^{D-3}}
\times_{2}\!F_1\biggl( \biggl\{ 1 , \frac{3\!-\!D}{2} \biggr\} ,
\biggl\{ \frac{5\!-\!D}{2} \biggr\} , X^2 \biggr)
+\Phi_0\,,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
which exhibits a logarithmic singularity at the horizon,
\begin{equation}
\Phi(X) \;\overset{X\to 1}{\sim}\;
-\frac{\lambda H^{D-3}\,\Gamma\big(\frac{D-1}{2}\big)}{4\pi^{\frac{D-1}{2}}} \ln\bigl(1\!-\!X\bigr)
\,.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
}
and therefore the physical solution must break scaling symmetry in arbitrary number of dimensions.
It would be of interest to study physical consequences of such a classical breaking of scaling symmetry,
and in particular whether there are observable late time effects of this symmetry breaking.
For example, our solution can be helpful for improving our understanding
of how point charges in inflation affect temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background
radiation~\cite{Carroll:2008br,Prokopec:2010nm}.
After the completion of this work it came to our attention that some of our results, including equation~(\ref{Green's function solution:2}),
but not the breakdown of the dilatation invariant
solution~(\ref{scaling solution}), were previously obtained by
Akhmedov, Roura and Sadofyev~\cite{Akhmedov:2010ah}.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.}
We are grateful to Ivica Smoli\'c for a critical reading of the manuscript
and for drawing our attention to the symmetry non-inheritance phenomena.
This work was partially supported by the Fonds de la Recherche
Scientifique -- FNRS under Grant IISN 4.4517.08 -- Theory of fundamental
interactions, by Taiwan MOST grants 103-2112-M-006-001-MY3
and 107-2119-M-006-014; by the D-ITP consortium, a program of
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) that is
funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
(OCW); by NSF grants PHY-1806218 and PHY-1912484;
and by the Institute for Fundamental Theory at the University of Florida.
|
\section{Introduction}
Pivotal to the scientific and engineering process is the testing of hypothesis and the validation of mathematical and computational models. Without a validation procedure, there is no reason to believe that a model, which has been designed to serve as a convenient representation of physical and/or human-made processes, has fulfilled its functional purpose. Thus, validation is the result of the positive justification of a model's representation of relevant features in the real world \cite{Oberkampf2004,Sornette,Trucano}.
We are interested in studying the validation of multivariate computational models that represent uncertain situations and/or data. It is understood that complete certainty is a special case of uncertainty.
The uncertainty in a model or data set may originate from stochasticity, model parameter and input data uncertainty, measurement uncertainty, or other possible aleatoric or epistemic sources of uncertainty. Each of the following data modeling schemes may include quantifiable amounts of uncertainty (or certainty) that we would like to validate on the basis of a set of validation data: neural networks and AI models, machine learning models, Gaussian Process Regression models \cite{KOH}, polynomial chaos and other surrogate models \cite{Spectral,Dakota,UQtk,NumChallenges}, spatial and time series stochastic models, physics based models (usually solutions to differential equations), engineering based models (which are sufficiently abstracted physics based models), Monte Carlo simulation models \cite{MCMC,Metro}, and more. Model output uncertainties may be quantified through uncertainty propagation techniques (that may or may not include verification, calibration, and validation) \cite{KOH,Dakota,UQtk,NumChallenges,Shankar,Sankararaman,Mahadevan,Li,Roy,UQlab,MUQ}.
There exist several validation metrics. Each metric is designed to compare features of a model-data pair to quantify validation: square error compares the difference in the data and model values in a point to point or interval fashion \cite{epsilonmetric}, the reliability metric \cite{Rebba} and the probability of agreement \cite{Stevens} compare continuous model outputs and data expectation values (the model reliability metric was extended past expectation values in \cite{Sankararaman2}), the frequentist validation metric \cite{Oberkampf,OberkampfAIAA} and statistical hypothesis testing compare data and model test statistics, the area metric compares the cumulative distribution of the model to the estimated cumulative distribution of the data \cite{Ferson,Roy,Ling,Li2,Wu,Zhao}, probability density function (pdf) comparison metrics such as the KL Divergence that represent ``closeness" between pdfs, and Bayesian model testing compares the posterior probability that each model would correctly output the observed data \cite{Sankararaman,Mahadevan,Sivia,Placek, Gelfand,Geweke, Zhang}. A detailed review of the majority of these metrics may be found in \cite{Liu2,Maupin,Lee,Mullins} and the references therein. In particular, \cite{Maupin} is an up to date review that considers many validation metrics in the cases of data and model certainty, data uncertainty and model certainty, and data and model uncertainty. Further, they comment on the importance of model validation while admitting its contextual difficulties because often validation is ``strongly application, quantity of interest, and modeler, dependent". Our article addresses some of these contextual difficulties by taking a bottom up approach.
To assist the comparison of the positive and negative aspects of (most) the above validation metrics, reference \cite{Liu2} outlines six ``desirable validation criteria" that a validation metric might have (they extend \cite{Oberkampf,Ferson}). One conclusion from \cite{Liu2} is that none of the available metrics simultaneously satisfy all six desirable validation criteria. We summarize the most important features of the desirable validation criteria with the following validation criterion:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A validation metric should be a statistically quantified quantitative measure (as opposed to a qualitative measure) of the \emph{agreement} between (general) model predictions and data pairs, in the presence or absence of uncertainty.
\end{enumerate}
The desire for objectivity, ``that a metric will produce the same assessment for every analyst independent of their individual preferences" \cite{Liu2}, is difficult to satisfy because there are no rules in place to guide a modeler toward selecting one validation metric over another. For this reason the individual might simply choose a metric based on their preferences, or worse, be tempted to base their decision on which validation metric gives them the most favorable evaluation. Given individuals may choose different validation metrics for the same model-data pair, it is possible for individuals to impose accuracy requirements that are incompatible with one another and arrive at different conclusions regarding the validity of the same model-data pair. As the final goal is objectivity, when possible, a map between the accuracy requirements should be constructed such that the validation metrics yield consistent evaluations of model-data validity when applicable.
Further, Liu et al. \cite{Liu2} suggest that there is no agreed upon unified model-data comparison function. Even including the results of this article, we expect this statement to hold as it is extremely difficult to guess the prior information about the utility of a model an analyst may be required to include in the validation of a model-data pair. For instance given arbitrary data ``What features of the data are relevant to capture with a model?", ``Of these features, are some more relevant than others?", and ``What accuracy is required for the model to be valid?". \emph{Agreement} and \emph{validation} are ultimately human-made concepts designed for the purpose of expressing that ``in general, not every feature or statistic between a model-data pair need to be equal to conserve the utility of the model". For some model-data pairs, all that may be required is that the model and data averages closely match within uncertainty, while for others, one may require that the model can accurately reproduce the probability distribution of a data set as a whole (as one would do to physically model a noisy measurement device). Given the wide variety of data and the large number of different inferences (and thus models and hypotheses) that one may be interested in drawing from a given data source, i.e. the context of the model-data pair, we do not expect any single set of comparison functions, statistics, or values to be equally relevant and maximally useful for all possible model-data contexts. This, however, does not stop us from quantifying the validity of a model-data pair given any arbitrary comparison function and with any arbitrary definition of agreement.
In this article, we construct and propose the ``Bayesian Validation Metric" (BVM) as a general model validation and testing tool. We design the BVM to adhere to the desired validation criterion (1.) by using ``four BVM inputs": the model and data comparison values, the model output and data pdfs, the comparison value function, and the agreement function. The comparison value function is a function of model output and data comparison values that provides the desired quantitative comparison measure, e.g. square difference. Using the model output pdf and the data pdf, the value of the comparison value function is statistically quantified. In turn, the agreement function provides an accept/reject rule and effectively wraps the previous three BVM inputs together to give the BVM. From this, the BVM outputs ``the probability the model and data agree", where \emph{agreement} is a user defined Boolean function that meets, or does not meet, accuracy requirements between model and data comparison values. Thus, the BVM meets the desired validation criterion (1.) for arbitrary comparison value functions, arbitrary definitions of agreement, and in principle for arbitrary data types such as integers, vectors, tensors, strings, pictures, or others.
The BVM can be used to represent all of the aforementioned validation metrics as special cases. This allows us to compare and contrast the validation metrics from the literature in a new light. We find the conditions under which several of the current validation metrics are effectively equal to one another, which improves the objectivity of the current validation procedure. In brief we find that the frequentist metric (using natural definitions of agreement) is equal to the reliability metric and the probabilities from Bayesian model testing are equal to the probabilities of the improved model reliability metric \cite{Sankararaman2} when one demands exact equality of the (uncertain) model-data comparison values. Because probability can represent both certain and uncertain situations, so can the BVM. Thus, these ``special case" metrics can be generalized to quantify certain or uncertain cases, and even be combined into more complex validation requirements using the BVM framework. Thus, the BVM provides a standardized framework to improve, generalize, or further quantify these validation metrics.
\begin{figure} [H]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{tonyplot.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tonyplot} This is the depiction of a common model validation scenario. The model line is trained on noisy data (not depicted in the figure) and is to be compared to a set of validation data. As both the model line and the data are uncertain in general, any quantitative measure (i.e. the comparison function) between these comparison values inherits this uncertainty. Thus, any accept/reject rule on the basis of these uncertain comparison function values is uncertain as well. A visual inspection of this graph seems to indicate, up to statistical fluctuation, that the comparison values of the model and data more or less (or probably) agree, but this intuitive measure has yet to be quantified. Graphic adapted from \cite{scikit}.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\noindent
By constructing the ``BVM ratio", we generalize the Bayesian model testing framework \cite{Sivia}.
In the Bayesian model testing framework, one constructs the Bayes ratio to rank models according to the ratio of their posterior probabilities given the data. We show that these posterior probabilities are equal to a special case of the BVM under the definition of agreement that requires these uncertain model outputs and data to match exactly. Thus, nothing prevents us from extending the logic used in the Bayesian model testing framework to our framework and we construct the BVM ratio for the purpose of model selection under arbitrary definitions of agreement, i.e. for arbitrary validation scenarios.
The remainder of the article continues as follows. In Section 2 we construct the BVM by following our validation criterion. Through some edge cases, we show that the BVM satisfies both the six desirable validation criteria from \cite{Liu2} as well as our validation criterion (1.) in Section 3. In Section 4, we summarize the results derived in Appendix A. There, we incorporate all of the above standard validation metrics as special cases of the BVM, draw relationships between several of the validation metrics, provide improvements and generalizations to these metrics as is suggested by the functional form of the BVM, and construct the BVM ratio.
In Section 5 we represent three novel validation metrics using the BVM and compare them to similar metrics from the literature. Due to the proven capacity of our framework, we consider the BVM to be a general model validation and testing tool.
%
%
\section{The Bayesian Validation Metric}
For the remainder of the article we will use the following notation and language. We will let $\hat{y}$ denote the output of a model, $\hat{Y}$ a set of model outputs, $y$ a data point, and $Y$ a set of data points. The proposition $M$ essentially stands for ``the model" or ``coming from the model", and $D$ stands for ``the experiment" or ``coming from the experiment". We let $\hat{z}$ and $z$ represent the comparison quantities of interest, which pertain to the model and the data respectively. Further, we let the comparison quantities take general forms, such as multidimensional vectors, functions, or functionals (e.g. output values, expectation values, pdfs, ...), so we can represent any such pair of quantities we may wish to compare between the model and the data. When we refer to ``the four BVM inputs" we mean: the comparison values $(\hat{z},z)$, the model output and data pdf $\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)$, the comparison value function $f(\hat{z},z)$, and the agreement function $B=B(f(\hat{z},z))$. The (denoted) integrals may be integrals or sums depending on the nature of the variable being summed or integrated over, which is to be understood from the discrete or continuous context of the inference at hand. The dot `` $\cdot$ " represents standard multiplication, which is mainly used to improve aesthetics.
Performing uncertainty propagation through a model results in a model output probability (density) distribution $\rho(\hat{y}|M,D)$ that ultimately we would like to validate by comparing it to an uncertain validation data source $\rho(y|D)$, to see if they agree (as depicted in Figure 1). The immediate question is, however, ``What values do we want to \emph{compare} and what do we mean by \emph{agree}?". Given the wide variety of data and the large number of different inferences (and thus models and hypotheses) that one may be interested in drawing from a given data source, i.e. the context of the model-data pair, we do not expect any single set of comparison functions to be equally relevant and maximally useful for all possible model-data contexts. In light of this, we instead quantify the validity of a model-data pair given any arbitrary comparison value function and with any arbitrary definition of agreement.
%
%
\subsection{Derivation}
Here we will begin constructing the Bayesian Validation Metric (BVM). To capture the concept of what we might mean by \emph{agree}, we define $\hat{z}$ and $z$ to agree, $A$, when the Boolean expression, $B$, is true. Both $A$ and $B$ are defined by the modeler and their prior knowledge of the context of the model-data pair. Naturally then, the agreement function $B=B(f(\hat{z},z))=B(\hat{z},z)$ is some function or functional of a comparison value function $f(\hat{z},z)$.
Given the values of $\hat{z}$ and $z$ are known, i.e. certain, we quantify \emph{agreement} using a probability distribution that assigns certainty,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|\hat{z},M,z,D) =\Theta\Big(B(\hat{z},z)\Big).\label{agree}
\end{eqnarray}
The indicator function $\Theta\Big(B\Big)$ is defined to equal unity if $B$ evaluates to ``true" (i.e. ``agreeing") and equal to zero otherwise. Thus in the completely certain case, we are certain as to whether the model and data comparison values `agree, or do not agree, \emph{as defined by $B$ and the deterministic evaluation of $f(\hat{z},z)$}.\footnote{This binary yet probabilistic definition of agreement turns out to be completely satisfactory for our current purposes. As is briefly discussed later, the sharp boundaries of the indicator function can be smoothed out without employing fuzzy logic by allowing parameters in the Boolean function to themselves be uncertain and marginalized over.
} We will call $p(A|\hat{z},M,z,D)$ the ``agreement kernel".
Given that in general the comparison values are uncertain, and quantified by $\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)$, the probability the comparison values agree, \emph{as defined by $B$ and $f(\hat{z},z)$}, is equal to,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)&=&\int_{\hat{z},z} p(A|\hat{z},M,z,D)\cdot\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)\,d\hat{z}\,dz,\label{genagree}\\
&\stackrel{\tiny{ind.}}{\longrightarrow}&\int_{\hat{z},z} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D)\cdot\Theta\Big(B(\hat{z},z)\Big) \cdot\rho(z|D) \,d\hat{z}\,dz \label{genagree2},
\end{eqnarray}
which is a marginalization over the spaces of $(\hat{z},z)$.\footnote{ Recall that the propositions in the probability distributions $\rho(z|D)$ and $\rho(\hat{z}|M,D)$ are completely arbitrary (in some cases requiring propagation from $\rho(y|D)$ and $\rho(\hat{y}|M,D)$), they could be both continuous, discrete (with order), categorical variables (no well defined order, e.g. strings, pictures,...), or a mix.} Equation (\ref{genagree}) is the general form of the Bayesian Validation Metric (BVM). Because $A$ is discrete, the BVM is a probability rather than a probability density and it therefore falls in the range $0\leq p(A|M,D)\leq 1$. Equation (\ref{genagree2}) explicitly assumes that the uncertainty in the data is independent of the model, i.e. $\rho(z|M,\hat{z},D)=\rho(z|D)$, that the data $D$ does not take $\hat{z}$ or the model $M$ (that it is currently being compared to) as inputs.\footnote{In a controls system this may not be the case, as the model may interact with the system of interest. In such a case this constraint may be lifted and one should use (\ref{genagree}) instead. The joint probability $\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)$ can be used to account for the correlations between the model (the controller or reference) and the data (the measured response of the system being controlled) in a controls setting in principle.} This is a relatively common scenario so it is stated explicitly. The BVM may be given a geometric interpretation as the projection of two probability vectors (potentially of unequal length) in a space whose overlap is defined by the agreement kernel -- this is an inner product if $B(\hat{z},z)$ is symmetric in its arguments. The BVM may be computed using any of the well known computational integration methods.
\subsection{An identical representation}
In some cases, it is useful to work directly with the probability density $\rho(f|M,D)$, which quantifies the probability the comparison value function $f(\hat{z},z)$ takes the value $f$ due to uncertainty in its inputs. This pdf is independent of any user defined accuracy requirement. We will call this pdf the comparison value probability density, which is equal to,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(f|M,D)=\int_{\hat{z},z} \delta(f-f(\hat{z},z))\cdot\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)\,d\hat{z}\,dz.\label{metricprob}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the net uncertainty propagated through the comparison value function $f(\hat{z},z)$ from the uncertain model and data comparison values. All of the expectation values that are associated with $f$ may be generated from this pdf.
If one imposes an accuracy requirement with a Boolean expression $B=B(f)$ (i.e. defining agreement according to the value of $f$), the resulting accumulated probability is the BVM. That is, the BVM, i.e. equation (\ref{genagree}), may equally be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)=\int_f \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(B(f))\,df,\label{20}
\end{eqnarray}
which is proven through substitution and marginalization over $f$,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)&=&\int_f \Big(\int_{\hat{z},z} \delta(f-f(\hat{z},z))\cdot\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)\,d\hat{z}\,dz\Big)\cdot \Theta(B(f))\,df\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\hat{z},z} \Theta(B(\hat{z},z))\cdot\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)\,d\hat{z}\,dz.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Importance}
The BVM allows the user to, in principle, quantify the probability the model and the data agree with one another under arbitrary comparison value functions and with arbitrary definitions of agreement. The BVM can therefore be used to fully quantify the probability of agreement between arbitrary model and data types using novel or existing comparison value functions and definitions of agreement. Thus, the problem of model-data validation may be reduced to the problem of finding the four BVM inputs in any model validation scenario.
\subsection{Statistical Responsibility\label{section24}}
When using the BVM framework, one should practice statistical responsibility by explicitly stating the definition of agreement that is implemented in the validation procedure. Although the flexibility of the BVM framework is a feature, different validation metrics often have different amounts of tolerance as what constitutes ``agreement". Agreement according to one metric does \emph{not} in general imply agreement according to another. Overly tolerant definitions of agreement have little resolution power and can only be used responsibly if a large degree of non-exactness between the model and data is permissible. In principle, the definition of agreement should be just as strict or stricter than it needs to be. By explicitly stating the definition of agreement along side the BVM value, $p(A|M,D)\equiv p(A|M,D,B)$, one avoids statistical misrepresentation by not hiding one's definition of agreement.
\section{Meeting the desirable validation criterion}
First we will describe how the BVM, equations (\ref{genagree}) and (\ref{20}), precisely match our validation criterion (1.).
As can be seen by equation (\ref{metricprob}), incorporated into the BVM is a statistically quantified quantitative measure that compares data and model outputs, $\rho(f|M,D)$. However, this pdf is in some sense lacking a context pertaining to the model-data pair. Not until an accept/reject rule is imparted on $\rho(f|M,D)$ does one define what is meant by \emph{agreement} in the model-data context. Thus, the BVM only becomes the probability of \emph{agreement} between the data and the model when the agreement function is also incorporated. The four BVM inputs are therefore adequate to satisfy (1.) as the BVM is a ``statistically quantified quantitative measure ($f$) of agreement $p(A|M,D)$ between model predictions and data pairs $(\hat{z},z)$, in the presence or absence of uncertainty $\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)$".
There are a few more BVM concepts worth discussing before moving forward. We will show that the BVM is capable of handling general multidimensional model-data comparisons and that there are no conceptual issues when agreement is exact, i.e. $B$ is true iff $\hat{z}=z$, in the certain and uncertain cases. We will then make comments on the sense in which the BVM adheres to the full set of six desirable validation criteria given in \cite{Liu2} by discussing the criteria that are underrepresented in (1.).
\subsection{Compound Booleans}
Because Boolean operations between Boolean functions results in a Boolean function itself, the BVM is capable of handling multidimensional model-data comparisons. We will call a Boolean function with this property a ``compound Boolean". A compound Boolean function results from \emph{and}, $\wedge$, conjunctions and \emph{or}, $\vee$, disjunctions between a set of Boolean functions, e.g.,
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\{B_i\})=\Big(B_1(\hat{z},z) \vee B_2(\hat{z},z)\Big) \wedge \Big(B_3(\hat{z},z)\vee B_4(\hat{z},z)\Big)...,\label{Compoundbool}
\end{eqnarray}
where each $B_i(\hat{z},z)=B_i(f_i(\hat{z},z))$ may use a different comparison function $f_i(\hat{z},z)$. Compound Booleans using conjunctions quantifying the validity of entire model functions (random fields and/or multidimensional vectors) by assessing agreement between each of the model-data comparison field points simultaneously, i.e over the comparison points 1 \emph{and} points 2 \emph{and} so on. The compound Booleans may be factored into their constituting Boolean functions using the standard product and sum rules of probability theory after being mapped to probabilities with the agreement kernel. One should be weary when defining an \emph{and} Boolean that, if one of the Booleans is false, then the entire Boolean is false. If this strict ``all or nothing" validation requirement is not needed then other more flexible definitions of agreement may be instantiated instead (see ``BVM Examples").
\subsection{The BVM under the conditions of exact agreement}
We can calculate the BVM under the conditions of exact agreement in the completely certain and uncertain cases. Because the BVM is a probability rather than a probability density, the agreement kernel falls in the range $[0,1]$. Under the conditions of exact agreement, that $B$ is only true when $\hat{z}=z$, the agreement kernel is $\Theta(B)=\Theta(\hat{z}=z)=\delta_{\hat{z},z}$, which is the Kronecker delta, i.e. it is $0$ or $1$, but has continuous labels. As it is uncommon to deal with Kronecker delta's having continuous labels under integration, we will show that the BVM gives reasonable results under the condition of exact agreement in the complete certainty as well as in the general uncertain case.
\paragraph{Complete certainty and exact agreement}
Complete certainty is represented using Dirac delta pdf functions over the model and data comparison values. This gives the BVM,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)&=&\int_{\hat{z},z} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D)\Theta\Big(\hat{z}=z\Big) \,\rho(z|D) \,d\hat{z}\,dz\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\hat{z},z} \delta(\hat{z}-\hat{z}')\cdot\delta_{\hat{z},z}\cdot \delta(z-z')\,d\hat{z}\,dz,\label{deltacert-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we are considering the model-data pair to agree iff the comparison values are exactly equal. Using the sifting property of the Dirac delta function, we find the reasonable result that,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)=\delta_{\hat{z}',z'},\label{deltacert}
\end{eqnarray}
which is equal to unity iff $\hat{z}'$ and $z'$, the definite values of $\hat{z}$ and $z$, are equal.
\paragraph{Uncertainty and exact agreement}
In the uncertain case under the condition of exact agreement, the BVM is
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)=\int_{\hat{z},z} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D)\cdot\delta_{\hat{z},z}\cdot \rho(z|D)\, d\hat{z}\,dz.
%
\end{eqnarray}
We will do the following trick to correctly interpret this integral. We will first let $B(\epsilon)$ be true if $z-\epsilon\leq \hat{z}\leq z+\epsilon$ and then take the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{+}$ such that $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}B(\epsilon)\rightarrow B$ when appropriate. With this Boolean expression, the BVM is,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D,\epsilon)&=&\int_{\hat{z},z} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D)\Theta\Big(z-\epsilon\leq \hat{z}\leq z+\epsilon\Big) \,\rho(z|D) \,d\hat{z}\,dz\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{z}\rho(z|D)\Big(\int_{z-\epsilon}^{z+\epsilon} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D) \,d\hat{z}\Big)\,dz.\label{trick}
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0^+$, the term in the parenthesis $\int_{z-\epsilon}^{z+\epsilon} \rho(\hat{z}|M,D) d\hat{z}\rightarrow p(\hat{z}=z|M,D)=\rho(\hat{z}=z|M,D) d\hat{z}$ by the definition of probabilities. This gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)&=&\int_{z}\rho(z|D)\Big( p(\hat{z}=z|M,D)\Big)dz=\Big(\int_{z} \rho(\hat{z}=z|M,D)\rho(z|D)dz\Big)\,d\hat{z}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&\rho(\hat{z}\equiv z|M,D)d\hat{z}=p(\hat{z}\equiv z|M,D),\label{exactagree}
\end{eqnarray}
which is understood to be the sum of the model and the data probabilities that jointly output exactly the same values.
We see that the BVM in this case is proportional to $d\hat{z}$, $p(A|M,D)\rightarrow \rho(\hat{z}\equiv z|M,D)d\hat{z}$, in the general case of exact agreement, and therefore the BVM goes to zero unless the pdf $\rho(\hat{z}\equiv z|M,D)\propto\delta(...)$. Thus, we recover the standard logical result for probability densities $p(x)=\rho(x)dx\rightarrow0$ unless it is offset by $\rho(x)\propto\delta(x)$. This result is easily generalized to the dependent case using $\rho(\hat{z},
z|M,D)=\rho(z|M,D)\rho(\hat{z}|z,M,D)$. The result, equation (\ref{exactagree}), is no more surprising than (\ref{deltacert}) in principle.
Due to the vast number of possibilities for continuous valued variables, having a pathological definition of exact agreement between continuous variables does not occur in practice. In a computational setting, $dx\rightarrow \bigtriangleup x$ becomes a finite difference and these infinitely improbable agreement conceptual issues are avoided. The Bayesian model testing framework avoids these issues by evaluating posterior odds ratios, in which case the measures, $d\hat{z}$, drop out.
\subsection{Meeting underrepresented validation criteria}
In this subsection we will discuss how the BVM also meets the validation criteria found in \cite{Liu2}. This is done by using the derived general and special cases of the BVM for each of the criteria which are underrepresented in (1.).
Perhaps the primary underrepresented criterion from \cite{Liu2} is their second. It states that ``..the criteria used for determining whether a model is acceptable or not should not be a part of the metric which is expected to provide a quantitative measurement only." We argue that the functional form of the BVM presented in equation (\ref{20}) clearly demonstrates this feature as it factors into $\rho(f|M,D)$ and $\Theta(B(f))$. The comparison function $f(\hat{z},z)$ represents the ``objective quantitative measure" from their first criterion that is separate from the accept/reject rule, which is our agreement function $B(f)$ -- both of which require definition to ultimately evaluate the validity of a model. We see it as advantageous to quantify the probability the model is accepted or rejected through $B(f)$ due to the uncertainty in the value of $f$, which is the general case, and which gives the BVM as the result. As all of the validation metrics presented in \cite{Liu2} (and more) will be shown to be representable with the BVM, and thus placed on the same footing, we find our language of ``comparison function" and ``agreement function" to ultimately be more useful than a language that only considers comparison functions (without accept/reject rules) to be the validation metrics.
The third criteria in \cite{Liu2} is that ideally the metric should ``degenerate to the value from a deterministic comparison between scalar values when uncertainty is absent". This is indeed the case as can be seen in equation (\ref{agree}) or in equations (\ref{genagree}) and (\ref{20}) by utilizing Dirac delta pdfs similar to their application in equation (\ref{deltacert-1}).
The fifth desirable validation criteria in \cite{Liu2} states that artificially widening probability distributions should not lead to higher rates of validation. They find all but the frequentist metric to have this undesired feature; however, we later see that the frequentist metric may be considered a special case of the reliability metric (when reasonable accuracy requirements are imposed), meaning artificial widening can lead to higher rates of validation for more general instances of the frequentist metric.
Further, we argue that artificially introducing uncertainty for the express purpose of passing a validation test is indistinguishable from scientific misconduct. If there is objective reason to include more uncertainty into the analysis or if the circumstance for what constitutes validation has changed due to a change of context -- and it happens to improve the rate of validation -- so be it. This is a different context, model, or state of uncertainty than was originally proposed so different rates of acceptance should be expected. Reducing the uncertainty of either the data or the model (the inputs) through additional measurements or changing the model may later prove the model valid or invalid when it may have been initially accepted. Thus, to meet this validation criteria, we simply assume the user is not engaging in scientific misconduct.
Finally, due to the results of the ``Compound Booleans" section, their sixth criterion is met. Because the BVM (\ref{genagree}) can be used to assess single or multidimensional controllable settings (see footnote number 3.) we can perform global function validity (in or out of a controls setting). As they note, ``This last feature is critical from the viewpoint of engineering design".
Thus, the BVM satisfies both our validation criterion and the six desirable validation criteria outlined in \cite{Liu2}. This was accomplished by representing model-data validation as an inference problem using the four BVM inputs.
\section{Representing and generalizing the known validation metrics with the BVM}
This section is a review of the material found in Appendix A. The following validation metrics will be represented with the BVM, which are then are improved, generalized, and/or commented on: reliability/probability of agreement, improved reliability metric, frequentist, area metric, pdf comparison metrics, statistical hypothesis testing, and Bayesian model testing.
\subsection{Representating the known validation metrics with the BVM}
Table 1 outlines the values of the four BVM inputs that result in the BVM representing each of the well known validation metrics as special cases. The following notation is used for the comparison values $(\hat{z},z)$. The brackets $\expt{...}$ denote expectation values, $\mu$'s denote averaged values, $\hat{y},y$ denote single values, $\hat{Y},Y$ denote multidimensional (or many valued) values, $F_y,F_{y}$ denote cumulative distribution functions ($F_y=\int_{-\infty}^{\hat{y}}\rho(\hat{y}|M,D)\,dy$), $S_{\hat{y}},S_{y}$ denote test statistics, and $[-c_{\alpha},c_{\alpha}]$ denotes the $1-\alpha$ confidence interval of the data. In the agreement function column, an element listed as $B(f)$ means the creators of the metric intentionally left the definition of agreement unspecified; however, it is natural to assume it is a function of the comparison function $f$.
Table 1 shows the specification of the four BVM inputs that give the other validation metrics as special cases. It also summarizes some of the similarities and difference between the known validation metrics. In particular, by looking at the validation metrics with the same type of comparison values, i.e. the reliability and frequentist or the improved reliability and Bayesian model testing, we can compare them directly. We see that if one lets the frequentist metric allow for more general input probability distributions and the use of a reasonable agreement function (i.e., $B(f)$ is true if $|f|<\epsilon$), then the frequentist metric is the reliability metric. Further, in Bayesian model testing, if the agreement function $B(f)$ is loosened to accept $f<\epsilon$, than the pdf's that appear in the Bayesian model testing framework are equal to the improved reliability metric. This information improves the objectivity of the current validation procedure because we now have a map between validation metrics that were originally thought to be different.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\caption {Specification of the four BVM inputs that give the other validation metrics as special cases.}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|cc|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
&\multicolumn{2}{ |c| }{Comp. Values}&\multicolumn{2}{ |c| }{Probs.}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{Comp. Func.}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{Agree. Func.} \\\hline\hline
BVM& $\hat{z}$& $z$ & $\rho(\hat{z}|M,D)$& $\rho(z|D)$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$f(\hat{z},z)$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$B(f)$} \\
\hline\hline
Reliability& $\expt{\hat{y}}$& $\mu_{y}$ & $\rho(\expt{\hat{y}}|M,D)$& $\rho(\mu_{y}|D)$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$|\expt{\hat{y}}-\mu_{y}|$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$f<\epsilon$} \\
\hline
Imp. Reli.& $\hat{Y}$& $Y$ & $\rho(\hat{Y}|M,D)$& $\rho(Y|D)$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$|\hat{Y}-Y|$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$f<\epsilon$} \\
\hline
Frequentist & $\expt{\hat{y}}$& $\mu_{y}$ & $\delta(\expt{\hat{y}}-\expt{\hat{y}}')$& Stud. t&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$\expt{\hat{y}}-\mu_{y}$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$B(f)$} \\
\hline
Area & $F_y$& $F_{y}$ & $\delta(F_y-F_{\hat{y}}')$& $\delta(F_{y}-F_{y}')$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$\int_y|F_y-F_{y=\hat{y}}|$\scriptsize{dy}}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$B(f)$} \\
\hline
Pdf Comp. & $\rho_M$& $\rho_D$ & $\delta(\rho_M-\rho_M')$& $\delta(\rho_D-\rho_D')$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$G(\rho_D||\rho_M)$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$B(f)$} \\
\hline
Stat. Hyp. & $S_{\hat{y}}$& $S_{y}$ & $\rho(S_{\hat{y}}|M=D)$&$\rho(S_{y}|D)$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$S_{\hat{y}}$}& \multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$S_{\hat{y}}\in [-c_{\alpha},c_{\alpha}]$} \\
\hline
Bayes Model & $\hat{Y}$& $Y$ & $\rho(\hat{Y}|M,D)$& $\rho(Y|D)$&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$|\hat{Y}-Y|$}&\multicolumn{1}{ |c| }{$f=0$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption*{\\The column headings are the four BVM input values: Comparison Values $(\hat{\hat{z}},z)$, Probabilities $(\rho(\hat{z}|M,D),\rho(z|D))$, Comparison Function $f=f(\hat{z},z)$, and the Boolean Agreement Function $B(f)$. The row headings read: Reliability, Improved Reliability, Frequentist, Area, Pdf Comparison Metrics, Statistical Hypothesis Test, and Bayesian Model Test. The denoted data probability for the average in the frequentist metric, Stud. t, is the Student t distribution.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\caption {BVM representation of the special cases using the $f$'s specified in Table 1.}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c| }
\hline
& BVM \\
\hline\hline
BVM& $\int_f \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(B(f))\,df$\\\hline\hline
Reliability& $\int_{f} \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(f<\epsilon)\,df=r $\\
\hline
Imp. Reli.& $\int_{f} \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(f<\epsilon)\,df=r_i$\\
\hline
Frequentist & $\int_{\mu_{y}} \rho(\mu_{y}|D)\cdot\Theta(B(f(\expt{\hat{y}}',\mu_{y})))\,d\mu_{y}$\\
\hline
Area & $\Theta(B(f(F_y',F_{y}'))$ \\
\hline
Pdf Comp. & $\Theta(B(f(\rho_M',\rho_D'))$ \\
\hline
Stat. Hyp. & $\int_{S_{\hat{y}}} \rho(S_{\hat{y}}|M=D)\cdot\Theta(S_{\hat{y}}\in [-c_{\alpha},c_{\alpha}])\,d S_{\hat{y}}=1-\alpha$ \\
\hline
Bayes Model &$\int_{f} \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(f=0)\,df=p(\hat{Y}\equiv Y|M,D)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table 2 shows the resulting BVM using the specifications listed in Table 1. The value $r$ is the standard notation for the reliability metric \cite{Rebba} and we use $r_i$ for the improved reliability metric \cite{Sankararaman2}. The BVM represents each of the known validation metrics as a probability of agreement between the model and the data from equation (\ref{genagree}). As no agreement function is specified directly for the frequentist and area metric, the problem is under constrained so the agreement functions are left as general functions over the comparison function $B(f)$. Thus, for any chosen agreement function, the BVM quantifies their probability of agreement. The remaining metrics all do specify (or indicate) an agreement function, and thus, have specified all of the information required to compute the BVM.
The statistical hypothesis test is perhaps a bit out of place among the validation metrics. First, note that the comparison function for statistical hypothesis testing is not a function of both the data and the model. Further note, the model pdf used for statistical hypothesis testing assumes the null hypothesis is true, which in our language is the assumption that $\rho(S_y|M,D)=\rho(S_y|M=D)$, i.e. that the pdf of the model is equal to the pdf of the data. This shows how statistical hypothesis is a bit out of place here among the validation metrics because here we are attempting to validate a model, usually with its own quantified pdf, rather than, perhaps irresponsibly, assuming it is equal the data pdf before validating that to be the case. This causes standard statistical hypothesis pitfalls, such as type I (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true) and type II errors (failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false), to be carried over into BVM, which is unwanted. Several comments are made in Appendix A.5 on this issue.
A perhaps surprising result is the proposed functional form of the BVM that represents Bayesian model testing $p(A|M,D)=p(\hat{Y}\equiv Y|M,D)$, which is the Bayesian evidence. This is the probability the uncertain model and data happen to output exactly the same values. Usually what is discussed when reviewing Bayesian model testing is the Bayes posterior odds ratio, i.e. the ``Bayes Ratio", $$R=\frac{p(M|Y)}{p(M'|Y)}\propto\frac{p(Y|M)}{p(Y|M')},$$ which tests one model $M$, i.e. for validation, against another model $M'$. However, in validation metric problems, we are first interested in considering the validation of a single model -- the ratio is an extra bit of inference. In Appendix A.6 we show that the BVM result of $p(\hat{Y}\equiv Y|M,D)$ is exactly what we mean by $p(Y|M)$ in the numerator of the Bayes factor,\footnote{It should be noted that our notation for $D$ differs from the notation typically used in Bayesian model testing. Their $D$ is equal to our data $Y$, while our $D$ refers to context ``as having come from the data or experiment rather than the model". } which effectively quantifies the validation of a single model against data $Y$, all quantified under uncertainty.
\subsection{Generalizations and Improvements to the known validation metrics with the BVM}
The BVM offers several avenues to either generalize or improve many of the metrics. The types of generalizations the BVM offer pertain to generalizing the comparison values, comparison functions, definitions of agreement, and/or generalizing deterministic comparison values and metrics to the uncertain case. These generalizations are only useful if quantitative statements can be made on their behalf -- in such a case, these generalizations are improvements. We will give a brief review of the improvements we found below, but the full discussion is located in Appendix A. By making generalizations or improvements to each of the known validation metrics as implied by the BVM, each metric can be made to satisfy our validation criterion as well as the six desirable validation criteria in \cite{Liu2}, due to the results of Section 3.
Appendix A.1 uses the BVM to show that the reliability metric and the improved reliability metric can be generalized to compare values without a unique order, such as strings, in principle. This involves creating an agreement function over sets of values (such as synonymous sets of strings), rather than in a continuous interval, that may be considered to ``agree".
Appendix A.2 derives the frequentist validation metric and generalizes it to the case where both the model and data expectation values are uncertain. The frequentist metric assumes the model outputs are known with certainty, which may or may not be true. If a model is stochastic, the model pdfs may be estimated with Monte Carlo or other uncertainty propagation methods that quantify the pdf directly.
Appendix A.3 shows that the area metric may be cast as a special case of the BVM. The area metric involves quantifying the difference between model and data cumulative distributions on a point to point basis; thus, the comparison values $(\hat{z},z)$ are cumulative distributions themselves. The comparison values are assumed to be known with complete certainty, which in the case of cumulative distributions of data is often difficult to argue. Any quantifiable uncertainty in the cumulative distributions may integrated over, which generalizes the area metric to situations when the model and/or the data cumulative distributions are uncertain. A drawback is that the BVM in these cases may be very computationally intensive and would likely need to be approximated using a random sampling or discretization scheme. A binned pdf metric is put forward to potentially reduce the computational complexity toward quantifying this generalized area validation metric. This applies similarly to the pdf comparison metrics in Appendix A.4.
In Appendix A.5 we invent an improved statistical hypothesis test using the BVM that takes into account both model and data pdfs called the ``statistical power BVM". Because in principle we have a model output pdf in model validation problems $\rho(\hat{y}|M,D)$, we can use it (in place of assuming the null hypothesis is true) to remove the possibility of both type I and type II errors.
In the statistical power BVM, the model and the data are defined to agree if their test statistics both lie within one another's confidence intervals (or ``confidence sets" as explained in Appendix A.5). The statistical power BVM becomes the product of the statistical powers of the model and data, denoted $p(A|M,D)=(1-\beta_D(\hat{\alpha}))\cdot(1-\beta_M(\alpha))$ in equation (\ref{improvedSHT}). Further comments are made about how systematic error (defined as when a test statistic lies outside of its \emph{own} confidence interval) may be removed.
It is concluded that the statistical power BVM has a relatively low resolving power compared to other BVMs. This is because large confidence intervals imply large tolerance intervals for acceptance. For this reason, statistical hypothesis testing should only be used for validation in situations when a high degree of nonexactness between model and data test statistics is permissible and the pdf's have very thin tails. This BVM does, however, have a greater resolution than the classical hypothesis test as was proved in the appendix and will be demonstrated next section.
Appendix A.6 finds that Bayesian model testing has the highest possible resolving power because the model and the data are defined to agree only if their values are exactly equal. This is the reverse of what was concluded about statistical hypothesis testing.
Further in Appendix A.6, we argue that, analogous to the Bayesian model testing framework, nothing prevents us from constructing what we call the BVM factor.
The BVM factor is,
\begin{eqnarray}
K(B)=\frac{p(A|M,D,B)}{p(A|M',D,B)},
\end{eqnarray}
which is a ratio of the BVMs of two models under arbitrary definitions of agreement $B$. Using Bayes Theorem, $p(M|A,D,B)=\frac{p(A|M,D,B)P(M|D,B)}{P(A|D,B)}$, we may further construct the BVM ratio,
\begin{eqnarray}
R(B)=\frac{p(M|A,D,B)}{p(M'|A,D,B)}=\frac{p(A|M,D,B)P(M|D,B)}{p(A|M',D,B)P(M'|D,B)}=K(B)\frac{P(M|D,B)}{P(M'|D,B)},\label{BVMratio}
\end{eqnarray}
for the purpose of comparative model selection under a general definition of agreement $B$.
The ratio $\frac{P(M|D,B)}{P(M'|D,B)}$ is the ratio prior probabilities of $M$ and $M'$, which analagous to Bayesian model testing, if there is no reason to suspect that one model is a priori more probable than another, one may let $\frac{P(M|D,B)}{P(M'|D,B)}=1$, and then $R(B)\rightarrow K(B)$ in value.
Thus, using the BVM ratio, we can perform \emph{general model validation testing under arbitrary definitions of agreement and with any reasonable set of comparison functions}. The BVM ratio therefore generalizes the Bayesian model testing framework. This will be utilized in next section.
Finally we wanted to add a note about how one may mitigate the sharpness of the indicator function without using fuzzy logic while also allowing close models to be somewhat accepted. As we have seen, it is natural to use a threshold Boolean parameter $\epsilon$ to help define the boundary of agreement through $B(f\leq\epsilon)$. Such a BVM takes the form,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D,\epsilon)=\int_f \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Theta(B(f\leq\epsilon))\,df,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Theta\Big(...\Big)$ instantaneously drops to zero for $f>\epsilon$. One may soften the boundary by allowing $\epsilon$ itself be an uncertain quantity, which means one allows their definition of agreement to be somewhat uncertain (which often times can be reasonably claimed). As an example, let this uncertainty be $
\rho(\epsilon)=\lambda\exp(-\lambda (\epsilon-\epsilon'))$ for $\epsilon'>\epsilon$ and zero otherwise, where $\lambda$ is positive. Marginalizing over this BVM then gives,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D)&=&\int_{\epsilon}p(A|M,D,\epsilon)\rho(\epsilon)\,d\epsilon\nonumber\\
&=&\int_f \rho(f|M,D)\cdot\Big[\Theta\Big(B(f\leq\epsilon')\Big)+\Theta\Big(B(f>\epsilon')\Big)e^{-\lambda(f-\epsilon')}\Big]\,df,\label{marginalizeme}
\end{eqnarray}
which allows some $f$'s to be accepted outside the agreement region defined by $f\leq\epsilon'$, but with a exponentially decaying probability. Other potentially useful $\epsilon$ pdfs include, but are not limited to: negative slope linear, Gaussian, or decaying sigmoidal. None of these $\epsilon$ type distributions were needed to obtain the results of the previous sections explicitly; however, these types of assumptions may have been part of the decision process made implicitly by a practitioner while performing model validation.
\section{BVM Examples}
In this section we invent and quantify three novel validation metrics using the BVM to highlight the conceptual clarity, flexibility, and capacity of our framework.
\subsection{The Statistical Power BVM}
Here we consider the statistical power BVM proposed in \ref{stathypsection} and reviewed in the previous section. This metric defines agreement as occurring when both the model and data comparison values are within one another's confidence intervals, simultaneously. The BVM for this metric is the product of the statistical powers of the model and the data $p(A|M,D)=(1-\beta_D(\hat{\alpha}))\cdot(1-\beta_M(\alpha))$, which is calculated in equation (\ref{improvedSHT}). We contrast this with the standard statistical hypothesis test that, after assuming the model is correct, $M=D$, finds the probability the model lies within the data's confidence interval equal to $1-\alpha$. In the statistical hypothesis testing, one then proceeds to check the actual model output and speculates about type I and II errors. As discussed in the Appendix, we do not assume $M=D$ before validation and therefore type I and II errors are avoided. Rather, we let the statistical power BVM decide whether or not the model is valid. This provides a more informative validation procedure
Figure \ref{bvmstatpow} depicts a typical statistical hypothesis test scenario that is designed to check the validity of an uncertain model average prediction $\hat{\mu}$ (in blue) against an uncertain data average prediction $\mu$ (in red). The data's $\mu$ is $t$-distributed the same in each subfigure according to $T(\overline{y},n-1,\overline{s})=T(0,10,1.75)$ where $(\overline{y},n,\overline{s})$ are the sample mean, number of collected data points, and the sample standard deviation, respectively. Each row depicts a normal distribution model centered at $0$, but with increasing model variance per row.
\begin{figure} [H]
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{bvmstatpow.png}
\caption{\label{bvmstatpow} The shaded regions in Column A depict the $95\%$ confidence interval of each distribution, respectively. Because the data distribution is the same in each figure and because the statistical hypothesis test is independent of the proposed model due to assuming the hypothesis $M=D$, each model is equally valid by that test when it is clear that the model in row B is preferable. The shaded regions in Column B depict the statistical power of the distributions -- the $95\%$ confidence intervals from each distribution is shaded (integrated) in the other's pdf. The statistical power BVM (denoted $P(A)$ in column B) is calculated for each model and indeed the model in row 2 is found to be preferable as it has the highest probability of agreement. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{The $(\expt{\epsilon},\beta_D)$ BVM}
We invent a novel compound Boolean that defines agreement as when the model passes an average square error threshold of $\langle\epsilon\rangle$ \emph{and} a check for probabilistic model representation. The later is imposed by requiring that $95\%\pm 4\%$ of the uncertain data lies inside the model's $1-\hat{\alpha}=95\%$ confidence interval, i.e. $1-\beta_D(\hat{\alpha})\sim 95\%$. The $\pm 4\%$ tolerance was chosen such that overly uncertain models would be marked as ``not agreeing" as they would be able to guarantee that $100\%$ of the data lie within their overly wide confidence intervals. We call this compound Boolean the $(\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)$ Boolean. The BVM in this case is
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)=\int_{\hat{Y},Y} \rho(\hat{Y}|M,D)\cdot\Theta\Big(B(\hat{Y},Y,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)\Big) \cdot\rho(Y|D) \,d\hat{Y}\,dY,
\end{eqnarray}
where the compound Boolean $B(\hat{Y},Y,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)$ is equal to,
\begin{eqnarray}
B\Big(\frac{1}{N}\sum_i|y_i-\hat{y}_i|\leq\langle\epsilon\rangle\Big)\wedge B\Big(0.91\leq \frac{1}{N}\sum_i\Theta(y_i\in [-c_{\hat{\alpha}},c_{\hat{\alpha}}]_i)\leq 0.99\Big),
\end{eqnarray}
$N$ is the number of data points in $\{y_i\}=Y$, and $[-c_{\hat{\alpha}},c_{\hat{\alpha}}]_i$ is the model's $95\%$ confidence interval at comparison location $x_i$. We treat the model confidence intervals as certain quantities, which can be achieved effectively through enough Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the model output pdfs (although this stipulation can be removed if needed).
Although the mathematical notation for the compound Boolean is a bit cumbersome, it is relatively easy to implement programmatically using \emph{if} statements. This ease of programming allows the BVM to have a large capacity for representing complex and abstract validation scenarios in practice.
Expressing the BVM as an expectation value over $\rho(Y|D)\rho(\hat{Y}|M,D)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M,D,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)=E\Bigg[\Theta\Big(B(\hat{Y},Y,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)\Big)\Big]\sim \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\Theta\Big(B(\hat{Y}_k,Y_k,\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)\Big),
\end{eqnarray}
allows one to compute the integral using standard statistical methods like MC. We use MC and $K=3000$ samples in this toy example. In Figure \ref{epsilon_beta} we implement the $(\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)$ Boolean and show that it is able to quantify both average error and a model's probabilistic representation of uncertain data, simultaneously.
We consider data that is generated from,
\begin{eqnarray}
y(x)=1 + x\exp(-\cos(10x)) + \sin(10x)+\epsilon_a(x),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_a(x)\sim N(0,0.4^2)$ represents aleatoric stochastic uncertainty due to the inherent randomness of the system. An instance of the aleatoric data $Y$ without measurement uncertainty is depicted in red in Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}A) and B). We consider the data to have an additional epistemic measurement uncertainty $\epsilon_e(x)\sim N(0,0.2^2)$ that contributes to the probability of whether or not the model agrees with the plotted instance of the aleatoric data $Y$.\footnote{Our framework is not limited to investigating other validations scenarios, e.g., if one has many aleatoric data path instances $\{Y\}$ (or enough statistics about the data pdf) that one would like to validate or use for modeling testing in the congregate.}
The models plotted in Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}A) and Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}B) are generated from,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{y}(x;a,b,c,d,f,g)=a + bx\exp(-c\cos(dx)) + f\sin(gx)
\end{eqnarray}
where $(a,b,c,d,f,g)$ are the model parameters. In Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}A), a deterministic model is considered and plotted in blue by treating the model parameters as completely certain numbers $(a,b,c,d,f,g)=(1,1,1,10,1,10)$. In Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}B), we consider an uncertain model by treating the model parameters as uncertain values drawn from a multivariate Gaussian distribution having averages $(\mu_a,\mu_b,\mu_c,\mu_d,\mu_f,\mu_g)=(1,1,1,10,1,10)$ and standard deviations $(\sigma_a,\sigma_b,\sigma_c,\sigma_d,\sigma_f,\sigma_g)=(0.35,0.3,0.3,0.3,0.3,0.3)$. We evaluate the probability these data and model pairs pass the $\langle\epsilon\rangle$ Boolean verses the $(\langle\epsilon\rangle,\beta_D)$ Boolean by calculating their respective BVM's.
\begin{figure} [H]
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{BVM_epsilon_delta.png}
\caption{\label{epsilon_beta} The deterministic model plotted in Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}A) satisfies the average error validation requirement with $P(A|\expt{\epsilon})=.99$ when a threshold of $\expt{\epsilon}=0.46$. This result is logical because the congregate standard deviation of the data is itself the combination of the aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties is $\sqrt{0.4^2+0.2^2}\approx 0.45$. This deterministic model fails to predict the uncertain fluctuations of the data because determinisic models have confidence intervals with zero width. Thus the deterministic model fails to agree according to the $(\expt{\epsilon},\beta_D)$ Boolean and one finds $P(A|\expt{\epsilon},\beta_D)=0$ for any value of $\expt{\epsilon}$. The uncertain model depicted in Figure \ref{epsilon_beta}B) is able to pass both agreement definitions; however, our choice to evaluate each probable model path against the epistemic uncertain data rather than just the average model increases the treshold to about $\expt{\epsilon}=0.9$ before an agreement probability of about $P(A|\expt{\epsilon})=.96$ is achieved. When instead evaluating $\expt{\epsilon}$ against the average model, we obtained similar results to the deterministic model for this Boolean $\expt{\epsilon}\sim0.46$ and $P(A|\expt{\epsilon})=.99$. The $(\expt{\epsilon},\beta_D)$ BVM for the uncertain model is $P(A|\expt{\epsilon},\beta_D)=0.93$, because the uncertainty in the data more or less agrees with the confidence interval provided by the model. This model can be tested for agreement against other models or model parameter distributions for their respective definitions of agreement. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Exploring the BVM Ratio with the $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ BVM}
In this subsection we invent an agreement function to represent the visual inspection an engineer might perform graphically and use the BVM ratio for model selection under this definition of agreement.
By quantifying this, a practitioner could visually validate a model without actually looking at the model-data pair, which can be helpful for high dimensional spaces that are beyond human comprehension/visualizability. We will proceed by introducing this agreement function and some simple models to test it on. We will then quantify this measure using the BVM in the completely certain and uncertain cases. The main purpose of this example is to explore the BVM Ratio while showcasing the conceptual flexibility of the framework.
To quantify something resembling the visual inspection an engineer might make graphically, we use two main criteria. We define the model to be accepted if \emph{most} of the model and data point pairs lie relatively close to one another \emph{and} if none of the point pairs deviate too far from one another. We therefore consider a compound Boolean $B(\hat{Y},Y,\gamma,\epsilon)$ that is true if a percentage larger than $\gamma$\% ($\sim$ 90\%) of the model output points $\hat{Y}$ lie within $\epsilon$ of the data $Y$ \emph{and} 100\% of the model output points lie within some multiple $m\epsilon$ of the data, which rules out obvious model form error. We will call this compound Boolean the $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ Boolean. The values $\gamma\%$, $\epsilon$, and $m$ can be adjusted to the needs of the modeler. It should be noted that the $\epsilon$ in this metric makes point by point evaluations as opposed to the average $\expt{\epsilon}$ Boolean used in the previous example. We will perform the analysis for a variety of $\gamma$ and $\epsilon$ values to explore the limits of the metric.
We will calculate the BVM for two different order polynomial models that approximate $N$ data points taken from the cosine function $y_i=\cos(x_i)$, as an illustration. The points are evenly spaced in the range $x_i\in[0,\pi]$. The first model $\hat{y}^{(1)}_i=M^{(1)}(x_i; a,b,c)=a+bx_i^2+cx_i^4$ has uncertain parameters $(a,b,c)$ and the second model $\hat{y}^{(2)}_i =M^{(2)}(x_i; a,b,c,d)=a+bx_i^2+cx_i^4 +dx_i^6$ has uncertain parameters $(a,b,c,d)$.
To formulate the BVM, we still need to formulate the model and data probability distributions. Because the Boolean expression $B(\hat{Y},Y)$ is over the entire model and data functions, the model probability distribution is $p(\hat{Y}|M,D)$ and data probability distribution is $p(Y|D)$. These are joint probabilities over all of the points $(\hat{Y}=\{y_i\}$, $Y=\{y_i\})$ that constitute a particular path $(\hat{Y}, Y)$ of the model or data, respectively. Because both models are linear in the uncertain coefficients $(a,b,c,d)$, there is a one to one correspondence from the set of model parameters $(a,b,c,d)$ to the set of the possible paths $\hat{Y}_{a,b,c,d}$ (given $N$ is greater than the number of independent coefficients). This makes the uncertainty propagation from the uncertain model parameters to the full joint probability of the points on a path simple and results in the joint probability of paths being equal to the joint probability of the uncertain input model parameters. For simplicity we will let $p(a,b,c,d)=N(\mu_{a},\sigma_a)N(\mu_{b},\sigma_b)N(\mu_{c},\sigma_c)N(\mu_{d},\sigma_d)$, where $N(\mu,\sigma)$ is a normal distribution of average $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, such that is,
$$p(\hat{Y}_{a,b,c,d}|M_j)=\frac{1}{Z}\exp\Big(-\frac{(a-\mu_{a})^2}{2\sigma^2_a}-\frac{(b-\mu_{b})^2}{2\sigma^2_b}-\frac{(c-\mu_{c})^2}{2\sigma^2_c}-\frac{(d-\mu_{d})^2}{2\sigma^2_d}\Big).$$ Because the problem is well understood, we discretize the integrals rather than estimating them with MC. After discretization, the $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ BVM for each model is,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M_j,D,\gamma,\epsilon)=\sum_{\hat{Y},Y} p(\hat{Y}|M_j)\cdot\Theta(B(\hat{Y},Y,\gamma,\epsilon))\cdot p(Y|D).
\end{eqnarray}
In principle $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1,..,\epsilon_N)$ is an $N$ dimensional vector where each $\epsilon_i$ may be adjusted to impose more or less stringent agreement conditions on a point to point basis, which may be used to enforce reliability in regions of interest. In our example we let all of the components of $\epsilon_i$ be equal. If the standard deviation of each data point $\sim\hat{\sigma}_i$ (aleatoric and/or measurement uncertainty) in the joint data pdf $p(Y|D)$ is much less than $\epsilon_i$ and $N$ is large, one may approximate the BVM as,
\begin{eqnarray}
p(A|M_j,D,\gamma,\epsilon)\approx\sum_{\hat{Y}} p(\hat{Y}|M_j)\cdot\Theta(B(\hat{Y},Y',\gamma,\epsilon)),
\end{eqnarray}
which can greatly reduce the number of combinations one must calculate by effectively treating the data as known, deterministic, and equal to $Y'$. We will use this approximation as it does not take away from the main point of this example
We will use the following numerics. In the completely certain case, we will let the parameters be the Taylor series coefficients $(a,b,c,d)=(1,-\frac{1}{2!},\frac{1}{4!},-\frac{1}{6!})$ ($d=0$ for model 1) and in the uncertain case we let each coefficient have Gaussian uncertainty centered at their Taylor series coefficients with standard deviations $(\sigma_a,\sigma_b,\sigma_c,\sigma_d)=(0.1,0.05,0.005,0.0005)$ (and where $\sigma_d=0$ for model 1). We let each model output path have $N = 50$ points and we allow for $20$ possible values per parameter $(a, b,c,d)$, which results in $20^3=8000$ possible paths for model 1 and $20^4=160,000$ for model 2. We let $\gamma$ vary between $75\%$ and $100\%$ using an increment of $1\%$ and let $\epsilon$ vary between $0$ and $1$ using an increment of $0.01$. The value of $m$ was chosen to be equal to $5$, which imposes that no model path can have points that are greater than $5\epsilon$ away while still be considered to agree with the data.
The BVM probability of agreement values as a function of the Boolean function parameters $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ are plotted in Figure \ref{2DeterministicPlot} for model 1 and model 2 in the completely certain case:
\begin{figure} [H]
\indent
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{2DeterministicPlot.png}
\caption{\label{2DeterministicPlot} Completely Certain Case: The BVM probability of agreement between model 1 and 2 with the data is plotted in the space of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$. The results for model 1 ($4^{\mathtt{th}}$ order polynomial) is plotted on the left and model 2 ($6^{\mathtt{th}}$ order polynomial) is plotted on the right. Because here the models are deterministic, the BVM probability of agreements for each $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ pair is either zero or one. As expected, model 2 better fits the data in the space of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ as it has more BVM values equal to one than model 1 as it is overall closer to the cosine function being that it is the next nonzero order in the Taylor series expansion. Neither model fits the data exactly as the BVM for both models at $(\gamma=100\%,\epsilon=0)$ is zero.}
\end{figure}
\noindent For a single $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ pair, the model's BVM ratio (a prior the models are assumed to be equally likely) is,
\begin{eqnarray}
R(B(\gamma,\epsilon))=\frac{p(A|M_1,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}{p(A|M_2,D,\gamma,\epsilon)},
\end{eqnarray}
which, because the numerator and denominator is either 0 or 1 in the deterministic case, gives $R(B(\gamma,\epsilon))$ equal to 1, 0, $\infty$, or $\frac{0}{0}$ meaning that the models both agree, model 1 does not agree but model 2 agrees, model 1 agrees but model 2 does not agree, or both models disagree, respectively. Thus, the BVM ratio for a single $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ pair between two deterministic models with completely certain data is not particularly insightful as they either agree or do not agree as defined by $B$. As it may not always be clear precisely what values of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ one should choose to define agreement, one can meaningfully average (marginalize, analagous to (\ref{marginalizeme})) over a viable volume in the space of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$, with $p(\gamma,\epsilon)=\frac{1}{V}$, and arrive at an averaged Boolean BVM ratio,
\begin{eqnarray}
R(B)=\frac{\sum_{\gamma,\epsilon}p(A|M_1,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}{\sum_{\gamma,\epsilon}p(A|M_2,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}=\frac{N_{1A}}{N_{2A}},
\end{eqnarray}
which is simply a ratio of the number of agreements found for model 1, $N_{1A}$, in the $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ volume to the number of agreements found for model 2, $N_{2A}$, in the selected $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ volume. In our deterministic example, $R(B)= \frac{1108}{2364} = 0.4687$ as model 2 better fits the data, as defined by $B$, for the chosen meaningful $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ volume (which is taken to be the whole tested volume in this toy example). The BVM ratio or the averaged Boolean BVM ratio may be used as a guide for selecting models in the deterministic case given reasonable regions are chosen.
The BVM probability of agreement values as a function of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ are plotted in Figure \ref{2Non-DeterministicPlot} for model 1 and model 2 in the uncertain model case:
\begin{figure} [H]
\indent
\includegraphics[scale=0.41]{2Non-DeterministicPlot.png}
\caption{\label{2Non-DeterministicPlot} Uncertain Case: The BVM probability of agreement between model 1 and 2 with the data is plotted in the space of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$. The results for model 1 ($4^{\mathtt{th}}$ order polynomial) is plotted on the left and model 2 ($6^{\mathtt{th}}$ order polynomial) is plotted on the right. Because the model paths are uncertain, the BVM probability of agreements for each $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ pair may take any value from zero to one. As expected, model 2 better fits the data in the space of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ as its BVM is generally larger than that of model 1; however, the BVM values are about equal in cases of large values of $\gamma$ and $\epsilon$ values (the definition of agreement is less stringent and they both ``agree") and in the case of demanding absolute equality ($\epsilon=0$) as neither model fits the data exactly.}
\end{figure}
The BVM ratios $R(B(\gamma,\epsilon))=\frac{p(A|M_1,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}{p(A|M_2,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}$ of the uncertain models are plotted as a function of $(\gamma,\epsilon)$ in Figure \ref{p12}:
\begin{figure} [H]
\indent \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \:\:
\includegraphics[scale=0.41]{p12.png}
\caption{\label{p12} This is a plot of the BVM ratios in the uncertain case. Model 2 is generally favored over model 1 as there exist no values greater than one on the plot. The amount the BVM ratio favors model 2 over model 1 decreases as the metric becomes less and less stringent (i.e. as $\gamma$ decreases and $\epsilon$ increases). The $\epsilon=0$ line was removed because neither model agrees with the data exactly. }
\end{figure}
\noindent The averaged Boolean BVM ratio for the uncertain models is,
\begin{eqnarray}
R(B)=\frac{\sum_{\gamma,\epsilon}p(A|M_1,D,\gamma,\epsilon)}{\sum_{\gamma,\epsilon}p(A|M_2,D,\gamma,\epsilon)} = 0.7471,
\end{eqnarray}
which conforms to the notion that model 2 is, generally speaking, the preferable model, and which may be communicated with this single number. We given examples of the BVM ratio correctly selecting models according to abstract and new forms of validation.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
\section{Conclusion}
We demonstrated the versatility of the BVM toward expressing and solving model validation problems. The BVM quantifies the probability the model is valid for arbitrary quantifiable definitions of model-data agreement using arbitrary quantified comparison functions of the model-data comparison values. The BVM was shown: to obey all of the desired validation metric criteria \cite{Liu2} (which is a first), to be able to represent all of the standard validation metrics as \emph{special cases}, to supply improvements and generalizations to those special cases, and to be a tool for quantifying the validity of a model in novel model-data contexts. The later was demonstrated by the validation metrics we invented and quantified in our examples.
Finally, it was shown that one can perform model selection using the BVM ratio. The BVM model testing framework was shown to generalize the Bayesian model testing framework to arbitrary model-data contexts and with reference to arbitrary comparisons and agreement definitions. That is, the BVM ratio may be used to rank models directly in terms of the relevant model-data validation context. The problem of model-data validation may be reduced to the problem of finding/ defining the four BVM inputs: $(\hat{z},z)$, $\rho(\hat{z},z|M,D)$, $f(\hat{z},z)$, and $B(f)$, and computing their BVM value. We find that the BVM is a useful tool for quantifying, expressing, and performing model validation and testing. Our future work involves probabilistically regressing (learning) model parameter distributions that satisfy arbitrary definitions of agreement within the BVM framework.
%
%
%
%
%
\paragraph{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Center for Complex Engineering Systems (CCES) at King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). We would like to thank all of the researchers with the Center for Complex Engineering (CCES), especially Zeyad Al-Awwad, Arwa Alanqari, and Mohammad Alrished. Finally, we would also like to thank Nicholas Carrara and Ariel Caticha.
\paragraph{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
We study stationary reflection at successors of singular cardinals and its
connection with cardinal arithmetic. We start by recalling some basic
definitions. For an ordinal $\delta$ and a set $S \subseteq \delta$, we say that
$S$ is \emph{stationary} if it meets every closed and unbounded subset of
$\delta$. If $\{S_i \mid i \in I\}$ is a collection of stationary subsets of a
regular cardinal $\kappa$, then we say that $\{S_i \mid i \in I\}$ reflects
simultaneously if there is an ordinal $\delta$ such that $S_i \cap \delta$ is
stationary for all $i \in I$.
The consistency of stationary reflection at the successor of singular cardinal
is already complex in the context of the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH).
A theorem of Magidor \cite{magidor} shows that it is consistent relative to
the existence of infinitely many supercompact cardinals that every finite
collection of stationary subsets of $\aleph_{\omega+1}$ reflects. Recently, the
second and third author \cite{HU} were able show the same result from an
assumption below the existence of a cardinal $\kappa$ which is
$\kappa^+$-supercompact. Both of these models satisfy GCH. Combining
stationary reflection at the successor of a singular cardinal with the failure
of $\SCH$ presents additional difficulties.
For a singular cardinal $\nu$, the singular cardinal hypothesis ($\SCH$) at $\nu$
is the assertion that if $\nu$ is strong limit, then $2^\nu = \nu^+$. The
failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis at a singular cardinal $\nu$ is
known to imply the existence of many nonreflecting objects. For instance,
Foreman and Todorcevic \cite{FT} have shown that the failure of the singular
cardinal hypothesis at $\nu$ implies that there are two stationary subsets of
$[\nu^+]^\omega$ which do not reflect simultaneously. This was improved
by Shelah \cite{shelah} to obtain a single stationary subset of $[\nu^+]^\omega$
which does not reflect. Reflection for stationary subsets of $[\nu^+]^\omega$
has a different character than reflection for stationary subsets of ordinals.
In his PhD thesis from 2005, Sharon \cite{sharon} proved that relative to the existence of
infinitely many supercompact cardinals it is consistent that there is a singular
cardinal $\nu$ of cofinality $\omega$ such that $\SCH$ fails at $\nu$ and every
stationary subset of $\nu^+$ reflects. Sharon's method is a tour de force construction, which builds on Gitik's long extenders forcing \cite{Gitik-HB} for $\omega$ sequences of hypermeasurable cardinals. As such, the construction does not extend to singular cardinals of uncountable cofinalities, and the question of whether the failure of $\SCH$ at singular $\kappa$ of uncountable cofinality together with stationary reflection at $\kappa^+$ is at all consistent.
This paper follows a study by the authors on stationary reflection at successors of singular cardinals at which $\SCH$ fails.
This study was prompted by two other recent studies. First, the work of second
and third authors in \cite{HU} on stationary reflection in Prikry forcing
extensions from subcompactness assumptions. The arguments of \cite{HU} show how
to examine the stationary reflection in the extension by Prikry type forcing by
studying suitable iterated ultrapowers of $V$. This approach and method has been
highly effective in our situation and we follow it here. The second study is
Gitik's recent work \cite{Gitik-new} for blowing up the power of a singular
cardinal using a Mitchell order increasing sequence of overlapping extenders.
The new forcing machinery of \cite{Gitik-new} gives new models combining the
failure of $\SCH$ with reflection properties at successors of singulars.
Moreover the arguments are uniform in the choice of cofinality. For example,
Gitik has shown that in a related model the tree property holds at $\kappa^+$
\cite{gitiktree} and that for all $\delta < \kappa$ there is a stationary subset
of $\kappa^+$ of ordinals of cofinality greater than $\delta$ which is not a
member of $I[\kappa^+]$ \cite{gitikap}.
Our first theorem provides a model for stationary reflection the successor of a
singular cardinal $\nu$ where $\SCH$ fails and the cofinality of $\nu$ can be some
arbitrary cardinal chosen in advance.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainthm} Let $\eta < \lambda$ be regular cardinals.
Suppose that there is an increasing sequence of cardinals $\langle \kappa_\alpha
\mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$ with
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\eta< \kappa_0$,
\item for each $\alpha < \eta$, $\kappa_\alpha$
carries a $(\kappa_\alpha,\lambda)$-extender $E_\alpha$ and there is a
supercompact cardinal between $\sup_{\beta<\alpha}\kappa_\beta$ and
$\kappa_\alpha$, and
\item the sequence $\langle E_{\alpha} \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$ is Mitchell
order increasing and coherent.
\end{enumerate}
There is a cardinal and cofinality preserving extension in which, setting
$\kappa = \sup_{\alpha < \eta}\kappa_\alpha$, $2^{\kappa} = \lambda$ and every
collection of fewer than $\eta$ stationary subsets of $\kappa^+$ reflects.
\end{theorem}
We have the following improvement of Gitik's result about $I[\kappa^+]$.
\begin{theorem} \label{mainthm2} Let $\langle \kappa_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta
\rangle$ be as in Theorem \ref{mainthm} with the exception that we only assume
there is a single supercompact cardinal $\theta<\kappa_0$. There is a cardinal
and cofinality preserving extension in which setting $\kappa =
\sup_{\alpha<\eta}\kappa_\alpha$, we have that $\kappa$ is strong limit,
$2^\kappa =\lambda$ and there is a scale of length $\kappa^+$ such that the set
of nongood points of cofinality less than $\theta$ is stationary. \end{theorem}
After a suitable preparation, the extension is obtained using the same forcing
as in Theorem \ref{mainthm}. Standard arguments show that in this model, the
set of nongood points is stationary in cofinalities that are arbitrarily high
below $\theta$. Further, the same argument shows that we can take $\theta$
between $\sup_{\alpha<\beta}\kappa_\alpha$ and $\kappa_\beta$ and reach the same
conclusion.
These two results continue a long line of research about the
interaction between the failure of the singular cardinal hypothesis and weak
square-like principles, \cite{gitiksharon, neeman, sinapova1,
sinapova2,sinapova3,sinapovaunger}.
We do not know whether these results can be also obtained at small singular cardinals of uncountable cofinalites. For concreteness we suggest the following question.
\begin{question}
Is it consistent that $\SCH$ fails $\aleph_{\omega_1}$ and every stationary subset of $\aleph_{\omega_1+1}$ reflects?
\end{question}
We also give another model for stationary reflection at $\nu^+$ where $\nu$ is a
singular cardinal of cofinality $\omega$ where the singular cardinal hypothesis
fails. This construction replaces the supercompactness assumption in Sharon's result and Theorem \ref{mainthm} with the weaker one of subcompactness together with hypermeasurability.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainthm3} Suppose that $\kappa$ is
$\kappa^+$-$\Pi_1^1$-subcompact and carries a $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-extender.
There is a forcing extension in which $\kappa$ is singular strong limit of
cofinality $\omega$, $2^\kappa=\kappa^{++}$ and every finite collection of
stationary subsets of $\kappa^+$ reflects simultaneously. \end{theorem}
The construction and proof follows the lines of the second and third authors`
paper \cite{HU}, and the work of Merimovich \cite{Merimovich} on generating
generics for extender based forcing over iterated ultrapowers. The large
cardinal assumption in the theorem is the natural combination of the assumption
from \cite{HU} and an assumption sufficient to get the failure of $\SCH$ by
extender based forcing. Unfortunately, we are unable to adapt the argument from
the previous theorem to a singular cardinal of uncountable cofinality. We ask
\begin{question}
It is possible to obtain the result of Theorem \ref{mainthm} without any supercompactness assumptions?
\end{question}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{gitik}, we define Gitik's
forcing from \cite{Gitik-new}, which will be used in our main theorem. In
Section \ref{unctble}, we prove that in mild generic extensions of $V$ we can
find a generic for Gitik's forcing over a suitable iterated ultrapower. In
Section \ref{reflection}, we give the proof of the main theorem by arguing that
stationary reflection holds in the generic extension of the iterated ultrapower
constructed in the previous section. In Section \ref{badscale}, we prove Theorem
\ref{mainthm2}. In Section \ref{ctble}, we give the proof of Theorem
\ref{mainthm3}.
\section{Gitik's forcing} \label{gitik}
In this section we give a presentation of Gitik's forcing \cite{Gitik-new} for
blowing up the power of a singular cardinal with a Mitchell order increasing
sequence of extenders.
Let us start with the following definitions:
\begin{definition}
Let $E_0, E_1$ be $(\kappa_0, \lambda_0)$ and $(\kappa_1, \lambda_1)$-extenders respectively. We say that $E_0$ is less than $E_1$ in the Mitchell order, or $E_0 \trianglelefteq E_1$, if $E_0 \in \operatorname{Ult}(V, E_1)$. We say that $E_0$ coheres with $E_1$ if $j_{E_1}(E_0) \restriction \lambda_0 = E_0$.
\end{definition}
The existence of a long sequence of extenders $E_i$, where $E_i$ is $(\kappa_i, \lambda)$-extender, they are Mitchell increasing and pairwise coherent follows from the existence of superstrong cardinal or even weaker large cardinal axioms.
Before we begin with the definition of the forcing, let us show a few basic
facts about extenders and Mitchell order. We recall the notion of width from
\cite{CummingsHandbook}.
\begin{definition} Let $k:M \to N$ be an elementary embedding between transitive
models of set theory and let $\mu$ be an ordinal. We say the embedding $k$ has
width $\leq\mu$ if every element of $N$ is of the form $k(f)(a)$ for some $f \in
M$ and $a \in N$ such that $M \models \vert \dom(f)\vert \leq \mu$. \end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: cofinal generators}
Let $E$ be a $(\kappa,\lambda)$-extender and let $\leq_E$ be the Rudin-Keisler order of the extender $E$.
Let $k\colon V \to M$ be an elementary embedding with width $\leq \kappa$. Then
the set $k `` \dom E$ is $\leq_{k(E)}$-cofinal in $\dom k(E)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cite{Gitik-HB}, the Rudin-Keisler order $\leq_E$ is $\kappa^{+}$-directed.
Let $a \in \dom k(E)$. Then, by the definition of width, there is a function $f\colon \kappa \to \dom E$ and some generator $b$ such that $k(f)(b) = a$. Let $a'$ be a $\leq_E$ upper bound of $\mathop{\mathrm{im}} f$. Then, clearly, $k(a')$ is $\leq_{k(E)}$ above $a$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: commutative}
Let $E_0$ be a $(\kappa_0, \lambda)$ extender and let $E_1$ be a $(\kappa_1,\lambda)$-extender, where $\kappa_0 \leq \kappa_1$. Let us assume that $E_0 \trianglelefteq E_1$. Then the following diagram commutes:
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
V\arrow{r}{E_0}\arrow{d}{E_1} & M_0\arrow{d}{j_{E_0}(E_1)} \\
M_1\arrow{r}{E_1} & N
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where each arrow represents the ultrapower map using the indicated extender.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, since $E_0\in M_1$, all maps are internally defined and in particular, all models are well founded.
Moreover,
\[\left(j_{E_0}\right)^V \restriction M_1 = \left(j_{E_0}\right)^{M_1}.\]
In order to verify this, it is sufficient to show that those maps are the same on ordinals. Indeed, let us consider the class:
\[\{(f,a) \mid f \colon \kappa_0^{<\omega} \to \mathrm{Ord}\},\]
ordered using the extender $E_0$: \[(f_0,a_0) \leq (f_1, a_1) \iff j_{E_0}^V(f_0)(a_0) \leq j_{E_0}^V(f_1)(a_1).\]
Using the combinatorial definition of the extender ultrapower, we conclude that $M_1$ can compute this order correctly, and in particular, it computes correctly the ordertype of the elements below any constant function.
Now, let us consider an element of $\operatorname{Ult}(M_1, E_0)$. By the definition, it has the form: $x = j_{E_0}(g)(a_0)$ where $g\colon \kappa_0^{<\omega} \to M_1$. Going backwards, we can find a function in $V$, $f$, and a generator $a_1$ such that:
\[x = j_{E_0}\left( j_{E_1}(f( - , a_1) \right)(a_0) = j_{j_{E_0}(E_1)} \big( j_{E_0} (f)\big)\left(a_0, j_{E_0}(a_1)\right).\]
This element in obviously in $\operatorname{Ult}(M_0, j_{E_0}(E_1))$.
On the other hand, if $y \in \operatorname{Ult}(M_0, j_{E_0}(E_1))$ then there is some generator $a_1' \in \dom j_{E_0}(E_1)$ and a function $g$ such that $y = j_{j_{E_0}(E_1)}(g)(a_1')$. By Lemma \ref{lemma: cofinal generators}, we may assume that $a_1' = j_{E_0}(a_1)$. Let $f$ be a function in $V$ and $a_0$ be some generator such that $g = j_{E_0}(f)(a_0)$, then we have:
\[
\begin{matrix}
y & = & j_{j_{E_0}(E_1)}\left(j_{E_0}(f)(a_0, - )\right)(j_{E_0}(a_1)) \\
& = & j_{j_{E_0}(E_1)}\left(j_{E_0}\left(f(-, a_1)\right)(a_0)\right) \\
& = & j_{E_0}\big(j_{E_1}(f)( - , a_1)\big)(a_0),
\end{matrix}
\]
as wanted.
\end{proof}
Let $\langle \kappa_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$
be a sequence of cardinals as in Theorem \ref{mainthm}. Following work of
Merimovich (see for example \cite{Merimovich}), we can assume that the extenders
$E_\alpha$ are of the form $\langle E_\alpha(d) \mid d \in [\lambda]^{\kappa}
\rangle$ where for $X \subseteq \kappa_\alpha$, $X \in E_\alpha(d)$ if and only
if $\{ (j_{E_\alpha}(\xi),\xi) \mid \xi \in d \} \in j_{E_\alpha}(X)$. For $d
\in [\lambda]^\kappa$ with $\kappa \in d$, it is
easy to see that the measure $E_\alpha(d)$ concentrates on a set of order
preserving functions $\nu$ with $\kappa \in \dom(\nu)$. So we assume that every
measure one set mentioned below is of this form. We also fix functions $\langle
\ell_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta\rangle$ so that for every $\alpha < \eta$,
$j_{E_\alpha}(\ell_\alpha)(\kappa_\alpha) = \lambda$. The existence of such
functions can always be arranged by a simple preliminary forcing.
Using the set $d \in [\lambda]^{\kappa}$ to index the extenders $E_\alpha$ has
the advantage that the projection maps from $E_\alpha(d')$ and $E_\alpha(d)$ for
$d \subseteq d'$ can be made very explicit. The measure $E_\alpha(d')$
concentrates on partial functions from $d'$ to $\kappa$ with domain smaller than
$\kappa$. Thus, the map $\nu \to \nu \restriction d$ is a projection from
$E_\alpha(d')$ to $E_\alpha(d)$.
For every two cardinals $\kappa < \lambda$, let $\mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa)$ be the
poset consisting of partial functions $f : \lambda \to \kappa$ with $|f| \leq
\kappa$ and $\kappa \in \dom(f)$. Therefore $\mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa)$ is isomorphic
to Cohen forcing for adding $\lambda$ many subsets of $\kappa^+$.
We let $\mathbb{P}$ be Gitik's forcing from \cite{Gitik-new} defined from the
sequence of extenders $\langle E_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$. We give a
compact description of the forcing. A condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$ is a
sequence $\langle p_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$ such that there is a
finite set $s^p \subseteq \eta$ such that for each $\alpha < \eta$, $p_\alpha =
(f_\alpha,\lambda_\alpha)$ if $\alpha \in s^p$, and $p_\alpha =
(f_\alpha,A_\alpha)$ otherwise, and the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f_\alpha \in \mathcal{A}(\lambda_{\alpha^*},\kappa_\alpha)$ where $\alpha^*$ is
the next element of $s^p$ above $\alpha$ if it exists and $f_\alpha \in
\mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$ otherwise.
\item For all $\alpha \in s^p$, $\lambda_\alpha$ is a cardinal and
$\sup_{\beta< \alpha}\kappa_\beta < \lambda_\alpha < \kappa_\alpha$.
\item For all $\alpha \in \eta \setminus s^p$, if $\alpha > \max(s^p)$, then
$A_\alpha \in E_\alpha(\dom(f_\alpha))$, otherwise if $\alpha^*$ is the least
element of $s^p$ above $\alpha$, then $A_\alpha \in E_\alpha(\dom(f_\alpha))$.
\item For $\alpha \notin s^p$, $f_\alpha^p(\kappa_\alpha)
=0$ (This gives a clean way to distinguish between Cohen functions associated to
members of $s^p$ and those which are not.)
\item The sequence $\langle \dom(f_\alpha) \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle$ is
increasing.
\end{enumerate}
We adopt the convention of adding a superscript $f_\alpha^p$, $A_\alpha^p$, etc.
to indicate that each component belongs to $p$. When the value of
$\lambda_{\alpha^{*}}$ might behave non-trivially, we will add it as a third
coordinate to the pairs $p_\alpha$, where $\alpha \notin s^p$. We call
$\eta\setminus s^p$ the \emph{pure part} of $p$ and $s^p$ the \emph{non-pure
part} of $p$.
We briefly sketch the notion of extension. $p$ is a direct extension of $q$ if
$s^p = s^q$ and for all $\alpha$ $f_\alpha^p$
is stronger than $f_\alpha^q$ and $A_\alpha^p$ projects to a subset of $A_\alpha^q$ using the natural Rudin-Keisler projection from $E_\alpha(\dom f_\alpha^p)$ to $E_\alpha(\dom f_\alpha^q)$.
Let us describe now the one point extension. Suppose that $\nu \in A_\beta^p$.
We let $q = p \frown \nu$ be the condition with $s^q = s^p \cup \{\beta\}$ and
the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f_\beta^q = f_\beta^p {}^\frown \nu$ is the overwriting of $f_\beta^p$ by
$\nu$, that is
\[ (f_\beta^p{}^\frown \nu)(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
\nu(\tau) \mbox{ if } \tau \in \dom(\nu)\\
f^p_\beta(\tau) \mbox{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}
\]
\item $\lambda_\beta^q = \ell_\beta(\nu(\kappa_\beta))$.
\item For $\alpha \in [\max(s^p) \cap \beta,\beta)$, $f_\alpha^q =
f_\alpha^p \circ \nu^{-1}$ and $A_\alpha^q = \{ \xi \circ \nu^{-1} \mid \xi \in
A_\alpha^p \}$ if applicable.
\end{enumerate}
The following analysis of dense open sets of $\mathbb{P}$ was
established in \cite{Gitik-new}.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem-meetdense} For every condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$ and dense
open set $D \subseteq \mathbb{P}$, there are $p^* \geq^* p$ and a finite subset $\{
\alpha_0, \dots, \alpha_{m-1}\}$ of the pure part of $p$, such that for
every sequence $\vec{\nu} = \langle \nu_{\alpha_0},\dots, \nu_{\alpha_{m-1}}\rangle \in
\prod_{i< m} A^{p^*}_{\alpha_i}$, $p^* {}^\frown \vec{\nu} \in D$. \end{lemma}
For limit $\delta \leq \eta$, we define $\bar{\kappa}_\delta =
\sup_{\alpha<\delta}\kappa_\alpha$. Gitik used the previous lemma to prove:
\begin{theorem} In the generic extension by $\mathbb{P}$, cardinals and cofinalities
are preserved and for every limit $\delta \leq \eta$, the singular cardinal
hypothesis fails at $\bar{\kappa}_\delta$. \end{theorem}
For use later, we define $\vec{\mathcal{A}}$ to be the full-support product
$\prod_{\alpha < \eta} \mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$, and similarly, for each
$\beta < \eta$, $\vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq\beta} = \prod_{\beta \leq \alpha < \eta}
\mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$. We aim to show that if $\vec{H} = \langle H(\alpha) \mid
\alpha < \eta\rangle$ is $\vec{\mathcal{A}}$ generic over $V$, then there is a generic for
the image of $\mathbb{P}$ in a suitable iterated ultrapower.
\section{The iterated ultrapower $M_{\eta}$ and the generic filter
$G^*$}\label{unctble}
We consider the following iterated ultrapower \[{\langle} M_\alpha,j_{\alpha,\beta} \mid \alpha \leq \beta \leq \eta {\rangle}\] by the extenders in $\vec{E}$. The iteration is defined by induction of $\alpha$.
Let $M_0 = V$. For every $\alpha < \eta$, given that $j_{0,\alpha} : M_0 \to M_\alpha$ has been defined, we take $E^\alpha_\alpha = j_{0,\alpha}(E_\alpha)$,
and set $j_{\alpha,\alpha+1} : M_\alpha \to M_{\alpha+1} \cong \operatorname{Ult}(M_\alpha,E_{\alpha}^\alpha)$. At limit stages $\delta \leq \eta$ we take $M_\delta$ to be the
direct limit of the system ${\langle} M_\alpha,j_{\alpha,\beta} : \alpha \leq \beta <\delta{\rangle}$, and $j_{\alpha, \delta}$ to be the limit maps.
For every $\beta \leq \eta$, we shall abbreviate and write $j_\beta$ for
$j_{0,\beta}$. For a given $\beta \leq \eta$ we shall denote
$j_{\beta}(\kappa_\alpha), j_{\beta}(E_\alpha)$, $j_{\beta}(\lambda)$ by
$\kappa_\alpha^\beta$, $E_\alpha^\beta$, and $\lambda^\beta$ respectively.
Similarly, we will denote $j_{\beta}(x) = x^\beta$ for
objects $x \in V$ whose images along the iteration will be significant for our
construction.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem-itergens}
Let $\beta \leq \eta$. For every $x \in M_{\beta}$ there are $\beta_0< \beta_1 < \dots < \beta_{l-1}$ below $\beta$,
ordinals $\tau_0,\dots,\tau_{l-1}$ below $\lambda$, and $f :\prod_{i < l} \kappa_{\beta_i} \to V$, such that
\[ x = j_{\beta}(f)\left(j_{\beta_0}(\tau_0), j_{\beta_1}(\tau_1), \dots, j_{\beta_{l-1}}(\tau_{l-1})\right).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is immediate from the definition of the iteration that for every $x \in M_\beta$ there are $\beta_0 < \dots < \beta_{l-1}$ below $\beta$,
finite subsets of ordinals $a_0,\dots, a_{l-1}$, with each $a_i \in [\lambda^{\beta_i}]^{<\omega}$ a generator of $E_{\beta_i}^{\beta_i}$,
and a function $g : \prod_{i < l} \kappa_{\beta_i}^{<\omega} \to V$ so that
\[x = j_{0,\beta}(g)(j_{\beta_0+1,\beta}(a_0), \dots, j_{\beta_{l-1}+1,\beta}(a_{l-1})).\]
Note that for each $i < l$, $j_{\beta_i+1,\beta}(a_i) = a_i$, because \[\mathop{\mathrm{crit}}(j_{\beta_i+1, \beta}) = \kappa_{\beta_i+1}^{\beta_{i}+1} > \lambda^{\beta_i}.\]
It follows that
\[x = j_{\beta}(g)(a_0, a_1, \dots, a_{l-1}).\]
We may further assume that each $a_i < \lambda^{\beta_i}$ is an ordinal.
Finally, we claim that we may replace each $a_i$ with an ordinal of the form
$j_{\beta_i}(\tau_i)$, for some $\tau_i < \lambda$.
By Lemma \ref{lemma: cofinal generators}, in $M_{\beta_i}$, the extender $E_{\beta_i}^{\beta_i} = j_{\beta_i}(E_{\beta_i})$ is generated by
a subset of its measures, which are of the form $j_{\beta_i}(E_{\beta_i}(\tau_i)) = E_{\beta_i}^{\beta_i}(j_{\beta_i}(\tau_i))$.
Namely, for every $a_i \in \lambda^{\beta_i}$ there exists some $\tau_i \in \lambda$ such that
$a_i \leq^{RK}_{E_{\beta_i}^{\beta_i}} j_{\beta_i}(\tau_i)$.
In particular \[a_i = j_{\beta_i}(h)(b_1,\dots,b_k) \leq^{RK}_{E_{\beta_i}^{\beta_i}} j_{\beta_i}(\tau_i).\] The claim follows.
\end{proof}
Having defined the iterated ultrapower $M_{\eta}$ we proceed to introduce
relevant conditions in $j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$. Let $p = {\langle} p_\alpha \mid \alpha <
\eta{\rangle}$ be a pure condition in $\mathbb{P}$, that is, a condition with $s^p
= \emptyset$. For every $\alpha < \eta$, we set $p_\alpha = \langle
f_\alpha,A_\alpha,\lambda\rangle$, where $f_\alpha \in A(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$ and
$A_\alpha \in E_\alpha(d_\alpha)$ where $d_\alpha = \dom(f_\alpha) \in
[\lambda]^{\leq \kappa_\alpha}$.
Since $j_{\alpha,\alpha+1} =
j^{M_\alpha}_{E_\alpha^\alpha}$ it follows that the function
\[ \nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\alpha+1} := (j_{\alpha,\alpha+1}\restriction d_\alpha^\alpha)^{-1} \]
belongs to $j_{\alpha,\alpha+1}(A^\alpha_\alpha) = A^{\alpha+1}_\alpha$, which is the measure one set of the $\alpha$-th component of $j_{\alpha+1}(p)$.
By applying $j_{\alpha+1,\eta}$ to $j_{\alpha+1}(p)$, we conclude that the function
\[\nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta} := j_{\alpha+1,\eta}(\nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\alpha+1}) = (j_{\alpha,\eta}\restriction d_\alpha^\alpha)^{-1}\]
belongs to $j_{\eta}(A_\alpha)$, and thus $j_{\eta}(p)$ has an one point
extension at the $\alpha$-th coordinate of the form
\[j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown \langle \nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta}{\rangle}.\]
It is clear that for every finite sequence $\alpha_0 < \dots < \alpha_{m-1}$ of
ordinals below $\eta$, and pure condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$, we have
$j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{p^{\alpha_0}}_{\alpha_0,\eta}, \nu^{p^{\alpha_1}}_{\alpha_1,\eta}, \dots , \nu^{p^{\alpha_{m-1}}}_{\alpha_{m-1},\eta}{\rangle}$
is an extension of $j_{\eta}(p)$ in $j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$.
It is also clear that if $p,q \in \mathbb{P}$ are two pure conditions so that for all $\alpha < \eta$, $f_\alpha^p,f_\alpha^q$ are compatible,
then for every two sequences $\alpha_0 < \dots < \alpha_{m-1}$ and $\beta_0 < \dots < \beta_{l-1}$ of ordinals below $\eta$, the conditions
\[j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{p^{\alpha_0}}_{\alpha_0,\eta}, \nu^{p^{\alpha_1}}_{\alpha_1,\eta}, \dots , \nu^{p^{\alpha_{m-1}}}_{\alpha_{m-1},\eta}{\rangle}\]
and
\[j_{\eta}(q) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{q^{\beta_0}}_{\beta_0,\eta}, \nu^{q^{\beta_1}}_{\beta_1,\eta}, \dots , \nu^{q^{\beta_{l-1}}}_{\beta_{l-1},\eta}{\rangle}\] are compatible
in $j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$. We remark that in the assumption that the sequence of extenders
${\langle} E_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta {\rangle}$
is Mitchell order increasing is used in order to be able to permute the order
in which the extensions are done, using a sequence of applications of Lemma \ref{lemma: commutative}.
Let $\vec{H} = {\langle} H(\alpha) \mid \alpha < \eta{\rangle}$ be $V$-generic for $\vec{\mathcal{A}} =
\prod_{\alpha < \eta} \mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$.
\begin{definition}Define $G^* \subset j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$ to
be the filter generated by all conditions
\[j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{p^{\alpha_0}}_{\alpha_0,\eta}, \nu^{p^{\alpha_1}}_{\alpha_1,\eta}, \dots , \nu^{p^{\alpha_{m-1}}}_{\alpha_{m-1},\eta}{\rangle},\]
where $p \in \mathbb{P}$ satisfy that $f^p_\alpha \in H(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha < \eta$, $m < \omega$, and $\alpha_0 < \dots < \alpha_{m-1}$ are ordinals below $\eta$.
\end{definition}
Our first goal is to prove that $G^*$ generates a $j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$
generic filter over $M_{\eta}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop-G*generic}
$G^*_{\eta}$ is $j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$ generic over $M_{\eta}$.
\end{proposition}
Before moving to the proof of the proposition, we discuss finite subiterates of $M_{\eta}$.
\subsection{Finite sub-iterations $N^F$}\label{Rem-finitesubiter} The model
$M_{\eta}$ can be seen as a directed limit of all its finite subiterates, $N^F$,
$F \in [\eta]^{<\omega}$. Given a finite set $F = \{ \beta_0,\dots,\beta_{l-1}
\} \in [\eta]^{<\omega}$, we define its associated iteration $\langle N^F_{i},
i^F_{m,n} \mid m \leq n \leq l\rangle$ by $N^F_0 = V$, and $i^F_{n,n+1} : N^F_n \to
N^F_{n+1} \cong \operatorname{Ult}(N^F_{n}, i^F_n(E_{\beta_{n}}))$. Since for the moment we
handle a single finite set at a time, we will suppress the mention of the finite
set $F$ and refer only to the iteration as $i_{m,n}:N_m \to N_n$ for $m \leq n
\leq l$ and as usual we set $i_n = i_{0,n}$ for $n \leq l$.
The proof of Lemma \ref{Lem-itergens} shows that the elements of $N_l$ are of
the form $i_l(f)\left(\tau_0, i_{1}(\tau_1), \dots ,
i_{l-1}(\tau_{l-1})\right)$. Let $k: N_l \to M_{\eta}$ be the usual factor
map defined by
\[ k(i_l(f)\left(\tau_0, i_{1}(\tau_1), \dots,
i_{l-1}(\tau_{l-1})\right)) = j_{\eta}(f)\left(j_{\beta_0}(\tau_0), j_{\beta_1}(\tau_1), \dots, j_{\beta_{l-1}}(\tau_{l-1})\right)\]
It is routine to verify that $k$ is well defined, elementary and $j_{\eta} = k \circ i_l$.
Moreover, following this explicit description of $k$, it is straightforward to
verify that $k : N_l \to M_{\eta}$ is the resulting iterated ultrapower limit
embedding, associated to the iteration of $N_l$ by the sequence
\[{\langle} i_{0,n_\alpha}(E_\alpha) \mid \alpha \in \eta \setminus \{\beta_0, \dots
\beta_{l-1}\}{\rangle},\] where $n_\alpha$ is the minimal $n < l$ for which $\beta_n \geq
\alpha$, if exists, and $n_\alpha = l$ otherwise. This again uses the Mitchell order
assumption of the sequence of extenders in order to get the desired commutativity.
Next, we observe that our assignment of generators
$\nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta}$, $\alpha < \eta$, to $j_{\eta}(p)$ of conditions
$p \in \mathbb{P}$ can be defined at the level of the finite subiterates.
Indeed, for a condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$, $n < l$, we temporarily define
\[ \nu^{i_n(p)}_{n,n+1} = (i_{n,n+1}\restriction d)^{-1} = \{ (i_{n,n+1}(\tau), \tau) \mid \tau \in d\},\]
where $d = \dom(f^{i_n(p)})_{\beta_n}$. We let $\nu^{i_n(p)}_{n,l} =
i_{n+1,l}(\nu^{i_n(p)}_{n,n+1})$ be the natural push forward to $N_l$. As with
the conditions $j_{\eta}(p)$, we have that \[i_l(p) {}^\frown \langle \nu^{i_0(p)}_{0,l},
\dots, \nu^{i_{l-1}(p)}_{l-1,l} \rangle\] is a valid extension of $i_l(p)$ in
$i_l(\mathbb{P})$.
To record this definition (which depends on $F$), we make a few permanent
definitions which explicitly mention $F$. First, we record the embeddings $i^F =
i_l$ and $k^F=k$ and the model $N^F = N_l$. We denote the condition defined
above by $i^F(p) {}^\frown \vec{\nu}^{p,F}$ and refer to it as the \emph{natural
non-pure extension of} $i^F(p)$.
Using the description of $k^F : N^F \to M_{\eta}$, it is straightforward
exercise in applying {\L}o\'{s}'s Theorem to show that $k^F(\vec{\nu}^{p,F}) = {\langle}
\nu^{p^{\beta_n}}_{\beta_n,\eta}\mid n < l {\rangle}$, and conclude that
\[
k^F\left( i^F(p) {}^\frown \vec{\nu}^{p,F} \right) =
j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{p^{\beta_0}}_{\beta_0,\eta}, \dots ,
\nu^{p^{\beta_{l-1}}}_{\beta_{l-1},\eta}{\rangle}.
\]
Finally, we note that the forcing $\vec{\mathcal{A}} = \prod_{\alpha <
\eta}\mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha)$ has a natural factorization, associated with
$F$. Setting $\beta_{-1} = 0$ and $\beta_l = \eta$, we have \[\vec{\mathcal{A}} =
\prod_{n \leq l}\vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction{[\beta_{n-1},\beta_{n})},\] where for each $n \leq
l$, \[\vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction{[\beta_{n-1},\beta_{n})} = \prod_{\beta_{n-1} \leq \alpha <
\beta_n} \mathcal{A}(\lambda,\kappa_\alpha).\] For each $0\leq n \leq l$, we define
\[ \vec{\mathcal{A}}^F_{n} = i_{n}(\vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction{[\beta_{n-1},\beta_{n})}) \]
and denote the resulting product by $\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F = \prod_{n \leq l}
\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F_n$. Suppose that $\vec{H} \subseteq \vec{\mathcal{A}}$ is a $V$-generic
filter. For each $n \leq l$, the fact $\vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction{[\beta_{n-1},\beta_{n})}$
is a $\kappa_{\beta_{n-1}}^+$-closed forcing guarantees that
$i_n``\vec{H}\restriction{[\beta_{n-1},\beta_{n})}) \subseteq \vec{\mathcal{A}}^F_n$ forms a
generic filter over $N_n$, hence also $N_l=N^F$. For each $n$, we denote the
resulting $N_l$ generic for $\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F_n$ by $\vec{J}^F_n$.
It is clear that the product $\prod_{0 \leq n \leq l} \vec{J}^F_n$ is
$\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F$ generic over $N_l$. We note that for each pure $p \in \mathbb{P}$ with
$\vec{f}^p \in \vec{H}$, if $\vec{f}$ is the Cohen part of the natural non-pure
extension of $i^F(p)$, then $\vec{f} \in \vec{\mathcal{A}}^F$. Moreover the collection
of such $\vec{f}$ form a $\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F$-generic filter over $N^F$ which is
obtained by modifying $\prod_{0 \leq n \leq l} \vec{J}^F_n$ on the coordinates
$\beta_n$ for $n<l$ using the overwriting procedure used in the definition of
the natural non-pure extension of $i^F(p)$. The individual genericity of the
modified filters is immediate from Woodin's surgery argument
\cite{Woodin-surgery}. The fact that the product remains generic follows from
several straightforward applications of Easton's lemma. We denote by
$\vec{H}^F$ the resulting $N^F$-generic filter over $\vec{\mathcal{A}}^F$.
\begin{remark} \label{F-invariance} $G^*$ can be constructed in $N^F[\vec{H}^F]$
in the same way that it was constructed in $V$ using the fact that $M_\eta$ can
be described as an iterated ultrapower of $N^F$ and starting with conditions $q$
such that $s^q=F$ and $\vec{f}^q \in \vec{H}^F$. \end{remark}
We turn to the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop-G*generic}.
\begin{proof} It is clear that $G^* \subseteq j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$ is a filter. We
verify that $G^*$ meets every dense open set $D \subseteq j_{\eta}(\mathbb{P})$ in
$M_{\eta}$. Since $M_\eta$ is the direct limit of its finite subiterates.
There are $F = \{\beta_0, \dots \beta_{l-1}\} \in [\eta]^{<\omega}$ and
$\bar{D}$ such that $k^F(\bar{D}) = D$.
Let $p'$ be the natural non-pure extension of $i^F(p)$ for some $p$ with
$\vec{f}^p \in \vec{H}$. Now by its definition $\vec{f}^{p'} \in \vec{H}^F$.
Appealing to Lemma \ref{Lem-meetdense} and the genericity of $\vec{H}^F$, we
conclude that there exists a direct extension $p^* \geq^* p'$, with ${\langle}
f^{p^*}_\alpha \mid \alpha <\eta{\rangle} \in \vec{H}^F$ and a finite set $\{
\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{m-1}\} \subset (\eta\setminus F)$, such that $p^* {}^\frown
\vec{\nu} \in \bar{D}$ for every $\vec{\nu} = \langle \nu_{\alpha_0},\dots,
\nu_{\alpha_{m-1}}\rangle \in \prod_{i<m} A^{p^*}_{\alpha_i}$. By the elementarity
of $k^F$, $k^F(p^*) {}^\frown \vec{\nu} \in D$ for every $\vec{\nu} \in \prod_{i<m}
k^F(A^{p^*})_{\alpha_i}$.
In particular,
\[k^F(p^*) {}^\frown {\langle} \nu^{(p^*)^{\alpha_0}}_{\alpha_0,\eta}, \dots ,
\nu^{(p^*)^{\alpha_{m-1}}}_{\alpha_{m-1},\eta}{\rangle} \in \mathcal{D}.\]
It remains to verify that the last condition belongs to $G^*$. This is
immediate from Remark \ref{F-invariance} and the fact that $\vec{f}^{p^*} \in
\vec{H}^F$. \end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition: closure}
$M_{\eta}[G^*]$ is closed under $\kappa_0 = \mathop{\mathrm{crit}}(j_{\eta})$ sequences of its elements in $V[\vec{H}]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\langle} x_\mu \mid \mu < \kappa_0{\rangle}$ be a sequence of elements in
$M_{\eta}[G^*]$. Since $M_\eta[G^*]$ is a model of $\mathrm{ZFC}$,
we may assume that all $x_\mu$ are ordinals. By Lemma
\ref{Lem-itergens}, for each $x_\mu$ is of the form
\[ x_\mu = j_{\eta}(g_\mu)(j_{\beta^\mu_0}(\tau^\mu_0), \dots,
j_{\beta^\mu_{l^\mu-1}}(\tau^\mu_{l^\mu-1})) \]
for some finite sequences $\beta^\mu_0 < \dots, \beta^\mu_{l^\mu-1} < \eta$ and
$\tau^\mu_0, \dots, \tau^\mu_{l^\mu-1} < \lambda$. Moreover, since the
Rudin-Keisler order $\leq^{RK}_{E_{\beta^\mu_i}}$ is $\kappa_0^+$-directed, we
may assume that there exists some $\tau^* < \lambda$ such that $\tau^\mu_i =
\tau^*$ for all $\mu < \kappa_0$ and $i<l^\mu$. Hence for ${\langle} x_\mu \mid \mu <
\kappa_0{\rangle}$ to be a member of $M_{\eta}[G^*]$, it suffices to verify that the
sequences $\langle j_{\eta}(g_\mu) \mid \mu < \kappa_0\rangle$ and ${\langle}
j_{\alpha}(\tau^*) \mid \alpha < \eta{\rangle}$ belong to $M_{\eta}[G^*]$.
The first sequence already belongs to $M_{\eta}$ as $\mathop{\mathrm{crit}}(j_{\eta}) = \kappa_0$
implies that it is just $j_{\eta}(\vec{g})\restriction \kappa_0$.
The latter sequence $\langle j_{\alpha}(\tau^*) \mid \alpha < \eta\rangle$ can be recovered from
$G^*$ as follows.
It follows from a simple density argument that for every $\alpha < \eta$, there exists some $q \in G^*$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha$ is a non-pure coordinate of $q$, and
\item $j_{\eta}(\tau^*) \in \dom(f^q_\alpha)$.
\end{enumerate}
It is also clear that two
conditions $q,q' \in G^*$ of this form must satisfy $f^{q}_\alpha(j_{\eta}(\tau^*)) = f^{q'}_\alpha(j_{\eta}(\tau^*))$.
We may therefore define in $M_{\eta}[G^*]$ a function $t_{j_{\eta}(\tau^*)} : \eta \to \lambda^{\eta}$ by
$t_{j_{\eta}(\tau^*)}(\alpha) = f^{q}_\alpha(j_{\eta}(\tau^*))$ for some condition $q \in G^*$ as above.
we claim that $t_{j_{\eta}(\tau^*)}(\alpha) = j_{\alpha}(\tau^*)$ for all $\alpha < \eta$. Indeed, for every $\alpha < \eta$,
there exists a condition $p \in \mathbb{P}$ with ${\langle} f^p_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta {\rangle} \in
\vec{H}$ so that $\tau^* \in \dom(f^p_\alpha)$, and clearly, the condition $q = j_{\eta}(p) {}^\frown \langle \nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta}\rangle \in G^*$ has $j_{\eta}(\tau^*) \in \dom(f^q_\alpha)$.
But $j_{\eta}(\tau^*) \in \dom(\nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta}) = j_{\alpha+1,\eta}``j_{\alpha}(\dom(f^p_\alpha))$ and
$\nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta} = (j_{\alpha,\eta}\restriction d_\alpha^\alpha)^{-1}$, thus, it follows that
\[ f^{q}_\alpha(j_{\eta}(\tau^*)) = \nu^{p^\alpha}_{\alpha,\eta}(j_{\eta}(\tau^*)) = j_{\alpha}(\tau^*).\]
\end{proof}
Fix some ordinal $\beta < \eta$. The forcing $\vec{\mathcal{A}}$ naturally breaks into the product $\vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction \beta \times \vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq \beta}$, and we observe that
\begin{enumerate}
\item The latter part $\vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq \beta}$ is $\kappa_\beta^+$-closed.
Therefore, if $\vec{H}_{\geq \beta} \subset \vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq \beta}$ is
$V$-generic, then its pointwise image
$j_{\beta}``\vec{H}_{\geq \beta}$ generates an $M_{\beta}$ generic filter for
the forcing \[j_{\beta}(\vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq \beta}) = \prod_{\beta \leq \alpha <
\eta} \mathcal{A}(\lambda^\beta,\kappa_\alpha^\beta)^{M_\beta}.\] We denote this generic
by $\vec{H}^{\beta}_{\geq \beta}$.
\item Using the same arguments as above, a $V$-generic filter
$\vec{H}_\beta \subset \vec{\mathcal{A}}\restriction\beta$ generates an $M_\beta$-generic filter
$G^*_\beta$ for the $j_{\beta}(\mathbb{P}_{\vec{E}\restriction \beta})$.
\end{enumerate}
We conclude that in the model $V[\vec{H}]$, we can form the generic extension
$M_\beta[G^*_\beta \times \vec{H}^\beta_{\geq \beta}]$ of $M_\beta$, with
respect to the product $j_{\beta}(\mathbb{P}_{\vec{E}\restriction \beta}) \times
j_{\beta}(\vec{\mathcal{A}}_{\geq \beta})$.
We have the following.
\begin{proposition}
For each $\beta < \eta$, the model $M_{\beta}[G^*_\beta \times
\vec{H}^\beta_{\geq \beta}]$ can compute $M_{\eta}[G^*_{\eta}]$. In fact, \[
\bigcap_{\beta<\eta}M_\beta[G^*_\beta\times \vec{H}^\beta_{\geq\beta}] =
M_\eta[G^*].\]
\end{proposition}
\section{Stationary reflection in $M_\eta[G^*_\eta]$} \label{reflection}
We assume that for every $\alpha < \eta$, there is an indestructible
supercompact cardinal $\theta_\alpha$ such that $\sup_{\beta<\alpha}
\kappa_\beta < \theta_\alpha < \kappa_\alpha$.
We prove the following which completes the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
\begin{theorem} \label{gstar-reflection} In $M_{\eta}[G^*]$, every collection of
fewer than $\eta$ many stationary subsets of $j_{\eta}(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$
reflects. \end{theorem}
We start by proving a stationary reflection fact that will be used as an
intermediate step in the proof.
\begin{claim} For every $\alpha <\eta$, every collection of fewer than $\eta$
many stationary subsets of $j_{\alpha}(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$ with cofinalities
bounded by $\sup_{\beta<\alpha}\kappa_{\beta}^\alpha$ reflects in $M_{\alpha}[G^*_\alpha \times
\vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}]$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} Let $T_i$ for $i<\mu$ be such a collection of stationary sets.
By elementarity, $j_\alpha(\theta_\alpha)$ is an indestructible supercompact
cardinal between $\sup_{\beta<\alpha}\kappa^\alpha_\beta$ and
$\kappa_\alpha^\alpha$. Recall that $\vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}$ is generic
for $(\kappa_\alpha^\alpha)^+$-directed closed forcing. By the
indestructibility of $j_\alpha(\theta_\alpha)$, there is a
$j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$-supercompact embedding
$k:M_{\alpha}[\vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}] \to N$. Further, $G^*_\alpha$ is
generic for $j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_\alpha^{++})$-cc forcing and
$j_{\alpha}(\bar{\kappa}_\alpha^{++}) < j_\alpha(\theta_\alpha)$. By standard
arguments, we can extend $k$ to include $M_\alpha[G^*_\alpha \times
\vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}]$ in the extension by a
$j_{\alpha}(\bar{\kappa}_\alpha^{++})$-cc forcing. Each $T_i$ remains
stationary in this extension, so $\{k(T_i) \mid i < \mu \}$ reflects at $\sup
k``j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$.
It follows that $\{T_i \mid i < \mu \}$ reflects in $M_\alpha[G^*_\alpha \times \vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}]$.
\end{proof}
We begin the proof of Theorem \ref{gstar-reflection}. Suppose that for each
$i<\mu$, $S_i \in M_{\eta}[G^*]$ is a stationary subset of
$j_{\eta}(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$. We can assume that for all $i$, the
cofinality of each ordinal in $S_i$ is some fixed $\gamma_i$. It follows that
there is some $\bar{\alpha}<\eta$ such that $\sup_{i<\mu} \gamma_i <
\sup_{\beta<\bar{\alpha}}\kappa_{\beta}^{\bar{\alpha}}$. For each $\alpha$ in the interval
$[\bar{\alpha},\eta)$, let $T_i^\alpha = \{ \delta <
j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+) \mid j_{\alpha,\eta}(\delta) \in S_i\}$.
\begin{claim} For $\alpha \geq \bar{\alpha}$, if $\{T_i^{\alpha} \mid
i<\mu\}$ reflects at an ordinal of cofinality less than
$\kappa_\alpha^\alpha$ in $M_\alpha[G_\alpha^* \times
\vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}]$, then $\{S_i \mid i<\mu\}$ reflects in
$M_{\eta}[G^*]$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} Let $\delta < j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta}^+)$ with
$\cf(\delta) < \kappa_\alpha^\alpha$ be a common reflection point of
the collection $\{T_i^\alpha \mid i<\mu \}$. We claim that each $S_i$ reflects at
$j_{\alpha,\eta}(\delta)$. Let $D \subseteq
j_{\alpha,\eta}(\delta)$ be club in $M_{\eta}[G^*]$, of order type $\cf(\delta)
= \cf(j_{\alpha,\eta}(\delta))$.
Since $\mathop{\mathrm{crit}}{j_{\alpha,\eta}} > \cf(\delta)$, $j_{\alpha,\eta}$ is continuous
at $\delta$ and $E = \{\gamma < \delta \mid j_{\alpha,\eta}(\gamma) \in D
\}$ is a club in $\delta$. Note that $E \in M_{\alpha}[G^*_\alpha \times
\vec{H}^{\alpha}_{\geq\alpha}]$. Since $T_i^\alpha$ reflects at $\delta$,
$T_i^\alpha \cap E \neq \emptyset$ and hence $S_i \cap D \neq
\emptyset$.\end{proof}
Combining the previous two claims if for some $\alpha \geq \bar{\alpha}$,
$\{T_i^\alpha \mid i < \mu \}$ consists of stationary sets, then $\{S_i \mid
i<\mu\}$ reflects. So we assume for a contradiction that for each
$\alpha \geq \bar{\alpha}$, there are $i_\alpha<\mu$ and a club $C_\alpha
\in M_\alpha[G_\alpha^* \times \vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq\alpha}]$ such that
$T_{i_\alpha}^\alpha \cap C_\alpha = \emptyset$. We fix $J \subseteq \eta$
unbounded and $i^*<\mu$ such that for all $\alpha \in I$, $i_\alpha = i^*$.
Let $I_\eta$ be the ideal of bounded subsets of $\eta$. For $\alpha \leq \eta$,
let $\vec{H}^\alpha/I_\eta$ be the generic for
$j_\alpha(\vec{\mathbb{A}})/I_\eta$ derived from $j_\alpha``\vec{H}$. Recall
that $\vec{H}$ is generic for $\vec{\mathbb{A}}$ which is a product of Cohen
posets, so this makes sense.
\begin{claim} For $\alpha \geq \bar{\alpha}$, there is a club subset of
$C_\alpha$ in $M_\alpha[\vec{H}^\alpha/I_\eta]$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} We start by showing that for all $\beta > \alpha$ below $\eta$
there is a club subset of $C_\alpha$ in $M_{\alpha}[\vec{H}^\alpha]$.
To see this, note
that $M_\alpha[G^*_\alpha \times \vec{H}^\alpha_{\geq \alpha}]$ is
$(\bar{\kappa}^\alpha_\beta)^{++}$-cc extension of $M_\alpha[\vec{H}^\alpha
\upharpoonright [\beta,\eta)]$ and
$\bar{\kappa}_\beta^\alpha<j_\alpha(\bar{\kappa}_{\eta})$. For the moment
we let $\mathbb{Q}_\beta$ denote the $(\bar{\kappa}^\alpha_\beta)^{++}$-cc poset
used in this extension.
We set take $C_{\alpha,\beta}$ to be the set of closure points of the function
assigning each $\gamma$ to the supremum of the set
\[\{\gamma^* \mid \exists q\in \mathbb{Q}_\beta,\, q \Vdash \check{\gamma}^* = \min (\dot{C}_\alpha \setminus (\check\gamma + 1))\},\]
as computed in the model
$M_\alpha[\vec{H}^\alpha \upharpoonright [\beta,\eta)]$. Clearly this is a
club. Further if $\beta < \beta'$, then $C_{\alpha,\beta'} \subseteq
C_{\alpha,\beta}$.
Since the clubs are decreasing, $\bigcap_{\beta > \alpha} C_{\alpha,\beta}$ is
definable in $M_\alpha[\vec{H}^\alpha/I_\eta]$ as the set of ordinals $\gamma$
such that for some condition $\vec{a} \in j_\alpha(\vec{\mathbb{A}})$, $\vec{a}/I_\eta \in \vec{H}^\alpha / I_\eta$ and for all sufficiently
large $\beta$, $\vec{a} \upharpoonright [\beta,\eta)$ forces $\gamma \in
C_{\alpha,\beta}$. So $\bigcap_{\beta>\alpha}C_{\alpha,\beta}$ is as required
for the claim. \end{proof}
Let $\dot{D}_\alpha$ be a $\vec{H}^\alpha/I_\eta$-name for the club from the
previous lemma.
\begin{claim} $\langle
j_{\alpha,\omega}(\dot{D}_\alpha)_{\vec{H}^{\eta}/I_\eta} \mid \bar{\alpha} \leq
\alpha < \eta \rangle \in M_{\eta}[G^*]$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} It is clear from the definition of $G^*$ that
$\vec{H}^{\eta}/I_\eta \in M_{\eta}[G^*]$. Further by Proposition
\ref{proposition: closure}, $M_{\eta}[G^*]$ is closed under $\eta$-sequences. So
the sequence of names for clubs $\langle j_{\alpha,\eta}(\dot{D}_\alpha) \mid \alpha < \eta \rangle \in M_{\eta}[G^*]$. \end{proof}
To get a contradiction it is enough to show that $\bigcap_{\bar{\alpha} \leq
\alpha<\eta} j_{\alpha}(\dot{D}_\alpha)_{\vec{H}^{\eta}/I_\eta} \cap
S_{i^*} = \emptyset$. Suppose that there is some $\delta$ in the intersection.
We can find some $\alpha\in J$ and $\bar{\delta}$ such that
$j_{\alpha,\eta}(\bar{\delta}) = \delta$. However, by the definitions of
$D_\alpha$ and $T_{i^*}^\alpha$, we must have that $\bar{\delta} \in C_\alpha
\cap T_{i^*}^\alpha$, a contradiction.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
\section{Bad scales} \label{badscale}
In this section we give the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm2}. For this theorem
we work with the forcing $\mathbb{P}$ as before and assume that there is an
indestructibly supercompact cardinal $\theta < \kappa_0$. Working in $V$, let
$\vec{f}$ be a scale of length $\bar{\kappa}_\eta^+$ in
$\prod_{\alpha<\eta}\kappa_\alpha^+$. As before let $\vec{H}$ be
generic for $\vec{\mathcal{A}}$ over $V$ and let $G^*$ be the $j_\eta(\mathbb{P})$ generic over
$M_\eta$ defined above.
\begin{lemma} In $M_\eta[G^*]$, $j_\eta(\vec{f})$ is a scale of length
$j_\eta(\bar{\kappa}_\eta^+)$ in $\prod_{\alpha<\eta}j(\kappa_\alpha)^+$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $g \in \left(\prod_{\alpha<\eta}j(\kappa_\alpha)^+ \right)\cap
M_\eta[G^*]$. Clearly $g \in V[\vec{H}]$. Since each $\kappa_\alpha^+$ is a
continuity point of $j_\eta$, we can find an ordinal
$\gamma_\alpha<\kappa_\alpha^+$ such that $j_\eta(\gamma_\alpha)>g(\alpha)$.
By the distributivity of $\vec{\mathbb{A}}$, the sequence
$\tilde{g} = \langle \gamma_\alpha \mid \alpha < \eta\rangle$
belongs to $V$. Pick (in $V$) an ordinal $\zeta$ such that $f_\zeta$ dominates $\tilde{g}$. Then,
$j_\eta(f_\zeta) = j_\eta(f)_{j_\eta(\zeta)}$ dominates $g$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} For $\delta<\kappa_\eta^+$ with $\eta < \cf(\delta)<\kappa_0$, if
$j_\eta(\delta)$ is a good point for $j(\vec{f})$ in $M_\eta[G^*]$, then
$\delta$ is a good point for $\vec{f}$ in $V[\vec{H}]$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $A \subseteq j_\eta(\delta)$ and $\alpha^* < \eta$
witness that $j_\eta(\delta)$ is good for $\vec{f}$ in $M_\eta[G^*]$. Note
that $j_\eta``\delta$ is cofinal in $j(\delta)$. By thinning $A$ if necessary
we let $B \subseteq j_\eta``\delta$ be an unbounded such that each element
$\gamma \in B$ has a greatest element of $A$ less than or equal to it. For each
$\gamma$ in $B$, let $\alpha_\gamma$ be such that for all $\alpha \geq
\alpha_\gamma$, \[j(\vec{f})_{\max(A \cap (\gamma+1))}(\alpha) \leq
j(\vec{f})_\gamma(\alpha) < j(\vec{f})_{\min(A \setminus (\gamma+1))}(\alpha).\]
Let $B'$ be an unbounded subset of $B$ on which $\alpha_\gamma$ is fixed. Then
$B'$ witnesses that $j_\eta(\delta)$ is good. Since $B' \subseteq
j_\eta``\delta$, we have that $\{ \gamma < \delta \mid j_\eta(\gamma) \in B' \}$
witnesses that $\delta$ is good for $\vec{f}$ in $V[\vec{H}]$. \end{proof}
In $V[\vec{H}]$, let $S = \{ \delta < \bar{\kappa}_\eta^+ \mid \delta$ is
nongood for $\vec{f}$ and $\eta< \cf(\delta) < \theta \}$. We claim that $S$ is
stationary. Let $k:V[\vec{H}] \to N$ be an elementary embedding witnessing
that $\theta$ is $\bar{\kappa}_\eta^+$-supercompact in $V[\vec{H}]$. Standard
arguments show that $\sup k``\bar{\kappa}_\eta^+$ is a nongood point for
$k(\vec{f})$. It follows that $S$ is stationary, since $\sup
k``\bar{\kappa}_\eta^+ \in k(C)$ every club $C \subseteq \bar{\kappa}_\eta^+$ in
$V[\vec{H}]$.
Now suppose that in $M_\eta[G^*]$, there is a club $D$ of good points for
$j_\eta(\vec{f})$. In $V[\vec{H}]$, let $C = \{ \delta < \bar{\kappa}_\eta^+
\mid j_\eta(\delta) \in D \}$. By the previous lemma, $C$ is a $<
\kappa_0$-club consisting of good points for $\vec{f}$. However, $S \cap C$ is
nonempty, a contradiction.
\section{Countable cofinality}\label{ctble}
Our goal is to show that given the assumptions of Theorem \ref{mainthm3},
there exists forcing extension which adds generic for the extender based Prikry
forcing by a $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-extender (in particular, forces $\cf(\kappa)
= \omega$ and $2^\kappa = \kappa^{++}$) and satisfies that every stationary subset of $\kappa^+$ reflects.
A necessary step for obtaining the latter is to add a club $D \subseteq \kappa^+$ disjoint from $S^{\kappa^+}_{\kappa}$, the set of ordinals $\alpha < \kappa^+$ of cofinality $\kappa$ in the ground model.
In \cite{HU}, the second and third authors address the situation for adding a single Prikry sequence to $\kappa$. It is shown that under the subcompactness assumption of $\kappa$, there is a Prikry-type forcing which both singularizes $\kappa$ and adds a club $D$ as above, without generating new nonreflecting stationary sets.
An additional remarkable aspect of the argument of \cite{HU} is that it presents a fertile framework in which the arguments address an extension $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ of an iterated ultrapower $N_\omega$ of $V$, and assert directly that stationary reflection holds in $N_{\omega}[\mathcal{H}]$ without having to specify the poset by which $\mathcal{H}$ is added.
Let us briefly describe the key ingredients of the construction of \cite{HU}, to serve as a reference for our
arguments in the context of the failure of SCH.
In \cite{HU}, one starts from a normal measure $U$ on $\kappa$ in $V$, and consider the $\omega$-iterated ultrapower by $U$, given by
\[N_0 = V\text{, }i_{n,n+1} : N_n \to N_{n+1} \cong \operatorname{Ult}(N_n,i_n(U)),\]and the
direct limit embedding $i_{\omega} : V \to N_\omega$.
It is well known that the sequence of critical points
${\langle} \kappa_n \mid n < \omega{\rangle}$, $\kappa_{n+1} = i_{n,n+1}(\kappa_{n})$ is
Prikry generic over $N_\omega$ and that $N_{\omega}[{\langle} \kappa_n \mid n<\omega
{\rangle}] = \bigcap_n N_n$ (\cite{Bukovski, Dehornoy}).
Let $\mathbb{Q}$ be the Prikry name for the forcing for adding a disjoint club
from $(S^{\kappa^+}_\kappa)^V = \kappa^+ \cap \cof^V(\kappa)$ and $\mathbb{Q}_{\omega} = i_\omega(\mathbb{Q})^{{\langle} \kappa_n \mid n < \omega{\rangle}} \in N_\omega[{{\langle} \kappa_n \mid n < \omega{\rangle}}]$ is isomorphic to the forcing for adding a $\kappa^+$-Cohen set over $V$, and likewise, to adding a $\kappa_n^+$-Cohen set over $N_n$, for each $n < \omega$.
Moreover, taking a $\mathbb{Q}_{\omega}$-generic filter $H $ over $V$, we have that both $H$ and $i_{0,1}``H $ generate mutually generic filters
over $N_1$ for $i_1(\mathbb{Q}_\omega) = \mathbb{Q}_\omega$.
More generally, for each $n$, the sequence $H^n_0, \dots, H^n_n$, where each $H^n_k$ is generated by $i_{k,n}``H \subset i_n(\mathbb{Q}_\omega) = \mathbb{Q}_\omega$ for $1 \leq k \leq n$, are mutually generic filters for $\mathbb{Q}_\omega$ over $N_n$. With this choice of ``shifts'' of $H$, we obtain that for each $n < k$, the standard iterated ultrapower map $i_{n,k} : N_n \to N_k$ extends to
$i_{n,k}^* : N_n[{\langle} H^n_0,\dots, H^n_n {\rangle}] \to N_k[ {\langle} H^{k}_0, \dots, H^{k}_n{\rangle}] \subseteq N_k[ {\langle} H^{k}_0, \dots, H^{k}_k{\rangle}]$.
For each $n$, the sequence ${\langle} H^n_0, \dots, H^n_n {\rangle}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{H}_n$.
The final extension $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ of $N_\omega$
is given by the sequence $\mathcal{H} = {\langle} H_n^\omega \mid n < \omega{\rangle}$, were $H_n^\omega$ is the filter generated by $i_{n,\omega}``H$, which achieves the critical equality \[N_\omega[\mathcal{H}] = \bigcap_n N_n[\mathcal{H}_n].\]
From this equality it follows at once that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ is closed under its $\kappa$-sequences;
\item $\kappa_\omega = i_\omega(\kappa)$ is singular in $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$,
as ${\langle} \kappa_n \mid n<\omega {\rangle}$ belongs to each $N_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$; and
\item $H \in N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$, as $H = H^n_n$ for all $n < \omega$.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore every stationary subset $S$ of $\kappa_\omega^+$ in $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ can be assumed to concentrate at some cofinality $\rho < \kappa_\omega$. Say for simplicity that $\rho < \kappa_0$,
one shows that $S$ reflects in $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ by examining its pull
backs $S_n = i_{n,\omega}^{-1}(S) \subseteq \kappa_n^+$. If we have that
$\kappa_n = i_n(\kappa)$ is $\Pi^1_1$-subcompact in the Cohen extension
$N_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$ of $N_n$, then we have that if $S_n$ is stationary then it must reflect at some $\delta < \kappa_n^+$ of cofinality $\delta <\kappa_n$. This can then translated by $i_{n,\omega}$ to $S$ reflecting at $i_{n,\omega}(\delta)$ in $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$.
To rule out the other option, of having all $S_n \subseteq \kappa_n^+$ being
nonstationary in $N_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$, one takes witnessing disjoint clubs $C_n
\subseteq \kappa_n^+$ and uses the fact that for each $n < \omega$,
$i_{n,\omega} : N_n \to N_\omega$ extends to $i_{n,\omega}^* :
N_n[\mathcal{H}_n] : N_\omega[ i_{n,\omega}``\mathcal{H}_n] \subset
N_{\omega}[\mathcal{H}]$. This allows us to show that the club $D_n =
i_{n,\omega}^*(C_n) \subseteq \kappa_\omega^+$ belongs to
$N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ for each $n$. Since $N_\omega[\mathcal{H}]$ is closed
under its $\kappa$ sequences, it computes ${\langle} D_n \mid n < \omega{\rangle}$ correctly
and thus also $D = \bigcap_n D_n$, that would have to be disjoint from $S$, a
contradiction.
We turn now to the new construction and prove Theorem \ref{mainthm3}. Let $V'$ be a model which contains a $\kappa^+$-$\Pi^1_1$-subcompact cardinal $\kappa$, which also carries a $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-extender.
Recall that $\kappa$ is $\kappa^+$-$\Pi^1_1$-subcompact if for every set $A \subseteq H(\kappa^+)$ and every $\Pi^1_1$-statement $\Phi$ such that
${\langle} H(\kappa^+), \in ,A\rangle \models \Phi$, there are $\rho < \kappa$, $B \subseteq H(\rho^+)$, and an elementary embedding
$ j : {\langle} H(\rho^+), \in ,B\rangle \to {\langle} H(\kappa^+), \in ,A{\rangle}$ with $cp(j) = \rho$, and ${\langle} H(\rho^+), \in ,B\rangle \models \Phi$.
Let $V$ be obtained from $V'$ by an Easton-support iteration of products $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(\alpha^+,\alpha^{++})$ for inaccessible $\alpha\leq\kappa$.
By Lemma 42
of \cite{HU}, $\kappa$ remains $\kappa^+$-$\Pi_1^1$-subcompact in $V$ and even
in a further extension by $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(\kappa^+,\kappa^{++})$. Moreover, by standard
argument it is routine to verify that $\kappa$ still carries a
$(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-extender in $V$.
We note that as a consequence of $\kappa^+$-$\Pi_1^1$-subcompactness in $V$,
simultaneous reflection holds for collections of fewer than $\kappa$ many
stationary subsets of $S^{\kappa^+}_{<\kappa}$. Further this property is
indestructible under $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(\kappa^+,\kappa^{++})$.
Working in $V$, let $E$ be a $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-extender. Let \[\langle
j_{m,n}:M_m \to M_n \mid m \leq n \leq \omega \rangle\] be the iteration by $E$
and \[\langle i_{m,n}:N_m \to N_m \mid m \leq n \leq \omega\rangle\] be the iteration by the
normal measure $E_\kappa$ where $V = M_0 = N_0$.
We write $j_n$ for $j_{0,n}$ and $i_n$ for $i_{0,n}$.
We describe a generic extension of $M_\omega$ in which $j_\omega(\kappa^+)$
satisfies the conclusion of the theorem. It follows by elementarity that there
is such an extension of $V$. We are able to isolate the forcing used, but this
is not required in the proof.
We start by constructing a generic object for
$j_\omega(\mathbb{P}_E)$ over $M_\omega$, where $\mathbb{P}_E$ is the
extender based forcing of Merimovich. Although for the most part, we will refer to Merimovich's arguments in \cite{Merimovich}, our presentation follows a more up-do-date presentation of the forcing, given by Merimovich in
\cite[Section 2]{Merimovich2}.
We recall that conditions $p \in \mathbb{P}_E$ are pairs of the form $p = {\langle} f, T{\rangle}$, where $f : d \to [\kappa]^{<\omega}$ is a partial function from $\kappa^{++}$ to
$[\kappa]^{<\omega}$ with domain $d \in [\kappa^{++}]^{\leq \kappa}$ with $\kappa \in d$, and $T$ is tree of height $\omega$, whose splitting sets are all measure one with respect to a a measure $E(d)$ on $V_\kappa$, derived from the extender $E$. The generator of $E(d)$ is the function $\mc(d) = \{ {\langle} j(\alpha), \alpha {\rangle} \mid \alpha \in d\}$.
Therefore, a typical node in the tree is an increasing sequence of functions ${\langle} \nu_0,\dots,\nu_{k-1}{\rangle}$ where each $\nu_i$ is a partial, order preserving function $\nu_i : \dom(\nu_i) \to \kappa$, with $\kappa \in \dom(\nu_i)$ and $|\nu_i| = \nu_i(\kappa)$. The sequence ${\langle} \nu_0,\dots, \nu_{k-1}{\rangle}$ is increasing in the sense that $\nu_i(\kappa) < \nu_{i+1}(\kappa)$ for all $i$.
When extending conditions $p = {\langle} f, T{\rangle} \in \mathbb{P}_E$ we are allowed to (i) extend $f$ in as Cohen conditions (namely, add points $\gamma < \kappa^{++}$ to $\dom(f)$ and arbitrarily choose $f(\gamma) \in [\kappa]^{<\omega}$),
and modify the tree properly; (ii) shrink the tree $T$; and (iii) choose a point
${\langle} \nu {\rangle} \in \succ_{\emptyset}(T)$ to extend $p = {\langle} f,T{\rangle}$ to $p_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}} = {\langle} f_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}}, T_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}}{\rangle}$, where $f_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}}$ is defined by
$\dom(f_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}}) = \dom(f)$ and
$$
f_{{\langle} \nu {\rangle}}(\alpha) =
\begin{cases}
f(\alpha) \cup \{\nu(\alpha)\} &\mbox{if } \alpha \in \dom(\nu) \text{ and } \nu(\alpha) > \max(f(\alpha))\\
f(\alpha) &\mbox{otherwise }
\end{cases}
$$
Any extension of $p$ is obtained by finite combination of (i)-(iii), and
the direct extensions of $p$ are those which are obtained by (i),(ii).
The poset $\mathbb{P}_E^*$ is the suborder of $\mathbb{P}_E$ whose extension consists only of the Cohen type extension (i).
Clearly, $\mathbb{P}_E^*$ is isomorphic to $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(\kappa^+,\kappa^{++})$.
We turn to describe the construction of a $j_\omega(\mathbb{P}_E)$ generic following \cite{Merimovich}.
Let $G_0$ be $\mathbb{P}_E^*$ generic.
We work by induction to define $G_n$ for
$n < \omega$. Suppose that we have defined
$G_n \subseteq j_n(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$
for some $n<\omega$. First, let $G_{n+1}'$ be the closure of the set
$j_{n,n+1}``G_n$. Then, we take $G_{n+1}$ to be obtained from $G_{n+1}'$ by adding
the ordinal $\alpha$ to $G_{n+1}'$
at coordinate $j_{n,n+1}(\alpha)$, for all $\alpha < j_n(\kappa^{++})$ .
\begin{claim} $G_{n+1}$ is $M_{n+1}$-generic for $j_{n+1}(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} This is a straightforward application of Woodin's surgery argument
\cite{Woodin-surgery}, so we only sketch the proof. Let $D$ be a dense open
subset of $j_{n+1}(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$. Let $E$ be the set of all $f$ in $D$ such
that all $j_{n}(\kappa)$ sized modifications of $f$ are in $D$. $E$ is dense
using the closure of $j_{n+1}(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$. Now the fact that $G_{n+1}'$
meets $E$ implies that $G_{n+1}$ meets $D$, since each condition in $G_{n+1}$ is
a $j_n(\kappa)$ sized modification of one in $G_{n+1}'$. \end{proof}
We make a few remarks.
\begin{remark} \label{combined-alterations} For each $n$, $G_{n}$ can be obtained directly from the upwards
closure of $j_n``G_0$ by combining the alterations used in construction of
$G_i$
for $i<n$. \end{remark}
Since the proof of the previous claim can be repeated in any suitably closed
forcing extension, we have the following.
\begin{remark} \label{H-mutually-generic} If $H$ is generic for
$j_n(\kappa^+)$-closed forcing and mutually generic to the upwards closure of
$j_n``G_0$, then $H$ and $G_n$ are mutually generic. \end{remark}
Let $G_\omega$ be the $j_\omega(\mathbb{P}_E)$-generic obtained from $G_0$ as in
\cite{Merimovich}.
\begin{claim} $M_\omega[G_\omega]$ is closed under $\kappa$-sequences.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} It is enough to show that $M_\omega[G_\omega]$ is closed under
$\kappa$-sequences of ordinals. Let ${\langle} \gamma_\delta \mid \delta < \kappa {\rangle}$
be a sequence of ordinals. We can assume that each $\gamma_\delta$ is of the
form $j_\omega(g_\alpha)(\alpha_\delta, j(\alpha_\delta),\dots
j_{n_\delta-1}(\alpha_\delta))$ for some $g_\delta:[\kappa]^{n_\delta} \to
\kappa^{++}$ and $\alpha_\delta<\kappa^{++}$. We refer the reader to
\cite{Merimovich} Corollary 2.6 for a proof. Since ${\langle}
j_\omega(g_\delta) \mid \delta < \kappa {\rangle} = j_\omega({\langle} g_\delta \mid
\delta<\kappa{\rangle})\restriction \kappa \in M_\omega$, it is enough to show that ${\langle}
(\alpha_\delta, \dots j_{n_\delta-1}(\alpha_\delta)) \mid \delta < \kappa {\rangle} \in
M_\omega[G_\omega]$. To see this note that $\{\alpha_\delta \mid \delta <
\kappa\} = \dom(f)$ for some $f \in G_0$ and that the sequence $f(\alpha_\delta)
\frown (\alpha_\delta,
\dots j_{n_\delta-1}(\alpha_\delta))$ is an initial segment of the
$\omega$-sequence with index $j_\omega(\alpha_\delta)$ in $G_\omega$. This is
enough to compute ${\langle}
(\alpha_\delta, \dots j_{n_\delta-1}(\alpha_\delta)) \mid \delta < \kappa {\rangle}$,
since $j_\omega ``f \in M_\omega$. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{intersection1} $\bigcap_{n<\omega} M_n[G_n] =
M_\omega[G_\omega]$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We
defined $G_n$ so that generating the extender based generic in $M_n[G_n]$ with
$G_n$ as the starting Cohen generic gives exactly $G_\omega$. It follows that
$M_\omega[G_\omega] \subseteq \bigcap_{n<\omega} M_n[G_n]$. For the other
direction suppose that $x \in \bigcap_{n<\omega}M_n[G_n]$ is a set of ordinals.
Let $x_n \in M_n[G_n]$ be the set $\{\alpha \mid j_{n,\omega}(\alpha) \in x \}$.
Now we have
a $j_n(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$-name $\dot{x}_n$ for $x_n$. We can view $\dot{x}_n$ as
a $j_n(\mathbb{P}_E)$-name $\dot{x}_n^*$ by adding trees conditions in
$j_n(\mathbb{P}_E^*)$. It follows that $\alpha \in x_n$ if and only if
$j_{n,\omega}(\alpha)$ is in $j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*)$ as evaluated by
$G_\omega$.
Since $M_\omega[G_\omega]$ is closed under $\omega$-sequences, the sequence of
evaluations of $j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*)$ is in $M_\omega[G_\omega]$. Hence
$x$ is definable by $\zeta \in x$ if and only if for all large $n$, $\zeta$ is
in $j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*)$ as evaluated by $G_\omega$. \end{proof}
We are now ready to describe the generic extension of $M_\omega$. We recall
some of the basic ideas from \cite{HU}. Let $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ be
the canonical name in the Prikry forcing defined from $E_\kappa$ for the poset
to shoot a club disjoint from the set of $\alpha < \kappa^+$ such that
$\cf^V(\alpha) = \kappa$. Let
$\mathbb{Q}_\omega$ be the forcing $i_\omega(\dot{\mathbb{Q}})$ as interpreted
by the critical sequence $\langle i_n(\kappa) \mid n<\omega \rangle$. By the
argument following Claim 39 of \cite{HU}, $\mathbb{Q}_\omega$ is
equivalent to the forcing $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(\kappa^+,1)$ in $V$. In fact, for every
$n<\omega$, in $N_n$ it is equivalent to $\mathop{\mathrm{Add}}(i_n(\kappa^+),1)$.
Let $k_n:N_n \to M_n$ be the natural embedding given by
\[
k_n(i_n(f)(\kappa,
\dots i_{n-1}(\kappa))) = j_n(f)(\kappa, \dots j_{n-1}(\kappa)).
\]
We discussed the notion of a \emph{width} of an elementary embedding in the previous section. We recall a fundamental result concerning lifting embeddings and their widths (see \cite{CummingsHandbook}).
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem:widthgen}
Suppose that $k : N \to M$ has width $\kappa$, $\mathbb{Q} \in N$ is a $\kappa^+$-distributive forcing, and $H \subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ is generic over $N$, then $k``H \subset k(\mathbb{Q})$ generates a generic filter
${\langle} k``H {\rangle}$ for $M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{claim} For all $1\leq n<\omega$, $k_n$ has width $\leq
(i_{n-1}(\kappa)^{++})^{N_n}$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} Let $x = j_n(g)(\alpha,j(\alpha), \dots j_{n-1}(\alpha))$ be an
element of $M_n$ where $g:[\kappa]^n \to V$ and $\alpha < \kappa^{++}$.
Consider $h = i_n(g) \restriction (i_{n-1}(\kappa)^{++})^{N_n}$. Then
$k(h)(\alpha,j(\alpha), \dots j_{n-1}(\alpha))$ makes sense and is equal to $x$,
as required. \end{proof}
We are now ready to define the analogs of $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}_n$ for
our situation. Recall that for subset $X$ of some poset, we write $< X >$ for
the upwards closure in that poset. Which poset is meant will be clear from the
context.
Let $H$ be generic for $\mathbb{Q}_\omega$ over $V[G_0]$ and recall
that $\mathbb{Q}_\omega = i_n(\mathbb{Q}_\omega)$ is also a member of $N_n$ for every $n \geq 1$, and is $i_n(\kappa^+)$-closed. We note that clearly, $i_n(\kappa^+) > i_{n-1}(\kappa^{++}) = \text{width}(k_n)$.
Let
\[\mathcal{H}_n
= \langle {<}j_{m,n} \circ k_m``H{>} \mid m \leq n \rangle\]
and
\[\mathcal{H} = \langle
{<}j_{m,\omega} \circ k_m``H{>} \mid m < \omega \rangle.\]
Note that
$\mathcal{H}_n$ is a subset of $\prod_{m \leq n} j_{m,n}(k_m(\mathbb{Q}_\omega))$. We
do not yet know that it is generic.
We prove a sequence of claims about $\mathcal{H}_n$ and $\mathcal{H}$. The
first is straightforward.
\begin{claim} For all $n<\omega$, \[\mathcal{H}_{n+1} = {<}j_{n,n+1} ``
\mathcal{H}_n{>} \frown {<}k_{n+1}``H{>}.\] \end{claim}
Let $\bar{\mathcal{H}}_n = \langle {<} i_{m,n}``H{>} \mid m \leq n \rangle$.
\begin{claim} $\mathcal{H}_n = {<} k_n `` \bar{\mathcal{H}}_n{>}$. \end{claim}
This is immediate from the following. For $m \leq n$, we have \[{<}k_n ``
{<}i_{m,n}``H{>}{>} = {<}j_{m,n} `` {<}k_m `` H{>}{>}\] since $k_n \circ i_{m,n} = j_{m,n}
\circ k_m$. In particular, since $\bar{\mathcal{H}}_n$ is generic for
$i_n(\kappa^+)$-closed forcing over $N_n$ and $k_n$ has width less than
$i_n(\kappa)$, $\mathcal{H}_n$ is generic over $M_n$.
\begin{claim} $\mathcal{H}_n$ is mutually generic with $G_n$ over $M_n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Since $G_0$ and $H$ are mutually generic over $V$, we can repeat
the argument from Claim 18 of \cite{HU} to see that $\bar{\mathcal{H}}_n$ is
generic over the model $N_n[{<}i_n``G_0{>}]$. By the previous claim, ${<}j_n``G_0{>}$ and
$\mathcal{H}_n$ are mutually generic over $M_n$. By Remark
\ref{H-mutually-generic}, $\mathcal{H}_n$ is mutually generic with $G_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} $M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$ is closed under
$\kappa$-sequences. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It is enough to show that every $\kappa$-sequence of ordinals from the larger model
$M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$ is in $M_\omega[G_\omega]$. Let
$\vec{\alpha}$ be such a sequence. By construction, $\vec{\alpha} \in
V[G_0][H]$ and hence in $V[G_0]$. However, $M_\omega[G_\omega]$ is closed under
$\kappa$-sequences in $V[G_0]$, so $\vec{\alpha} \in M_\omega[G_\omega]$, as
required. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{intersection2} $\bigcap_{n<\omega}M_n[G_n][\mathcal{H}_n] =
M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{intersection1}.
First, note that the embedding $j_{n,\omega}:M_n \to M_\omega$ lifts to an elementary embedding
\[j_{n,\omega}\colon M_n[\mathcal{H}_n] \to M_\omega[{<}j_{n,\omega}``\mathcal{H}_n{>}],\] and
$M_\omega[{<}j_{n,\omega}``\mathcal{H}_n{>}] \subseteq M_{\omega}[\mathcal{H}]$.
Further, the construction of $G_\omega$ is the same whether we start in $M_n$ or
$M_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$.
It is immediate that $\bigcap_{n<\omega}M_n[G_n][\mathcal{H}_n] \supseteq
M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. For the other inclusion, we work as before
and suppose that $x \in \bigcap_{n<\omega}M_n[G_n][\mathcal{H}_n]$ is a set of
ordinals. For each $n$, we can define $x_n = \{ \gamma \mid
j_{n,\omega}(\gamma) \in x \}$. Continuing as before, but working in
$M_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$, we have that $x_n = \dot{x}_n^{G_n}$ for some name
$\dot{x}_n$.
Now as before we can transform $\dot{x}_n$ to a $j_n(\mathbb{P})$-name $\dot{x}_n^*$
with the property that for every ordinal $\alpha$, $j_{n,\omega}(\alpha) \in
j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n)^{{<}j_{n,\omega}``G_n{>}}$ if and only if it is in
$j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*)^{G_\omega}$. The only difference here is that we use
the extension of $j_{n,\omega}$ to $M_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$.
By the previous lemma, $M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$ has the sequence ${\langle}
j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*) \mid n<\omega {\rangle}$ and hence the sequence of
interpretations. So we can define $x$ as the set of $\zeta$ such that $\zeta
\in j_{n,\omega}(\dot{x}_n^*)^{G_\omega}$ for all sufficiently large $n<\omega$.
\end{proof}
Let $k_\omega:N_\omega \to M_\omega$ be the natural elementary embedding. Note
that $k_\omega$ naturally extends to an embedding between the two Prikry generic extensions,
\[k^*_\omega:N_\omega[{\langle} i_m(\kappa) \mid m < \omega{\rangle}] \longrightarrow
M_\omega[{\langle} j_m(\kappa) \mid m<\omega {\rangle}].\]
Similarly, For each $n<\omega$ we define $W_{n,\omega}$ to be the limit ultrapower obtained by starting in $M_n$ and iterating the measure $j_n(E_\kappa)$, the normal measure of $j_n(E)$. As with $N_\omega$. Denote the critical points of the iteration by $j_n(E_\kappa)$ and its images by ${\langle} \kappa^n_m {\rangle}_{m<\omega}$, and let $i^n_\omega : V \to W_{n,\omega}$ denote the composition of the finite ultrapower map $j : V \to M_n$ with the latter infinite iteration map by the normal measures.
Therefore elements $y_n \in W_{n,\omega}$ are of the form
$i^n_\omega(f)(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1},\kappa^n_0,\dots,\kappa^n_{m-1})$
for some $n,m < \omega$, $f : \kappa^{n+m} \to V$ in $V$,
and $\alpha_{\ell} \in j_{\ell}(\kappa^{++})$ for each $\ell < n$.
The structures $W_{n,\omega}$ are naturally connected via maps
$k_{n,k} : W_{n,\omega} \to W_{k,\omega}$ for $n \leq k < \omega$, given by
\[ \begin{matrix}
k_{n,k}(i^n_\omega(f)(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1},\kappa^n_0,\dots,\kappa^n_{m-1}) ) \\
= \,\, i^k_\omega(f)(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1},\kappa^k_0,\dots,\kappa^k_{m-1})
\end{matrix}
\]
It is straightforward to verify that the limit of the directed system
\[\{ W_{n,\omega}, k_{n,k} \mid n \leq k < \omega\}\] is
$M_\omega$, and the direct limit maps
$k_{n,\omega} : W_{n,\omega} \to M_\omega$, which are defined by
\[
\begin{matrix}
k_{n,k}\left( i^n_\omega(f)(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1},\kappa^n_0,\dots,\kappa^n_{m-1}) \right) & \\
\, \ = j_\omega(f)(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_{n-1}, j_{n}(\kappa), j_{n+1}(\kappa),\dots, j_{n+m-1}(\kappa))&
\end{matrix}
\]
${}$\\
naturally extend to the generic extensions by the suitable Prikry sequences
\[k^*_{n,\omega}:W_{n,\omega}[{\langle} j_m(\kappa) {\rangle}_{m<n} {\rangle} {}^\frown {\langle} i_m(j_n(\kappa)) {\rangle}_{m < \omega}] \longrightarrow M_\omega[{\langle} j_m(\kappa) {\rangle}_{m<\omega}].\]
We denote $W_{n,\omega}[{\langle} j_m(\kappa) {\rangle}_{m<n} {\rangle} {}^\frown {\langle} i_m(j_n(\kappa)) {\rangle}_{m < \omega}]$ by $W^*_{n,\omega}$, for each $n <\omega$.
Finally, we note that following implies that
$M_\omega[{\langle} j_m(\kappa) \mid m < \omega {\rangle}]$ is the direct limit of the system of Prikry generic extensions
$\{ W_{n,\omega}^*, k^*_{n,k} \mid n \leq k < \omega\}$
\begin{claim} \label{komegaH} ${<}k^*_\omega``H{>} \in M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$
is
generic for $j_\omega(\dot{\mathbb{Q}})^{{\langle} j_n(\kappa) \mid n<\omega {\rangle}}$ over
$M_\omega[{\langle} j_n(\kappa)\mid n<\omega {\rangle}]$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $D \in M_\omega[{\langle} j_n(\kappa) \mid n < \omega {\rangle}]$ be a dense open subset
of the forcing $j_\omega(\dot{\mathbb{Q}})^{{\langle} j_n(\kappa) \mid n <\omega {\rangle}}$. Then there are
$n<\omega$ and $\bar{D} \in W_{n,\omega}^*$ such that $k^*_{n,\omega}(\bar{D}) = D$.
It follows from our arguments above that $<k_n``H>$ is generic for
$k_n(\mathbb{Q}_\omega)$ over $M_n$. Now $k_{n}(\mathbb{Q}_\omega) \in W_{n,\omega}^*$ and
$\bar{D}$ is a dense subset of it. So $<k_{n}``H> \cap \bar{D}$ is nonempty. Let
$q \in H$ be such that $k_{n}(q) \in \bar{D}$.
It follows that $k^*_\omega(q) = k^*_{n,\omega}(k^*_n(q)) \in D$.
So we have shown that $<k^*_\omega``H>$ is generic over $M_\omega[{\langle} j_n(\kappa)
\mid n <\omega {\rangle}]$. It remains to show that it is a member of
$M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. Since $<k^*_\omega``H> =
<k^*_{n,\omega}``<k^*_n``H>>$, we have that $<k^*_\omega``H> \in M_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$
for all $n<\omega$. By Claim \ref{intersection2}, it follows that
$<k^*_\omega``H> \in M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. \end{proof}
To complete the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm3} we need a finer control of the
relationship between $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{P}^*$ names. To this end we make
some definitions.
\begin{definition} Let $f \in \mathbb{P}^*$, $\alpha$ be an ordinal and
$\dot{C}$ be a name for a club subset of $\kappa^+$.
We say that $f$
\emph{stably forces} $\check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$ ($f \Vdash^s \check{\alpha}
\in \dot{C}$) if every alteration of $f$ on fewer than $\kappa$ many coordinates
forces $\check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$. \end{definition}
We have the following straightforward claims.
\begin{claim} If $g \geq f$ in $\mathbb{P}^*$ and $f \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in
\dot{C}$, then $g \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$. \end{claim}
\begin{claim} If $f \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$, then for every finite
sequence $\vec{\nu}$ from some tree associated to $f$, $f \frown \vec{\nu}
\Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$. If in addition $f = f' \frown \vec{\nu}$
for some finite sequence $\vec{\nu}$, then $f' \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in
\dot{C}$. \end{claim}
We define $\dot{C}^s = \{ (\check{\alpha},f) \mid f \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in
\dot{C} \}$. Clearly it is forced that that $\dot{C}^s \subseteq \dot{C}$. It
is also straightforward to see that $\dot{C}^s$ is forced to be closed.
\begin{claim}\label{claim: unbounded stable club} $\dot{C}^s$ is forced to be unbounded in $\kappa^+$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} Fix some $f \in \mathbb{P}^*$ and $\alpha_0< \kappa^+$. Take some
sufficiently large $\theta$ and some $N \prec H_\theta$ of size $\kappa$ such
that $\mathbb{P}^*,f,\dot{C},\alpha_0 \in N$ and ${}^{<\kappa}N \subseteq N$.
Since $\mathbb{P}^*$ is $\kappa^+$-closed we can find a $(\mathbb{P}^*,N)$-generic condition
$f^* \geq f$ with $\dom(f^*) = N \cap \kappa^{++}$. Let $\alpha = \sup(N \cap
\kappa^{++})$.
Let $f'$ be any condition obtained by altering $f^*$ on a set of size less than
$\kappa$. Since ${}^{<\kappa}N \subseteq N$, the alteration is a member of $N$.
Hence a standard argument shows that $f'$ is also $(\mathbb{P}^*,N)$-generic and so $f'
\Vdash \check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}$. \end{proof}
The name $\dot{C}^s$ behaves well when translated to a $\mathbb{P}$-name. Let
\[\dot{E} = \{ (\check{\alpha},p) \mid f^p \Vdash^s \check{\alpha} \in \dot{C}
\}.\]
\begin{claim} $\dot{E}$ is forced by $\mathbb{P}$ to be a club subset
of $\kappa^+$. \end{claim}
\begin{proof}
By the arguments of Claim \ref{claim: unbounded stable club}, $\dot{E}$ is unbounded.
Let us show first that $\dot{E}$ is forces to be closed.
Let $p = {\langle} f, T{\rangle}$ be a condition that forces that $\delta$ is an accumulation point
of $\dot{E}$.
Therefore, for every $\alpha < \delta$ there are
$\vec{\nu} = {\langle} \nu_0,\dots,\nu_{n-1}{\rangle} \in T$,
$p' = {\langle} f' , T'{\rangle} \leq^* p {}^\frown \vec{\nu}$, and $\gamma < \delta$ such that
$f' \Vdash^s \gamma \in \dot{C}$. Clearly, $f'$ is a Cohen extension of $f {}^\frown \vec{\nu}$.
Denote by $f^*$ the Cohen extension of $f$ for which $f' = f^* {}^\frown \vec{\nu}$.
Since $f' \Vdash^s \gamma \in \dot{C}$, $f^* \Vdash^s \gamma \in \dot{C}$ as well. It follows that the condition $p^* = {\langle} f^*,T^*{\rangle}$, $T^* = \pi_{\dom(f^*),\dom(f)}^{-1}(T)$ is a direct extension of $p$ and forces ''$\check{\gamma} \in \dot{E}$''.
Using the fact the Cohen extension order on the function $f$ is $\kappa^+$-closed and $\cf(\delta) \leq \kappa$, we can repeat this process and construct a sequence of Cohen extensions ${\langle} f_i \mid i \leq \cf(\delta){\rangle}$ of $f$, and an increasing sequence ${\langle} \gamma_i \mid i < \cf(\delta){\rangle}$ cofinal in $\delta$, such that
$f_i \Vdash^s \check{\gamma_i} \in \dot{C}$.
Let $\bar{f} = f_{\cf(\delta)}$.
Since $\dot{C}$ is a Cohen name of a club, $\bar{f} \Vdash^s \check{\delta} \in \dot{C}$. Setting $\bar{T} = \pi_{\dom(\bar{f}),\dom(f)}^{-1}(T)$ and
$\bar{p} = {\langle} \bar{f},\bar{T}{\rangle}$, we have that $\bar{p}$ is a direct extension of $p$, and forces ``$\check{\delta} \in \dot{E}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{closed-extension} The proofs of the previous two claims
work for any name for a club $\dot{C}$ in any $\kappa^+$-closed generic
extension. \end{remark}
We are now ready to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm3}.
\begin{claim} In $M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$, every finite collection of
stationary subsets of $j_\omega(\kappa^+)$ reflects at a common point.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Let $S_i$ for $i < k$ be a sequence of stationary sets in
$M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. By Claim \ref{komegaH}, ${<}k_\omega``H{>}$ is a
club in $j_\omega(\kappa^+)$ disjoint from
$S_{j_\omega(\kappa)}^{j_\omega(\kappa^+)}$ as computed in $M_\omega$ and
${<}k_\omega``H{>} \in M_\omega[G_\omega][\mathcal{H}]$. So we can assume that each
$S_i$ concentrates on a fixed cofinality below $j_\omega(\kappa)$. For
simplicity we assume that the cofinalities of the $S_i$ are bounded below
$\kappa$.
Let $T_n^i$ be the set of $\alpha$ such that $j_{n,\omega}(\alpha) \in
S_i$. For a fixed $n<\omega$, $T_n^i$ for $i < k$ is definable in
$M_n[G_n][\mathcal{H}_n]$. By the indestructibility of stationary reflection at
$j_n(\kappa^+)$ in $M_n$, if each $T_n^i$ for $i < k$ is stationary, then they
reflect at a common point. Suppose that $\delta$ is this common reflection
point. Then there are sets $A_i\in M_n$ for $i <k$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{ot}}(A)=\cf(\delta)$
such that $A_i$ is stationary in $\delta$ and $A_i \subseteq T_n^i$. It follows
that for each $i<k$, $j_{n,\omega}(A_i) = j_{n,\omega}``A_i \subseteq S_i$ and
hence the collection of $S_i$ reflect at $j(\delta)$.
We assume for the sake of a contradiction that for each $n<\omega$ at least one
of the $T_n^i$ is nonstationary. Let $\dot{C}_n$ be a name whose interpretation
by $G_n$ and $\mathcal{H}_n$, $C_n$, is a club disjoint from some $T_n^{i_n}$.
By the arguments above and Remark \ref{closed-extension}, we can work in
$M_n[\mathcal{H}_n]$ and translate $\dot{C}_n$ to a $j_n(\mathbb{P})$-name
$\dot{E}_n$ for a club subset of $j_n(\kappa^+)$. By the construction of
$\dot{E}_n$, we have that for $\alpha < j_n(\kappa^+)$, $j_{n,\omega}(\alpha)$
is in $j_{n,\omega}(\dot{E}_n)^{G_\omega}$ if and only if it is in
$j_{n,\omega}(\dot{C}_n)^{{<}j_{n,\omega}``G_n{>}}$.
By the closure of $M_\omega[G_\omega]$ under
$\omega$-sequences, $\langle j_{n,\omega}(\dot{E}_n) \mid n<\omega \rangle$ is
in $M_\omega[G_\omega]$. Hence we can interpret it using $G_{\omega}$ and
$j_{n,\omega}``\mathcal{H}_n$. Let $D_n$ denote the resulting club. Let $i^*<k$ be such that $i^* = i_n$ for infinitely many $n$. We claim
that $\bigcap_{n<\omega}D_n$ is disjoint from $S_{i^*}$. Otherwise, we have
$j_{n,\omega}(\alpha) \in D_n \cap S_{i^*}$ for some $n$ such that $i^* = i_n$.
It follows that $\alpha \in C_n \cap T_n^{i_n}$, a contradiction. \end{proof}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Model Hamiltonian}
We describe a carbon nanotube (CNT) quantum dot in terms of a four-levels Anderson model, where the tunneling is diagonal in the Kramers basis, i.e. in the eigenbasis of the CNT. Then the Hamiltonian for the total leads-plus-CNT system reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\rm tot}=\sum_{i} \varepsilon_i(B)\hat{n_i}+U\sum_{i\neq j}\hat{n_i}\hat{n_j} +\sum_{\alpha,k,i}t_{\alpha i} \hat c^\dagger_{\alpha ik}\hat d_i +h.c. +\hat{H}_{\rm leads} , \quad i,j=1,\cdots, 4
\label{Htot}
\end{equation}
where $d_i/d^\dagger_i$ denote the dot electron operators for the $i^{th}$ state, $\hat{n_i}=d^\dagger_i d_i$ is the occupation of the $i^{th}$ state, $U$ the charging energy.
In the case of inter-Kramers splitting larger than the Kondo temperature, $\Delta > k_{\rm B}T_K$, of relevance for the experiment, the distinct contribution from the two Kramers pairs must be considered.
To properly describe this regime we set the single particle energies such that at zero magnetic field is
$\varepsilon_{1,2}=\varepsilon_d$ for the lower Kramers pair and $\varepsilon_{3,4}=\varepsilon_u=\varepsilon_d+\Delta$ for the upper pair.
Further, $c_{\alpha ik}/c^\dagger_{\alpha ik}$ denote the electron operators for the lead $\alpha$ characterized by the longitudinal wavevector $k$, and the index $i$. Finally, $t_{\alpha i }$ is the tunneling amplitude for tunneling from lead $\alpha$ in the $i^{th}$ state. The resulting tunneling couplings are $\Gamma_{{\alpha}i}= 2\pi\vert t_{\alpha i}\vert^2 D(\varepsilon_F) $. Here $D(\varepsilon_F)$ is the lead density of states at the Fermi energy. For later convenience we introduce the
normalized tunneling couplings $\gamma_{{\alpha} i}=\Gamma_{{\alpha}i}/\sum_\alpha \Gamma_{{\alpha} i}$.
We are interested in the Kondo effect in valley $N=1$ and $N=3$ of a CNT, corresponding to occupation with one electron or one hole, respectively. In this case it is sufficient to consider the limit of strong/infinite electron-electron interaction to capture the essential physics governing the Kondo effect in our system. In this limit, only virtual transitions to the empty dot state for valley $N=1$, or the fully filled shell for valley $N=3$, are included.
\section{Tunneling density of states within the Keldysh effective action theory}
The current through our four-levels Anderson model is conveniently obtained from the tunneling density of states (TDOS) $\nu_j=-\frac{1}{\pi}\mathrm{Im}G_j$ of level $j$ according to the Meir and Wingreen formula \cite{Meir1992,Meir1993,PhysRevB.49.11040}, see Eq. \eqref{current2} of the main text. Here $G_j(\varepsilon)$ is the Fourier transform of the retarded single particle Green's function $G_j(t)=-(i/\hbar)\theta(t)\langle \{c_{i}(t),c^\dagger_{i}\}\rangle$.
The differential conductance $G_{\mathrm{diff}}=\frac{d}{dV}I$ is in turn given by
\begin{align}
G_{\mathrm{diff}}&=\frac{e^2}{\hbar}\frac{d}{d(eV)}\sum_{j=1}^{4} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\varepsilon \gamma_{Lj}\gamma_{Rj}\Gamma_j\nu_j(\varepsilon)[f_L(\varepsilon)-f_R(\varepsilon)]. \label{diffgtaylor}
\end{align}
In this work the channel TDOS $\nu_j$ is evaluated along the lines of Ref. \citen{Schmid2015} using the method of the Keldysh effective action (KEA). Within the KEA, first an infinite-$U$ slave boson transformation of the total Hamiltonian Eq. (\ref{Htot}) is performed. Then a functional field integral formulation is adopted for the problem (see Ref.~\citen{kamenev_2011,altland_simons_2006} for details). The functional integral approach is convenient as it enables one to integrate out the fermionic degrees of reservoirs and dot exactly, thus leaving an effective action which only depends on the bosonic field associated to the slave-boson operator. An expansion of the tunneling action about a non-zero slave-boson field configuration enables one to obtain an analytic expression for the TDOS.
We find,
\begin{equation}
\nu_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})=\frac{1}{2\pi}
\frac{\Gamma }{[\varepsilon_j(\vec{B})-\varepsilon+\Gamma_j\text{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})]^2+[\Gamma_j\text{Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})]^2},\label{TDOS}
\end{equation}
where we explicitly
indicated that $\nu_j$ may depend on an external magnetic field $\vec{B}$. Here $\Gamma_j=\sum_\alpha\Gamma_{\alpha j}$ and $\Gamma=(1/4)\sum_j\Gamma_j$ is the average rate.
Furthermore, $\text{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})$ and $\text{Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})$ are, respectively, the real and
imaginary parts of the self-energy,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})=-\sum_\alpha\sum_{i=1}^4 \gamma_{\alpha i}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\varepsilon'}{2\pi}
\frac{ L_W(\varepsilon') f_{\alpha}(\varepsilon')}{\varepsilon'-\varepsilon + \Delta_{ji}(\vec{B})+{i}E^j_i},
\label{S_e1}
\end{equation}
with $\Delta_{ji}=\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon_i$ the energy difference between the eigenstates $j$ and $i$.
Here $L_W(\varepsilon) =\frac{W^2}{\varepsilon^2+W^2}$, with $W$ being the lead bandwidth, cures ultraviolet divergences. Finally, the functions $E_j^i$ are the product of the expansion points of the classical and quantum components of the slave-boson fields \cite{Smirnov2013}, and are a crucial ingredient of the (KEA) theory to describe the non-perturbative unitary limit of the Kondo effect. Each of the $E_j^i$ is not calculated {\em a priori}; instead, it is fixed by imposing {\em a posteriori} constraints on the channel TDOS. These are i) time-reversal and particle-hole conjugation relations which relate the TDOS component $\nu_j(\varepsilon,\vec{B})$ to its time-reversal and particle-hole related components; ii) the fulfillment of the Friedel sum rule \cite{Langreth1966} with its implications.
Such relations will be explicitly discussed in the next two sections.
\section{Self-energies for perpendicular magnetic field}
In magnetic field the single particle energy levels $\varepsilon_j$ acquire a magnetic field dependence. The splitting $\Delta (B)=\varepsilon_{4}(B)-\varepsilon_1(B):=\Delta_P$ is given explicitly in Eq. \eqref{deltaB} of the main text for the case of a perpendicular magnetic field of magnitude $B$. Then one imposes the particle-hole and time-reversal conjugation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{1,2}(\varepsilon +\Delta(B)/2 -\varepsilon_M)&=&\nu_{4,3}(\varepsilon -(\Delta(B)/2-\varepsilon_M)), \nonumber\\ \nu_{2,3}(\varepsilon,B)&=&\nu_{1,4}(\varepsilon,-B),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varepsilon_M=\sum_j\varepsilon_j/4$ is the middle of the shell. This fixes some relations among the parameters $E^j_i$ (cf. Eq. (B23) in Ref. \citen{Schmid2015}), and leaves still just a parameter ${\cal E}$ to be determined. Since in the Keldysh field integral the slave-bosonic fields $b(t)$ and $\bar{b}(t)$ are not complex conjugate of each other, the parameter ${\cal E}$ must be complex. From the above equations also the chiral conjugation relations follow:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{1,2}(\varepsilon + \Delta(B)/2-\varepsilon_M)&=&\nu_{3,4}(\varepsilon -(\Delta(-B)/2-\varepsilon_M)).
\end{eqnarray}
Using such parametrization the equation for the self-energies Eq. \eqref{S_e1} turns into
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{j }(\varepsilon,B)=\sum_\alpha \sum_{ i=T_j, C_j} 2\gamma_{\alpha i} \frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}K_\alpha (\varepsilon,\Delta_{ji }),
\label{S_e2b}
\end{equation}
where we introduced the notation $T_j$, $C_j$ for the states associated to the state $j$ by time-reversal and chiral conjugation, respectively. Further,
\begin{equation}
K_{\alpha} (\varepsilon,\Delta ) =-\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\varepsilon'}{2\pi}
\frac{f_{\alpha}(\varepsilon')L_W(\varepsilon')}{\varepsilon'-\varepsilon +\Delta +{i}{\cal E}}
= \frac{i}{4} + \frac{1}{2\pi}\Bigg[ {\rm Re}\Psi \left( \frac{1}{2} + iz_\alpha \right)-\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2} +\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} -i\frac{\mu_\alpha -\varepsilon +\Delta}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\Bigg],
\label{kappa}
\end{equation}
where $\Psi (x) $ is the digamma function and $iz_\alpha=- (i \mu_\alpha +W)/2\pi k_{\rm B} T$. Also, $\mu_\alpha=\mu_0 +eV_\alpha$, with $V_L-V_R=V$ the applied bias, are the lead electrochemical potentials.
The complex function ${\cal E}$ is now fully determined by the remaining requirements (set by the Friedel sum rule) to be fulfilled by the TDOS;
the resulting equations for $\cal{E}$ are explicitly derived in the next section.
In the limit of large cut-offs $W$ the first digamma function in Eq. \eqref{kappa} simplifies to Re$\Psi(1/2 +iz_\alpha)\approx \ln (W/2\pi k_{\rm B}T)$, which is independent of the lead index $\alpha$. From Eq. \eqref{S_e2b} we thus find for the self-energies the form,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{j }(\varepsilon,B)=\frac{1}{\pi } \sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\bigg[ \ln \left( \frac{W}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right) + \frac{i \pi}{2}- \sum_\alpha \gamma_{\alpha i}\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2} +\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} -i\frac{\mu_\alpha -\varepsilon +\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\bigg].\label{Selfeform}
\end{equation}
This is Eq. \eqref{S_e2c} of the main text.
We then find
\begin{align}
\label{reimfiniteeps}
\Gamma_j{\rm{Re}}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)&=\frac{1}{\pi }
\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\Gamma_i\bigg[ \ln \left(
\frac{W}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right) - \sum_\alpha \gamma_{\alpha i}
{\rm{Re}}
\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2} +\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} -i\frac{\mu_\alpha -\varepsilon +\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}
\right)\bigg],
\nonumber\\
\Gamma_j{\rm{Im}}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)&=\frac{1}{\pi } \sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\Gamma_i\bigg[\frac{\pi}{2}- \sum_\alpha \gamma_{\alpha i}{\rm{Im}}
\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2} +\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} -i\frac{\mu_\alpha -\varepsilon +\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)
\bigg].
\end{align}
\section{Unitary conductance conditions}
In this section we derive the equations that $\cal E$ has to satisfy in the SU(4) and SU(2)$\otimes$SU(2) cases, reached for $k_{\rm B}T_K\gg \Delta$ and $k_{\rm B}T_K \leqslant \Delta$, respectively.
Few relations involving the digamma functions listed below are required for the derivation.
\begin{align}
\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{ \cal E }}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\bigg\rvert_{T\to 0}&\approx \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ \cal E }{2\pi k_{\rm B} T }\right)+\frac{1}{24}\left(\frac{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}{\cal E}\right)^2\label{psilargezlim}\\
\implies T\frac{\partial }{\partial T}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T} \right)\bigg\rvert_{T=0}&=T\left(-\frac{d}{dT}\mathrm{ln}T+\frac{1}{24}\left(\frac{2T(2\pi k_{\rm B} )}{\cal E}\right)^2\right)\bigg\rvert_{T=0}=-1 \,.\label{ddTpsi}
\end{align}
Further, the following chain relations hold
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)&= \Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)'\left(-\frac{{\cal E} +i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T^2}\right) \,, \label{deldelTpsi}\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial\varepsilon}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T }+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)&= \Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)'\frac{i}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\nonumber\\
&=-\frac{i}{{\cal E}+i\varepsilon}T\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right) \,.\label{deldelepsi0}
\end{align}
Therefore, using Eqns.~\eqref{deldelTpsi} and~\eqref{deldelepsi0},
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\varepsilon}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i(\varepsilon -\mu_0)}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 \\T=0}}
&=\frac{i}{\cal E}
= \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi+i\mathrm{cos}\varphi}{|{\cal E}|}\,,\label{deldelepsi}
\end{align}
where we expressed ${\cal E}=\vert {\cal E}\vert e^{i\varphi}$. Similarly,
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\varepsilon^2}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B} T}+\frac{i(\varepsilon -\mu_0)}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 \\T=0}}&=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi)-i\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi)}{{|\cal E|}^2}\,.\label{del2dele2psi}
\end{align}
We are now in the position of fixing the real and imaginary parts of ${\cal E}$. To this extent
we use the Friedel sum rule \cite{Langreth1966}. For the case of symmetrically coupled leads, $\gamma_{\alpha i}=1/2$, it reads
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}_j(\mu_0)=\frac{\pi}{2}\Gamma_j\nu_j(\varepsilon_0)=\sin^2 \delta_j. \label{trans}
\end{equation} It relates the transmission per channel at the Fermi level ${\cal T}_j(\mu_0)$ to the scattering phase shift $\delta_j=\pi\langle n_j\rangle$, with $\langle n_j \rangle$ the average occupation of the level $j$. This in turn determines the zero temperature conductance through
$G_0=(e^2/h)\sum_j {\cal T}_j(\mu_0) $.
The mean occupation depends on the energy degeneracy of a given channel. For example, in the SU(4) case with four-fold degeneracy and in the valley with $N=1$ is $\langle n_j \rangle =1/4 $ for each $j=1,..,4$. As a consequence, ${\cal T}_j(\mu_0)=1/2$ and $G_0=2e^2/h$ \cite{Choi2005}. Because the maximum value the transmission can take is one, this also means that the maximum of the transmission for the SU(4) does not lie at the Fermi level, but is actually shifted from it by a shift $\kappa \approx k_{\rm B}T_K$. This shift is positive for $N=1$ and negative for $N=3$ \cite{hewson_1993}.
For the SU(2)$\otimes$SU(2) case
one needs the occupations of the lower and upper Kramers doublets $\langle n_{1,2} \rangle :=\langle n_{d} \rangle $ and $\langle n_{3,4} \rangle :=\langle n_{u} \rangle $, respectively. This yields the phase shifts
$\delta_{u,d}=\pi \langle n_{u,d} \rangle$.
When $\Delta\gg k_{\rm B}T_K$ at zero temperature only the lower Kramers doublet will be occupied,
$\langle n_{d} \rangle = 1/2 $, with the upper being empty, $\langle n_{3,4} \rangle :=\langle n_{u} \rangle = 0 $.
This yields ${\cal T}_{1,2}(\mu_0)=1$, ${\cal T}_{3,4}(\mu_0)=0$ and $G_0=2e^2/h$. As a consequence, matching the SU(2) behavior, the transmission is dominated by the lower Kramers doublet and is maximal at the Fermi level. For the intermediate case with $\Delta\approx k_{\rm B}T_K$ the situation is more complex since both Kramers doublets are occupied. For generic $\Delta$ one can express the unbalance in the occupation between the lower and upper Kramers doublet in terms of the Kramers pseudospin magnetization $\delta n$ defined by
$ \langle n_d \rangle = 1/4+ \delta n $ and $\langle n_{u} \rangle = 1/4 - \delta n $. Importantly, it still holds $\sin^2\delta_d +\sin^2\delta_u=1$,
which ensures $G_0=2e^2/h$ independent of the value of $\Delta$ \cite{Sakano2006,Mantelli2016}. On the other hand a finite polarization fixes the difference in the transmission at the Fermi level through $\sin^2\delta_d-\sin^2\delta_u=\sin(2\pi \delta n)$. The zero temperature equilibrium occupations $\langle n_{u,d}\rangle$ and hence $\delta n$ can be evaluated exactly for generic $\Delta$ through the Bethe-Ansatz method \cite{Sakano2006}. We postpone using proper Bethe-Ansatz equations for the determination of $\langle n_{u,d}\rangle$ to future analysis. Instead, here an approximation which accounts for the shifts and is appropriate for the parameter regime $\Delta > k_B T_K$ of our experiment will be discussed. \\
According to the above considerations,
\begin{itemize}
\item
First we impose that in the limit of zero temperature, zero bias, zero magnetic field and for symmetric couplings the differential conductance of the CNT quantum dot reaches the correct unitary limit $G_0=2e^2/h$. The differential conductance $G_{\mathrm{diff}}=\frac{d}{dV}I$ is given by
\eqref{diffgtaylor}.
In the symmetric case is $\gamma_{{\alpha} j}=1/2$. It thus must hold
\begin{align}
G_0=\lim_{T,V,B \to 0}G_{\mathrm{diff}}&=\frac{e^2}{\hbar} \sum_j\frac{\Gamma_j}{4}\nu_j(\varepsilon) \Bigg \rvert_{\varepsilon=\mu_0}
= \frac{2e^2}{h}
\implies\ \frac{\pi }{2}(\Gamma_d \nu_d(\mu_0)+\Gamma_u\nu_u(\mu_0)) =1, \label{TDOS cond1}
\end{align}
where we set $\nu_{1,2}=\nu_d$ and $\nu_{3,4}=\nu_u$ for the TDOS of the lower and upper Kramers doublet, respectively.
To evaluate $\nu_j(\mu_0)$ we need the self-energies in this limit.
From \eqref{Selfeform} we get
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{j }(\mu_0)=\frac{1}{\pi } \sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\bigg[ \ln \left( \frac{W}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right) + \frac{i \pi}{2}- \Psi\left( \frac{1}{2} +\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} -i\frac{\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\bigg],\label{Selfeform0}
\end{equation}
with contributions only from the chiral ($C_j$) and time-reversed ($T_j$) partners. The zero temperature channel TDOS are hence given by,
\begin{align}
\nu_d(\mu_0)&=\frac{\pi}{8\Gamma_d^2}\frac{\Gamma}{\left[\frac{(\varepsilon_d-\mu_0)\pi}{2\Gamma_d} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\vert{\cal E }+ i\Delta\vert}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}\mathclose|}\right) \right]^2+\left[ \frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+\frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi+\frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}{\varphi_{+}}\right)\right]^2}\,, \label{tdoslevelscheme1}
\end{align}
where $\varphi=\rm{Arg}\{{\cal E}\}$, and $\varphi_{+}=\rm{Arg}\{{\cal E} +i\Delta \}$. Similarly,
\begin{align}
\nu_u(\mu_0)&=\frac{\pi}{8\Gamma_u^2}\frac{\Gamma}{\left[\frac{(\varepsilon_u-\mu_0)\pi}{2\Gamma_u} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\vert{\cal E }- i\Delta\vert}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}\mathclose|}\right) \right]^2+\left[ \frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+\frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi+\frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}{\varphi_{-}}\right)\right]^2}\,, \label{tdoslevelschemeup}
\end{align}
with $\varphi_{-}=\rm{Arg}\{{\cal E} -i\Delta \}$.
\\
\item Second, we locate the peaks of the zero temperature and zero bias channel TDOS for the lower/upper Kramers channels appropriately. To this extent we introduce a parameter $\delta_j$ such that $\delta_j=\kappa_d$ if $j\in d$ and
$\delta_j = \Delta+\kappa_u$ if $j\in u$. Further, for simplicity we approximate $\kappa_d\approx \kappa_u=\kappa$, and impose the condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\nu_d}{d\varepsilon} \Bigg \rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_d\\
V=T=0}} =0,\qquad \frac{d\nu_u}{d\varepsilon} \Bigg \rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_u\\
V=T=0}} =0. \label{tdoslevelschemeup2}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Constraints for the SU(4) case}
The SU(4) case is characterized by fourfold degenerate levels, $\varepsilon_j=\varepsilon_d$, and by $\Gamma_j=\Gamma$. Hence for vanishing inter-Kramers splitting,
$\Delta=0$, one gets from Eq. (\ref{tdoslevelscheme1}) the simpler SU(4) form
\begin{align}
\nu_j(\mu_0)&=\frac{\pi}{8\Gamma}\frac{1}{\left[\frac{(\varepsilon_d-\mu_0)\pi}{2\Gamma} + \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}|}\right) \right]^2+\left[ \frac{\pi}{2}-\varphi_{}\right]^2}\,, \label{tdoslevelscheme1su4}
\end{align}
being independent of $j$. We introduce now the SU(4) Kondo temperature
$k_{\rm B}T_K =2W\text{exp} \big(\pi(\varepsilon_d-\mu_0)/2\Gamma\big)$
to find
\begin{align}
\nu_j(\mu_0)&=\frac{\pi}{8\Gamma}\frac{1}{\left[ \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_{\rm B}T_K}{2\mathopen|{\cal E}|}\right) \right]^2+\left[ \frac{\pi}{2}-\varphi\right]^2}\,. \label{tdoslevelscheme1su5}
\end{align}
Thus, according to Eq. (\ref{TDOS cond1}), one finds the first condition on ${\cal E}$ for the SU(4) case
\begin{equation}
\label{su4cond1k}
\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\mathopen|{\cal E}|}{2k_{\rm B}T_K}\right)^2+\left[ \frac{\pi}{2}-\varphi\right]^2=\frac{\pi^2}{8}\;.
\end{equation}
For the second condition we impose that $\nu_j(\varepsilon)$ has a peak at $\mu_0 +\kappa$ and notice that $\nu_j$ is independent of $j$ in the SU(4) case.
From the vanishing of the numerator $N$ of the derivative of $\nu_j$ it follows
\begin{align}
N & = 2\left[(\varepsilon_d-\varepsilon)+\Gamma\mathrm{Re}\Sigma(\varepsilon)\right] \left(-1+\Gamma\frac{d \mathrm{Re}\Sigma}{d\varepsilon} \right)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 +\kappa\\ V=0\\T=0}} + 2\left[ \Gamma \mathrm{Im} \Sigma\right]\left(\Gamma\frac{d{\rm Im}\Sigma(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\right)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 +\kappa\\ V=0\\T=0}} =0.\nonumber\\
\end{align}
Hence, on using
${\cal E}+i\kappa =\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa \mathclose|\exp\{i\varphi(\kappa)\}$, we find
\begin{align}
\left[-\frac{\kappa\pi}{2\Gamma}-\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa\mathclose|}{k_{\rm B}T_K}\right)\right]\left(\frac{\pi\mathopen|{\cal E} +i\kappa\mathclose|}{\Gamma}+2\mathrm{sin}\varphi (\kappa)\right)+\left(\frac{\pi}{2}-\varphi (\kappa)\right)2\mathrm{cos}\varphi(\kappa)=0.\label{su4cond2k}
\end{align}
In summary, \eqref{su4cond1k} and~\eqref{su4cond2k} together with the SU(4) shift $\kappa\approx k_{\rm B}T_K$ determine the value ${\cal E}/k_{\rm B}T_K$. These equations are universal. In contrast, the explicit value of $T_K$ depends on microscopic details, like the actual values of $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d$ and $\Gamma$. \\
\subsection{Constraints for the SU(2)$\otimes$SU(2) case}
In the case of finite inter-Kramers splitting $\Delta > k_{\rm B}T_K$, of relevance for the experiment, the distinct contribution from the two Kramers pairs must be considered.
The Kondo temperature $T_K(\Delta)$ depends on $\Delta$ and one recovers the SU(4) one for vanishing splitting and equal couplings $\Gamma_j=\Gamma$.
Further, $T_K(\Delta)$ decreases towards its smaller SU(2) value as $\Delta $ increases \cite{Mantelli2016}.
In the SU(2)$\otimes$SU(2) regime the conditions on $\cal E$ are found along the lines followed for the degenerate SU(4) case.
On the one hand the unitary condition (\refeq{TDOS cond1}) is imposed, with $\nu_d$ and $\nu_u$ given by Eqs. (\ref{tdoslevelscheme1}) and (\ref{tdoslevelschemeup}), respectively. Further, as discussed above,
a finite $\Delta$ requires in principle two distinct shifts $\kappa_u $ and $\kappa_d$ associated to the upper and lower Kramers pair, respectively \cite{Sakano2006}.
In the following we explicitly derive the constraints imposed by Eq. \eqref{tdoslevelschemeup2}.
Explicitly,
\begin{align}
&\frac{d\nu_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}=\left(\frac{-\Gamma}{2\pi}\right)\frac{\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\left\lbrace\left[\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon+\Gamma_j\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2+\left[\Gamma_j{\rm Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2\right\rbrace}{\left\lbrace\left[\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon+\Gamma_j\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2+\left[\Gamma_j{\rm Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2\right\rbrace^2}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\frac{-2\Gamma}{2\pi}\right)\left(\frac{\pi^2}{4\Gamma_j^2}\right)^2\frac{\left[\left(-1+\Gamma_j\frac{d\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\right)\left(\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon+\Gamma_j\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right)+\left(\Gamma_j\frac{d{\rm Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\right)\left(\Gamma_j{\rm Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right)\right]\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}}{\left\lbrace \left[\left(\frac{\varepsilon_j-\mu_0-\delta_j}{2\Gamma_j}\right)\pi+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j\mathclose|}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j- i\Delta_{j,C_j}\mathclose|}\right) \right]^2 + \left[\frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi+
\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j} \frac{\varphi_{j,C_j}}{2}\right)\right]^2 \right\rbrace^2}.\nonumber\\
\end{align}
It is convenient to introduce the abbreviations
\begin{align}
a_j(\mu_0+\delta_j)&=\frac{\pi}{2\Gamma_j}\left[\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon+\Gamma_j\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=T=0}}=\left(\frac{\varepsilon_j-\mu_0-\delta_j}{2\Gamma_j}\right)\pi+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j\mathclose|}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j- i\Delta_{j,C_j}\mathclose|}\right) ,\nonumber\\
b_j(\mu_0+\delta_j)&=\frac{\pi}{2\Gamma_j}\Gamma_j{\rm Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=T=0}}=
\frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi+
\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j} \varphi_{j,C_j}\right).
\end{align}
This yields the compact expression
\begin{align}
\frac{d\nu_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j \\ V=0\\T=0}}&=-\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_j}\left(\frac{\pi}{2\Gamma_j}\right)^2\frac{1}{\left(a_j^2(\mu_0+\delta_j)+b_j^2(\mu_0+\delta_j)^2\right)^2}
\nonumber\\&
\times \left[a_j (\mu_0+\delta_j)
\left(-1+\Gamma_j\frac{d\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon} \Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 +\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}\right) + b_j(\mu_0+\delta_j)\left(\Gamma_j\frac{d\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j \\ V=0\\T=0}} \right)\right].
\end{align}
The derivative of Re$\Sigma$ is found along the same lines followed for Eq.~\eqref{deldelepsi},
\begin{align}
\frac{d\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}&=\frac{-1}{\pi}\left[\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+
\frac{{\cal{E}}-i(\mu_0-\varepsilon)}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right)+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal{E}}-i(\mu_0-\varepsilon +\Delta_{j,C_j})}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right) \right]\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0+\delta_j \\T=0}}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{-1}{\pi}\left[ \frac{i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi(\delta_j))+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi(\delta_j))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\frac{i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi_{j,C_j})+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi_{j,C_j})}{\mathopen|{\cal{E}}+i\delta_j-i\Delta_{j,C_j}\mathclose|} \right].
\end{align}
Notice that here is $\varphi_{j,C_j}=\varphi_{j,C_j}(\delta_j)$. Consequently,
\begin{align}
\frac{d\nu_j(\varepsilon)}{d\varepsilon}\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_0 +\delta_j\\ V=0\\T=0}}&=\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_j}\frac{\pi}{4\Gamma_j}\left(\frac{1}{a_j^2(\mu_0+\delta_j)+
b_j^2(\mu_0+\delta_j)}\right)^2\nonumber\\
&\times\left[a_j\left(\frac{\pi}{\Gamma_j} +\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi (\kappa_j))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi_{j,C_j})}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j-i\Delta_{j,C_j}\mathclose|} \right)+b_j\left( \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi (\delta_j))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{C_j}}{\Gamma_j}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi_{j,C_j})}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\delta_j-i\Delta_{j,C_j}\mathclose|} \right)\right]. \label{derivTDOSsu4}
\end{align}
Finally, the peak of each TDOS is set appropriately according to Eq. (\refeq{tdoslevelschemeup2}).
Using now $\delta_{1,2}=\delta_d=\kappa$, $\delta_{3,4}=\delta_u=\Delta+\kappa$ we get the final conditions
\begin{align}
&a_d(\mu_0+\kappa)\underbrace{\left(\frac{\pi}{\Gamma_d} +\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi (\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{u}}{\Gamma_d}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi_{+}(\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa+i\Delta\mathclose|} \right)}_{\lambda_d (\kappa)}
+b_d(\mu_0+\kappa)\underbrace{\left( \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi (\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{u}}{\Gamma_d}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi_{+}(\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa+i\Delta\mathclose|} \right)}_{\omega_d(\kappa)} =0\nonumber\\
&a_u(\mu_0+\Delta+\kappa)\underbrace{\left(\frac{\pi}{\Gamma_u} +\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi_+ (\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\Delta+i\kappa\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{d}}{\Gamma_u}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi(\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa\mathclose|} \right)}_{\lambda_u (\kappa)}
+b_u(\mu_0+\Delta+\kappa)\underbrace{\left( \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi_+ (\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\Delta+i\kappa\mathclose|}+\frac{\Gamma_{d}}{\Gamma_u}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\varphi(\kappa))}{\mathopen|{\cal E}+i\kappa\mathclose|} \right)}_{\omega_u(\kappa_u)}=0. \label{derivTDOSsu2}
\end{align}
Here we used $\Delta_{j,C_j}=\pm\Delta$ for $j\in u/d$, the upper/lower Kramers pair, and we introduced
$\varphi_{+}(\kappa)={\rm Arg}({\cal E}+ i\Delta+i\kappa)$.
The three equations \eqref{TDOS cond1} and the pair given by \eqref{derivTDOSsu2} are solved to yield Re${\cal E}$, Im${\cal E}$ and $\kappa$.
\section{Low bias expansion of the differential conductance}
To analyze the effect of the asymmetries on the low-bias behavior, a Taylor expansion of the differential conductance in the applied bias difference $eV$ is sought:
\begin{align}
G_{\mathrm{diff}}(eV)&=G_0+ G_1(eV) +\ldots \label{diffgtaylorform}
\end{align}
where $G_{\mathrm{diff}}=e\frac{d}{d(eV)}I$ is given by Eq. \eqref{diffgtaylor}.
The presence of a term linear in the applied bias signifies an asymmetric response.
Along the lines of the previous section, we introduce the coefficients
\begin{align}
a_j(\varepsilon,T,eV) &=\frac{\pi(\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon)}{2\Gamma_j}+
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=C_j,T_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}
\left[
\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{2\pi k_BT}\right)-\sum_{\alpha=L,R}\gamma_{\alpha i}\mathrm{Re}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_BT}-\frac{i(\mu_\alpha-\varepsilon+\Delta_{ji})}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\right] , \label{genb1xsu2su2}\\
b_j(\varepsilon,T,eV)&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=C_j,T_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}
\left[\frac{\pi}{2}-\sum_{\alpha=L,R}\sum_{i=C_j,T_j}\gamma_{\alpha i}\mathrm{Im}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cal E}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i(\mu_\alpha-\varepsilon+\Delta_{ji})}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \right)\right], \label{genb2xsu2su2}
\end{align}
which permits one to write the channel TDOS in the compact form
\begin{align}
\nu_j(\varepsilon)&=
\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_j}\frac{\pi}{8\Gamma_j}\frac{1}{a_j^2(\varepsilon)+b_j^2(\varepsilon)}\label{tdosb1b2su2su2}.
\end{align}
Introducing
$g(\varepsilon)=\sum_j\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_j}\frac{\gamma_{Lj}\gamma_{Rj}}{a_j^2(\varepsilon)+b^2_j(\varepsilon)}$, we get the convenient expression
\begin{align}
G_{\mathrm{diff}}&=\frac{e^2}{\hbar}\frac{\pi}{8}\frac{d}{d(eV)}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon) [f_L(\varepsilon)-f_R(\varepsilon)].\label{diffgtaylorsu2su2sn}
\end{align}
The low bias expansion of the zero temperature differential conductance is thus,
\begin{align}
G_{\mathrm{diff}}&=\frac{e^2}{\hbar}
\frac{\pi}{8}\frac{d}{d(eV)}\int_{\mu_R}^{\mu_L}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon,T,eV) \nonumber\\
&=\frac{e^2 }{\hbar}\frac{\pi}{8}\Bigg[\frac{d}{d(eV)}\int_{\mu_R}^{\mu_L}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=0\\T=0}}+\frac{d^2}{d(eV)^2}\int_{\mu_R}^{\mu_L}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=0\\T=0}}(eV)+\ldots\Bigg],\label{diffgtaylorsu2su2s}
\end{align}
where the temperature and bias dependence of the function $g$ has been expressed explicitly.
\subsection{The linear conductance $G_0$ }
Recalling $\mu_L=\mu_0+\eta eV$ and $\mu_R=\mu_0-(1-\eta)eV$ it follows from Eq. \eqref{diffgtaylorsu2su2s}
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{d(eV)}\int_{\mu_0-(1-\eta)eV}^{\mu_0+\eta eV}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V =0\\T=0}}&=\left[g(\mu_0+\eta eV,T,eV)\eta + g(\mu_0-(1-\eta)eV,T,eV)(1-\eta) \right]\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V =0\\T=0}}\nonumber\\
&+\int_{\mu_0-(1-\eta)eV}^{\mu_0+\eta eV}d\varepsilon\frac{\partial g}{\partial (eV)}(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V =0\\T=0}}
=g(\mu_0,0,0).\label{zeroordint1}
\end{align}
This yields $G_0=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{\pi^2}{4}g(\mu_0,0,0)$.
We use the zero bias forms of the coefficients $a_j$ and $b_j$, cf. Eqs. (\ref{genb1xsu2su2}) and (\ref{genb2xsu2su2}), as well as the unitarity condition \eqref{TDOS cond1} found in the previous section. Then it follows for an SU(2)$\otimes$SU(2) symmetric dot with
lead coupling obeying $\gamma_{L1}=\gamma_{L2}=\gamma_{L{\rm d}}$ and $\gamma_{L3}=\gamma_{L4}=\gamma_{L{\rm u}}$,
\begin{align}
G_0&=\frac{2e^2}{h}\frac{\pi^2}{4}\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_d}
\frac{ \gamma_{L{\rm d}}
\gamma_{R{\rm d}} }{\big[\frac{(\varepsilon_d-\mu_0)\pi}{2\Gamma_d}+\frac{1}{2}\big(\mathrm{ln}\big(\frac{W}{|{\cal E}|}\big)
+ \frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}\mathrm{ln}\big(\frac{W}{| {\cal E}+i{\Delta}|}\big)\big)\big]^2
+ \big[\frac{\pi}{4}\big(1+\frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}\big)-\frac{1}{2}\big(\varphi+\frac{\Gamma_u}{\Gamma_d}\varphi_{+
}\big) \big]^2} \nonumber\\
&+\frac{2e^2}{h}\frac{\pi^2}{4}\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_u}
\frac{ \gamma_{L{\rm u}}
\gamma_{R{\rm u}}
}{\big[\frac{(\varepsilon_u-\mu_0)\pi}{2\Gamma_u}+\frac{1}{2}\big(\mathrm{ln}\big(\frac{W}{|{\cal E}|}\big)
+ \frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}\mathrm{ln}\big(\frac{W}{| {\cal E}-i{\Delta}|}\big)\big)\big]^2
+ \big[\frac{\pi}{4}\big(1+\frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}\big)-\frac{1}{2}\big(\varphi+\frac{\Gamma_d}{\Gamma_u}\varphi_{-
}\big) \big]^2
}
\end{align}
regardless of bias asymmetry.
Using the unitary condition \eqref{TDOS cond1} this simplifies to
\begin{align}
G_0&=\frac{2e^2}{h}
4( \gamma_{L{\rm u}}\gamma_{R{\rm u}} - \gamma_{L{\rm d}}
\gamma_{R{\rm d} })\frac{\pi}{2}\Gamma_u\nu_u (\mu_0)
+ \frac{2e^2}{h} 4\gamma_{L{\rm d}}
\gamma_{R{\rm d}}.
\end{align}
Notice that for the case of symmetric couplings, $\gamma_{\alpha i}=1/2$ the value $G_0=2e^2/h$ is recovered.
Further, for large values of $\Delta$ the upper channel TDOS vanishes and hence $G_0\to \frac{2e^2}{h} 4\gamma_{L{\rm d}} \gamma_{R{\rm d}}$.
\subsection{The first order coefficient $G_1$ }
We proceed with the evaluation of the coefficient $G_1$ in the expansion of the differential conductance $G_{\rm diff}$.
From \eqref{diffgtaylorsu2su2s} we need
\begin{align}
&\frac{d^2}{d(eV)^2}\int_{\mu_0-(1-\eta)eV}^{\mu_0+\eta eV}d\varepsilon g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V =0\\T=0}}=\Bigg\lbrace\underbrace{\left[\eta\frac{d}{d(eV)}g(\mu_L,T,eV) + (1-\eta)\frac{d}{d(eV)}g(\mu_R,T,eV) \right]}_{A} \nonumber\\
&+\underbrace{\bigg[\eta\frac{\partial }{\partial (eV)}g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\varepsilon=\mu_L} + (1-\eta)\frac{\partial }{\partial (eV)}g(\varepsilon,T, eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\varepsilon=\mu_R} \bigg]}_{B} +\underbrace{\int_{\mu_R}^{\mu_L}d\varepsilon\frac{\partial^2g}{\partial (eV)^2}(\varepsilon,T,eV)}_{C}
\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=0\\T=0}}. \label{no2expanda}
\end{align}
The term $C$ vanishes in the limit $V=0$. For the remaining terms we introduce the voltage asymmetries $\eta_L=\eta$ and $\eta_R=-1+\eta$. Further, we assign to the lead $\alpha$ the values $\alpha=L/R=\pm 1$. Then we get the compact forms
\begin{align}
A=\sum_\alpha \alpha \eta_\alpha \frac{d}{d(eV)} g(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=0\\T=0}}, \qquad B=\sum_\alpha \alpha \eta_\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial(eV)} g(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_\alpha\\V=T=0}}.
\label{a+b}
\end{align}
We start by evaluating the term $A$, which involves total derivatives with respect to the bias voltage of the kind
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{d(eV)}\frac{1}{a_j^2(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)+b_j^2(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)}&=-2\frac{a_j\frac{d}{d(eV)}a_j(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)+b_j\frac{d}{d(eV)}b_j(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)}{\bigg( a_j^2(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)+b_j^2(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)\bigg)^2} , \label{dgdev}
\end{align}
Using relation \eqref{deldelepsi0} in the form
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{d(eV)}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}- i{\Delta_{ji}}}{2\pi k_B T}+i\frac{\mu_\alpha -\mu_\beta }{2\pi k_BT} \right)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=0\\T=0}}
=i\frac{\eta_\alpha-\eta_\beta}{{\cal E} -i\Delta_{ji} },
\end{align}
we find
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{d(eV)}a_j(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=T=0}}&=
-\frac{\pi}{2\Gamma_j}\eta_\alpha -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\sum_\beta\gamma_{{\beta} i}
\frac{\eta_\alpha -\eta_\beta}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \sin \varphi_{ji},\nonumber\\
\frac{d}{d(eV)}b_j(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{V=T=0}}&=
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\sum_\beta\gamma_{{\beta} i}
\frac{\eta_\alpha -\eta_\beta}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \cos \varphi_{ji}.
\label{dadev}
\end{align}
Similarly, for the partial derivatives involved in the $B$ term we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial(eV)}a_j(\varepsilon,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_\alpha\\V=T=0}}&=
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\sum_\beta\gamma_{{\beta} i}
\frac{ (-\eta_\beta)}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \sin \varphi_{ji},\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial(eV)}b_j(\mu_\alpha,T,eV)\Bigg\rvert_{\substack{\varepsilon=\mu_\alpha\\V=T=0}}&=
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}\sum_\beta\gamma_{{\beta} i}
\frac{(-\eta_\beta)}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \cos \varphi_{ji}.
\label{partialdadev}
\end{align}
Notice that the above derivatives were calculated at zero bias and do not involve the shift $\kappa$.
On using the relation
\begin{align}
D_i&\equiv\sum_\alpha \alpha\eta_\alpha \sum_\beta \gamma_{\beta i}(\eta_\alpha-2\eta_\beta)=-\sum_\beta \beta \gamma_{\beta i} =\gamma_{{\rm R}i}-\gamma_{{\rm L}i} , \label{Diff}
\end{align}
we then obtain from Eqs. \eqref{a+b} together with \eqref{dadev} and \eqref{partialdadev},
\begin{align}
A+B&= \sum_j\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_j}\gamma_{{\rm L}j}\gamma_{{\rm R}j}
\frac{(-2)}{\bigg( a_j^2(\mu_0,0,0)+b_j^2(\mu_0,0,0)\bigg)^2} \nonumber\\
\times &
\Big\{a_j(\mu_0,0,0)\Big[-\frac{\pi}{2\Gamma_j}\sum_\alpha\eta_\alpha -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}
\frac{D_i}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \sin \varphi_{ji}
\Big]+b_j(\mu_0,0,0)\Big[ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ i=T_j, C_j}\frac{\Gamma_i}{\Gamma_j}
\frac{D_i}{\vert {\cal E}-i{\Delta_{ji}}\vert} \cos \varphi_{ji}
\Big]\Big\}, \label{a+bcompact}
\end{align}
from which $G_1=\frac{e^2}{\hbar}\frac{\pi}{8}(A+B)$ immediately follows.
The contribution proportional to
$a_j(\pi/2\Gamma_j)\sum_\alpha\eta_\alpha$ is usually neglected in the Kondo regime. As a result, $G_1$ becomes independent of the bias asymmetries $\eta_\alpha$. Further, since $D_i=0$ in a symmetric set up with $\gamma_{\beta i}=1/2$, a non vanishing linear term $G_1$ requires that at least one $\gamma_{{\rm L} i}\neq \gamma_{{\rm R}i}$.
With the aim of revealing some key behaviours for $\Delta \gg k_{\rm B}T_K$ in the crossover regime, we use that $a_d\ll a_u$ for large $\Delta$. Then, we can approximate
\begin{align}
G_1&=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{\pi}{4}
\frac{\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_d}\gamma_{{\rm L}d}\gamma_{{\rm R}d}}{\big[ a_d^2(\mu_0,0,0)+b_d^2(\mu_0,0,0)\big]^2}
\bigg[(\gamma_{Rd}-\gamma_{Ld})\bigg(a_d(\mu_0,0,0)\frac{\sin \varphi}{\vert {\cal E}\vert}+b_d(\mu_0,0,0)\frac{\cos \varphi}{\vert {\cal E}\vert}\bigg)\nonumber\\&+(\gamma_{Lu}-\gamma_{Ru})\bigg(a_d(\mu_0,0,0)\frac{\frac{\Gamma_{u}}{\Gamma_d}\cos \varphi_{+}}{\vert {\cal E}+i\Delta\vert}+b_d(\mu_0,0,0)\frac{\frac{\Gamma_{u}}{\Gamma_d}\cos \varphi_{+}}{\vert {\cal E}+i\Delta\vert}\bigg)\bigg]+\mathcal{O}\left((k_{\rm{B}}T_K/\Delta)^4\right).
\end{align}
Finally we turn to the SU(4) case, characterized by $\Delta=0$, $\Gamma_j=\Gamma$,
$a_j(\mu_0,0,0)=a$, $b_j(\mu_0,0,0)=b$, and $\gamma_{\alpha i}=\gamma_\alpha$. Then
Eq. \eqref{a+bcompact} yields (upon neglecting the term proportional to $a/\Gamma$)
\begin{align}
G_1=&\frac{2e^2}{h}
\frac{\pi^2\gamma_{L}\gamma_{R}\big( \gamma_{R}-\gamma_{L}\big)}{\Big(a^2(\mu_0,0,0))+b^2(\mu_0,0,0)\Big)^2}
\Bigg[-\mathrm{ln}\Big(\frac{2\vert{\cal E}\vert}{k_BT_K}\Big)
\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi}{\vert{\cal E}\vert}\right)+ \left(\frac{\pi}{2}-\varphi\right) \left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi}{\vert {\cal E}\vert}\right)\Bigg]. \label{linordsu4}
\end{align}
Comparing the term in the bracket with the expression ~\eqref{su4cond2k}, accounting for the shift $\kappa$ of the location of the TDOS maximum from the energy $\mu_0$, we see that the two coincide if the shift $\kappa$ is neglected. Thus, as a consequence of \eqref{su4cond2k}, the term $G_1$ would vanish if the SU(4) shift $\kappa$ is neglected.
Lastly, the SU(2) case has no linear term irrespective of the asymmetries. Hence the zero-bias peak does not shift at all. The conclusions of our theory match that of Ref. \citen{PhysRevB.80.155322}. \\
\section{Kondo transitions: TDOS and self-energy signatures}\label{Kondotrans}
In this section we shortly review the mechanism leading to Kondo resonances.
\subsection{Self-energy resonances}
Since for the model considered in this work each channel $j$ contributes independently to the current, it is sufficient to analyze the current per channel
\begin{equation}
I_j = \frac{e}{\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\Gamma_{L,j} \Gamma_{R,j}}{\Gamma_{L,j}+\Gamma_{R,j}}\nu_j(\varepsilon)(f_L(\varepsilon)-f_R(\varepsilon))d\varepsilon \;. \label{currentformula}
\end{equation}
Resonant features of the differential conductance $G_\mathrm{diff}=\sum_j\frac{dI_j}{dV}$ are thus related to resonant features of the associated channel TDOS. From~\eqref{TDOS}, the denominator of the channel TDOS $\nu_j(\varepsilon)$ bears the form,
\begin{align}
\left[(\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon)+\Gamma\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2+\left[\Gamma\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right]^2. \label{tdosden}
\end{align}
Thus, resonances are associated to values of the parameter $\varepsilon$ which minimize the denominator \eqref{tdosden}. Further, these values have to lie in the energy window set by the difference of Fermi functions in \eqref{currentformula}. Hence, in the sequential tunneling regime where
$\varepsilon_j$ lies in the transport window (e.g. $\mu_L>\varepsilon_j>\mu_R$ for $eV>0$), the
TDOS has a peak at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_j$, i.e. at the charge transfer peak. In the off-resonant regime, $\mu_L, \mu_R \gg \varepsilon_j$, the nature and number of resonances crucially depends on the energy dependence of the self-energy $\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)$, and in turn, according
to \eqref{Selfeform}, on the energy dependence of digamma functions of the form $\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT} + i\frac{(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)}{2\pi k_BT}\right)$ \cite{Smirnov2011a}.
Such a behavior is shown in in Fig. \ref{digammabehav}.
The real part of the digamma function has a dip at $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_0 -{\rm Im }{\cal E}$, and correspondingly the imaginary part has a change of $\pi$. We refer to these features henceforth as "resonant features".
%
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS1.pdf}
\caption{Mechanism of resonances in the TDOS. Resonances in the Kondo regime are related to the low temperature behavior of the constituent digamma functions in the self-energies. These occur at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_0 -{\rm Im}{\cal E}$, where the real part has a dip while the imaginary part has a phase change of $\pi$.
The resonance features are sharp for small ${\cal E}/2\pi k_{\rm B}T$. For the simulation we choose $\varepsilon_0/2\pi k_{\rm B}T=1$, corresponding to the location of the vertical dashed line in panels (a) and (b). }
\label{digammabehav}
\end{figure}
The sharpness of the peak and the abruptness of the sudden drop depend on the temperature $k_{\rm B}T$ as well as on the magnitude of ${\cal E}$. For $T\to 0$, from Eq. \eqref{psilargezlim}, a constituent digamma function in the self-energy Eq. \eqref{Selfeform} is found to have the form,
\begin{align}
\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT} + i\frac{(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)}{2\pi k_BT}\right)\xrightarrow{T\to 0}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\vert{\cal E}+ i(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)\vert}{2\pi k_BT}\right)+i\underbrace{\mathrm{atan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}({\cal E}+ (\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0))}{\mathrm{Re}({\cal E})}\right)}_{\xrightarrow{\mathrm{Re}{\cal E}\to 0}\mathrm{sign}(\varepsilon-(\varepsilon_0+\mathrm{Im}{\cal E}))\frac{\pi}{2}}\label{digambeh}
\end{align}
which has a logarithmic dip in its real part at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_0-\mathrm{Im}{\cal E}$, where the argument $\vert{\cal E}+i(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)\vert$ is the smallest, and a corresponding rise of $\pi$ in its imaginary part. Additionally, at the tip of the dip, the real part assumes the value $\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT}\right)$, while the width of the resonant feature is of the order of $\mathrm{Re}{\cal E}$. Consequently, from Eqns. \eqref{Selfeform} and \eqref{digambeh}, it is clear that the real part of the self-energy exhibits a peak while the imaginary part has a sudden drop, leading to a Kondo peak in the TDOS. Further, a stronger peak in the real part and correspondingly, a sharper and/or larger drop in the imaginary part of the self-energies (i.e. stronger resonant feature), arising from a larger value of $\mathrm{Re}{\cal E}$, leads to a stronger peak in the TDOS. Clearly, the strength of the Kondo resonances depend strongly on $\mathrm{Re}{\cal E}$ while the location is slightly renormalized by $\mathrm{Im}{\cal E}$.
\subsection{$P-$transitions}
From the above discussion and \eqref{Selfeform} it follows that the digamma functions, and thus the associated self-energies, display Kondo resonances anytime $\varepsilon\approx \mu_\alpha+\Delta_{ji}$. This denotes a Kondo transition process between the levels $j\leftrightarrow i$ mediated by the lead $\alpha$.
In particular, as discussed in the main text, the resonances of the self-energy $\Sigma_2$ at $\varepsilon=\mu_R + \Delta_{21}$ and $ \varepsilon=\mu_L + \Delta_{24}$ merge in a single resonance when the bias drop $eV$ is such that $\mu_L-\mu_R=\Delta_{42} + \Delta_{21}= \Delta_{41}=\Delta_P$. Likewise for the self-energy $\Sigma_3$. This effect was shown in Fig. 4 of the main text for the case of occupation $N=1$. This behavior together with the one for occupation $N=3$ is shown in \ref{tcconc} for the same parameter set.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\renewcommand{\thesubfigure}{\Roman{subfigure}}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS2a.pdf}
\caption{\centering N=1}
\label{tcconcn1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS2b.pdf}
\caption{\centering N=3}
\label{tcconcn3}
\end{subfigure}
\renewcommand{\thesubfigure}{\arabic{subfigure}}
\caption{TDOS signatures of the $P$-resonance. Channel density of states $\nu_j$, (a)-(d), and self-energy $\Sigma_2$ (e), (f), evaluated at bias drops around the energy $\Delta_P$ of the $P$-resonance, for the case $N=1$, and $N=3$ case. The gray stripe indicates the integration range set by the lead chemical potentials. At $eV=\Delta_P$ the channel density of states $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$ are maximal. This is due to a resonance of the associated self-energy, as illustrated in (e), (f) on the example of $\Sigma_2$. The magnetic field is $B=8.05$~T, and we set $\Gamma_u=\Gamma_d=\Gamma$. }
\label{tcconc}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{tcconc}, the channel tunneling density of states $\nu_j$ and the self-energy $\Sigma_2$ of the level two are shown. Similar to the $N=1$ case, the tunneling density of states $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$ show a peak when the applied bias drop matches the energy $\Delta_P$ associated with the $P$-transition.
\subsection{Effect of tunneling coupling asymmetries}
\label{Kondoasymm}
From the above discussion it is clear that the condition for a $P$-resonance, $eV=\Delta_P$, is independent of the bias asymmetry $\eta$ as well of the coupling asymmetries. However, the magnitude of the resonance, and hence whether the resonance is visible or not, is ruled also by asymmetries. For this we start looking at the role coupling asymmetries play in the magnitude of the drop of Im$\Sigma_2$ and Im$\Sigma_3$ at a $P$-transition.
For clarity, let us consider the behavior of the self-energy $\Sigma_2$. Further, we consider for simplicity the situation in which $\Gamma_u=\Gamma_d=\Gamma$.
From \eqref{Selfeform}, we have that
\begin{align}
&\Sigma_2(\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{\pi}\Bigg[2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right)+2i\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma_{L{\rm u}}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\mu_L}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\Delta_{2,C_2}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right)\nonumber \\&-\gamma_{R{\rm u}}\Psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\mu_R}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\Delta_{2,C_2}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right)-\gamma_{L{\rm d}}\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\mu_L}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\Delta_{2,T_2}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right)\\&-\gamma_{R{\rm d}}\Psi\left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\mu_R}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}+\frac{i\varepsilon}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}-\frac{i\Delta_{2,T_2}}{2\pi k_{\rm B}T}\right) \Bigg].\nonumber
\end{align}
From the behavior of the digamma function as shown in Fig.~\ref{digammabehav}, it is clear that for very large negative values of $\varepsilon$ is Im$\Sigma_2(\varepsilon)=2$, see Fig.~\ref{tcconc}. In fact, at zero temperature we have,
\begin{align}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to-\infty}\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_2(\varepsilon)&=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{\alpha=L,R}\Big[\frac{\pi}{2}+\gamma_{\alpha {\rm u}}\frac{\pi}{2}+\gamma_{\alpha {\rm d}}\frac{\pi}{2} \Big]=\frac{1}{\pi}\Big[2\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{2}\Big]=2.
\end{align}
At finite energies, there are four parameter configurations for which the self-energy shows resonant features. Namely,
drops in $\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_{2}$ are found at: $\varepsilon=\mu_R+\Delta_{2,C_2}$, $\mu_R+\Delta_{2,T_2}$, $\mu_L+\Delta_{2,C_2}$ and $\mu_L+\Delta_{2,T_2}$. Note that, for $\mu_L-\mu_R=\Delta_P$, regardless of the asymmetries, $\mu_L+\Delta_{2,C_2}=\mu_R+\Delta_{2,T_2}$, which is fundamental to the $P-$transitions.
The first resonant feature is located at $\varepsilon=\mu_R+\Delta_{2,C_2}$ for $eV>0$. We get
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_2(\varepsilon, 1st\text{ resonant feature crossed})&=2-\gamma_{R{\rm u}}=1+\gamma_{L{\rm u}}. \label{imsig21}
\end{align}
Similarly, after crossing three resonant features, barring the one located at the highest energy,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_2(\varepsilon, 3rd
\text{ resonant features crossed})&=1-\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma_{R{\rm u}}+\gamma_{R{\rm d}}+\gamma_{L{\rm u}} -\gamma_{L {\rm d}}\right)=\gamma_{L{\rm d}}. \label{imsig23}
\end{align}
Therefore, when the resonant features corresponding to the $T$- and $C$-transitions merge, the height of the drop in Im$\Sigma_2(\varepsilon)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_2(\varepsilon, eV=\Delta_P)&=1+\gamma_{L{\rm u}}-\gamma_{L{\rm d}}.
\end{align}
Clearly, this is directly dependent on the coupling asymmetry factors. Eqns.~\eqref{imsig21} and~\eqref{imsig23} may be verified by comparing with Fig.~\ref{tcconc}(f). Further, when the upper Kramers pair is more strongly coupled to the left lead than the lower Kramers pair, i.e., $\gamma_{L{\rm{u}}}>\gamma_{L{\rm d}}$, then $\Delta\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_2(\varepsilon, eV=\Delta_P)$ increases implying a stronger resonant feature. Consequently, from the discussion in Sec.~\ref{Kondotrans}, it is concluded that this strengthens the peak in the TDOS creating/strengthening the $P-$transition.
Even though we can not give further analytical arguments, this suggests that a threshold value $\zeta_1$ exists for the difference between $\gamma_{L{\rm u}}$ and $\gamma_{L{\rm d}}$ above which a $P$-resonance is seen.
Now, one may repeat the derivation performed above using the self-energy expressions for both the $N=1$ and $N=3$ cases, along with $eV=\pm \Delta_P$. This yields the table below, describing the parameter domains for obtaining a $P$-transition. The small positive constants $\zeta_{1/3}$ represent threshold values for the magnitude of the coupling asymmetry required to yield a $P$-transition.
\begin{table}[h!]
\label{su2table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c c c||}
\hline
$N$&$\mu_L-\mu_R>0$&\qquad$\mu_L-\mu_R<0$\\
\hline\hline
1 & $\gamma_{L{\rm u}}-\gamma_{L{\rm d}}>\zeta_1$ & \qquad$\gamma_{L{\rm d}}-\gamma_{L{\rm u}}>\zeta_1$\\
3 & $\gamma_{L{\rm d}}-\gamma_{L{\rm u}}>\zeta_3$ & \qquad$\gamma_{L{\rm u}}-\gamma_{L{\rm d}}>\zeta_3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The domains in the coupling asymmetry parameter space yielding a $P-$transition. Notice that $\zeta_{1/3}>0$.}
\end{table}
The impact of the tunneling coupling asymmetry on the $P$-transition is shown in Fig.~\ref{n1asymm} for the $N=1$ case. Fig.~\ref{n1asymm}(a) is taken as a reference as it shows the case of zero magnetic field which does not show a $P$-transition.
For Fig.~\ref{n1asymm}(b) a large value of the magnetic field, $B=8.05$~T, is chosen.
It is clear that equal tunnel couplings to both the Kramers pairs do not produce a $P-$transition. For the case $\gamma_{L {\rm u}}>\gamma_{L {\rm d}}$ and negative bias voltages the KEA theory yields a small peak at the position of the $P$-transition - with an adjacent dip - in the differential conductance. The dip is not seen in the experiment. We attribute this discrepancy to the lack of some cotunneling contributions in the KEA theory which can become relevant at high energies or to the strong impact of the Coulomb blockade peak which in the experiment might screen the dip.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS3.pdf}
\caption{Differential conductance for the $N=1$ case for (a) $B=0$~T and (b) $B=8.05$~T for various coupling asymmetries. The remaining parameters are the one used to match the $N=1$ experimental data. The red curve in (b) with $\gamma_{L{\rm u}}>\gamma_{L{\rm d}}$ shows a $P$-transition at $\mu_L-\mu_R>0$. }
\label{n1asymm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bias drop asymmetries}
\label{Kondoasymmbias}
Bias drop asymmetries have a much smaller and much less dramatic effect on the Kondo resonances compared to the coupling asymmetries as they primarily affect the high-energy/high-bias charge-transfer resonances. However, for a small value of $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d$, the Lorentzian tails of the charge-transfer peaks may extend all the way to the low-bias/near zero-bias regime and skew the Kondo peak amplitudes, as seen in Fig.~\ref{n1asymmbias}(a).
For larger differences the Kondo resonances remain untouched, as seen in Fig.~\ref{n1asymmbias}(b) where $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=8\Gamma$ is chosen. Here, even in the presence of coupling asymmetries the bias asymmetries remain ineffective.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{FigS4.pdf}
\caption{Interplay of bias asymmetries and charge transfer peak on the differential conductance. The $N=1$ case at $B=0$~T is shown for two distinct values of the asymmetry parameter $\eta$ for (a) $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=4.8389\Gamma$, and (b) $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=8\Gamma$. The remaining dot parameters are the ones used to match the $N=1$ experimental data. Notice the negligible effect of bias asymmetries on the Kondo resonances for the parameter set in (b). }
\label{n1asymmbias}
\end{figure}
This result can be understood by inspection of the self energy $\Sigma_j$ and the associated channel TDOS $\nu_j$. From ~\eqref{Selfeform} the former may be written in the presence of bias asymmetries as (here for simplicity $\Gamma=\Gamma_i=\Gamma_u=\Gamma_d$ was chosen)
\begin{align}
\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)&=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{i=T_j,C_j}\Bigg[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{2\pi k_BT}\right)+i\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma_{Li}\Psi\Bigg(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT}-i\frac{\overbrace{eV/2+\left(\eta-1/2\right)eV}^{\mu_L}-\varepsilon+\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_BT} \Bigg)\nonumber\\
&-\gamma_{Ri}\Psi\Bigg(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT}-i\frac{\overbrace{-eV/2+\left(\eta-1/2\right)eV}^{\mu_R}-\varepsilon+\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_BT} \Bigg) \Bigg]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{i=T_j,C_j}\Bigg[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W}{2\pi k_BT}\right)+i\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma_{Li}\Psi\Bigg(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT}-i\frac{\frac{eV}{2}-\varepsilon'+\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_BT} \Bigg)\nonumber\\
&-\gamma_{Ri}\Psi\Bigg(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{\cal E}}{2\pi k_BT}-i\frac{-\frac{eV}{2}-\varepsilon'+\Delta_{ji}}{2\pi k_BT} \Bigg) \Bigg]
:=\Sigma^{\rm sym}_j(\varepsilon'). \label{biasasymmselfeshift}
\end{align}
Here we have made the substitution $\varepsilon'=\varepsilon-\left(\eta-\frac{1}{2}\right)eV$, which recasts the self-energy in a bias-symmetric form without altering its features. In contrast, for the TDOS one finds from~\eqref{TDOS} and~\eqref{biasasymmselfeshift},
\begin{align}
\nu_j(\varepsilon)&=\frac{1}{2\pi\Gamma_j}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon}{\Gamma_j }+\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right)^2+\left( \mathrm{Im}\Sigma_j(\varepsilon)\right)^2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi\Gamma_j}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{\varepsilon_j-\varepsilon'}{\Gamma_j }-\frac{(\eta-1/2)eV}{\Gamma_j }++\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_j^{\rm sym}(\varepsilon')\right)^2+\left( \mathrm{Im}\Sigma_j^{\rm sym}(\varepsilon')\right)^2}.
\end{align}
This shows that when the $\eta$-dependent contribution in the bracket can be neglected, as for the parameter set in Fig. ~\ref{n1asymmbias}(b), the replacement $\varepsilon \to \varepsilon'$ just amounts to a rigid shift of the integration window which does not affect the differential conductance.
\section{Matching between theory and experiment}
From the experimental data it is possible to extract $T_K$, $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$. Specifically:
i) The Kondo temperature $T_K(\Delta)$ is estimated from the width of the zero-bias peaks according to the approximate relation \cite{Pletyukhov2012}
$G_{\mathrm{diff}}(eV/k_{\rm B}T_K(\Delta))=(2/3)G_{\mathrm{diff}}(eV=0)$. We find
$T_{K1}=1$ K and $T_{K3}=0.37$ K for valley $N=1$ and $N=3$, respectively.
ii) The Kramers splitting $\Delta\simeq0.7$ meV is extracted from the distance between the inelastic peaks of the differential conductance $G_{\mathrm{diff}}$. iii) The average linewidth $\Gamma\simeq 2.44$ meV is extracted from a Lorentzian fit to the contribution of the charge transfer peaks, as discussed in subsection \ref{gammaest} below. This in turn yields an estimate for the ratios $k_{\rm B}T_{K1}/\Gamma\simeq 0.025$, $k_{\rm B}T_{K3}/\Gamma\simeq 0.013$.
Due to our assumption of infinite charging energy, $U\to\infty$, the theoretical Kondo temperature is given by
\begin{align}
k_{\rm B}T_K(\Delta)=f(\Delta)k_{\rm B}T_K=f(\Delta) \left[2W\mathrm{exp}\left(-\pi\frac{(\mu_0-\varepsilon_d)}{2\Gamma}\right)\right],
\label{Kondosu22}
\end{align}
where the ratio $(\mu_0-\varepsilon_d)/\Gamma$ as well as the prefactor $f(\Delta)W$ cannot be directly extracted from the experiment. At low bias this is not important, since the relevant transport quantities show a universal behavior which is not affected by bias and tunneling asymmetries, as seen in Fig.~\ref{n1asymmbias}. I.e., the experimentally measured and theoretically evaluated differential conductance collapse onto a universal curve when they are scaled by the respective Kondo temperatures.
At larger bias, $\vert eV \vert \approx\Delta$, the charge transfer peak and the asymmetries may affect the differential conductance and thus a reasonable range of $(\mu_0-\varepsilon_d)/\Gamma$ has to be chosen for the simulations as well. In our theory the bandwidth $W$ is a free parameter. By fixing it to be $W/\Gamma=100$, we find $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=5.3643\Gamma$ using the procedure described in the following subsection \ref{dotlevelcalc}.
\subsection{Estimate of the ratio $(\mu_0-\varepsilon_d)/\Gamma$ }
\label{dotlevelcalc}
Given the experimentally obtained values of the Kondo temperature $T_K$, of the splitting $\Delta$, and of the tunnel coupling $\Gamma$, the calculation of $\varepsilon_d-\mu_0$ requires an iterative procedure.
Since the prefactor $f(\Delta)$ in Eq. \eqref{Kondosu22} is unknown, we first fix $W/\Gamma$ and then proceed iteratively:
\begin{itemize}
\item An initial value $f=f_1$ is assumed. By imposing $T_K({\rm theory})=T_K({\rm experiment})$ a value for $(\mu_0-\varepsilon_d)/\Gamma$ is found.
\item Using these values and $\Delta$, we find ${\cal E}$ from the unitary conditions Eqns.~\eqref{TDOS cond1} and~\eqref{su4cond2k}.
\item We obtain the Kondo temperature from the linear conductance using $G_0(T_K(\Delta))=G_0(T=0)/2 $. This gives us $f=f_2 $.
\item Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until convergence for $f$.
\item This value of $f$ is used again in step 1 to get a new value for $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d$.
\item Steps 1-5 are repeated until convergence.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Contribution of the charge-transfer peaks to the Kondo resonances}
\label{gammaest}
We focus here on the resonant lines forming the borders of the Coulomb diamonds.
Each of the lines corresponds to the electrochemical potential of the dot $\mu(N,V_{\rm g})$ being in resonance with either the source or the drain chemical potentials $\mu_L$, $\mu_R$.
Thus, bias asymmetries impact the slopes of the lines. The strength of the resonance is instead governed by the coupling of the dot levels to the leads.
From Fig.~\ref{keacd}(a), it is clear that either the bottom-right ($N=1$ valley), or the top-left ($N=3$ valley) edges harbor the strongest resonant lines.
These lines correspond to the condition $\mu(1,V_{\rm g})=\mu_R$ and $\mu(3,V_{\rm g})=\mu_R$ and suggest a stronger coupling to the right lead.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{FigS5.pdf}
\caption{ Extracting the contribution from the charge transfer peaks. (a) Experimentally obtained $dI/dV$ data. The green lines in valley $N=1$, $N=3$ mark the bias required to reach the border of the Coulomb diamond from the middle of the valley; the distance between the blue lines yields the addition energy corrected by the level arm $\alpha_{\rm g}$. (b) Lorentzian fit (red) of the experimental gate trace (green) at $V=-3.95$~mV.
(c) Contribution to the differential conductance according to the Lorentzian fit (red dashed line) and experimental data (blue) as a function of the bias voltage. }
\label{keacd}
\end{figure}
To extract the tunneling couplings we observe that
we can fit gate traces near the resonance using
a Breit-Wigner conductance formula which is applicable to Coulomb oscillations in the strong-coupling regime~\cite{PhysRevB.44.1646}. We hence approximate the differential conductance with respect to the gate voltage $V_{\rm g}$ by a sum of weighted Lorentzians, each corresponding to a Coulomb oscillation peak:
\begin{align}
\frac{dI}{dV}\bigg\rvert_{\text{fit}}(V,V_g)&=\frac{e^2}{h}\sum_{l} m_l \Gamma_l\frac{\Gamma_l}{\alpha^2_{\rm g}e^2(V_{\rm g}-c_l)^2+\left(\frac{\Gamma_l}{2}\right)^2}.\label{lorfiteq}
\end{align}
Here $m_l$, $c_l$, and $\Gamma_l$ are the weight, center, and FWHM of the Lorentzian fit of the $l^{th}$ peak. Finally, $\alpha_{\rm g}$ is the level arm accounting for the capacitive coupling to the gate voltage. The latter can be extracted by inspecting the $N=3$ diamond of Fig.~\ref{keacd}(a). We start by estimating the charging energy $U$, which is given by the length of the green line in the $N=3$ diamond. We obtain $\Delta V=U/e=3.74$~mV.
Likewise the separation $\Delta V_{\rm g}$ of the blue lines bordering the $N=3$ diamond gives the charging energy scaled by the gate capacitance factor $\alpha_{\rm g}$. Hence we obtain $\alpha_ {\rm g}=\frac{3.74~{\rm mV}}{0.75~{\rm V} }=0.005$.
Note that for a good fit of the gate trace to the data the low-bias regime must be avoided, to minimize contributions from the inelastic Kondo peaks. \\
\subsubsection{N = 3}
\label{CNTdotparamN3}
For the top-left border of Fig.~\ref{keacd}(a) ($N=3$ valley) the analytical fitting of the experimental differential conductance is dominated by three Lorentzians originating from the resonances at the right lead, and is shown in Fig.~\ref{keacd}(b). The fitting parameters of the three dominant peaks are tabulated in Tab.~\ref{lorfitn3}. In particular, the second lorentzian has $\Gamma_2=2.444$~meV. Since it is this charge transfer peak which most impacts the Kondo resonance, we approximate $\Gamma \approx \Gamma_2$. Together with $T_{K3}=0.37$~K we find $\frac{k_{\rm B}T_{K3}}{\Gamma}=0.0131$. Finally, fixing $\frac{W}{\Gamma}=100$, we get $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=5.3643 ~\Gamma$ using the procedure described in Sec.~\ref{dotlevelcalc}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{keacd}(c), the parameters extracted from the fitting can be used to evaluate the contribution to the differential conductance from the Coulomb peaks also as a function of the bias voltage. We notice that such contribution is quite remarkable and partly accounts for the different height of the inelastic Kondo peaks.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c c c c||}
\hline
Peak $(l)$ & $\Gamma_l$~(meV) & {$m_l$} \qquad& $c_l { (V)}$ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
1 & 1.54 & 0.059 \qquad & 9.06 \\
\hline
2 & 2.44 & 0.085 \qquad & 8.35 \\
\hline
3 & 3.5 & 0.11 \qquad & 7.56 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Parameter set used for the fit of the three dominant peaks of the differential conductance for gate voltage ranges relevant for the $N=3$ valley as shown in Fig.~\ref{keacd}(b). }
\label{lorfitn3}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{N = 1}
\label{CNTdotparamN1}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{FigS6.pdf}
\caption{Lorentzian fit to the data for the $N=1$ gate range. (a) Experimentally measured $dI/dV$ at $V_{}=3.85$~mV (green) and $V=-3.95$~mV (blue). The Lorentzian fits to the experimental gate trace at positive bias are shown in red. The arrow marks the evolution of the charge-transfer peaks as the gate and bias voltages are varied. Notice that the peak belonging to the lower-left edge of the $N=2$ Coulomb diamond evolves in the one belonging the upper-right edge of the $N=1$ Coulomb diamond (as marked by the red arrow). (b) The fitting parameters found in (a) are used in Eq.~\eqref{lorfiteq} and extrapolated to find the differential conductance in the middle of the $N=1$ Coulomb diamond over a range of bias voltages. }
\label{ctn1}
\end{figure}
The lorentzian peak fitting is described and performed for the $N=1$ case in Fig.~\ref{ctn1}.
The resonance line yielding the upper right edge of the $N=1$ diamond in Fig.~\ref{keacd}(a), corresponding to $\mu(2)=\mu_R$, is the same line which yields the peak indexed $l=3$ in Tab.~\ref{lorfitn3} at positive bias voltages. The line has the same linewidth $\Gamma_3=3.491$~meV but a diminished magnitude $m_3=0.06$. Hence, for the $N=1$ case approximating $\Gamma\approx\Gamma_3$ and with $T_{K1}=1$~K we find $\frac{k_{\rm B}T_{K1}}{\Gamma}=0.02487$. We choose $\frac{W}{\Gamma}=100$, from which we get $\mu_0-\varepsilon_d=4.8389 \;\Gamma$ and $f(\Delta)=0.4$ following the procedure described in Sec.~\ref{dotlevelcalc}.
Further, the Lorentzian fit can be used to estimate the impact of the Coulomb peaks on the differential conductance vs. bias, as seen in Fig.~\ref{ctn1}(c). Notice that the fit cannot be extended all the way down to zero bias and beyond to the negative bias region as its validity is restricted to the edges of the Coulomb diamonds.
\subsection{Comparison: KEA theory and experiment}
\subsubsection{N=1}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS7.pdf}
\caption{Differential conductance for the $N=1$ case, at (a) $B=0.05$~T and (b) for various values of the magnetic field. The blue curve in (a) shows the experimental trace while the red one shows the results of the KEA theory; the inset zooms into the low-bias section. The mismatch between theory and experiment at negative potential drop $eV$ is partly due to the absence of the contribution from the $\mu_R=\mu(2)$ Coulomb peak, which is not included in the KEA theory due to the assumption of an infinite charging energy. }
\label{n1thexp}
\end{figure}
The KEA results are compared with the experiment for the $N=1$ case in Fig.~\ref{n1thexp}.
Since the KEA assumes an infinite charging energy $U$, it cannot account for the contribution from the Coulomb line corresponding to the $\mu(2)=\mu_R$ resonance. Thus, the KEA calculation should be complemented with the lorentzian fit discussed in the previous subsection, being of relevance at positive bias (or negative potential drop). On the other hand the KEA theory fully accounts for the Coulomb lines $\mu_\alpha=\mu(1)$ and hence
properly describes the negative bias (positive potential drop) region. We notice that while the agreement between theory and experiment is reasonably good at small magnetic fields, it deteriorates as the field is increased.
Also, the experimental data on that side is remarkably clear compared to the $N=3$ case, where it is plagued by strong charge-transfer peak tails from the upper edges of the Coulomb diamond and other background conductance which is unaccounted for. In the positive bias region, the charge-transfer peak from the upper right edge of the $N=1$ diamond leads to significant deviations between the experiment and our theory.
\subsubsection{N=3}
For the $N=3$ case, the KEA results are matched with the experiments in Fig.~\ref{n3thexp}. The low-bias match is reasonably good, as seen in the inset in Fig.~\ref{n3thexp}(a).
However, the high bias behavior shows a significant deviation between the experiment and the KEA theory. This may partly be attributed to the strong charge-transfer peak on the lower left edge of the $N=3$ Coulomb diamond and a background conductance as seen in Fig.~\ref{keacd}(a).
However, the location of the peaks of the differential conductance are well described by the KEA also at large magnetic fields.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{FigS8.pdf}
\caption{Differential conductance for the $N=3$ case, at (a) $B=0.05$~T and (b) for various values of the magnetic field. The blue curve in (a) shows the experimental data while the red curve is the result of the KEA theory; the inset zooms into the low-bias section. The discrepancy at positive bias drop is partly due to the absence of the $\mu(3)=\mu_R$ Coulomb peak in the KEA theory due to the assumption of infinite charging energy.}
\label{n3thexp}
\end{figure}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
The most frequent approach to shape optimization is to describe the shape by a vector of $d$ Computer Aided Design (CAD) parameters, $\mathbf x\in X\subset\mathbb R^d$ and to search for the parameters that minimize an objective function, $\mathbf x^*=\underset{\mathbf x\in X}{\arg\min}~f(\mathbf x)$.
In the CAD modeling process, the set of all possible shapes has been reduced to a space of parameterized shapes, $\pmb\Omega \coloneqq \{\Omega_\mathbf x, \mathbf x\in X\}$.
It is common for $d$ to be large, $d\gtrsim50$. Optimization in such a high-dimensional design space is difficult, especially when $f(\cdot)$ is the output of a high fidelity numerical simulator
that can only be run a restricted number of times \cite{shan2010survey}. In computational fluid dynamics for example, simulations easily take 12 to 24 hours and evaluation budgets range between 100 and 200 calls.
Surrogate-based approaches \cite{sacks1989design,forrester2009recent} have proven their effectiveness to tackle optimization problems in a few calls to $f(\cdot)$.
They rely on a surrogate model (or metamodel, e.g., Gaussian Processes \cite{stein2012interpolation,cressie1992statistics,GPML}) built upon $n$ past observations of $y_i=f(\mathbf x^{(i)})$.
For a Gaussian Process (GP, \cite{stein2012interpolation,cressie1992statistics,GPML}), given $\mathcal D_n=\{(\mathbf x^{(1)},y_1),\dotsc,(\mathbf x^{(n)},y_n)\}=\{\mathbf x^{(1:n)},\mathbf y_{1:n}\}$, $f(\cdot)$ can be predicted in closed-form at any untested point $\mathbf x^{new}\in X$ via the kriging mean predictor, $m(\mathbf x^{new})$. The probabilistic framework of GPs additionally provides the uncertainty associated to the prediction, known as the kriging variance, $s^2(\mathbf x^{new})$, also computable in closed-form \cite{GPML}.
For the optimization, the metamodel's prediction and uncertainty are mixed by an acquisition function such as the Expected Improvement \cite{ExpectedImprovement} to decide which design $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$ should be evaluated next.
However, such techniques suffer from the curse of dimensionality \cite{bellman1961adaptive} when $d$ is large. The budget is also typically too narrow to perform sensitivity analysis \cite{saltelli2004sensitivity} and select variables prior to optimizing.
A further issue is that the CAD parameters $\mathbf x$ commonly have heterogeneous impacts on the shapes $\Omega_\mathbf x$: many of them are intended to refine the shape locally whereas others have a global influence so that shapes of practical interest involve interactions between all the parameters.
Most often, the set of all CAD generated shapes, $\pmb\Omega$, can be approximated in a $\delta$-dimensional manifold, $\delta<d$. In \cite{raghavan2013towards,raghavan2014numerical} this manifold is accessed through an auxiliary description of the shape, $\phi(\Omega)$, $\phi$ being either its characteristic function or the signed distance to its contour. The authors aim at minimizing an objective function using diffuse approximation and gradient-based techniques, while staying on the manifold of admissible shapes.
Active Shape Models \cite{cootes1995active} provide another way to handle shapes in which the contour is discretized \cite{stegmann2002brief,wang2012kernel}.
Building a surrogate model in reduced dimension can be performed in different ways. The simplest is to restrict the metamodel to the most influential variables.
But typical evaluation budgets are too narrow to find these variables before the optimization.
Moreover, correlations might exist among the original dimensions (here CAD parameters) so that a selection of few variables may not constitute a valid reduced order description and meta-variables may be more appropriate.
In \cite{wu2019developed}, the high-dimensional input space is circumvented by decomposing the model into a series of low-dimensional models after an ANOVA procedure.
In \cite{bouhlel2016improving}, a kriging model is built in the space of the first Partial Least Squares axes for emphasizing the most relevant directions.
Related approaches for dimensionality reduction inside GPs consist in a projection of the input $\mathbf x$ on a lower dimensional hyperplane spanned by orthogonal vectors. These vectors are determined in different manners, e.g. by searching the active space in \cite{constantine2014active,li2019surrogate}, or during the hyper-parameters estimation in \cite{tripathy2016gaussian}.
A more detailed bibliography of dimension reduction in GPs is conducted in Section \ref{section:GP_in_eigenbasis}.
For optimization purposes, the modes of discretized shapes \cite{stegmann2002brief} are integrated in a surrogate model in \cite{li2018data}.
In \cite{cinquegrana2018investigation}, the optimization is carried out on the most relevant modes using evolutionary algorithms combined with an adaptive adjustment of the bounds of the design space, also employed in \cite{shan2004space}.
Following the same route, in Section \ref{sec:CAD_to_eigenbasis},
we retrieve a shape manifold with dimension $\delta<d$.
Our approach is based on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA, \cite{wall2003singular}) of shapes described in an ad hoc manner in the same vein as \cite{cinquegrana2018investigation,li2018data} but it provides a new investigation of the best way to characterize shapes.
Section \ref{section:GP_in_eigenbasis} is devoted to the construction of a kriging surrogate model in reduced dimension.
Contrarily to \cite{li2018data,li2019surrogate}, the least important dimensions are still accounted for. A regularized likelihood approach is employed for dimension selection, instead of the linear PLS method \cite{bouhlel2016improving}.
In Section \ref{section:optim_in_eigenbasis}, we employ the metamodel to perform global optimization \cite{jones1998efficient} via the maximization of the Expected Improvement \cite{ExpectedImprovement}. A reduction of the space dimension is achieved through a random embedding technique \cite{wang2013bayesian} and a pre-image problem is solved to keep the correspondence between the eigenshapes and the CAD parameters. The proposed method is summarized in Figure \ref{fig:summary}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{tabular}{m{0.5\textwidth}|m{0.5\textwidth}}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering
\circled{1} Sample inputs $\mathbf x$ and apply $\phi(\mathbf x)$.
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{initial_sampling.pdf}
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering
\circled{2} PCA: $\mathbf x$ mapped to $\pmb\alpha$\\in $\{\mathbf v^1,\dotsc,\mathbf v^D\}$ basis.\\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{naca22_alpha_manifold.png}
\end{minipage}
\\\hline
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering
\circled{3} Determine the active and inactive eigendimensions for the output: $\pmb\alpha=[\pmb\alpha^a,\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}]$.
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering\vspace{0.1cm}
\circled{4} Build an additive GP with two different resolutions: $Y(\pmb\alpha)=\beta+Y^a(\pmb\alpha^a)+Y^{\overline{a}}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}})$.
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{GP_additif_legende_sans_fleche_dans_plan.png}
\end{minipage}
\\\hline
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering\vspace{0.1cm}
\circled{5} Optimization in $\pmb\alpha^a$ space $\bigoplus$ random embedding in $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ space $\Rightarrow\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$.
\includegraphics[width=0.96\textwidth]{random_line.png}
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\centering
\circled{6} Solve the pre-image problem: $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}\Rightarrow\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$;\\update the GP with $(\pmb\alpha(\mathbf x^{(n+1)}),f(\mathbf x^{(n+1)}))$ and another point if replication used.
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the proposed method. Steps 3-6 are iterated during the optimization process.}
\label{fig:summary}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Main notations}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\mathcal A$ & Manifold of $\pmb\alpha$'s for which $\exists\mathbf x\in X$: $\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})=\pmb\alpha$.\\
$\mathcal A_N$ & Empirical manifold of $\pmb\alpha$'s which are the coordinates of the $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$'s in the eigenbasis.\\
$\pmb\alpha$ & Coordinates of a design in the eigenshape basis.\\
$\pmb\alpha^a$ & Active components of $\pmb\alpha$.\\
$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ & Inactive components of $\pmb\alpha$.\\
$d$ & Number of (CAD) parameters.\\
$d'$ & True effective dimension.\\
$\delta$ & Number of chosen/selected components for dimension reduction.\\
$D$ & Dimension of the high-dimensional shape representation.\\
$n$ & Number of evaluated designs.\\
$N$ & Number of shapes in the $\pmb\Phi$ database.\\
$\Omega_{\mathbf x}$ & Shape induced by the $\mathbf x$ parameterization.\\
$\phi(\cdot)$ & High-dimensional shape mapping, $\phi: X \mapsto\Phi$\\
$\Phi$ & Space of shape discretizations, $\Phi\subset\mathbb R^D$.\\
$\pmb\phi$ & High-dimensional shape representation of one design ($\pmb\phi\in\mathbb R^D$).\\
$\overline{\pmb\phi}$ & Mean shape in the $\pmb\Phi$ database.\\
$\pmb\Phi$ & Shape database ($N\times D$ matrix whose $i$-th row is $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$).\\
$\mathbf V$ & $D\times D$ matrix whose columns $(\v^1,\dotsc,\v^D)$ are the eigenvectors of\\ & the covariance matrix of $\pmb\Phi$. They are the vectors of the orthonormal $\mathcal V$ basis.\\
$\mathbf x$ & Design vector in the space of CAD parameters, $\mathbf x\in X$.\\
$X$ & Original search space (of CAD parameters), $X\subset\mathbb R^d$.
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{From CAD description to shape eigenbasis}
\label{sec:CAD_to_eigenbasis}
CAD parameters are usually set up by engineers to automate shape generation. These parameters may be Bézier or Spline control points which locally readjust the shape. Other CAD parameters, such as the overall width or the length of a component, have a more global impact on the shape. While these parameters are intuitive to a designer, they are not chosen to achieve any specific mathematical property and in particular do not let themselves interpret to reduce dimensionality.
In order to define a better behaved description of the shapes that will help in reducing dimensionality, we exploit the fact that the time to generate a shape $\Omega_\mathbf x$ is negligible in comparison with the evaluation time of $f(\mathbf x)$.
In the spirit of kernel methods \cite{vapnik1995nature,scholkopf1997kernel}, we analyze the designs $\mathbf x$ in a high-dimensional feature space $\Phi\subset\mathbb R^D$, $D\gg d$ (potentially infinite dimensional) that is defined via a mapping $\phi(\mathbf x)$, $\phi:X\rightarrow\Phi$.
With an appropriate $\phi(\cdot)$, it is possible to distinguish a lower dimensional manifold embedded in $\Phi$.
As we deal with shapes, natural candidates for $\phi(\cdot)$ are shape representations.
This paper is motivated by parametric shape optimization problems.
However, the approaches developed for metamodeling and optimization are generic and extend to any situation where a pre-existing collection of designs $\{\mathbf x^{(1)},\dotsc,\mathbf x^{(N)}\}$ and a fast auxiliary mapping $\phi(\mathbf x)$ exist. $\phi(\mathbf x)=\mathbf x$ is a possible case.
If $\mathbf x$ are parameters that generate a signal, another example would be $\phi(\mathbf x)$, the discretized times series.
\subsection{Shape representations}
In the literature, shapes have been described in different ways.
First, the \emph{characteristic function} of a shape $\Omega_\mathbf x$ \cite{raghavan2013towards} is \begin{equation}
\chi_{\Omega_\mathbf x}(\mathbf s)=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
1\text{ if }\mathbf s\in{\Omega_\mathbf x}\\
0\text{ if }\mathbf s\notin{\Omega_\mathbf x}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf s\in\mathbb R^2$ or $\mathbb R^3$ is the spatial coordinate. $\chi$ is computed at some relevant locations (e.g. on a grid) $\mathbb S=\{\mathbf s^{(1)},\dotsc,\mathbf s^{(D)}\}$ and is cast as a $D$-dimensional vector of of 0's or 1's depending on whether the $\mathbf s^{(i)}$'s are inside or outside the shape.
Second, the \emph{signed distance to the contour} $\partial\Omega_\mathbf x$ \cite{raghavan2014numerical} is
\begin{equation}
\mathbb D_{\Omega_\mathbf x}(\mathbf s)=\varepsilon(\mathbf s)\underset{\mathbf y\in\partial{\Omega_\mathbf x}}{\min}\Vert\mathbf s-\mathbf y\Vert_2\text{, where }\varepsilon(\mathbf s)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
1\text{ if }\mathbf s\in{\Omega_\mathbf x}\\
-1\text{ if }\mathbf s\notin{\Omega_\mathbf x}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and is also computed at some relevant locations (e.g. on a grid) $\mathbb S$, transformed into a vector with $D$ components.
Finally, the Point Distribution Model \cite{cootes1995active,stegmann2002brief} where $\partial\Omega_\mathbf x$ is discretized at $D/k$ locations $\mathbf s^{(i)}\in\partial\Omega_\mathbf x\subset\mathbb R^k$ ($k=2$ or 3), also leads to a $D$-dimensional representation of $\Omega_\mathbf x$ where $\mathcal D_{\Omega_\mathbf x}=({\mathbf s^{(1)}}^\top,\dotsc,{\mathbf s^{(D/k)}}^\top)^\top\in\mathbb R^D$.
For different shapes $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$, $\mathbb S$ has to be the same for $\chi$ and $\mathbb D$, and the \emph{discretizations} $\{{\mathbf s^{(1)}}^\top,\dotsc,{\mathbf s^{(D/k)}}^\top\}$ of $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ need to be consistent for $\mathcal D$.
Figure \ref{fig:shape_representation} illustrates these shape representations for two different designs. The first one consists of three circles parameterized by their centers and radii.
The second design is a NACA airfoil which depends on three parameters.
These shapes are described by the mappings $\phi(\mathbf x)\in\mathbb R^D$ with $\phi(\mathbf x)=\chi_{\Omega_\mathbf x}(\mathbb S),\mathbb D_{\Omega_\mathbf x}(\mathbb S)$ and $\mathcal D_{\Omega_\mathbf x}$, respectively.
Specifying another design with parameters $\mathbf x'$ generally leads to $\phi(\mathbf x)\ne\phi(\mathbf x')$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{test12.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{signed_distance.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{discretisation.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{naca_caracteristique.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{naca_signed_distance.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.12\textwidth]{naca_discretisation.png}
\caption{Shape representations for a design consisting of three circles (top) and for a NACA airfoil (bottom). The representations are the characteristic function (left), the signed distance to the contour (center), and the contour discretization(right).}
\label{fig:shape_representation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{PCA to retrieve the effective shape dimension}
\label{section:PCA}
During the step \circled{1} of our method (see Figure \ref{fig:summary}), a large number $(N)$ of plausible designs $\mathbf x^{(i)}\in X$ is mapped to $\Phi\subset\mathbb R^D$ and build the matrix $\pmb\Phi\in\mathbb R^{N\times D}$ which contains the $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})\in\mathbb R^D$ in rows and whose column-wise mean is $\overline{\pmb\phi}\in\mathbb R^D$.
In the absence of a set of relevant $\mathbf x^{(i)}$'s, these designs can be sampled from an a priori distribution, typically a uniform distribution.
Next (step \circled{2} in Figure \ref{fig:summary}), we perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on $\pmb\Phi$: correlations are sought between the $\phi(\mathbf x)_j$'s, $j=1,\dotsc,D$.
The eigenvectors of the empirical covariance matrix
$\mathbf C_{\pmb\Phi}:=\frac1N(\pmb\Phi-\mathbf1_N\overline{\pmb\phi}^\top)^\top(\pmb\Phi-\mathbf1_N\overline{\pmb\phi}^\top)$,
written $\v^j\in\mathbb R^D$, form an ordered orthonormal basis of $\Phi$ with decreasing importance as measured by the PCA eigenvalues $\lambda_j$, $j=1,\dotsc,D$.
They correspond to orthonormal directions in $\Phi$ that explain the most the dispersion of the high-dimensional representations of the shapes, $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$.
Any design $\mathbf x$ can now be expressed in the eigenbasis $\mathcal V:=\{\v^1,\dotsc,\v^D\}$ since
\begin{equation}
\phi(\mathbf x)=\overline{\pmb\phi}+\sum_{j=1}^{D}\alpha_j\v^j
\label{eq:sumav}
\end{equation}
where $(\alpha_1,\dotsc,\alpha_D)^\top=:\pmb\alpha=\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})$ are the coordinates in $\mathcal V$ (principal components), and $\mathbf V:=(\v^1,\dotsc,\v^D)\in\mathbb R^{D\times D}$ is the matrix of eigenvectors (principal axes).
$\alpha_j$ is the deviation from the mean shape $\overline{\pmb\phi}$, in the direction of the eigenvector $\v^j$.
The $\pmb\alpha^{(i)}$'s form a manifold $\mathcal A_N:=\{\pmb\alpha^{(1)},\dotsc,\pmb\alpha^{(N)}\}$ which approximates the true $\pmb\alpha$ manifold, $\mathcal A:=\{\pmb\alpha\in\mathbb R^D:\exists\mathbf x\in X$, $\pmb\alpha=\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi}) \}$.
Even though $\mathcal A_N\subset\mathbb R^D$, it is often a manifold of lower dimension, $\delta\ll D$, as we will soon see (Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction}).
\subsubsection*{Link with kernel PCA}
$N$ designs $\mathbf x^{(i)}\in\mathbb R^d$ have been mapped to a high-dimensional feature space $\Phi\subset\mathbb R^D$ in which PCA was carried out.
This is precisely the task that is performed in Kernel PCA \cite{scholkopf1997kernel},
a nonlinear dimension reduction technique (contrarily to PCA which seeks linear directions in $\mathbb R^d$). KPCA aims at finding a linear description of the data in a feature space $\Phi$, by applying a PCA to nonlinearly mapped $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})\in\Phi$.
The difference with our approach is that the mapping $\phi(\cdot)$ as well as the feature space $\Phi$ are usually unknown in KPCA, since $\phi(\mathbf x)$ may live in a very high-dimensional or even infinite dimensional space in which dot products cannot be computed efficiently.
Instead, dot products are computed using designs in the original space $X$ via a \emph{kernel}
which should not be mistaken with the kernel of GPs,
$k_\phi:X\times X\rightarrow\mathbb R$, $k_\phi(\mathbf x,\mathbf x')=\langle\phi(\mathbf x),\phi(\mathbf x')\rangle_{\Phi}$ (this is called the ``kernel-trick'' \cite{vapnik1995nature,scholkopf1997kernel}).
The eigencomponents of the points after mapping, $\alpha^{(i)}_j = {\v^j}^\top (\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})-\overline{\pmb\phi})$, can be recovered from the eigenanalysis of the $N\times N$ Gram matrix
$\mathbf K$ with $K_{ij}=k_\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)},\mathbf x^{(j)})$ (see \cite{scholkopf1997kernel,wang2012kernel} for algebraic details).
Finding which original variables in $\mathbf x$ correspond to a given $\v^j$ is not straightforward and requires the resolution of a pre-image problem \cite{mika1999kernel,wang2012kernel}.
Having a shape-related and computable $\phi(\cdot)$ avoids these ruses and makes the principal axes $\v^j$ directly meaningful. It is further possible to give the expression of the equivalent kernel in our approach, in terms of the mapping $\phi(\cdot)$, from the polarization identity.
By definition of the (centered) high dimensional mapping to $\Phi$, $\mathbf x\mapsto\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi}$,
\begin{align*}\Vert(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})-(\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi})\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}=\langle(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})-(\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi}),(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})-(\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi})\rangle_{\mathbb R^D}\\
=\Vert(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}+\Vert(\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi})\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}-2\underset{k_\phi}{\underbrace{\langle(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi}),(\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi})\rangle_{\mathbb R^D}}}
\end{align*}
hence,
\begin{equation}
k_{\phi}(\mathbf x,\mathbf x')=\frac12(\Vert\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi}\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}+\Vert\phi(\mathbf x')-\overline{\pmb\phi}\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}-\Vert\phi(\mathbf x)-\phi(\mathbf x')\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D})
\end{equation}
Logically, $k_{\phi}(\cdot,\cdot)$, a similarity measure between designs, is negatively proportional to the distance between the shape representations.
Because of the size of the eigenanalyses to be performed, kernel PCA is advantageous over a mapping followed by a PCA when $D > N$, i.e. when the shapes have a very high resolution, and vice versa. In the current work where $\phi(\cdot)$ is known and $D$ is smaller than 1000, we will follow the mapping plus PCA approach.
\subsection{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments_reduction}
In this section, all the parametric design problems used in the experiments throughout this paper are introduced and discussed in terms of significant dimensions.
Unless stated otherwise, the database $\pmb\Phi$ is made of $N=5000$ designs sampled uniformly in $X$.
We start with 3 test cases of known intrinsic dimension, which will be complemented by 4 other test cases. The metamodeling and the optimization will be addressed later in Sections \ref{section:GP_in_eigenbasis} and \ref{section:optim_in_eigenbasis}.
\subsubsection{Retrieval of true dimensionality}
In this part, we generate shapes of known low intrinsic dimension.
In the Example \ref{ex:un_cercle} (cf. Figure \ref{fig:manifold}), the shapes are circular holes of varying centers and radii, therefore described by 1, 2 or 3 parameters.
In the Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre} (cf. Figure \ref{fig:cercle_surparametre}), they are also circular holes but whose center positions and radii are described by sums\footnote{other algebraic operations such as multiplications have also led to the same conclusions.} of parts of the 39 parameters.
Last, in the Example \ref{ex:3cercles} (cf. Figure \ref{fig:3cercles}), the shapes are made of three non overlapping circles with parameterized centers and radii.
PCAs were then carried out on the $\pmb\Phi$'s associated to the three mappings (characteristic function, signed contour distance and contour discretization). In each example, the 10 first PCA eigenvalues $\lambda_j$ are reported. The $\pmb\alpha$'s manifolds, $\mathcal A_N\subset\mathbb R^D$, are plotted in the first three dimensions as well as the first eigenvectors in the $\Phi$ space.
\begin{example}
A hole in $\mathbb R^2$ parameterized by its radius ($d=1$), its radius and the $x$-coordinate of its center ($d=2$), or its radius and the $x$ and $y$ coordinates of its center ($d=3$).
\label{ex:un_cercle}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{test_cases.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}: three first eigencomponents of the $\pmb\alpha^{(i)}$'s for three parametric test cases (columns) with low effective dimension equal to 1 (left), 2 (center) and 3 (right). The rows correspond to different $\phi(\cdot)$'s which are the characteristic function (top), the signed distance to the contour (middle) and the discretization of the contour (bottom).
}
\label{fig:manifold}
\end{figure}\clearpage
\newgeometry{bottom=4cm,top=4cm}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Characteristic function} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signed Distance} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discretization}\\\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 324.63 & 63.09 & 840.14 & 100 & 25.20 & 100\\
2 & 75.98 & 77.86 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
3 & 32.69 & 84.21 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
4 & 18.20 & 87.75 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
5 & 11.48 & 89.98 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
6 & 8.12 & 91.56 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
7 & 5.92 & 92.71 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
8 & 4.45 & 93.57 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
9 & 3.50 & 94.25 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
10 & 2.79 & 94.80 & 0 & 100 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{10 first PCA eigenvalues for the different $\phi(\cdot)$'s, circle with $d=1$ parameter.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_d1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Characteristic function} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signed Distance} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discretization}\\\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 60.90 & 26.50 & 1332.17 & 80.41 & 100.82 & 94.14\\
2 & 44.63 & 45.93 & 294.07 & 98.15 & 6.27 & 100\\
3 & 26.70 & 57.55 & 25.48 & 99.69 & 0 & 100\\
4 & 20.62 & 66.52 & 3.88 & 99.93 & 0 & 100\\
5 & 9.48 & 70.65 & 0.81 & 99.97 & 0 & 100\\
6 & 4.87 & 72.77 & 0.24 & 99.99 & 0 & 100\\
7 & 3.97 & 74.49 & 0.09 & 99.99 & 0 & 100\\
8 & 3.74 & 76.12 & 0.04 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
9 & 3.25 & 77.54 & 0.02 & 100 & 0 & 100\\
10 & 3.11 & 78.89 & 0.01 & 100 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{10 first PCA eigenvalues for the different $\phi(\cdot)$'s, circle with $d=2$ parameters.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_d2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Characteristic function} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signed Distance} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discretization}\\\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 26.48 & 10.12 & 1045.26 & 42.42 & 82.13 & 48.51\\
2 & 25.82 & 19.98 & 1037.44 & 84.53 & 80.82 & 96.26\\
3 & 20.58 & 27.84 & 300.14 & 96.71 & 6.34 & 100\\
4 & 19.38 & 35.24 & 33.83 & 98.08 & 0 & 100\\
5 & 15.65 & 41.22 & 18.49 & 98.83 & 0 & 100\\
6 & 11.36 & 45.56 & 14.40 & 99.42 & 0 & 100\\
7 & 11.20 & 49.84 & 3.78 & 99.57 & 0 & 100\\
8 & 11.05 & 54.06 & 3.64 & 99.72 & 0 & 100\\
9 & 7.52 & 56.93 & 1.58 & 99.78 & 0 & 100\\
10 & 7.21 & 59.69 & 1.55 & 99.84 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{10 first PCA eigenvalues for the different $\phi(\cdot)$'s, circle with $d=3$ parameters.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_d3}
\end{table}\restoregeometry\clearpage
Figures \ref{fig:ex1_d1_image}-\ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm} show the 9 first eigenvectors (if they have strictly positive eigenvalue) in the 3 cases of Example \ref{ex:un_cercle} with the three $\phi(\cdot)$'s.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas1_9vp_images.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=1$ parameter, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = characteristic function.}
\label{fig:ex1_d1_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{cas1_1vp_signed_distance.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{cas1_1vp_pdm.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=1$ parameter, first eigenvector when $\phi(\cdot)$ = signed distance (left) and when $\phi(\cdot)$ = contour discretization (right).}
\label{fig:ex1_d1_signed_distance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas3_9vp_images.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=2$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = characteristic function.}
\label{fig:ex1_d2_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas3_9vp_signed_distance.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=2$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = signed distance.}
\label{fig:ex1_d2_signed_distance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{cas3_2vp_pdm_bis.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=2$ parameters, 2 first eigenvectors (black and red) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = contour discretization.}
\label{fig:ex1_d2_pdm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas4_9vp_images.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=3$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = characteristic function.}
\label{fig:ex1_d3_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas4_9vp_signed_distance.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=3$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = signed distance.}
\label{fig:ex1_d3_signed_distance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{cas4_3vp_pdm_bis.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:un_cercle}, circle with $d=3$ parameters, 3 first eigenvectors (black, red, green) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = contour discretization.}
\label{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}
\end{figure}\clearpage
A property of PCA is that a linear combination of the eigenvectors given in Equation (\ref{eq:sumav}) enables to retrieve any $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$.
Some of the eigenvectors are easy to interpret: in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d1_signed_distance} left (signed distance), the eigenvector is constant because the average shape is a map (an image) whose level lines are perfect circles so that adding a constant to it changes the radius of the null contour line; in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm} where the mapping is a contour discretization, the first eigenvector (as well as the second in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}) is a non-centered point that allows horizontal (and vertical) translations. The second (third in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}) eigenvector is a circle which dilates or compresses the hole.
As is seen in Tables \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d2} and \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d3}, more eigenvectors are necessary for the characteristic function and for the signed distance than for the contour discretization.
Contrarily to the characteristic function and the signed contour, when the mapping $\phi(\cdot)$ is the contour discretization, the first eigenvectors look like shapes on their own and therefore we will call them \emph{eigenshapes}. This does not mean however that all of them are valid shapes, as was seen in Figures \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm} and \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm} with the point vectors.
In fact, most $\v^j$'s are ``non-physical'' in the sense that there may not exist one design $\mathbf x$ such that $\phi(\mathbf x)=\v^j$, see for instance Figure \ref{fig:naca22_eigenshapes} where the eigenshapes do not correspond to a valid $\mathbf x$ from $\v^3$ on.
In the case of the characteristic function, even though $\phi(\mathbf x)\in\{0,1\}^D$, the eigenvectors are real-valued (see Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d1_image} for instance).
\begin{example}
An over-parameterized hole in $\mathbb R^2$: the horizontal position of its center is $s:=\sum_{j=1}^{13}x_j$, the vertical position of its center is $t:=\sum_{j=14}^{26}x_j$ and its radius is $r:=\sum_{j=27}^{39}x_j$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:cercle_surparametre}. To increase the complexity of the problem, $x_1$, $x_{14}$ and $x_{27}$ are of a magnitude larger than the other $x_j$'s: the circle mainly depends on these 3 parameters.
\label{ex:cercle_surparametre}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{somme_cercle.png}
\caption{Second example: an over-parameterized circle.}
\label{fig:cercle_surparametre}
\end{figure}\clearpage
\newgeometry{bottom=4cm,top=3cm}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_ACP_images_cas9.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_ACP_signed_distance_cas9.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_ACP_pdm_cas9.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_124_ACP_images_cas9.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_124_ACP_signed_distance_cas9.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{coefficients_124_ACP_pdm_cas9.pdf}
\caption{Four first eigencomponents of the $\pmb\alpha^{(i)}$'s in the Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}, for the three different shape representations $\phi(\cdot)$. Left: characteristic function, middle: signed distance to the contour, right: discretization of the contour.
The manifolds are shown in the $\{\v^1,\v^2,\v^3\}$ (top), and $\{\v^1,\v^2,\v^4\}$ bases (bottom).
As can be seen from the two-dimensional surface in the $\{\v^1,\v^2,\v^4\}$ space when $\phi(\cdot)=\mathcal D$ (bottom right), the true dimension (3) is retrieved with the contour discretization. Note also that the associated manifold is convex.
\label{fig:manifold_cercle_surparametre}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Characteristic function} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signed Distance} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discretization}\\\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 9.24 & 9.48 & 1238.53 & 40.24 & 109.04 & 49.23\\
2 & 8.97 & 18.69 & 1210.72 & 79.57 & 104.69 & 96.50\\
3 & 8.76 & 27.68 & 516.05 & 96.33 & 7.75 & 100\\
4 & 5.95 & 33.79 & 39.70 & 97.62 & 0 & 100\\
5 & 5.28 & 39.21 & 24.47 & 98.42 & 0 & 100\\
6 & 3.93 & 43.25 & 21.83 & 99.13 & 0 & 100\\
7 & 3.59 & 46.93 & 6.10 & 99.33 & 0 & 100\\
8 & 3.36 & 50.38 & 6.03 & 99.52 & 0 & 100\\
9 & 2.90 & 53.35 & 3.27 & 99.63 & 0 & 100\\
10 & 2.80 & 56.23 & 3.12 & 99.73 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{10 first PCA eigenvalues for the different $\phi(\cdot)$'s, over-parameterized circle with $d=39$ parameters, with real dimension $d=3$.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_d39}
\end{table}\restoregeometry\clearpage
The PCA eigenvalues for this example are given in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d39} and are nearly the same as those in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d3}.
Apart from the little modification in the uniform distribution for sampling the $\mathbf x^{(i)}$'s which might lead to a slightly different $\pmb\Phi$, the over-parameterization is not a concern to retrieve the correct dimension.
Figures \ref{fig:ex2_image}-\ref{fig:ex2_pdm} show the 9 first eigenvectors (if they have a strictly positive eigenvalue) for the three $\phi(\cdot)$'s.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas9_9vp_images.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}, over-parameterized circle with $d=39$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = characteristic function.}
\label{fig:ex2_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas9_9vp_signed_distance.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}, over-parameterized circle with $d=39$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = signed distance.}
\label{fig:ex2_signed_distance}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{cas9_3vp_pdm_bis.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}, over-parameterized circle with $d=39$ parameters, 3 first eigenvectors when $\phi(\cdot)$ = contour discretization.}
\label{fig:ex2_pdm}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
Three (non-overlapping) holes in $\mathbb R^2$, whose centers and radii are determined by $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ (first circle), $x_4$, $x_5$, $x_6$ (second circle), and $x_7$, $x_8$, $x_9$ (third circle). This problem is more complex since it consists of three elements, and has $d=9$ dimensions.
For $\phi(\cdot)=\mathcal D$, the discretization vector $\phi(\mathbf x)\in\mathbb R^D$ is split into 3 parts of size $D/3$ which correspond to the discretization of each circle.
\label{ex:3cercles}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{test12.pdf}
\caption{Third example: three circles with varying centers and radii.}
\label{fig:3cercles}
\end{figure}\clearpage
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Characteristic function} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Signed Distance} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Discretization}\\\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 96.67 & 9.52 & 1785.93 & 31.51 & 154.26 & 19.06\\
2 & 81.57 & 17.56 & 1267.81 & 53.88 & 151.80 & 37.82\\
3 & 80.07 & 25.45 & 912.40 & 69.98 & 149.81 & 56.33\\
4 & 66.03 & 31.96 & 588.30 & 80.36 & 148.09 & 74.63\\
5 & 48.28 & 36.71 & 402.56 & 87.46 & 91.34 & 85.91\\
6 & 40.66 & 40.72 & 159.38 & 90.27 & 90.53 & 97.10\\
7 & 39.37 & 44.60 & 144.75 & 92.83 & 8.65 & 98.17\\
8 & 38.75 & 48.42 & 121.80 & 94.97 & 8.54 & 99.22\\
9 & 25.07 & 50.89 & 54.63 & 95.94 & 6.29 & 100\\
10 & 24.45 & 53.30 & 47.36 & 96.77 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{10 first PCA eigenvalues for the different $\phi(\cdot)$'s, three circles with $d=9$ parameters.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_d9}
\end{table}
The 9 first eigenvectors are illustrated for the three $\phi(\cdot)$'s in Figures \ref{fig:ex3_image} to \ref{fig:ex3_pdm}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas_eric_9vp_images.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:3cercles}, three circles with $d=9$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = characteristic function.}
\label{fig:ex3_image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas_eric_9vp_signed_distance.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:3cercles}, three circles with $d=9$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (left to right and top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = signed distance.}
\label{fig:ex3_signed_distance}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{cas_eric_9vp_pdm_bis.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:3cercles}, three circles with $d=9$ parameters, 9 first eigenvectors (from left to right, top to bottom) when $\phi(\cdot)$ = discretization. The blue part of each eigenvector acts on the first circle, the red part of each eigenvector modifies the second circle and the green part of each eigenvector applies on the third circle.}
\label{fig:ex3_pdm}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
In each example, for all $\phi(\cdot)$'s, any shape $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$ can be reconstructed via Equation (\ref{eq:sumav}).
$\pmb\alpha^{(i)}$ is nonetheless $D$-dimensional hence no dimension reduction is obtained. We are therefore interested in low-rank approximations $\pmb\phi_{1:\delta}:=\overline{\pmb\phi}+\sum_{j=1}^\delta\alpha_j\v^j$ which solely consider the $\delta$ first eigenvectors, while guaranteeing a sufficient precision.
It is known \cite{jolliffe2011principal} that $\Vert\pmb\Phi-\pmb\Phi_{1:\delta}\Vert_F^2=N\sum_{j=\delta+1}^D\lambda_j$ where $\pmb\Phi_{1:\delta}$ is the reconstruction matrix using the $\delta$ first principal axes $\v^j$ only, and whose $i$-th row is $\overline{\pmb\phi}+\sum_{j=1}^\delta\alpha^{(i)}_j\v^j$. $\pmb\Phi_{1:\delta}$ is also known to be the closest (in terms of Frobenius norm) matrix to $\pmb\Phi$ with rank lower or equal to $\delta$.
The $\lambda_j$'s with $j>\delta$ inform us about the reconstruction loss.
Hence, we look for a mapping $\phi(\cdot)$ for which the $\lambda_j$ quickly go to zero.
In Tables \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d1} to \ref{tab:eigenvalues_d9}, the vanishing of $\lambda_j$ beyond the intrinsic dimension only happens when $\phi(\cdot)=\mathcal D$.
With the other mappings, alternative techniques relying on local PCAs \cite{fukunaga1971algorithm} on the $\pmb\alpha^{(i)}$'s are required to estimate the dimensionality of manifolds such as the ones on the top row of Figure \ref{fig:manifold}. The $d$ first principal components, $\pmb\alpha^{(i)}_{1:d}$ suffice to reconstruct $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$ exactly using $\mathcal D$ as the $\phi(\cdot)$ mapping, while more than $d$ components are required for $\phi(\mathbf x^{(i)})$ to be recovered using $\chi$ or $\mathbb D$.
With $\mathcal D$, the eigenvectors $\v^j$ (Right plot of Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d1_signed_distance}, Figures \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm}, \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}, \ref{fig:ex2_pdm} and \ref{fig:ex3_pdm}) are physically meaningful:
they can be interpreted as shape discretizations, which, being multiplied by coefficients $\alpha_j$ and added to the mean shape $\overline{\pmb\phi}$, act on the hole's size (Eigenvector 1 in right plot of Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d1_signed_distance}, Eigenvector 2 in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm}, Eigenvector 3 in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}, Eigenvector 3 in Figure \ref{fig:ex2_pdm}, Eigenvectors 7-9 in Figure \ref{fig:ex3_pdm}), or on the hole's position (Eigenvector 1 in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm}, Eigenvectors 1-2 in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d3_pdm}, Eigenvectors 1-2 in Figure \ref{fig:ex2_pdm}, Eigenvectors 1-6 in Figure \ref{fig:ex3_pdm}).
For example, very small eigenvectors such as the first one in Figure \ref{fig:ex1_d2_pdm} displace the shape in the direction specified by the eigenvector's position. In Figure \ref{fig:ex3_pdm}, the first eigenvectors tend to move each circle with respect to each other, while the sizes of the holes are affected by the last eigenvectors.
Whereas the characteristic function $\chi$ and the signed distance $\mathbb D$ are images,
the mapping $\mathcal D$ is a discretization of the final object we represent, a contour shape.
Without formal proof, we think that this is related to the observed property that the $d$ (the number of intrinsic dimensions) first eigencomponents $\pmb\alpha_{1:d}^{(i)}$, $i=1,\dotsc,N$ make a convex set as can be seen in Figures \ref{fig:manifold} and \ref{fig:manifold_cercle_surparametre}.
In a solid mechanics analogy, the $\overline{\pmb\phi}+\sum_j\alpha_j\v^j$ reconstruction can be thought as a sum of pressure fields $\v^j$ applied on each node of the Point Distribution Model, and which deform the initial mean shape $\overline{\pmb\phi}$ by a magnitude $\alpha_j$ to obtain $\pmb\phi$. Such an interpretation cannot be conducted with the eigenvectors obtained via the $\chi$ or $\mathbb D$ mapping, shown in the other figures.
Because of its clear pre-eminence, in the following, we will only consider the $\pmb\alpha$'s obtained using the contour discretization as $\phi(\cdot)$ mapping.
\subsubsection{Hierarchic shape basis for the reduction of high-dimensional designs}
Following these observations, we now deal with slightly more complex and realistic shapes $\Omega_\mathbf x$. Even though they are initially described with many parameters, they mainly depend on few intrinsic dimensions.
\begin{example}
A rectangle ABCD with $\mathbf x\in\mathbb R^{40}$ whose parameters $x_1$ and $x_2$ are the location of A, $x_3$ and $x_4$ are the width and the height of ABCD, and $\mathbf x_{5:13}$, $\mathbf x_{14:22}$, $\mathbf x_{23:31}$ and $\mathbf x_{32:40}$ are small evenly distributed perturbations, on the AB, BC, CD and DA segments, respectively.
\label{ex:coeur}
\end{example}
$x_1,\dotsc,x_4$ are of a magnitude larger than the other parameters to ensure a close-to-rectangular shape, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:rectangle}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{rectangle_shape_v3.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:coeur}: a rectangle with varying position, size, and deformation of its sides.}
\label{fig:rectangle}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 867.65 & 48.73\\
2 & 866.90 & 97.42\\
3 & 21.46 & 98.62\\
4 & 21.43 & 99.83\\
5 & 0.13 & 99.83\\
6 & 0.13 & 99.84\\
7 & 0.13 & 99.85\\
8 & 0.13 & 99.86\\
9 & 0.12 & 99.86\\
10 & 0.12 & 99.87\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
39 & 0.04 & 99.99\\
40 & 0.04 & 100\\
41 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{First PCA eigenvalues for $\phi(\cdot)$ = discretization, rectangles with $d=40$ parameters (Example \ref{ex:coeur}).}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_rectangle}
\end{table}
\clearpage
In this example where 4 parameters (position and sizes) mainly explain the differences among shapes, we see that a reconstruction quality of 99.83\% is attained with the 4 first eigenvectors $\v^j$.
Figure \ref{fig:coeur_eigenshapes} details the eigenvectors.
$\v^{1}$ and $\v^{2}$, the most influencing eigenshapes plotted in black and blue act as translations,
while $\v^{3}$ and $\v^{4}$ (in red and green) correspond to widening and heightening of the rectangle.
The fluctuations along the segments appear from the 5th eigenshape on.
Any shape is retrieved with the $d=40$ first eigenshapes which corresponds to the total number of parameters.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{coeur_eigenshapes.png}
\caption{6 first eigenshapes (in the order black, blue, red, green, yellow, purple) of the rectangles in Example \ref{ex:coeur}.}
\label{fig:coeur_eigenshapes}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
A straight line joining two fixed points A and B, modified by smooth perturbations $\mathbf r\in\mathbb R^{29}$, evenly distributed along [AB] to approximate a smooth curve.
\label{ex:catenoide}
\end{example}
The fifth example is inspired by the catenoid problem \cite{Colding11106}. The perturbations $\mathbf r$ are generated by a Gaussian Process with squared exponential kernel and with length-scale 6 times smaller than [AB]. Therefore, in this example, the $N=5000$ $\mathbf r^{(i)}$'s used for building $\pmb\Phi$ are not uniformly distributed in $X$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{catenoid_problem_description.png}
\caption{Example \ref{ex:catenoide}: a straight line joining two points, modified by the perturbations $r_j$ to approximate a curve. Gray: the line joining A and B. Blue, red, yellow and green curve: examples of lines with regular $r_j$ perturbations. Red envelope: boundaries for the $r_j$'s.
}
\label{fig:catenoid_problem_description}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 2.156 & 50.258\\
2 & 1.251 & 79.422\\
3 & 0.590 & 93.181\\
4 & 0.206 & 97.973\\
5 & 0.065 & 99.480\\
6 & 0.017 & 99.882\\
7 & 0.004 & 99.975\\
8 & 0.001 & 99.995\\
9 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.999\\
10 & $\varepsilon$ & 100\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
28 & $\varepsilon$ & 100\\
29 & $\varepsilon$ & 100\\
30 & 0 & 100\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{First PCA eigenvalues for $\phi(\cdot)$ = discretization, curve with $d=29$ parameters. $\varepsilon$ means the quantity is not exactly 0, but smaller than $10^{-3}$, hence less than 0.04\% of the first PCA eigenvalue.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_catenoide}
\end{table}
\clearpage
Again, the initial dimension $(d=29)$ is recovered by looking at the strictly positive eigenvalues.
Furthermore, the manifold is found to mainly lie in a lower dimensional space: $\mathcal A_N$ can approximated in $\delta=7$ dimensions since $\sum_{j=1}^\delta\lambda_j/\sum_{j=1}^D\lambda_j=99.975\%$.
Figure \ref{fig:catenoide_eigenshapes} shows the corresponding eigenshapes.
The eigenshapes are similar to the ordered modes of the harmonic series with the associated eigenvalues ordered as the inverse of the frequencies.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{catenoide_all_eigenshapes.pdf}
\caption{7 first eigenshapes for the curves of Example \ref{ex:catenoide}.}
\label{fig:catenoide_eigenshapes}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
A NACA airfoil parameterized by three parameters: $\mathbf x=(M,P,T)^\top\in\mathbb R^3$ where $M$ is the maximum camber, $P$ is the position of this maximum, and $T$ is the maximal thickness. Figure \ref{fig:naca_description} describes the airfoil.
\label{ex:naca3}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{naca.jpg}
\caption{Description of a NACA airfoil with its $M$, $P$, $T$ parameters.}
\label{fig:naca_description}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 0.2819 & 54.619\\
2 & 0.2203 & 97.318\\
3 & 0.0129 & 99.814\\
4 & 0.0008 & 99.959\\
5 & 0.0001 & 99.983\\
6 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.991\\
7 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.996\\
8 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.997\\
9 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.999\\
10 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.999\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{First PCA eigenvalues of the NACA airfoil with $d=3$ parameters ($\phi(\cdot)$ is the contour discretization). $\varepsilon$ means the quantity is smaller than $10^{-4}$, hence less than 0.04\% of the first PCA eigenvalue.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_naca3}
\end{table}
In this example, a typical noise-truncation criterion such as discussed in Example \ref{ex:catenoide} would retain 3 or 4 axes. In Example \ref{ex:naca3} too, the effective dimension can almost be retrieved from the $\lambda$'s.
Figure \ref{fig:naca3_eigenshapes} shows the 4 first eigenshapes (left) as well as the $\mathcal A_N$ manifold (right). The eigenvectors can be interpreted as a reformulation of the CAD parameters.
The first eigenshape (blue) is a symmetric airfoil. Multiplying it by a coefficient (after adding it to the black mean shape) will increase or decrease the thickness of the airfoil, hence it plays a similar role to the $T$ parameter. The second eigenshape is a cambered airfoil, whose role is similar to $M$ (maximum camber). Last, the third airfoil, which has a much smaller eigenvalue $\lambda_3$, is very thin, positive in the first part of the airfoil, and negative in its second part. It balances the camber of the airfoil towards the leading edge or towards the rear and plays a role similar to $P$, the position of the maximum camber. $\v^3$'s effect is complemented by $\v^4$.
The analysis of $\mathcal A_N$ (Figure \ref{fig:naca3_eigenshapes}) is physically meaningful: even though $\mathbf x^{(i)}$ are sampled uniformly in $X$, $\mathcal A_N$ resembles a pyramid in the ($\v^1,\v^2,\v^3$) basis. Designs with minimal $\alpha_2$ share the same $\alpha_3$ value. Since negative $\alpha_2$'s correspond to wings with little camber, the position of this maximum camber has very little impact, hence the almost null $\alpha_3$ value.
By looking at $\mathcal A_N$, it is learned that the parameter $P$ does not matter when $M$ is small, which is intuitive but is not expressed by the $(M,P,T)$ coordinates.
Distances in $\mathcal A_N$ are therefore more representative of shape differences.
An additional advantage of analyzing shapes is that correlations in the space of parameters (such as the one between $M$ and $P$ in this example) are discovered and removed, since $\mathcal V$ is an orthonormal basis. Here, orthogonality between eigenshapes is measured by the standard scalar product in $\mathbb R^D$. Depending on the application, there may exist natural definitions of the orthogonality between discretized shapes, which could be used by the PCA.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.57\textwidth]{vp_naca3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{naca22_alpha_manifold.png}
\caption{NACA airfoil with $d=3$ parameters. Left: mean shape and 4 first eigenshapes (black, blue, red, green, yellow). Right: three first eigencomponents ($\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$) of the $\mathcal A_N$ manifold.}
\label{fig:naca3_eigenshapes}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
A modified NACA airfoil which is parameterized by $d=22$ parameters:\\$\mathbf x=(M,P,T,L_1,\dotsc,L_{19})^\top\in\mathbb R^{22}$ where $M$, $P$, $T$ are the standard NACA parameters (Example \ref{ex:naca3}), and where the $L_i$'s correspond to small bumps along the airfoil. Figure \ref{fig:naca22_description} describes a NACA 22 airfoil.
\label{ex:naca22}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{description_naca_22.png}
\caption{Description of a NACA airfoil in 22 dimensions. It is a standard NACA airfoil whose intrados and extrados have been modified by bumps of size $L_i$.}
\label{fig:naca22_description}
\end{figure}\clearpage
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$j$ & Eigenvalue & Cumulative percentage\\\hline
1 & 0.2826 & 53.932\\
2 & 0.2205 & 96.021\\
3 & 0.0134 & 98.580\\
4 & 0.0011 & 98.798\\
5 & 0.0006 & 98.903\\
6 & 0.0005 & 99.006\\
7 & 0.0005 & 99.106\\
8 & 0.0005 & 99.202\\
9 & 0.0005 & 99.293\\
10 & 0.0004 & 99.377\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
19 & 0.003 & 99.958\\
20 & 0.002 & 99.992\\
21 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.995\\
22 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.998\\
23 & $\varepsilon$ & 99.999\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{First PCA eigenvalues for $\phi(\cdot)$ = discretization, NACA with $d=22$ parameters. $\varepsilon$ means the quantity is not exactly 0, but smaller than $10^{-4}$, hence less than 0.04\% of the first PCA eigenvalue.}
\label{tab:eigenvalues_naca22}
\end{table}
Here, as in the Example \ref{ex:naca3}, the noise-truncation criteria will retain between 6 and 20 dimensions, depending on the reconstruction quality required.
Indeed, when looking at specimen of NACA 22 airfoils as the one in the upper left part of Figure \ref{fig:exemple_naca22}, less than 22 dimensions are expected to be necessary to retrieve an approximation of sufficient quality.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{9_naca22_profiles.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{6eigenshapes_naca22.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{reconstruction_idx1.png}
\caption{
Left: examples of NACA 22 airfoils. Even though the true dimension is 22, less dimensions may suffice to approximate the shapes well enough. Right: reconstruction scheme of any NACA 22 shape: a weighted deviation from the mean shape $\overline{\pmb\phi}$ in the direction of the eigenshapes. Bottom: example of shape reconstruction (red) using 2, 3, 6 or 20 eigenshapes. The more $\v^j$'s, the better the reconstruction but the larger the dimension of $\pmb\alpha$.}
\label{fig:exemple_naca22}
\end{figure}
The analysis of eigenshapes, shown in Figure \ref{fig:naca22_eigenshapes}, is similar to the one of Example \ref{ex:naca3}. Small details that act on the airfoil such as the bumps only appear from the 4th eigenshape on. Not taking them into account leads to a weaker reconstruction, as shown in the bottom part of Figure \ref{fig:exemple_naca22}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{naca22_acp.pdf}
\caption{Mean shape (black) and 6 first eigenshapes (blue, red, green, yellow, purple, pink) for the NACA with 22 parameters.
The three first eigenvectors are similar to those observed on Figure \ref{fig:naca3_eigenshapes} for the original NACA 3. Fluctuations along the eigenshapes are found from the 4th eigenshape on.
They allow to reconstruct the local refinements (bumps) of the airfoils.}
\label{fig:naca22_eigenshapes}
\end{figure}\clearpage
According to these experiments, the eigenvectors $\v^j$, $j\in\{d+1,\dotsc,D\}$, can already be discarded without even considering the values of the associated objective functions since the $d$ first shape modes explain the whole variability of the discretized shapes.
In practice, to filter numerical noise and to remove non-informative modes in shapes that are truly over-parameterized, we only consider the $d'$ first eigenshapes, $d':=\min(d,\tilde d)$ where $\tilde d$ corresponds to the smallest number of axes that explain more than a given level of diversity in $\Phi$ (e.g. 99.9, 99.95 or 99.99\%), measured by $100\times\sum_{j=1}^{\tilde d}\lambda_j/\sum_{j=1}^D\lambda_j$. Another alternative is to define $\tilde d$ according to the dimensions for which $\lambda_j/\lambda_1$ is smaller than a prescribed threshold (e.g. 1/1000).
Even though the notation $D$ is kept, the eigenvectors $\v^j$ and the principal components $\alpha_j$, are considered to be null $\forall j>d'$ so that in fact $D=d'$ in the following.
\section{GP models for reduced eigenspaces}
\label{section:GP_in_eigenbasis}
Building a surrogate model in the space of principal components has already been investigated in the context of reduced order models \cite{berkooz1993proper}.
In most applications, the dimension reduction is carried out in the output space, which has large dimension when it corresponds to values on a finite element mesh.
The response is approximated by a linear combination of a small number of modes, and the metamodel is a function of the modes coefficients.
The construction of surrogates with inherent dimensionality reduction has also been considered.
In the active subspace method \cite{constantine2014active}, the dimension reduction comes from a linear combination of the inputs which is carried out by projecting $\mathbf x$ onto the hyperplane spanned by the directions of largest $\nabla f(\mathbf x)$ variation. The reduced-dimension GP is then $Y(\mathbf W^\top\mathbf x)$ with $\mathbf W\in\mathbb R^{d\times\delta}$ containing these directions in columns. In \cite{palar2018accuracy}, cross-validation is employed for choosing the number of such axes.
An application to airfoils is given in \cite{li2019surrogate} where the authors take the directions of largest drag and lift gradients as columns of $\mathbf W$, even though this basis is no longer orthogonal.
Another related technique with a $Y(\mathbf W^\top\mathbf x)$ GP which does not require the knowledge of $\nabla f(\mathbf x)$ is the Kriging and Partial Least Squares (KPLS) method \cite{bouhlel2016improving}, where $\mathbf x$ is projected onto the hyperplane spanned by the first $\delta$ axes of a PLS regression \cite{frank1993statistical}. The dimension reduction is output-driven but $\mathbf W$ is no longer orthogonal, and information may be lost when $n<d'$ because any shape (of effective dimension $d'$) cannot be exactly reconstructed (Equation \ref{eq:sumav}) with these $n$ vectors. Coordinates in the PLS space are therefore incomplete and metamodeling loses precision when $n$ is too small.
In the same spirit, a double maximum-likelihood procedure is developed in \cite{tripathy2016gaussian} to build an output-related and orthogonal matrix $\mathbf W$ for the construction of a Gaussian Process with built-in dimensionality reduction. Rotating the design space through hyperparameters determined by maximum likelihood is also performed in \cite{namura2017kriging}. Table \ref{tab:built_in_gp} summarizes the existing literature for building such GPs as well as the approach introduced in Section \ref{sec:additive_gp} (last column).
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Model & $Y(\mathbf W^\top\mathbf x)$ & $Y(\mathbf W^\top\phi(\mathbf x))$ & $Y^a(\mathbf W_a^\top\phi(\mathbf x))+Y^{\overline{a}}(\mathbf W_{\overline{a}}^\top\phi(\mathbf x))$\\\hline
Dimension reduction & Linear in $\mathbf x$ & Nonlinear in $\mathbf x$ & \makecell{Nonlinear in $\mathbf x$;\\group-additive model}\\\hline
Construction of $\mathbf W$ & \makecell{Active subspaces \cite{constantine2014active,palar2018accuracy,li2019surrogate}\\PLS \cite{bouhlel2016improving}\\GP hyperparameters \cite{tripathy2016gaussian,namura2017kriging}\\Sensitivity analysis \cite{salem2018sequential}} & PLS \cite{li2018data} & \makecell{Selection of mapped variables\\through penalized likelihood\\(Section \ref{sec:eigenshape_selection})}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{An overview of GP models with built-in dimensionality reduction.}
\label{tab:built_in_gp}
\end{table}
\subsection{Unsupervised dimension reduction}
\label{sec:unsupervised_dimension_reduction}
Instead of the space of CAD parameters $\mathbf x$, we reduce the dimension of the input space by building the surrogate with information from the space of shape representations, $\Phi$, as in \cite{li2018data}. To circumvent the high dimensionality of $\Phi\subset\mathbb R^D$, a linear dimension reduction of $\phi(\mathbf x)$ is achieved by building the model in the space spanned by $\mathbf W^\top\phi(\mathbf x)$.
A natural candidate for $\mathbf W$ is a restriction to few columns (eigenshapes) of the matrix $\mathbf V$.
Notice that contrarily to the other dimension reduction techniques which operate a linear dimension reduction of $\mathbf x$,
this approach is nonlinear in $\mathbf x$ since it operates linearly on the nonlinear transformation $\phi(\mathbf x)$.
Also, it operates on a better suited representation of the designs, their shapes, instead of their parameters.
A first idea to reduce the dimension of the problem is to conserve the $\delta$ first eigenvectors $\v^j$ according to some reconstruction quality criterion measured by the eigenvalues.
Given a threshold $T$ (e.g., 0.95 or 0.99), only the first $\delta$ modes such that $\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{\delta}\lambda_j}{\sum_{j=1}^{D}\lambda_j}>T$ are retained in $\mathbf V_{1:\delta}\in\mathbb R^{D\times\delta}$ because they contribute for $100\times T\%$ of the variance in $\Phi$.
The surrogate model is implemented in the space of the $\delta$ first principal components as
\begin{equation}
Y(\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta})=Y(\mathbf V_{1:\delta}^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})).
\label{eq:Yalpha}
\end{equation}
Using a stationary kernel for the $Y(\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta})$ GP, i.e. $k(\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta},\pmb\alpha'_{1:\delta})=\tilde k(\Vert\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta}-\pmb\alpha'_{1:\delta}\Vert_{\mathbb R^\delta})$, the correlation between designs is $k(\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta},\pmb\alpha'_{1:\delta})=\tilde k(\Vert\mathbf V_{1:\delta}^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\phi(\mathbf x'))\Vert_{\mathbb R^\delta})=\tilde k(r)$ with $r^2=(\phi(\mathbf x)-\phi(\mathbf x'))^\top\mathbf M(\phi(\mathbf x)-\phi(\mathbf x'))$ where $\mathbf M=\mathbf V_{1:\delta}\mathbf V_{1:\delta}^\top$ is a $D\times D$ matrix with low rank ($\delta$). Hence, this model implements a Gaussian Process in the $\Phi$ space with an integrated linear dimensionality reduction step \cite{GPML}.
Note that the kernel is non-stationary in the original $X$ space.
The approaches \cite{constantine2014active,bouhlel2016improving,tripathy2016gaussian} mainly differ from that proposed in Equation (\ref{eq:Yalpha}) in the construction of the reduced basis: in Equation (\ref{eq:Yalpha}), dimension reduction is carried out without the need to call the expensive $f(\mathbf x)$ (or its gradient): the directions of largest variation of an easy to compute mapping $\phi(\cdot)$ are used instead.
This also prevents from a spurious or incomplete projection when $n$ is smaller than $D$ and avoids recomputing the basis at each iteration.
This is nonetheless a limitation since the $Y(\pmb\alpha_{1:\delta})$ approach relies only on considerations about the shape geometry.
The output $y$ is not taken into account for the dimension reduction even though some $\v^j$, $j\in\{1,\dotsc,\delta\}$ may influence $y$ or not.
Two shapes which differ in the $\alpha_j$ components with $j\le\delta$ may behave similarly in terms of output $y$, so that further dimension reduction is possible. Vice versa, eigencomponents that have a small geometrical effect and were neglected may be reintroduced because they matter for $y$.
As an illustration consider the red and black shapes of Figure \ref{fig:naca_proches}. Both are associated to parameters $\mathbf x$ and $\mathbf x'$ and their discretizations $\phi(\mathbf x)$ and $\phi(\mathbf x')$ are quite different. Depending on the objective function, $f(\mathbf x)$ and $f(\mathbf x')$ might differ widely. However, when considering the $\overline{\pmb\phi}+\sum_{j=1}^{\delta}\alpha_j\v^j$ reconstruction with $\delta=3$, they look very similar because $\pmb\alpha_{1:3}\approx\pmb\alpha'_{1:3}$.
Even though $\mathcal V_{1:3}:=\{\v^1,\v^2,\v^3\}$ is a tempting basis because it explains 98.5\% of the discretizations variance, it is not a good choice if $f(\mathbf x)$ and $f(\mathbf x')$ are different: because of continuity assumptions a surrogate model would typically suffer from inputs $\pmb\alpha\approx\pmb\alpha'$ with $y\ne y'$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{reconstruction_gommee.png}
\caption{Example of two different shapes (black and red) whose reconstruction in the space of the three first eigenshapes is very similar.}
\label{fig:naca_proches}
\end{figure}
For this reason, instead of building the surrogate in the space spanned by the most relevant shape modes, we would prefer to build it in the $\mathcal V_a\subset\mathcal V$ basis of the most output-influencing eigenshapes $\pmb\alpha^a$. Additionally, since the remaining ``inactive'' components $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ refine the shape and might explain small fluctuations of $y$, instead of omitting them (which is equivalent to stating $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}=\mathbf 0$), we would like to keep them in the surrogate model while prioritizing $\pmb\alpha^a$: a GP $Y^a(\mathbf W_a\phi(\mathbf x))+Y^{\overline{a}}(\mathbf W_a\phi(\mathbf x))$ is detailed in Sec. \ref{sec:additive_gp}.
\subsection{Supervised dimension reduction}
\label{sec:supervised_dimension_reduction}
\subsubsection{Selection of active eigenshapes}
\label{sec:eigenshape_selection}
To select the eigencomponents that impact $y$ the most, the penalized log-likelihood \cite{yi2011penalized} of a regular, anisotropic GP in the high dimensional space of $\pmb\alpha$'s is considered,
\begin{equation}
\max_\vartheta pl_\lambda(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},{\mathbf y_{1:n}};\vartheta) \quad \text{ where } \quad
pl_\lambda(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},{\mathbf y_{1:n}};\vartheta):=l(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},{\mathbf y}_{1:n};\vartheta)-\lambda\Vert\pmb\theta^{-1}\Vert_1
\label{eq:pmle}
\end{equation}
The $\vartheta$ are the GP's hyper-parameters made of the length-scales $\theta_j$, a constant mean term $\beta$, and the variance of the GP $\sigma^2$.
$\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)}$ are the eigencomponents of the evaluated designs $\mathbf x^{(1)},\dotsc,\mathbf x^{(n)}$, and $\mathbf y_{1:n}$ the associated outputs, $\mathbf y_{1:n}=(y_1,\dotsc,y_n)^\top=(f(\mathbf x^{(1)}),\dotsc,f(\mathbf x^{(n)}))^\top$.
The mean and the variance terms can be solved for analytically by setting the derivative of the penalized log-likelihood (\ref{eq:pmle}) equal to 0 which yields
\begin{equation}
\widehat\beta:=\frac{\mathbf1^\top\mathbf R^{-1}_{\pmb\theta}\mathbf y_{1:n}}{\mathbf1^\top \mathbf R^{-1}_{\pmb\theta}\mathbf 1}
\quad \text{ and } \quad
\widehat{\sigma}^2:=\frac1n(\mathbf y_{1:n}-\mathbf1\widehat\beta)^\top\mathbf R^{-1}_{\pmb\theta}(\mathbf y_{1:n}-\mathbf1\widehat\beta)
\label{eq:beta_sig}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf K_\vartheta$ is the covariance matrix with entries ${K_\vartheta}_{ij}=\widehat{\sigma^2}k_{\pmb\theta}(\mathbf x^{(i)},\mathbf x^{(j)})$, with determinant $\vert\mathbf K_\vartheta\vert$ and $\mathbf R_{\pmb\theta}$ is the correlation matrix, $R_{ij}=k_{\pmb\theta}(\mathbf x^{(i)},\mathbf x^{(j)})$.
The (concentrated) penalized log-likelihood of this GP is
\begin{equation}
pl_\lambda(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},{\mathbf y}_{1:n};\vartheta)=-\frac n2\log(2\pi)-\frac12\log(\vert\mathbf K_\vartheta\vert)-\frac12({\mathbf y}_{1:n}-\mathbf 1\widehat{\beta})^\top\mathbf K_\vartheta^{-1}({\mathbf y}_{1:n}-\mathbf 1\widehat{\beta})-\lambda\Vert\pmb\theta^{-1}\Vert_1
\label{eq:concpenalLL}
\end{equation}
The penalization is applied to $\pmb\theta^{-1}:=(1/\theta_1,\dotsc,1/\theta_D)^\top$, the vector containing the inverse length-scales of the GP.
It is indeed clear \cite{salem2018sequential} that if $\theta_j\rightarrow+\infty$, the direction $\v^j$ has no influence on $y$ as all the points are perfectly correlated together, making the GP flat in this dimension.
The $L^1$ penalty term applied to the $\theta_j$'s performs variable selection: this Lasso-like procedure promotes zeros in the vector of inverse length-scales, hence sets many $\theta_j$'s to $+\infty$.
Few directions with small $\theta_j$ are selected and make the active dimensions, $\pmb\alpha^a$ (step \circled{3} in Figure \ref{fig:summary}).
Even if the maximization of $pl_\lambda$ is carried out in a $D$-dimensional space, the problem is tractable since the gradients of $pl_\lambda$ are analytically known \cite{roustant2012dicekriging}, and because the $L^1$ penalty convexifies the problem.
We solve it using standard gradient-based techniques such as BFGS \cite{liu1989limited} with multistart.
Numerical experiments not reported here for reasons of brevity have shown that most local optima to this problem solely differ in $\theta_j$'s that are already too large to be relevant and consistently yield the same set of active variables $\pmb\alpha^a$.
Notice that in \cite{yi2011penalized}, a similar approach is undertaken but the penalization was applied on the reciprocal variables $\mathbf w=(w_1,\dotsc,w_D)^\top$ with $w_j=1/\theta_j$. In our work, the inverse length-scales are penalized, the gradient of the penalty is proportional to $1/\theta_j^2$. This might help the optimizer since directions with $\theta_j$'s that are not large yet are given more emphasis. In comparison, the $\mathbf w$ penalty function's gradient is isotropic.
Since we can restrict the number of variables to $d'\ll D$ with no loss of information (cf. discussion at the end of Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction}), the dimension of Problem (\ref{eq:pmle}) is substantially reduced which leads to a more efficient resolution.
Because the $\alpha_j$'s have zero mean and variance $\lambda_j$, they have magnitudes that decrease with $j$.
When $m<n$, $1/\theta_n$ is typically larger than $1/\theta_m$, meaning that the optimizer is better rewarded by diminishing $1/\theta_n$ than $1/\theta_m$.
Starting from reasonable $\theta_j$ values\footnote{Typically of the order of range$(\alpha_j)$.} the first $\theta_j$'s are therefore less likely to be increased in comparison with the last ones, i.e. they are less likely to be found inactive.
This can be seen as a bias which can be removed by scaling all $\alpha_j$'s to the same interval.
However, we do not normalize the $\pmb\alpha$ variables for two reasons.
First, since the $\alpha_j$'s correspond to reconstruction coefficients associated to normalized eigenshapes ($\Vert\v^j\Vert_{\mathbb R^D}=1$), they share the same physical dimension and can be interpreted in the same manner.
Second, this bias is equivalent to assuming that the most significant shape variations are responsible for the largest output variations, which is a reasonable prior.
In experiments that are not reported here for the sake of brevity, we have noticed that a BFGS algorithm optimizing Problem (\ref{eq:pmle}) got trapped by weak local optima more frequently when the $\alpha_j$'s were normalized.
\begin{definition}[Selection of active dimensions]
Let a GP be indexed by $\alpha_1,\dotsc,\alpha_D \in [\pmb\alpha^{\min},\pmb\alpha^{\max}] \subset \mathbb R^D$ and $\{\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},\mathbf y_{(1:n)})\}$ be the data to model. The length-scales $\pmb\theta$ of the GP are set by maximizing the $L^1$ penalized concentrated log-likelihood of Equation (\ref{eq:concpenalLL}).
A dimension $j$ is declared \emph{active} if
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\theta_j}{\text{range}(\alpha_j)} \le 10 \times \underset{i=1,\dotsc,D}{\min}~\frac{\theta_i}{\text{range}(\alpha_i)}\text{.}
\end{equation*}
The $\delta$ such active dimensions are denoted $\pmb\alpha^a=(\alpha_{a_1},\dotsc,\alpha_{a_\delta})\in\mathbb R^\delta$.
\label{def:selection}
\end{definition}
Since the $\alpha_j$'s have different (decreasing) ranges, the length-scales have to be normalized by the range of $\pmb\alpha_j^{(1:n)}$ to be meaningful during this $\theta_j$ comparison.
Our implementation extends the likelihood maximization of the \texttt{kergp} package \cite{deville2015package} to include the penalization term.
After a dimensional analysis of $pl_\lambda$, we have chosen to take $\lambda=\frac nD$
to balance both terms. Other techniques such as cross-validation or the use of different $\lambda$'s for obtaining a pre-defined number of active components can also be considered.
On the NACA 22 benchmark with few observations of $f(\cdot)$ ($n=15$ here), Figure \ref{fig:naca_selection}
gives the only few active components that are selected by the penalized maximum likelihood procedure.
The three first principal axes, $\v^1$, $\v^2$ and $\v^3$ are retained when considering the drag (top). Indeed, these are the eigenshapes that globally impact the shape the most and change its drag.
When the output $y$ is the lift (bottom), only the second principal axis is selected. This eigenshape modifies the camber of the shape, which is known to highly impact the lift. The other eigenvectors are detected to be less critical for $y$'s variations.
When $n$ grows, more eigenshapes get selected because they also slightly impact the output. For instance when $n=50$, some eigenshapes that contain bumps (the 4th, the 5th, the 8th, etc.) are selected for modeling the lift.
They also contribute to changing the camber of the airfoil, hence its lift.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{drag_reconstruction2.png}\\[0.5cm]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{lift_reconstruction2.png}
\caption{Variable selection on the NACA 22 benchmark by penalized maximum likelihood.
For the drag (top), the three first eigenshapes that act on the shape, hence on its drag, are selected (red coefficients). For the lift, only the second eigencomponent ($\v^2$) is selected (bottom). Indeed $\v^2$ modifies the camber of the airfoil, hence it plays a major role on the lift. The other eigenbasis vectors (green coefficients) are estimated to be less influential on $y$.}
\label{fig:naca_selection}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Additive GP between active and inactive eigenshapes}
\label{sec:additive_gp}
Completely omitting the non-active dimensions, $\pmb\alpha^{\overline a}\in\mathbb R^{D-\delta}$, and building the surrogate model $Y(\cdot)$ in the sole $\pmb\alpha^a$ space may amount to erasing some geometric patterns of the shapes which contribute to small variations of $y$.
For this reason, an additive GP \cite{durrande2012additive,duvenaud2011additive} with zonal anisotropy \cite{allard2016anisotropy} between the active and inactive eigenshapes is considered (step \circled{4} in Figure \ref{fig:summary}):
\begin{equation}Y(\pmb\alpha)=\beta+Y^a(\pmb\alpha^a)+Y^{\overline a}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline a})\text{.}\label{eq:modele_additif}\end{equation}
$Y^a(\pmb\alpha^a)$ is the anisotropic main-effect GP which works in the reduced space of active variables. It requires the estimation of $\delta+1$ hyper-parameters (the length-scales $\theta_j$ and a GP variance $\sigma^2_a$) and aims at capturing most of $y$'s variation, related to $\pmb\alpha^a$'s effect.
$Y^{\overline a}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline a})$ is a GP over the large space of inactive components.
It is a GP which just takes residual effects into account.
To keep $Y^{\overline a}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline a})$ tractable, it is considered isotropic, i.e., it only has 2 hyper-parameters, a unique length-scale $\theta_{\overline a}$ and a variance $\sigma^2_{\overline a}$.
In the end, even though $Y(\pmb\alpha)$ operates with $\pmb\alpha$'s $\in\mathbb R^D$ and there are fewer observations than dimensions\footnote{Even if pruning the $\alpha_j$ components for $j>d'$ (see comments at the end of Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction}), $n<d'$ may hold.}, $n\ll D$, it remains tractable since only a
total of $\delta+3\ll n$ hyperparameters have to be learned, which guarantees the identifiability, i.e. the unicity of the hyperparameters solution even when the number of observations is small.
Although the $\alpha_j$'s have different ranges, they are homogeneous in that they all multiply normalized eigenshapes.
Thus, the distances inside the shape manifold, $\mathcal A$, should be relevant and an isotropic model is a possible assumption, which again, tends to emphasize eigenshapes that appear the most within the designs.
This additive model can be interpreted as a GP in the $\pmb\alpha^a$ space, with an inhomogeneous noise fitted by the $Y^{\overline{a}}(\cdot)$ GP \cite{durrande2011etude}.
It aims at modeling a function that varies primarily along the active dimensions, and fluctuates only marginally along the inactive ones, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:illustration_gp_additif}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{GP_additif_legende_sans_fleche_dans_plan.png}
\caption{Example of a function that primarily varies along the $\pmb\alpha^a$ direction, and secondarily along $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$. If $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ is omitted, one implicitly considers the restriction of $f(\cdot)$ to the gray plane where $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}=\mathbf0$.}
\label{fig:illustration_gp_additif}
\end{figure}
Denoting $k_a$ and $k_{\overline{a}}$ the kernels of the GPs, the hyper-parameters $\vartheta_a=(\theta_{a_1},\dotsc,\theta_{a_\delta},\sigma^2_a)$ and $\vartheta_{\overline{a}}=(\theta_{\overline a},\sigma^2_{\overline a})$ are estimated by maximizing the log-likelihood of (\ref{eq:modele_additif}) given the observed data ${\mathbf y}_{1:n}$,
\[l_Y(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},{\mathbf y_{1:n}};\vartheta_a,\vartheta_{\overline{a}})=-\frac n2\log2\pi-\frac12\log(\vert\mathbf K\vert)-\frac12(\mathbf y_{1:n}-\mathbf1\widehat{\beta})^\top\mathbf K^{-1}(\mathbf y_{1:n}-\mathbf1\widehat{\beta})\text{,}\]
using the \texttt{kergp} package \cite{deville2015package}. $\mathbf K=\mathbf K_a+\mathbf K_{\overline{a}}$, with ${K_a}_{ij}=\sigma^2_{a}k_a({\pmb\alpha^a}^{(i)},{\pmb\alpha^a}^{(j)})$, and ${K_{\overline{a}}}_{ij}=\sigma^2_{\overline{a}}k_{\overline{a}}({\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}}^{(i)},{\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}}^{(j)})$, and $\widehat{\beta}$ is
given by Equation (\ref{eq:beta_sig}).
The correlation between $\pmb\alpha$ and $\pmb\alpha'$ being $k(\pmb\alpha,{\pmb\alpha}')=\sigma^2_ak_a({\pmb\alpha}^a,{{\pmb\alpha}^a}')+\sigma^2_{\overline{a}}k_{\overline{a}}({\pmb\alpha}^{\overline{a}},{\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}}')$, the kriging predictor and variance of this additive GP are \cite{GPML}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
m(\pmb\alpha)=\mathbf1_n\widehat{\beta}+k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})^\top \mathbf K^{-1}({\mathbf y}_{1:n}-\mathbf1_n\widehat{\beta})\\
s^2(\pmb\alpha)=\sigma^2_a+\sigma^2_{\overline{a}}-k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})^\top\mathbf K^{-1}k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})
\label{eq:formules_krigeage_additif}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsection{Experiments: Metamodeling in the eigenshape basis}
\label{sec:metamodeling_shape_eigenbasis}
We now study the performance of the variable selection and of the additive GP described in the previous section.
The different versions of GPs that are compared are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{GP($X$)} is the GP in the original space of parameters $X$;
\item \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{\text{\_\_}}$)} indicates the GP is built in the space of $\text{\_\_}$ (to be specified) principal components;
\item \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} means the GP works with the active $\pmb\alpha$'s only;
\item \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} refers to the additive GP (Section \ref{sec:additive_gp}).
\end{itemize}
We equip the example designs \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}, \ref{ex:coeur}, \ref{ex:catenoide} and \ref{ex:naca22} (Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction}) with objective functions $f(\mathbf x)$ that are to be modeled by the fitted GPs.
For each function, the predictive capability of different models is compared on a distinct test set
using the R2 coefficient of determination.
Later, in Section \ref{sec:experiments_optimization}, the objective functions will be optimized.
\begin{itemize}
\item Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre}: $f_2(\mathbf x)=r-\pi r^2-\Vert(x,y)^\top-(3,2)^\top\Vert_2$, where $x$, $y$ and $r$ correspond to the position of the center and the radius of the over-parameterized circle (and accessible through $\mathbf x$), respectively.
\item Example \ref{ex:coeur}: $f_4(\mathbf x)=\Vert\Omega_{\mathbf t}-\Omega_{\tilde{\mathbf x}}\Vert_2^2$ where $\tilde{\mathbf x}:=\mathbf x-(x_1+2.5,x_2+2.5,0,\dotsc,0)^\top$ corresponds to the centered design, and $\Omega_{\mathbf t}$, $\Omega_{\tilde{\mathbf x}}$ are the nodal coordinates of the shapes, see Figure \ref{fig:rectangle}. The goal is to retrieve a target shape $\mathbf t=(t_1,\dotsc,t_{40})^\top$ whose lower left point (A) is set at $t_1=t_2=2.5$ with the flexible rectangle defined by $\mathbf x$. The A point of any shape $\mathbf x$ is first moved towards (2.5, 2.5) too, and $f_4$ measures the discrepancy. Here, the target $\mathbf t$ is the rectangular heart shown in Figure \ref{fig:heart_design}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{target_design_heart.png}
\caption{Rectangular heart target shape of Example \ref{ex:coeur}.}
\label{fig:heart_design}
\end{figure}
\item Example \ref{ex:catenoide}: $f_5(r)=2\pi\int_{y_A}^{y_B}r(y)\sqrt{1+r'(y)^2}dy$: inspired by the catenoid problem \cite{Colding11106}, we aim at finding a regular curve joining two points $\text{A}=(0,y_A)$ and $\text{B}=(1,y_B)$, with the smallest axisymmetric surface. The curve $r(y)$ is the straight line between A and B, modified by $\mathbf r=(r_1,\dotsc,r_{29})^\top$, see Figure \ref{fig:catenoid_problem_description}.
\item Example \ref{ex:naca22}: the objective functions are the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient of the airfoil, $f_{7L}$, $f_{7D}$. The latter are computed using a commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) computer code.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Over-parameterized circle (Example \ref{ex:cercle_surparametre})}
For the over-parameterized circle, the objective function is
$f_2(\mathbf x)=r-\pi r^2-\Vert(x,y)^\top-(3,2)^\top\Vert_2$, where $x$, $y$ and $r$ correspond to the position of the center and the radius of the circle (accessible through $\mathbf x$), respectively.
$f_2$ explicitly depends on the parameters that truly define the circle. Three models are compared
\begin{itemize}
\item A model using the CAD parameters $\mathbf x\in\mathbb R^{39}$;
\item A model using the 3 first eigencomponents, $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$;
\item A model built over the \emph{true} circle parameters $(x,y,r)$.
\end{itemize}
Table \ref{tab:R2_cercle} gives the average R2 over 10 runs with different space-filling DoEs of size $n=20,50,100,200$. Since $d=39>20$, no GP was fitted in the CAD parameter space when $n=20$.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & \texttt{GP($X$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} & \texttt{GP(True)}\\\hline
20 & - & 0.99741 & 0.99701\\
50 & 0.78193 & 0.99954 & 0.99951\\
100 & 0.86254 & 0.99984 & 0.99985\\
200 & 0.93383 & 0.99992 & 0.99997\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Average R2 over 10 runs for the prediction of $f_2$.
\texttt{GP($X$)} is the GP in the 39-dimensional CAD parameter space, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} corresponds to a GP fitted to the 3 first principal components $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$, and \texttt{GP(True)} to the GP with the space of minimal circle coordinates.}
\label{tab:R2_cercle}
\end{table}
$f_2$ is easily learned by the surrogate model as shown by large R2 values. Obviously, the quality of prediction increases with $n$ and the eigenshape GP (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)}) built in a 3-dimensional space outperforms the GP in the CAD parameters space (\texttt{GP($X$)}, $d=39$).
Yet, the \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} performs as well (and even better for small $n$'s) as \texttt{GP(True)}.
\subsubsection*{Heart target (Example \ref{ex:coeur})}
We turn to the metamodeling of $f_4$.
It is a 40-dimensional function, $f_4(\mathbf x)=\Vert\Omega_{\mathbf t}-\Omega_{\tilde{\mathbf x}}\Vert_2^2$ that explicitly depends on the CAD parameters. Unlike the previous test problem, the shapes do not have superfluous parameters since all $x_j$'s are necessary to retrieve $\mathbf t$.
7 different models detailed through Sections
\ref{sec:unsupervised_dimension_reduction} and \ref{sec:supervised_dimension_reduction} are investigated.
\texttt{GP($X$)}, the standard GP carried out in the space of CAD parameters. \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)}, the metamodel built in the space of 40 first principal components. Indeed, Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_rectangle} informed us that any shape is retrieved via its 40 first eigenshape coefficients. To build surrogates in reduced dimension, considering the cumulative eigenvalue sum in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_rectangle}, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)}, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)} are models that consider the 2, 4 and 16 first principal components only.
Finally, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^{a}$)} and \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} are also compared.
Table \ref{tab:R2_coeur} reports the average R2 indicator over 10 runs starting with space-filling DoEs of size $n=20,50,100,200$. Figure \ref{fig:boxplot_coeur} shows a boxplot of the results (for the sake of clarity, only runs with R2 $\ge$ 0.8 are shown). The input dimension for \texttt{GP($X$)} and for \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} is too large for coping with $n=20$ observations. \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} is given beside \texttt{GP($X$)} because both GPs have the same input space dimension.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & \texttt{GP($X$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}\\\hline
20 & - & - & -0.063 & 0.979 & 0.844 & 0.935 & 0.967\\
50 & 0.455 & 0.542 & -0.009 & 0.984 & 0.968 & 0.983 & 0.991\\
100 & 0.662 & 0.868 & 0 & 0.986 & 0.986 & 0.986 & 0.997\\
200 & 0.873 & 0.988 & 0 & 0.987 & 0.991 & 0.987 & 0.999\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Average R2 over 10 runs when metamodeling $f_4$.}
\label{tab:R2_coeur}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{boxplot_results_coeur.png}
\caption{Boxplots of R2 coefficient for the different models, rectangle test case (Example \ref{ex:coeur}).
}
\label{fig:boxplot_coeur}
\end{figure}
The benefits of the additive GP appear to be threefold.
First, it ensures sparsity by selecting a small number of eigenshapes for the anisotropic part of the kernel.
A high-dimensional input space hinders the predictive capabilities when $n$ is small, as confirmed by the weak performance of \texttt{GP($X$)}, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} and even \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)} for $n=20$.
When $n$ increases, higher-dimensional models become more accurate. For $n=100$ and $n=200$, the model with 16 principal components outperforms the one with 4 principal components, even though the latter was more precise with $n=20$ or $n=50$ observations. In the case $n=200$, even \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} outperforms the 4 dimensional one (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)}). This is due to the fact that more principal components mean a more realistic shape, hence less ``input space errors''. When few observations are available, these models suffer from the curse of dimensionality, but become accurate as soon as their design space gets infilled enough. With more observations, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} may become the best model.
Besides the dimension reduction,
the selection of eigenshapes that truly influence the output is also critical.
According to Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_rectangle}, a tempting decision to reduce the dimension would be to retain the two first principal components, i.e. \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)}.
But since the 2 first eigenshapes act on the shape's position (see Figure \ref{fig:coeur_eigenshapes}) to which $f_4$ is insensitive, this is a weak option, as pointed out by the R2 scores which are close to 0 for this model.
Here, the selected variables are usually the 3rd and the 4th eigenshape which act on the size of the rectangle, hence are of first order importance for $f_4$.
In about 30\% of the runs, they are accompanied by the first and the second one, and more rarely by other eigenshapes.
Third, the \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} outperforms \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)}.
Indeed, the less important eigenshapes (from a geometric point of view) $\v^5,\dotsc,\v^{40}$ locally modify the rectangle, and allow the final small improvements in $f_4$. This highlights the benefits of taking the remaining eigenshapes which act as local shape refinements into account.
Last, even though their input spaces have the same dimension, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} consistently outperforms \texttt{GP($X$)}.
This confirms our comments about the NACA manifold of Figure \ref{fig:naca3_eigenshapes}:
the eigenshapes are a better representation than the CAD parameters for statistical prediction.
\subsubsection*{Catenoid shape (Example \ref{ex:catenoide})}
In relation with the catenoid, we introduce the objective function
$f_5(r)=2\pi\int_{y_A}^{y_B}r(y)\sqrt{1+r'(y)^2}dy$.
$f_5$ is an integral related to the surface of the axisymmetric surface given by the rotation of a curve $r(y)$. In our example, $r(y)$ is the line between two points A and B modified by regularly spaced deviations $\mathbf r=(r_1,\dotsc,r_{29})^\top$.
Only $\mathbf r$'s generated by a GP that lead to a curve inside a prescribed envelope (see Figure \ref{fig:catenoid_problem_description}) are kept in the same spirit as \cite{li2019surrogate} where a smoothing operator is applied to consider realistic airfoils.
With this, it is expected that less than 29 dimensions suffice to accurately describe all designs. This is confirmed by the eigenvalues in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_catenoide} and the true dimensionality detected to be 7.
In this experiment, we compare the predictive capabilities of six models. The first one is the classical \texttt{GP($X$)}.
The objective function explicitly depends on $\mathbf r$ but its high-dimensionality may be a drawback for metamodeling.
Even though less dimensions are necessary and many eigenshapes correspond to noise, a GP fitted to all $d=29$ eigenshapes, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:29}$)}, is considered. Along with it, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)} are considered.
The former is an unsupervised dimension reduction, considering the $\lambda_j$'s, while the latter is the full dimensional eigenshape GP, since the eigenshapes 8 to 29 are non-informative.
Finally, the GPs with variable selection \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} and \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}, are also compared.
Table \ref{tab:R2_catenoide} reports the average R2 indicator over 10 runs starting with space-filling DoEs of size $n=20,50,100,200$. Figure \ref{fig:boxplot_catenoide} shows a boxplot of the results (for the sake of clarity, only runs with R2 $\ge$ 0.95 are shown). The input dimension for \texttt{GP($X$)} and for \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:29}$)} is too large for coping with $n=20$ observations. \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:29}$)} is given beside \texttt{GP($X$)} because these GPs have the same input space dimension.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & \texttt{GP($X$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:29}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}\\\hline
20 & - & - & 0.966 & 0.958 & 0.914 & 0.992\\
50 & 0.976 & 0.925 & 0.954 & 0.987 & 0.938 & 0.997\\
100 & 0.992 & 0.968 & 0.958 & 0.997 & 0.957 & 0.999\\
200 & 0.997 & 0.981 & 0.952 & 0.998 & 0.951 & 0.999\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Average R2 over 10 runs for the metamodeling of $f_5$.}
\label{tab:R2_catenoide}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{boxplot_results_catenoide.png}
\caption{Boxplots of R2 coefficient for the different models, catenoid test case (Example \ref{ex:catenoide}).}
\label{fig:boxplot_catenoide}
\end{figure}
These results indicate a better performance of \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} which benefits from the prioritization of the most influential eigenshapes in the additive model
and, at the same time, accounts for all the 7 eigenshapes.
Modeling in the space of the full $\pmb\alpha$'s (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)}) performs fairly well too because the low true dimensionality (7).
Despite its lower dimensionality, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} does not work well.
This is because the refinements induced by $\v^5$, $\v^6$ and $\v^7$ are disregarded while acting on $f_5$.
This explanation also stands for the moderate performance of \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} in which mainly the 4 first principal components are selected. Including the remaining components in a coarse GP as is done inside \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} increases the performance.
Even though there are $d=29$ CAD parameters, \texttt{GP($X$)} exhibits correct performances: since only smooth curves are considered, they are favorable to GP modeling and the curse of dimensionality is damped. In this example, considering all 29 eigenshapes (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:29}$)}), even though it was assumed that solely 7 were necessary, leads to the worst results, since the non-informative eigenshapes augment the dimension without bringing additional information.
\subsubsection*{NACA 22 airfoil (Example \ref{ex:naca22})}
The last example brings us closer to real world engineering problems.
The objective functions associated to the NACA airfoil with 22 parameters (Example \ref{ex:naca22}), $f_{7L}$ and $f_{7D}$ are the lift and the drag coefficient of this airfoil.
$f_{7L}$, $f_{7D}$ depend implicitly and nonlinearly on $\mathbf x$ through $\Omega_\mathbf x$.
Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_naca22} shows that only the 20 first eigenvectors are informative.
Seven metamodeling strategies are compared: \texttt{GP($X$)}; \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)}, the surrogate in the space of all 20 meaningful eigenshapes; \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)}, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)}, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} where fewer eigenshapes are considered; \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)}; and \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}. \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} is given beside \texttt{GP($X$)} because these GPs have almost the same input space dimension.
Table \ref{tab:R2_naca22} reports the average R2 indicator over 10 runs starting with space-filling DoEs of $n=20,50,100,200$ observations.
Figure \ref{fig:boxplot_naca22} shows a boxplot of the results (for the sake of clarity, only runs with R2 $\ge$ 0.8 for $f_{7L}$ and $\ge$ 0.6 for $f_{7D}$ are shown). The input dimension for the \texttt{GP($X$)} ($d=22$) and for \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} is too large for coping with $n=20$ observations.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
$f_{7L}$
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & \texttt{GP($X$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}\\\hline
20 & - & - & 0.857 & 0.907 & 0.930 & 0.935 & 0.957\\
50 & 0.956 & 0.973 & 0.714 & 0.935 & 0.950 & 0.970 & 0.984\\
100 & 0.975 & 0.989 & 0.708 & 0.938 & 0.962 & 0.981 & 0.992\\
200 & 0.987 & 0.995 & 0.515 & 0.954 & 0.968 & 0.993 & 0.996\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
$f_{7D}$
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & \texttt{GP($X$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} & \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)}\\\hline
20 & - & - & 0.443 & 0.806 & 0.720 & 0.800 & 0.796\\
50 & 0.771 & 0.847 & 0.259 & 0.866 & 0.882 & 0.878 & 0.896\\
100 & 0.861 & 0.921 & 0.192 & 0.915 & 0.928 & 0.925 & 0.945\\
200 & 0.915 & 0.958 & -0.008 & 0.920 & 0.950 & 0.946 & 0.969\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Average R2 over 10 runs for the metamodeling of $f_{7L}$ (top) and $f_{7D}$ (bottom).
}
\label{tab:R2_naca22}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{boxplot_results_lift_drag.png}
\caption{Boxplots of R2 coefficient for the different models, NACA 22 airfoil example. Left: Lift, $f_{7L}$. Right: Drag, $f_{7D}$.
}
\label{fig:boxplot_naca22}
\end{figure}
In this example too, \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} exhibits the best predictive capabilities. Even though they are coarsely taken into account, the non active eigenshapes which mostly represent bumps, are included in the surrogate model. For the lift, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)} performs quite well too since the $f_{7L}$ relevant dimensions have been selected.
The variable selection method provides contrasted results between $f_{7L}$ and $f_{7D}$.
For the lift, the first eigenshape is not always selected. The second and the third one, as well as some higher order eigenshapes get selected, which confirms the effect of the bumps on the lift (see Figures \ref{fig:exemple_naca22} and \ref{fig:naca22_eigenshapes}). For the drag ($f_{7D}$) however, only the 2 or 3 first eigenshapes are usually selected.
We have also noticed that the number of selected components tends to grow with $n$.
This is a desirable property since with larger samples, an accurate surrogate can be built in a higher dimensional space.
As already remarked in the previous examples (e.g. Table \ref{tab:R2_coeur}),
it is seen here in Figure \ref{fig:boxplot_naca22} that models with more eigenshapes become more accurate when the number of observations grows.
For $f_{7D}$ (bottom table) for example, when $n$ is small, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} is better than \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)}, but this changes as $n$ grows, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} becoming in turn the best eigenshape truncation-based model.
For $f_{7L}$ (top table), in spite of the dimension reduction, very poor results are achieved when retaining only 2 or 3 components, even with small $n$'s.
When considering only the two first eigenshapes (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)}), the R2 is weak as the third eigenshape significantly modifies the camber. For this GP, the performance decreases with $n$ because of situations like the one shown in Figure \ref{fig:naca_proches} where shapes that falsely look similar when considering $\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$ only actually differ in lift. Such situations are more likely to occur during the training of the GP as $n$ grows, which degrades performance.
The example of $f_{7L}$ is informative in the sense that \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} always outperforms \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} which outperforms \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)}, for any $n$ (including very little $n$'s), despite the higher dimension. By ignoring second order eigenshapes, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)} provide less reconstruction details. These details are nonetheless important since they change the camber of the airfoil and this is why \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)}, a more precise reconstruction, performs better. Indeed, the remaining $\pmb\alpha$'s mainly reconstruct the bumps of this airfoil as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:naca22_eigenshapes}, which does influence the lift.
This is also the reason why \texttt{GP($X$)} is better at predicting lift than \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:6}$)}, which could seem counter-intuitive at first glance since the dimension is reduced.
Last, let us point out than even though the dimension is almost the same, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:20}$)} consistently outperforms \texttt{GP($X$)} for both the lift and the drag: it confirms that the eigenshape basis $\mathcal V$ is more relevant than the CAD parameters basis for GP surrogate modeling.
\subsubsection*{GP in reduced dimension: summary of results}
These four examples have proven the worth of the additive GPs:
they are the models that perform the best because of the selection and prioritization of active variables.
Models in reduced dimension that exclusively rely on the active eigenshapes provide accurate predictions too, but are slightly outperformed as they disregard smaller effects.
GPs built in the space of all (informative) eigenshapes always outperform the ones built in the space of CAD parameters, even when both models have the same dimension.
Among the GPs over the reduced space of $\delta$ first principal axes, further removing dimensions generally produces better predictions when the number of data points $n$ is small. As $n$ increases, more eigenshapes lead to better metamodeling.
Models where dimensions have been chosen only from a geometric criterion (the PCA) have a prediction quality that depends on the output: if the first modes do not impact $y$, as the 2 first eigenshapes of the rectangle problem, predictions are poor. Ignoring reconstruction details that affect the output as second-order eigenshapes in $f_{7L}$ also degrades the performance, highlighting the importance of finding the active variables that affect the output.
\section{Optimization in reduced dimension}
\label{section:optim_in_eigenbasis}
We now turn to the problem of finding the shape that minimizes an expensive objective function $f(\cdot)$.
To this aim, we employ the previous additive GP, which works in the space of eigencomponents $\pmb\alpha$, in an
Efficient Global Optimization procedure \cite{jones1998efficient}:
at each iteration, a new shape is determined given the previous observations $\{(\pmb\alpha^{(1)},y_1),\dotsc,(\pmb\alpha^{(n)},y_n)\}$ by maximizing the Expected Improvement (EI, \cite{ExpectedImprovement,jones1998efficient}) as calculated with the GP $Y(\pmb\alpha)$: \begin{equation}\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*} = \arg \max_{\pmb\alpha\in \mathbb R^D} \text{EI}(\pmb\alpha;Y(\pmb\alpha))\text{,}\label{eq:EI_maximization}\end{equation}
\noindent where the EI is defined as
\begin{equation}
\text{EI}(\mathbf x;Y(\mathbf x))=(a-m(\mathbf x))\phi_\mathcal N\left(\frac{a-m(\mathbf x)}{s(\mathbf x)}\right)+s(\mathbf x)\varphi_\mathcal N\left(\frac{a-m(\mathbf x)}{s(\mathbf x)}\right)\text{.}
\label{eq:EI}
\end{equation}
\noindent $m(\cdot)$ and $s(\cdot)$ are the conditional mean and standard deviation of $Y(\cdot)$ (Equation (\ref{eq:formules_krigeage_additif})), respectively, while $\phi_{\mathcal N}$ and $\varphi_{\mathcal N}$ stand for the normal cumulative distribution function and probability density function. The threshold $a$ is usually set as the current minimum, $f_{\min}:=\underset{i=1,\dotsc,n}{\min}~y_i$, while other values have also been investigated \cite{jones2001taxonomy,gaudrie2018budgeted}.
\subsection{Alternative Expected Improvement Maximizations}
\label{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton}
\subsubsection*{Maximization in the entire $\pmb\alpha$ space}
The most straightforward way to maximize the EI is to consider its maximization in $\mathbb R^D$ as in Equation (\ref{eq:EI_maximization}).
However, this optimization is typically difficult as the EI is a multi-modal and high ($D$) dimensional function\footnote{As explained at the end of Section \ref{sec:CAD_to_eigenbasis}, we can restrict all calculations to $\pmb\alpha$'s $d'$ first coordinates. Even though $d'\ll D$, it has approximately the same dimension as $d$, hence the optimization is still carried out in a high dimensional space.}.
\subsubsection*{Maximization in the $\pmb\alpha^a$ space}
We can however take advantage of the dimension reduction beyond the construction of $Y(\cdot)$:
$\pmb\alpha^a\in\mathbb R^\delta$ are the variables that affect $y$ the most and should be prioritized for the optimization of $f(\cdot)$. A second option is therefore to maximize the EI solely with respect to $Y^a(\pmb\alpha^a)$ in dimension $\delta$.
This option is nonetheless incomplete as the full GP $Y(\cdot)$ requires the knowledge of $\pmb\alpha=[{\pmb\alpha}^a,{\pmb\alpha}^{\overline a}]$.
A first simple idea to augment ${\pmb\alpha}^a$ is to set $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ equal to its mean, $\mathbf{0}$.
The inactive part of the covariance matrix $\mathbf K_{\overline{a}}$ would be filled with the same scalar and the full covariance matrix $\mathbf K=\mathbf K_a+\mathbf K_{\overline{a}}$ would have a degraded conditioning. A second simple idea is to sample
$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}\sim\mathcal N(\mathbf 0,\pmb\lambda_{\overline{a}})$.
However, $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ act as local refinements to the shape that contribute a little to $y$, and should also be optimized.
In \cite{li2019surrogate}, the authors observed that despite the gain in accuracy of surrogate models in a reduced basis (directions of largest variation of the gradient of the lift and drag in their application), a restriction to too few directions led to poorer optimizations since small effects could not be accounted for.
\subsubsection*{Optimization in $\pmb\alpha^a$ space complemented with a random embedding in $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$}
This leads to the third proposed EI maximization, which makes step \circled{5} in Figure \ref{fig:summary}: a maximization of the EI with respect to $\pmb\alpha^a$ and the use of a random embedding \cite{wang2013bayesian} to coarsely optimize the components $\pmb\alpha^{\overline a}$:
EI$([\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha\overline{\mathbf a}])$
is maximized, where $\overline\alpha\in\mathbb R$ is the coordinate along a random line in the $\pmb\alpha^{\overline a}$ space, $\overline{\mathbf a}=(\overline{\mathbf a}_{1},\dotsc,\overline{\mathbf a}_{D-\delta})^\top$.
Since $\pmb\alpha^{\overline a}$ have been classified as inactive, it is not necessary to make a large effort for their optimization.
This approach can be viewed as an extension of REMBO \cite{wang2013bayesian}.
In REMBO, a lower dimensional vector $\mathbf y\in\mathbb R^{\delta}$ is embedded in $X$ through a linear random embedding, $\mathbf y\mapsto\mathbf A_{R}\mathbf y$, where $\mathbf A_{R}\in\mathbb R^{D\times \delta}$ is a random matrix.
Instead of choosing a completely random and linear embedding with user-chosen (investigated in \cite{binois2017choice}) effective dimension $\delta$, our embedding is nonlinear (effect of the mapping $\phi(\cdot)$), supervised and semi-random (choice of the active/inactive directions).
The dimension is no longer arbitrarily chosen since it is determined by the number of selected active components (Section \ref{sec:eigenshape_selection}), and the random part of the embedding is only associated to the inactive parts of $\pmb\alpha$: denoting $\pmb\alpha^a=(\alpha_{a_1},\dotsc,\alpha_{a_\delta})^\top$ the selected components (that are not necessarily the $\delta$ first axes) and $\pmb\alpha^a=(\alpha_{\overline{a}_1},\dotsc,\alpha_{\overline{a}_{D-\delta}})^\top$ the inactive ones, our embedding matrix $\mathbf A_{emb}\in\mathbb R^{D\times (\delta+1)}$ transforms $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]$ into the $\pmb\alpha$ space to which the $\mathbf x$'s are nonlinearly mapped. The $\delta$ first columns of $\mathbf A_{emb}$, $\mathbf A_{emb}^{(i)}$, $i=1,\dotsc,\delta$, correspond to $\pmb\alpha^a$ and contain the $\delta$ first vectors of the canonical basis of $\mathbb R^D$, $\mathbf e^{(i)}_D$, i.e. $\mathbf A_{emb}^{(i)}=\delta_{{a_i}i}$, where $\delta_{ij}$ stands for the Kronecker symbol here, $\delta_{ij}=1$ if $i=j$, 0 else. The $\delta+1$-th column of $\mathbf A_{emb}$ contains $\overline{\mathbf a}$ in the rows which correspond to $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$, ${\mathbf A_{emb}^{(\delta+1)}}_{\overline{a}_i}=\overline{\mathbf a}_{i}$, $i=1,\dotsc,D-\delta$. Rows corresponding to active $\pmb\alpha$'s equal 0.
Assuming $\phi^{-1}$ exists, the proposed approach is the embedding of a lower dimensional design $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]$ whose dimension $\delta+1$ has carefully be chosen, in $X$, via the nonlinear and problem-related mapping $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]\mapsto\phi^{-1}(\mathbf V\mathbf A_{emb}[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]+\overline{\pmb\phi})$.
The approach can alternatively be considered as an affine mapping of $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]$ to the complete space spanned by the eigenshapes $\mathcal V$,
\begin{equation}
[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha] \mapsto \mathbf V_{emb} [\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]+\overline{\pmb\phi}
\quad \text{ with }\quad
\mathbf V_{emb}:=\mathbf V\mathbf A_{emb}
\label{eq:Vembed}
\end{equation}
The shapes generated by the map of Equation (\ref{eq:Vembed}) are embedded in the space of all discretized shapes.
The columns of $\mathbf V_{emb}\in\mathbb R^{D\times(\delta+1)}$ associated to active components are the corresponding eigenshapes, while its last column is sum of the remaining eigenshapes, weighted by random coefficients, namely $\mathbf V \overline{\mathbf a}$, hence a supervised and semi-random embedding.
Another difference to \cite{wang2013bayesian} is that only the EI maximization is carried out in the REMBO framework; the surrogate model is not built in terms of $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]$ but rather with the full $\pmb\alpha$'s via the additive GP (Section \ref{sec:additive_gp}).
In this variant, the EI maximization is carried out in a much more tractable $\delta+1$ -dimensional space and still has analytical gradients (see next section).
From its optimum $\pmb\alpha^*=[{\pmb\alpha^{a}}^*,{\overline\alpha}^*]\in\mathbb R^{\delta+1}$ arises a $D$-dimensional vector,
$\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}=\mathbf A_{emb} [{\pmb\alpha^a}^*,{\overline\alpha}^*]$
to be evaluated by the true function (this is the pre-image problem discussed in Section \ref{sec:preimage}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{random_line.png}
\caption{EI maximization in $\pmb\alpha^a$ complemented by the maximization along $\overline{\mathbf a}$, a random line in the $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ space.}
\label{fig:random_line}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{EI gradient in $\pmb\alpha$ space}
The Expected Improvement (\ref{eq:EI}) is differentiable and its derivative is known in closed-form \cite{roustant2012dicekriging}:
\begin{equation}
\nabla\text{EI}(\mathbf x)=-\nabla m(\mathbf x)\times\phi_{\mathcal N}(z(\mathbf x))+\nabla s(\mathbf x)\times\varphi_{\mathcal N}(z(\mathbf x))
\label{eq:gradEI}\text{,}
\end{equation}
where $z(\mathbf x)=(f_{\min}-m(\mathbf x))/s(\mathbf x)$. $\nabla m(\mathbf x)$ and $\nabla s(\mathbf x)$ require the gradient of $Y(\cdot)$'s kernel $k$ at $\mathbf x$, with the past observations $\mathbf x^{(1:n)}$, i.e. $\nabla k(\mathbf x,\mathbf x^{(1:n)})$, which is analytically computable. $\nabla s^2(\mathbf x)=2s(\mathbf x)\nabla s(\mathbf x)$ helps computing $s(\mathbf x)$'s gradient.
In the case of the additive GP (\ref{eq:modele_additif}), the mean and variance $m(\pmb\alpha)$ and $s^2(\pmb\alpha)$ are given by (\ref{eq:formules_krigeage_additif}). Using the notations of Section \ref{sec:additive_gp} and exploiting the symmetry of $\mathbf K$, few calculations lead to
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\nabla m(\pmb\alpha)=\nabla k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})^\top \mathbf K^{-1}({\mathbf y}_{1:n}-\mathbf1_n\widehat{\beta})\\
\nabla s(\pmb\alpha)=-\frac{\nabla k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})^\top\mathbf K^{-1}k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})}{s(\pmb\alpha)}
\label{eq:formules_gradient_krigeage_additif}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\nabla k(\pmb\alpha,\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)})=\sigma^2_a\nabla k_a(\pmb\alpha^a,\pmb\alpha^{a^{(1:n)}})+\sigma^2_{\overline{a}}\nabla k_{\overline{a}}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}},\pmb\alpha^{{\overline{a}}^{(1:n)}})$, which are plugged in (\ref{eq:formules_gradient_krigeage_additif}) and in (\ref{eq:gradEI}) together with $z(\pmb\alpha)$'s expression to obtain $\nabla\text{EI}(\pmb\alpha;Y(\pmb\alpha))$.
In the alternatives proposed before, given an $\pmb\alpha\in\mathbb R^D$, the gradient of the EI can be computed efficiently, accelerating its maximization which is carried out by the genetic algorithm using derivatives \texttt{genoud} \cite{mebane2011genetic}. In the random embedding of $\overline\alpha$ case, the EI of $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha]\in\mathbb R^{\delta+1}$ is given by EI$(\mathbf A_{emb}[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha];Y(\pmb\alpha))$, and its gradient by $\mathbf A_{emb}^\top\nabla\text{EI}(\mathbf A_{emb}[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline\alpha];Y(\pmb\alpha))$.
\subsubsection*{Setting bounds on $\pmb\alpha$ for the EI maximization}
As seen in the examples of Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction}, neither the manifold of $\pmb\alpha$'s, nor its restriction to $\pmb\alpha^a$ need to be hyper-rectangular domains, which is a common assumption made by most optimizers such as \texttt{genoud} \cite{mebane2011genetic}, the algorithm used in our implementation.
Two strategies were imagined to control the space in which the EI is maximized (\ref{eq:EI_maximization}): the first one is to restrict the EI maximization to $\mathcal A$ by setting it to zero for $\pmb\alpha$'s that are outside of the manifold.
The benefit of this approach is that only realistic $\pmb\alpha$'s are proposed.
But it might suffer from an incomplete description of the entire manifold of $\pmb\alpha$'s, $\mathcal A$, which is approximated by $\mathcal A_N$. Additionally, given $\mathcal A_N$, the statement ``being inside/outside the manifold'' has to be clarified.
We rely on a nearest neighbor strategy in which the 95th quantile of the distances to the nearest neighbor within $\mathcal A_N$, $d_{0.95}$, is computed and used as a membership threshold: a new $\pmb\alpha$ is considered to belong to $\mathcal A$ if and only if the distance to its nearest neighbor within $\mathcal A_N$ is smaller than $d_{0.95}$. In the light of these limitations, a second strategy, in which the EI is maximized in $\mathcal A_N$'s covering hyper-rectangle, is also investigated.
The variant of EI maximization with embedding (random line in $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$), introduces an $\overline\alpha$ coordinate which has to be bounded too.
The ${\overline\alpha}_{\min}$ and ${\overline\alpha}_{\max}$ boundaries are computed as the smallest and largest projection of $\mathcal A_N$ on $\overline{\mathbf a}$.
But depending on $\mathcal A_N$ and on $\overline{\mathbf a}$, this may lead to a too large domain since the embedded ${\overline\alpha}\overline{\mathbf a}$ might stay outside the $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ covering hyper-rectangle.
In the spirit of \cite{binois2015warped}, to avoid this phenomenon, the largest ${\overline\alpha}_{\min}$ and the smallest ${\overline\alpha}_{\max}$ such that ${\overline\alpha}\overline{\mathbf a}$ belongs to the covering hyper-rectangle $\forall{\overline\alpha}\in[{\overline\alpha}_{\min} ,{\overline\alpha}_{\max} ]$, are chosen.
\subsubsection*{EI maximization via the CAD parameters}
A last option consists in carrying the maximization in the $X$ space through the mapping $\phi(\cdot)$ by $\underset{\mathbf x\in X}{\max}\text{ EI}(\mathbf x;Y(\underset{\pmb\alpha}{\underbrace{\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})}}))=\text{ EI}(\mathbf x;Y(\pmb\alpha(\mathbf x)))$.
This avoids both the aforementioned optimization domain handling and the pre-image search described in the following section.
However, this optimization might be less efficient since it is a maximization in $d>\delta$ dimensions, and since $\nabla\phi(\mathbf x)$ is unknown, the EI loses the closed-form expression of its gradient.
\subsection{From the eigencomponents to the original parameters: the pre-image problem}
\label{sec:preimage}
The (often expensive) numerical simulator underlying the objective function can only take the original (e.g. CAD) parameters as inputs.
When the EI maximization is carried out in the eigencomponents space,
the $\pmb\alpha$'s need to be translated into $\mathbf x$'s. To this aim, the \emph{pre-image} problem consists in finding the CAD parameter vector $\mathbf x$ whose description in the shape representation space $\Phi$
equals $\mathbf V \pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}+\overline{\pmb\phi}$.
Because there are more $\pmb\alpha$'s than $\mathbf x$'s, $D \gg d$, a strict equality may not hold and the pre-image problem is relaxed into:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf x^{(n+1)}=\underset{\mathbf x\in X}{\arg\min}\Vert(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})-\mathbf V\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}\text{.}\label{eq:pre_image}
\end{equation}
To complete an iteration, the pre-image problem (\ref{eq:pre_image}) is solved and its solution $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$, the parametric shape that resembles $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ the most, is evaluated by the simulator, which returns $y_{n+1}=f(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})$. Solving the pre-image problem does not involve calls to the simulator so that it is relatively not costly.
The surrogate model is then updated with $y_{n+1}$ and $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}:=\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})-\overline{\pmb\phi})$, the $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$ description in the $\mathcal V$ basis (step \circled{6} in Figure \ref{fig:summary}).
Depending on the $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ yielded by the EI maximization (remember it may not stay on the manifold $\mathcal A$),
$\pmb\phi^{(n+1)^*}:=\mathbf V\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}+\overline{\pmb\phi}$ and $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)}:=\mathbf V\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}+\overline{\pmb\phi}$, the shape representation of the $\pmb\alpha$ promoted by the EI and the shape representation of $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$, respectively, may substantially differ. While it is mandatory to update the GP (\ref{eq:modele_additif}) with the pair $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)},y_{n+1})$, it may at first seem unclear what should be done with $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$. When $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ does not belong to $\mathcal A$ and does not have a pre-image, it might seem straightforward to ignore it.
However, if $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ was yielded by the EI, it is very likely to be promoted in the following iterations, since its uncertainty, $s^2(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*})$, has not vanished. Therefore, if $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)^*}$ and $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)}$ are substantially different,
the virtual pair $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*},y_{n+1})$ is included in the GP (\ref{eq:modele_additif}) too in a strategy called \emph{replication}. We define replication in general terms.
\begin{definition}[Replication]
\label{def:replication}
In Bayesian optimization, when the GP is built over coordinates $\pmb\alpha$ that are a mapping\footnote{In this article, the mapping $T(\cdot)$ is the composition of $\phi(\cdot)$ with the projection onto a subspace of $(\v^1,\dotsc,\v^D)$.} of the original
coordinates $\mathbf x$, $\pmb\alpha = T(\mathbf x)$, at the end of each iteration a pre-image problem such as (\ref{eq:pre_image}) must be solved to translate the new acquisition criterion maximizer $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ into the next point to evaluate $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$ and the associated iterate $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)} = T(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})$.
The \emph{replication} strategy consists in updating the GP with both $\left(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)},f(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})\right)$ and $\left(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*},f(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})\right)$ provided $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ and $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$ are sufficiently different.
\end{definition}
Here, the difference between $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ and $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$ is calculated as the distance between the associated shapes $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)^*}$ and $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)}$.
Since the database $\pmb\Phi$ contains the shape representation of $N$ distinct designs, $d_0:=\underset{\substack{i,j=1,\dotsc,N\\i\ne j}}{\min}~\Vert\pmb\Phi_i-\pmb\Phi_j\Vert_{\mathbb R^D}$, the minimal distance between two different designs in $\pmb\Phi$ is used as a threshold beyond which $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)}$ and $\pmb\phi^{(n+1)^*}$ are considered to be different.
The replication strategy is further motivated by the fact that since $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}=\underset{\mathbf x\in X}{\arg\min}\Vert(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})-\mathbf V\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}=\underset{\mathbf x\in X}{\arg\min}\Vert\underset{\pmb\alpha(\mathbf x)}{\underbrace{\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})}}-\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}\Vert^2_{\mathbb R^D}$,
where the last equality expresses just a change of basis since $\mathbf V$ is orthogonal, $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$ is an orthogonal projection\footnote{Since we do not know the convexity of $\mathcal A$, the projection might not be unique.} of $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ on $\mathcal A$, see Figure \ref{fig:projection_manifold}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{outside_manifold.png}
\caption{When $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}\notin\mathcal A$, the solution of the pre-image problem (in the $\pmb\alpha$ space), $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$, is its projection on $\mathcal A$.}
\label{fig:projection_manifold}
\end{figure}
This is somehow similar to \cite{raghavan2013towards,raghavan2014numerical} where the authors project non realistic shapes on a smooth surface built via diffuse approximation or a local polynomial fitting, using the points of $\mathcal A_N$, to retrieve a realistic design.
In our approach, unrealistic shape representations are directly projected onto $\mathcal A$ through the resolution of (\ref{eq:pre_image}).
Incorporating the non physical $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*},y_{n+1})$ in the surrogate model can be viewed as an extension of the surrogate model outside its domain \cite{shahriari2016unbounded} (outside the manifold $\mathcal A$ in our case) by constant prolongation.
\subsection{Experiments}
The ideas developed in Section \ref{sec:CAD_to_eigenbasis}, \ref{section:GP_in_eigenbasis}, \ref{section:optim_in_eigenbasis} when put together make the method already sketched in Figure \ref{fig:summary} and more detailed in the following pseudo-code:
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Pseudo-code of the Bayesian optimization in reduced eigencomponents, \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed with replication}.}
\circled{1} Sample $N$ designs $\mathbf x^{(i)}$ and discretize them to form the matrix $\pmb\Phi$\tcc*[r]{see Section \ref{section:PCA}}
\circled{2} Eigendecomposition of $\mathbf C_{\pmb\Phi}:=\frac1N(\pmb\Phi-\mathbf1_N\overline{\pmb\phi}^\top)^\top(\pmb\Phi-\mathbf1_N\overline{\pmb\phi}^\top)$ $\Rightarrow$ eigenvector basis $\mathcal V=\{\mathbf v^1,\dotsc,\mathbf v^D\}$ and principal components $\pmb\alpha=\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x)-\overline{\pmb\phi})$;
Evaluate $n$ designs $\mathbf x^{(1:n)}$ $\Rightarrow\mathbf y_{1:n}$, and compute their eigencomponents $\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)}$;
\While{$n<$ computational budget}{
\circled{3} Maximize $pl_\lambda(\pmb\alpha^{(1:n)},\mathbf y_{1:n},\vartheta)$ $\Rightarrow$ active and inactive eigencomponents, $\pmb\alpha=[\pmb\alpha^a,\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}]$\tcc*[r]{see Section \ref{sec:eigenshape_selection}}
\circled{4} Build the additive GP $Y(\pmb\alpha)=\widehat{\beta}+Y^a(\pmb\alpha^a)+Y^{\overline{a}}(\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}})$\tcc*[r]{see Section \ref{sec:additive_gp}}
Randomly draw a vector of $D-\delta$ components, $\overline{\mathbf a}$
\circled{5} Maximize the EI with respect to $[\pmb\alpha^a,\overline{\alpha}\overline{\mathbf a}]$ $\Rightarrow \pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ next shape to be evaluated\tcc*[r]{sharp maximization w.r.t. $\pmb\alpha^a$ and coarse maximization w.r.t. $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$, see Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton}}
\circled{6} Solve pre-image problem $\Rightarrow$ $\mathbf x^{(n+1)}$ to be evaluated $\Rightarrow y_{n+1}=f(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})$, and $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}=\mathbf V^\top(\phi(\mathbf x^{(n+1)})-\overline{\pmb\phi})$, associated eigencomponents\tcc*[r]{see Section \ref{sec:preimage}}
\circled{6} \uIf{$\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$ and $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*}$ too different}{Update the GP with $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)},y_{n+1})$ and $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)^*},y_{n+1})$\tcc*[r]{Replication, see Definition \ref{def:replication}}}
\Else{Update the GP with $(\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)},y_{n+1})$;}
$n\leftarrow n+1$;
}
\end{algorithm}
Many algorithms result from the combination of versions of the GP metamodel and the EI maximization.
They are related to the space in which these operations are performed (the initial $X$ or the eigencomponents $\mathcal A$ with the retained number of dimensions), the classical or additive GP, and the use of embedding or not.
Before further explaining and testing them, we introduce a shorthand notation. The algorithms names are made of two parts separated by a dash, \texttt{GP version-EI version}. The GP part may either be an anisotropic GP with Matérn kernel, in which case it is noted \texttt{GP}, or an additive GP made of an anisotropic plus an isotropic kernel noted \texttt{AddGP}. The spaces on which they operate are specified in parentheses.
For example, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:3}$)} is an anisotropic GP in the space spanned by $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$,
\texttt{AddGP($X_{1:3}+X_{4:40}$)} is an additive GP where the kernel is the sum of an anisotropic kernel in $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ and an isotropic kernel in $(x_4,\dotsc,x_{40})$. The space over which the EI maximization is carried out is specified in the same way. Unspecified dimensions in the EI have their value set to the middle of their defining interval, e.g., \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X_{1:2}$)} means that the EI maximization is done on the 2 first components of $\mathbf x$, the other ones being fixed to 0 if the interval is centered. The EI descriptor can also be a keyword characterizing the EI alternative employed (see Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton}). For example, \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}+\pmb\alpha_{3:20}$)-EI embed} means that the EI is maximized in a 3 dimensional space made of $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and the embedding $\overline\alpha$.
\subsubsection{Optimization of a function with low effective dimension}
A set of experiments is now carried out that aims at comparing the three optimization alternatives involving GPs which have been introduced in Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton} when a subset of active variables has been identified: EI maximization in the space of active variables, in the space of active variables with an embedding in the inactive space, and in the entire space. In order to test the EI maximization separately from the space reduction method (the mapping, PCA and regularized likelihood), we start by assuming that the effective variables are known. Complete experiments will be given later.
We minimize a function depending on a small number of parameters, the following modified version of the Griewank function \cite{molga2005test},
\begin{equation}
f_{\text{MG}}(\mathbf x)=f_{\text{Griewank}}(\mathbf x)+f_{\text{Sph}}(\mathbf x),~\mathbf x \in [-600,600]^{d}
\label{eq:griewank_40d}
\end{equation}
where $f_{\text{Griewank}}(\mathbf x)$ is the classical Griewank function in dimension 2,
\[f_{\text{Griewank}}(\mathbf x)=\frac{1}{4000}\sum_{j=1}^2x_j^2-\prod_{j=1}^{2}\cos(\frac{x_j}{\sqrt j})+1 \]
defined in $[-600,600]^2$ and whose optimum, located in $(0,0)^\top$, is 0. To create a high-dimensional
function where only few variables act on the output,
the $f_{\text{Sph}}$ function is added to $f_{\text{Griewank}}$, where $f_{\text{Sph}}$ is a sphere centered in $\mathbf c$, with smaller magnitude than $f_{\text{Griewank}}$, and which only depends on the variables $x_3,\dotsc,x_{10}$:
\[f_{\text{Sph}}(\mathbf x)=\frac{1}{400,000}\sum_{j=3}^{10}(x_j-c_{j-2})^2\text{.}\]
$f_{\text{Sph}}(\mathbf x)$ is the squared Euclidean distance between $(x_3,\dotsc,x_{10})^\top$ and $\mathbf c$ which is set to\\\noindent$\mathbf c=(-140,-100,-60,-20,20,60,100,140)^\top$ in our experiments. Completely ignoring $(x_3,\dotsc,x_{10})^\top$ therefore does not lead to the optimum of $f_{\text{MG}}$.
We define $f_\text{MG}$ in $[-600,600]^d$, $d\ge10$: the variables $x_{11},\dotsc,x_d$ do not have any influence on $f_\text{MG}$ but augment the dimension. In the following experiments, we take $d=40$.
The additive GP described in Section \ref{sec:additive_gp} operates between the active space composed of $x_1$ and $x_2$, and the inactive space of $X_{3:d}$.
With the additive GP, three ways to optimize the EI are investigated: \texttt{AddGP($X_{1:2}+X_{3:40}$)-EI($X_{1:2}$)} where the EI is optimized along the active space only and $x_3,\dotsc, x_d$ are set to the middle of their intervals ($\mathbf 0$),
\texttt{AddGP($X_{1:2}+X_{3:40}$)-EI embed} where the EI is optimized in the active space completed by the embedding in the inactive space,
and \texttt{AddGP($X_{1:2}+X_{3:40}$)-EI($X$)} where the EI is optimized in the entire $X$.
These Bayesian optimization algorithms with additive GPs are compared to three classical optimizers:
one based on the GP built in the entire space (\texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)}),
another based on the building of the GP in the $X_{1:2}:=(x_1,x_2)$ space (\texttt{GP($X_{1:2}$)-EI($X_{1:2}$)}),
and one working in the $X_{1:10}:=(x_1,\dotsc,x_{10})$ space (\texttt{GP($X_{1:10}$)-EI($X_{1:10}$)}).
We start the experiments with an initial DoE of $n=20$ points, which is space-filling in $X$ (or in $X_{1:2}$ or $X_{1:10}$ for the variants where the metamodel is built in these spaces). We then try to find the minimum of $f_{\text{MG}}$, $\mathbf x^*:=(0,0,\mathbf c,\pmb *)$ in the limit of $p=80$ iterations\footnote{that is to say EI maximizations, whose optima are evaluated by $f_\text{MG}$.}. For the instance where the metamodel is built in $X\subset\mathbb R^{40}$, we cannot start with an initial DoE of $n=20$ points, and the experiments are initialized with $n=50$ designs, only $p=50$ iterations being allowed. The EI being maximized by the genetic algorithm \texttt{genoud} \cite{mebane2011genetic}, we use the same population and number of generations in each variant for fair comparison.
The lowest objective function values obtained by the algorithms are reported in Table \ref{tab:resu_EI_griewank}.
They are averaged over 10 runs with different initial designs, and standard deviations are given in brackets. The left-hand side columns correspond to standard GPs carried out in different spaces, and the right-hand side columns correspond to runs using the additive GP of Section \ref{sec:additive_gp} together with different EI maximization strategies.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabu}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Metamodel} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Standard GP} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{Additive GP }}\\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\texttt{GP($X_{1:2}$)-}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\texttt{GP($X_{1:10}$)-}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\texttt{GP($X$)-}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\texttt{AddGP($X_{1:2}+X_{3:40}$)-}}
\\\hline
EI maximization & \texttt{EI($X_{1:2}$)} & \texttt{EI($X_{1:10}$)} & \texttt{EI($X$)} & \texttt{EI($X_{1:2}$)} & \texttt{EI embed} & \texttt{EI($X$)}\\\hline
Optimum (sd) & 0.776 (0.221) & 1.127 (0.214) & 0.669 (0.280) & 0.545 (0.210) & 0.481 (0.185) & 0.986 (0.366)\\\hline
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{Objective function values obtained within 100 (20+80 or 50+50 for the third column) evaluations of the 40-dimensional $f_\text{MG}$, with different metamodels and varying EI maximization strategies.
}
\label{tab:resu_EI_griewank}
\end{table}
The results in Table \ref{tab:resu_EI_griewank} show that the methods using the additive GP usually outperform those where the GP is built in a more or less truncated $X$ space.
The results of \texttt{GP$(X_{1:10})$-EI($X_{1:10}$)} are surprisingly bad. Additional experiments have shown that they seem to be linked with a too small initial DoE.
Notice that with another version of $f_\text{MG}$ (where $\mathbf c$ is closer to the boundaries of $X_{3:10}$, not reported here), \texttt{GP$(X_{1:10})$-EI($X_{1:10}$)} outperforms \texttt{GP$(X_{1:2})$-EI($X_{1:2}$)} and the classical GP$(X)$-EI($X$),
which is normal since in this situation $X_{3:10}$ become active.
However, the \texttt{AddGP-EI embed} and \texttt{AddGP-EI($X$)} versions with the additive GP remain better.
The maximization of the EI for the additive GP between the active and inactive components performs the best when the maximization strategy combines the advantage of a low-dimensional active space with a rough maximization in the larger inactive subspace, the \texttt{AddGP-EI embed} strategy.
It is also worth mentioning that it is the variant with lowest standard deviation. \texttt{AddGP-EI($X$)}, searching in a 40 dimensional space, is not able to attain the optimum as well. Even though it is carried out in a very small dimension, \texttt{AddGP-EI($X_{1:2}$)} is also slightly outperformed by \texttt{AddGP-EI embed}, because it cannot optimize the $\mathbf x^{\overline{a}}$'s.
In this instance of $f_{\text{MG}}$ where $\mathbf c$ is relatively close to $\mathbf 0$, \texttt{AddGP-EI($X_{1:2}$)} does not suffer to much from disregarding $\mathbf x^{\overline{a}}$'s.
However, in the additional experiment where $\mathbf c$ is close to the boundaries of $X_{3:10}$, \texttt{AddGP-EI($X_{1:2}$)} exhibits poor results, while \texttt{AddGP-EI embed} still performs well.
In this case \texttt{AddGP-EI($X$)} performs slightly better than \texttt{AddGP-EI embed}, because it benefits from the maximization over the complete $X$ while the restriction on $\overline x$ hinders \texttt{AddGP-EI embed} to get as close to the solution, but \texttt{AddGP-EI embed} still performs reasonably well and has a smaller standard deviation than \texttt{AddGP-EI($X$)}.
For all these reasons, the additive GP with random embedding (\texttt{AddGP-EI embed}) strategy is assessed as the safest one.
\subsubsection{Experiments with shape optimization}
\label{sec:experiments_optimization}
We now turn to the shape optimization of the designs introduced in Section \ref{sec:experiments_reduction} whose objective functions were defined in Section \ref{sec:metamodeling_shape_eigenbasis}.
We compare the standard approach where the designs are optimized in the CAD parameters space with the methodologies where the surrogate model is built in the eigenshape basis (all variants described in Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton}).
For fair comparison, the same computational effort is put on the internal EI maximization.
\subsubsection*{Catenoid shape}
We want to find a curve $r(y)$ which minimizes the associated axisymmetric surface as expressed by the integral making $f_5(\mathbf x)$ in the catenoid problem (Example \ref{ex:catenoide}).
The different versions of Bayesian optimizers that are now tested are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item the standard \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} where both the GP and the EI work with the original $x$'s, i.e. CAD parameters;
\item \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{\text{\_\_}}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{\text{\_\_}}$)} indicates the GP is built in the space of $\text{\_\_}$ (to be specified) principal components over which the EI is maximized;
\_\_ are taken equal to 1:4 and 1:7 because, as seen in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_catenoide}, 4 and 7 eigencomponents account for 98\% and all of the shape variance, respectively.
\item \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{\text{\_\_}}$)-EI($X$)} indicates the GP is built in the space of $\text{\_\_}$ principal components but the EI is maximized in the $X$ space;
\item \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)} refers to the additive GP, for which three EI maximizations have been described (Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton}): \texttt{EI embed} where $\pmb\alpha^a$ and an embedding in the $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ space is maximized, \texttt{EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} where only the actives $\pmb\alpha$'s are maximized (the remaining ones being set to their mean value in $\mathcal A_N$, $\mathbf 0$), and \texttt{EI($\pmb\alpha$)} where all $\pmb\alpha$'s are maximized;
\item \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} means the GP is built over the space of active $\pmb\alpha$'s, over which the EI maximization is carried out.
\end{itemize}
Regarding the EI maximization in $\mathcal A$, \texttt{on manifold} states that the search is restricted to $\pmb\alpha$'s close to $\mathcal A_N$. If not, the maximization is carried out in $\mathcal A_N$'s covering hyper-rectangle, and \texttt{with replication} indicates that both $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$ and ${\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}}^*\notin\mathcal A$ are used for the metamodel update, while \texttt{no replication} indicates that only the $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$'s are considered by the surrogate.
\vskip\baselineskip
The best objective function values obtained by the algorithms are reported in Table \ref{tab:optim_catenoide}.
They are averaged over 10 runs with different initial DoEs, and standard deviations are given in brackets. The algorithms start with a space-filling DoE of 20 individuals and are run for 60 additional iterations.
In the case of the CAD parameters, since $d=29>20$, the initial DoE contains 40 designs and the algorithm is run for 40 iterations.
The number of function evaluations to reach certain levels is also reported, to compare the ability of the algorithms to quickly attain near-optimal values.
When at least one run has not reached the target, a rough estimator of the empirical runtime \cite{auger2005performance}, $\overline{T_s}/p_s$, is provided in red, the number of runs achieving the target value being reported in brackets. $\overline{T_s}$ and $p_s$ correspond to the average number of function evaluations of runs that reach the target and the proportion of runs attaining it.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & Best value & Time to 27 & Time to 30 & Time to 35\\\hline
\texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} & 31.83 (2.10) & $\times$ & {\color{red}570.0 [1]} & 68.5 (9.9)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$) on manifold} & 26.93 (0.18) & {\color{red}86.9 [7]} & 40.2 (10.5) & 40.2 (10.5)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$) with replication} & 26.16 (0.10) & 30.5 (2.8) & 24.3 (0.8) & 23.4 (0.5)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$) no replication} & 27.62 (0.72) & {\color{red}147.5 [2]} & 25.4 (2.5) & 23.5 (0.5)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:7}$)-EI($X$)} & 40.57 (11.61) & {\color{red}370.0 [1]} & {\color{red}163.3 [3]} & {\color{red}120.0 [4]}\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed on manifold} & 50.67 (0.05) & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed no replication} & 27.58 (0.53) & {\color{red}172.5 [2]} & 23.6 (1.4) & 22.3 (0.7)\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed with replication} & 26.19 (0.16) & 28.4 (4.1) & 24.2 (3.1) & 22.8 (1.9)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$) with replication} & 27.12 (0.13) & {\color{red}550.0 [1]} & 27.0 (3.9) & 25.4 (3.8)\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Best objective function values found and number of iterations required to attain a fixed target (average over 10 runs, standard deviations in brackets) for different metamodels and optimization strategies, on the catenoid problem (Example \ref{ex:catenoide}). Red figures correspond the empirical runtime, with the number of runs which attained the target in brackets, and '$\times$' signifies that no run was able to attain it within the limited budget.
}
\label{tab:optim_catenoide}
\end{table}
Comparing the results in Table \ref{tab:optim_catenoide} of the algorithms that stay on the manifold with the others indicates that restricting the search of EI maximizers to the vicinity of $\mathcal A_N$ worsens the convergence. Indeed, promising $\pmb\alpha$'s are difficult to attain or are even falsely considered as outside $\mathcal A$.
This observation gets even worse with the additive GP: staying in the neighborhood of $\mathcal A_N$ has even stronger consequences because of the restriction to the random line $\overline{\mathbf a}$. The EI should therefore be optimized in the covering hyper-rectangle of $\mathcal A_N$.
For tackling the issue of EI maximizers $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)*}\notin\mathcal A$, the replication strategy exhibits better performance than the strategy where only the projection, $\pmb\alpha^{(n+1)}$, is used for updating the GP.
Figure \ref{fig:comparison_replication_strategy} shows the typical effect of the replication strategy. On the left, the inner EI maximization is carried out in the covering hyper-rectangle of $\mathcal A_N$ but only the $\pmb\alpha\in\mathcal A$ obtained through the pre-image problem solving are used to construct the surrogate model.
On the right, all EI maximizers have been used for the GP, including $\pmb\alpha\notin\mathcal A$.
Without replication, since the variance of the GP at previous EI maximizers has not vanished, the EI continues promoting the same $\pmb\alpha$'s, which have approximately the same pre-image.
The same part of the $\pmb\alpha$ space is sampled, which not only leads to a premature convergence (the best observed value has already been attained after 6 iterations), but also increases the risk of getting a singular covariance matrix.
With the replication, the GP variance vanishes for all EI maximizers, even those outside $\mathcal A$, removing any further EI from these $\pmb\alpha$'s. The $\pmb\alpha$ space is better explored with benefits on the objective value (26.26 against 27.13 here).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{comparison_replication_strategy.png}
\caption{Optimization with EI maximization in the covering hyper-rectangle of $\mathcal A_N$ without (left) or with (right) replication strategy.}
\label{fig:comparison_replication_strategy}
\end{figure}
The EI strategy which consists in maximizing via the $X$ space of CAD parameters avoids the $\pmb\alpha$ manifold issues.
However, it does not perform well, because of the higher dimensional space where the criterion is maximized. An additional drawback for efficient maximization is that $\nabla$EI is not known analytically in this case.
In this catenoid example, the additive GP and the GP in the space of (all) 7 principal components achieve comparable results, both in terms of best value, and of function evaluations to attain the targets. Indeed, the true dimension (7) is relatively low, and we have noticed that the 5, 6 or even 7 first eigenshapes often got classified as active for the additive GP.
\subsubsection*{Heart rectangle}
We now consider Example \ref{ex:coeur} and the minimization of $f_4(\mathbf x)$ that expresses the distance from a shape to a rectangle deformed as an heart.
As before, different metamodeling and EI maximization options are benchmarked.
They include: the standard approach of doing the process in the space of CAD parameters (in dimension $d=40$); the optimization in the space of 2, 4, 16 or 40 first principal components, where 100\% of the shapes variability is recovered with 40 eigencomponents as seen in Table \ref{tab:eigenvalues_rectangle}.
Supervised eigenshape selection methods (Section \ref{sec:supervised_dimension_reduction}) are also used: the GP built over $\pmb\alpha^a$ only, and the additive model over $\pmb\alpha^a$ and $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$.
For the latter, the 4 EI maximization options of Section \ref{sec:alternatives_ei_maximizaton} are compared.
In light of the above optimization results on the catenoid, the three EI maximization strategies are carried out in the covering hyper-rectangle of $\mathcal A_N$ (as opposed to restricted to the neighborhood of $\mathcal A_N$), and EI maximizers which do not belong to $\mathcal A$ are nonetheless used for the GP update. Henceforth, the \texttt{with replication} strategy becomes the new default in all algorithms carrying out EI maximizations in $\pmb\alpha$'s and it will no longer be specified in the algorithms names.
The statistics on the solutions proposed by the algorithms are reported in Table \ref{tab:optim_heart}.
They consist in the best objective function values averaged over 10 runs with different initial designs, with standard deviations given in brackets.
The average and standard deviation of the number of function evaluations to reach certain levels is also given, to compare the ability of the algorithms to quickly attain near-optimal values. When at least one run failed in attaining the target, it is replaced by a rough estimator of the empirical runtime.
The algorithms start with a space-filling DoE of 20 individuals and are run for 80 supplementary iterations.
In the case of the CAD parameters \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)}
and of \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)}, since $d=40>20$, the initial DoE contains 50 designs and the algorithm is run for 50 iterations.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & Best value & Time to 0.5 & Time to 1 & Time to 3\\\hline
\texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} & 1.18 (0.45) & $\times$ & {\color{red}166.9 [4]} & 42.1 (26.5)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)} & 9.21 (0.80) & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} & 0.33 (0.07) & 48.8 (21.8) & 21.8 (2.2) & 21.0 (0.0)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)} & 0.59 (0.15) & {\color{red}197.8 [3]} & 50 (15.4) & 35.0 (9.7)\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} & 2.95 (0.97) & $\times$ & $\times$ & {\color{red}194.4 [5]}\\
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & 0.32 (0.09) & 33.7 (9.4) & 24.5 (3.7) & 21.8 (1.3)\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI($X$)} & 0.54 (0.19) & {\color{red}199.4 [4]} & 40.2 (12.3) & 30.2 (10.5)\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} & 0.37 (0.08) & 49.0 (21.4) & 26.1 (5.6) & 22.2 (1.9)\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} & 0.37 (0.09) & 33.3 (14.6) & 22.7 (2.6) & 21.4 (0.7)\\
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a$+$\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha$)} & 0.60 (0.26) & {\color{red}106.7 [6]} & {\color{red}41.2 [9]} & 21.5 (0.5)\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Minimum objective function values found and number of function evaluations required to attain a fixed target (average over 10 runs, standard deviations in brackets) for different metamodels and optimization strategies, rectangular heart problem (Example \ref{ex:coeur}). The red figures correspond the empirical runtime, with the number of runs which attained the target in brackets, and '$\times$' signifies that no run was able to attain it within the limited budget. All algorithms performing an EI search in $\pmb\alpha$'s do it \texttt{with replication}, the henceforth default.}
\label{tab:optim_heart}
\end{table}
In this test case, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:coeur_eigenshapes}, the 2 first eigenshapes modify the shape's position, to which $f_4$ is insensitive.
Poor results are therefore obtained by \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:2}$)} even though $\v^1$ and $\v^2$ account for 80\% of shape reconstruction, highlighting the benefits of the determination of active eigenshapes.
In a first order approximation, $\mathbf v^3$ and $\mathbf v^4$ are the most influential eigenshapes with regard to $f_4$, which measures the nodal difference between $\Omega_{\mathbf x}$ and the target $\Omega_{\mathbf t}$.
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} exhibits very good results, as well as \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)}, which mainly selects $\mathbf v^3$ and $\mathbf v^4$ ($\mathbf v^1$, $\mathbf v^2$ and other eigenshapes are sometimes selected too).
Even though the shape reconstruction is enhanced, \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:16}$)} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} have poor results because of the increase in dimension which is not accompanied by additional information, as already pointed out during the comparison of the predictive capability of these GPs for small budgets, see Table \ref{tab:R2_coeur}.
\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)} performed better than \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} in Table \ref{tab:R2_coeur}, yet its optimization performance is decreased.
This is certainly due to the initial DoE: both DoEs are space-filling in their respective input space ($X$ or the hyper-rectangle of $\pmb\alpha\in\mathcal A$ containing $\mathcal A_N$).
However, there is a significant difference between the minima in these DoEs:
the average minimum over the 10 runs was 2.57 for \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} (hence better than the eventual average best value for \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)}), and 9.22 for \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)}. While GPs built over the entire $\pmb\alpha$ space (e.g. the additive one) suffer from the same drawback, the selection of variables identifies the dimensions to focus on to rapidly decrease the objective function.
This remark applies only to the rectangular heart test case and one may wonder what level of generality it contains.
Contrarily to the previous example where building the GP in the space of all (informative) eigenshapes led to the best results, this strategy (\texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:40}$)}) performs weakly here because of the higher dimension.
The variants of the additive GP perform well too but they are slightly outperformed by \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)}.
As the objective function mainly depends on $\v^3$ and $\v^4$, always classified as active, strategies that do not put too much emphasis or that neglect $\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$ (namely, \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} and \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)}) perform the best. This explains the good performance of \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)}, which disregards $\alpha_5,\dotsc,\alpha_{40}$. The maximization of the EI with respect to the full $\pmb\alpha$ is hindered by the high dimension. Again, the performance decreases when the EI is maximized via the $X$ space.
\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} and \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha_{1:4}$)} need more iterations to attain good values (smaller than 0.5) than \texttt{GP($\pmb\alpha^a$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} and \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI($\pmb\alpha^a$)} which are early starters. This might be due to the additional though less critical components ($\overline{\alpha}$ or $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$, respectively) considered by these methods.
\subsubsection*{NACA 22 optimization}
In this last test case, we compare two of the aforementioned algorithms by optimizing the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient of a NACA 22 airfoil ($f_{7L}$ and $f_{7D}$).
The simulation is made with a computational fluids dynamic code that solves the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with $k-\varepsilon$ turbulence model.
Since a single call to the simulator (one calculation of $f_7$) takes about 20 minutes on a standard personal computer, only two runs are compared for each objective.
The first algorithm is the classical Bayesian optimizer where the GP is built in CAD parameter space, \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)}.
In the second algorithm, \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed}, the GP is built in the $\mathcal V$ basis of eigenshapes, while prioritizing the active dimensions, $\pmb\alpha^a$, via the additive GP and the EI random embedding method with the replication option, see Section \ref{sec:preimage}.
The optimization in the eigenshape basis starts with a DoE of $n=10$ designs and is run for $p=90$ additional iterations while, because there are 22 $x_i$'s, the optimization in the CAD parameters space starts using $n=50$ designs and is run for $p=50$ iterations.
Figure \ref{fig:optimization} shows the optimization runs of both algorithms for the minimization of the NACA 22's drag (top) and lift (bottom), and Figure \ref{fig:airfoils_optimization} the resulting airfoils.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{drag_optimization_reduced.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{drag_optimization.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{best_drag_optimizations.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{lift_optimization_reduced.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{lift_optimization.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{best_lift_optimizations.png}
\caption{
Top row: drag optimization of the NACA 22 airfoil in the reduced eigenbasis with \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} (left) or carried out in the CAD parameters space with \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} (center). Low drag airfoils are found with \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} while the classical method still evaluates the airfoils of the initial design of experiments (right). Bottom row: lift optimization of the NACA 22 airfoil in the reduced eigenbasis with \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} (left) or carried out in the CAD parameters space with \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} (center). High lift airfoils are found while the classical method still evaluates the airfoils of the initial design of experiments (right), i.e., lower objective functions are obtained faster.
}
\label{fig:optimization}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
Drag optimization\\
\begin{subfigure}{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{drag_airfoil.pdf}
\caption*{\texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{drag_rembo_airfoil.pdf}
\caption*{\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed}}
\end{subfigure}\\\vspace{5pt}
Lift optimization\\
\begin{subfigure}{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{lift_airfoil.pdf}
\caption*{\texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{lift_rembo_airfoil.pdf}
\caption*{\texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Airfoils found by the compared optimization algorithms. Top: drag minimization, bottom: lift maximization. Left: optimization with the \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} algorithm, right: optimization with the \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} algorithm.}
\label{fig:airfoils_optimization}
\end{figure}
In this application, the main advantage of the \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} (Figure \ref{fig:optimization}, top left and bottom left) over the standard Bayesian optimizer (top center and bottom center) is that it enables an early search for low drag, respectively high lift airfoils, at a time when the standard approach is still computing its initial DoE. Indeed, the classical method needs much more function evaluations for building the initial surrogate model (black dots) because the inputs live in a space of higher dimension.
The approach introduced in this paper would further gain in relevance in problems with more than $d=22$ CAD parameters, where it would almost be impossible to build a large enough initial design of experiments (whose size is typically of the order of $10 \times$ dimension \cite{loeppky2009choosing}).
It is observed in Figure \ref{fig:airfoils_optimization} that smoother airfoils are obtained with \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} (right column), because it uses a shape coordinate system instead of treating the $L_i$'s (i.e., $x_i$'s with local influences on the airfoil, see Figure \ref{fig:naca22_description}) separately, as is done by \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} (left column).
When the optimization aims at minimizing the drag, the \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} airfoil (top right) is smoother than the \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} one (top left). And when the objective is to maximize the lift, the camber of the \texttt{AddGP($\pmb\alpha^a+\pmb\alpha^{\overline{a}}$)-EI embed} airfoil (bottom right) is increased in comparison with the design yielded by \texttt{GP($X$)-EI($X$)} (bottom left).
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have proposed a new methodology to apply Bayesian optimization techniques to parametric shapes and other problems where a pre-existing set of relevant points and a fast auxiliary mapping exist.
Instead of working directly with the CAD parameters, which are too numerous for an efficient optimization and may not be the best representation of the underlying shape, we unveil the lower dimensional manifold of shapes through the auxiliary mapping and PCA.
The dimensions of this manifold that contribute the most to the variation of the output are identified through an $L^1$ penalized likelihood and then used for building an additive Gaussian Process with a zonal anisotropy on the selected variables and isotropy on the other variables. This GP is then utilized for Bayesian optimization.
The construction of the reduced space of variables opens the way to several strategies for the maximization of the acquisition criterion, in particular the restriction or not to the manifold and the replication.
The different variants for the construction of the surrogate model and for the EI maximization have been compared on 7 examples, 6 of them being analytical and easily reproducible, the last one being a realistic airfoil design.
Even though specific variants are more or less adapted to features of specific test problems, the supervised dimension reduction approach
and the construction of an additive GP between active and inactive components have given the most reliable results.
Regarding the EI maximization our experiments highlight the efficiency of the random embedding in the space of inactive variables in addition to the detailed optimization of the active variables. It is a trade-off between optimizing the active variables only, and optimizing all variables.
Benefits have been observed for not restricting this inner maximization to the current approximation of $\mathcal A$ as well as for the virtual replication of points outside $\mathcal A$ when $\pmb\alpha\notin\mathcal A$ is promoted by the EI.
Further research should consider shapes made of multiple elements such as the one in Example \ref{ex:3cercles}.
This is of practical importance and it brings a new theoretical feature, the presence of symmetries in $\Phi$. The knowledge about symmetries has to be propagated to the eigenshape space to enhance the surrogate model.
\label{section:conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research was partly funded by a CIFRE grant (convention \#2016/0690) established between the ANRT and the Groupe PSA for the doctoral work of David Gaudrie.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neural networks belong since many years to the most promising approaches in
nonparametric statistics in view of multivariate
statistical applications, in particular in pattern recognition
and in nonparametric regression
(see, e.g.,
the monographs \cite{AB09, DGL96, GKKW02, H98, HPK91, R95}).
In recent years the
focus in applications is on what is called deep learning, where
multilayer feedforward neural networks with many hidden
layers are fitted to observed data (see, e.g.,
\cite{Sch15} and the
literature cited therein). Motivated by this practical success,
there is also an increasing interest
in the literature in showing good theoretical properties
of these neural networks, see, e.g., \cite{MP16a, ES15, GoPeElBo19, Y18, YZ19, LS20}
and the literature cited therein for the analysis
of corresponding
approximation properties of neural networks.
\subsection{Nonparametric regression}
In this paper we study these kind of estimates
in connection with nonparametric regression. Here,
$(\bold{X},Y)$ is an $\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}$--valued random vector
satisfying
${\bf E} \{Y^2\}<\infty$, and given a sample
of size $n$ of $(\bold{X},Y)$, i.e., given a data set
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal{D}}_n = \left\{
(\bold{X}_1,Y_1), \ldots, (\bold{X}_n,Y_n)
\right\},
\end{equation*}
where
$(\bold{X},Y)$, $(\bold{X}_1,Y_1)$, \ldots, $(\bold{X}_n,Y_n)$ are i.i.d.,
the aim is to construct an estimator
\[
m_n(\cdot)=m_n(\cdot, {\mathcal{D}}_n):\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}
\]
of the so--called regression function $m:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
$m(\bold{x})={\bf E}\{Y|\bold{X}=\bold{x}\}$ such that the so--called $L_2$-error
\[
\int |m_n(\bold{x})-m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}} (d\bold{x})
\]
is ``small'' (cf., e.g., \cite{GKKW02}
for a systematic introduction to nonparametric regression and
a motivation for the $L_2$-error).
\subsection{Neural Networks}
In order to construct such regression estimates with neural
networks, the first step is to define a suitable
space of functions $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by using neural networks.
The starting point here is the choice of an activation function $\sigma: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$.
Traditionally, so--called squashing functions are chosen as activation
function $\sigma: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, which are nondecreasing
and satisfy $\lim_{x \rightarrow - \infty} \sigma(x)=0$
and
$\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \sigma(x)=1$,
e.g., the so-called sigmoidal or logistic squasher
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{1+\exp(-x)}, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}
Recently, also unbounded activation functions are used, e.g., the
ReLU activation function
\begin{align*}
\sigma(x)=\max\{x,0\}.
\end{align*}
The network architecture $(L, \textbf{k})$ depends on a positive integer $L$ called the \textit{number of hidden layers} and a \textit{width vector} $\textbf{k} = (k_1, \ldots, k_{L}) \in \mathbb{N}^{L}$ that describes the number of neurons in the first, second, $\ldots$, $L$-th hidden layer. A multilayer feedforward neural network with network architecture $(L, \textbf{k})$ and ReLU activation function $\sigma$ is a real-valued function defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{inteq1}
f(\bold{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{k_L} c_{1,i}^{(L)}f_i^{(L)}(\bold{x}) + c_{1,0}^{(L)}
\end{equation}
for some $c_{1,0}^{(L)}, \ldots, c_{1,k_L}^{(L)} \in \mathbb{R}$ and for $f_i^{(L)}$'s recursively defined by
\begin{equation*}
f_i^{(s)}(\bold{x}) = \sigma\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k_{s-1}} c_{i,j}^{(s-1)} f_j^{(s-1)}(\bold{x}) + c_{i,0}^{(s-1)} \right)
\end{equation*}
for some $c_{i,0}^{(s-1)}, \dots, c_{i, k_{s-1}}^{(s-1)} \in \mathbb{R}$,
$s \in \{2, \dots, L\}$,
and
\begin{equation*}
f_i^{(1)}(\bold{x}) = \sigma \left(\sum_{j=1}^d c_{i,j}^{(0)} x^{(j)} + c_{i,0}^{(0)} \right)
\end{equation*}
for some $c_{i,0}^{(0)}, \dots, c_{i,d}^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}$.
The space of neural networks with
$L$ hidden layers and $r$ neurons per layer
is defined by
\begin{align}\label{F}
\mathcal{F}(L, r) = \{ &f \, : \, \text{$f$ is of the form } \eqref{inteq1}
\text{ with }
k_1=k_2=\ldots=k_L=r
\}.
\end{align}
As there is no further restriction on the network architecture (e.g. no sparsity restriction as in \cite{Sch17}) and as two neurons are only connected if and only if they belong to neighboring layers, we refer to the networks of the class $\mathcal{F}(L, r)$, similar as \cite{YZ19}, as \textit{fully connected feedfoward neural networks}. The representation of this kind of network as a directed acyclic graph is shown in \hyperref[fprod]{Fig.\ref*{neunet}}. Here we get an impression of how such a network looks like and why we call those networks \textit{fully connected}. Remark that this network class also contains networks with some weights chosen as zero.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\pagestyle{empty}
\def1.5cm{2.5cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black, node distance=1.5cm, scale=1]
\centering
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
\tikzstyle{neuron}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=10pt,inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{input neuron}=[neuron, fill=
black];
\tikzstyle{output neuron}=[neuron, fill=
black];
\tikzstyle{hidden neuron}=[neuron, fill=black!50
];
\tikzstyle{annot} = [
text centered
]
\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,4}
\node[input neuron, pin=left:\footnotesize{$x^{(\y)}$},
xshift=1cm
] (I-\name) at (0,-\y) {};
\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,5}
\path[
yshift=0.5cm
]
node[hidden neuron] (H-\name) at (1.5cm,-\y cm) {};
\foreach \name / \y in {1,...,5}
\path[yshift=1cm]
node[hidden neuron, right of = H-\name] (H2-\name) {};
\node[output neuron,pin={[pin edge={->}]right:\footnotesize{$f(\bold{x})$}}, right of=H2-3, xshift=-0.8cm] (O) {};
\foreach \source in {1,...,4}
\foreach \dest in {1,...,5}
\path (I-\source) edge (H-\dest);
\foreach \source in {1,...,5}
\foreach \dest in {1,...,5}
\path (H-\source) edge (H2-\dest);
\foreach \source in {1,...,5}
\path (H2-\source) edge (O);
\node[annot,above of =H-1, xshift=1.3cm, node distance=1cm] (hl) {\footnotesize{Hidden layers}};
\node[annot,above of=I-1, node distance = 1cm] {\footnotesize{Input}};
\node[annot,above of=O, yshift=1.5cm, node distance = 1cm] {\footnotesize{Output}};
\node[draw, below of= H-5, yshift=2.2cm, xshift=-0.4cm, rounded corners, minimum size=1cm] (r) {\footnotesize{$\sigma(\bold{c}^t\bold{x}+c_0)$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A fully connected network of the class $\mathcal{F}(2,5)$}
\label{neunet}
\end{figure}
In the sequel the number $L=L_n$ of hidden layers and number $r=r_n$ of neurons per hidden layer
of the above function space are properly chosen. Then we
define
the corresponding
neural network regression estimator as the minimizer of the so--called
empirical $L_2$-risk over the function space ${\cal F}(L_n,r_n)$, i.e.,
we define our estimator by
\begin{align}
\label{least}
m_n(\cdot)
=
\arg \min_{f \in {\cal F}(L_n,r_n)}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n |f(\bold{X}_i)-Y_i|^2.
\end{align}
For simplicity we assume here and in the sequel that the minimum above indeed exists. When this is not the case our theoretical results also hold for any estimate which minimizes the above empirical $L_2$-risk up to a small additional term.
\subsection{Curse of dimensionality}
In order to judge the quality of such estimates theoretically, usually
the rate of convergence of the $L_2$-error is considered.
It is well-known, that smoothness assumptions on the
regression function are necessary in order to derive non-trivial
results on the rate of convergence
(see, e.g., Theorem 7.2 and Problem 7.2 in
\cite{DGL96} and
Section 3 in \cite{DW80}).
For that purpose, we introduce the following definition of $(p,C)$-smoothness.
\begin{definition}
\label{intde2}
Let $p=q+s$ for some $q \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $0< s \leq 1$.
A function $m:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called
$(p,C)$-smooth, if for every $\bm{\alpha}=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_d) \in
\mathbb{N}_0^d$
with $\sum_{j=1}^d \alpha_j = q$ the partial derivative
$\partial^q m/(\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
)$
exists and satisfies
\[
\left|
\frac{
\partial^q m
}{
\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
}
(x)
-
\frac{
\partial^q m
}{
\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
}
(z)
\right|
\leq
C
\|\bold{x}-\bold{z}\|^s
\]
for all $\bold{x},\bold{z} \in \mathbb{R}^d$, where $\Vert\cdot\Vert$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
\end{definition}
\cite{Sto82} showed that the optimal minimax rate of convergence in nonparametric
regression for $(p,C)$-smooth functions is $n^{-2p/(2p+d)}$. This rate
suffers from a characteristic feature in case of high-dimensional functions: If $d$ is relatively large compared to $p$, then this rate of convergence can be extremely slow (so--called curse of dimensionality).
As was shown in \cite{Sto85, Sto94} it is possible to circumvent
this curse of dimensionality by imposing structural assumptions
like additivity on the regression function. This is also used, e.g., in
so-called single index models, in which
\[
m(\bold{x}) = g(\bold{a}^{\top} \bold{x}), \quad \bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d
\]
is assumed to hold, where $g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a univariate
function and $\bold{a} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is a $d$-dimensional vector
(see, e.g., \cite{Ha93, HaSt89,KoXi07,YYR02}).
Related to this is the so-called projection pursuit, where the regression function
is assumed to be a sum of functions of the above form, i.e.,
\[
m(\bold{x}) = \sum_{k=1}^K g_k(\bold{a}_k^{\top} \bold{x}), \quad \bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d
\]
for $K \in \mathbb{N}$, $g_k: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\bold{a}_k \in \mathbb{R}^d$ (see, e.g., \cite{FrSt81}). If we assume that the univariate functions in these postulated structures are
$(p,C)$-smooth, adequately chosen regression estimates can achieve the above univariate rates of convergence up to some logarithmic factor
(cf., e.g., Chapter 22 in \cite{GKKW02}).
\cite{HM07} studied the case of a regression function, which satisfies
\[
m(\bold{x})=g\left(\sum_{l_1=1}^{L_1}g_{l_1} \left(\sum_{l_2=1}^{L_2}g_{l_1, l_2}\left( \ldots \sum_{l_r=1}^{L_r}g_{l_1,\ldots, l_r}(\bold{x}^{l_1,\ldots, l_r}) \right)\right)\right),
\]
where $g, g_{l_1}, \ldots, g_{l_1,\ldots, l_r}: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
are
$(p,C)$-smooth univariate functions and $\bold{x}^{l_1,\ldots,l_r}$ are single components of $\bold{x}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ (not necessarily different for two different indices $(l_1,\ldots,l_r)$).
With the use of a penalized least squares estimate, they proved
that in this setting the rate $n^{-2p/(2p+1)}$ can be achieved.
The rate of convergence
of neural network regression estimates
has been analyzed by
\cite{Bar91,Bar93, Bar94, BK17, KoKr05,KoKr17, McCaGa94,Sch17, Suz19,OhnKim19,FM18,OoSu19}.
For the $L_2$-error of a
single hidden layer neural network, \cite{Bar94} proves a dimensionless rate of $n^{-1/2}$
(up to some logarithmic factor), provided the Fourier transform has a finite first
moment (which basically
requires that the function becomes smoother with increasing
dimension $d$ of $X$).
\cite{McCaGa94} showed a rate of $n^{(-2p/(2p+d+5))+\varepsilon}$ for the $L_2$-error of suitably defined single hidden layer neural network estimators for $(p,C)$-smooth functions, but their study was restricted to the use of a certain cosine squasher as an activation function.
The rate of convergence of
neural network regression
estimates based on two layer neural networks has been analyzed in
\cite{KoKr05}. Therein, interaction models were studied,
where the regression function satisfies
\[
m(\bold{x})
=
\sum_{I \subseteq \{1, \dots, d\}, |I|=d^*}
m_I(\bold{x}_I), \qquad \bold{x}=(x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)})^{\top} \in \mathbb{R}^d
\]
for some $d^* \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ and $m_I:\mathbb{R}^{d^*} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
$(I \subseteq \{1, \dots, d\}, |I| \leq d^*)$, where
\[
\bold{x}_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_{d^*}\}}=
(x^{(i_1)}, \dots, x^{(i_{d^*})})
\quad
\mbox{for }
1 \leq i_1 < \ldots < i_{d^*} \leq d,
\]
and
in case that all $m_I$ are $(p,C)$-smooth for some $p \leq 1$
it was shown that suitable neural network regression estimators achieve a rate of convergence of $n^{-2p/(2p+d^*)}$
(up to some logarithmic factor),
which is again a convergence rate independent of $d$.
In \cite{KoKr17}, this result was extended
to so--called $(p,C)$-smooth generalized hierarchical interaction models of
order $d^*$, which are defined as follows:
\begin{definition}
\label{deold}
Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$, $d^* \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ and $m:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
\noindent
\textbf{a)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a generalized hierarchical interaction model
of order $d^*$ and level $0$, if there exist $\bold{a}_1, \dots, \bold{a}_{d^*} \in
\mathbb{R}^{d}$
and
$f:\mathbb{R}^{d^*} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
such that
\[
m(\bold{x}) = f(\bold{a}_1^{\top} \bold{x}, \dots, \bold{a}_{d^*}^{\top} \bold{x})
\quad \mbox{for all } \bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\]
\noindent
\textbf{b)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a generalized hierarchical interaction model
of order $d^*$ and level $l+1$, if there exist $K \in \mathbb{N}$,
$g_k: \mathbb{R}^{d^*} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ $(k \in \{1, \dots, K\})$
and
$f_{1,k}, \dots, f_{d^*,k} :\mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ $(k \in \{1, \dots, K\})$
such that $f_{1,k}, \dots, f_{d^*,k}$
$(k \in \{1, \dots, K\})$
satisfy a generalized
hierarchical interaction model
of order $d^*$ and level $l$
and
\[
m(\bold{x}) = \sum_{k=1}^K g_k \left(
f_{1,k}(\bold{x}), \dots, f_{d^*,k}(\bold{x})
\right)
\quad \mbox{for all } \bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\]
\noindent
\textbf{c)}
We say that the generalized hierarchical interaction model defined above
is $(p,C)$-smooth, if all functions $f$ and $g_k$ occurring in
its definition are $(p,C)$--smooth according to \autoref{intde2}.
\end{definition}
It was shown that for such models
least squares estimators based on
suitably defined multilayer
neural networks (in which the number of hidden layers depends
on the level of the generalized interaction model) achieve the rate of convergence $n^{-2p/(2p+d^*)}$
(up to some logarithmic factor) in case
$p \leq 1$.
\cite{BK17} showed that this result even holds
for $p>1$ provided the squashing function is suitably
chosen. Similiar rate of convergence
results as in \cite{BK17}
have been shown in
\cite{Sch17}
for neural network regression estimates using
the ReLU activation function. Here slightly more general function spaces, which
fulfill some composition assumption, were studied.
Related results have been shown in
\cite{Suz19}
in case of Besov spaces as a model for the smoothness
of the regression function and in
\cite{OhnKim19} in case of non-ReLU activation
functions.
\cite{FM18} derived
results concerning estimation by neural networks of piecewise
polynomial regression
functions with partitions having rather general smooth boundaries.
In \cite{OoSu19} the rate of convergence of ResNet-type convolutional
neural networks have been analyzed. Here the convolutional neural
networks corresponds to a fully connected deep neural network
with constant width and depth converging to infinity for sample size
tending to infinity. The class of neural networks uses the ReLU
activation function and very small bounds on the absolute value of the weights in the hidden layers
and a large bound on the absolute value of the weights in the
output layer. In case of a $(p,C)$--smooth regression function
up to a logarithmic factor the rate of convergence $n^{-2p/(2p+d)}$
is shown.
The main results in \cite{BK17} and \cite{Sch17} are
new approximation results for neural networks. Here \cite{Sch17}
bounds the supremum norm error of the approximation of smooth
functions on a cube, while the corresponding approximation
bound in \cite{BK17} holds only on a subset of the
cube of measure close to one, which is sufficient in order
to bound the approximation error of the neural network in $L_2$.
In both papers a further restriction of the network
architecture, in form of a sparsity constraint, is needed to show their theoretical
results. Thus the topology of the
neural network is difficult in view of an implementation of the
corresponding least squares estimate.
In particular, in \cite{Sch17} the topology of the neural network
was not completely specified, it was described how many weights
are nonzero but not which of the weights are nonzero.
\subsection{Main results in this article}
The above results lead to the conjecture that network sparsity
is necessary in order to be able to
derive good rates of convergence of neural network
regression estimates.
Our main result in this article is
that this is not the case.
To show this, we derive similar rate of convergence
results as in \cite{BK17} and in \cite{Sch17}
for least squares estimators based on simple fully connected feedforward neural networks.
In these networks
either the number of neurons per hidden layer is fixed and the number of hidden
layers tends to infinity suitably fast for sample size tending to infinity,
or the number of hidden layers is bounded by some logarithmic factor
in the sample size and the number of neurons per hidden layer
tends to infinity suitably fast for sample size tending to infinity.
In the first case the networks will be much deeper than the class
of networks considered for the least squares estimates in
\cite{BK17} and \cite{Sch17}, where the number of hidden layers
is either bounded by a constant or by some logarithmic factor
in the sample size.
From an approximation theoretical point of view we derive two new error bounds
for the approximation of $(p,C)$--smooth functions by
(very wide or very deep) neural networks using the ReLU activation function,
which are essential to show our convergence result. In particular, we generalize the approximation result from \cite{Y18} from H\"older--smooth to $(p,C)$--smooth functions. Compared to previous works based on sparse neural network estimates our result does not focus on the number of non--zero parameters but on the overall number of parameters in the network. In particular, we show that in case of networks with constant width and $W$ weights we can achieve an approximation error of size $W^{-2p/d}$ instead of $W^{-p/d}$ as stated in \cite{BK17} and \cite{Sch17}. By bounding the number of parameters in this sense, the topology of our neural networks is much easier in view of an implementation of the corresponding least squares estimate. For instance, as shown in \autoref{lst:e1}, using Python's packages \texttt{tensorflow} and \texttt{keras} enables us an easy and fast implementation. Although sparsely connected networks are often prefered in practical applications, there are some open questions about an efficient implementation of these networks. So-called pruning methods, for instance, start with large strongly connected neural networks and delete redundant parameters during the training process. The main drawback is, that due to the large initial size of the networks, the computational costs of the method are high. That is why the implementation of sparsely connected networks is critical questioned (see e.g. \cite{U19, Liu18}).
With regard to our convergence result we analyze a slightly more general function space, which includes
all the other types of structures of $m$ mentioned earlier.
\\
Independently of us, \cite{YZ19} published a similar result for the approximation of smooth functions by simple fully connected deep neural networks. For a network with width $2d+10$ and $W$ weights, they also showed an approximation rate of $W^{-2p/d}$. After the original version of our paper a relating arXiv article was uploaded by \cite{LS20}. Therein our approximation result, where either width or depth are varied, was generalized to ReLU networks where both width and depth are varied simultaneously.
\lstinputlisting[language=Python, caption={Python code for fitting of fully connected neural networks to data $x_{learn}$ and $y_{learn}$}, label={lst:e1}]{pytest.py}
\subsection{Notation}
Throughout the paper, the following notation is used:
The sets of natural numbers and real numbers
are denoted by $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{R}$, respectively. Furthermore, we set $\mathbb{N}_0=\mathbb{N} \cup \{0\}$. For $z \in \mathbb{R}$, we denote
the smallest integer greater than or equal to $z$ by
$\lceil z \rceil$ and the largest integer smaller or equal to $z$ by
$\lfloor z \rfloor$. We set $z_+=\max\{z,0\}$.
Vectors are denoted by bold letters, e.g. $\bold{x} = (x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)})^T$. We define $\bold{1}=(1, \dots, 1)^T$ and $\bold{0} = (0, \dots, 0)^T$. A $d$-dimensional multi-index is a $d$-dimensional vector $\bold{j} = (j^{(1)}, \dots, j^{(d)})^T \in \mathbb{N}_0^d$. As usual, we define $\|\bold{j}\|_1 = j^{(1)}+\dots+j^{(d)}$, $\bold{j}! = j^{(1)}! \cdots j^{(d)}!$,
\[
\bold{x}^{\bold{j}} = (x^{(1)})^{j^{(1)}}\cdots (x^{(d)})^{j^{(d)}} \ \mbox{and} \ \partial^{\bold{j}} = \frac{\partial^{j^{(1)}}}{\partial (x^{(1)})^{j^{(1)}}} \cdots \frac{\partial^{j^{(d)}}}{\partial (x^{(d)})^{j^{(d)}}}.
\]
Let $D \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ and let $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a real-valued
function defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$.
We write $\bold{x} = \arg \min_{\bold{z} \in D} f(z)$ if
$\min_{\bold{z} \in {\mathcal{D}}} f(\bold{z})$ exists and if
$\bold{x}$ satisfies
$\bold{x} \in D$ and $f(\bold{x}) = \min_{\bold{z} \in {\mathcal{D}}} f(\bold{z})$.
The Euclidean and the supremum norms of $\bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$
are denoted by $\|\bold{x}\|$ and $\|\bold{x}\|_\infty$, respectively.
For $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
\[
\|f\|_\infty = \sup_{\bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d} |f(\bold{x})|
\]
is its supremum norm, and the supremum norm of $f$
on a set $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ is denoted by
\[
\|f\|_{\infty,A} = \sup_{\bold{x} \in A} |f(\bold{x})|.
\]
Furthermore we define the norm $\| \cdot \|_{C^q(A)}$ of the smooth function space $C^q(A)$ by
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{C^q(A)} :=\max\left\{\|\partial^{\mathbf{j}}f\|_{\infty, A}: \|\mathbf{j}\|_1 \leq q, \mathbf{j} \in \mathbb{N}^d\right\}
\end{align*}
for any $f \in C^q(A)$.
Let $\bold{z}_1, \dots, \bold{z}_n \in \mathbb{R}^d$, set
$\bold{z}_1^n := (\bold{z}_1, \dots, \bold{z}_n)$,
let $\mathcal{F}$ be a set of functions $f: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ and let $\epsilon > 0$.
We denote by $\mathcal{N}_1(\epsilon, \mathcal{F}, \bold{z}_1^n)$ the $\epsilon-\Vert \cdot \Vert_{1}$-covering number on $\bold{z}_1^n$, i.e. the minimal number $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that there exist functions $f_1, \dots, f_N: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ with the property that for every $f \in \mathcal{F}$ there is a $j=j(f) \in \{1, \dots, N\}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n |f(\bold{z}_i) - f_j(\bold{z}_i)| < \epsilon.
\end{align*}
We define the truncation operator $T_{\beta}$ with level $\beta > 0$ as
\begin{equation*}
T_{\beta}u =
\begin{cases}
u \quad &\text{if} \quad |u| \leq \beta\\
\beta \cdot {\rm sign}(u) \quad &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, for $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we define $T_\beta f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ by $(T_\beta f)(\bold{x})=T_\beta (f(\bold{x}))$. And if ${\cal F}$ is a set
of functions $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we set
\[
T_\beta {\cal F} = \{ T_\beta f \, : \, f \in {\cal F} \}.
\]
\subsection{Outline}
The main result is presented in Section \ref{se2}. Our new results
concerning the approximation of $(p,C)$--smooth functions by deep neural networks are described in Section \ref{se3}. Section \ref{se4} deals with a result concerning the approximation of hierarchical composition models (see Definition \ref{de2} below) by neural networks. Section \ref{se5} contains the proof of the main result.
\section{Main result}
\label{se2}
As already mentioned above, the only possible way to avoid the so--called curse of dimensionality is to restrict
the underlying function class. We therefore consider functions, which fulfill the following definition:
\begin{definition}
\label{de2}
Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$ and $m: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ and let
$\P$ be a subset
of $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{N}$
\noindent
\textbf{a)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a hierarchical composition model of level $0$
with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$, if there exists a $K \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ such that
\[
m(\bold{x}) = x^{(K)} \quad \mbox{for all } \bold{x} = (x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)})^{\top} \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\]
\noindent
\textbf{b)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a hierarchical composition model
of level $l+1$ with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$, if there exist $(p,K) \in \P$, $C>0$, \linebreak $g: \mathbb{R}^{K} \to \mathbb{R}$ and $f_{1}, \dots, f_{K}: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$, such that
$g$ is $(p,C)$--smooth,
$f_{1}, \dots, f_{K}$ satisfy a hierarchical composition model of level $l$
with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$
and
\[m(\bold{x})=g(f_{1}(\bold{x}), \dots, f_{K}(\bold{x})) \quad \mbox{for all } \bold{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d.\]
\end{definition}
For $l=1$ and some order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P} \subseteq (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{N}$ our space of hierarchical composition models becomes
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}(1, \mathcal{P}) = \{&h: \mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}: h(\bold{x}) = g(x^{(\pi(1))}, \dots, x^{(\pi(K))}), \text{where} \notag \\
& g:\mathbb{R}^{K} \to \mathbb{R} \ \text{is} \ (p, C) \ \text{--smooth} \ \text{for some} \ (p, K) \in \mathcal{P} \notag \\
& \text{and} \ \pi: \{1, \dots, K\} \to \{1, \dots, d\}\}.
\end{align*}
For $l > 1$, we recursively define
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}(l, \mathcal{P}) := \{&h: \mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}: h(\bold{x}) = g(f_1(\bold{x}), \dots, f_{K}(\bold{x})), \text{where} \notag\\
& g:\mathbb{R}^{K} \to \mathbb{R} \ \text{is} \ (p, C) \text{--smooth} \ \text{for some} \
(p, K) \in \mathcal{P} \notag \\
& \text{and} \ f_i \in \mathcal{H}(l-1, \mathcal{P})\}.
\end{align*}
In practice, it is conceivable, that there exist input--output--relationships, which can be described by a regression function contained in $\mathcal{H}(l,\mathcal{P})$. Particulary, our assumption is motivated by applications in connection with complex technical systems, which are constructed in a modular form. Here each modular part can be again a complex system, which also explains the recursive construction in \autoref{de2}.
It is shown in \cite{BK17} and in \cite{Sch17}
that the function classes used therein generalize all other models
mentioned in our article.
As the function class of \cite{BK17} (see \autoref{deold}) forms some special case of $\mathcal{H}(l,\mathcal{P})$ in form of an alternation between summation and composition, this is also true for our more general model. Compared to the function class studied in \cite{Sch17}, our definition forms a slight generalization, since we allow different smoothness and order constraints within the same level in the composition. In particular, also the additional examples
mentioned in \cite{Sch17} are contained in our function class.
Our main result is the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th1}
Let $(\bold{X}, Y), (\bold{X}_1, Y_1), \dots, (\bold{X}_n, Y_n)$ be independent and identically distributed
random values such that $\rm{supp}(\bold{X})$ is bounded and
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{E}\left\{ \exp(c_1 \cdot Y^2) \right\} < \infty
\end{equation*}
for some constant $c_1 > 0$. Let the corresponding regression function $m$ be contained in the class $\mathcal{H}(l, \mathcal{P})$ for some $l \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{P} \subseteq [1,\infty) \times \mathbb{N}$. Each function $g$ in the definition of $m$ can be of different smoothness $p_g=q_g+s_g$ ($q_g \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $s_g \in (0,1]$) and of different input dimension $K_g$, where $(p_g,K_g) \in \mathcal{P}$. Denote by $K_{max}$ the maximal input dimension and by $p_{\max}$ the maximal smoothness of one of the functions $g$. Assume that for each $g$ all partial derivatives of order less than or equal to $q_g$ are bounded, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\Vert g\Vert_{C^{q_g}(\mathbb{R}^d)} \leq c_{2}
\end{equation*}
for some constant $c_2 >0$ and that $p_{\max}, K_{\max} < \infty$. Let each function $g$ be Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $C_{Lip} \geq 1$.
Let $\tilde{m}_n$ be defined as in \eqref{least}
for some $L_n, r_n \in \mathbb{N}$,
and define $m_n = T_{c_3 \cdot \log(n)} \tilde{m}_n$ for some $c_3 >0$ sufficiently large.
\noindent
{\bf a)} Choose $c_{4}, c_{5} >0$ sufficiently large and set
\[
L_n = \left\lceil
c_{4} \cdot \log n
\right\rceil
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
r_n =
\left\lceil
c_{5} \cdot
\max_{(p,K) \in \P} n^{\frac{K}{2(2p+K)}}
\right\rceil.
\]
Then
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E} \int |m_n(\bold{x}) - m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}}(d\bold{x}) \leq c_6 \cdot (\log(n))^6 \cdot \max_{(p,K) \in \mathcal{P}} n^{-\frac{2p}{2p+K}}
\end{equation*}
holds for sufficiently large $n$.
\noindent
{\bf b)} Choose $c_{7}, c_{8} >0$ sufficiently large and set
\[
L_n = \left\lceil
c_{7} \cdot \max_{(p,K) \in \P} n^{\frac{K}{2(2p+K)}}
\cdot \log n
\right\rceil
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
r_n = r=
\left\lceil
c_{8}
\right\rceil.
\]
Then
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E} \int |m_n(\bold{x}) - m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}}(d\bold{x}) \leq c_9 \cdot (\log(n))^6 \cdot \max_{(p,K) \in \mathcal{P}} n^{-\frac{2p}{2p+K}}
\end{equation*}
holds for sufficiently large $n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\autoref{th1} shows that in case that the regression function satisfies an hierarchical composition model with smoothness and order constraint $\mathcal{P}$ the $L_2$-errors of least squares neural network regression estimates based on a set of fully connected neural networks achieve the rate of convergence $\max_{(p,K) \in \mathcal{P}} n^{-2p/(2p+K)}$ (up to some logarithmic factor), which does not depend on $d$ and which does therefore circumvent the so-called \textit{curse of dimensionality}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Due to the fact that some parameters in the definition of the estimator in \autoref{th1} are usually unknown in practice, they have to be chosen in a data--dependent way. Out of a set of different numbers of hidden layers and neurons per layer the best estimator is then chosen adaptively. One simple possibility
to do this is to use the so--called {\it splitting of the sample} method,
cf., e.g., Section 2.4 and Chapter 7 in \cite{GKKW02}.
Here the sample is splitted into a learning sample of size $n_l$ and a
testing sample of size $n_t$, where $n_l+n_t=n$ (e.g.,
$n_l \approx n/2 \approx n_t$),
the estimator is computed for several different selections of width and depth using only the learning sample, the empirical $L_2$-risks
of these estimators are then computed on the testing sample, and finally
the parameter value is chosen for which the empirical $L_2$-risk
on the testing sample is minimal.
\end{remark}
\section{Approximation of smooth functions by
fully connected deep neural networks with ReLU activation function}
\label{se3}
The aim of this section is to present a new result concerning the approximation of $(p,C)$-smooth functions by deep neural networks.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th2}
Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$,
let $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be $(p,C)$--smooth for some $p=q+s$,
$q \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $s \in (0,1]$, and $C>0$. Let $a \geq 1$
and $M \in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large (independent of the size of $a$ but
\begin{align*}
M \geq 2 \ \mbox{and} \ M^{2p} \geq c_{10} \cdot \left(\max\left\{a, \|f\|_{C^q([-a,a]^d)}
\right\}\right)^{4(q+1)}
\end{align*}
must hold for some sufficiently large constant $c_{10} \geq 1$).
\\
a) Let $L, r \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L \geq 5+\lceil \log_4(M^{2p})\rceil \cdot \left(\lceil \log_2(\max\{q, d\} + 1\})\rceil+1\right)$
\item $r \geq 2^d \cdot 64 \cdot \binom{d+q}{d} \cdot d^2 \cdot (q+1) \cdot M^d$
\end{enumerate}
hold.
There exists a neural network
\begin{align*}
f_{net, wide} \in \mathcal{F}(L,r)
\end{align*}
with the property that
\begin{align}
\| f-f_{net, wide}\|_{\infty, [-a,a]^d} \leq
c_{11} \cdot \left(\max\left\{a, \|f\|_{C^q([-a,a]^d)}\right\} \right)^{4(q+1)} \cdot M^{-2p}.
\label{th2eq1}
\end{align}
b) Let $L, r \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L \geq 5M^d+\left\lceil \log_4\left(M^{2p+4 \cdot d \cdot (q+1)} \cdot e^{4 \cdot (q+1) \cdot (M^d-1)}\right)\right\rceil\\
\cdot \lceil \log_2(\max\{q,d\}+1)\rceil+\lceil \log_4(M^{2p})\rceil$
\item $r \geq 132 \cdot 2^d\cdot \lceil e^d\rceil
\cdot \binom{d+q}{d} \cdot \max\{ q+1, d^2\}$
\end{enumerate}
hold. There exists a neural network
\begin{align*}
f_{net, deep} \in \mathcal{F}(L,r)
\end{align*}
such that (\ref{th2eq1}) holds with
$f_{net,wide}$ replaced by $f_{net,deep}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The above result focuses on the convergence rate and no
attempt has been made to minimize the constants in the
definition of $L$ and $r$.
\end{remark}
The following corollary translates \autoref{th2} b) in terms of the
number of overall parameters versus the approximation accuracy.
\begin{corollary}
\label{c1}
Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$,
let $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be $(p,C)$--smooth for some $p=q+s$,
$q \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $s \in (0,1]$, and $C>0$. Let $a \geq 1$ and $\epsilon > 0$.
Then there exists a fully connected neural network $f_{net}$ with $c_{12} \cdot \epsilon^{-d/(2p)}$ parameters, such that
\begin{align*}
\|f-f_{net}\|_{\infty, [-a,a]^d} \leq \epsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The number of overall weights $W$ in a neural network with $L$ hidden layers and $r$ neurons per layer can be computed by
\begin{align*}
W=(d+1) \cdot r + (L-1) \cdot (r+1) \cdot r+(r+1).
\end{align*}
Using \autoref{th2} b), where we choose $M=\lceil c_{13} \cdot \epsilon^{-1/(2p)} \rceil$ for some constant $c_{13} >0$, implies the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Compared with \cite{Sch17} and \cite{BK17}, where the total number of parameters is $c_{14} \cdot \epsilon^{-d/p}$ for some constant $c_{14} > 0$ in case of an approximation error of $\epsilon$, Corollary \ref{c1} gives a quadratic improvement.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of the proof of \autoref{th2}]
The basic idea is to construct deep neural networks which approximate
a piecewiece Taylor polynomial with respect to a partition of $[-a,a]^d$
into $M^{2d}$ equivolume cubes. Our approximation starts on a coarse
grid with $M^d$ equivolume cubes and calculates the position of the cube
$C$ with $\bold{x} \in C$. This cube is then sub-partitioned into $M^d$ smaller
cubes to finally compute the values of our Taylor polynomial on the finer grid
with $M^{2d}$ cubes. Part a) and b) use a different approach to achieve this.\\
In part a) we exploit the fact that a network with $c_{15} \cdot M^d$ neurons per layer
has $c_{16} \cdot M^{2d}$ connections between two consecutive layers.
Then each of the $c_{16} \cdot M^{2d}$ weights in our network is matched
to one of the $c_{16} \cdot M^{2d}$ possible values of the derivatives of $f$. To detect the right
values of the derivatives for our Taylor polynomial we proceed in two steps: In the first two hidden layers
our network approximates the indicator function for every cube on the coarse grid. The output layer of those
networks is then multiplied by the derivatives of $f$ on the cube, respectively. And those values are the input of the $c_{17} \cdot M^d$ networks in the next two hidden layers, which approximate the indicator function multiplied by the values of the derivatives, respectively, on the $M^d$ smaller cubes of the sub-partition of $C$ with $\bold{x} \in C$. Using this two step approximation we finally detect the right values of the derivatives on the $M^{2d}$ equivolume cubes. In the
remaining layers we compute the Taylor polynomial. \\
In part b) in the first $c_{18} \cdot M^d$ layers of the network the values of the derivatives
of $f$ necessary for the computation of
a piecewise Taylor polynomial of $f$ with respect to the partition on the
coarse grid are determined. Then additional $c_{19} \cdot M^d$
layers of the network are used to compute a piecewise Taylor polynomial
of $f$ on the sub-partition (into $M^d$ smaller cubes) of the cube $C$ with $\bold{x} \in C$ (where $C$
is again one of the cubes of the coarse grid).
Here
the values of the derivatives are computed successively by computing
them one after another by a Taylor approximation using the previously
computed values and suitably defined correction terms.
\end{proof}
\section{Approximation of hierarchical composition models by neural networks}
\label{se4}
In this section we use \autoref{th2} to prove a result concerning the approximation of hierarchical composition models with smoothness and order constraint $\mathcal{P} \subseteq [1, \infty) \times \mathbb{N}$ by deep neural networks. In order to formulate this result, we observe in a first step,
that one has to compute different hierarchical composition models of some level $i$ $(i\in \{1, \dots, l-1\})$ to compute a function $h_1^{(l)} \in \mathcal{H}(l, \mathcal{P})$. Let $\tilde{N}_i$ denote the number of hierarchical composition models of level $i$, needed to compute $h_1^{(l)}$.
We denote in the following by
\begin{align}
\label{h}
h_j^{(i)}: \mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}
\end{align}
the $j$--th hierarchical composition model of some level $i$ ($j \in \{1, \ldots, \tilde{N}_i\}, i \in \{1, \ldots, l\}$), that applies a $(p_j^{(i)}, C)$--smooth function $g_j^{(i)}: \mathbb{R}^{K_j^{(i)}} \to \mathbb{R}$ with $p_j^{(i)} = q_j^{(i)} + s_j^{(i)}$, $q_j^{(i)} \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $s_j^{(i)} \in (0,1]$, where $(p_j^{(i)}, K_j^{(i)}) \in \mathcal{P}$.
The computation of $h_1^{(l)}(\bold{x})$ can then be recursively described as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{hji}
h_j^{(i)}(\bold{x}) = g_{j}^{(i)}\left(h^{(i-1)}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(i)}+1}(\bold{x}), \dots, h^{(i-1)}_{\sum_{t=1}^j K_t^{(i)}}(\bold{x}) \right)
\end{equation}
for $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$ and $i \in \{2, \dots, l\}$
and
\begin{equation}\label{hj1}
h_j^{(1)}(\bold{x}) = g_j^{(1)}\left(x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(1)}+1)\right)}, \dots, x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(1)})\right)}\right)
\end{equation}
for some function $\pi: \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_1\} \to \{1, \dots, d\}$.
Furthermore for \linebreak
$i \in \{1, \dots, l-1\}$
the recursion
\begin{align}
\label{N}
\tilde{N}_l = 1 \ \text{and} \ \tilde{N}_{i} = \sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{N}_{i+1}} K_j^{(i+1)}
\end{align}
holds.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tikzpicture}[
level/.style={rectangle = 4pt, draw, text centered, anchor=north, text=black},
input/.style={rounded corners=7pt, draw, rounded corners=1mm, text centered, anchor=north, text=black},
level distance=1cm
]
\node (H1l) [level] {$g_1^{(2)}$}
[level distance = 0.5cm]
[sibling distance = 3cm]
[level distance = 1cm]
child{
node (H1l1) [level] {\scriptsize $g_1^{(1)}$}
[level distance = 0.5cm]
[sibling distance = 1.2cm, level distance = 1cm]
child{
node (K1) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(1))}$}
}
child{
node (K2) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(2))}$}
}
}
child{
node (H2l1) [level] {\scriptsize $g_2^{(1)}$}
[level distance = 0.5cm]
[sibling distance=1.2cm, level distance = 1cm]
child{
node (K3) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(3))}$}
}
child{
node (K4) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(4))}$}
}
child{
node (K4) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(5))}$}
}
}
child{
node (HK) [level] {\scriptsize $g_{3}^{(1)}$}
[level distance = 0.5cm]
[sibling distance = 1.2cm, level distance = 1cm]
child{
node (H1l2) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(6))}$}
}
child{
node (State04) [level] {\scriptsize $x^{(\pi(7))}$}
}
}
;
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Illustration of a hierarchical composition model of the class $\mathcal{H}(2, \mathcal{P})$ with the structure $h_1^{(2)}(x) = g_1^{(2)}(h_1^{(1)}(x), h_2^{(1)}(x), h_3^{(1)}(x))$, $h_1^{(1)}(x) = g_1^{(1)}(x^{(\pi(1))}, x^{(\pi(2))})$, $h_2^{(1)}(x)=g_2^{(1)}(x^{(\pi(3))}, x^{(\pi(4)}, x^{(\pi(5))})$ and $h_3^{(1)}(x) = g_3^{(1)}(x^{(\pi(6))}, x^{(\pi(7))})$, defined as in \eqref{hji} and \eqref{hj1}.}
\label{h2}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The exemplary structure of a function $h_1^{(2)} \in \mathcal{H}(2, \mathcal{P})$ is illustrated in \hyperref[fprod]{Fig.\ref*{h2}}.
Here one can get a perception of how the hierarchical composition models of different levels are stacked on top of each other. The approximation result of such a function $h_1^{(l)}$ by a neural network is summarized in the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{th3}
Let $m: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ be contained in the class $\mathcal{H}(l, \mathcal{P})$ for some $l \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\mathcal{P} \subseteq [1,\infty) \times \mathbb{N}$. Let $\tilde{N}_i$ be defined as in \eqref{N}. Each $m$ consists of different functions $h_j^{(i)}$ $(j \in \{1, \ldots, \tilde{N}_i\},$
$ i\in \{1, \dots, l\})$ defined as in \eqref{h}, \eqref{hji} and \eqref{hj1}.
Assume that the corrsponding functions $g_j^{(i)}$ are Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $C_{Lip} \geq 1$ and satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\|g_j^{(i)}\|_{C^{q_j^{(i)}}(\mathbb{R}^d)} \leq c_{20}
\end{equation*}
for some constant $c_{20} >0$. Denote by $K_{max} = \max_{i,j} K_j^{(i)} < \infty$ the maximal input dimension and by $p_{max} = \max_{i,j} p_j^{(i)} < \infty$
the maximal smoothness of the functions $g_j^{(i)}$. Let $a \geq 1$ and $M_{j,i} \in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large (each independent of the size of $a$, but $\min_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{2} >c_{21} \cdot a^{4(p_{max}+1)} /(2^{l} K_{\max} C_{Lip})^{l}$ must hold for some constant $c_{21}>0$ sufficiently large).
\\
a) Let $L, r \in \mathbb{N}$ be such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $L \geq l \cdot \Bigg(5+\left\lceil \log_{4}\left(\max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}}\right)\right\rceil $ \\
\hspace*{3cm} $\cdot \left(\lceil \log_2(\max\{K_{\max},p_{\max}\}+1)\rceil+1\right)\Bigg)$
\item[(ii)] $r \geq \max_{i \in \{1, \dots, l\}} \sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{N}_{i}} 2^{K_j^{(i)}} \cdot 64 \cdot \binom{K_j^{(i)}+q_j^{(i)}}{K_j^{(i)}} \cdot (K_j^{(i)})^2 \cdot (q_j^{(i)}+1) \cdot M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}$
\end{itemize}
hold. Then there exists a neural network $t_1$ of the network class $\mathcal{F}\left(L, r\right)$
with the property that
\begin{equation}
\label{th3a}
\|t_1-m\|_{\infty, [-a,a]^d} \leq c_{22} \cdot a^{4(p_{\max}+1)} \cdot \max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{-2p_j^{(i)}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent
b) Let $L, r \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $L
\geq
\sum_{i=1}^{l}
\sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{N}_i}
\Big(
5M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}+
\\
\hspace*{1cm}
\left\lceil
\log_{4}
\left(
M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}+4\cdot K_j^{(i)} \cdot (q_j^{(i)}+1)}
\cdot e^{4 \cdot (q_j^{(i)} +1) \cdot (M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}-1)}
\right)
\right\rceil \\
\hspace*{2cm} \cdot
\lceil
\log_2(\max\{K_j^{(i)},q_j^{(i)}\}+1)
\rceil + \Big\lceil \log_4\Big(M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}}\Big)\Big\rceil\Big)$
\item[(ii)] $r \geq 2 \sum_{t=1}^{l-1} \tilde{N}_t + 2d +
132 \cdot 2^{K_{max}} \cdot \lceil e^{K_{max}}\rceil
\cdot \binom{{K_{max}}+ \lceil p_{max} \rceil}{{K_{max}}} \cdot
\\
\hspace*{7cm} \max\{\lceil p_{max}\rceil +1, K_{max}^2\}
$
\end{itemize}
hold. Then there exists a neural network $t_2$ of the network class $\mathcal{F}\left(L, r\right)$ with the property that
\eqref{th3a} holds with $t_1$ replaced by $t_2$.
\end{theorem}
In the construction of our network we will compose smaller subnetworks to successively build the final network. For two networks $f \in \mathcal{F}(L_f, r_f)$ and $g \in \mathcal{F}(L_g, r_g)$ with $L_f, L_g, r_f, r_g \in \mathbb{N}$ the \textit{composed} neural network $f \circ g$ is contained in the function class $\mathcal{F}(L_f+L_g, \max\{r_f, r_g\})$.
In the literature (see e.g. \cite{Sch17}) the composition of two networks is often defined by $f \circ \sigma(g)$. Thus for every composition
an additional layer is added. We follow a different approach. Instead of using an additional layer, we "melt" the weights of both networks $f$ and $g$ to define $f \circ g$. The following example clarifies our idea: Let
\begin{align*}
f(x) = \beta_f \cdot \sigma(\alpha_f \cdot x) \ \mbox{and} \ g(x) = \beta_g \cdot \sigma(\alpha_g \cdot x), \quad \mbox{for} \ \alpha_f, \alpha_g, \beta_f, \beta_g \in \mathbb{R},
\end{align*}
then we have
\begin{align*}
f \circ g = f(g(x)) = \beta_f \cdot \sigma(\alpha_f \cdot \beta_g \cdot \sigma(\alpha_g \cdot x)).
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\def1.5cm{1.5cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=1.5cm]
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
\tikzstyle{neuron}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{input neuron}=[neuron, fill=gray];
\tikzstyle{output neuron}=[neuron, fill= gray];
\tikzstyle{hidden neuron}=[neuron, fill=gray];
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
\node[] (I) at (0,-1) {$x$};
\node[hidden neuron] (H) at (1.5cm,-1 cm) {};
\node[right of=H] (O) {$f(x)$};
\node [annot, below of=H, node distance=1cm] (text) {\textit{network $f$}};
\path (I) edge node[above,midway] {$\alpha_f$} (H);
\path (H) edge node[above,midway] {$\beta_f$} (O);
\path (H) edge (O);
\node[] (I1) at (5,-1) {$x$};
\node[hidden neuron] (H1) at (6.5,-1 cm) {};
\node[right of=H1] (O1) {$g(x)$};
\node [annot, below of=H1, node distance=1cm] (text) {\textit{network $g$}};
\path (I1) edge (H1);
\path (H1) edge node[above,midway] {$\beta_g$} (O1);
\path (I1) edge node[above,midway] {$\alpha_g$} (H1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt,->,draw=black!50, node distance=1.5cm]
\tikzstyle{every pin edge}=[<-,shorten <=1pt]
\tikzstyle{neuron}=[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{input neuron}=[neuron, fill=blue];
\tikzstyle{output neuron}=[neuron, fill= gray];
\tikzstyle{hidden neuron}=[neuron, fill=gray];
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
\node[] (I) at (2,-1) {$x$};
\node[hidden neuron] (H) at (3.5,-1 cm) {};
\node[hidden neuron, right of=H] (H2) {};
\node[ right of=H2, xshift=0.4cm] (O) {$(f \circ g)(x)$};
\node [annot, below of=H, xshift= 0.8cm, node distance=1cm] (text) {\textit{network $f \circ g$}};
\path (I) edge node[above,midway] {$\alpha_g$} (H);
\path (H) edge node[above,midway] {$\beta_g \cdot \alpha_f$} (H2);
\path (H2) edge node[above,midway] {$\beta_f$} (O);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Illustration of the composed network $f \circ g$}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
\hyperref[fprod]{Fig.\ref*{f3}} illustrates our idea by the network representation as an acyclic graph. This clearly shows, why we do not need an additional layer in our composed network.
\begin{proof}
a)
The computation of the function $m(\bold{x})=h_1^{(l)}(\bold{x})$ can be recursively described as in \eqref{hji} and \eqref{hj1}.
The basic idea of the proof is to define a composed network, which approximately computes the functions $h_1^{(1)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}, h_1^{(2)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_2}^{(2)}, \dots, h_1^{(l)}$.
\\
\\
For the approximation of $g_j^{(i)}$
we will use the networks
\begin{equation*}
f_{net, wide, g_{j}^{(i)}} \in \mathcal{F}(L_0, r_j^{(i)})
\end{equation*}
described in \autoref{th2} a), where
\begin{align*}
L_0 &= 5+\left\lceil \log_{4}\left(\max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}}\right)\right\rceil \cdot \left(\lceil \log_2(\max\{K_{\max},p_{\max}\}+1)\rceil+1\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
r_j^{(i)} = & 2^{K_j^{(i)}} \cdot 64 \cdot \binom{K_j^{(i)}+q_j^{(i)}}{K_j^{(i)}} \cdot (K_j^{(i)})^2 \cdot (q_j^{(i)}+1) \cdot M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}
\end{align*}
for $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$ and $i \in \{1, \dots, l\}$.
\\
\\
To compute the values of $h_1^{(1)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}$ we use the networks
\begin{align*}
\hat{h}_1^{(1)}(\bold{x})&= f_{net, wide, g_{1}^{(1)}}\left(x^{(\pi(1))}, \dots, x^{(\pi(K_1^{(1)}))}\right)\\
& \quad \vdots\\
\hat{h}_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}(\bold{x})& = f_{net, wide, g_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}\left(x^{(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{\tilde{N}_1-1} K_t^{(1)} +1))}, \dots, x^{(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{\tilde{N}_1} K_t^{(1)}))}\right).
\end{align*}
To compute the values of $h_1^{(i)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_i}^{(i)}$ $(i \in \{2, \dots, l\})$ we use the networks
\begin{align*}
\hat{h}_j^{(i)}(\bold{x}) = f_{net, wide, g_{j}^{(i)}}\left(\hat{h}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(i)}+1}^{(i-1)}(\bold{x}), \dots, \hat{h}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(i)}}^{(i-1)}(\bold{x})\right)
\end{align*}
for $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$. Finally we set
\begin{align*}
t_1(\bold{x}) = \hat{h}_1^{(l)}(\bold{x}).
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
\tikzstyle{mycirc} = [circle,fill=white, minimum size=0.005cm]
\footnotesize{
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 3cm, auto]
\node [] (x1) {\scriptsize $x^{(1)}$};
\node [below of=x1, node distance =1cm] (x2) {\scriptsize $x^{(2)}$};
\node [below of=x2, node distance = 1cm] (dots) {\scriptsize $\vdots$};
\node [below of=dots, node distance = 1cm] (xd) {\scriptsize $x^{(d)}$};
\node [annot, above of=x1, node distance=2cm] (text) {\textit{Input}};
%
\node [right of=x1, above of=x1, node distance=1.5cm] (fnet1) {\scriptsize $f_{net, wide, g_1^{(1)}}$};
\node [below of=fnet1, node distance=3cm] (fnet2) {\scriptsize $\vdots$};
\node [right of = xd, below of =xd, node distance=1.5cm] (fnetg1) {\scriptsize $f_{net, wide, g_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}$};
\node [annot, above of=fnet1, node distance=0.5cm] (text) {\textit{Level 1}};
\node [right of=fnet1, below of = fnet1, node distance=1.5cm] (fnet4) {\scriptsize $f_{net, wide, g_1^{(2)}}$};
\node [below of=fnet4, node distance=1.5cm] (fnet2) {\scriptsize $\vdots$};
\node [right of=fnetg1, above of= fnetg1, node distance=1.5cm] (fnet5) {\scriptsize $f_{net, wide, g_{\tilde{N}_2}^{(2)}}$};
\node [annot, above of=fnet4, node distance=2cm] (text) {\textit{Level 2}};
\node [right of=fnet4, node distance=1.5cm] (dots1) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\node [right of=fnet5, node distance=1.5cm] (dots2) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\node [annot, above of=dots1, node distance=2cm] (text) {$\dots$};
\node [right of=dots1, below of=dots1, node distance=1.5cm] (fnet6) {$f_{net, wide, g_{1}^{(l)}}$};
\node [right of= fnet6, node distance=1.9cm] (t1) {$t_1(\bold{x})$};
\node [annot, above of=fnet6, node distance=3.5cm] (text) {\textit{Level l}};
\path [line] (x1) -- (fnet1);
\path [line] (x2) -- (fnet1);
\path [line] (xd) -- (fnet1);
\path [line] (x1) -- (fnetg1);
\path [line] (x2) -- (fnetg1);
\path [line] (xd) -- (fnetg1);
\path [line] (fnet6) -- (t1);
\path [line] (fnet1) -- (fnet4);
\path [line] (fnetg1) -- (fnet4);
\path [line] (fnet1) -- (fnet5);
\path [line] (fnetg1) -- (fnet5);
\path [line] (fnet4) -- (dots1);
\path [line] (fnet5) -- (dots2);
\path [line] (dots1) -- (fnet6);
\path [line] (dots2) -- (fnet6);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Illustration of the neural network $t_1$}
\label{h1}
\end{figure}
\hyperref[fprod]{Fig.\ref*{h1}} illustrates the computation of the network $t_1(\bold{x})$. It is easy to see that $t_1(\bold{x})$ forms a composed network, where the networks $\hat{h}_1^{(i)}, \dots, \hat{h}_{\tilde{N}_i}^{(i)}$ are computed in parallel (i.e., in the same layers) for $i \in \{1, \dots, l\}$, respectively. Since each $\hat{h}_j^{(i)}$ $(j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\})$ needs $L_0$ layers and $r_j^{(i)}$ neurons per layer,
this network is contained in the class
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}\left(l \cdot L_0, \max_{i \in \{1, \dots, l\}} \sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{N}_i} r_j^{(i)}\right)
\subseteq
\mathcal{F}\left( L,r \right)
.
\end{align*}
Using induction on $i$ it is easy to see that $t_1$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\|t_1 - m \|_{\infty, [-a,a]^d} \leq c_{23} \cdot a^{4 \cdot (p_{\max} +1)} \cdot \max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{-2p_j^{(i)}}.
\end{align}
A complete proof can be found in Supplement A. By successively applying $f_{id}$ to the output of the network $t_1$, we can easily enlarge the number of hidden layers in the network.
This shows the assertion of the theorem.
\\
\\
b)
Denote $h_1^{(1)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}, \dots, h_1^{(l-1)}, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_{l-1}}^{(l-1)}, h_1^{(l)}$ by $h_1, h_2, \dots, h_{\sum_{t=1}^{l} \tilde{N}_t}$, such that
\begin{equation*}
h_j^{(i)}(\bold{x}) = h_{N_j^{(i)}}(\bold{x}),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
N_j^{(i)}= \sum_{t=1}^{i-1} \tilde{N}_t +j
\end{equation*}
for $i \in \{1, \dots, l\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{th3beq1}
h_j(\bold{x}) =g_j^{(1)}\left(x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(1)}+1)\right)}, \dots, x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(1)})\right)}\right)
\end{equation}
for $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_1\}$
and
\begin{equation}
\label{th3beq2}
h_{N_j^{(i)}}(\bold{x}) = g_{j}^{(i)}\left(h_{N^{(i-1)}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(i)}+1}}(\bold{x}), \dots, h_{N^{(i-1)}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(i)}}}(\bold{x})\right)
\end{equation}
for $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$ and $i \in \{2, \dots, l\}$.
\newline
In our neural network we will compute $h_1, h_2, \dots, h_{\sum_{t=1}^{l} \tilde{N}_t}$ successively. In the construction of the network each $g_j^{(i)}$ will be approximated by a network
\begin{equation*}
f_{net, deep, g_{j}^{(i)}} \in \mathcal{F}(L_j^{(i)}, r_0)
\end{equation*}
described in \autoref{th2} b), where
\begin{align*}
L_j^{(i)} &= 5M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}+\left\lceil \log_{4}\left(M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}+4\cdot K_j^{(i)} \cdot (q_j^{(i)}+1)} \cdot e^{4 \cdot (q_j^{(i)} +1) \cdot (M_{j,i}^{K_j^{(i)}}-1)}\right)\right\rceil\\
& \hspace*{2cm} \cdot \left(\lceil \log_2(\max\{K_j^{(i)},q_j^{(i)}\}+1)\rceil\right)+\lceil \log_4(M_{j,i}^{2p_j^{(i)}})\rceil
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
r_0 = &
132 \cdot 2^{K_{max}} \cdot \lceil e^{K_{max}}\rceil
\cdot \binom{{K_{max}}+ \lceil p_{max} \rceil}{{K_{max}}} \cdot
\max\{\lceil p_{max}\rceil +1, K_{max}^2\}
\end{align*}
with $M_{j,i} \in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large. Furthermore we use the identity network
\begin{align*}
f_{id}(z) = \sigma(z)-\sigma(-z) = z
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
f_{id}^{0} (z) &= z, \quad &z \in \mathbb{R}, \notag\\
f_{id}^{t+1} (z) &= f_{id}\left(f_{id}^t(z)\right) = z, \quad &z \in \mathbb{R}, t \in \mathbb{N}_0
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
f_{id}^t (x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)}) = (f_{id}^t(x^{(1)}), \dots, f_{id}^t(x^{(d)}))=(x^{(1)}, \dots, &x^{(d)}), \\
& x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)} \in \mathbb{R}
\end{align*}
to shift some values or vectors in the next hidden layers, respectively. We set
\begin{align*}
\tilde{L}_{N_j^{(i)}} = L_j^{(i)}
\end{align*}
for $i \in \{1, \dots, l\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\pagestyle{empty}
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
\tikzstyle{annot} = [text width=4em, text centered]
\tikzstyle{mycirc} = [circle,fill=white, minimum size=0.005cm]
\footnotesize{
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 2cm, auto]
\node [] (x1) {\scriptsize $x^{(1)}$};
\node [below of=x1, node distance =1cm] (x2) {\scriptsize $x^{(2)}$};
\node [below of=x2, node distance = 1cm] (dots) {\scriptsize $\vdots$};
\node [below of=dots, node distance = 1cm] (xd) {\scriptsize $x^{(d)}$};
\node [annot, above of=x1, node distance=2cm] (text) {\textit{Input}};
%
\node [right of=dots, below of=dots, node distance=2cm] (fid1) {\scriptsize $f_{id}^{L_1^{(1)}}$};
\node [right of = x2, above of = x2, node distance=2cm] (fnetg1) {\scriptsize $f_{net, deep, g_1^{(1)}}$};
\node [annot, right of=text, node distance=2cm] (text1) {$\hat{h}_1(\bold{x})$};
\path [line] (x1) -- (fid1);
\path [line] (x2) -- (fid1);
\path [line] (xd) -- (fid1);
\path [line] (x1) -- (fnetg1);
\path [line] (x2) -- (fnetg1);
\path [line] (xd) -- (fnetg1);
\node [right of=fid1] (fid2) {\scriptsize $f^{L_2^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [ above of=fid2, node distance=3cm] (fnetg2) {\scriptsize $f_{net, deep, g_2^{(1)}}$};
\node [ right of=fnetg1, node distance=2cm] (fid3) {\scriptsize $f^{L_2^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [annot, right of=text1, node distance=2cm] (text2) {$\hat{h}_2(\bold{x})$};
\path [line] (fnetg1) -- (fid3);
\path [line] (fid1) -- (fnetg2);
\path [line] (fid1) -- (fid2);
\node [right of=fid3] (fid4) {\scriptsize $f^{L_3^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [below of=fid4] (fid5) {\scriptsize $f^{L_3^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [right of=fid2] (fid6) {\scriptsize $f^{L_3^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [ above of=fid6, node distance=2cm] (fnetg3) {\scriptsize $f_{net, deep, g_3^{(1)}}$};
\node [annot, right of=text2, node distance=2cm] (text3) {$\hat{h}_3(\bold{x})$};
\path [line] (fid3) -- (fid4);
\path [line] (fnetg2) -- (fid5);
\path [line] (fid2) -- (fnetg3);
\path [line] (fid2) -- (fid6);
\node [right of=fid4] (dots) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\node [below of=dots] (dots1) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\node [right of=fnetg3] (dots2) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\node [below of=dots2] (dots3) {\scriptsize $\dots$};
\path [line] (fid4) -- (dots);
\path [line] (fid5) -- (dots1);
\path [line] (fnetg3) -- (dots2);
\path [line] (fid6) -- (dots3);
\node [annot, right of=text3, node distance=2cm] (text4) {$\dots$};
\node [right of=dots] (fid7) {\scriptsize $f^{L_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [below of=fid7, node distance=1cm] (vdots) {\scriptsize $\vdots$};
\node [right of=dots1] (fid8) {\scriptsize $f^{L_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [right of=dots2] (fid9) {\scriptsize $f^{L_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [right of=dots3] (fid10) {\scriptsize $f^{L_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}_{id}$};
\node [ above of=fid10, node distance=1cm] (fnetgd) {\scriptsize $f_{network, g_{\tilde{N}_1}^{(1)}}$};
\node [annot, right of=text3, right of=text3, node distance=2cm] (text3) {$\hat{h}_{\tilde{N}_1}(\bold{x})$};
\path [line] (dots) -- (fid7);
\path [line] (dots1) -- (fid8);
\path [line] (dots2) -- (fid9);
\path [line] (dots3) -- (fnetgd);
\path [line] (dots3) -- (fid10);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Illustration of the neural network, which computes $h_1, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_1}$}
\label{fprod}
\end{figure}
\hyperref[fprod]{Fig.\ref*{fprod} } illustrates how the functions $h_1, \dots, h_{\tilde{N}_1}$ are computed by our network and gives an idea of how the smaller networks are stacked on top of each other. The main idea is, that we successively apply the network $f_{network, g_j^{(i)}}$ in consecutive layers. Here we make use of the identity network $f_{id}$, which enables us to shift the input value as well as every already computed function in the next hidden layers without an error. As described in \eqref{th3beq1} and \eqref{th3beq2} our network successively computes
\begin{align*}
&\hat{h}_i(\bold{x})=\hat{g}_i^{(1)}(\bold{x}) := f_{net, deep, g_i^{(1)}}\left(x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(1)}+1)\right)}, \dots, x^{\left(\pi(\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(1)})\right)}\right)
\end{align*}
for $i \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_1\}$
and
\begin{align*}
\hat{h}_{N_j^{(i)}}(\bold{x}) = f_{net, deep, g_j^{(i)}}\left(\hat{h}_{N^{(i-1)}_{\sum_{t=1}^{j-1} K_t^{(i)} +1}}(\bold{x}), \dots, \hat{h}_{N_{\sum_{t=1}^{j} K_t^{(i)}}^{(i-1)}}(\bold{x})\right)
\end{align*}
for $i \in \{2, \dots, l\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, \tilde{N}_i\}$
Finally we set
\begin{align*}
t_2(\bold{x}) = \hat{h}_{N_{1}^{(l)}}(\bold{x})= \hat{h}_{\sum_{t=1}^{l} \tilde{N}_t}(\bold{x}).
\end{align*}
Remark that for notational simplicity we have substituted every network $f_{id}$ in the input of the functions $\hat{h}_j$ by the real value (since $f_{id}$ computes this value without an error).
Since each network $\hat{h}_j$ for $j \in \{1, \dots, \sum_{t=1}^{l} \tilde{N}_t\}$ needs $\tilde{L}_j$ layers and $r_0$ neurons per layer and we further need $2d$ neurons per layer to successively apply $f_{id}$ to the input $\bold{x}$ and $2$ neurons per layer to apply $f_{id}$ to the at most $\sum_{t=1}^{l-1} \tilde{N}_t$ already computed functions in our network the final network $t_2$ is contained in the class
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\sum_{t=1}^{l} \tilde{N}_t} \tilde{L}_j, 2 \cdot \sum_{t=1}^{l-1} \tilde{N}_t+2d+r_0\right).
\end{align*}
Using induction on $i$, it is easy to see that $t_2$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\|t_2 - m \|_{\infty, [-a,a]^d} \leq c_{24} \cdot a^{4(p_{\max}+1)} \cdot \max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{-2p_j^{(i)}}.
\end{align}
A complete proof can be found in Supplement A. As described in part a) we can easily enlarge the number of hidden layers by successively apply $f_{id}$ to the output of the network $t_2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem 1}
\label{se5}
a) Standard bounds of empirical process theory (cf. Lemma 18 in Supplement B) lead to
\begin{align*}
& {\bf E} \int |m_n(\bold{x}) - m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}} (d\bold{x})\\
&\leq \frac{c_{25} (\log n)^2 \left(\sup_{\bold{x}_1^n \in (\mathbb{R}^d)^n}\log\left(
\mathcal{N}_1 \left(\frac{1}{n \cdot c_3 \cdot \log n}, T_{c_{3} \cdot \log(n)} \mathcal{F}(L_n,r_n), \bold{x}_1^n\right)
\right)+1\right)}{n}\\
&\quad + 2 \inf_{f \in \mathcal{F}(L_n, r_n)} \int |f(\bold{x})-m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}} (d\bold{x}).
\end{align*}
Set
\begin{align*}
(\bar{p},\bar{K}) \in \mathcal{P} \ \mbox{such that} \ (\bar{p}, \bar{K}) = \arg \min_{(p,K) \in \mathcal{P}} \frac{p}{K}.
\end{align*}
The fact that $1/n^{c_{26}} \leq 1/(n \cdot c_3 \cdot \log(n)) \leq c_{3} \cdot \log(n)/8$, $L_n \leq c_{27} \cdot \log(n)$ and \linebreak
$r_n \leq c_{28} \cdot n^{\frac{1}{2(2\bar{p}/\bar{K} + 1)}}$
holds for $c_{26}, c_{27}, c_{28} >0$,
allows us to apply Lemma 19 in Supplement B to bound the first summand by
\begin{align}
\label{th1eq1}
&\frac{c_{25} \cdot (\log(n))^2 \cdot c_{29} \cdot (\log(n))^3 \cdot \log\left(c_{29} \cdot \log(n) \cdot n^{\frac{2}{(2(2\bar{p}/\bar{K} + 1))}} \right) \cdot c_{29} \cdot n^{\frac{1}{(2\bar{p}/\bar{K} + 1)}}}{n}\notag\\
\leq & \frac{c_{30} \cdot (\log(n))^6 \cdot n^{\frac{1}{2\bar{p}/\bar{K} +1}}}{n}
\leq c_{30} \cdot (\log(n))^6 \cdot n^{-\frac{2\bar{p}}{2\bar{p} +\bar{K}}}
\end{align}
for a sufficiently large $n$.
Regarding the second summand we apply \autoref{th3} a), where we choose
\begin{align*}
M_{j,i} = \bigg\lceil n^{\frac{1}{2(2p_j^{(i)}+K_j^{(i)})}}\bigg\rceil.
\end{align*}
Set
\[
a_n = (\log n)^{\frac{1}{4 \cdot (p_{max}+1)}}.
\]
W.l.o.g. we assume $\rm{supp}(\bold{X}) \subseteq$ $[-a_n,a_n]^d$. \autoref{th3} a) allows us to bound
\[
\inf_{f \in \mathcal{F}(L_n, r_n)} \int |f(\bold{x})-m(\bold{x})|^2 {{\bf P}}_{\bold{X}} (d\bold{x})
\]
by
\begin{align*}
&c_{31} \cdot \left(a_n^{4(p_{\max}+1)}\right)^2 \cdot
\max_{j,i} M_{j,i}^{-4p_j^{(i)}} = c_{31} \cdot (\log(n))^2 \cdot \max_{j,i} n^{-\frac{2p_j^{(i)}}{2p_j^{(i)} + K_j^{(i)}}}.
\end{align*}
This together with \eqref{th1eq1} and the fact that
\begin{align*}
\max_{(p,K) \in \P} n^{- \frac{2p}{2p+K}}
=
n^{-\frac{2\bar{p}}{2\bar{p} +\bar{K}}} = \max_{j,i} n^{-\frac{2p_j^{(i)}}{2p_j^{(i)} + K_j^{(i)}}}
\end{align*}
implies the assertion.
\\
\\
Part b) follows by a slight modification of the proof of \autoref{th1} a), where we use \autoref{th3} b) instead of a) to bound the approximation error.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors are grateful to the many comments und suggestions that were brought up by the AE and four referees improving an early version of this manuscript.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\large\bf SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL}
\end{center}
Supplement description:
\begin{description}
\item[Section A: Network Approximation of Smooth Functions:] This section contains the long and rather technical proof of \autoref{th2} and the induction proofs of \autoref{th3}, that show the accuracy of the networks.
\item[Section B: Auxiliary Results and Further Proofs:] This section contains the auxiliary results and further proofs of all lemmata, that follow in a straightforward modification from earlier results.
\end{description}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the recently published article \cite{DZhao2019} its authors Dazhi Zhao and HongGuang Sun
studied the linear integro--differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{30/06-1}
\int_{0}^{t} e^{-\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}(t-t^{\prime}, \lambda) \frac{\D}{\D t'}
f(t^{\prime}) \D t' = - M(\tau, \alpha) f(t)
\end{equation}
where the kernel $k(t; \alpha) = e^{-\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}(t; \lambda)$ is given by the
Prabhakar function which parameters satisfy $0<\gamma\leq 1$ and $\alpha, \beta > 0$,
$\alpha + \beta = 1$. For this range of parameters recall that the Laplace transform
of $k(t; \alpha)$, namely $K(s, \alpha) = s^{-\alpha\gamma-\beta}(s^{\alpha}-\lambda)^{\gamma}$,
satisfies the condition $\lim_{s\to\infty}[s K(s, \alpha)]^{-1} = 0$, which according to
\cite[Eq. (2) {\it et seq.}]{DZhao2019} permits to qualify the integro-differential operator in
Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} as the so-called generalized Caputo (GC) derivative. Here $M(\tau, \alpha)$ stands for
$\Lambda(\tau, \alpha)/N(\alpha)$ where $N(\alpha) = (1-\alpha)^{-1}$ normalizes the integral in
Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} and $\Lambda(\tau, \alpha)$ is a function of the effective relaxation time $\tau$.
Considering Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} as a model of the anomalous relaxation and solving it the authors of
\cite{DZhao2019} showed that the model extends the Cole--Cole relaxation pattern and contains as
the limiting case $\alpha\to 1$ the standard Debye relaxation. Here we would like to emphasize that just mentioned two cases do not exhaust possible mutual relations which link the relaxation phenomena and using the Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} for modeling their time behavior.
An instructive example is an application of Eq. \eqref{30/06-1}-like equation to describe the Havriliak--Negami relaxation, the most widely used "asymmetric" generalization of the Debye and Cole--Cole approaches. In the review paper \cite{FMainardi} the
authors presented a detailed analysis of equations describing the time behavior of the
Havriliak--Negami relaxation function $\Psi_{\alpha, \gamma}(t)$. They came to the conclusion that it
is governed by a non-homogenous equation
\[ {^{C}(_{0}D_{t}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})}^{\gamma} \Psi_{\alpha, \gamma}(t)
= -\tau^{-\alpha\gamma}, \qquad \Psi_{\alpha, \gamma}(0) = 1, \]
where the pseudo-differential operator ${^{C}(_{0}D_{t}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})}^{\gamma}$ is a
Caputo-like counterpart of the operator $(_{0}D_{t}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})^{\gamma}$, the latter
understood as an infinite binomial series of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives
\footnote{For a comprehensive information about ${^{C}(_{0}D_{t}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})}^{\gamma}$
see \cite[Section 3.3, Appendix B]{FMainardi}.}. Next, using results of \cite{RGarra14},
they argued that the operator ${^{C}({_{0}D_{t}}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})}^{\gamma}$ may be
represented in terms of an integro-differential operator involving the Prabhakar function in the
kernel, the object usually nick-named the Prabhakar derivative. Adjusted to our notation the suitable
equations \cite[Eq. (B.23)]{FMainardi} read
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
{^{C}(_{0}D_{t}^{\alpha} + \tau^{-\alpha})}^{\gamma} \Psi_{\alpha, \gamma}(t)
&\equiv e^{-\gamma}_{\alpha, 1 - \alpha\gamma}(t; \lambda) \star
\frac{\D}{\D t} \Psi_{\alpha, \gamma}(t) \\
& = \int_{0}^{t} e^{-\gamma}_{\alpha, 1-\alpha\gamma}(t-u; \lambda)
\Psi^{\prime}_{\alpha, \gamma}(u) \D u,
\end{split}
\end{align*}
where $\star$ denotes the convolution operator.
This justifies the condition $\beta = 1-\alpha\gamma$ to appear in Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} as meaningful for
understanding properties of physically admissible relaxation models. In \cite{RGarra18} it has been also shown
that the nonlinear heat conduction equations with memory involving Prabhakar derivative can
be characterized by Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} in which $\beta = 1-\alpha\gamma$.
The Laplace transform method applied to Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} results in $F(s) = f(0+) H(s, \alpha)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{5/07-3}
H(s, \alpha) = \dfrac{K(s, \alpha)}{s K(s, \alpha) + M(\tau, \alpha)},
\end{equation}
in which the inverse Laplace transform of $F(s)$, denoted as $f(t)$, satisfies
$\lim_{t \to \infty} f(t) < \infty$. In what follows
\begin{equation} \label{constraint}
f(0+) \equiv 1
\end{equation}
will be used throughout, since this constraint neither harms nor restricts our further considerations.
In \cite{DZhao2019} the authors used the fact that the inverse Laplace transform of the geometric series (which results after
pulling out $K(s, \alpha)$ in the nominator and denominator of Eq. \eqref{5/07-3} and subsequently
reducing it) may be performed termwise. This leads to their main result formulated as
\cite[Theorem 3.3]{DZhao2019}
\begin{equation}\label{5/07-4}
f(t) = \sum_{r\geq 0} (-1)^{r} M^r(\tau, \alpha)\,
e^{r\gamma}_{\alpha, 1+ r(1-\beta)}(t; \lambda)\,,
\end{equation}
for $|M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| < 1$, bearing in mind Eq. \eqref{constraint}. The aim of our
note is to show that just given restriction is not mandatory to solve the Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} as we
can consider the inverse Laplace transform of Eq. \eqref{5/07-3}, namely the function $f(t)$, also
for $|M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| > 1$.
The note is organized as follows: we begin with a few less known remarks on
the properties of the Prabhakar function with negative upper index, next show how to find the
solution for $|M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| > 1$ and complete the paper with remarks
concerning relations between the standard Cole--Cole model and the solution to the Eq. \eqref{30/06-1}.
We also comment how the results of \cite{DZhao2019} and this work are viewed in the light of
general approach proposed in \cite{Kochubei2011}.
\section{The Prabhakar function}
The Prabhakar function \cite{TRPrabhakar69}
\begin{equation}\label{27/07-2}
e^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}(t, \lambda) \okr t^{\beta - 1} E^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}
(\lambda t^{\alpha})
\end{equation}
is expressed by the three parameters Mittag-Leffler function $E^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}
(\lambda t^{\alpha})$ defined by the series \cite[p. 7, Eq. (1.3)]{TRPrabhakar69}
\[ E^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \beta}(x) = \sum_{r \geq 0}\dfrac{(\gamma)_r\, x^r}
{r!\, \Gamma(\alpha r + \beta)},
\qquad \Re(\alpha)>0;\, \beta, \mu \in \mathbb C;\]
here $(\gamma)_r = \Gamma(\gamma+r)/\Gamma(\gamma)$ stands for the familiar Pochhammer symbol.
If $\gamma = -n$, $n$ positive integer, the three parameter Mittag--Leffler function is given through
hypergeometric type polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{27/07-1}
E^{\,-n}_{\alpha, \beta}(x) = \dfrac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)} \sum_{k=0}^{n}
\dfrac{(-n)_{k}}{(\beta)_{\alpha k}} \dfrac{x^{k}}{k!}
= \dfrac1{\Gamma(\beta)}\, {}_1\Psi_1 \Big[ \begin{array}{c} (-n, 1)\\
(\beta, \alpha) \end{array} \Big| \, x \Big].
\end{equation}
For positive integer $\alpha$ they are the biorthogonal polynomials pairs discussed in
\cite{TRPrabhakar69, JDEKonhauser67, HMSrivastava82}; the polynomials with general
values of $\alpha > 0$ are mentioned in \cite{RGarra18}. Here ${_1\Psi_1}$ stands for the confluent
generalized hypergeometric function, see for instance \cite[p. 21]{SriKar}. The particular case
of Eq. \eqref{27/07-1} for $n=1$ reads
\begin{equation}\label{27/07-3}
E^{-1}_{\alpha, \beta}(x) = \dfrac1{\Gamma(\beta)} + \dfrac{x}{\Gamma(\alpha + \beta)}.
\end{equation}
This expression will be used in the {\em Remark} which closes the next section and
enables a comment on the relation between Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} and the Cole--Cole relaxation model.
\section{Alternative solution of Eq. \eqref{30/06-1}}
As previously mentioned the case when $|M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| > 1$ has not
been included in considerations presented in \cite{DZhao2019}. To fill this gap we shall proceed in
an analogous way and formulate
\begin{thmm}\label{t5/07-1}
For $|M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| > 1$ the solution of {\rm Eq.} \eqref{30/06-1} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{5/07-5}
f(t) = \dfrac1{M(\tau, \alpha)} \sum_{r \geq 0} \dfrac{(-1)^r}{M^r(\tau, \alpha)}\,
e^{-(1+r)\gamma}_{\alpha, 1- (1+r)(1-\beta)}(t; \lambda) .
\end{equation}
\end{thmm}
\begin{proof}
First we pull out $M(\tau, \alpha)$ in the denominator of $H(s, \alpha)$ given by Eq. \eqref{5/07-3}.
Thus it can be rewritten in the form
\begin{equation}\label{5/07-6}
H(s, \alpha) = \frac{K(s, \alpha)}{M(\tau, \alpha)} \left[1
+ \frac{s K(s, \alpha)}{M(\tau, \alpha)}\right]^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Next, after applying the series expansion of $(1+x)^{-1}=\sum_{r\geq 0}(-x)^{r}$ for $|x|<1$, the
Eq. \eqref{5/07-6} with $x = s K(s, \alpha)/M(\tau, \alpha)$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{5/07-7}
H(s, \alpha) = \sum_{r\geq 0} (-1)^{r} M^{-1-r}(\tau, \alpha) s^{r} K^{1+r}(s, \alpha).
\end{equation}
The condition $|x|<1$ means that $|M(\tau, \alpha)/s K(s, \alpha)| > 1$. Substituting the explicit
form of $K(s, \alpha)$ given below Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} into Eq. \eqref{5/07-7} we obtain Eq.
\eqref{5/07-5}, as $f(0+) = 1$. That finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{exaa}
{\rm Taking the same values of parameters $M(\tau, \alpha)$ and $\gamma = 1$ as in \cite[p. 42,
{\em Example} 3.4]{DZhao2019} {the constraint
\[ |M(\tau, \alpha)/[s K(s, \alpha)]| > 1\]}
used to get \eqref{5/07-5} gives different, but
complementary restriction on $\tau$ from that found in \cite{DZhao2019}. Namely, we get
$\tau< (1-\alpha)^{2}/(b \alpha)$ while in \cite{DZhao2019} one finds $\tau> (1-\alpha)^{2}/(b \alpha)$;
both conditions merged together cover the admissible range of $\tau$. To provide numerical estimations
we take $b=1$, $\alpha = 0.5$ and $\alpha = 0.7$ which leads to $\tau <1/2$ and $\tau < 9/70$,
respectively. This means that with growing $\alpha$ our solution \eqref{5/07-5} works for shorter
and shorter characteristic relaxation times $\tau$'s, while for $\alpha$ close to $0$ it covers almost
all range of $\tau$.
$\blacksquare$}
\end{exaa}
For the values of parameters listed in the example above, i.e.
$\gamma = 1$, $M=(1-\alpha)/\tau$, $\lambda = -b \alpha/(1-\alpha)$, and $K(s, \alpha) =
s^{-1} (s^{\alpha} - \lambda)$, the Eq. \eqref{5/07-7} reads
\begin{align}\label{12/07-0}
H(s, \alpha) &= \frac{s^{\alpha} - \lambda}{s M(\tau, \alpha)} \sum_{r\geq 0}
\left[-\frac{s^{\alpha} - \lambda}{M(\tau, \alpha)}\right]^{r} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{s^{\alpha - 1}}{s^{\alpha} + M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda}
- \frac{\lambda s^{-1}}{s^{\alpha} + M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda}
\end{align}
which is satisfied for $\tau < (1-\alpha)^{2}/(b\alpha)$. The same results can be obtained by
using Eq. \eqref{5/07-4}, i.e. \cite[Theorem 3.1]{DZhao2019}, but, now, for
$\tau > (1-\alpha)^{2}/(b\alpha)$. This suggest that to have Eq. \eqref{12/07-0} satisfied
we do not need to put any additional constraint on $\tau$ except of its positivity. Indeed,
Eq. \eqref{5/07-3} valid for $\tau > 0$ is equal to Eq. \eqref{12/07-0}. Hence, from the Laplace
transform of the three parameters Mittag-Leffler function (recalling that $f(0+)=1$) we conclude
\begin{equation}\label{12/07-1}
f(t) = E_{\alpha}\big(-[M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda] t^{\alpha}\big)
- \lambda t^{\alpha} E_{\alpha, 1 +\alpha} \big(-[M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda] t^{\alpha}\big)\,,
\end{equation}
which, after using the suitable property of the Mittag--Leffler functions (see
\cite[Eq. (4.2.3)]{ML2014}) implies
\begin{equation}\label{12/07-2}
f(t) = \dfrac{M(\tau, \alpha)}{M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda} E_{\alpha}\big(-[M(\tau, \alpha)
- \lambda] t^{\alpha}\big) - \dfrac{\lambda}{M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, \cite[Eq. (19)]{DZhao2019} can be treated as the approximation of exact solution given by
Eq. \eqref{12/07-1} or Eq. \eqref{12/07-2}.
\begin{remark}
Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} for $\gamma = 1$ in which we applied Eqs. \eqref{27/07-2} and
\eqref{27/07-3} can be written as
\[ {^{C}\!D_{t}^{1-\beta}}f(t) + \lambda\cdot {^{C}\!D_{t}^{1-\alpha-\beta}}f(t)
= - M(\tau, \alpha) f(t), \]
{where for an $\eta$ suitable,
\[ {^{C}\!D_{t}^{\eta}}f(t) = \dfrac1{\Gamma(1-\eta)} \int_{0}^{t} (t-u)^{-\eta} f'(u) \D u \]
stands for} the Caputo fractional derivative. For $\beta = 1 -\alpha$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{12/07-4}
{^{C}\!D_{t}^{\alpha}}f(t) + [M(\tau, \alpha) - \lambda]f(t) = \lambda f(0+) = \lambda\,,
\end{equation}
whose solution coincides with \eqref{12/07-1}, see e.g. \cite{IPodlubny99, BJWest10, KGorska12}.
For $\lambda = 0$ the Eq. \eqref{12/07-4} becomes the equation relevant for the Cole-Cole
relaxation. Simultaneously, we have the relation $e^{-1}_{\alpha, 1 -\alpha}(t; 0) =
\frac{t^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}$ easily seen from the Eq. \eqref{27/07-3} for $\lambda = 0$.
It implies that the Prabhakar derivative becomes Caputo fractional
derivative and Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} tends to the evolution equation describing the Cole--Cole
relaxation.
\end{remark}
\section{Conclusion}
We would like to point out that our result is complementary to the result given in
\cite[Theorem 3.1]{DZhao2019} and extends it to the full range of $\tau>0$. This places it
within the general scheme developed by A. N. Kochubei \cite{Kochubei2011} who
investigated the Cauchy problem for evolution equations
\begin{equation}\label{25/07-2}
(D^{GC}_{t} f)(t) = -M(\tau, \alpha) f(t).
\end{equation}
governed by the integro-differential operator
\[ (D^{GC}_{t}f)(t) = \frac{\D}{\D \tau}\int_{0}^{t} k(t-\tau, \alpha)
f(\tau) \D\tau - k(t)f(0).\]
In addition some requirements are put on the Laplace transform $K(s,\alpha)$ of the kernel
$k(t,\alpha)$. {Namely, it belongs to the Stieltjes class and satisfy the
following asymptotic conditions: if $s\to 0$ then $K(s,\alpha) \to \infty$ and $sK(s,\alpha) \to 0$,
while in the case $s \to \infty$,
there hold $K(s,\alpha)\to 0$ and $sK(s,\alpha)\to\infty$. For instance, under this study all these
conditions are satisfied and according to} \cite[Theorem 2]{Kochubei2011} the solution $f(t)$ is continuous
on $[0,\infty)$, infinitely differentiable and completely monotone on $(0,\infty)$.
Physical usefulness of the Eq. \eqref{30/06-1} as a tool to develop a description of the
anomalous relaxation patterns is rooted in its relation to the Cole-Cole and Debye models.
The first case has been just discussed in the above. The Debye relaxation emerges when
$K(s, \alpha)$ is a constant and consequently $k(t) = B(\alpha) \delta(t)$. It is seen
from
\begin{equation}\label{2/03-3}
H(s, \alpha) = \frac{B(\alpha)}{\Lambda(\tau, \alpha)} \left[1 + s \frac{B(\alpha)}
{\Lambda(\tau, \alpha)}\right]^{-1},
\end{equation}
obtained either from \eqref{5/07-4} or \eqref{5/07-5}. Calculating the inverse Laplace transform
of \eqref{2/03-3} we obtain the solution of Eq. \eqref{25/07-2} in the form
\[ f(t) = \exp\left[- \frac{\Lambda(\tau, \alpha)}{B(\alpha)} t\right] ,\]
which is the Debye relaxation function in time domain.
\section*{Acknowledgements} The research of K. G. and A. H. was supported by the Polish
National Center for Science (NCN) research grant OPUS12 no. UMO-2016/23/B/ST3/01714. K. G. and
T. K. P acknowledge the support of NAWA (National Agency for Academic Exchange, Poland): K.G. in
the framework of the Bekker Project (PPN/BEK/2018/1/00184) which provided her the opportunity to complete this work during
the stay in the ENEA Research Center Frascati while T. K. P. under the project
PROM PPI/PRO/2018/1/00008. T. K. P. also thanks the INP PAS for the warm hospitality during his
stay in Krak\'{o}w, Poland.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Throughout this paper, $\mathcal{G}$ will denote a Grothendieck category. Examples of such categories will include: (1) the category $R\mbox{-}\mathsf{Mod}$ of (left) $R$-modules over an associatve ring $R$ with identity; (2) the category $\mathsf{Ch}(R)$ of chain complexes of $R$-modules; (3) the category $\mathcal{O}_X\mbox{-}\mathsf{Mod}$ of all sheaves of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules with $(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ a ringed space; (4) the category $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ of quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme $X$; and (5) the category $\mathsf{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ of additive contravariant functors from a skeletally small additive category $\mathcal{C}$ into the category $\mathsf{Ab}$ of abelian groups.
It is very well known the relation between noetherian rings and finitely generated modules over such rings. One important result asserts that a ring $R$ is noetherian if, and only if, the class of finitely generated modules is closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms. A similar equivalence holds true between coherent rings and finitely presented modules. For each of these types of modules and rings there is a generalizing concept, namely: modules of type $\text{FP}_n$ (also called finitely $n$-presented modules) and $n$-coherent rings. The former was probably first introduced in \cite{Bourbaki}, while the latter is due to D. L. Costa \cite{costa}. As one can expect, there is a nice interplay between modules of type $\text{FP}_n$ and $n$-coherent rings in terms of closure properties. This is described in \cite{bravo-perez} by the first and third authors. Namely, a ring $R$ is $n$-coherent if, and only if, the class $\mathcal{FP}_n$ of modules of type $\text{FP}_n$ is closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms. Another description of $n$-coherent rings can be stated in terms of the existence of a certain hereditary cotorsion pair. Such cotorsion pairs are scarce in the literature, and an interesting point about the theory of $n$-coherent rings is that they govern some conditions for the existence of hereditary cotorsion pairs constructed from $\mathcal{FP}_n$. Specifically, if one considers the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ of $\text{FP}_n$-injective modules defined in \cite{bravo-perez}, one has a complete cotorsion pair $({}^{\perp_1}(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ cogenerated by a set, which is hereditary if, and only if, the ground ring $R$ is $n$-coherent. This is proved as one of the main results in \cite[Theorem 5.5]{bravo-perez}.
The first general goal of this article is to present and study the concept of $n$-coherent categories as a general framework for the study of finiteness conditions of objects, based mainly in the proposal of the concepts of locally type $\text{FP}_n$ categories and $n$-coherent objects, as generalizations of locally finitely generated and locally finitely presented categories, and of noetherian and coherent objects (see \cite{stenstrom,stovicek-purity}). Our main result is Theorem \ref{them-locally n-coherent} where we give several characterizations of $n$-coherent categories. One of these characterizations is given in terms of the existence of a hereditary small cotorsion theory generated by the class of objects of type $\text{FP}_n$. One important consequence is that any $\text{Ext}^k(F,-)$ can be computed using $\text{FP}_n$-injective coresolutions whenever $F$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$. Theorem \ref{them-locally n-coherent} also generalizes the results in \cite{bravo-perez} about modules of type $\text{FP}_n$, $\text{FP}_n$-injective modules and $n$-coherent rings to the more general context of Grothendieck categories. In particular, we shall be able to apply and interpret our notions of $n$-coherency and objects of type $\text{FP}_n$ in categories widely used in algebraic geometry and representation theory of algebras, such as $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ and $\mathsf{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$
The second general goal is to set the path towards a nice theory of Gorenstein injective homological algebra in Grothendieck categories. For this we present the concept of Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects, which recovers the notion of Gorenstein injective and Ding injective modules in the cases where $n = 0$ and $n = 1$, respectively. From a homological point of view, this class is going to satisfy a series of expected properties. In the context of homotopical algebra, we shall study the stable category associated to the Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injectives and propose two different model structures that describe it.
One strong point about our definitions and most of our results is that they do not need that our ground Grothendieck category has enough projectives. So the core of the theory presented in this paper can be applied to some of such categories widely used in algebraic geometry, like for instance $\mathcal{O}_X\mbox{-}\mathsf{Mod}$ and $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$.
The present article is organized as follows. We begin with some categorical and homological preliminaries. In Section \ref{Sec-locally finitely n-presented cats} we present the concept of objects of type \tFP{n} in a Grothendieck category and study several closure properties along with some alternative descriptions under some extra assumption in our ground category. We also define locally type \tFP{n} categories as a formal setting for the existence of objects of type \tFP{n}. In Section \ref{sec:injectivity} we study injectivity relative to objects of type \tFP{n}. We define the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ of $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects and show that this class is the right half of a complete cotorsion pair $({}^{\perp_1}(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ cogenerated by a set in any locally type \tFP{n} category. Section \ref{Sec-locally n-coherent cats} is devoted to $n$-coherent categories. One of the main results in that section will be to show that the previous cotorsion pair is hereditary if, and only if, the ground category is $n$-coherent, thus generalizing \cite[Theorem 5.5]{bravo-perez}. Another important result that holds in $n$-coherent categories is that $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ will be a covering class. As an application of this, we obtain a result due to S. Crivei, M. Prest and B. Torrecillas \cite{CPT} about the existence of absolutely pure covers in locally coherent categories. Finally, in Section \ref{sec-Goren-FP_n} we define the Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects and construct two different model structures such that they form the class of fibrant objects. The first structure will be abelian in the sense of Hovey's \cite{hovey} and it will be constructed on $n$-coherent categories. The second one will be exact in the sense of \cite{gillespie-exact-model-structures} and it will be constructed on certain thick subcategories of the ground Grothendieck category without imposing any condition on $\mathcal{G}$.
\section{Preliminaries and notations}\label{Sec-preliminaries}
The categorical setting for this paper is that of Grothendieck categories for which our main reference is Stenstr\"om's \cite{stenstrom}.
\subsection*{{Grothendieck categories}}\label{subsec-Grothendieck cats}
Recall that a Grothendieck category is a cocomplete abelian category $\cat{G}$, with a generating set, and with exact direct limits. We shall often refer to~\cite[Chapter~V]{stenstrom}. To orient the reader, we now summarize some standard facts. First, a Grothendieck category is always complete and every object $B \in \cat{G}$ has an injective envelope $E(B)$. In particular, $\cat{G}$ has enough injectives and these can be used to compute $\Ext^n_{\cat{G}}$. A useful fact is that any Grothendieck category is \emph{well-powered}, meaning the class of subobjects of any given object is in fact a set. See~\cite[Proposition~IV.6.6]{stenstrom}, although he uses the term \emph{locally small} instead of well-powered. Finally, given any regular cardinal $\gamma$, by~\cite[Corollary~1.69]{adamek-rosicky}, the class of all $\gamma$-presented objects is skeletally small (or essentially small). This means there exists a set of isomorphism representatives for this class.
\subsection*{{$\boldsymbol{\text{free}(\mathcal{S})}$ and $\boldsymbol{\text{add}(\mathcal{S})}$}}\label{subsec-Grothendieck cats gen sets}
Let $\class{S}$ be a set of objects in a Grothendieck category $\cat{G}$. We shall denote by $\textnormal{Free}(\mathcal{S})$ the class of all set indexed direct sums $\bigoplus S_i$ in which each $S_i \in \class{S}$. We use the notation $\textnormal{free}(\mathcal{S})$ to denote the set of all such \emph{finite} direct sums.
Similarly, we shall denote by $\textnormal{Add}(\mathcal{S})$ (respectively, $\textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$) the class of all direct summands of objects in $\textnormal{Free}(\mathcal{S})$ (respectively, $\textnormal{free}(\mathcal{S})$). These notations are motivated by the special case of modules over a ring: Taking $\class{S} = \{R\}$, we get the classes of free, finitely generated free, projective, and finitely generated projective $R$-modules.
\subsection*{{Approximations}}\label{subsec-Grothendieck cats}
Given a class $\mathcal{X}$ of objects in an abelian category $\mathcal{A}$, a morphism $f \colon X \to A$ is called an \emph{$\mathcal{X}$-precover} of $A \in \mathcal{A}$ if $X \in \mathcal{X}$ and if for every morphism $f' \colon X' \to A$ with $X' \in \mathcal{X}$ there exists a morphism $h \colon X' \to X$ such that $f' = f \circ h$. In some references, $\mathcal{X}$-precovers are called \emph{right approximations}. If in addition, in case $X' = X$ and $f' = f$, the previous equality can only be completed by automorphisms $h$ of $X$, then the $\mathcal{X}$-precover $f$ is called an \emph{$\mathcal{X}$-cover} of $A$. Furthermore, an $\mathcal{X}$-precover $f \colon X \to A$ is \emph{special} if it is epic and ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{A}}(X',{\rm Ker}(f)) = 0$ for every $X' \in \mathcal{X}$. Dually, one has the notions of (\emph{special}) \emph{$\mathcal{X}$-preenvelopes} and \emph{$\mathcal{X}$-envelopes}.
A class $\mathcal{X}$ of objects in $\mathcal{A}$ is called \emph{precovering} if every object $A \in \mathcal{A}$ has an $\mathcal{X}$-precover. \emph{Special precovering}, \emph{covering}, (\emph{special}) \emph{preenveloping} and \emph{enveloping classes} are defined similarly.
\subsection*{{Cotorsion pairs}}\label{subsec-abelian model cats}
Given a class $\mathcal{C}$ of objects in an abelian category $\mathcal{A}$, the \emph{$i$-th right orthogonal} $\mathcal{C}^{\perp_i}$, with $i \geq 1$, is defined as the class of all objects $X \in \mathcal{A}$ such that ${\rm Ext}^i_{\mathcal{A}}(C,X) = 0$ for every $C \in \mathcal{C}$. The \emph{total right orthogonal} is defined as the intersection $\mathcal{C}^\perp = \bigcap_{i \geq 1} \mathcal{C}^{\perp_i}$. Similarly, we define the \emph{$i$-th left orthogonal} and \emph{total left orthogonal} ${}^{\perp_i}\mathcal{C}$ and ${}^\perp\mathcal{C}$.
Recall that two classes of objects $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ in an abelian category $\mathcal{A}$ form a \emph{cotorsion pair} $(\mathcal{X,Y})$ in $\mathcal{A}$ if $\class{Y} = \mathcal{X}^{\perp_1}$ and $\class{X} = {}^{\perp_1}\mathcal{Y}$. Any class $\class{S}$ for which $\mathcal{S}^{\perp_1} = \class{Y}$ is said to \emph{cogenerate} the cotorsion pair $(\mathcal{X,Y})$. In particular, we shall say the cotorsion pair is \emph{cogenerated by a set} if there exists a set $\mathcal{S}$ (not just a proper class) such that $\mathcal{S}^{\perp_1} = \class{Y}$.
The cotorsion pair is \emph{hereditary} if $\Ext^i_{\cat{A}}(X,Y) = 0$ for all $X \in \class{X}$, $Y \in \class{Y}$ and $i \geq 1$ (In other words, $\mathcal{Y} = \mathcal{X}^\perp$ and $\mathcal{X} = {}^\perp\mathcal{Y}$). We also say the cotorsion pair is \emph{complete} if it has enough injectives and enough projectives. This means that for each $A \in \cat{A}$ there exist short exact sequences
\[
0 \to A \to Y \to X \to 0 \mbox{ \ and \ } 0 \to Y' \to X' \to A \to 0
\]
with $X,X' \in \class{X}$ and $Y,Y' \in \class{Y}$ (In other words, every object has a special $\mathcal{X}$-precover and a special $\mathcal{Y}$-preenvelope). If these short exact sequences can be taken functorially with respect to $A$ then, following~\cite[Definition~2.3]{hovey}, we say the cotorsion pair is \emph{functorially complete}. In particular, cotorsion pairs in $\mathcal{A}$ cogenerated by a set are functiorally complete, provided that $\mathcal{A}$ is a Grothendieck category with enough projectives (See \cite[Corollary 6.8]{hovey}).
Besides their connection to abelian model structures which we describe next, cotorsion pairs are fundamental in modern homological algebra. There are several good references. In particular we shall refer to \cite{enochs-jenda-book} and \cite{hovey}.
\subsection*{{Abelian model structures}}\label{subsec-abelian model cats}
Let $\cat{A}$ be a bicomplete abelian category. M. Hovey showed in \cite{hovey} that an abelian model structure on $\cat{A}$ is nothing more than two nicely related cotorsion pairs in $\cat{A}$. The main theorem of \cite{hovey} showed that an abelian model structure on $\cat{A}$ is equivalent to a triple $(\class{Q},\class{W},\class{R})$ of classes of objects in $\cat{A}$ for which $\class{W}$ is thick and $(\class{Q} \cap \class{W},\class{R})$ and $(\class{Q},\class{W} \cap \class{R})$ are each complete cotorsion pairs. By \emph{thick} we mean that the $\class{W}$ is closed under direct summands and satisfies the 2 out of 3 property on short exact sequences. In this case, $\class{Q}$ is precisely the class of cofibrant objects of the model structure, $\class{R}$ are precisely the fibrant objects, and $\class{W}$ is the class of trivial objects. We say that $\class{M}$ is \emph{hereditary} if both of these associated cotorsion pairs are hereditary.
The equivalence between these $(\mathcal{Q,W,R})$ and abelian model structures was later generalized by the second author in \cite{gillespie-exact-model-structures} to the context of exact categories. The notion of (complete and hereditary) cotorsion pairs are analogous in such categories, and the corresponding model structures in this equivalence are called \emph{exact}. For a complete survey of exact categories, we recommend \cite{buhler}.
\subsection*{{Cofibrantly generated and finitely generated model categories}}
We refer to \cite[Definition 2.1.17 and Chapter 7]{hovey} for the definitions of cofibrantly generated and finitely generated model categories as well as theory relating them to triangulated categories. Here we shall just note some basic facts used in this paper and give appropriate references to guide the reader. So let $\class{M}$ be an abelian model category. Its homotopy category is denoted by Ho($\class{M}$). It is known that Ho($\class{M}$) is always a pretriangulated category~\cite[Section 6.5]{hovey} and that it is in fact triangulated\footnote{Here we mean a triangulated category in the sense of \cite[Definition 7.1.1]{hovey}. This notion of triangulated categories is stronger than the classical concept due to Verdier's \cite{Verdier96}.} whenever $\class{M}$ is hereditary \cite[Corollary 1.1.15]{becker}. In this case it follows from \cite[Section 7.4]{hovey} that Ho($\class{M}$) is compactly generated whenever $\class{M}$ is a finitely generated model category.
\subsection*{{Pure exact sequences}}
Given a short exact sequence
\[
\mathbb{E} \colon 0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
of objects in a Grothendieck category $\mathcal{G}$, recall that $\mathbb{E}$ is said to be \emph{pure} if for every finitely presented object $F \in \mathcal{G}$, the induced sequence ${\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,\mathbb{E})$ of abelian groups is also exact. In case where $\mathcal{G}$ is the category of $R$-modules, this is equivalent to saying that $\mathbb{E}$ remains exact after tensoring with any right $R$-module. We cannot state this equivalence for general Grothendieck categories since they may not even come equipped with a tensor product.
One can consider certain closure properties with respect to pure exact sequences. Namely, a class $\mathcal{X}$ of objects in $\mathcal{G}$ is said to be \emph{closed under pure subobjects} (resp., \emph{under pure quotients}) if whenever we are given a pure exact sequence as $\mathbb{E}$ above with $B \in \mathcal{X}$, then one has $A \in \mathcal{X}$ (resp., $C \in \mathcal{X}$).
Pure exact sequences are not the only concept considered in this article with an equivalent interpretation for modules, that does not necessarily hold for arbitrary Grothendieck categories. This will also be the case of objects of type \tFP{n} studied in the next section.
\subsection*{{Some specific notations}}\label{subsec-notation}
We specify the use of some symbols throughout this article:
\begin{itemize}
\item In some cases, monomorphisms (respectively, epimorphisms) will be denoted as arrows $\rightarrowtail$ (respectively, $\twoheadrightarrow$).
\item Given two objects $X$ and $Y$ in an abelian category $\mathcal{A}$, by $X \simeq Y$ we shall mean that $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic. If $F, G \colon \mathcal{A} \longrightarrow \mathcal{D}$ are two functors between abelian categories, by $F \cong G$ we shall mean that there exists a natural isomorphism between $F$ and $G$.
\item Recall that two short exact sequences
\[
\mathbb{E} \colon 0 \to Y \xrightarrow{\alpha} Z \xrightarrow{\beta} X \to 0 \mbox{ \ and \ } \mathbb{E}' \colon 0 \to Y \xrightarrow{\alpha'} Z' \xrightarrow{\beta'} X \to 0
\]
are equivalent if there exists a morphism $h \colon Z \to Z'$ such that $h \circ \alpha = \alpha'$ and $\beta' \circ h = \beta$. This will be denoted as $\mathbb{E} \sim \mathbb{E}'$. We shall use the same notation to denote equivalences between $n$-fold extensions (See Appendix A at the end of this article).
In some cases, the groups of equivalence classes of $n$-extensions ${\rm Ext}^n_{\mathcal{A}}(X,Y)$ appearing in certain commutative diagrams will be denoted as ${}^n(X,Y)$ due to space limitations.
\end{itemize}
\section{Objects of type \tFP{n}}\label{Sec-locally finitely n-presented cats}
Throughout this paper $\cat{G}$ denotes a Grothendieck category (with not necessarily enough projective objects). In this section we study the notion of objects of type \tFP{n} in $\cat{G}$. We also define what it means to say $\cat{G}$ is locally type \tFP{n}.
Note that for any object $C \in \cat{G}$, and any direct system $\{X_i\}_{i \in I}$, there is a canonical map
\[
\xi_n \colon \varinjlim \Ext^n_{\cat{G}}(C,X_i) \xrightarrow{} \Ext^n_{\cat{G}}(C,\varinjlim X_i)
\]
for each $n \geq 0$. To say $\Ext^n_{\cat{G}}(C,-)$ \emph{preserves direct limits} means that $\xi_n$ is an isomorphism for each direct system $\{X_i\}_{i \in I}$. Recall that $C$ is called \emph{finitely presented} if $\Ext^0_{\cat{G}}(C,-) = \Hom_{\cat{G}}(C,-)$ preserves direct limits. The following definition generalizes this.
\begin{definition}\label{def-finitely-n-presented}
Let $n \geq 1$ be a positive integer. We say that an object $F \in \cat{G}$ is \textbf{of type \tFP{\bm{n}}}, if the functors $\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}(F,-)$ preserve direct limits for all $0 \leq i \leq n-1$.
\end{definition}
Note that any object of type \tFP{n} is finitely presented and that the notion of finitely presented is synonymous with type \tFP{1}. Moreover, any object of type \tFP{n} is finitely generated by~\cite[Def.~V.3.1 and Prop.~V.3.2]{stenstrom}. It will be convenient to think of the finitely generated objects as the objects of type \tFP{0}\footnote{With a particular exception in the category of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules. Indeed, the notion of finitely generated $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules may be different from that of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules of type \tFP{0}. For example, in Ueno's \cite[Definition 4.18]{Ueno-2}, an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module $\mathcal{F}$ is called \emph{finitely generated} if for every $x \in X$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ and a positive integer $n > 0$ so that sequence of $\mathcal{O}_U$-modules $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus n}_U \to \mathcal{F}|_U \to 0$ is exact. Other authors refer to such $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules as \emph{locally finitely generated}.}. Thus by an \emph{object of type \tFP{0}} we mean a finitely generated object. Finally, we may let $n = \infty$, and call an object $F$ \emph{of type \tFP{\infty}} if $\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}(F,-)$ preserves direct limits for all $i \geq 0$.
Now for all $0 \leq n \leq \infty$, we let $\class{FP}_n$ denote the class of all objects of type \tFP{n} in $\mathcal{G}$. For convenience we let $\class{FP}_{-1}$ denote the whole class of objects of $\mathcal G$. We note that $\class{FP}_{\infty} = \bigcap_{n \geq 0} \class{FP}_n$ and that we have a decreasing chain of containments:
\[
\class{FP}_0 \supseteq \class{FP}_1 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \class{FP}_n \supseteq \class{FP}_{n+1} \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \class{FP}_{\infty}.
\]
\begin{example}\label{Example-fg-projectives}
We give some examples of objects of type \tFP{n}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any finitely generated projective object must be of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ by \cite[Example~3.2]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}.
\item \textbf{Modules over a ring}. For each $n \geq 0$, by \cite[Example~13]{bravo-parra}, one can construct a ring $R$ such that
\[
\class{FP}_0 \supsetneq \class{FP}_1 \supsetneq \cdots \supsetneq \class{FP}_n = \class{FP}_{\infty}.
\]
It is important to mention that the class $\mathcal{FP}_n$ in $R\mbox{-}{\rm Mod}$ has an equivalent description. Namely, a module $F$ is of type \tFP{n} if, and only if, there exists an exact sequence
\begin{align}
P_n & \to P_{n-1} \to \cdots \to P_1 \to P_0 \to F \to 0 \label{eqn:resFPn}
\end{align}
of modules where $P_i$ is a finitely generated projective module for every $0 \leq i \leq n$. We shall refer to such sequences \eqref{eqn:resFPn} as \emph{$n$-presentations (by finitely generated projective objects) of $F$}. We have chosen this terminology since modules of type $\text{FP}_n$ are also known as \emph{finitely $n$-presented} (See \cite{bravo-perez}, for example).
The existence of this equivalent description for $\mathcal{FP}_n$ is due to the fact that modules form a Grothendieck category which has a generating set of finitely generated projective objects. We shall specify this later in Corollary~\ref{resolutions_for_proj}. Without such generators, the concepts of objects of type $\text{FP}_n$ and objects with an $n$-presentation may differ, as shown in Example (5) below.
\item \textbf{Chain complexes}. The previous description of objects of type $\text{FP}_n$ in terms of $n$-presen-tations is also true in the category $\textrm{Ch}(R)$ of chain complexes of modules over $R$, studied in \cite{ZhaoPerez}. Moreover, complexes of type $\text{FP}_n$ are also described as those $X \in \Ch(R)$ such that $X$ is bounded (above and below) and each $X_m$ is a module of type $\text{FP}_n$ (See \cite[Proposition 2.1.4]{ZhaoPerez}).
\item \textbf{Functors on additive categories}. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a skeletally small additive category and consider the category $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ of contravariant additive functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to $\mathsf{Ab}$. As the categories of modules and chain complexes of modules, $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ is a Grothendieck category with a generating set of finitely generated projective objects. It is known by Auslander's \cite{Auslander1and2} that an object in $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ is finitely generated and projective if, and only if, it is a direct summand of a representable functor $\textrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X)$ for some object $X \in \mathcal{C}$. Thus, an object $F \in \textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$ if, and only if, there exists an exact sequence of the form
\[
\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \textrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X_n) \to \textrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X_{n-1}) \to \cdots \to \textrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X_1) \to \textrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X_0) \to F \to 0.
\]
\item \textbf{Quasi-coherent sheaves}. Let $k$ be an infinite field. Consider the quasi-compact and semi-separated scheme $X = \mathbb{P}^1(k)$ along with the category $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ of quasi-coherent sheaves over $X$. It is a well known fact that $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ has not enough projectives. (See Hartshorne's \cite[Exercise VI.6.2]{hartshorne}). Moreover, $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ has no nonzero projective objects (see \cite[Theorem 2.4.12]{Berest}), and so every object having an $n$-presentation must be the zero object, for any $n \geq 0$.
On the other hand, for any $n \geq 0$, one can construct generators (and so nonzero objects) of type $\text{FP}_n$ for the category $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ from the semi-separating cover of $\mathbb{P}^1(k)$ given by $D_+(x_0)$ and $D_+(x_1)$. (See \cite[Corollary 2.5]{Estrada-Gillespie} for details). Hence, the notions of being of type $\text{FP}_n$ and having an $n$-presentation are not necessarily equivalent.
In \cite[Proposition 3.7]{AbsPureSheaves}, Enochs, Estrada and Odaba\c{s}{\i} characterized the finitely presented objects in $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ in the case where $X$ is a semi-separated or a concentrated scheme. Specifically, $\mathscr{F} \in \mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ is finitely presented if, and only if, $\mathscr{F}|_{U}$ is finitely presented in $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(U)$ for every open affine subset $U \subseteq X$, or if, and only if, the stalk $\mathscr{F}_x$ is a finitely presented $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$-module for every $x \in X$. A similar description with more conditions is also true for quasi-coherent sheaves over $X$ of type $\text{FP}_n$, for the case $X$ is quasi-compact and semi-separated. Namely, the following conditions are equivalent for $\mathscr{F} \in \mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ and $n \geq 1$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathscr{F}$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$ in $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$.
\item[(b)] $\mathscr{E}{xt}^k_{X}(\mathscr{F},-) \colon \mathfrak{Qcoh}(X) \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$ preserves direct limits for every $0 \leq k \leq n-1$.\footnote{Here, $\mathscr{E}{xt}^k_X(\mathscr{F},-)$ denotes the Ext sheaves, that is, the right derived functors of the hom sheaf $\mathscr{H}{om}(\mathscr{F},-)$. (See \cite[Section III.6]{hartshorne}).}
\item[(c)] $\mathscr{F}|_U$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$ in $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(U)$ for all quasi-compact (or affine) open subset $U \subseteq X$.
\item[(d)] $\mathscr{E}{xt}^k_U(\mathscr{F}|_U,-) \colon \mathfrak{Qcoh}(U) \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$ preservers direct limits for every $0 \leq k \leq n-1$ and every quasi-compact (or affine) open subset $U \subseteq X$.
\item[(e)] $\mathscr{F}(U)$ is an $\mathcal{O}_X(U)$-module of type $\text{FP}_n$ for every affine open subset $U \subseteq X$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
For a detailed proof of this equivalence, see \cite[Proposition 2.3]{Estrada-Gillespie}.\footnote{The result is stated and proved for quasi-coherent sheaves of type $\text{FP}_\infty$, but the arguments are also valid for objects of type $\text{FP}_n$.}
\end{example}
\subsection*{{Locally type \tFP{\bm{n}} categories}}
Although below we provide ways to construct new objects of type $\text{FP}_n$ from old ones, there is no guarantee that a Grothendieck category possesses any nonzero objects of type ${\rm FP}_n$. So following~\cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives} we propose Definition~\ref{def-locally FP-infinity} below in the spirit of locally finitely generated and locally finitely presented categories. Recall that a Grothendieck category $\cat{G}$ is called \emph{locally finitely generated} if it has a set of finitely generated generators. This is equivalent to saying that each $C \in \cat{G}$ is a direct union of finitely generated subobjects~\cite[pp.~122]{stenstrom}. $\cat{G}$ is called \emph{locally finitely presented} if it has a set of finitely presented generators. This is equivalent to saying that each $C \in \cat{G}$ is a direct limit of finitely presented objects~\cite[Definition 1.9 and Theorem 1.11]{adamek-rosicky}.
\begin{definition} \label{def-locally FP-infinity}
We say that a Grothendieck category $\cat{G}$ is \textbf{locally type \tFP{\bm{n}}}, if it has a generating set consisting of objects of type \tFP{n}.
\end{definition}
So $n = 0$ gives us the locally finitely generated categories, $n = 1$ the locally finitely presented categories, and $n = \infty$ gives us the locally type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ categories of~\cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives}. Note that for $1 \leq n \leq \infty$, any locally type \tFP{n} category is a locally type \tFP{n-1} category. In particular any such category is locally finitely presented and hence locally finitely generated.
\begin{example}\label{Examples-cats}
The categories $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$, $\textrm{Ch}(R)$, $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(\mathbb{P}^n(A))$ (with $A$ a commutative ring) and $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ are locally type $\text{FP}_n$ with the following generating sets formed by objects of type $\text{FP}_\infty$, respectively:
\begin{itemize}
\item The singleton $\{ R \}$.
\item The set of disk complexes $\{ D^m(R) \}_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}$, where $D^m(R)$ is the complex with
\[
D^m(R)_k = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} M & \text{if $k = m, m-1$}, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{array} \right.,
\]
and such that the only nonzero differential map is given by ${\rm id}_M \colon M \to M$.
\item The set of twisted sheaves $\{ \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n(A)}(m) \}_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}$ (see \cite[Corollary 2.5]{Estrada-Gillespie} for more details).
\item The set of representable contravariant functors $\{ {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,X) \}_{X \in \mathcal{C'}}$ where $\mathcal{C}'$ is a set of representative objects of the skeletally small category $\mathcal{C}$ (see Stenstr\"om's \cite[Corollary IV.7.5]{stenstrom}).
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\subsection*{{Properties of objects of type \tFP{n}}}
Recalling the notion of a thick subcategory from the preliminaries, we have the following proposition which is proved in \cite[Proposition 3.3]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-thickness of FP-infinity}
The class of all objects of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ is a thick subcategory.
\end{proposition}
As shown in~\cite[Section~1]{bravo-perez}, for $n < \infty$, the class $\class{FP}_n$ in the category of left $R$-modules over a ring $R$ is almost thick except it need not be closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms between its objects. This is proved using the characterization of modules of type $\text{FP}_n$ mentioned in Example~\ref{Example-fg-projectives} (2). Our goal now is to prove the analogous result in the current context of Grothendieck categories. This is achieved below in Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}. In the absence of enough projectives, the key ingredient will be to apply the ``5-lemma'' along with the following technical lemma. The proof of the lemma is quite long and technical and we defer it to an appendix at the end of the present article.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mono_condition}
Let $F$ be an object of type \tFP{n} in a locally finitely presented category $\mathcal{G}$, and let $\{ X_i \mbox{ : } i \in I \}$ be a direct system of objects in $\mathcal{G}$. The canonical map $\xi_n \colon \varinjlim {\rm Ext}^n_{\mathcal{G}}(F, X_i) \to {\rm Ext}^n_{\mathcal{G}}(F,\varinjlim X_i)$ is a monomorphism.
\end{lemma}
We shall also use the following characterizations of finitely presented objects.
\begin{lemma}[descriptions of finitely presented objects]\label{lem:finitely_presented}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a locally finitely generated category. The following conditions are equivalent for every $C \in \mathcal{G}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $C$ is finitely presented.
\item[(b)] $C$ is finitely generated and every epimorphism $B \twoheadrightarrow C$, where $B$ is finitely generated, has finitely generated kernel.
\item[(c)] There exists a short exact sequence
\[
0 \to K \to F \to C \to 0
\]
where $K$ is finitely generated and $F$ is finitely presented.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence (a) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (b) is due to Stenstr\"om \cite[Proposition V.3.4]{stenstrom}. The implication (a) $\Longrightarrow$ (c) is clear, while (c) $\Longrightarrow$ (b) follows using a standard pullback argument along with the equivalence (a) $\Longleftrightarrow$ (b).
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[closure properties of $\mathcal{FP}_n$]\label{coro-properties of FP-n}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a locally finitely presented category and
\[
\mathbb{E} \colon 0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
be a short exact sequence in $\mathcal{G}$. The following conditions hold for all $0 \leq n \leq \infty$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $A, C \in \class{FP}_n$, then $B \in \class{FP}_n$. That is, $\mathcal{FP}_n$ is closed under extensions.
\item If $A \in \mathcal{FP}_{n-1}$ and $B \in \mathcal{FP}_n$, then $C \in \mathcal{FP}_n$. In particular, $\mathcal{FP}_n$ is closed under taking cokernels of monomorphisms between its objects.
\item If $B \in \mathcal{FP}_{n-1}$ and $C \in \class{FP}_n$, then $A \in \class{FP}_{n-1}$.
\item If $\mathbb{E}$ splits and $B \in \class{FP}_n$ then $A,C \in \class{FP}_n$. That is, $\class{FP}_n$ is closed under direct summands.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The case $n = 0$ is done in \cite[Lemma V.3.1(2)]{stenstrom}, and the case $n = \infty$ is given by Proposition \ref{prop-thickness of FP-infinity}.
Next, let $1 < n < \infty$, and let $X$ be the direct limit of a direct system $\{ X_i \mbox{ : } i \in I \}$ of objects in $\mathcal{G}$, that is, $X = \varinjlim X_i$. For $A, B, C \in \mathcal{G}$ and $k \geq 0$, we consider the corresponding natural homomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\xi^A_k \colon & \varinjlim {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(A,X_i) \to {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(A,X), \\
\xi^B_k \colon & \varinjlim {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(B,X_i) \to {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(B,X), \\
\xi^C_k \colon & \varinjlim {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(C,X_i) \to {\rm Ext}^k_{\mathcal{G}}(C,X).
\end{align*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The case $n = 1$ can be proved using Lemma \ref{lem:finitely_presented} and a standard pullback argument. So we may assume that $A, C \in \mathcal{FP}_n$ with $n > 1$. We want to show that $\xi^B_k$ is an isomorphism for every $0 \leq k \leq n-1$. By the previous comments, we already know that $\xi^B_0$ is an isomorphism. For indices $k > 0$, we have the following commutative diagram with exact rows (recall our notation convention from the end of Section~\ref{Sec-preliminaries}):
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3.5em, column sep=1.25em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
\varinjlim {}^{k-1}(A,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(C,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(B,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(A,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^{k+1}(C,X_i) \\
{}^{k-1}(A,X) & {}^k(C,X) & {}^k(B,X) & {}^k(A,X) & {}^{k+1}(C,X) \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2) edge (m-2-3) (m-2-3) edge (m-2-4) (m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
(m-1-1) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_{k-1}^A$} (m-2-1)
(m-1-2) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^C$} (m-2-2)
(m-1-3) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^B$} (m-2-3)
(m-1-4) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^A$} (m-2-4)
(m-1-5) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_{k+1}^C$} (m-2-5)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
By assumption, $\xi_{k-1}^A$, $\xi_k^A$ and $\xi_k^C$ are all isomorphisms for every $0 < k \leq n-1$. Also by assumption, $\xi_{k+1}^C$ is an isomorphism for every $0 < k \leq n-2$, and a monomorphism for $k = n-1$ by Lemma \ref{lem:mono_condition}. By the 5-Lemma \cite[Exercise~1.3.3]{weibel}, we deduce that $\xi^B_k$ is an isomorphism for every $0 < k \leq n - 1$. Therefore, $B \in \mathcal{FP}_n$.
\item Suppose $A \in \mathcal{FP}_{n-1}$ and $B \in \mathcal{FP}_n$. The case $n = 1$ follows by Lemma \ref{lem:finitely_presented}. So we may assume $n > 1$. Certainly $\xi^C_0$ is an isomorphism, so our goal is to show that $\xi^C_k$ is an isomorphism for every $0 < k \leq n-1$.
Now, for each $k > 0$, we consider the following commutative diagram with exact rows:
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3.5em, column sep=1.25em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
\varinjlim {}^{k-1}(B,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^{k-1}(A,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(C,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(B,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(A,X_i) \\
{}^{k-1}(B,X) & {}^{k-1}(A,X) & {}^k(C,X) & {}^k(B,X) & {}^k(A,X) \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2) edge (m-2-3) (m-2-3) edge (m-2-4) (m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
(m-1-1) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_{k-1}^B$} (m-2-1)
(m-1-2) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_{k-1}^A$} (m-2-2)
(m-1-3) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^C$} (m-2-3)
(m-1-4) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^B$} (m-2-4)
(m-1-5) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^A$} (m-2-5)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
This time, $\xi^A_{k-1} , \xi^B_{k-1}$ and $\xi^B_{k}$ are isomorphisms for every $0 < k \leq n-1$. But also $\xi^A_k$ is an isomorphism for every $0 \leq k \leq n-2$, and a monomorphism for $k = n-1$. The 5-Lemma implies then that $\xi^C_k$ is an isomorphism for every $0 < k \leq n-1$.
\item This part is analogous to (2).
\item In the case where $\mathbb{E}$ is split exact, we have that $A$ and $C$ are retracts (or equivalently, direct summands) of $B$. We only show that $A \in \mathcal{FP}_n$ if $B \in \mathcal{FP}_n$, as the proof for $C$ is similar. We have that there are morphisms $\alpha \colon A \to B$ and $\alpha' \colon B \to A$ such that $\alpha' \circ \alpha = {\rm id}_A$. This induces the following commutative diagram where the horizontal compositions are identities:
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3.5em, column sep=8em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
\varinjlim {}^k(A,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(B,X_i) & \varinjlim {}^k(A,X_i) \\
{}^k(A,X) & {}^k(B,X) & {}^k(A,X) \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-1) edge node[above] {\footnotesize$\varinjlim {}^k(\alpha', X_i)$} (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge node[above] {\footnotesize$\varinjlim {}^k(\alpha, X_i)$} (m-1-3)
(m-2-1) edge node[below] {\footnotesize$\varinjlim {}^k(\alpha',X)$} (m-2-2)
(m-2-2) edge node[below] {\footnotesize$\varinjlim {}^k(\alpha,X)$} (m-2-3)
(m-2-2) edge (m-2-3)
(m-1-1) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^A$} (m-2-1)
(m-1-2) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^B$} (m-2-2)
(m-1-3) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$\xi_k^A$} (m-2-3)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
Thus, we have that $\xi^A_k$ is a retraction of $\xi^B_k$ in the category of maps between abelian groups. In the case where $0 \leq k \leq n-1$, we have that $\xi^A_k$ is an isomorphism, since isomorphisms are closed under retractions. Hence, $A \in \mathcal{FP}_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In general, it is not true that the class $\mathcal{FP}_n$ is closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms between its objects. In the category of left $R$-modules, for instance, $\mathcal{FP}_n$ satisfies this closure property if, and only if, the ground ring $R$ is (left) $n$-coherent, as proved in \cite[Theorem 2.4]{bravo-perez}. This equivalence will be presented in our categorical setting in Section \ref{Sec-locally n-coherent cats}, where we introduce and study the Grothendieck categories that we call \emph{$n$-coherent}.
\end{remark}
To complete our study of closure properties of the class $\mathcal{FP}_n$, we show that the objects of type \tFP{n} are also closed under finite direct sums:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-direct sums}
For all $0 \leq n \leq \infty$, the class $\class{FP}_n$ of all objects of type \tFP{n}, is closed under finite direct sums.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $n > 0$, $\{F_1, F_2, \cdots , F_m \} \subseteq \class{FP}_n$, and let $0 \leq i < n$. We have a standard isomorphism
\[
\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}\left( \bigoplus^m_{k = 1} F_k, - \right) \cong \prod^m_{k = 1} \Ext^i_{\cat{G}}\left(F_k,- \right).
\]
So the result follows from the fact that direct limits commute with finite products. The case $n = 0$ is similar.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{{Objects of type \tFP{\bm{n}} and $\bm{n}$-presentations}}
We now wish to give a characterization of objects of type \tFP{n} in terms of $n$-presentations, similar in spirit to Example~\ref{Example-fg-projectives}. We start with the following useful lemma. It is a simple corollary to Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(2).
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:n-presented}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be locally finitely presented and $C \in \mathcal{G}$ an object for which there exists an exact sequence
\[
F_n \xrightarrow{f_n} F_{n-1} \to \cdots \to F_1 \xrightarrow{f_1} F_0 \xrightarrow{f_0} C \to 0
\]
with $F_i$ of type \tFP{n} for $0 \leq i \leq n$. Then $C$ is also of type \tFP{n}.\footnote{The case of $n = \infty$ is also true. In this case we assume the given resolution is of infinite length.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that ${\rm Im}(f_n)$ is finitely generated by \cite[Lemma V.3.1 (i)]{stenstrom}. Thus ${\rm Im}(f_{n-1})$ is finitely presented by part (3) of Lemma \ref{lem:finitely_presented}. In fact, we may repeatedly apply the more general Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(2) to conclude each ${\rm Im}(f_{n-i})$ is of type ${\rm FP}_i$, for each $0 \leq i \leq n \leq \infty$. In particular, $C = {\rm Im}(f_0)$ is of type ${\rm FP}_n$.
For $n = \infty$, we consider the truncated resolutions and use the fact that $\class{FP}_{\infty} = \bigcap_{n \geq 0} \class{FP}_n$.
\end{proof}
Given a class of objects $\mathcal X$ in $\mathcal G$, we say that an object $C$ has an \emph{$n$-presentation by objects in $\mathcal X$} if there is an exact sequence
\[
X_n \xrightarrow{} X_{n-1} \to \cdots \to X_1 \xrightarrow{} X_0 \xrightarrow{} C \to 0
\]
with each $X_i \in \mathcal X$. For example, the object $C$ in Lemma \ref{prop:n-presented} has an $n$-presentation by objects in the class of objects of type $\text{FP}_n$.
Since a typical Grothendieck category need not have a set of projective generators (as shown in Example \ref{Example-fg-projectives} (5)), the following proposition and corollary are interesting. They provide an appropriate characterization of objects of type \tFP{n} in terms of $n$-resolutions based on the generators.
\begin{proposition}\label{resolutions_for_FPn}
Assume $\mathcal{G}$ is locally type \tFP{n}, with $\mathcal{S}$ denoting a generating set of objects of type \tFP{n} . Then $C \in \cat{G}$ is an object of type \tFP{n} if, and only if, $C$ has an $n$-presentation by objects in $\textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Due to Propositions~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(4) and~\ref{prop-direct sums}, we have $\textnormal{add}(S) \subseteq \mathcal{FP}_n$. Thus the ``if'' part follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{prop:n-presented}. It only remains to prove the ``only if'' part. So consider $C \in \mathcal{FP}_n$. Then we can find an epimorphism $\bigoplus_{j \in J} G_j \twoheadrightarrow C$ with each $G_j \in \mathcal{S}$. Write $C = \sum_{j \in J} G'_j$ where $G'_j := {\rm Im}(G_j \rightarrowtail \bigoplus_{j \in J} G_j \twoheadrightarrow C)$. Since $C$ is finitely generated, there exists a finite subset $J' \subseteq J$ such that $C = \sum_{j \in J'} G'_j$. This means $\bigoplus_{j \in J'} G_j \twoheadrightarrow C$ is still an epimorphism. Moreover, $F_0 := \bigoplus_{j \in J'} G_j \in \textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$. We obtain a short exact sequence $$0 \to K_0 \to F_0 \to C \to 0,$$ and again $F_0 \in \textnormal{add}(S) \subseteq \mathcal{FP}_n$. Thus we have that $K_0$ is of type \tFP{n-1} by Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n} (3). Continuing with this reasoning, we can find an exact sequence
\begin{align}\label{eqnKn}
0 & \to K_{n-1} \to F_{n-1} \to \cdots \to F_1 \to F_0 \to C \to 0
\end{align}
with $F_i \in \textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$ for every $0 \leq i < n$, and with $K_{n-1}$ finitely generated. Finally, we just take another epimorphism $F_n \twoheadrightarrow K_{n-1}$ with $F_n \in \textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$, and ``glue it'' with \eqref{eqnKn} to complete the proof.
For $n = \infty$, we can continue indefinitely using the thickness property of Proposition~\ref{prop-thickness of FP-infinity}.
\end{proof}
We note that if $\cat{G}$ is locally of type \tFP{m} then it is also automatically locally of type \tFP{n} for any $n \leq m$. So the characterization of objects of type \tFP{n} given in Proposition~\ref{resolutions_for_FPn} will hold for all $n \leq m$ whenever $\cat{G}$ is locally of type \tFP{m}. In particular, taking $m = \infty$ we get the following characterization of objects of type \tFP{n}.
\begin{corollary}\label{resolutions_for_FP-infty}
Assume $\mathcal{G}$ is locally type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ with $\mathcal{S}$ denoting a generating set of objects of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$. Then $C \in \cat{G}$ is an object of type \tFP{n} (for any $0 \leq n \leq \infty$) if, and only if, there exists an exact sequence
\[
F_n \xrightarrow{f_n} F_{n-1} \to \cdots \to F_1 \xrightarrow{f_1} F_0 \xrightarrow{f_0} C \to 0
\]
with $F_i \in \textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$ for every $0 \leq i \leq n$. That is, $C$ is an object of type \tFP{n} if, and only if, $C$ has an $n$-presentation by objects in $\textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$.\footnote{The case of $n = \infty$ gets interpreted as an infinite resolution.}
\end{corollary}
This specializes to give the following expected characterization for the case that $\cat{G}$ possesses a generating set of finitely generated projective objects.
\begin{corollary}\label{resolutions_for_proj}
Assume $\mathcal{G}$ possesses a generating set of finitely generated projective objects. Then, $C \in \cat{G}$ is an object of type \tFP{n} (for any $0 \leq n \leq \infty$) if, and only if, there exists an exact sequence
\[
P_n \to P_{n-1} \to \cdots \to P_1 \to P_0 \to C \to 0
\]
where $P_i$ is finitely generated projective for every $0 \leq i \leq n$. That is, $C$ is an object of type \tFP{n} if, and only if, $C$ has an $n$-presentation in the sense of Example~\ref{Example-fg-projectives}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Any finitely generated projective object is of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ by Example~\ref{Example-fg-projectives}(1). So taking $\mathcal{S}$ to be a set of finitely generated projective generators, Corollary~\ref{resolutions_for_FP-infty} applies, and in this case $\textnormal{add}(\mathcal{S})$ is precisely the class of finitely generated projective objects.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:locally_type_FPinfty}
If $\mathcal{G}$ is any of the categories $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$, $\textrm{Ch}(R)$ or $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$, then $\mathcal{G}$ admits a collection of finitely generated projective generators. Hence, in particular, in the present article we recover several results of \cite{bravo-perez} and \cite{ZhaoPerez}.
\end{remark}
\section{Injectivity relative to objects of type $\textrm{FP}_n$}\label{sec:injectivity}
In this section we study the cotorsion pair cogenerated by all the objects of type \tFP{n}. One may now wish to review the definitions associated to cotorsion pairs from the preliminaries.
The following brings \cite[Definition 3.1]{bravo-perez} to the context of Grothendieck categories.
\begin{definition}\label{def:FPn-injective}
We say an object $A \in \cat{G}$ is \textbf{{FP}$_{\bm{n}}$-injective} if $\Ext^1_{\cat{G}}(F,A) = 0$ for all $F \in \class{FP}_n$. We denote the class of all ${\rm FP}_n$-injective objects by $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. So note that $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj} = \class{FP}_n^{\perp_1}$.
\end{definition}
The definition includes the cases $n=0$ and $n=\infty$. Assuming $\cat{G}$ is locally finitely generated, the $\textrm{FP}_0$-injectives are the usual injective objects. One can prove this by using the analog of Baer's criterion that holds in Grothendieck categories \cite[Proposition V.2.9]{stenstrom}, along with the fact that any epimorphic image of a finitely generated object is again finitely generated \cite[Proposition V.3.1(i)]{stenstrom}. For the case $n=\infty$, the ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$-injectives are the \emph{absolutely clean} objects studied in \cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives} and \cite{bravo-gillespie-hovey}. The case $n=1$ gives us the \emph{absolutely pure} (FP-injective) objects studied in \cite{stovicek-purity,stenstrom2}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:FPn-injectives}
We present description of $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects for some categories studied in the previous section.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$\bm{\text{FP}_n}$-injective complexes}. The class $\mathcal{FP}_n\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$ in the category $\textrm{Ch}(R)$ of complexes is defined and studied in \cite[Definition 2.3.1]{ZhaoPerez}. These complexes are characterized as those $X \in \textrm{Ch}(R)$ such that $X$ is exact and each cycle module $Z_m(X)$ is $\text{FP}_n$-injective in $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$. (See \cite[Theorem 2.3.3]{ZhaoPerez}).
\item \textbf{$\text{FP}_{\bm{n}}$-injective modules over ringed spaces}. For any ringed space $(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$, an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module $\mathscr{A}$ is $\text{FP}_n$-injective if, and only if, $\mathscr{A}|_{U}$ is an $\text{FP}_n$-injective $\mathcal{O}|_U$-module for every open subset $U \subseteq X$. (See \cite[Proposition 2.7]{Estrada-Gillespie}).\footnote{The statement and proof are formulated for absolutely clean $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules, but the arguments also work for $\text{FP}_n$-injectives.}
\item \textbf{$\text{FP}$-injective functors}. Concerning the functor category $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$, there is a characterization of $\text{FP}$-injective functors in the case where $\mathcal{C}$ is an additive category with kernels. Namely, an additive functor $G \colon \mathcal{C}^{\rm op} \longrightarrow \mathsf{Ab}$ is $\text{FP}$-injective if, and only if, $G$ is right exact, that is, $G$ maps kernels in $\mathcal{C}$ into cokernels in $\mathsf{Ab}$. (See \cite[Corollary 2.3.4]{Dean}).
A similar description for $\text{FP}$-injective functors holds true with a slightly weaker assumption on $\mathcal{C}$, namely, that $\mathcal{C}$ has pseudo-kernels. Recall that given two morphisms $f_2 \colon X_2 \to X_1$ and $f_1 \colon X_1 \to X_0$ in $\mathcal{C}$, $f_2$ is a \emph{pseudo-kernel} of $f_1$ if $f_1 \circ f_2 = 0$ and if for every morphism $g \colon Y \to X_1$ satisfying $f_1 \circ h = 0$, there exists $h \colon Y \to X_2$ (not necessa-rily unique!) such that $g = f_2 \circ h$. The following two conditions are equivalent for every additive functor $G \colon \mathcal{C}^{\rm op} \longrightarrow \mathsf{Ab}$ provided that $\mathcal{C}$ has pseudo-kernels:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $G$ is $\text{FP}$-injective.
\item[(b)] $G$ maps pseudo-kernels in $\mathcal{C}$ into pseudo-cokernels in $\mathsf{Ab}$.
\end{itemize}
The proof follows as in \cite[Corollary 2.3.4]{Dean}.
For the case $n > 1$, we can also obtain the previous equivalence for any additive category $\mathcal{C}$. (See Appendix C).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
Next we shall fix some notation that will be used throughout this section. To do so, recall that the category of all objects of type \tFP{n} is skeletally small, meaning, the collection of (isomorphism classes of) objects of type $\text{FP}_n$ is a set, not just a proper class. (Reason: Grothendieck categories are locally presentable so the facts from \cite{adamek-rosicky} and \cite[Appendix]{gillespie-quasi-coherent} apply. In particular, it follows from \cite[Appendix, Fact A.9]{gillespie-quasi-coherent}.)
\begin{notation}\label{notation-representatives}
As commented above, we may choose a set, not just a proper class, of isomorphism representatives for each class $\class{FP}_{n}$. We shall always denote this set by ${\rm FP}_{n}(\cat{G})$. We then let $I_n$ denote the set of all inclusions of subobjects $K \rightarrowtail F$ with $F \in FP_{n}(\cat{G})$ and such that $F/K$ is also of type \tFP{n}. (If $\cat{G}$ is locally finitely presented, then by Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}, it is equivalent to require that $K$ be of type \tFP{n-1}.)
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}[$I$-injectives]\label{def-I-injective}
Let $I$ be any set of monomorphisms in $\cat{G}$. We shall say that an object $C \in \cat{G}$ is \emph{$I$-injective} if for every monomorphism $(K \rightarrowtail F) \in I$, each morphism $K \xrightarrow{} C$ extends over $F$.
\end{definition}
For example, Baer's Criterion states that a (left) $R$-module is injective if and only if it is $I$-injective with respect to the set $I$ of all inclusions of (left) ideals into $R$. The following is a sort of generalization of this for the sets $I_n$ from Notation~\ref{notation-representatives}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-Baer-like}
Let $\cat{G}$ be a locally of type \tFP{n} category. Let $I_n$ be the set of monomorphisms from Notation~\ref{notation-representatives}. Then $A \in \cat{G}$ is ${\rm FP}_n$-injective if and only if $A$ is $I_n$-injective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The ``only if'' part is clear using the $\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}(-,A)$ sequence, because the definition of $I_n$ assumes each $F/K \in \class{FP}_n$.
For the converse, given $A$ an $I_n$-injective in $\class{G}$, we aim to show that $\Ext^1_{\class{G}}(F,A)$ for all $F \in \FP{n}$. To do this we consider a short exact sequence
\begin{align}\label{eqn:pF}
0 & \to A \to X \xrightarrow{p} F \to 0
\end{align}
with $F$ of type \tFP{n} and show that any such sequence is split, using the Yoneda description of $\Ext^1_{\cat{G}}(F,A)$.
By \cite[Lemma V.3.3]{stenstrom}, we can find a finitely generated subobject $S \subseteq X$, in the short exact sequence above, such that $p(S) = F$. Now since ${\rm FP}_n(\cat{G})$ is a generating set we can find an epimorphism $\bigoplus_{j \in J} F_j \twoheadrightarrow S$ with each $F_j \in FP_n(\cat{G})$. As in the proof of Proposition \ref{resolutions_for_FPn}, we can find a finite subset $J' \subseteq J$ such that $q : \bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j \twoheadrightarrow S$ is still an epimorphism. Moreover, $\bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j$ is of type \tFP{n} by Proposition \ref{prop-direct sums}. Without loss of generality, we assume $\bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j \in FP_n(\cat{G})$. Letting $K$ denote the pullback of $A \xrightarrow{} X \xleftarrow{q} \bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j$, one constructs a morphism of short exact sequences:
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
0 & K & \bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j & F & 0 \\
0 & A & X & F & 0 \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-2)-- node[pos=0.5] {\footnotesize$\mbox{\bf pb}$} (m-2-3)
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge node[above] {\footnotesize$p \circ q$} (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2)
(m-2-2) edge (m-2-3)
(m-2-3) edge node[below] {\footnotesize$p$} (m-2-4)
(m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
(m-1-2) edge (m-2-2)
(m-1-3) edge node[right] {\footnotesize$q$} (m-2-3)
;
\path[-,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-4) edge [double, thick, double distance=2pt] (m-2-4)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
The inclusion map $K \rightarrowtail \bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j$ is in the set $I_n$ from Notation \ref{notation-representatives}, so the assumption on $A$ means there is a morphism $\bigoplus_{j \in J'} F_j \xrightarrow{} A$ producing a commutative triangle in the upper left corner. This is equivalent, by a fact sometimes called ``the homotopy lemma'' (see \cite[Lemma 7.16]{wisbauer}), to a map $F \xrightarrow{} X$ producing a commutative triangle in the lower right corner. This is precisely a splitting of the short exact sequence \eqref{eqn:pF}.
\end{proof}
We now prove the main result of this section. Note that the class $\class{FP}_n$ cogenerates a cotorsion pair $({}^{\perp_1}(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$. We shall call this the \emph{${FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair}.
\begin{theorem}[completeness of the $\class{FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair]\label{theorem-FP_n-injective cotorsion pair}
Let $0 \leq n \leq \infty$ and let $\cat{G}$ be a locally type \tFP{n} category. Then, $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is a functorially complete cotorsion pair.
In fact, $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is a small cotorsion pair with $I_n$ a set of generating monomorphisms in the sense of \cite[Definition 6.4]{hovey}. Moreover, if $n \geq 2$, then $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is a finite cotorsion pair, meaning, $I_n$ is a set of finite generating monomorphisms in the sense that the domains and codomains of each morphism are not just small, but finite in the sense of \cite[Definition 2.1.4 and Section 7.4]{hovey-model-categories}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is based on the work in \cite{hovey} and \cite{saorin-stovicek}. First, referring to \cite[Theorem 6.5]{hovey} we see that the set $I_n$ from Notation \ref{notation-representatives} is indeed a set of \emph{generating monomorphisms} for a \emph{small}, and hence functorially complete, cotorsion pair (in the sense of \cite[Definition 6.4]{hovey}). Proposition \ref{prop-Baer-like} makes it clear that this is indeed the ${\rm FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair. In the context of Grothendieck categories, \emph{finite} in the sense of \cite[Definition 2.1.4, Section 7.4]{hovey-model-categories} coincides with \emph{finitely presented}. So if $n \geq 2$, then all domains and codomains of maps in $I_n$ are finite by Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}.
\end{proof}
The following result extends \cite[Proposition 3.5]{bravo-estrada-iacob} and \cite[Corollary 4.3.2]{ZhaoPerez} by allowing for left approximations by FP$_n$-injective objects in any Grothendieck category.
\begin{corollary}[existence of ${\rm FP}_n$-injective preenvelopes]\label{coro-preenveloping}
Let $0 \leq n \leq \infty$ and let $\cat{G}$ be a locally type \tFP{n} category. Then $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is a special preenveloping class.
\end{corollary}
Finally, we close this section by giving a characterization of objects of type \tFP{n} in terms of the orthogonal complement ${}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\text{-Inj})$. This will provide in the next section one of the alternative descriptions for $n$-coherent categories with $n \geq 2$.
Fix an injective cogenerator $E \in \mathcal{G}$. We can construct a functor $\Psi \colon \mathcal{G} \longrightarrow \mathcal{G}$ given by
\[
X \mapsto E^{{\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(X,E)} := \prod_{h \in {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(X,E)} E_h
\]
with $E_h = E$. Let $\varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi)$ denote the class of objects of $\mathcal{G}$ which are a direct limit of a direct system in ${\rm Im}(\Psi)$. In \cite[Theorem B.1]{bravo-parra}, it is proved that for $n \geq 2$, an object $M \in \mathcal{G}$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$ if, and only if, $M$ is of type $\text{FP}_{n-1}$ and $\varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi) \subseteq {\rm Ker}({\rm Ext}^{n-1}_{\mathcal{G}}(M,-))$. From this equivalence we can prove the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{FPn-in-terms-of-FPn-Inj}
Let $\class{G}$ be a Grothendieck category, $M$ an object in $\class{G}$ and $n \geq 2$. Then $M \in \FP{n}$, if and only if, $M \in \FP{n-1}$ and $M \in {}^{\perp_{1}}\class{FP}_{n}\textnormal{-Inj}$. That is, $\mathcal{FP}_n = \mathcal{FP}_{n-1} \cap {}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$, for all $n \geq 2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The ``only if'' part is clear. Now suppose that $M$ is an object of type $\text{FP}_{n-1}$ such that ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N) = 0$ for every $N \in \class{FP}_{n}\textnormal{-Inj}$. By \cite[Theorem B.1]{bravo-parra}, we show that $M \in \mathcal{FP}_n$ by proving the containment $\varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi) \subseteq {\rm Ker}({\rm Ext}^{n-1}_{\mathcal{G}}(M,-))$. For, let us study the two cases $n = 2$ and $n > 2$.
For the case $n = 2$, let $N \in \varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi)$ and write $N = \varinjlim_{i \in I} N_i$ where $N_i \in {\rm Im}(\Psi)$ for every $i \in I$. Note that each $N_i$ is injective since it is a product of injective objects. Thus, $N$ is $\text{FP}_2$-injective, and so ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N) = 0$. Then, the containment $\varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi) \subseteq {\rm Ker}({\rm Ext}^{1}_{\mathcal{G}}(M,-))$ follows.
For the case $n > 2$, consider again $N \in \varinjlim {\rm Im}(\Psi)$ along with a partial injective resolution
\[
0 \to N \to E^0 \to E^1 \to \cdots \to E^{n-3} \to N' \to 0
\]
By dimension shifting, we have that ${\rm Ext}^{n-1}_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N) \cong {\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N')$. Using again dimension shifting along with \cite[Theorem B.1]{bravo-parra}, one can note that $N' \in \mathcal{FP}_n\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$. This implies that ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N') = 0$. Hence, ${\rm Ext}^{n-1}_{\mathcal{G}}(M,N) = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The previous proposition holds for the case $n = 1$ when $\mathcal{G}$ is the category of modules over a ring. In fact, this is due to Glaz \cite[Theorem 2.1.10]{Glaz}. Specifically, the equality $\mathcal{FP}_1 = \mathcal{FP}_{0} \cap {}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_1\text{-Inj})$ holds in $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$.
Although we are not aware if the same equality holds in any Grothendieck category, we can prove that it does in the category $\textrm{Ch}(R)$ of complexes of modules and also in the category $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ of quasi-coherent sheaves over certain schemes $X$. (See Appendix B for details).
\end{remark}
\section{$n$-coherent objects and categories}\label{Sec-locally n-coherent cats}
In Section \ref{Sec-locally finitely n-presented cats} we introduced the Grothendieck categories that are natural generalizations of locally finitely generated and locally finitely presented categories. We now take it a step further and introduce the natural generalizations of locally noetherian and locally coherent categories, which we call $n$-coherent. We begin by looking at the objects which generate such categories: the $n$-coherent objects.
\begin{definition} \label{def-finitely-n-coherent}
Let $n$ be given with $0 \leq n \leq \infty$. We say that an object $C \in \cat{G}$ is \emph{$n$-coherent} if each of the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C \in \class{FP}_n$. That is, $C$ is of type \tFP{n}.
\item For each subobject $S \subseteq C$, we have $S \in \class{FP}_{n-1}$ implies $S \in \class{FP}_n$. That is, every subobject of $C$ of type \tFP{n-1} is in fact of type \tFP{n}.
\end{enumerate}
We shall let $\class{C}_n$ denote the class of all $n$-coherent objects in $\cat{G}$.
For the case $n=\infty$, we consider all objects of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ to be $\infty$-coherent.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} Recall that $\FP{-1}$ is the whole class of objects of $\class{G}$. Then by \cite[Proposition V.4.1]{stenstrom}, an object is noetherian in the usual sense if, and only if, it is 0-coherent in the sense of Definition \ref{def-finitely-n-coherent}. Moreover, a 1-coherent object coincides exactly with the standard definition of a coherent object.
\end{remark}
Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n} holds for \emph{all} values of $n$ for which $0 \leq n \leq \infty$. From that proposition we may now easily prove the following result.
\begin{proposition}[closure properties of $\mathcal{C}_n$]\label{them-n-coherent thick}
Assume $\cat{G}$ is locally finitely presented. Then, the class $\class{C}_n$, of all $n$-coherent objects satisfies the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\class{C}_n$ is closed under direct summands.
\item Suppose we have a short exact sequence
\begin{align}\label{eqn:seqE}
\mathbb{E} \colon & 0 \xrightarrow{} A \xrightarrow{} B \xrightarrow{} C \xrightarrow{} 0
\end{align}
with $B \in \class{C}_n$. Then $A \in \class{C}_n$ if, and only if, $C \in \class{C}_n$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus $\class{C}_n$ is a thick class if, and only if, $\class{C}_n$ is closed under extensions.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that it is clear from Definition~\ref{def-finitely-n-coherent} and Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(4) that $\class{C}_n$ is closed under direct summands. For the remainder of the proof we fix a short exact sequence as $\mathbb{E}$ \eqref{eqn:seqE} above with $B \in \class{C}_n$.
First we assume $A \in \class{C}_n$. In fact, to prove $C \in \class{C}_n$ we only need to assume $A \in \class{FP}_{n-1}$.
Indeed we start by noting $C \in \class{FP}_n$, by Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(2). Now suppose $S \subseteq C$ is of type \tFP{n-1}. (We must show that $S$ is of type \tFP{n}.) We let $P$ denote the pullback of $B \twoheadrightarrow C \leftarrowtail S$ and we obtain a morphism of short exact sequences:
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
0 & A & P & S & 0 \\
0 & A & B & C & 0 \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-3)-- node[pos=0.5] {\footnotesize$\mbox{\bf pb}$} (m-2-4)
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2)
(m-2-2) edge (m-2-3)
(m-2-3) edge (m-2-4)
(m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
(m-1-4) edge (m-2-4)
(m-1-3) edge (m-2-3)
;
\path[-,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-2) edge [double, thick, double distance=2pt] (m-2-2)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
where $P \subseteq B$ is a subobject, which must be of type \tFP{n-1} by Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(1). Thus $P$ is of type $\text{FP}_n$ since $B$ is $n$-coherent. But we now turn around and again apply Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(2) to conclude $S$ too is of type $\text{FP}_n$.
Last, suppose $C \in \class{C}_n$. In fact, to show $A \in \class{C}_n$ we only need that $C \in \class{FP}_{n}$.
Indeed in this case we start by noting $A \in \class{FP}_{n-1}$ by Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(3). Thus $A \in \class{FP}_{n}$ since $B$ is $n$-coherent. In fact it is now clear that the $n$-coherence of $A$ is immediately inherited from $B$.
\end{proof}
It is well known that the class of noetherian objects (0-coherent objects) is closed under extensions \cite[Proposition V.4.2]{stenstrom}. It is also true that the usual coherent objects (1-coherent objects) are closed under extensions \cite[Proposition 1.5]{herzog-ziegler-spectrum}. In general, we see no reason why $\class{C}_n$ would be closed under extensions for $2 \leq n < \infty$. But we do have the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-extensions}
Let $\class{S}$ be a set of $n$-coherent generators for $\cat{G}$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\class{C}_n$ is closed under extensions.
\item[(b)] $\class{C}_n$ is closed under finite direct sums.
\item[(c)] $\textnormal{free}(\mathcal{S}) \subseteq \class{C}_n$. That is, any finite direct sum of the generators is $n$-coherent.
\end{itemize}
In particular, by Proposition \ref{them-n-coherent thick}, $\class{C}_n$ is a thick class if, and only if, any one of the above holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The implications (a) $\implies$ (b) $\implies$ (c) are clear. To see (c) $\implies$ (a), let $\class{S} = \{C_j\}$ denote a generating set for $\cat{G}$ with each $C_j$ an $n$-coherent object and let
\[
0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
be a short exact sequence with $A , C \in \class{C}_n$. As in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-Baer-like} we may construct a pullback diagram
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=2.5ex, text depth=1.5ex]
{
{} & K & K \\
0 & P & \displaystyle \bigoplus_{j \in I} C_j & C & 0 \\
0 & A & B & C & 0 \\
};
\path[->]
(m-2-2)-- node[pos=0.5] {\footnotesize$\mbox{\bf pb}$} (m-3-3)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2) edge (m-2-3) (m-2-3) edge (m-2-4) (m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
(m-3-1) edge (m-3-2) (m-3-2) edge (m-3-3) (m-3-3) edge (m-3-4) (m-3-4) edge (m-3-5)
;
\path[>->]
(m-1-2) edge (m-2-2) (m-1-3) edge (m-2-3)
;
\path[->>]
(m-2-3) edge (m-3-3) (m-2-2) edge (m-3-2)
;
\path[-,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-2) edge [double, thick, double distance=2pt] (m-1-3)
(m-2-4) edge [double, thick, double distance=2pt] (m-3-4)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
where $\bigoplus_{j \in I} C_j$ is a \emph{finite} direct sum of objects in the generating set $\mathcal{S}$. By assumption $\bigoplus_{j \in I} C_j$ is $n$-coherent.
Thus by Proposition~\ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(3) we conclude both $K$ and $P$ are in $\class{FP}_{n-1}$, whence $K,P \in \class{FP}_n$, and in fact $K,P \in \class{C}_n$. But then we conclude from Proposition~\ref{them-n-coherent thick} that $B \in \class{C}_n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[$\mathcal{C}_n$ is closed under quotients in $\mathcal{FP}_n$] \label{mixed-closure-1}
Let
\[
0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
be a short exact sequence with $B \in \mathcal{C}_n$ and $A \in \FP{n-1}$. Then, $C \in \mathcal{C}_n$.
In particular, if an object $F$ of type $\text{FP}_n$ is a quotient of an $n$-coherent object, then $F$ is also $n$-coherent.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first part of the statement follows from the proof of part (2) of Proposition \ref{them-n-coherent thick}. For the second part, let $F \in \mathcal{FP}_n$ such that there is an epimorphism $\varphi \colon B \twoheadrightarrow F$ with $B \in \mathcal{C}_n$. It follows that $F$ is $n$-coherent since ${\rm Ker}(\varphi) \in \mathcal{FP}_{n-1}$ by Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{{$\boldsymbol{n}$-coherent categories}}
We now state the corresponding generalization of locally noetherian and locally coherent categories.
\begin{definition} \label{def-n-coherent category}
Let $\cat{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. We say that $\mathcal{G}$ is \textbf{$n$-coherent} if it is locally type \tFP{n} and each object of type \tFP{n} is $n$-coherent.
\end{definition}
Note that every $n$-coherent category has a generating set consisting of $n$-coherent objects. Combining this and other conditions, we have the following characterization of $n$-coherent categories.
\begin{theorem}[characterizations of $n$-coherent categories]\label{them-locally n-coherent}
Let $0 \leq n \leq \infty$ and assume that $\cat{G}$ is a locally type \tFP{n} category. The following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\cat{G}$ is $n$-coherent. That is, every object of type \tFP{n} is $n$-coherent.
\item[(b)] The class $\class{FP}_n$ is closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms between its objects.
\item[(c)] $\class{FP}_n$ is thick.
\item[(d)] $\cat{G}$ has a generating set of $n$-coherent objects, and satisfies one of the equivalent conditions of Lemma \ref{lemma-extensions}.
\item[(e)] The objects of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ coincide with the objects of type \tFP{n}. That is, $\class{FP}_n = \class{FP}_{\infty}$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, if $n \geq 1$, these are also equivalent to:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(f)] The class of $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$, of all ${\rm FP}_n$-injectives, is closed under taking cokernels of monomorphisms between its objects.
\item[(g)] The ${\rm FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair, $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$, is hereditary.
\item[(h)] $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ coincides with the class $\class{FP}_{\infty}\textnormal{-Inj}$ of absolutely clean objects.
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{FP}_{n+1}\textnormal{-Inj} \subseteq \mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, $\cat{G}$ is $0$-coherent if and only if it is locally noetherian, and it is $1$-coherent if and only if it is locally coherent in the usual sense.
\end{theorem}
Before proving the theorem we note the following remark.
\begin{remark}
A couple of trivial observations may be helpful.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For condition (d) in the cases $n = 0$ and $n = 1$, any generating set for $\mathcal{G}$ of noetherian or coherent satisfies the conditions of Lemma \ref{lemma-extensions}.
\item Note that conditions (f) and (g) of Theorem~\ref{them-locally n-coherent} cannot possibly be equivalent to the first five for case $n = 0$. Indeed the canonical injective cotorsion pair is \emph{always} hereditary, so it would imply that all locally finitely generated categories are locally noetherian.
\item At first glance it is natural to desire a characterization of $n$-coherent categories in terms of the closure of $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ under direct limits. Afterall, these are important characterizations for $n = 0$ and $n=1$. But of course $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is always closed under direct limits for $n \geq 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
First, note that (a) and (b) are immediately seen to be equivalent by using parts (2) and (3) of Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}. Also, (b) and (c) are equivalent by that same proposition.
Now if (a) is true, then $\cat{G}$ has a set of $n$-coherent generators. Moreover, if (a) is true, then $\class{C}_n = \class{FP}_n$ satisfies all of the equivalent conditions of Lemma \ref{lemma-extensions}, again because of Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}. Thus (a) implies (d).
We now show (d) $\Longrightarrow$ (b). To do so, let $\{C_j\}$ denote a generating set for $\cat{G}$ with each $C_j$ an $n$-coherent object and let
\[
0 \xrightarrow{} A \xrightarrow{} B \xrightarrow{} C \xrightarrow{} 0
\]
be a short exact sequence with $B , C \in \class{FP}_n$. Construct a diagram as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-extensions}, where $\bigoplus_{j \in I} C_j$ is a \emph{finite} direct sum of objects in the generating set. By the hypothesis $\bigoplus_{j \in I} C_j$ is $n$-coherent. Thus by Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(3) we conclude both $K$ and $P$ are in $\class{FP}_{n-1}$, whence $K, P \in \class{FP}_n$. But then we conclude from Proposition \ref{coro-properties of FP-n}(2) that $A \in \class{FP}_n$, proving (b). So far we have shown (a) through (d) are equivalent.
Assuming (c), then of course any set $\class{S}$ of isomorphism representatives for $\class{FP}_n$ is also thick. Thus the hypotheses of \cite[Lemma 3.6(4)]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}, with $\class{S} = FP_{n}(\cat{G})$ as in Notation \ref{notation-representatives}, are satisfied. One can check that the lemma explicitly proves for us that the cotorsioin pair of Theorem \ref{theorem-FP_n-injective cotorsion pair}, is hereditary. This proves (c) $\Longrightarrow$ (g).
Next, we show (g) $\Longrightarrow$ (e) whenever $n \geq 1$. But the proof will also show (d) $\Longrightarrow$ (e) for the special case $n = 0$. Indeed with either hypothesis, we note that the cotorsion pair $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is hereditary and the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$, of all $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective objects is closed under direct limits. (For the latter fact, the cases $n >1$ are immediate, the case $n = 0$ is well-known, and the case $n=1$ can be found in \cite[Proposition B.3]{stovicek-purity}.) So now to prove (e), we let $F$ be an object of type $\text{FP}_n$, and we shall show that the functors $\Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,-)$ preserve direct limits for all $k \geq 0$. By \cite[Corollary 1.7]{adamek-rosicky} it is enough to show that they preserve well-ordered direct limits. So let $\{X_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha < \lambda}$ be a well-ordered system, where $\lambda$ is some ordinal. Now we know from Theorem \ref{theorem-FP_n-injective cotorsion pair} that $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}),\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is functorially complete. So using that we have enough functorial injectives, we can, for each $X_{\alpha}$, find an $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective coresolution $X_{\alpha} \rightarrowtail A_{X_{\alpha}}$, so that the direct system $\{X_{\alpha}\}$ extends to a direct system $\{A_{X_{\alpha}}\}$. Moreover, the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is closed under direct limits. Thus by exactness of direct limits we get that $\varinjlim X_{\alpha} \rightarrowtail \varinjlim A_{X_{\alpha}}$ is again an $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective coresolution of $\varinjlim X_{\alpha} $. Since $({}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})_n ,\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ is hereditary, $\Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,A) = 0$ for all $k \geq 1$ and $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective $A$. In other words, $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective objects are $\Hom_{\cat{G}}(F,-)$-acyclic, and it follows that we can compute $\Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,-)$ via $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective coresolutions; see, for example, \cite[Theorem XX.6.2]{lang}. So now we can compute:
\[
\varinjlim \Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,X_{\alpha}) \cong \varinjlim H^k[\Hom(F,A_{X_{\alpha}})] \cong H^k[\Hom(F, \varinjlim A_{X_{\alpha}})] \cong \Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,\varinjlim X_{\alpha}).
\]
This means that the canonical map $\xi_k \colon \varinjlim \Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,X_{\alpha}) \xrightarrow{} \Ext^k_{\cat{G}}(F,\varinjlim X_{\alpha})$ is an isomorphism and completes the proof that $F$ is of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$.
Note that (e) implies (c) by Proposition \ref{prop-thickness of FP-infinity}. We now show that show (f) and (g) are equivalent. But (g) implies (f) is trivial and a standard argument shows that (f) implies (g). Indeed given any $X \in {}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})$ and $Y \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$, let
\[
0 \xrightarrow{} Y \xrightarrow{} I \xrightarrow{} Y' \xrightarrow{} 0
\]
be a short exact sequence with $I$ injective. Then $Y' \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ by assumption. Thus the exactness of
\[
\Ext^1_{\cat{G}}(X,Y') \xrightarrow{} \Ext^2_{\cat{G}}(X,Y) \xrightarrow{} \Ext^2_{\cat{G}}(X,I)
\]
shows that $\Ext^2_{\cat{G}}(X,Y) =0$. Repeating this argument with induction we conclude also that $\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}(X,Y) = 0$ for all indices $i > 1$.
The implication (e) $\Longrightarrow$ (h) is clear for any $n \geq 0$, while (h) $\Longrightarrow$ (i) (also for $n \geq 0$) holds since $\mathcal{FP}_{n+1}\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj} \subseteq \mathcal{FP}_\infty\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$ and $\mathcal{FP}_\infty\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj} = \mathcal{FP}_n\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$ by (h).
For the rest of the proof, let us assume that $n \geq 1$. We show that (i) $\Longrightarrow$ (b). Condition (i) clearly implies that $\mathcal{FP}_n\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj} = \mathcal{FP}_{n+1}\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$. On the other hand, we have by Proposition \ref{FPn-in-terms-of-FPn-Inj} that $\mathcal{FP}_{n+1} = \mathcal{FP}_n \cap {}^{\perp_1}(\mathcal{FP}_{n+1}\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj})$. Using the equiality $\mathcal{FP}_n\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj} = \mathcal{FP}_{n+1}\mbox{-}\textrm{Inj}$, the previous implies $\mathcal{FP}_{n+1} = \mathcal{FP}_n$. This in turn clearly implies (b).
\end{proof}
\begin{example} \
\begin{enumerate}
\item Recall that a ring $R$ is left \emph{$n$-coherent} if the containment $\mathcal{FP}_n \subseteq \mathcal{FP}_{n+1}$ holds in $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$ (see Costa's \cite[Definition 2.1]{costa}). We can note that $R\mbox{-}\textrm{Mod}$ is an $n$-coherent category if, and only if, $R$ is a left $n$-coherent ring. This equivalence can be extended to the category $\textrm{Ch}(R)$ of complexes of modules, as proved in \cite[Proposition 2.1.9]{ZhaoPerez}.
\item The functor category $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ is $1$-coherent if, and only if, $\mathcal{C}$ has pseudo-kernels. (See Appendix C).
\item The category $\mathfrak{Qcoh}(X)$ of quasi-coherent sheaves over $X$ can be made into an $n$-coherent category if $X$ comes equipped with a finite affine cover $\{ U_i \}$ (that is, $U_i$ is isomorphic, as a locally ringed space, to ${\rm Spec}(A_i)$) such that each $A_i$ is a commutative $n$-coherent ring, with $n \geq 0$ fixed. (See Appendix B for details).
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
Note that condition (e) of the theorem gives us the next two corollaries.
\begin{corollary}
Any $n$-coherent category $\cat{G}$ is locally type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
We have the following containments among classes of Grothendieck categories, where $n\text{-Coh}$ represents the class of $n$-coherent categories:
\[
0\text{-Coh} \subseteq 1\text{-Coh} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq n\text{-Coh} \subseteq (n+1)\text{-Coh} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \infty\text{-Coh}.
\]
\end{corollary}
Finally, condition (d) of the theorem can be used in conjunction with condition (c) of Lemma \ref{lemma-extensions} to check the coherence of a particular category. In particular, we get the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-n-coherent rings}
Let $R$ be a ring. Then $R$ is (left) $n$-coherent if, and only if, every finitely generated free (left) $R$-module is $n$-coherent.
\end{corollary}
\subsection*{{$\bm{{\rm FP}}_{\bm{n}}$-injective covers in $\bm{n}$-coherent categories}}
Corollary~\ref{coro-preenveloping} showed that the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$, of ${\rm FP}_n$-injective objects, is (special) preenveloping. We now consider the question of when it might also be a (pre)covering class. In \cite{CPT}, several conditions in finitely accessible categories are studied in order to produce preenvelopes and covers relative to a class of objects. Since any locally $n$-coherent category is finitely accessible, we can apply Crivei, Prest and Torrecillas' result to obtain ${\rm FP}_n$-injective covers in locally $n$-coherent categories.
\begin{proposition}[${\rm FP}_n$-injectives and purity]\label{prop:FPnInj_purity}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category and $n \geq 1$. The following two conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is closed under pure subobjects.
\item If $\mathcal{G}$ is $n$-coherent, then $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is closed under pure quotients.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that we are given a pure exact sequence
\[
\mathbb{P} \colon 0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
in $\mathcal{G}$, that is, the induced sequence ${\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,\mathbb{P})$ of abelian groups is exact whenever $F$ is a finitely presented object in $\mathcal{G}$. Assume that $B \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ and let $F$ be an object of type $\text{FP}_n$. Let us first see (1), that $A \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. Since $B \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$, we have that ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(F,B) = 0$. On the other hand, $F$ is in particular finitely presented, and so ${\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,\mathbb{P})$ is exact. Thus, we have an exact sequence
\[
0 \to {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,A) \to {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,B) \to {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,C) \to {\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(F,A) \to 0
\]
where ${\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,B) \to {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(F,C)$ is an epimorphism. It follows that ${\rm Ext}^1_{\mathcal{G}}(F,A) = 0$, and hence $A$ is ${\rm FP}_n$-injective.
For (2), if we suppose that $\mathcal{G}$ is in addition $n$-coherent, then by Theorem \ref{them-locally n-coherent} (f) we may also conclude $C$ is ${\rm FP}_n$-injective.
\end{proof}
The precise conditions guaranteeing existence of covers are specified in \cite[Theorem 2.6]{CPT}. Namely, a class of objects $\mathcal{C}$ in a finitely accessible category $\mathcal{G}$ is covering provided it is closed under direct limits and pure quotients. Certainly if $\cat{G}$ is $n$-coherent then the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ of $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects is closed under pure quotients and direct limits; in fact, it is always closed under direct limits for $n > 1$. So their work gives the following generalization of a statement from~\cite[Corollary 3.5]{CPT}.
\begin{corollary}[completeness of the reversed $\class{FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair]
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a $n$-coherent category. Then, the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ of ${\rm FP}_n$-injective objects is covering. Moreover, if $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ contains a generating set for $\class{G}$, then $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is the left half of a perfect cotorsion pair $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj} , (\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$.
\end{corollary}
Recall that a cotorsion pair $(\mathcal{X,Y})$ in a Grothendieck category $\mathcal{G}$ is \emph{perfect} if the class $\mathcal{X}$ is covering and the class $\mathcal{Y}$ is enveloping. A well known result asserts that if $(\mathcal{X,Y})$ is complete and $\mathcal{X}$ is closed under direct limits, then $(\mathcal{X,Y})$ is perfect. For example, see \cite[Corollary 2.3.7]{gobel-trlifaj} or \cite[Section 2.2]{xu}.\footnote{Although the proofs given there are for $R$-modules, they carry over to Grothendieck categories.}
\begin{proof}
It is only left to prove the second statement. In this case, any ${\rm FP}_n$-injective cover must be an epimorphism, since $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ contains a generating set for $\class{G}$. By Wakamutsu's Lemma\footnote{See \cite[Lemma 2.1.1]{xu} for a proof that works in any abelian category.}, any such cover must have a kernel in $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1}$. With this fact, we show that ${}^{\perp_1}((\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$ $\subseteq \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. For let $C \in {}^{\perp_1}((\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$. We have a special $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ cover for $C$, that is, a short exact sequence
\[
0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0
\]
with $B \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ and $A \in (\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1}$. Since $C \in {}^{\perp_1}((\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$, the sequence splits, and so $C$ is a direct summand of $B \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. The class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is closed under direct summands, and hence we can conclude that $C \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. This proves $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj},(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$ is a cotorsion pair in $\mathcal{G}$.
We already know every object in $\mathcal{G}$ has a special $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ cover. Using this and the fact that $\mathcal{G}$ has enough injective objects, we can apply a Salce-like argument to show that every object in $\mathcal{G}$ also has a special $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1}$-preenvelope. Hence, the cotorsion pair $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj},(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$ is complete. Since $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is closed under direct limits, we have that $(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj},(\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp_1})$ is perfect.
\end{proof}
Note that we needed the $n$-coherent hypothesis on $\cat{G}$ to show that the class $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ of ${\rm FP}_n$-injective objects is covering. But for the category $R$-Mod, the statement holds for $n > 1$ even if $R$ is not assumed $n$-coherent. Indeed the ${\rm FP}_n$-injective modules are always closed under pure quotients (in addition to direct limits) in this case. As shown in~\cite[Proposition 3.10]{bravo-perez}, this follows by a Pontrjagin duality argument. The problem with the more general setting of Grothendieck categories $\mathcal{G}$ is that we do not have a suitable notion of Pontrjagin dual providing similar properties. This essentially stems from that fact that we lack of a tensor product on $\mathcal{G}$ to compare ${\rm FP}_n$-injective and ``${\rm FP}_n$-flat'' objects. So we are not aware if the $n$-coherent hypothesis on $\cat{G}$ is absolutely necessary to show that $\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ is a covering class.
\section{The Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective model structures}\label{sec-Goren-FP_n}
Our goal now is to point out how a nice theory of Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective homological algebra exists in any $n$-coherent category $\mathcal{G}$. We define Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects similarly to the usual Gorenstein injective objects.
\begin{definition}
We say an object $M \in \cat{G}$ is \textbf{Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_{\bm{n}}$-injective} if $M = Z_{0}(\mathbb{I})$ for some exact complex $\mathbb{I}$ of injectives for which $\Hom_{\cat{G}}(J,\mathbb{I})$ remains exact for any $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective $J$. We let $\class{GI}$ denote the class of all Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_n$-injectives in $\cat{G}$ and set $\class{W} := {}^{\perp_1}\class{GI}$.
\end{definition}
Note that if $\cat{G}$ is $n$-coherent, then by Theorem~\ref{them-locally n-coherent}, the Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_n$-injectives coincide with the \emph{Gorenstein AC-injective objects} from \cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives}, inspired from~\cite{bravo-gillespie-hovey}. In particular, when $\cat{G}$ is locally noetherian they coincide with the usual notion of \emph{Gorenstein injective}, and when $\cat{G}$ is locally coherent they are the \emph{Ding injective} objects.
\subsection*{{Properties of Gorenstein $\text{FP}_{\bm{n}}$-injective objects}}
We begin our path towards a theory of Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective homological algebra by proving some characterizations and properties of the class $\mathcal{GI}$. For the rest of the present paper, let $\textrm{Inj}$ denote the class of injective objects in a Grothendieck category $\mathcal{G}$.
\begin{lemma}[characterizations of Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injectives]\label{lem:characterizationGI}
The following are equivalent for any object $C$ in a Grothendieck category $\cat{G}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $C$ is Gorenstein $\textrm{FP}_n$-injective.
\item[(b)] $C$ satisfies the following two conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C \in (\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^{\perp}$. That is, $\Ext^i_{\mathcal{G}}(X,C) = 0$ for every $X \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$ and every $i > 0$.
\item There exists an exact sequence
\[
\mathbb{E} \colon \cdots \to E_1 \to E_0 \to C \to 0
\]
with each $E_i \in \textnormal{Inj}$ (that is, $\mathbb{E}$ is an injective resolution of $C$) such that $\Hom_{\mathcal{G}}(X,\mathbb{E})$ remains exact for every $X \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[(c)] There exists a short exact sequence
\[
0 \to C' \to E \to C \to 0
\]
with $E \in \textnormal{Inj}$ and $C' \in \mathcal{GI}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
These are known characterizations of the usual Gorenstein injective $R$-modules and the proofs carry over to our generality. In particular, the equivalence of (a) and (b) is a straightforward exercise that we leave to the reader\footnote{The proof will use the fact that we always have enough injectives in a Grothendieck category.}. Now (a) implies (c) is clear, and the converse can be proved by imitating (the dual of) the argument from \cite[Lemma~2.5]{Ding-projective}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[closure properties of Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injectives]\label{prop:closure_properties}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then the class $\mathcal{GI}$ of Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects of $\mathcal{G}$ is closed under finite direct sums, direct summands, extensions and cokernels of monomorphisms between its objects.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We leave it to the reader to verify that closure under extensions and cokernels of monomorphisms can be proved using the same techniques as in~\cite{Ding-projective}. We shall include a direct proof that $\mathcal{GI}$ is closed under direct summands\footnote{Although the argument uses standard techniques, we do not believe it has appeared before in the literature.}.
So suppose we are given $A, B \in \mathcal{G}$ such that $A \oplus B \in \mathcal{GI}$. Note first that $A, B \in (\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^\perp$. On the other hand, we have a short exact sequence
\[
\mathbb{E}^{A \oplus B}_0 \colon 0 \to K_0 \xrightarrow{\alpha} E_0 \xrightarrow{\beta} A \oplus B \to 0,
\]
where $E_0 \in \textnormal{Inj}$ and $K_0 \in \mathcal{GI}$ by Lemma \ref{lem:characterizationGI}. Consider now the canonical projections
\[
\pi_A = (\begin{array}{cc} {\rm id}_A & 0 \end{array}) \colon A \oplus B \to A \mbox{ \ and \ } \pi_B = (\begin{array}{cc} 0 & {\rm id}_B \end{array}) \colon A \oplus B \to B,
\]
and form the morphisms $\beta_A := \pi_A \circ \beta$ and $\beta_B := \pi_B \circ \beta$, that is
\[
\beta = \left( \begin{array}{c} \beta_A \\ \beta_B \end{array} \right)
\]
using the matrix notation. We have short exact sequences
\[
\mathbb{E}^A_0 \colon 0 \to K^A_0 \xrightarrow{\alpha_A} E_0 \xrightarrow{\beta_A} A \to 0 \mbox{ \ and \ } \mathbb{E}^B_0 \colon 0 \to K^B_0 \xrightarrow{\alpha_B} E_0 \xrightarrow{\beta_B} B \to 0,
\]
where $K^A_0 := {\rm Ker}(\beta_A)$ and $K^B_0 := {\rm Ker}(\beta_B)$. Taking the direct sum of $\mathbb{E}^A_0$ and $\mathbb{E}^B_0$ gives the following short exact sequence:
\[{\scriptsize
\mathbb{E}^A_0 \oplus \mathbb{E}^B_0 \colon 0 \to K^A_0 \oplus K^B_0 \xrightarrow{\left( \begin{array}{cc} \alpha_A & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha_B \end{array} \right)} E_0 \oplus E_0 \xrightarrow{\left( \begin{array}{cc} \beta_A & 0 \\ 0 & \beta_B \end{array} \right)} A \oplus B \to 0.
}
\]
Moreover, we can get the following commutative diagram with exact rows and columns:
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[description/.style={fill=white,inner sep=2pt}]
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=5em, text height=1.25ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{
0 & K_0 & E_0 & A \oplus B & 0 \\
0 & K^A_0 \oplus K^B_0 & E_0 \oplus E_0 & A \oplus B & 0 \\
};
\path[->]
(m-1-2) edge node[right] {\scriptsize$k$} (m-2-2)
(m-1-3) edge node[right] {\scriptsize$\Delta = \left( \begin{array}{c} {\rm id}_{E_0} \\ {\rm id}_{E_0} \end{array} \right)$} (m-2-3)
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-1-2) edge node[above] {\scriptsize$\alpha$} (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge node[above] {\scriptsize$\beta$} (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2) edge node[below] {\scriptsize$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \alpha_A & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha_B \end{array} \right)$} (m-2-3) (m-2-3) edge node[below] {\scriptsize$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \beta_A & 0 \\ 0 & \beta_B \end{array} \right)$} (m-2-4) (m-2-4) edge (m-2-5)
;
\path[-,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-4) edge [double, thick, double distance=2pt] (m-2-4)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
where $\Delta$ is the diagonal map and $k$ is induced by the universal property of kernels. Using Snake's Lemma, we have ${\rm CoKer}(k) \simeq {\rm CoKer}(\Delta) \simeq E_0$. Thus, we have a split short exact sequence
\[
0 \to K_0 \xrightarrow{k} K^A_0 \oplus K^B_0 \to E_0 \to 0
\]
and so $K^A_0 \oplus K^B_0 \simeq K_0 \oplus E_0 \in \mathcal{GI}$ since $\mathcal{GI}$ is closed under finite direct sums. Note also that $K^A_0, K^B_0 \in (\class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj})^\perp$.
Apply the previous argument to $K^A_0 \oplus K^B_0 \in \mathcal{GI}$, and repeat this procedure infinitely many times in oder to get injective resolutions of $A$ and $B$ which are $\Hom_{\mathcal{G}}(X,-)$-acyclic for every $X \in \class{FP}_n\textnormal{-Inj}$. The result follows by Lemma \ref{lem:characterizationGI}.
\end{proof}
With these properties in hand, we are ready to construct approximations, cotorsion pairs and model category structures involving the class $\mathcal{GI}$.
\subsection*{{Abelian Gorenstein $\text{FP}_{\bm{n}}$-injective model structures}}
Any theory of relative homological algebra begins with the existence of a complete cotorsion pair, allowing one to construct relative derived functors. So we would like to have a complete cotorsion pair $(\class{W} ,\class{GI})$. Unfortunately it is not enough for $\cat{G}$ to just be a $n$-coherent category to obtain this complete cotorsion pair. We need the left class $\class{W}$ to contain a generating set for $\cat{G}$. A standard hypothesis that will accomplish this is to assume that $\cat{G}$ has a generating set of objects of finite projective dimension. Recall that an object $A \in \cat{G}$ has \emph{finite projective dimension} if there exists a nonnegative integer $n$ such that for any object $B$ one has $\Ext^i_{\cat{G}}(A,B) = 0$ for all $i > n$. Following~\cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives}, we make the following definition.
\begin{definition}\label{def-generators}
We shall say a Grothendieck category $\cat{G}$ is \emph{locally finite dimensional} if it possesses a generating set $\{G_i\}$ for which each $G_i$ has finite projective dimension. If furthermore, each $G_i$ is of type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$ we say $\cat{G}$ it is \emph{locally finite dimensionally type ${\rm FP}_{\infty}$}. Finally, if $\cat{G}$ is also $n$-coherent, that is, $\class{FP}_n = \class{FP}_{\infty}$, we say it is \emph{locally finite dimensionally $n$-coherent}.
\end{definition}
Examples of locally finite dimensionally type $\textrm{FP}_{\infty}$ categories are given in \cite[Section~5]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}. Certainly $R$-Mod and $\textnormal{Ch}(R)$ are locally finite dimensionally $n$-coherent whenever $R$ is a (left) $n$-coherent ring. The functor category $\textrm{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\rm op},\mathsf{Ab})$ is locally finite dimensionally $1$-coherent for any additive category $\mathcal{C}$ with pseudo-kernels.
\begin{corollary}[the abelian Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective model structure]\label{cor-Gor-module}
Let $\cat{G}$ be a locally finite dimensionally $n$-coherent category. Then there is a cofibrantly generated abelian model structure on $\cat{G}$, the \emph{Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective model structure}, in which every object is cofibrant and the fibrant objects are the Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injectives. In particular, $(\cat{W}, \cat{GI})$ is a complete cotorsion pair, cognerated by a set containing the $\{G_i\}$, as in Definition \ref{def-generators}, and every object has a special Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective preenvelope.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $\cat{G}$ is a locally finite dimensionally type $\textrm{FP}_{\infty}$ category we get the model structure from \cite[Section 5.1]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}. (See in particular, Theorem 7.5 and Corollary 7.7.) The point is that the Gorenstein AC-injectives coincide with the Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injectives, since $\class{FP}_n = \class{FP}_{\infty}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:derived}
The other results from \cite{gillespie-models-of-injectives} have special interpretations for locally $n$-coherent categories. For example, $\mathsf{D}(\mathcal{FP}_n\text{-Inj})$, the derived category of $\text{FP}_n$-injectives, is a compactly generated triangulated category and equivalent to a full subcategory of $\mathsf{K}( \textnormal{Inj})$. (See~\cite[Theorems 4.4 and 4.8]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}.) In the case $\cat{G}$ possesses a nice generating set as above in Definition \ref{def-generators}, this category sits in the middle of a recollement involving three compactly generated categories. (See \cite[Corollary 5.12]{gillespie-models-of-injectives}.)
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Exact Gorenstein $\text{FP}_{\bm{n}}$-injective model structures}
Corollary \ref{cor-Gor-module} is not the only way to obtain model structures from Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects. Our aim in this section is to construct exact model structures on certain subcategories of $\mathcal{G}$ for which $\mathcal{GI}$ is the class of fibrant objects, and without imposing any condition on $\mathcal{G}$. We shall achieve this by applying the theory of Frobenius pairs, presented in \cite{frobenius_pairs}.
Two classes $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\nu$ of objects in an abelian category $\mathcal{G}$ form a (\emph{right}) \emph{Frobenius pair} $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ in $\mathcal{G}$ if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{Y}$ is closed under extensions, cokernels of monomorphisms between its objects, and under direct summands in $\mathcal{G}$.
\item $\nu \subseteq \mathcal{Y}$ and $\nu$ is closed under direct summands in $\mathcal{G}$.
\item $\nu$ is a relative generator in $\mathcal{Y}$, that is, for every $Y \in \mathcal{Y}$ there exists a short exact sequence
\[
0 \to Y' \to V \to Y \to 0
\]
with $Y' \in \mathcal{Y}$ and $V \in \nu$.
\item $\nu$ is a $\mathcal{Y}$-projective, meaning that $\Ext^i_{\mathcal{G}}(V,Y) = 0$ for every $V \in \nu$, $Y \in \mathcal{Y}$ and $i \geq 1$.
\end{enumerate}
If in addition $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ satisfies the dual of conditions (3) and (4), that is, $\nu$ is a $\mathcal{Y}$-injective relative cogenerator in $\mathcal{Y}$, then the Frobenius pair $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ is called \emph{strong}.
Frobenius pairs comprise several properties that allow us to construct left and right approximations by the classes $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\nu$, which in turn we can use to construct cotorsion pairs and exact model structures. These model structures are referred in \cite{frobenius_pairs} as \emph{injective Auslander-Buchweitz model structures}.
\begin{proposition}[the Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective Frobenius pair]
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then, $( \textnormal{Inj},\mathcal{GI})$ is a strong Frobenius pair in $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, note from the definition of Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective objects that $ \textnormal{Inj}$ is a relative generator and cogenerator in $\mathcal{GI}$. Another consequence from the definition of $\mathcal{GI}$ is that ${\rm Ext}^i_{\mathcal{G}}(J,M)$ $= 0$ for every $J \in \textrm{Inj}$, $M \in \mathcal{GI}$ and $i \geq 1$. On the other hand, it is clear that ${\rm Ext}^i_{\mathcal{G}}(M,J) = 0$ for any $J$, $M$ and $i$ as before. The rest of the proof follows by Proposition \ref{prop:closure_properties}.
\end{proof}
Having a strong Frobenius pair $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ in $\mathcal{G}$ implies the existence of certain compatible complete cotorsion pairs. These are not cotorsion pairs in an abelian category, but in an exact category. Namely, the full subcategory $\mathcal{Y}^\vee$ formed by the objects in $\mathcal{G}$ which have a finite coresolution by objects in $\mathcal{Y}$, that is, objects $C \in \mathcal{G}$ such that there exist $m \geq 0$ and an exact sequence
\[
0 \to C \to Y^0 \to Y^1 \to \cdots \to Y^{m-1} \to Y^m \to 0
\]
where $Y^k \in \mathcal{Y}$ for every $0 \leq k \leq m$. According to \cite[Dual of Theorem 3.6]{frobenius_pairs}, if $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ is a Frobenius pair in $\mathcal{G}$, then $(\nu^\vee,\mathcal{Y})$ is a complete cotorsion pair in the exact category $\mathcal{Y}^\vee$. If in addition $(\nu,\mathcal{Y})$ is strong, then $(\mathcal{Y}^\vee,\nu)$ is also a complete cotorsion pair in $\mathcal{Y}^\vee$ by \cite[Dual of Theorem 3.7]{frobenius_pairs}. Thus, the following result holds.
\begin{proposition}[the exact Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective cotorsion pair]\label{prop:ex_cot_pairs}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then, $( \textnormal{Inj}^\vee,\mathcal{GI})$ and $(\mathcal{GI}^\vee, \textnormal{Inj})$ are hereditary and complete cotorsion pairs in $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$.
\end{proposition}
The compatibility between the pairs $( \textnormal{Inj}^\vee,\mathcal{GI})$ and $(\mathcal{GI}^\vee, \textnormal{Inj})$ will be a consequence of Proposition \ref{compapprox} below, which represents a summary of Auslander-Buchweitz approximation theory in the context of Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective objects. The reader can see a revisit to AB theory (at least for the part needed for Frobenius pairs) in \cite[Section 2.2]{frobenius_pairs}.
Define the \emph{Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective dimension} of an object $C \in \mathcal{G}$, denoted ${\rm Gid}(C)$ as the smallest nonnegative integer $m \geq 0$ such that there is an exact sequence
\[
0 \to C \to E^0 \to E^1 \to \cdots \to E^{m-1} \to E^m \to 0
\]
with $E^k \in \mathcal{GI}$ for every $0 \leq k \leq m$. If such $m$ does not exist, we simply set ${\rm Gid}(C) = \infty$.
\begin{proposition}[compatibility conditions and approximations]\label{compapprox}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then, the following conditions hold true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$ is the smallest thick subcategory of $\mathcal{G}$ containing $\mathcal{GI}$.
\item $ \textnormal{Inj} = \{ X \in \mathcal{GI} \mbox{ {\rm :} } {\rm pd}_{\mathcal{GI}}(X) = 0 \} = \mathcal{GI} \cap \textnormal{Inj}^\vee = \mathcal{GI} \cap {}^{\perp}\mathcal{GI}$.
\item $\mathcal{GI} \cap \textnormal{Inj}^\wedge = \{ X \in \mathcal{GI} \mbox{ {\rm :} } {\rm pd}_{\mathcal{GI}}(X) < \infty \}$.
\item $ \textnormal{Inj}^\vee = {}^\perp\mathcal{GI} \cap \mathcal{GI}^\vee$.
\item $\mathcal{GI}^\vee \cap \textnormal{Inj}^\perp = \mathcal{GI} = \mathcal{GI}^\vee \cap ( \textnormal{Inj}^\vee)^\perp$.
\item For every $C \in \mathcal{G}$ with ${\rm Gid}(C) = m < \infty$, there exist short exact sequences
\[
0 \to C \to X \to W \to 0 \mbox{ \ and \ } 0 \to Y \to H \to C \to 0
\]
with $X, Y \in \mathcal{GI}$, ${\rm id}(W) = m-1$ and ${\rm id}(H) \leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
From this result, the class $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$ of objects of $\mathcal{G}$ with finite Gorenstein $\text{FP}_n$-injective dimension is a thick subcategory of $\mathcal{G}$, and so it is exact with the usual exact structure of subcategories of an abelian category that are closed under extensions. One can also note easily that the exact category $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$ is \emph{weakly idempotent complete} (see \cite[Definition 2.2]{gillespie-exact-model-structures}). Thus, using the generalization of Hovey's correspondence in the context of exact categories, proved by the second author in \cite{gillespie-exact-model-structures}, we have the following model category structure on $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$.
\begin{theorem}[the exact Gorenstein ${\rm FP}_n$-injective model structure]
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then, there exists a unique injective and hereditary exact model structure on $\mathcal{GI}^\vee$ such that $\mathcal{GI}$ is the class of fibrant objects and $ \textnormal{Inj}^\vee$ is the class of trivial objects. We denote this model structure by
\[
\mathcal{M}^{\rm fp}_n(\mathcal{GI}^\vee) := (\mathcal{GI}^\vee, \textnormal{Inj}^\vee,\mathcal{GI}).
\]
\end{theorem}
From \cite{gillespie-exact-model-structures}, we know also how the homotopy relations are defined for $\mathcal{M}^{\rm fp}_n(\mathcal{GI}^\vee)$. Specifically, we have the following description for the homotopy category of the model structure $\mathcal{M}^{\rm fp}_n(\mathcal{GI}^\vee)$, denoted ${\rm Ho}(\mathcal{GI}^\vee)$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a Grothendieck category. Then, there exists a natural isomorphism
\[
{\rm Hom}_{{\rm Ho}(\mathcal{GI}^\vee)}(X,Y) \cong {\rm Hom}_{\mathcal{GI}^\vee}(X,RY) / \sim
\]
for every $X, Y \in \mathcal{GI}^\vee$, where:
\begin{itemize}
\item $RY$ is the fibrant replacement of $Y$.
\item For every pair of morphisms $f, g \colon X \to RY$, $f \sim g$ if, and only if, $g - f$ factors through an injective object of $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, ${\rm Ho}(\mathcal{GI}^\vee)$ is triangle equivalent to the stable category $\mathcal{GI} / \sim$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
As pointed out in \cite[Remark 4.11]{frobenius_pairs}, the meaning of ``triangulated category'' in the previous statement is the classical one (that is, is the sense of Verdier's \cite{Verdier96}), different from the approach to triangulated categories given in \cite[31, Chapter 7]{hovey-model-categories}, and mentioned in Remark \ref{rem:derived}.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
Radio jets/outflows have been observed in protostars, which are possibly driven by the accretion in the formation of the stars \citep[e.g.,][]{1990ApJ...352..645R,1996RMxAC...4....7R,Marti,1996ApJ...473L.123A,2003ApJ...587..739G,2005ApJ...626..953R}.
In contrast to the relativistic jets in active galactic nuclei (AGNs), the protostellar jets move
at much smaller velocities which are typically from 100 to 1000 $\rm km\ s^{-1}$ \citep[see][for a review]{2018A&ARv..26....3A}.
The radio emission is usually dominated by the free-free emission from the thermal motions of electrons, which is characterized by a
positive spectral index and no linear polarization \citep[e.g.,][]{2018A&ARv..26....3A}.
Among the protostellar jets, the HH 80-81 jet (located at a distance of 1.7 kpc) is an intriguing object \citep[e.g.,][]{2010Sci}.
The central source in the HH 80-81 system is IRAS 18162-2048, which is identified as a massive B-type protostar \citep[e.g.,][]{2012ApJ...752L..29C}.
The entire radio jet system extends up to $\sim5\ $pc \citep[e.g.,][]{Marti,2010Sci,2017ApJ...851...16R}.
In the central region of the jet, the spectral index of the radio emission is positive, which suggests a dominating thermal emission in the region \citep[e.g.,][]{1996RMxAC...4....7R,2017ApJ...851...16R}.
However, in some knots as well as in the lobes, the radio emissions show negative spectral indices, which suggests an additional non-thermal component
in these regions \citep[e.g.,][]{Marti,2010Sci,2017ApJ...851...16R}.
In particular, the radio emission from the knots located $\sim$0.5 pc from the central source is found to be linearly polarized \citep{2010Sci}.
This clearly confirms the non-thermal origin of the radio emission \citep{2010Sci}.
The non-thermal radio emission is believed to be the synchrotron radiation of relativistic electrons in magnetic field.
Particle acceleration and $\gamma$-ray production in the protostellar jet have been
studied \citep[e.g.,][]{2007A&A...476.1289A,2010A&A...511A...8B,2013A&A...559A..13M,2016ApJ...818...27R,2017ApJ...851...16R,2019MNRAS.482.4687R}.
The relativistic electrons in the jet would inverse-Compton (IC) scatter optical-ultraviolet (UV) photons to GeV $\gamma$-ray energies.
In a dense material environment, $\gamma$-rays could be produced through relativistic Bremsstrahlung process.
If the protons in the jet are also accelerated accompany with the acceleration of the electrons, the inelastic proton-proton ($pp$) interaction also produce $\gamma$-rays.
Motivated by the above arguments, we analyze the {\it Fermi}-LAT data in the direction of IRAS 18162-2048 to search for $\gamma$-rays in the HH 80-81 system.
\section{Data analysis}
In this work, we select 10-year data observed by {\it Fermi}-LAT (from 2008 August 4 to 2018 August 4), covering the energies from 100 MeV to 300 GeV.
The Pass 8 SOURCE class events within $14^{\circ} \times 14^{\circ}$ region of interest (ROI)
centered at the position of IRAS 18162-2048 are used \citep{2013arXiv1303.3514A}.
We use instrument response function (IRF) {\tt P8R3\_SOURCE\_V2}.
The {\it Fermi}-LAT fourth source catalog \citep[4FGL;][]{2019arXiv190210045T} based on the 8-year data is used to construct the background model.
Galactic and extragalactic diffuse components are modeled by {\tt gll\_iem\_v07.fits} and {\tt iso\_P8R3\_SOURCE\_V2\_v1.txt}, respectively.
We employ the {\tt Fermi-tools} to perform the analysis.
To reduce the contamination from the Earth limb, we exclude the events within zenith angles of $>90^{\circ}$.
Standard binned likelihood analysis is performed to fit the free parameters in the model, and the obtained best-fit model is used in next procedure.
\subsection{Test-Statistic map}
We use {\tt gttsmap} to create $5^{\circ} \times 5^{\circ}$ Test-Statistic (TS) map.
It is obtained by moving a putative point source through a grid of locations on the sky and maximizing the likelihood function (-log{\it L}) at each grid point.
In Figure~\ref{tsmapSOURCE},
one can see a significant $\gamma$-ray excess in the direction of IRAS 18162-2048.
We add a point-like source at the position of IRAS 18162-2048 to describe this excess.
The spectrum of the source is assumed to be a power-law form.
We then obtain the TS value $\sim$101 for the emission above 100 MeV (panel a).
The TS value is reduced to 25 for the emission above 200 MeV (pabel b), while above 300 MeV it is only 5 (panel c).
From the residual map (panel d), one can find that the $\gamma$-ray emission can be well described by a point-like source with a power-law photon index $\Gamma_{\gamma}=3.53\pm0.11$.
To get accurate position of this $\gamma$-ray emission, we run {\tt gtfindsrc} to optimize the source location.
This is performed using the photons above 200 MeV, with the consideration of a narrower point spread function (PSF) and lower computation complexity.
The best-fit position is (R.A.=274.8$^{\circ}$, Decl.=-20.8$^{\circ}$; J2000) with the $1\sigma$ error circle radius of 0.28$^{\circ}$.
IRAS 18162-2048 is well located in this region.
To investigate the effect of the fluctuation of the diffuse Galactic background on the $\gamma$-ray signal,
we change the normalization of the Galactic background component to do the analysis.
The TS value above 100 MeV changes to 76 when the diffuse Galactic background is enhanced by 3\%, and it is 144 when the background is reduced by 3\%.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{TSmap_SOURCE_100.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{TSmap_SOURCE_200.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{TSmap_SOURCE_300.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{TSmap_SOURCE_200_residual.pdf}
\caption{$5^{\circ} \times 5^{\circ}$ TS maps of the sky region around IRAS 18162-2048.
Panels (a)$-$(c) present the maps above 100 MeV, 200 MeV and 300 MeV, respectively.
Panel (d) shows the residual map above 200 MeV considering IRAS 18162-2048 as a power-law point source.
The cyan cross denotes the position of IRAS 18162-2048, and the green circle in (b) is the best-fit position of the $\gamma$-ray excess above 200 MeV.
All 4FGL sources in this region are labeled as diamonds.}
\label{tsmapSOURCE}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Extension}
Except for the point-like source model, we also use an uniform disk model as spatial template to investigate the extension of the $\gamma$-ray emission.
The disk center is set at the position of IRAS 18162-2048, and we vary the disk radius within one degree to calculate the TS values (see Table~\ref{tab:ext}) .
To clarify a source is extended or not, $\rm TS_{\rm ext} \geq 16$ is usually required \citep{2017ApJ...843..139A}
where $\rm TS_{\rm ext}$ is defined as $-2({\rm ln}L_{\rm ps}-{\rm ln}L_{\rm ext})$ where $L_{\rm ps}$ and $L_{\rm ext}$ are likelihoods of being a point-like source and an extended source, respectively.
From Tabel~\ref{tab:ext}, One can find that the $\gamma$-ray emission does not show extension at an obvious confidence level.
The non-extended feature of the $\gamma$-ray emission disfavors the origins of supernova remnant and molecular cloud.
\footnote{The $\gamma$-ray spectra of molecular clouds below several GeV usually have the photon index of $\sim$2.4 \citep[e.g.,][]{2017A&A...606A..22N}.
The steep $\gamma$-ray spectrum with $\Gamma_{\gamma}=3.53$ cannot be produced by a molecular cloud.}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Significance for testing different radius of uniform disk template. $\Delta L$ is the difference of logarithmic likelihood of disk templates from point source hypothesis.}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline
\hline
Disk radii & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.7 \\
\hline
-2$\Delta L$ & 0.24 & 0.86 & 0.16 & -1.74 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ext}
\end{table}
\subsection{Spectral results}
The soft power-law spectrum with $\Gamma_{\gamma}=3.53 \pm 0.11$ gives the $\gamma$-ray flux above 100 MeV $F_{\gamma}=(5.2\pm0.4)\times10^{-8}\ \rm photons\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}$.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure~\ref{sed}, we construct the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the $\gamma$-ray emission.
Energies are divided into logarithmic-equivalent bins, and in each bin we perform likelihood analysis to calculate the flux. In this step,
only the prefactors of all sources are left free (i.e. fix the spectral shapes to those derived before).
Again, one can see that the majority of emission is below 1 GeV.
The systematic uncertainty introduced by the fluctuation of the Galactic diffuse background is also considered.
The derived systematic uncertainty on $F_{\gamma}$ is $\sigma_{\rm syst}=^{+0.45}_{-0.77}\times10^{-8}\ \rm photons\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}$.
The effect of the systematic uncertainty on the SED is negligible (Figure~\ref{sed}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{IRAS_sed_R2.pdf}
\caption{
SEDs of the $\gamma$-ray emission from the direction of IRAS 18162-2048.
The black one is the SED obtained by performing the standard data analysis proceeding;
the red one is that obtained by using the enhanced Galactic diffuse background, and
the blue one is the SED obtained by using the reduced Galactic diffuse background (see the text for details).
For any bin with TS $<$ 4, upper limit at 95\% confidence level is given.
The solid line is the best-fit result to the black points.
Dashed lines represent 1$\sigma$ upper and lower limits for the black points.
}
\label{sed}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Variability}
We obtain the flux variation during the observation. Light curve is 1-year binned (see top panel in Figure~\ref{LC}).
Since the $\gamma$-ray emission is weak, in each time bin we fix the spectral shapes of background sources (i.e. only free their prefactors) to ensure convergence.
The $\chi^2$ under constant hypothesis is 14.02 with 8 degrees of freedom ({\it d.o.f.}).
Its corresponding {\it p}-value is 0.08 ($\sim 1.4\sigma$ significance), suggesting no significant variability.
The variation of $\Gamma_{\gamma}$ is fitted well by a constant of 3.3$\pm$0.2 (see bottom panel in Figure~\ref{LC}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{IRAS_1yr_LC_SOURCE.pdf}
\caption{Light curve of the $\gamma$-ray emission from IRAS 18162-2048 direction (top) and the variation of $\Gamma_{\gamma}$ as the time (bottom). The dashed line is the best-fit result to the data with a constant. The region covered by the dotted lines represents the 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty.}
\label{LC}
\end{figure}
\section{Cross-checking for Identification}
For the $\gamma$-ray excess region, we exclude known possible $\gamma$-ray sources within the error circle of $0.28^{\circ}$
(this circle is obtained from previous {\tt gtfindsrc} performing), by cross-checking known database.
Totally 315 objects are retrieved in this circle from SIMBAD database\footnote{http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/}.
We carefully check these objects and find that most of them are alternative names of the HH 80-81 system.
Among the rest of the objects (most are stars), no potential $\gamma$-ray emitter is found.
The only $\gamma$-ray candidate 3FGL J1819.5-2045c ($4.5'$ away) has been removed in the {\it Fermi}-LAT fourth source catalog.
In 4FGL, the nearest known $\gamma$-ray source, 4FGL J1818.1-2000, is about $0.8^{\circ}$ away, which has little impact on the $\gamma$-ray excess (see Figure 1).
The 5th Roma blazar catalog \citep{2009A&A...495..691M,2015Ap&SS.357...75M} contains 3561 sources,
and the nearest one from IRAS 18162-2048, 5BZQJ1833-2103, has an offset of $3.4^{\circ}$.
By checking the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) Pulsar Catalog \citep{2005AJ....129.1993M}, no pulsar is found in this circle.
The Molonglo Reference Catalog (MRC) which is one of the largest homogeneous catalogs of radio sources \citep{1981MNRAS.194..693L,1991Obs...111...72L} do not cover regions within 3 degrees of the Galactic equator.
\section{Production of the observed Gamma-rays in the HH 80-81 jet}
Relativistic particles in protostellar jet can produce $\gamma$-rays through a variety of processes, including IC scattering,
relativistic Bremsstrahlung, and $pp$ interaction \citep[e.g.,][]{2007A&A...476.1289A,2010A&A...511A...8B}.
The present observations cannot determine the radiative mechanism for the $\gamma$-rays.
Nevertheless, the $\gamma$-ray spectrum we obtained can put constraints on the characteristics of the relativistic particles in the jet.
The characteristic cooling time of $pp$ interaction in the hydrogen medium with number density $n_0$ is
written as \citep[e.g.,][]{2004vhec.book.....A}
\begin{equation}
t_{pp}=(n_0\sigma_{pp}fc)^{-1}\approx5\times10^{7}(n_0/1\ \rm cm^{-3})^{-1}\ yr.
\end{equation}
Here, an average cross-section at high energies of about 40 mb is used,
and the coefficient of inelasticity $f=0.5$ is adopted (assuming that on average the proton loses about half of its energy per interaction).
For a typical $n_0\sim1000\ \rm cm^{-3}$ in HH 80-81 \citep[e.g.,][]{2018A&ARv..26....3A}, we derive $t_{pp}\sim50000\ $ yr.
The ratio of the mean energy of the produced $\gamma$-ray to the energy of the incident proton is $\sim0.05$ \citep{2006PhRvD..74c4018K}.
Therefore, the energy of the proton that produces the observed 1 GeV photons through $pp$ interaction is $\sim20$ GeV.
The spectral index of the protons distribution $s_p$ is same as the $\gamma$-ray photon index \citep{2006PhRvD..74c4018K}, i.e., $s_p\approx3.5$.
The cooling time of electrons due to the Bremsstrahlung losses is \citep[e.g.,][]{2004vhec.book.....A}
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm br}\approx4\times10^{7}(n_0/1\ \rm cm^{-3})^{-1}\ yr.
\end{equation}
With $n_0\sim1000\ \rm cm^{-3}$, we get $t_{\rm br}\sim40000\ $ yr.
The energy of the electron that produces the observed 1 GeV photons through Bremsstrahlung is 1 GeV \citep{1970RvMP...42..237B}.
The spectral index of the electron distribution is $s_e\sim\Gamma_{\gamma}\approx3.5$.
In this case, the maximum energy of synchrotron photon is $E_{\rm syn, max} ({\rm eV})\approx2\times10^{-8}(1\ {\rm GeV}/m_ec^2)^2B$.
Considering a magnetic field strength of 0.1 mG \citep{2010Sci}, we have $E_{\rm syn, max}(\rm eV)\sim10^{-5}$.
This energy range is covered by the current radio observations, and the photon index of the observed radio spectrum is $1.3$ \citep{Marti}.
From the relativistic electrons distribution, the photon index of the synchrotron emission is expected as $(s_e+1)/2\approx2.3$ \citep{1970RvMP...42..237B}.
It is noted that this predicted synchrotron spectrum at $\sim$0.01 meV is inconsistent with the radio observations.
The cooling time of relativistic electrons due to the IC scattering is \citep[e.g.,][]{2004vhec.book.....A}
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm IC}=\frac{3m_ec^2}{4\sigma_{\rm T}c\gamma U_{\rm s}}\approx (1/\gamma)(U_{\rm s}/\ \rm erg\ cm^{-3})\ yr,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the relativistic electrons and $U_{\rm s}$ is the energy density of seed photon field.
The energy of the scattered photons $E_{1}$ is written as $E_1\approx\gamma^2E_{\rm s}$ \citep{1970RvMP...42..237B},
where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the relativistic electrons and $E_{\rm s}$ is the energy of the seed photons.
Protostars are detected as strong infrared sources. Assuming $E_{\rm s}\sim0.01\ $eV (corresponding to the temperature $T\sim100\ $K) \citep{2010A&A...511A...8B},
we can derive $\gamma\approx3\times10^5$ with $E_{1}$=1 GeV.
Considering $U_{\rm s}\sim10^{-12}\ \rm erg\ cm^{-3}$ \citep{2010A&A...511A...8B}, we have $t_{\rm IC}\sim2\times10^6\ $yr for the electrons that produce 1 GeV photons.
The energy of synchrotron photon is calculated by $E_{\rm syn} ({\rm eV})\approx2\times10^{-8}\gamma^2B$, where $B$ is strength of magnetic field.
With $B=0.1\ $mG, the maximum energy of the synchrotron photons is $\approx0.2\ $eV. There is no observed data at this energy range.
In this scenario, $s_e$ is predicted as $s_e=2\Gamma_{\gamma}-1\approx6$.
This very steep spectrum indicates that there is a cut-off at $\gamma_c$ ($\gamma_c<3\times10^5$) in the electron distribution.
As mentioned above, the observed $\gamma$-rays can be produced through IC scattering of relativistic electrons or inelastic $pp$ interaction.
It should be noted that the jet phase timescale in massive protostars is roughly 40000 yr \citep{2012ApJ...753...51G}.
This lifetime is comparable to $t_{pp}$, but significantly shorter than the characteristic $t_{\rm IC}$ for the electrons that produce 1 GeV photons.
The kinetic luminosity of the jet can be calculated by
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm j}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{M}_{\rm j}v^2_{\rm j}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\dot{M}_{\rm j}$ is mass-loss rate in the jet and $v^2_{\rm j}$ is jet velocity.
Taking $\dot{M}_{\rm j}=10^{-6}\ \rm M_{\odot}\ yr^{-1}$ and $v_{\rm j}=1000\ \rm km\ s^{-1}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2018A&ARv..26....3A},
we have $L_{\rm j}\approx3\times10^{35}\ \rm erg\ s^{-1}$. The $\gamma$-ray luminosity ($>$ 100 MeV) is $L_{\gamma}\approx5\times10^{33}\ \rm erg\ s^{-1}$ which is 0.017\% of $L_{\rm j}$.
The energy budget is reasonable.
\section{Conclusions}
The clear detection of linearly polarized radio
emission from the HH 80-81 jet \citep{2010Sci} confirms the existence of relativistic particles in the protostellar jet.
$\gamma$-rays from the HH 80-81 jet are therefore expected.
We search for $\gamma$-rays from the HH 80-81 system using 10-year {\it Fermi}-LAT data.
A significant $\gamma$-ray excess is found towards the direction of HH 80-81 system.
After excluding other possible $\gamma$-ray candidates, we suggest that the stable and point-like $\gamma$-ray emission is
contributed by the HH 80-81 system, which is likely the non-thermal $\gamma$-rays from the HH 80-81 jet.
The spectrum of the $\gamma$-ray emission extends to 1 GeV with a photon index of 3.5.
Moreover, from the aspects of emission mechanism and energy budget, the observed $\gamma$-ray emission can be produced by the HH 80-81 jet.
Our result suggests the protostellar jet as efficient particle accelerator, which is proposed in theoretical studies \citep[e.g.,][]{2015A&A...582L..13P,2016A&A...590A...8P}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Dr. Ruizhi Yang for helpful discussions.
We acknowledge financial supports from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC-U1738124, NSFC-11803081, and NSFC-U1931114)
and the joint foundation of Department of Science and Technology of Yunnan Province and Yunnan University [2018FY001(-003)].
The work of D. H. Yan is also supported by the CAS
``Light of West China'' Program and Youth
Innovation Promotion Association.
\section*{Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
The use of interatomic potentials for the study of the elastic properties of solids has a long history.
Relations between the elastic constants of crystals were obtained as early as the 19th century,\cite{Saint-Ven} when
the Cauchy relations were derived analytically using a simple central pairwise atomic interaction.
Later it was found by Born that in order to model covalent crystals, whose elastic constants do
not bear such simple relation to each other, non-central interatomic interactions needed to be included.\cite{Born_dynamic}
In this manner the complexity of the involved potentials grew as the variety of systems to
which they were applied grew, with today's
interatomic potentials involving up to hundreds of different atomic interactions,
parameterised and implemented at great computational expense.\cite{ThSw15,BaAl10}
Generally, interatomic potentials were used to predict unknown crystal properties from known ones.
For example, in the early literature, interatomic potentials parameterised from known elastic
constants (for example $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$) or phonon frequencies were used to predict such
experimentally inaccessible quantities as inner elastic constants and internal
strain,\cite{Keating66,Born_dynamic, CousinsInner,Cousins82} temperature, pressure and
strain dependence of elastic constants,\cite{FeKl69,ElFa02,CousinsPhysBI} third order
elastic constants,\cite{Keating66,CousinsPhysBI} vibrational properties,\cite{MusPop62,McSo67,NuBi67}
as well as general insights into interatomic forces, and explanations for trends
in elastic properties.\cite{Keating66,Ma1970, BazantThesis}
More recently, with the advent of ab-initio calculations, capable of determining all \textit{bulk} elastic, inner elastic
and dynamical properties of a crystal to a high accuracy, the use of interatomic potentials for
the prediction of the properties of simple bulk systems has dropped off:
while the predictions of interatomic potentials were useful first approximations, their use was no longer
justified when such properties could be easily calculated to a high accuracy using first-principles methods.
Furthermore, properties such as the previously experimentally inaccessible internal relaxation
and various shear moduli, which were formerly predicted by interatomic potentials,
may now be used in their parameterisation.\cite{VaTa89}
This has led to the contemporary use of interatomic potentials to be predominantly
in the calculation of the properties of larger non-homogeneous systems, which \textit{cannot}
be modelled using a small periodic cell, and for which ab-initio calculations are
not computationally feasible. The calculation of the strain and relaxed atomic
positions of large supercells is of crucial importance to the semiconductor science
community.\cite{LoMa10,Schnor2012} This is because the electronic and optical properties of
heterostructures are strongly influenced by their strain state.\cite{Reilly89}
Furthermore, computationally cheaper continuum models are able to account for
neither the atomic-scale variation of composition, nor the atomic-scale reduction
in symmetry which have significant effects on electronic properties.\cite{PrKi98,BeZu05}
We present here a set of potential models which are ideally suited to the study of such structures.
The valence force field (VFF) model that we use is based on that introduced by Martin.\cite{Ma1970} It
is well-established how to determine both macroscopic elastic constants and quantities such as
internal elastic constants and the Kleinman parameter from a given set of VFF parameters. We
show here that it is possible for diamond and zincblende (ZB) structures to solve the inverse problem,
namely to calculate VFF parameters for a given material based on known elastic constant and internal strain values.
The analysis also derives stability criteria for different versions of the VFF model, allowing a simple but
accurate model for covalent and weakly ionic materials, with additional Coulombic terms required for
more ionic materials. Having introduced the different models, we then use the results of
previous \textit{ab-initio} density functional theory calculations to derive and present VFF
parameter sets for a series of III-V ZB materials. The VFF models presented are
straightforward to implement in existing atomic simulation packages such as
LAMMPS\cite{LAMMPS} and GULP,\cite{GULP} thereby allowing the calculation of atomic relaxation
and strain with a high degree of accuracy, efficiency and physical clarity.
Previously, the potential best known for analytic calculation parameters is that of Keating.\cite{Keating66}
This uses only two VFF parameters, which are determined analytically from the elastic constants $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$. The model then
describes those two parameters exactly, and captures other elastic
properties/constants reasonably well. In diamond structure Si, for example,
the Keating potential will give exact $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$ with a 1\% error.\cite{Keating66}
Furthermore, while the Keating potential is limited to
modelling a particular strain regime of a particular crystal phase, it is not,
due to the analytic expressions for the force constants, limited to any particular
material. In addition to the accuracy, efficiency and cross-material transferability exhibited
by the Keating potential and others in its class, the simplicity of these models
allows not only for the prediction of the behaviour of large complicated systems, but also
for its explanation. Because of these advantages, the Keating potential remains
widely used for the calculation of strain and atomistic relaxation
in large systems, such as semiconductor quantum dots
comprising millions of atoms.\cite{NiRa12,Ziel2012,Zi2013,Ramzi16}
Unfortunately, to describe the elasticity of cubic crystals fully requires more than two elastic constants
(and more than two force constants), and the Keating potential fares less well for materials other than Si.
For heteropolar materials errors in $C_{44}$ grow with ionicity, and these errors manifest in the inaccurate modelling of systems
where shear strains or internal relaxations are important.\cite{Zi2013,Ziel2012,PrKi98}
The model that we present here, by including details of the inner elasticity of ZB and diamond crystals,
improves on the accuracy of the Keating model for the description of the elasticity of ZB and diamond structure materials,
but retains a simple analytic relation between the potential force constants and the elastic properties of the material.
The model possesses the following attractive features: i) it can be immediately applied to any diamond or ZB structure
material for which the required elastic constants are known, with no numerical fitting required; ii) it offers an exact
description of $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C_{44}$ and the Kleinman parameter $\zeta$, thus providing significantly improved
accuracy over the traditional Keating model, as well as the advantages of improved accuracy and computational efficacy over
more complex potentials; iii) analytic expressions for the force constants allow for clear interpretation and explanation
of results, as well as a-priori prediction of crystal properties other than those by which the potential was parameterised; iv) as noted above,
the simple functional form of the potential is available in most molecular dynamics or crystal energy packages, such as
LAMMPS or GULP (unlike the squared dot products of the Keating model), meaning that anyone with access to these or similar
packages can use the potential immediately.
In the next section, the elasticity of ZB and diamond structure crystals is described,
followed in Section III by an outline of the method by which
the force constants of an interatomic potential may be analytically
related to the constants governing the elastic response of any ZB or diamond crystal.
We then present in Section~\ref{sec:Non-Coul} the solution of the inverse problem for
the covalent model, and an investigation of the stability of the covalent model
for the III-V materials considered, with further details of the analysis
included in Appendix~\ref{appendix1}. Section~\ref{sec:Conv-Coul} and \ref{sec:Free-Coul} introduce electrostatic
interactions into the VFF model, with the values of the effective charges
determined from the measured optical phonon splitting for each material
in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conv-Coul} and using the internal elastic constant $E_{11}$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:Free-Coul}.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:Benchmarking}, the potentials are benchmarked against first principles and experimental results.
Finally, the results are summarised and conclusions presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{Theory} \label{sec:theory}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{ZbCellNew-crop.pdf}
\caption{Zincblende primitive cell.}
\label{fig:cell}
\end{figure}
The primitive unit cell of a ZB or diamond crystal is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}. The cell
consists of two interpenetrating face centred cubic lattices. The cell can be strained as a whole, and displacements
can also occur between the sublattices, known as \emph{internal strain}.\cite{Born_dynamic,CousinsInner}
In the harmonic regime macroscopic distortions of the whole
cell are completely specified by the strain tensor $\varepsilon$, and the internal strain between the sublattices is
specified by the internal strain vector $\mathbf{u}$.
The free energy per unit mass per unit volume of a ZB or diamond
crystal for a general state of (small) macroscopic and internal strain consistent
with its cubic symmetry is given by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{eq:MacroMicroU}
U &= \frac{1}{2}C_{11}\left(\varepsilon_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{2}^{2}+\varepsilon_{3}^{2}\right)
+C_{12}\left(\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{3}+\varepsilon_{2}\varepsilon_{3}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}C^{0}_{44}\left(\varepsilon_{4}^{2}+\varepsilon_{5}^{2}+\varepsilon_{6}^{2}\right)
+D_{14}\left(u_{x}\varepsilon_{4}+u_{y}\varepsilon_{5}+u_{z}\varepsilon_{6}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}E_{11}\left(u_{x}^{2}+u_{y}^{2}+u_{z}^{2}\right) .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here the notation of Cousins\cite{CousinsThesis,CousinsInner,CousinsPhysBI} is utilised for the
elastic and inner elastic constants, and we have also above employed Voigt~\cite{Voigt,Nye_Book} notation,
which, using the symmetry of the strain tensor, makes the convenient contraction of
indices: 11$\rightarrow$1, 22$\rightarrow$2, 33$\rightarrow$3, 23$\rightarrow$4,
13$\rightarrow$5, 12$\rightarrow$6. In the above equation $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ are the familiar
second-order elastic constants of a cubic crystal, which may be readily obtained from experiment,
while $C_{44}^{0}$ is the experimentally unobtainable unrelaxed or ``bare'' $C_{44}$ (also known as the
clamped-ion contribution to the elastic constant $C_{44}$\cite{NiMa85,Miguel_Stress});
$C_{44}^{0}$ governs how the crystal responds to shear strains
when the internal strain is set equal to zero. The constant $D_{14}$ accounts for coupling between
internal and macroscopic strain, and the term $E_{11}$ describes the contribution to the free
energy from a pure internal strain.
$E_{11}$ may be related to the zone-centre transverse optical phonon
frequency and can thus be obtained indirectly from experiment. This relation is given by:\cite{CousinsThesis,NiMa85,VaTa89}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:omegaTO_Bxx}
E_{\scalebox{0.75}{11}} = 4\mu \omega_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{TO}}}^2 / a_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}}^3 ,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the anion and cation system, $\omega_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{TO}}}$ is
the transverse optical phonon frequency at $\Gamma$, and $a_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}}$ is the lattice constant.
The remaining two constants, $C_{44}^{0}$ and $D_{14}$ may be obtained by considering the crystal
energy once it is minimised with respect to internal strain, $\mathbf{u}$. The value of the internal strain
which minimises the free energy is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:txKlein}
\mathbf{u}^{0} = \left(-\frac{a_0}{4}\zeta\varepsilon_{4},-\frac{a_0}{4}\zeta\varepsilon_{5},-\frac{a_0}{4}\zeta\varepsilon_{6}\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta$ is Kleinman's internal strain parameter,\cite{Klein62} given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:disinKleined}
\zeta = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{r_{0}}\frac{D_{14}}{E_{11}}.
\end{equation}
Though very difficult to perform, especially for more brittle crystals,\cite{CousinsThesis}
measurements of the Kleinman parameter, $\zeta$, have been
made for a limited number of materials. For example, there are experimental values
of the Kleinman parameter in the literature for Si,\cite{CoGe87} Ge,\cite{CoGe87}
GaAs,\cite{CousinsGaAsKlein} C,\cite{CoGe89} and InSb.\cite{CoGe91} However, reflecting a general trend
for inner elastic properties, first principles determinations of the Kleinman parameter are abundant for
most group IV or III-V cubic materials.\cite{NiMa85,CaSc15,TaCa19}
Substituting eq.~(\ref{eq:txKlein}) into eq.~(\ref{eq:MacroMicroU}) then gives the familiar expression for the free
energy which is minimised with respect to internal strain:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{eq:MacroU}
U &= \frac{1}{2}C_{11}\left(\varepsilon_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{2}^{2}+\varepsilon_{3}^{2}\right)
+C_{12}\left(\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{3}+\varepsilon_{2}\varepsilon_{3}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}C_{44}\left(\varepsilon_{4}^{2}+\varepsilon_{5}^{2}+\varepsilon_{6}^{2}\right) ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C_{44}$ is now the experimentally measurable $C_{44}$, reduced from its unrelaxed value by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:relax_C44}
C_{44} = C_{44}^{0} - \frac{D_{14}^{2}}{E_{11}} = C_{44}^{0} - \frac{r_{0}^{2}}{3}\zeta^{2} E_{11}.
\end{equation}
Given the above dependencies amongst the relaxed and unrelaxed elastic constants, then,
if any three independent constants (out of the five: $C_{44}$, $\zeta$, $E_{11}$, $D_{14}$, $C_{44}^{0}$)
are known, then the remaining two can be obtained indirectly.
Likewise, if any interatomic potential is able to accurately model $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and three of these constants,
then the free energy density under any combination of strain or sublattice displacement will be fully described.
To relate these components of the free energy density to the force constants of an interatomic potential,
the interatomic potential is used to express the energy of an arbitrarily deformed primitive diamond or ZB cell.
This energy is divided by the equilibrium cell volume to obtain the free energy density, and then the VFF energy,
expressed naturally as a function of the distance between the two atoms in the primitive cell, is cast
in terms of the strain and internal strain:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vff_trans}
U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}(r_{ij},\theta_{ijk})\Longrightarrow U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}(\varepsilon, \mathbf u).
\end{equation}
Here we have denoted the primitive cell energy density, expressed in
terms of the VFF force constants as $U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}$.
Generally, the expression of the VFF energy in terms of the strain and internal strain
, $U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}(\varepsilon, \mathbf u)$, will be a very complicated and long function of $\varepsilon$.
However, we are only interested in harmonic elastic properties, so it can
therefore be expanded in a Taylor series about the equilibrium and
truncated to second order.
To effect the transformation of eq.~(\ref{eq:vff_trans}), consider Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}.
Keeping the atom at the origin of the cell fixed, the interatomic bond lengths
can be expressed in terms of the strain and internal strain through the
transformation with strain of the atomic position vectors:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{r}_{A} &= \mathbf{r}_{A,0} = \left[0,0,0\right] ,\\
\mathbf{r}_{B} &= \left(I+\varepsilon\right)\mathbf{r}_{B,0}+\mathbf{u}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here, $\mathbf{r}_{A}$ ($\mathbf{r}_{B}$) is the position of the atom labelled A (B) in Fig.~\ref{fig:cell},
with $\mathbf{r}_{A,0}$ ($\mathbf{r}_{B,0}$) being the equilibrium position of this atom, and $I$ is
the $3\times3$ identity matrix.
Substituting these position vectors into the expression for the VFF energy will give the
energy in terms of the strain, which can then be truncated to second order.
This procedure has been detailed by Keating.\cite{Keating66}
Following this
expansion, direct analytic relations between the elastic and inner elastic constants and
the force constants may be obtained via the derivatives:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&C_{11} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}}{\partial\varepsilon_{1}^{2}} ; &C_{12} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}}{\partial\varepsilon_{1}\partial\varepsilon_{2}} \\
&C_{44}^{0} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}}{\partial\varepsilon_{4}^{2}}; &D_{14} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}}{\partial u_{x}\partial\varepsilon_{4}} \\
&E_{11} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}}{\partial u_{x}^{2}} ; &C_{44} = \frac{\partial^{2} U^{\scalebox{0.75}{\textrm{VFF}}}\left(\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{u}_{0}\right)}{\partial\varepsilon_{4}^{2}} \\
&\zeta = \frac{-4u_{x}^{0}\left(\varepsilon_{4}\right)}{a_{0}\varepsilon_{4}} .
\end{aligned} \label{Vffelastics}
\end{equation}
In the next section, we present the VFF model with which we model the elastic energy
density described above.
\section{Interatomic Potential} \label{sec:Interatomic Potential}
The VFF with which we describe the elastic properties of diamond and ZB crystals
was originally introduced by Musgrave and Pople.\cite{MusPop62} We shall follow
the developments made on this potential by Martin.\cite{Ma1970}
Discarding a purportedly unimportant cross angle term, and including terms which account for
the Coulomb interaction between the partially charged ions of a heteropolar crystal,
Martin gives the form of the potential which will be used in this work.
For each atom in a ZB crystal Martin's potential is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vff}
\begin{split}
V_{i} &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\neq i}\frac{1}{2}k_{r}\left(r_{ij}-r_{ij}^{0}\right)^{2} \\
&+\sum_{j\neq i}\sum_{k\neq i,k>j}\biggl\{\frac{1}{2}k_{\theta}^{i}r_{ij}^{0}r_{ik}^{0}\left(\theta_{ijk}
-\theta_{ijk}^{0}\right)^{2} \\
&+k_{r\theta}^{i}\left[r_{ij}^{0}\left(r_{ij}-r_{ij}^{0}\right)
+r_{ik}^{0}\left(r_{ik}-r_{ik}^{0}\right)\right]\left(\theta_{ijk}-\theta_{ijk}^{0}\right) \\
&+k_{rr}^{i}\left(r_{ij}-r_{ij}^0\right)\left(r_{ik}-r_{ik}^{0}\right)\biggr\} \\
&+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\neq i}^{\prime} \frac{Z^{*}_{i}Z^{*}_{j}e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0}r_{ij}}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\neq i}^{nn}\frac{1}{4}\alpha_{M}
\frac{Z^{*}_{i}Z^{*}_{j}e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0}{r^{0}_{ij}}^{2}}\left( r_{ij} - r_{ij}^{0} \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here $i$ refers to the central atom being considered, while $j$ and $k$ run over the 4 nearest neighbours for each $i$,
except for the summation $\sum_{j\neq i}^{\prime}$, which runs over the whole crystal.
This means that in modelling the energy of a ZB primitive cell 8 bond
lengths and 12 angles will be treated. The half preceeding all two body terms prevents double
counting when summing over $i$, to obtain the energy of the whole crystal from the energy per atom.
$r_{ij} = \left(\mathbf{r}_{ij}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ij}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$
refers to the bond length between atom $i$ and $j$,
$\theta_{ijk}= \textrm{cos}^{-1}\left(\frac{\mathbf{r}_{ij}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{ik}}{|\mathbf{r}_{ij}||\mathbf{r}_{ik}|}\right)$
refers to the angle between the bonds $r_{ij}$
and $r_{ik}$, and $r_{ij}^{0}$ and $\theta_{ijk}^{0}$ denote the equilibrium
bond lengths and bond angles, respectively.
The covalent potential terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:vff}) are schematically illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:terms}. The term $k_{r}$ captures
the resistance of any bond to length changes away from the equilibrium length, likewise $k_{\theta}$
describes the harmonic resistance to changes in angle. The term $k^{i}_{rr}$ describes the relation between neighbouring bonds which
share an atom (atom $i$); how one bond will tend to increase in length if another is decreased.
$k^{i}_{r\theta}$ describes the interaction between the angle between two
bonds, and each of the two bonds; this will, for example, for $k^{i}_{r\theta}>0$, make it energetically favourable for bond lengths to increase when bond angles
decrease. This energetic favourability can be imputed to changes in the $s$-$p$ mixing on the orbitals sitting on the central atom.\cite{KeatingThird}
The amount by which the energy changes due to this rehybridisation would in principle depend on the species of the central atom; which in turn would imply
different 3-body terms are needed for the cation and the anion, hence the superscript $i$ on these terms. However, Martin justifies
the exclusion of this effect by emphasising that the potential is being used to study only phenomena in the long-wavelength regime: elastic properties, as well as zone
centre optic and acoustic modes. In this case the force constants for the two atoms in the unit cell always enter the energy and frequency equations together,
and thus could not be separated, nor would treating them as different result in an improvement in the description of any
of our targeted elastic constants. Anion-centred and cation-centred angular terms are thus treated as the same.
The last two terms are the terms which account for electrostatic effects, with $Z^{*}$ representing the effective charge
of the ions, and $\alpha_{M}$ denoting the Madelung constant.
The first of these is the screened Coulomb interaction, and the second is a linear repulsive term, given by the linear
part of the Taylor expansion of the Coulomb energy in the strain,
necessary to keep the crystal stable at equilibrium, and also to preserve the symmetry of
the elastic constant tensor. The prime symbol over the summation of Coulomb
interaction indicates it is a long-ranged interaction which must be computed over the whole crystal.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{PotentialTerms.pdf}
\caption{Valence force field interaction terms contributing to eq.~(\ref{eq:vff}). From left to right: bond stretch, $k_{r}$;
bond bending, $k_{\theta}$; bond-bond stretching, $k_{rr}$; bond-stretching angle-bending coupling constant, $k_{r\theta}$. }
\label{fig:terms}
\end{figure*}
In the work by Martin further approximations and dependencies were applied to the force constants
such that eq.~(\ref{eq:vff}) becomes equivalent to the Keating potential with additional
Coulombic terms. In this work no dependencies amongst the force constants are imposed,
and there are thus four force constants and an effective charge
with which we can describe the elastic properties. For the description of
the elastic energy density given in eq.~(\ref{eq:MacroMicroU}), no advantage can be
expected from including any further force constants in the VFF model, given
the arbitrariness in choice of parameter values when fitting six or more
VFF parameters to the five independent elastic constants.
To obtain the numerical values for the force constants in eq.~(\ref{eq:vff}), the
potential must be expanded after the manner of Keating, as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}.
However, this procedure is not straight forward for the Coulomb term; in this case a numerical
Ewald summation must be performed for different strained crystal states to determine the dependence of the Coulomb
energy of the whole crystal on strain. The expansion of our potential in eq.~(\ref{eq:vff}) in terms of strain
and sublattice displacement is given in eq.~(\ref{eq:Vff_strain}) below:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{multline} \label{eq:Vff_strain}
U = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{12r_{0}}\left(k_{r}+6k_{rr}+12k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\alpha_{1}}{8}SC_{0} \right)
\left[\varepsilon_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{2}^{2} +\varepsilon_{3}^{2}\right]
%
+ \left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{12r_{0}}\left(k_{r}+6k_{rr}-6k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\sqrt{3}\alpha_{2}}{16}SC_{0} \right)
\left[\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{3}+\varepsilon_{2}\varepsilon_{3}\right] \\
%
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{12r_{0}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}+4\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+2k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\sqrt{3}\alpha_{2}}{16}SC_{0} \right)
\left[\varepsilon_{4}^{2}+\varepsilon_{5}^{2}+\varepsilon_{6}^{2}\right] \\
%
+\left(\frac{1}{4r_{0}^{2}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}-2\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}-4k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{9\alpha_{4}}{64r_{0}}SC_{0} \right)
\left[u_{x}\varepsilon_{1}+u_{y}\varepsilon_{2}+ u_{z}\varepsilon_{3}\right] \\
%
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4r_{0}^{3}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}-8\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+8k_{\theta}\right) +\frac{9\sqrt{3}\alpha_{3}}{128r_{0}^{2}}SC_{0} \right)
\left[u_{x}^{2}+u_{y}^{2}+u_{z}^{2}\right].
\end{multline}
\end{widetext}
Here we follow Martin\cite{Ma1970} and employ the simplifying notation (in S.I. units) of $S$ and $C_{0}$, where $S$ is the
dimensionless quantity, $\frac{Z^{*2}}{\epsilon_{r}}$, and $C_{0}$ has units of GPa and is given by: $\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r_{0}^{4}}$.
The quantities $\alpha_{i}$ are the numerical coefficients obtained by performing an Ewald summation at different strains, and
adding to this the strain dependence of the linear repulsive term, which already contains within it the Madelung constant,
$\alpha_{M}$, which is an Ewald summation at zero-strain. So for example, the result of performing an Ewald summation of these
two electrostatic terms of the crystal for different strain states then yields an electrostatic energy which depends on strain as follows:
\begin{multline}
E_{el} = \alpha_{1}\left(\varepsilon_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{2}^{2}+\varepsilon_{3}^{2}\right)SC_{0} \\ +\alpha_{2}\left(\varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{2} + \varepsilon_{1}\varepsilon_{3}
+ \varepsilon_{2}\varepsilon_{3}\right)SC_{0}+\frac{\alpha_{2}}{2}\left(\varepsilon_{4}^{2}+\varepsilon_{5}^{2}+\varepsilon_{6}^{2}\right)SC_{0} \\
+ \alpha_{3}\left(\tilde{u}_{x}^{2} + \tilde{u}_{y}^{2} + \tilde{u}_{z}^{2}\right) SC_{0}
+ \alpha_{4}\left(\tilde{u}_{x}\varepsilon_{4} + \tilde{u}_{y}\varepsilon_{5} + \tilde{u}_{z}\varepsilon_{6}\right) SC_{0} .
\end{multline}
Above we have utilised the notation $\tilde{u}_{i}=\frac{u_{i}}{a_{0}}$ so that
the expansion coefficients all have the same units. We see reproduced
above the result, expected from considerations of symmetry, that the coefficient of the electrostatic energy dependence on biaxial strain is double
that of its dependence on shear strain.\cite{Blackman58,Ma1970,StSa11} The numerical values of these
coefficients are given by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1} &= -0.128411 , &\alpha_{2} = -0.417608 ,\\
\alpha_{3} &= -6.53970 , &\alpha_{4} = -3.62707 .
\end{aligned} \label{eq.ewald1}
\end{equation}
When both the nearest neighbour terms and the Coulomb term have been so
expanded in the strain, and the resulting energy density compared with eq.~(\ref{eq:MacroMicroU}), we may use eqs.~(\ref{Vffelastics})
to obtain the following expressions for our VFF force constants and effective charge:
\begin{equation}
\label{equations}
\begin{aligned}
C_{11} &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{12r_{0}}\left( k_{r}+6k_{rr}+12k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\sqrt{3}\alpha_{1}}{8}SC_{0} \, \\
C_{12} &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{12r_{0}}\left( k_{r}+6k_{rr}-6k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\sqrt{3}\alpha_{2}}{16}SC_{0} \, \\
C_{44}^{0} &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3r_{0}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}+4\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+2k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{3\sqrt{3}\alpha_{2}}{16}SC_{0} \, \\
D_{14} &= \frac{1}{4r_{0}^{2}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}-2\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}-4k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{9\alpha_{4}}{64r_{0}}SC_{0} \, \\
E_{11} &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4r_{0}^{3}}\left(k_{r}-2k_{rr}-8\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+8k_{\theta}\right) + \frac{9\sqrt{3}\alpha_{3}}{128r_{0}^{2}}SC_{0} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The expressions for the relaxed $C_{44}$ and the Kleinman parameter $\zeta$ may
be obtained from eqs.~(\ref{eq:disinKleined}) and (\ref{eq:relax_C44}).
In what follows, three different parameterisations of the VFF model are presented and discussed.
Because there are many weakly-polar ZB and non-polar diamond structured materials, and because
the Coulomb interaction is the most computationally expensive to implement, in Sec.~\ref{sec:Non-Coul},
we introduce a computationally efficient covalent VFF in which Coulomb terms are neglected.
This parameterisation is ideally suited to materials like GaAs. However, as we will show
it is not applicable to materials with ionicity and anisotropy past a certain threshold, such as, for example, InP and InAs.
Therefore, in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conv-Coul}, the Coulomb potential is included
via the conventional parameterisation based on the optic mode splitting,\cite{Ma1970,StSa11,KiLa96} and the effects of its inclusion
on the stabilty of the model are discussed. It is found that this conventional parameterisation results in a general increase in
accuracy of the potential and restores stability for mildly ionic
materials such as InP and InAs; but that this stabilising effect is not sufficiently large for highly ionic and anisotropic
materials such as cubic GaN and AlN. Thus, in Sec.~\ref{sec:Free-Coul} a non-conventional inclusion of the Coulomb interaction
is presented, whereby the VFF is parameterised along with the force constants from the elastic energy density relations,
ensuring stability with respect to any macroscopic or internal strain, and complete specification of the energy density of
any cubic crystal.
All numerical quantities determined from the presented numerical relations in the following sections make use of the
elastic and Kleinman parameters calculated in Ref.~\onlinecite{TaCa19}, whilst values for the zone-centre optical phonon
frequencies are taken from elsewhere in the literature, and cited as used.
\subsection{Covalent (non-Coulombic) VFF} \label{sec:Non-Coul}
To efficiently model non-polar crystals, we may set $S$, in eqs.~(\ref{equations}), to 0.
Then, using eqs.~(\ref{eq:relax_C44}) and (\ref{eq:disinKleined}), we obtain the following
simplified expressions for $C_{44}$ and $\zeta$:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{44} &=& \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2r_{0}}\frac{k_{r}k_{\theta}-2k_{rr}k_{\theta}-4k_{r\theta}^{2}}
{k_{r}-2k_{rr}-8\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+8k_{\theta}} \, \label{eq:C44} , \\
\zeta &=& \frac{k_{r}-2k_{rr}-2\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}-4k_{\theta}}{k_{r}-2k_{rr}-8\sqrt{2}k_{r\theta}+8k_{\theta}} \, \label{eq:Klein} .
\end{eqnarray}
We can invert these two equations, along with the expressions for $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ in eq.~(\ref{equations}). Taking
care to eliminate the extraneous root that comes from a quadratic equation derived from $C_{44}$ and $\zeta$ (see Appendix in Sec.~\ref{appendix1}),
we obtain direct expressions for the force constants in terms of the second order elastic constants and the Kleinman parameter.
These read:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
k_{\theta} &=& \frac{2\left(C_{\scalebox{0.75}{11}}-C_{\scalebox{0.75}{12}}\right)r_{0}}{3\sqrt{3}} \, \label{force1} , \\
k_{r} &=& \frac{r_{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}\left[C_{\scalebox{0.75}{11}}\left(2+2\zeta+5\zeta^2\right) +
C_{\scalebox{0.75}{12}}\left(1-8\zeta-2\zeta^2\right)+ 3C_{\scalebox{0.75}{44}}\left(1-4\zeta\right)\right]}{\sqrt{3}\left(1-\zeta\right)^{2}} \, \label{force2} , \\
k_{rr} &=& \frac{r_{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}\left[C_{\scalebox{0.75}{11}}\left(2 - 10\zeta - \zeta^2\right)
+ C_{\scalebox{0.75}{12}}\left(7-8\zeta+10\zeta^2\right)-3C_{\scalebox{0.75}{44}}\left(1-4\zeta\right)\right]}{6\sqrt{3}\left(1-\zeta\right)^{2}} \, \label{force3} , \\
k_{r\theta} &=& \frac{r_{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\left(C_{\scalebox{0.75}{11}}-C_{\scalebox{0.75}{12}}\right)\left(1+2\zeta\right)-3C_{\scalebox{0.75}{44}}}{\zeta-1} \, \label{force4} .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Having this one-to-one analytic relation between the force constants and the elastic constants has several advantages.
Like the Keating model we have direct expressions for the force constants with no numerical fitting procedures required.
Thus, unlike potentials for which a numerical fitting is required, and a new fitting is needed for
each material, eqs.~(\ref{force1}) to (\ref{force4}) ideally represent a VFF for any ZB
or diamond structure material: once the elastic constants and the Kleinman parameter are known,
so too are the force constants. Unlike the Keating potential which describes
exactly only the elastic constants $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$, with significant errors often found
for $C_{44}$ and $\zeta$,
the above relations ensure that these properties
are reproduced exactly.
With respect to other more sophisticated potentials, this parameterisation
of the VFF model offers all the advantages of simplicity, efficiency and
clarity of the much used Keating model. The model even offers greater accuracy,
in the regime for which it is parameterised, when compared to more complex potentials.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $E_{11}$~(GPa~\AA$^{-2}$) & $\omega_{\scalebox{0.5}{TO}}$~(cm$^{-1}$) \\ \hline
AlN & -210.9 & n/a \\ \hline
AlP & 12.06 & 241 (454\textsuperscript{a}, -46\%) \\ \hline
AlAs & 11.09 & 209 (360\textsuperscript{b}, -42\%) \\ \hline
AlSb & 12.45 & 238 (318\textsuperscript{c}, -25\%) \\ \hline
GaN & -132.9 & n/a \\ \hline
GaP & 22.45 & 269 (366\textsuperscript{d}, -27\%) \\ \hline
GaAs & 16.52 & 189 (273\textsuperscript{d}, -30\%) \\ \hline
GaSb & 13.40 & 173 (231\textsuperscript{c}, -25\%) \\ \hline
InN & -282.0 & n/a \\ \hline
InP & -2.62 & n/a \\ \hline
InAs & -0.3 & n/a \\ \hline
InSb & 4.28 & 93 (185\textsuperscript{c}, -49\%) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Covalent VFF model prediction of $E_{11}$ via eq.~(\ref{eq:bxx_eps}), and zone-centre
transverse-optical phonon frequency, $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$, via eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaTO_Bxx}).
Experimental values and percentage differences between these and predicted values, are given in brackets.
a= Ref.~\onlinecite{BeerJack68}; b=Ref.~\onlinecite{AzSo95};
c=Ref.~\onlinecite{Yu2010}; d=Ref.~\onlinecite{Moor66}. } \label{tab:Bxx}
\end{table}
In addition, these simple expressions make the explanation of different trends in elastic properties
in terms of the force constants a straight forward procedure.
For example, eqs.(\ref{equations}) and (\ref{force1}-\ref{force4}) may be used to obtain
expressions for the other elastic constants, $C_{44}^{0}$, $E_{11}$ and $D_{14}$.
These expressions may then be used to predict quantities on which the model has not been parameterised
to ascertain the suitability of the potential for the different materials.
One such prediction is the value of the inner elastic constant $E_{11}$, which
can be related to the experimental transverse optical phonon mode at the $\Gamma$ point.
While the potential is not aimed at the accurate description of dynamical properties, such quantities
will nevertheless give an indication of whether or not the energetics of, for example, the internal
strain, are reasonable.
The quantity $E_{11}$ is related to the frequency of the transverse optical phonon mode at $\Gamma$ for
ZB structures by eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaTO_Bxx}).
From eqs.~(\ref{equations}) and (\ref{force1}) to (\ref{force4}), the following relation
between $E_{11}$ and the known elastic properties is derived:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bxx_eps}
E_{11} = \frac{16\left(C_{11}-C_{12}-C_{44}\right)}{\left(1-\zeta\right)^2a_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}}^{2}}.
\end{equation}
A negative $E_{11}$ would lead to two undesirable results: imaginary $\omega_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{TO}}}$ (cf eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaTO_Bxx})),
and worse, the scenario that the energy density has a stationary point
which is a maximum rather than a minimum in the internal strain; i.e. that the crystal
is unstable with respect to internal strain. This latter consequence
invalidates the basis of the whole procedure by which the relaxed
elastic constants are derived, wherein the assumption is made that the energy
is being \emph{minimised} with respect to the internal strain.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $k_{r}$ & $k_{\theta}$ & $k_{rr}$ & $k_{r\theta}$ & $S$ \\ \hline
units & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$ & \\ \hline
AlP & 5.505 & 0.401 & 0.640 & 0.453 & 0.000\\ \hline
AlAs & 4.962 & 0.361 & 0.521 & 0.391 & 0.000\\ \hline
AlSb & 4.557 & 0.294 & 0.320 & 0.249 & 0.000 \\ \hline
GaP & 6.237 & 0.464 & 0.455 & 0.421 & 0.000\\ \hline
GaAs & 5.292 & 0.397 & 0.396 & 0.364 & 0.000\\ \hline
GaSb & 4.542 & 0.319 & 0.264 & 0.258 & 0.000\\ \hline
InSb & 3.194 & 0.218 & 0.362 & 0.248 & 0.000\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Force constant values for the covalent VFF model for selected III-V semiconductors.} \label{tab:force_consts}
\end{table}
An inspection of the terms in the numerator of eq.~(\ref{eq:bxx_eps}) reveals that only those crystals for which $C_{11}-C_{12} > C_{44}$,
or:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:aniso_condition}
A = \frac{2C_{44}}{C_{11}-C_{12}} < 2,
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the anisotropy parameter,\cite{Kittel_2nd} are stable against sublattice displacements.
Furthermore, we note that this result is not restricted to our particular potential form, but holds also for similar
covalent potentials with Keating-style coordinates (i.e. a potential which is a function of dot products of bond vectors), and those with additional angle-angle coupling terms such
as those in Refs.~\onlinecite{MusPop62,TuLu72,VaTa89,CousinsPhysBII,StSa11}. Thus, we may say that no nearest-neighbour
VFF model can simultaneously describe $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C_{44}$ and $\zeta$ for
crystals with $A >2$.
Relations of this kind may also be used in guiding numerical fittings away from dead ends,
with an appropriate choice of fitting weights. For example, eq.~(\ref{eq:bxx_eps}) presents an upper
limit on the accuracy with which the components of the elasticity of a ZB or diamond structured crystal can be
simultaneously described using any nearest neighbour VFF model. The relation shows that,
for example, in the work of Steiger \textit{et al.},\cite{StSa11} if equal weights in the numerical fitting were given to
$C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C_{44}$, $E_{11}$ and $\zeta$, then it would not be possible to simultaneously minimise the residuals,
and the fitting would go on forever.
The values of $E_{11}$ predicted from eq.~(\ref{eq:bxx_eps}), and the transverse optical
phonon frequencies, $\omega_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{TO}}}$, corresponding to these are shown in Table~ \ref{tab:Bxx}.
Table~\ref{tab:Bxx} shows that, with negative predicted values for $E_{11}$ and imaginary $\omega_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{TO}}}$,
the potential is not suitable for the highly ionic cubic III-N or any of the indium containing
III-Vs other than InSb. Simulations of these crystals with negative $E_{11}$ using this potential
are then unstable with respect to internal displacements.
Table~\ref{tab:Bxx} and the condition defined in eq.~(\ref{eq:aniso_condition})
demonstrate that the VFF potential (eq.~(\ref{eq:vff})) parameterised via
eqs.~(\ref{force1}-\ref{force4}), is suitable for neither the structural relaxation nor the dynamics
of materials for which $A>2$, whilst for materials with $A<2$ the potential
describes the parameters of the structural relaxation very well ($C_{ij}$ and $\zeta$),
but does not accurately describe the $\Gamma$ point optical phonons. These results have been
further corroborated by actual structural relaxations, where materials with $A<2$
relax to the correct equilibrium state and respond correctly to different applied strains.
The force constants for selected III-V materials whose structural relaxation is suitably described by
the covalent VFF model are given in Table~\ref{tab:force_consts}.
From the fact that the inequality of eq.~(\ref{eq:aniso_condition}) tends to be most
strongly violated by the more ionic compounds, we can infer that the Coulomb interaction
plays an important role in stabilising heteropolar crystals, and that neglecting it
is not justified. We therefore include the Coulomb interaction in the next subsection, using the conventional parameterisation
based on the splitting in zone-centre transverse and longitudinal optical phonon mode frequencies.
\subsection{Conventional inclusion of Coulomb interaction} \label{sec:Conv-Coul}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $k_{r}$ & $k_{\theta}$ & $k_{rr}$ & $k_{r\theta}$ & $S$ \\ \hline
units & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~\AA{}$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$ & \\ \hline
AlP & 7.017 & 0.392 & 0.450 & 0.333 & 0.689 \\ \hline
AlAs & 6.880 & 0.349 & 0.279 & 0.240 & 0.593 \\ \hline
AlSb & 5.550 & 0.289 & 0.192 & 0.173 & 0.373 \\ \hline
GaP & 7.841 & 0.453 & 0.263 & 0.287 & 0.510 \\ \hline
GaAs & 6.520 & 0.389 & 0.250 & 0.261 & 0.448 \\ \hline
GaSb & 5.068 & 0.315 & 0.199 & 0.215 & 0.222 \\ \hline
InN & 10.513 & 0.272 & 0.862 & 0.425 & 1.996 \\ \hline
InP & 5.892 & 0.276 & 0.366 & 0.262 & 0.609 \\ \hline
InAs & 5.031 & 0.243 & 0.325 & 0.227 & 0.551 \\ \hline
InSb & 4.272 & 0.213 & 0.215 & 0.172 & 0.384 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Force constant values for selected III-V semiconductors using the Coulombic VFF model fitted
to optical phonon frequency splitting.} \label{tab:ConvCoulforce_consts}
\end{table}
Conventionally\cite{Ma1970,KiLa96,StSa11,GrNe01} the effective charge parameter, $S$, in a VFF potential is determined
from the splitting between the optic mode frequencies at the $\Gamma$ point. This relation is
given in eq.~(\ref{eq:S}) below:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:S}
S = \frac{Z^{*2}}{\epsilon_{r}} = \left(\frac{\Omega}{4\pi e^{2}}\right)\mu\epsilon_{0}\left(\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}^{2}-\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Here $Z^{*}$ is the effective charge, $\epsilon_{r}$ is, in this relation, the high frequency dielectric constant of the material in question, $\Omega$ is
the volume of the primitive cell, $e$ is the electronic charge, $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ are the longitudinal and transverse
optical phonon frequencies, respectively, and $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the anion and cation atoms.
With this value for $S$, we may solve eqs.~(\ref{equations})
in a similar manner as before to obtain the following expressions
for the force constants:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
k_{\theta} &=& \frac{2\left(C_{11}-C_{12}+\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}\left(2\alpha_{2}-\alpha_{1}\right)SC_{0}\right)r_{0}}{3\sqrt{3}} \, \label{Cforce1} , \\
k_{r} &=& \frac{r_{0}\left[C_{11}\left(2+2\zeta+5\zeta^2\right) +
C_{12}\left(1-8\zeta-2\zeta^2\right)+ 3C_{44}\left(1-4\zeta\right) + SC_{0}\left(a_{1} + a_{2}\zeta + a_{3}\zeta^{2}\right)\right]}
{\sqrt{3}\left(1-\zeta\right)^{2}} \, , \\ \label{Cforce2}
k_{rr} &=& \frac{r_{0}\left[C_{11}\left(2 - 10\zeta - \zeta^2\right)
+ C_{12}\left(7-8\zeta+10\zeta^2\right)-3C_{44}\left(1-4\zeta\right) + SC_{0}\left(a_{4}+a_{5}\zeta+a_{6}\zeta^{2}\right)\right]}
{6\sqrt{3}\left(1-\zeta\right)^{2}} \, \label{Cforce3} , \\
k_{r\theta} &=& \frac{r_{0}}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\left(C_{11}-C_{12}\right)\left(1+2\zeta\right)-3C_{44}+SC_{0}\left(a_{7}+a_{8}\zeta\right)}
{\zeta-1} \, \label{Cforce4} .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $C^{\prime}$-$C_{44}$ (GPa) & $S$ & 0.136 $C_{0}S$ (GPa) & $E_{11}$ GPa \AA$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & $\omega_{\scalebox{0.5}{TO}}$~cm$^{-1}$ & $\omega_{\scalebox{0.5}{LO}}$~cm$^{-1}$ & $Z^{*}$ \\ \hline
AlN & -53.48 & 1.5454\textsuperscript{a} & 37.91 & -61.40 & n/a & n/a & 2.73~(2.70\textsuperscript{j}) \\ \hline
AlP & 4.00 & 0.6888\textsuperscript{b} & 6.84 & 32.22 & 342~(454\textsuperscript{b},25\%) & 390~(491\textsuperscript{b},21\%) & 2.28~(-) \\ \hline
AlAs & 4.06 & 0.5931\textsuperscript{c} & 5.05 & 24.91 & 313~(360\textsuperscript{c},13\%) & 361~(402\textsuperscript{c},10\%) & 2.21~(2.17\textsuperscript{k}) \\ \hline
AlSb & 5.03 & 0.3728\textsuperscript{d} & 2.26 & 18.07 & 287~(323\textsuperscript{d},11\%) & 310~(344\textsuperscript{d},10\%) & 1.95~(1.91\textsuperscript{k}) \\ \hline
GaN & -31.31 & 1.3373\textsuperscript{e} & 29.23 & -8.83 & n/a & n/a & 2.55~(2.65\textsuperscript{l}) \\ \hline
GaP & 9.11 & 0.5098\textsuperscript{d} & 5.11 & 35.03 & 336~(366\textsuperscript{d},8 \%) & 376~(403\textsuperscript{d},7 \%) & 2.16~(2.03\textsuperscript{m}) \\ \hline
GaAs & 7.41 & 0.4476\textsuperscript{d} & 3.81 & 25.01 & 232~(273\textsuperscript{d},15\%) & 259~(296\textsuperscript{d},13\%) & 2.20~(2.19\textsuperscript{n}) \\ \hline
GaSb & 6.38 & 0.2224\textsuperscript{f} & 1.38 & 16.33 & 191~(231\textsuperscript{f},17\%) & 202~(240\textsuperscript{f},16\%) & 1.79~(1.73\textsuperscript{k}) \\ \hline
InN & -28.01 & 1.9960\textsuperscript{g} & 28.64 & 6.37 & 164~(478\textsuperscript{g},66\%) & 529~(694\textsuperscript{g},24\%) & 4.09~(3.02\textsuperscript{j}) \\ \hline
InP & -0.69 & 0.609 \textsuperscript{h} & 5.08 & 14.29 & 226~(307\textsuperscript{h},26\%) & 294~(343\textsuperscript{h},14\%) & 2.58~(2.38\textsuperscript{m}) \\ \hline
InAs & -0.10 & 0.5507\textsuperscript{i} & 3.50 & 11.10 & 154~(217\textsuperscript{i},29\%) & 185~(240\textsuperscript{i},23\%) & 2.61~(-) \\ \hline
InSb & 1.55 & 0.3839\textsuperscript{i} & 1.84 & 9.54 & 139~(180\textsuperscript{i},23\%) & 155~(192\textsuperscript{i},20\%) & 2.45~(-) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Properties relevant to, and predicted from, the conventionally parameterised Coulombic VFF.
First four columns are related to eq.~(\ref{eq:E11_ConvCoul}) and the predicted value of the internal elastic constant, $E_{11}$.
$C^{\prime}$ = $C_{11}-C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$ are obtained from Ref.~\onlinecite{TaCa19}, $S$
is determined using eq.~(\ref{eq:S}) with experimental phonon frequencies, and $C_{0}$ is the quantity $\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}r_{0}^{4}}$.
The $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ columns compare VFF-predicted phonon
frequencies with experiment and the $Z^{*}$ column gives effective charges obtained from
experiment via eq.~(\ref{eq:S}), using values for $\varepsilon_{r}$ from Ref.~\onlinecite{MadelHB}, and gives in brackets, where available,
ab-initio values.
Superscripts a-k indicate where experimental values of $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$, or theoretical values of
$Z^{*}$ were obtained:
a=Ref.~\onlinecite{KiLa96}; b=Ref.~\onlinecite{BeerJack68}; c=Ref.~\onlinecite{AzSo95};
d=Ref.~\onlinecite{Moor66}; e=Ref.~\onlinecite{KaWa98}; f=Ref.~\onlinecite{HaHe62}; g=Ref.~\onlinecite{PropIIINs};
h=Ref.~\onlinecite{MadelHB}; i=Ref.~\onlinecite{LoYu05}; j=Ref.~\onlinecite{BeFi97}; k=Ref.~\onlinecite{GiGi91};
l=Ref.~\onlinecite{KaWa98}; m=Ref.~\onlinecite{SeBi95}; n=Ref.~\onlinecite{WaVa07}. } \label{tab:Conv_E11}
\end{table*}
Here the $a_{i}$ denote combinations of Ewald summation terms:
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_{1} &=& -\frac{12\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(8\alpha_{1}+8\alpha_{2}+3\alpha_{4}\right) , \\
a_{2} &=& -\frac{6\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(16\alpha_{1}-80\alpha_{2}-3\alpha_{3}\right) , \\
a_{3} &=& -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(80\alpha_{1}-16\alpha_{2}-3\alpha_{3}+24\alpha_{4}\right) , \\
a_{4} &=& \frac{12\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(-8\alpha_{1} - 8\alpha_{2} + 3\alpha_{4}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
a_{5} &=& \frac{6\sqrt{3}}{128} \left( 80\alpha_{1} - 16\alpha_{2} - 3\alpha_{3}\right) , \\
a_{6} &=& \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{128} \left( 16\alpha_{1} - 80\alpha_{2} - 3\alpha_{3} + 24\alpha_{4}\right) , \\
a_{7} &=& -\frac{6\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(8\alpha_{1} - 16\alpha_{2} + 3\alpha_{4}\right) , \\
a_{8} &=& -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{128}\left(32\alpha_{1} - 16\alpha_{2} - 3\alpha_{3} + 6\alpha_{4}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*} \label{eq.ewald}
Note that eqs.~(\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4}) are identical to the covalent equations (eqs.~(\ref{force1}-\ref{force4})) apart from
the electrostatic addition; the non-Coulombic case can be recovered by setting $S=0$.
Force constants and effective charge parameters for selected III-V materials obtained from eqs.~(\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4}) are
given in Table~\ref{tab:ConvCoulforce_consts}.
Using these new force constant expressions, the inner elastic constant, $E_{11}$, predicted by
the model is given by the relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E11_ConvCoul}
E_{11} = \frac{16\left(C_{11}-C_{12}-C_{44}+0.135645~C_{0}S\right)}{\left(1-\zeta\right)^2a_{\textrm{\scalebox{0.75}{0}}}^{2}},
\end{equation}
where the numerical factor 0.135645 results from the sum:$\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}\left(-\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\frac{\alpha_3}{16}-\frac{\alpha_{4}}{4}\right)$.
From this equation the stabilising effect of the Coulomb interaction is apparent: the larger the product
$SC_{0}$, the less strict need be the inequality $C_{11}-C_{12} >C_{44}$ to maintain stability. Thus,
materials with an anisotropy parameter $A>2$, which are unstable in the purely covalent model, can be stabilised
by the inclusion of Coulomb effects. Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11} illustrates this for the parameterisation used here, where
the calculated value of $E_{11}$ is given for the III-V materials that we consider.
Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11} shows that while many materials unstable in the non-Coulombic case
have become stable, the Coulomb interaction derived from eq.~(\ref{eq:S}) is not sufficeint to stabilise the highly ionic
cubic III-N materials AlN and GaN. Furthermore, we note that while InN is stable whilst utilising
the optical phonon splitting of Kim \textit{et al.},\cite{KiLa96} using other results (e.g. from Ref.~\onlinecite{KaKa00}) for
$\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ will yield a smaller value for $S$ and an unstable crystal.
Nevertheless, the values of $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ derived using eq.~(\ref{eq:omegaTO_Bxx})
and presented in Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11} reveal a universal
reduction in the error, when compared with the non-Coulombic results presented
in Table~\ref{tab:Bxx}.
Furthermore, with the addition of the Coulomb interaction, the qualitative description of the zone-centre
optical phonons is greatly improved, with $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ no longer
degenerate. The values of $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ predicted using the VFF described
by eqns.~(\ref{eq:S}) and~(\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce2}) are given in Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11}. In addition, we
see from Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11} that the effective charge parameter $S$, obtained from experiment via eq.~(\ref{eq:S}),
produces Born effective charges, $Z^{*}$, which are in good agreement with those determined from first-principles calculations.
However, given our aim is to completely describe the elastic energy of any ZB or diamond
structure material, the instabilities found for AlN and GaN lead to the
conclusion that for this VFF model, the conventional Coulomb parameterisation is not appropriate
when modelling highly ionic materials.
Other approaches to the parameterisation of the effective charge exist in the literature:
for example, Grosse and Neugebauer\cite{GrNe01} used the difference in the total energies of ZB and wurtzite phases
of the III-N materials, AlN, GaN, and InN to determine the effective charge; and Barret and Wang\cite{BaWa15} introduced a model
where the atomic charge is separated from the Born effective charge, and both are utilised in a double charge model for
the accurate treatment of the lattice dynamics of surfaces. However, in
both of these methods, the charge parameter $S$ produced is smaller than that obtained using eq.~(\ref{eq:S}).
Therefore, in the next section, we seek a more direct means of ensuring that the VFF model
correctly describes the dependence of the energy of the crystal on the internal strain.
This involves breaking with the conventional parameterisation of the effective charge,
and setting the parameter $S$ such that the inner elastic constant $E_{11}$ is exactly reproduced.
With this parameterisation,
the elastic energy density and internal strain of a ZB or diamond crystal will then be well described
by the VFF for any combination of macroscopic and internal strain.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $k_{r}$ & $k_{\theta}$ & $k_{rr}$ & $k_{r\theta}$ & $S$ \\ \hline
units & eV~$\textrm{\AA{}}^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~$\textrm{\AA{}}^{\scalebox{0.75}{-2}}$ & eV~$\textrm{\AA{}}^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$rad$^{\scalebox{0.75}{-1}}$ & \\ \hline
AlN & 23.52 & 0.506 & -0.024 & 0.517 & 3.378 \\ \hline
AlP & 9.30 & 0.379 & 0.162 & 0.361 & 1.046 \\ \hline
AlAs & 8.00 & 0.343 & 0.139 & 0.371 & 0.9387 \\ \hline
AlSb & 6.42 & 0.284 & 0.081 & 0.283 & 0.6991 \\ \hline
GaN & 19.17 & 0.536 & 0.239 & 0.696 & 2.45786 \\ \hline
GaP & 8.67 & 0.447 & 0.165 & 0.514 & 0.7721 \\ \hline
GaAs & 7.90 & 0.379 & 0.087 & 0.357 & 0.9490 \\ \hline
GaSb & 6.43 & 0.307 & 0.032 & 0.275 & 0.8052 \\ \hline
InN & 14.75 & 0.263 & 0.220 & 0.467 & 2.3266 \\ \hline
InP & 7.71 & 0.269 & 0.115 & 0.356 & 1.04947 \\ \hline
InAs & 6.85 & 0.235 & 0.077 & 0.264 & 1.0794 \\ \hline
InSb & 5.49 & 0.208 & 0.049 & 0.246 & 0.8252 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Force constant values determined using the Coulombic VFF model
with effective charges
determined by elastic and inner elastic properties.} \label{tab:FreeCoulforce_consts}
\end{table}
\subsection{Free parameterisation of effective charge} \label{sec:Free-Coul}
In order to guarantee that the elastic energy density is completely described by
our VFF model we include the inner elastic constant $E_{11}$ in the fitting, and solve for $S$ such
that the correct, positive value is reproduced.
Thus the interaction parameters $k_{r}$, $k_{\theta}$, $k_{rr}$, $k_{r\theta}$, and $S$ are
obtained from the known elastic constants $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C_{44}$, $\zeta$ and $E_{11}$.
This ensures not only that the crystal will be stable against shear and internal strains,
since we are fitting directly to a positive $E_{11}$, but also that the dependence of the free energy
of any diamond or ZB crystal on any combination of macroscopic or internal strain, will be described completely.
Allowing $S$ to be set in this way is justified because there is in any case some degree of arbitrariness in
the choice of the \emph{effective} charge,
given delocalisation and screening effects present in the crystal.
To achieve this parameterisation we make use of eq.~(\ref{eq:E11_ConvCoul}), which gives
the value of $E_{11}$ in terms of $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C_{44}$, $\zeta$, and $S$. We now solve this equation for $S$,
to obtain the following expression:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:S_E11}
S= \frac{E_{11}\left(1-\zeta\right)^{2}a_{0}^{2}-16\left(C_{11}-C_{12}-C_{44}\right)}{6\sqrt{3}C_{0}\left(-\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}/16-\alpha_{4}/4\right)} .
\end{equation}
Substituting the value for $S$ thus obtained into eqs.~(\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4}) yields the required
potential.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\omega_{\scalebox{0.5}{TO}}$~(cm$^{-1}$) & $\omega_{\scalebox{0.5}{LO}}$~(cm$^{-1}$) \\ \hline
AlN & 654~(654\textsuperscript{a},0\%) & 1145(908\textsuperscript{a},-26\%) \\ \hline
AlP & 454~(454,0\%) & 542 (491, -10\%) \\ \hline
AlAs & 360~(360,0\%) & 425 (402, -6\% ) \\ \hline
AlSb & 323~(323,0\%) & 362 (344, -5\% ) \\ \hline
GaN & 560~(560\textsuperscript{b},0\%) & 878 (750\textsuperscript{b},-17\%) \\ \hline
GaP & 366~(366,0 \%) & 421 (403, -4\%) \\ \hline
GaAs & 273~(273,0\%) & 321 (296, -8\%) \\ \hline
GaSb & 231~(231,0\%) & 262 (240,-9\% ) \\ \hline
InN & 478~(478,0\%) & 724 (694, -4\%) \\ \hline
InP & 307~(307,0\%) & 369 (350, -6\% ) \\ \hline
InAs & 217~(217,0\%) & 260 (240, -8\%) \\ \hline
InSb & 180~(180,0\%) & 203 (192, -6\% ) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Value of transverse and longitudinal optical phonon frequency at the $\Gamma$ point, $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$, predicted from Coulombic VFF potential with effective charges
determined by elastic and inner elastic properties. Experimental values and
percentage difference are given in brackets. Apart from AlN, a=Ref.~\onlinecite{KiLa96}, and GaN, b=Ref.~\onlinecite{KaWa98}, all experimental
values are the same as those in Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11}. } \label{tab:StableCoulwLO}
\end{table}
With this potential, all elastic properties input are reproduced exactly, as is $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$,
through the inner elastic constant $E_{11}$. The force constants obtained using eqs.~(\ref{eq:S_E11}) and eqs.~(\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4}),
for selected III-V materials, are shown in Table~\ref{tab:FreeCoulforce_consts}. Of particular note in
Table~\ref{tab:FreeCoulforce_consts} is the much larger screened Coulomb parameter $S=\frac{Z^{*2}}{\epsilon_{r}}$
compared to the conventional parameterisation shown in Table~\ref{tab:ConvCoulforce_consts}.
We attribute this to the greater importance of short-ranged Coulomb interactions over long-ranged interactions
for the stabilisation of the crystal with respect to internal strains. Interactions between closer atoms will have fewer atoms
and electrons between them to screen the field,
and prioritising these interactions will manifest as a larger $S$ in the potential. In addition,
it is possible that longer range forces other than the Coulomb interaction are being effectively incorporated into this parameter.
Either way, the potential represents a significant improvement in the description of the elastic properties
of the highly ionic ZB structured materials.
Table~\ref{tab:StableCoulwLO} shows a comparison
of calculated $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$ versus previous theory and experimental values. Comparing with Table~\ref{tab:Conv_E11},
we find that the free parameterisation offers a universal improvement over the conventional parameterisation.
Being directly fitted to $E_{11}$ it reproduces $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{TO}}}$ exactly,
and for $\omega_{\textrm{\tiny{LO}}}$, to which it was not fit, it also performs considerably better.
In the next section, we will perform a further benchmarking
of each of the potentials. We first benchmark the models
against first principles DFT relaxations. We find the agreement
between the VFF relaxed atomic positions and those obtained from DFT is good, and that
again, the new effective charge parameterisation produces the best results.
We then compare their relative performances in the
calculation of phonon spectra, where we show best overall agreement with experiment is obtained for
the third model presented.
\section{Comparison with experimental and \emph{ab-initio} data} \label{sec:Benchmarking}
In this section, we present a benchmarking of the three different potentials. We
first validate the potentials for use as a tool for structural relaxation: we find, using
each potential, the relaxed atomic positions in various InAs/GaAs supercells and compare these positions with those obtained
from DFT calculations within the local density approximation (LDA). Then, we analyse and compare with experiment the VFF calculated phonon bandstructure of GaAs.
Our choice of GaAs/InAs systems for benchmarking is based on the following considerations: InAs/GaAs heterostructures
are one of the most technolgically relevant semiconductor material systems, widely studied, and grown along various different crystollographic
directions;\cite{Ramzi16} secondly, both InAs and GaAs are ionic materials, with InAs being a material for which the anisotropy factor
is just past the threshold of stability ($A<2$) for the covalent potential, and therefore a system which is a combination of these
two binary compounds serves
as an ideal test bed for the different variants of the potential.
To benchmark the potentials against first principles structural relaxations, we first parameterise our
VFF using elastic constants from DFT calculations commensurate with those from which the relaxed
atomic positions were determined. While the force constants presented earlier will more accurately
reproduce the true atomic positions (since the hybrid-functional-DFT elastic constants agree better with
experiment), performing test structure relaxations using HSE DFT is computationally costly, and not necessary.
When benchmarking, no extra information is gained by making comparisons to a computationally expensive functional.
The elastic constants $C_{ij}$ and the Kleinman parameter, $\zeta$ were calculated
using LDA DFT, using a k-point grid of 16$\times$16$\times$16 and a cutoff
energy of 600 eV and are given in Table~\ref{tab:LDACij}.
These elastic constants were used to parameterise the three
VFF models via eqs.~(\ref{force1}) to (\ref{force4}); eqs.~(\ref{Cforce1}) to (\ref{Cforce4});
and (\ref{eq:S}) and (\ref{eq:S_E11}).
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $a_{0}$ & $C_{11}$ & $C_{12}$ & $C_{44}$ & $\zeta$ & $E_{11}$ \\ \hline
GaAs & 5.6198 & 115 & 52 & 58 & 0.547 & 34 \\ \hline
InAs & 6.0312 & 85 & 48 & 38 & 0.687 & 23 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{LDA DFT calculated elastic and structural properties of GaAs and InAs. Calculations were
performed on a k-point grid of 16$\times$16$\times$16 and a planewave cutoff energy of 600 eV. $a_{0}$ is in \AA, $C_{ij}$ are in GPa, $\zeta$ is dimensionless, and
$E_{11}$ is in GPa~\AA$^{-2}$. } \label{tab:LDACij}
\end{table}
Next, four different supercells have been relaxed using LDA DFT: (i) a simple GaAs/InAs interface along the [001]
crystallographic direction, modelled as a supercell of alternating GaAs/InAs conventional
unit cells, containing 16 atoms and having unrelaxed dimensions $a_{0},a_{0},2a_{0}$, where $a_{0}=5.6198$~\AA, in the $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions,
respectively; (ii) a (001) quantum well type interface, consisting of a GaAs cubic unit cell, an InAs cubic unit
cell, and then another GaAs cell, containing 24 atoms and having initial dimensions $a_{0},a_{0},3a_{0}$; (iii) a GaAs/InAs interface along the [111]-direction, consisting
of alternating GaAs/InAs 6-atom unit cells\cite{Miguel_Stress,ScCa11} with the $z$-axis along the [111]- direction, containing
12 atoms and having unrelaxed lattice vectors $a_{1}=(\frac{a_{0}}{\sqrt{2}},0,0)$, $a_{2}=(\frac{a_{0}}{2\sqrt{2}},\frac{\sqrt{3}a_{0}}{2\sqrt{2}},0)$,
$a_{3}=(0,0,2\sqrt{3}a_{0})$; (iv) a 64 atom GaInAs supercell, consisting of a 2$\times$2$\times$2
replication of a conventional ZB cell, with In atoms substituted for Ga atoms with a
probability according to the nominal In content of 25\%. For each of these supercells,
the free energy was minimised until the force on any atom was less than 0.001 eV/\AA. The LDA calculations
were in all cases performed with a cutoff energy of 600 eV, and k-point grid densities of: 12$\times$12$\times$6, 12$\times$12$\times$4,
12$\times$12$\times$5, and 8$\times$8$\times$8, for supercells (i-iv), respectively.
Following the relaxation of each of these supercells using LDA DFT,
the same supercells were relaxed using the three parameterisations of the VFF in the software package GULP.\cite{GULP}
A summary of the comparison between the relaxations produced by these VFF potentials and LDA DFT
is presented in Table.~\ref{tab:Compare}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Supercell & VFF & $\overline{\Delta |\mathbf{a}_{i}|}$(\%) & $\overline{\Delta r_{ij}}$ (\%) & $\overline{\Delta \theta}$(\%) \\ \hline
& (a) & 0.45 & 0.15 & 0.33 \\
{[001]} GaAs/InAs & (b) & 0.35 & 0.27 & 0.32 \\
& (c) & 0.36 & 0.15 & 0.26 \\ \hline \hline
& (a) & 0.36 & 0.07 & 0.27 \\
{[001]} GaAs/InAs/GaAs & (b) & 0.28 & 0.19 & 0.27 \\
& (c) & 0.26 & 0.11 & 0.22 \\ \hline \hline
& (a) & - & - & - \\
{[111]} GaAs/InAs & (b) & 0.19 & 0.37 & 0.48 \\
& (c) & 0.22 & 0.32 & 0.48 \\ \hline \hline
& (a) & 0.03 & 1.94 & 1.5 \\
InGaAs alloy & (b) & 0.04 & 0.35 & 0.37 \\
& (c) & 0.05 & 0.25 & 0.32 \\ \hline \hline
& (a) & 0.28 & 0.72 & 0.70 \\
All & (b) & 0.22 & 0.30 & 0.36 \\
& (c) & 0.22 & 0.21 & 0.32 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Percentage differences between structural properties of supercells relaxed using LDA DFT, and three
different VFF models. See text for description of supercells; 'All' refers to an averaging of all supercell errors.
VFF (a) is the covalent VFF, (b) is the conventionally Coulombic VFF, and (c) is the freely parameterised Coulombic VFF.
$\overline{\Delta |\mathbf{a}_{i}|}$ denotes the average difference
in the magnitude of the lattice vectors; $\overline{\Delta r_{ij}}$ is the average difference
in all bondlengths; and $\overline{\Delta \theta}$ is the average difference in angles. }\label{tab:Compare}
\end{table}
Examining first the averaged results presented at the bottom of Table~\ref{tab:Compare}, a trend of increasing
accuracy in the reproduction of all quantities is seen when progressing from the covalent potential,
through to the conventionally parameterised ionic potential, to the new free parameterisation of the effective charge.
This perhaps indicates the importance of accurately
describing $E_{11}$ for structural relaxations.
Looking in more detail, we find for the covalent potential, that it is able to well relax the two [001] oriented sytems for which
there are no macroscopic shear strains, but it fails completely for the (111) interface and alloy sytems. For the [111]-oriented system, GULP is unable
to minimise the energy density resulting from the unstable potential. For the alloy supercell GULP is able to achieve a
minimum, owing to the stabilising effect of the GaAs matrix, but the instability of the InAs VFF with respect to
shear strains is manifested in larger errors in bondlengths and angles.
For the ionic potentials, a good description of the lattice and bond properties is found for
all systems, and unlike the covalent potentials, there is no increase in the errors for
the [111]-oriented or alloyed structures.
For all potentials, aside from the unstable covalent potential, the errors in the relaxation of the alloy
supercell are much lower than those in the layered systems. This may be imputed to
nonlinear strain effects experienced in the sharply interfaced supercells - the
errors in this case could be reduced by inclusion of anharmonic
force constants and third order elastic constants.\cite{TaCa19}
Overall, the agreement between the first-principles and VFF
relaxations of the here-considered supercells is very good, and serves to validate the VFF for
use in larger scale structural relaxations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{PhononPlots.pdf}
\caption{Phonon bandstructure of GaAs calculated using different VFF parameterisations: (a) bandstructure calculated using Covalent VFF
with effective charge parameter $S=0$, and force constants described by eqs.~\ref{force1}-\ref{force4};
(b) bandstructure calculated using ionic VFF, with effective charge determined via eq.~\ref{eq:S},
and force constants determined by eqs.~\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4};
(c) bandstructure calculated using ionic VFF, with effective charges determined
via eq.~\ref{eq:S_E11} and force constants given by eqs.~\ref{Cforce1}-\ref{Cforce4}. The filled symbols
are experimental frequencies taken from Ref.~\onlinecite{Strauch90}.}
\label{fig:phon}
\end{figure}
Next, the full phonon bandstructure of GaAs, calculated using each parameterisation of
the potential, and determined experimentally,\cite{Strauch90} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phon}.
All three of the parameterisations share a good description of the acoustic modes, near the $\Gamma$-point especially,
with the description of the longitudinal acoustic modes remaining good
at larger wavevectors. All three potentials share the property that the softening
of the transverse acoustic mode, in the $\Gamma$ to $X$, $L$, and $K$ directions, is not well
described; this is a characteristic feature of nearest neighbour VFFs, and may be remedied,
for example, by inclusion of an angular interaction term which involves four coplanar bonds.\cite{SuIr93,PaLu10,CousinsPhysBI,StSa11,BaWa15}
However, given that our aim is to introduce a potential for simple, accurate, and efficient structural relaxation,
rather than accurate phonon dispersions through the full Brillouin zone, we do not here include this term.
Looking to the differences between the different potentials, we find that, compared to the other two,
the covalent VFF has larger errors in the longitudinal acoustic modes at large wavevectors, and that
its description of the optical modes is qualitatively and quantitatively significanly inferior to that
of the two ionic potentials; this is to be expected, given the non-negligible ionicity of GaAs.
Comparing the two ionic models, we find that using $E_{11}$ to parameterise the effective charge
produces a bandstructure which generally agrees better with experiment than that produced
by the potential with a conventionally parameterised effective charge; however, the conventional parameterisation
does produce better agreement with experiment for the longitudinal acoustic branch at $L$.
Overall, we can conclude
that all potentials reproduce well the acoustic branches near the $\Gamma$-point, while the best agreement with
experiment throughout the Brillouin zone is obtained by the potential in which
the effective charge is determined by fitting to the elastic and inner elastic properties.
This shows, in combination with Table~\ref{tab:Compare}, that the new Coulombic parameterisation produces improved relaxation \emph{and}
phonon spectra compared to the conventional parameterisation.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have presented a VFF model, based on that originally
introduced by Musgrave and Pople~\cite{MusPop62} and modified by Martin,\cite{Ma1970} which
explicitly fits to the often neglected and ill-described
Kleinman parameter, as well as the three cubic second order elastic constants, of
which $C_{44}$ is often poorly represented in the popular Keating
model.\cite{Keating66} Three different parameterisations of the potential were presented: a covalent
(non-Coulombic) one for non-ionic or weakly ionic materials; and two parameterisations
which include electrostatic forces, in one of which we determine the effective charges via zone-centre
phonon frequencies, while in the second case the effective charges are determined via the static
elastic properties.
The force constants of the model were derived analytically
with explicit expressions given for the force constants in terms of macroscopic
elastic constants, as well as inner elastic properties which can be measured
and/or directly calculated using density functional theory. This allows the potential to be used
for a given material without the need for any additional numerical fitting:
once the elastic and related properties of the material are known, the force constants
can be obtained immediately from them by means of the analytic expressions
presented here.
In addition to ease of application, the analytic determination of force
constants also has the advantage that it allows for the a-priori prediction
of properties outside of the determining parameter set of the potential.
This capability allowed for the analysis of the suitability of the potential
for application to different materials. This analysis furnished the result
(general for nearest neighbour VFFs), that a stable non-Coulombic potential which
accurately describes the three cubic elastic constants and Kleinman's internal
strain parameter is not achievable for materials for which the anisotropy factor, $A$, is $< 2$.
The stabilising effect of the Coulomb interaction was first examined based on
conventional parameterisation in terms of the optical phonon splitting frequency. This parameterisation was found to
stabilise most materials, with the exception of the highly ionic cubic III-N materials, GaN and AlN.
This instability was remedied by use of a new parameterisation of
the effective charges, which resulted in a potential capable of fully describing
the elastic energy density of any diamond or zincblende crystal. In
benchmarking against DFT and experiment, this new paramterisation of the effective charge was shown to produce
improved phonon spectra and structural relaxations.
The described potential thus offers an efficient, intuitive, and accurate description
of all classes of zincblende or diamond crystal; with increased accuracy, efficiency
and clarity when compared with machine-learning-based or other complex potentials; and with increased accuracy
at little extra computational cost when compared with the extensively used simpler VFFs predominantly
used for structural relaxation in the literature.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by Science Foundation Ireland (project
numbers 15/IA/3082 and 13/SIRG/2210) and by the European Union 7th
Framework Programme DEEPEN (grant agreement no.: 604416).
\section{Appendix} \label{appendix1}
We note that eqs.~(14) provide five linear relationships between five macroscopic
elastic constants ($C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, $C^{0}_{44}$, $D_{14}$ and $E_{11}$) and the
five parameters required in our general VFF model. We can therefore solve these linear
equations directly to obtain expressions for the VFF parameters in terms of macroscopic
elastic properties that can be determined using well established DFT approaches. While
this is useful, it may be generally preferred to calculate the VFF parameters in terms
of the experimentally accessible elastic constants, $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$ and $C_{44}$,
as well as the internal strain parameter $\zeta$, in particular given that an accurate
description of $\zeta$ is required for an accurate description of relative atomic
displacements within a given unit cell. We outline here how the covalent VFF terms
can be calculated from the linear expressions for $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ in eqs.~(\ref{equations}) and from the nonlinear expressions for $C_{44}$
and $\zeta$ in eqs.~(\ref{eq:C44}) and (\ref{eq:Klein}). The method that we describe here can be readily
modified to treat the more general case of the ionic potential with additional
terms proportional to $SC_{0}$.
Subtracting $C_{11}$ from $C_{12}$ in eqs.~(\ref{equations}) reveals immediately the unique determination of $k_{\theta}$
in terms of $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:kt}
k_{\theta} = \frac{2r_{0}}{3\sqrt{3}}\left(C_{11}-C_{12} \right).
\end{equation}
Adding twice $C_{12}$ to $C_{11}$ in eqs.~(\ref{equations}) furnishes a linear
expression for $k_{rr}$ in terms of $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $k_{r}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:krr}
k_{rr} = \frac{2r_0}{3\sqrt{3}}\left(C_{11}+2C_{12} \right)-\frac{k_{r}}{6}.
\end{equation}
Multiplying out eq.~(\ref{eq:Klein}) and utilising eq.~(\ref{eq:krr}), a linear expression relating $k_{r\theta}$ to $k_{r}$ is obtained:
\begin{multline} \label{eq:kr}
k_{r} = k_{r\theta}\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{4\zeta-1}{\zeta-1}-\frac{3k_{\theta}\left(2\zeta+1\right)}{\zeta-1}\\
+\frac{r_{0}\left(C_{11}+2C_{12} \right)}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{multline}
Having now expressions for $k_{rr}$ in terms of $k_{r}$, and $k_{r\theta}$ in terms of $k_{r}$, the remaining
equation for $C_{44}$, eq.~(\ref{eq:relax_C44}) can be cast in terms of only $k_{r\theta}$, and known elastic constants.
Expanding out eq.~(\ref{eq:relax_C44}) we are left with the quadratic equation:
\begin{multline} \label{eq:krt_quad}
\overbrace{\frac{3}{2r_{0}^{2}}}^{a}k_{r\theta}^{2} +
\overbrace{\frac{ 3C_{44}+C^{\prime}\left(1-4\zeta\right)}{\sqrt{6}\left(\zeta-1\right)r_{0}}}^{b} k_{r\theta}
\\+ \underbrace{\frac{C^{\prime}
\left(C^{\prime}-3C_{44}+2C^{\prime}\zeta\right)}{9\left(\zeta-1\right)}}_{c} = 0 .
\end{multline}
This may be solved using the quadratic formula: $k_{r\theta}=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^{2}-4ac}}{2a}$.
The two solutions then correspond to different values of $k_{r\theta}$, $k_{rr}$,
and $k_{r}$, with the same $k_{\theta}$.
However, implementation of this formula reveals one of the
solutions to be extraneous, as discussed further below.
Taking the coefficients from eq.~(\ref{eq:krt_quad}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}
b^{2}-4ac = \frac{3}{2r_{0}^{2}}\frac{\left(C_{44}-C^{\prime} \right)^{2}}{\left(\zeta-1\right)^{2}} \label{eq:b^2-4ac} .
\end{equation}
Putting this into the quadratic formula and simplifying, we obtain:
\begin{multline} \label{eq:krt_plumin}
k_{r\theta} = -\frac{4r_{0}}{3\sqrt{6}} \frac{3C_{44}-C^{\prime}\left(1-4\zeta\right) }{\zeta-1} \\
\pm \frac{4r_{0}^{2}}{3}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{C_{44}-C^{\prime} }{\left(\zeta-1\right)r_{0}}\right)^{2}}
\end{multline}
These two solutions simplify to:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:incorrect}
k^{+}_{r\theta} = \frac{2}{3} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} r_{0} C^{\prime}= \sqrt{2}k_{\theta} ,
\end{equation}
and, already given in eq.~(\ref{force4}) in Sec.~\ref{sec:Non-Coul} above:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:correct}
k^{-}_{r\theta} = \frac{r_{0}}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\left(C_{11}-C_{12}\right)\left(1+2\zeta\right)-3C_{44}}{\zeta-1} .
\end{equation}
By inspection of eq.~(\ref{equations}) we can see
that the extraneous solution is that in eq.~(\ref{eq:incorrect}), which would lead to the
undefined scenario of $0/0$ in eqs.~(\ref{eq:C44}) and (\ref{eq:Klein}). Furthermore,
we see that whether this solution is that with the positive or negative root depends
on whether $C_{44} > C^{\prime}$, equivalent to whether $\frac{A}{2}>1$. In addition,
we note that these two conditions also govern whether or not the VFF
will be stable against internal strain ($E_{11} >0$); so the result also holds that as the sign of
the extraneous solution changes, so does the sign of $E_{11}$. When this sign change occurs, the
underlying assumption in the derivation of the equations that the energy has been minimised with
respect to the internal strain becomes invalid.
Thus, the single correct analytic expression for the force constant $k_{r\theta}$ in terms of
the elastic constants and the Kleinman parameter is the right hand solution in eq.~(\ref{eq:correct}).
Via, eqs.~(\ref{eq:kt}), (\ref{eq:krr}) and (\ref{eq:kr}), we then obtain
the full single set of force constants of eq.~(\ref{force1}-\ref{force4}).
Alternatively, the pitfalls of the extraneous root may be more efficiently circumvented by simply
solving the equation set comprising $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$ and $\zeta$, from eq.~(\ref{equations}) along
with the rightmost expression of eq.~(\ref{eq:relax_C44}), where the $\zeta$ is not swopped for
its numerical value, but rather left as a known numerical quantity. Choosing this set of equations
a quadratic term in $k_{r\theta}$ never arises, and there is simply a squared $\zeta$, which adds
no extra roots to the equation set.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
Low- and intermediate-mass main sequence stars ($M\,\raisebox{-0.4ex}{$\lppr$}\,8\sim
11\,M_{\sun}$) end their lives as white dwarfs (WDs; e.g.
\citealt{Siess2007}). WDs are hence the most common stellar remnants
and are one of the most common objects in the Galaxy. Given that WDs
are compact objects and nuclear reactions have ceased in their
interiors, their structure is supported by the pressure of the
degenerate electrons in their cores. The energy reservoir available
from previous evolutionary phases is contained within this degenerate
core and radiated away through a thin envelope of non-degenerate
matter following a moderately well-understood cooling process (see
e.g. the review by \citealt{Althaus2010a} and reference therein for a
thorough discussion of this issue). This envelope is generally formed
by an upper layer of hydrogen of 10$^{-2}$-10$^{-4}$\,M$_{\odot}$ and a
lower layer of helium of 10$^{-15}$-10$^{-5}$\,M$_{\odot}$ \citep[see
e.g.][]{Castanheira2008, Tremblay2008}. Due to the high surface
gravity acting on WD atmospheres, the heavier elements sink towards
the deep interiors. Hence, the optical spectra of the majority of WDs
show Balmer absorption lines typical of hydrogen-rich atmospheres, or
helium absorption lines if this hydrogen layer is lost
\citep{Bergeron2011, Koester2015}. However, 25-50 per cent of WDs
show heavy elements apart from hydrogen and helium
\citep{Zuckerman2003, Koester2014}. These WDs are referred to as DAZs
and DBZs, respectively, or DZs if only metal lines are observed. It is
of vital importance to understand how these metals reached the
atmosphere of those WDs.
Planets and minor planets located a few AUs away from a host star are
expected to survive the giant phases once the star evolves out of the
main sequence and becomes a WD \citep{Burleigh2002, Jura2008}. This
implies the orbits of these planets expand, a rearrangement that
causes instability to the system. This perturbation may cause some of
the surviving minor planets to enter into the tidal radius of the WD
and, as a consequence, to be disrupted and accreted \citep{Debes2002,
Debes2012} during a process that can last a few Gyrs
\citep{Bonsor2011, Veras2013}. The accretion of planetary material
leads to the enrichment of heavy elements in the atmosphere of the WD,
explaining the identification of metal transitions in the spectra of
such DZ WDs. An additional observational feature that arises as a
consequence of the disruption of a minor planet is a dust and/or a gas
disk within the tidal radius of the WD \citep{Gaensicke2006, Xu2012,
Dennihy2018}. It has been observed that some of these dusty WDs are
dynamically active \citep{xu+jura2014} and recently, transits from an
actively disintegrating asteroid have been discovered for the first
time around a dusty WD \citep{Vandergurg2015}. The observational
feature of dust disks around WDs is the detection of infrared (IR)
excess \citep[e.g.][]{Zuckerman1987}. Apart from a few exceptions
\citep{Xu2015, Wilson2019}, the great majority of dusty WDs display
also traces of heavy elements in their atmospheres. The dust disk
occurrence is about 1--4\% for WDs \citep{Barber2012, Rocchetto15,
Wilson2019}. For less than 0.5\% of the cases, the excess arises
from the existence of a sub-stellar brown dwarf companion
\citep{Farihi2004, Farihi2005}. It is also possible that the
IR-excess arises from the presence of low-mass star companions that
are outshined in the optical by the flux of a relatively hot WD
\citep{Rebassa2010, Badenes2013, Rebassa2016}.
The presence of metals in the atmosphere of a WD provides unique
information about the composition of the accreted material
\citep{Klein2010, Gaensicke2012, Xu2014, Hollands2018b}, which is
found to be chemically Earth-like \citep{wilson2016}. Pollution rich
in water \citep{Farihi2013, Raddi2015} as well as water/ice-rich and
volatile-rich (C \& N) \citep{Xu2017} has also been observed.
Unfortunately, the current number of \emph{confirmed} WDs by Spitzer
observations displaying infrared excess due to a circumstellar disk is
just 35 (see the recent review by \citealt{Farihi2016} and reference
therein), which makes it difficult to characterise the properties of
extreme planetary systems. In this work we aim at identifying
additional IR-excess WD candidates, in particular those with a
circumstellar disk, by analysing the most complete and volume-limited
sample of WDs to date, identified thanks to the data provided by the
second release of the {\it Gaia} mission.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{composite0b.ps}
\hspace{2cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{composite1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{composite3.ps}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{composite2.ps}
\caption{Top left: Example of a composite SED of GaiaID:
1075673567146680576 and GaiaID:1075673567146680704 (IDs 11A and
11B in Table\,\ref{t:co-moving}). The abrupt jump at IR
wavelengths indicates that more than one object is contributing
to the stellar flux. The vertical dashed line marks the
wavelength at which VOSA detects {\it excess} (understood as a
significant change in the slope and/or a clear deviation from
the photospheric flux predicted by the model). The yellow
inverted triangle indicates that the photometric value is an
upper limit. Top right: SDSS image showing two partially
resolved objects. Red bullets represent SDSS sources while the
green square indicates the position of the single WISE catalogue
entry for the two sources. Bottom panels: The SEDs of the
individual objects built using photometry from surveys of higher
spatial resolution (SDSS, PanStarrs) along with the best fit
models and their associated effective temperatures. Photometric
errors are too small to be seen.}
\label{fig:bin}
\end{figure*}
\section{Identification of infrared-excess White Dwarf candidates}
\label{Iden}
The data provided by the {\it Gaia} satellite through its Second Data
Release has allowed identifying unprecedented samples of both single
and binary WDs \citep[e.g.][]{Badry2018, Gentile2019}, as well as
compiling the largest and most complete volume-limited catalogue of
such objects to date within 100 pc \citep{Jimenez-Esteban18}. In order
to identify WDs with IR excess we took the sample of
\citet{Jimenez-Esteban18} of 8,555 objects at less than 100 pc and
with $G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}$ colours below 0.8 mag available at "The
SVO archive of White Dwarfs from {\it
Gaia}"\footnote{http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/vocats/v2/wdw/}. This
colour cut is equivalent to excluding WDs cooler than 6,000\,K and it
is required due to the expected large contamination of non-WDs at
lower effective temperatures (see \citealt{Jimenez-Esteban18} for
details). We analysed the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of the
8,555 WDs taking advantage of
VOSA\footnote{http://svo.cab.inta-csic.es/theory/vosa/} (Virtual
Observatory SED Analyser; \citealt{Bayo08}). VOSA is a Virtual
Observatory tool that allows building the SEDs of thousands of objects
in an automated way from a large number of photometric catalogues
ranging from the ultraviolet to the infrared. VOSA compares the
photometric data with different collections of theoretical models and
determines which model best reproduces the observed data following
different statistical approaches. Physical parameters (e.g.
effective temperatures, luminosities) are then estimated for each WD
from the model that best fits the data. VOSA also allows the
identification of IR-excess in the SED and estimates the effective
temperature and luminosity of the source causing the excess, which
together with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation yields also its radius.
Note that the calculated radius has physical meaning only when the
source of excess is a companion.
\begin{table*}
\caption{List of the 26 co-moving WD+M systems found in this
work. Coordinates, parallaxes and proper motions are from {\it Gaia}
DR2. The object names are obtained from Simbad and the effective
temperatures have been estimated as described in
Sect\,\ref{Iden}. $\ast$ in the second last column indicates that we
were not able to estimate $T_\mathrm{eff}$\, due to the lack of enough good
photometric points to run the SED fitting. In these cases, the
spectral types for the cool components were estimated using the
$G$-$G_\mathrm{RP}$ colour and the calibration provided by
\citet{Pecaut2013}.}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.8ex}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
ID & Gaia ID & RA(ICRS) & DEC(ICRS) & Name & Parallax & PMRA & PMDE & $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & comment\\
& DR2 & deg & deg & & mas & mas/yr & mas/yr & K\\
\hline
1A & 396370097820352256 & 22.4283 & 42.4715 & GD 13 & 11.88$\pm$0.09 & 94.49$\pm$0.12 & -45.59$\pm$0.11 & 22,000 &(1)\\
1B & 396370093526060672 & 22.4271 & 42.4704 & & 11.39$\pm$0.17 & 92.30$\pm$0.21 &-45.30$\pm$0.24 & 2,900&\\
2A&5119295082016649472 & 37.3367 & -24.4348 & & 13.05$\pm$0.05 & 91.76$\pm$0.1 & -94.85$\pm$0.10 & 15,500 &(1)\\
2B& 5119295082017370368 & 37.3359 & -24.4350& & 13.14$\pm$0.06 & 89.27$\pm$0.11 & -98.94$\pm$0.12 &3,200&\\
3A & 18493721155296768 & 39.6289 & 6.6333 & PG 0235+064 & 16.89$\pm$0.06 & -12.77$\pm$0.09 & -90.99$\pm$0.08 & 13,000 &(1)\\
3B & 18493721155296640 & 39.6283 & 6.6353 & 2MASS J02383078+0638071 & 16.98$\pm$0.07 & -11.22$\pm$0.11 & -87.69$\pm$0.10 & 3200&\\
4A & 16426811093797760 & 51.5877 & 11.5158 & & 16.38$\pm$0.06 & -49.14$\pm$0.12 & -36.06$\pm$0.08 & 17,500 &(1)\\
4B & 16426806798453632 & 51.5884 & 11.5149 &[ZEH2003] RX J0326.3+1131 3 & 16.12$\pm$0.08 & -44.65$\pm$0.18 & -35.08$\pm$0.12 & M2V$\ast$ &\\
5A & 166587938734739456 & 64.1762 & 32.1891 & SDSS J041642.29+321120.5 & 10.13$\pm$0.09 & 0.86$\pm$0.17 & -83.38$\pm$0.13& 8250 & (2) \\
5B & 166587938734739328 & 64.1769 & 32.1891 & & 10.42$\pm$0.16 & 2.16$\pm$0,32 & -80.71$\pm$0.23 & 3100 & \\
6A & 4811421896276768128 & 73.3033 & -44.3944 & & 11.13$\pm$0.04 & 26.87$\pm$0.07 & 23.22$\pm$0.08 & WD$\ast$ &(1)\\
6B & 4811421896275732480 & 73.3026 & -44.3937 & & 11.17$\pm$0.08 & 25.32$\pm$0.16 & 23.01$\pm$0.18 & M4-5V$\ast$ &\\
7A & 201854258801563520 & 74.1309 & 41.5220 & & 10.13$\pm$0.09 & -36.68$\pm$0.16 & -106.43$\pm$0.11 & 9,500 &(1)\\
7B & 201854258801564288 & 74.1293 & 41.5218 & &10.09$\pm$0.07 & -35.79$\pm$0.13 & -106.98$\pm$0.09 & 3,300 &\\
8A & 3439162768415866112 & 96.5553 & 32.2198& & 12.58$\pm$0.06 & -17.35$\pm$0.11 & -38.63$\pm$0.1& 11,000 &(1)\\
8B & 3439162768415865600 & 96.5566 & 32.2202& & 12.71$\pm$0.11& -19.45$\pm$0.20& -37.31$\pm$0.18 & 3,200 &\\
9A& 5598661329740179712 & 116.5578 & -30.4313& & 14.49$\pm$0.05 & 59.43$\pm$0.07 & -117.24$\pm$0.08 & 17,500 &(1)\\
9B & 5598661329740179584 & 116.5575 & -30.4305 & & 14.39$\pm$0.06 & 59.54$\pm$0.09 & -117.89$\pm$0.1 & 3,100 &\\
10A & 3842126835031738368 & 137.9023 & -0.2159 & & 16.80$\pm$0.19 & 59.78$\pm$0.29 & -36.23$\pm$0.25 & 6,250 &(1)\\
10B & 3842126835031738496 & 137.9020 & -0.2144 & & 16.66$\pm$0.21 & 56.93$\pm$0.36 & -35.10$\pm$0.29 & 2,800 &\\
11A & 1075673567146680576 & 170.0952 & 72.8795 & & 11.50$\pm$0.06 & -63.50$\pm$0.10 & 5.56$\pm$0.09 & 15,750&(1)\\
11B& 1075673567146680704 & 170.0922 & 72.8795 & & 11.60$\pm$0.06 & -64.37$\pm$0.11& 3.08$\pm$0.09 & 3,600 &\\
12A & 1692021543289085184 & 190.5089 & 75.1460 & PG\,1240+754 & 12.42$\pm$ 0.05 & -201.85$\pm$0.08 & -35.09$\pm$0.07 & WD$\ast$ & (3) \\
12B & 1692021543289084672 & 190.5142 & 75.1450 & G\,255-B18B & 11.98$\pm$0.06 & -199.77$\pm$0.11 & -32.49$\pm$0.09 & 3200 & \\
13A & 1552488776081383040 & 204.0067 & 48.4793 & GD 325 & 27.09$\pm$0.04 & -134.10$\pm$0.04 & -42.98$\pm$0.05 & 17,500&(1)\\
13B & 1552488776081383168 & 204.0079 & 48.4796 & & 27.06$\pm$0.06 & -127.55$\pm$0.07 & -47.55$\pm$0.09 & 3,000&\\
14A & 1604422214954487168 & 216.6841 & 50.1066 & CBS 268 & 15.28$\pm$0.04 & -10.60$\pm$0.06 & -82.72$\pm$0.06 & 15,250& (4)\\
14B & 1604422283673964160 & 216.6830 & 50.1093 & & 15.20$\pm$0.04 & -11.70$\pm$0.06 & -84.83$\pm$0.06 & 3,300&\\
15A & 1276054682231244160 & 225.4845 & 30.3831 & PG 1459+306 & 15.00$\pm$0.04 & -43.15$\pm$0.04 & 52.77$\pm$0.06 &19,250&(1)\\
15B & 1276054677930790272 & 225.4851 & 30.3842 & & 14.94$\pm$0.03& -37.31$\pm$0.03 & 54.16$\pm$0.04 & 3,500&\\
16A & 1643551566043342848 & 240.7042 & 67.4912& & 12.28$\pm$0.08 & -25.19$\pm$0.15 & 6.98$\pm$0.13 & 8,000 &(1)\\
16B & 1643551566043342592 & 240.7044 & 67.4898 & & 12.32$\pm$0.03 & -24.36$\pm$0.06 & 4.07$\pm$0.05 & 3,500 &\\
17A & 4457170451083163392 & 242.7226 & 11.7313 & PG 1608+119 & 11.59$\pm$0.06 & 36.49$\pm$0.07 & -12.99$\pm$0.06 & 20,000&(1)\\
17B & 4457170446785639424 & 242.7218 & 11.7316 & & 11.58$\pm$0.05 & 33.30$\pm$0.06 & -13.97$\pm$0.05 & 3,500&\\
18A & 1300356053864952064 & 251.6571 & 25.3068 & &12.32$\pm$0.05 & -44.96$\pm$0.07 & 2.40$\pm$0.11 & 12,750&(1)\\
18B & 1300356809779196288 & 251.6561 & 25.3070 & &12.25$\pm$0.06 & -43.78$\pm$0.09 & 3.70$\pm$0.13 & 3,100 &\\
19A& 4360643809885839232 & 257.3352& -7.8785& & 13.82$\pm$0.08&-37.94$\pm$0.13& -112.47$\pm$0.09 & 17,750 &(1)\\
19B & 4360643809885838976 & 257.3362 & -7.8790& & 13.91$\pm$0.06 & -41.21$\pm$0.10& -110.21$\pm$0.07 & 3,400&\\
20A & 4366961260100103680& 260.7060& -2.8049& & 12.34$\pm$0.09& -17.64$\pm$0.16 & -29.71$\pm$0.13 & 7,250 &(4)\\
20B & 4366961260100103552 & 260.7054 & -2.8054& & 11.87$\pm$0.07 & -19.20$\pm$0.11 & -29.08$\pm$0.09 & 3,200& \\
21A & 5803547624984209792 & 266.1464 & -72.9932 & & 11.43$\pm$0.05 & 14.44$\pm$0.06 & 17.53$\pm$0.08 & WD$\ast$ & (4) \\
21B & 5803547624984209664 & 266.1488 & -72.9932 & & 11.36$\pm$0.10 & 16.45$\pm$0.11 & 14.49$\pm$0.15 & M5V$\ast$ & \\
22A & 2103614787618232192 & 284.3691 & 40.5932 & & 15.00$\pm$0.03 & -23.46$\pm$0.05 & 41.47$\pm$0.05 & 17,500&(1)\\
22B & 2103614787618232448 & 284.3697 & 40.5938 & KIC 5342558& 15.12$\pm$0.05 & -26.09$\pm$0.09 & 42.79$\pm$0.09 & 3,100&\\
23A & 1768730586908531712 & 330.3371 & 15.0917 & & 10.68$\pm$0.06 & -30.32$\pm$0.11 & -89.21$\pm$0.10 & 14,250&(1)\\
23B & 1768730586908531840 & 330.3375 & 15.0928 & & 10.63$\pm$0.04 & -30.56$\pm$0.07 & -88.05$\pm$0.06 & 3,500&\\
24A & 2811484217573797248 & 347.3354 & 11.5747& & 14.33$\pm$0.20 & 23.92$\pm$0.35 & -62.61$\pm$0.25 & 7,000 &(1)\\
24B &2811484217572663168 & 347.3361 & 11.5753 & & 14.37$\pm$0.17 & 24.35$\pm$0.31 & -65.31$\pm$0.21 & 2,900 &\\
25A & 6393502099375879552 & 348.2538 & -64.3321 & & 12.71$\pm$0.05 & 179.05$\pm$0.07 & 23.96$\pm$0.08 & WD$\ast$ &(4)\\
25B & 6393502099376815744 & 348.2521 & -64.3322 & & 13.36$\pm$0.24 & 184.32$\pm$0.34 & 19.37$\pm$0.36 & M3-4V$\ast$ &\\
26A& 1999127510441929600 & 356.2808 & 58.2209 & & 10.22$\pm$0.08 & 28.87$\pm$0.11 & 5.83$\pm$0.08 & 11,750 &(4)\\
26B & 1999127510436274048 & 356.2794 & 58.2205 & & 10.54$\pm$0.39 & 29.84$\pm$0.61 & 5.69$\pm$0.42& 2,800 &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:co-moving}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[]
(1) \citet{Badry2018};
(2) \citet{Ren2014};
(3) Simbad;
(4) This work.
\end{list}
\end{table*}
In this paper we made use of the following photometric catalogues
available at VOSA: GALEX \citep{Bianchi00}, {\it Gaia} DR2
\citep{Brown18}, SDSS DR12 \citep{Alam15}, Pan-STARRS DR1
\citep{Chambers16}, the Dark Energy Survey (DES) \citep{DESC16}, 2MASS
PSC \citep{Skrutskie06}, VISTA \citep{Cross12}, UKIDSS
\citep{Hewett06}, and WISE \citep{Wright10}. Additionally, we made use
of the Spitzer \ Enhanced Imaging Products (SEIP) catalogue
\citep{Wu10}, which is presently not included in VOSA. To avoid
potential mismatches we used the {\it Gaia} proper motions to
calculate the corresponding {\it Gaia} coordinates at the J2000 epoch,
used by all other surveys considered\footnote{Ideally, for high proper
motion objects one would require to work out the \emph{Gaia}
coordinates at the exact epoch of observations of the other
different surveys. However, VOSA uses a search radius of 5", which
means a WD needs a proper motion higher than 330 mas/year to move
more than 5" in 15 years (J2000 to J2015). Less than 1\% of the
8,555 WDs within 100pc from \citet{Jimenez-Esteban18} have such high
proper motions. Therefore, not calculating the \emph{Gaia}
coordinates at the exact epoch of observations of the other surveys
has a very low impact.}.
From the original list, we filtered out objects with less than three
reliable IR ($>$12,000\AA) photometric points in their SEDs. Reliable
photometry implies data not affected by contamination from nearby
sources, artifacts or quality flag issues (Qflg $\neq$ U in the J and
H bands for 2MASS; ccf=0 and qph=A/B in the W2 band for WISE;
ppErrBits<256 for both VISTA and UKIDSS). This resulted in 3,733
selected {\it Gaia} WDs. In order to explore the possibility that our
selected sample is representative of the overall WD population we
compared the corresponding WD effective temperature and mass
distributions (see Section\,\ref{s-disc} for details on how these
parameters are derived) to those arising from the catalogue of
\emph{Gaia} DA WDs within 20\,pc of \citet{Hollands2018}. This is not
only a volume-limited and complete sample, but also all 20 pc WDs have
available effective temperature and mass determinations.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests yield probabilities of 10$^{-5}$
(4.4$\sigma$; effective temperature) and 0.55 (0.6$\sigma$; mass) for
our and the 20\,pc \emph{Gaia} samples to be drawn from the same
parent population. If we exclude cool ($<$6,000K) WDs from the 20\,pc
sample, the effective temperature KS probability increases to 0.16
(1.4$\sigma$). We thus conclude there are no strong indications for
our sample not to be representative of the overall WD population,
except at effective temperature values under 6,000\,K. The lack of
such cool WDs in our sample is not surprising since these are excluded
by our imposed $G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}<0.8$ colour cut.
The observational SEDs of the 3,733 selected objects were compared to
the hydrogen-rich WD collection of theoretical model atmosphere
spectra of \citet{Koester10} (see Sect.\,4.1 in
\citealt{Jimenez-Esteban18} for a detailed description of the main
characteristics of this grid of models) to identify IR excesses. To
that end, VOSA first executes an iterative algorithm which is an
extension of the method described in \citet{Lada06}. Starting at
$\lambda \geq 21500 \text{\normalfont\AA}$, VOSA computes the slope of the linear
regression of the observational SED in a log\,$\nu F_{\nu}$
vs. log\,$\nu$ diagram. This slope is recomputed by adding new
infrared photometric points at every step. If, in any of these steps,
the slope becomes significantly smaller ($<2.56$) than the one
expected from a stellar photospheric emission, VOSA flags the object
as potentially affected by IR excess and photometric points at longer
wavelengths are not taken into account in the SED fitting process for
deriving the WD effective temperature and luminosity.
Once the SED fitting is completed, VOSA performs a further refinement
of the IR excess estimation by comparing, for each photometric point,
the observational flux to the synthetic flux obtained from the model
that best fits the data. Significant ($>$\,3$\sigma$) deviations in
the observational flux are flagged by VOSA as potential IR excesses. A
detailed description of how VOSA manages the infrared excess can be
found in the VOSA
documentation\footnote{https://bit.ly/2KRCv9x}. After this process,
VOSA identified 377 WD candidates to show IR-excess among our initial
3,733 objects.
In a first step, we visually inspected the optical (Pan-STARRS1, SDSS
and DSS) and IR (2MASS and WISE) images of the 377 sources using
Aladin\footnote{http://aladin.u-strasbg.fr} \cite[][]{Bonnarel00}. The
VOSA SED fittings were also checked. We removed a total of 221 sources
(58\%) from our target list mainly due to the WISE poor spatial
resolution (6\arcsec\, beam size), which causes a significant number
of false positives due to contamination by nearby sources. This
contamination rate is slightly lower to that found by other authors
\citep[75\%, e.g.][]{Barber16}. Of the remaining 156 objects, 38 were
identified as co-moving systems by using {\it Gaia} parallaxes and
proper motions, as well as photometry from surveys where the
components of the systems appear spatially resolved. Most of these
objects can be easily identified by the jump in their SEDs at IR
(mainly WISE) wavelengths. This jump is caused by the sum of the
fluxes of the nearby sources that form the system due to the WISE
spatial resolution (see an example in Figure\,\ref{fig:bin}). 26 of
the 38 co-moving pairs were identified as WD+M systems, most of them
already reported by \citet{Badry2018} (see
Table\,\ref{t:co-moving}). Effective temperatures were estimated using
VOSA and the \citet{Koester10} and BT-Settl \citep{Allard12} models
for the WD and the M star components, respectively. The other 12
systems are reported in Table\,\ref{t:cmovingknown}.
Of the remaining 118 WDs, one has associated two entries in the {\it
Gaia} DR2 catalogue separated by less than 2\arcsec\, (Gaia IDs:
883243467325018496 / 883243467323599616). The differences in
parallaxes and the SED analysis made with VOSA conclude that the
secondary component causing the IR excess is, most likely, a
background M giant. Similar cases are the sources 2612592841965015424,
2564424130905288192, 63846445499673472, 2969841487138850560,
5657351404992422784, 3650552739370519680 and 1316268323580640256, the
latter studied by \citet{Barber14} who confirmed the IR excess arises
due to the contamination of a background object.
From the final list of 110 selected WD candidates, 77 benefit from IR
photometry at both near and mid IR wavelengths and 33 just at mid IR
wavelengths. Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2} list the 77 WD
selected candidates with available near and mid IR photometry, 52 of
which are new discoveries not yet known to host disks, brown dwarf or
low-mass companions. The effective temperatures and radii (derived
from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) associated to the IR
contribution's sources are estimated from the composite SED
fitting. For this, VOSA uses a range of values around the white dwarf
$T_\mathrm{eff}$$ $ and $\log{g}$ obtained from the single best fit using the
\citet{Koester10} models together with a blackbody with $T_\mathrm{eff}$ $<$
5,000\,K. For WDs, the errors in effective temperatures arising from
the composite SED fitting are given by the step of the grid of models,
which changes with $T_\mathrm{eff}$. The step in the grid of blackbody models is
set to 25\,K.
Table\,\ref{t:dusty3} summarizes the information of the 33 targets
having only IR photometry at mid IR wavelengths. The SEDs of these
IR-excess candidates are poorly populated and hence it is difficult to
asses whether or not the detected excesses are real. Another important
issue of only having at hand mid IR photometry is that it is hard to
asses if the excesses arise from a dust disk or a companion. It is
worth noting that for one of them ({\it Gaia} ID 128198912443928691)
the IR excess has been confirmed to arise due to a circumbinary disk
\citep{Farihi08}. However, to avoid including a large number of
potential false positive detections in our list, these WDs will not be
considered further in this work.
More information about the final 77 selected candidates for displaying
IR excess with available photometry at both near and mid IR
walelengths, including a visualization of their SED fitting, can be
found at the SVO archive of WDs with IR excess from {\it Gaia}
DR2\footnote{http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/vocats/v2/wdw3}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{List of 12 binary/multiple co-moving pairs found in this
work.}
\label{t:cmovingknown}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.8ex}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Identifier & Source & Comment \\
\hline
eps Ret & \cite{Farihi2011} & (1) \\
eps Ret B & & \\
eps Ret b & & \\
PM\,J04032+2520 & \cite{Limoges2015} & (2) \\
PM\,J04032+2520E & & \\
2MASS\,J04031652+2520192 & & \\
EGGR\,576 & \cite{Gianninas2011} & WD+WD \\
EGGR\,577 & & \\
LP\,402-28 & Simbad & WD+WD \\
LP\,402-29 & & \\
SDSS\,J230249.37+243027.9 & Simbad & (3) \\
SDSS\,J230250.37+243013.3 & & \\
L\,462-56A & Simbad & WD+WD \\
L\,462-56B & & \\
Gaia\,2751252493861856000 & \cite{Badry2018} & WD+WD (4)\\
Gaia\,2751252489566343680 & & \\
Gaia\,3404213863611804672 & \cite{Badry2018} & WD+WD (4)\\
Gaia\,3404213863614488192 & & \\
Gaia\,4209104513139995136 & this work & WD+WD (5) \\
Gaia\,4209104577563403136 & & \\
Gaia\,4659809928696442368 & this work & WD+WD (5) \\
Gaia\,4659809928696442496 & & \\
Gaia\,4964509614631078400 & \cite{Badry2018} & WD+WD (5)\\
Gaia\,4964509614631078272 & & \\
Gaia\,5184384997855024384 & this work & WD+WD (5,6) \\
Gaia\,5184385002150373632 & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[]
(1): Binary system formed by a red giant (K2\,III) with a confirmed extra-solar planet and a white dwarf (DA3).
\item[]
(2) Triple system formed by two white dwarfs and a M-dwarf.
\item[]
(3) WD+high proper motion object.
\item[]
(4): Both components included in \cite{Jimenez-Esteban18}.
\item[]
(5): First component included in \cite{Jimenez-Esteban18}. WD nature of the second component derived from its position in a M$_{G}$ vs $G$-$G_\mathrm{RP}$ diagram.
\item[]
(6): With a $G$-$G_\mathrm{RP}$ = 0.92, the second component is one of the coolest WDs in our sample.
\end{list}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{List of the 77 WDs found in this work displaying IR excess
and with at least three photometric points spread out between near
and mid IR wavelengths. 52 are new discovery candidates. Effective
temperatures were calculated as described in Sect.\,\ref{Iden} while
coordinates have been taken from the SVO archive of White Dwarfs
from {\it Gaia}. Surface gravities and masses are obtained as
described in Sect.\,\ref{s-disc}. Note the blackbody radii provided
for the dusty WDs have no physical meaning. For WDs, the errors in
effective temperatures are given by the step of the grid of models,
which changes with $T_\mathrm{eff}$. The step in the grid of blackbody models
is set to 25\,K. The second-last column indicates the expected
cause of the IR excess (either circumstellar disk or companion; in
italics) resulting from the visual SED inspection. The last column
indicates the same but based on the IR colours
(Fig.\,\ref{fig:excess}) and the mass of the WD (in italics; note
the classification based on the WD mass is only provided for four
low-mass WDs expected to be in close binaries and it is indicated
after the IR colour classification following /). Also indicated are
the confirmed disks and brown dwarfs by other studies. In these
cases the classifications are not given in italics. In bold face we
indicate the assumed final classification for each object.}
\label{t:dusty}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.7ex}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
Gaia ID & RA & DEC & Name & $T_\mathrm{eff}$& $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & R & logg & Mass & Ref. & Type & Type\\
& (ICRS) &(ICRS) & & (WD)& (bb) & (bb) & (WD) & (WD)& & &\\
DR2 & deg & deg & & K & K & R$_{\odot}$ & dex & M$_{\odot}$ & & SED & other\\
\hline
2416481783371550976 & 1.8951 & -16.0921 & EGGR 509 & 12000$\pm125$ & 2450 & 0.07& 7.84 &0.52 & & \emph{comp.} & \emph{disk}\\
2798132572998105984 & 1.9484 & 19.8568& & 12250$\pm$125 & 2500&0.02 & 7.75 & 0.48 & & {\bf \emph{comp.}} & \emph{?}\\
367949367212923392 & 12.3001 & 38.6918 & LAMOST J004912.04+384129.8 & 9500$\pm$125 & 850 & 0.23&7.76 &0.48 & &\emph{?} &\\
2529337507976700928 & 12.6909 & -3.4487 & & 20000$\pm$310 & 1050 & 0.10& 8.92&1.20 & &{\bf \emph{disk}} &\\
5026963661794939520 & 17.1503 & -32.6288 & HE 0106-3253 & 15750$\pm$125&1900 & 0.06& 7.97 & 0.60 & (Fa10) & \emph{disk} & {\bf disk}\\
2354670057156360576 & 17.3882 & -19.0215 & & 14250$\pm$125 & 550 & 0.48& 7.93 &0.57 & (De17)& \emph{?} & \\
4913589203924379776 & 18.0888 & -56.2411 & JL 234 & 18250$\pm$125&950 & 0.18& 7.89 & 0.56 & (Gi12) & \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
2593884960855727872 & 21.2525 & 18.1945 & & 8750$\pm$125 & 1700 & 0.05&8.32 &0.79 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
2588874825669925504 & 23.8868 & 14.7649& LSPM J0135+1445 & 8250$\pm$125&2450& 0.06& 7.50 & 0.37 & (St13) & \emph{comp.} &{\bf BD}/\emph{comp.}\\
5135466183642594304 & 26.8412 & -21.9477 & GD 1400 & 12000$\pm$125&2500 & 0.06& 8.11 & 0.67 & (Fa04)& \emph{comp.} &{\bf BD}\\
291057843317534464(*)& 26.9784 & 23.6617 & WD 0145+234 & 12500$\pm$125&-& -& 7.99 & 0.60 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
95297185335797120 & 27.2377 & 19.0405 & Wolf 88 & 13250$\pm$125&2200 & 0.06& 8.29 & 0.78 & (Fa09) & \emph{disk} &{\bf disk} \\
4632284754595134080 & 31.3539 & -79.6844 & & 9500$\pm$125 & 800 &0.14 &8.09 &0.65 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
2489533370280291584 & 35.8356 & -4.9852 & & 10250$\pm$125 & 600 & 0.45& 8.05& 0.63& &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
2489275328645218560 & 38.5646 & -4.1026 & & 13500$\pm$125 & 900 & 0.16& 8.12 &0.67 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
5187830356195791488 & 45.7209 & -1.1429 & GD 40 & 14500$\pm$125&950 & 0.16& 8.16& 0.70& (Ju07)& \emph{disk}& {\bf disk}\\
139331247344776832 & 47.0822 & 36.4914 & & 7500$\pm$125 & 1650 & 0.01& 7.94 & 0.56& &\emph{?}&\\
4833891614684676736 & 52.3630 & -47.6435 & & 9750$\pm$125 & 1450 & 0.06& 7.84 &0.52 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
542865797290276352 & 54.1894 & 70.7364 & & 10500$\pm$125 & 2800 &0.03 & 7.99 &0.60 & &\emph{?}&\\
3251748915515143296 & 62.7590 & -3.9735 & GD 56 & 14500$\pm$125&950 & 0.45& 8.00 & 0.61 & (Ju07)& \emph{disk}& {\bf disk}\\
4837423353408638080 & 63.2121 & -45.1696 & & 14000$\pm$125&1350 & 0.08& 8.02 & 0.62 & & {\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
4653404070862114176 & 64.9077 & -73.0623 & [DI91] 1592 & 18250$\pm$125&1350 & 0.02& 7.92 & 0.58 & (Ho13)& {\bf \emph{disk}} &\\
271992414775824640 & 66.0653 & 52.1696 & KPD 0420+5203 & 15250$\pm$125&1100& 0.18& 8.09 & 0.67 & (Ba16)& \emph{disk} & {\bf disk}\\
152740654933891072 & 68.4777 & 28.4579 & PM J04339+2827 & 14000$\pm$125&1850 & 0.02& 7.92 & 0.57&(Xu15) & \emph{comp.} & {\bf \emph{BD}}\\
203931163247581184 & 69.6641 & 41.1585 & GD 61 & 14250$\pm$125&1350& 0.001 & 8.08 & 0.66 & (Fa 11) & \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
2986304298645920384 & 75.3165 & -15.1900 & & 11250$\pm$125 & 2350 & 0.05&7.83 &0.51 & &\emph{?}&\\
3415788525598117248 & 77.5087 & 23.2613 & LAMOST J051002.11+231541.0 & 17250$\pm$125&1200 & 0.13& 8.11 & 0.68 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
4799224635833122304 & 82.7521 & -45.9670 & & 10750$\pm$125 & 850 &0.13 &8.02 &0.61 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
4795556287084999552 & 84.4726 & -47.9681 & EC 05365-4759 & 18250$\pm$125&450 & 1.40& 7.87& 0.55& (De16)& \emph{disk} &{\bf disk} \\
3329569015639064192(*) & 90.6529 & 9.07322 & LSPM J0602+0904 & 6000$\pm$125 & - & -& 7.50& 0.35& &\emph{disk} &\emph{?/comp.}\\
962995581174346112 & 90.7863 & 45.3077 & & 14750$\pm$125 &1950& 0.04& 7.95 & 0.58 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
3112786176370258688 & 105.6910& 0.0552 & & 11750$\pm$125&750 & 0.14& 8.03& 0.62& &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
5490140356700680576 & 108.6243 & -55.6572& & 9000$\pm$125 & 2700 & 0.07& 7.64& 0.43& &\emph{comp.}& {\bf \emph{BD}}/\emph{comp.}\\
872009447786700672(*) & 112.5000 & 27.2781 & LSPM J0730+2716W & 9250$\pm$125 & - & -&7.98 &0.59 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
5292685793681027968 & 113.6708 & -60.1979 & & 9250$\pm$125 & 800 & 0.12&8.24 &0.74 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
1081504483467714176 & 120.6156 & 56.5321 & & 10750$\pm$125 & 950 & 0.16 & 8.06&0.64 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
585513959248023936 & 141.1386 & 5.3519 & & 6000$\pm$125 & 950 & 0.09&8.18 &0.70 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
5662556012001458944 & 141.2082 & -24.38456 & 0.23& 8500$\pm$125 & 700 & 0.24&7.96 &0.57 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
5740372469987778304 & 143.4221 & -10.0026 & & 8000$\pm$125 & 1450 &0.06 & 8.56& 0.95& &\emph{?}&\\
5459131788043369344 & 154.3688 & -32.6025 & & 8000$\pm$125 & 1300 &0.05 & 7.93 &0.56 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
3888723386196630784 & 154.5154 & 15.8660 & PG 1015+161 & 21000$\pm$500&1600& 0.01& 7.98 & 0.61 & (Ju07) &\emph{disk}& {\bf disk}\\
3810933247769901696 & 169.8012 & 2.3426 & GD 133 & 12250$\pm$125&900& 0.17& 8.01&0.61 & (Ho13) &\emph{disk} & {\bf disk}\\
771517005584473600 & 171.424 & 42.3930 & GD 308 & 9500$\pm$125 & 1400 & 0.06& 8.14&0.68 &(De11) &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
3571559292842744960 & 178.3134 & -15.6104& EC 11507-1519 & 11000$\pm$125 &750& 0.53& 7.90 & 0.55 & (Ho13) & \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
3543074313820703488 & 178.5127 & -19.2376 & & 7250$\pm$125 & 750 & 0.28 &7.77 &0.48 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
3479615106870788864(*) & 178.5145 & -31.0292 & & 6250$\pm$125 & -& - & 8.17& 0.69& &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
4028120776036373760 & 180.4780 & 34.0154 & SDSS J120154.70+340055.9 & 6000$\pm$125 & 1300 & 0.06& 8.14& 0.67& &\emph{?}&\\
1692520339315508224 & 184.2221 & 74.9237 & & 6500$\pm$125 & 1250 & 0.05& 8.00&0.59 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
3903151246497510784 & 190.1509 & 9.5361 & & 6750$\pm$125 & 750 & 0.14& 8.45& 0.87& &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
3663900436870097664 & 208.7495 & 1.1387 & SDSS J135459.89+010819.3 & 11500$\pm$125 & 750 & 0.20&7.88 &0.54 & & {\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
1494157691363079168(*) & 217.1406 & 44.0630 & & 7500$\pm$125 & -& -& 8.36& 0.81& (De11) &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
1488904946359359488 & 222.5277 & 40.9264 & CBS204 & 13500$\pm$125 & 800 & 0.21&7.88 &0.54 & &\emph{?}&\\
1183473535423719296 & 227.4253 & 14.1892 & & 6250$\pm$125 & 1250 & 0.04 &8.15 &0.67 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
6315417253178248960 & 229.6198 & -11.8109 & & 10250$\pm$125 & 700 & 0.23& 7.86 &0.52 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{List of the 77 WDs found in this work displaying IR excess
and with at least three photometric points spread out between near
and mid IR wavelengths (cont.).}
\label{t:dusty2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.7ex}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccc}
\hline
Gaia ID & RA & DEC & Name & $T_\mathrm{eff}$& $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & R & logg & Mass & Ref. & Type & Type\\
& (ICRS) &(ICRS) & & (WD)& (bb) & (bb) & (WD) & (WD)& & &\\
DR2 & deg & deg & & K & K & R$_{\odot}$ & dex & M$_{\odot}$ & & SED & other\\
\hline
1641326979142898048 & 235.4372 & 64.8978 & V* KX Dra & 11000$\pm$125&850 & 0.27 & 7.90 & 0.55& (Ki12) & \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
1429618420396285952 & 243.3191 & 55.3572 & SBSS 1612+554 & 11250$\pm$125&950& 0.16& 8.06&0.64 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
4390134326651497728 & 260.957 & 4.9799 & PM J17238+0458 & 8500$\pm$125 & 550 & 0.35&7.94 &0.56 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
1368236912466084352(*) &265.7298 & 51.6024& SDSS J174255.14+513608.4 & 8750$\pm$125 & - & - &7.95 &0.57 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
4583221109793391232(*) & 271.6897 & 27.5299 & & 6500$\pm$125 & - &- & 8.09 &0.64 & & {\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
6417955993895552128 & 273.5734 & -73.9174 & & 7750$\pm$125 & 700 &0.80 & 8.06 & 0.63 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{?}\\
2155960371551164416 & 285.8315 & 60.5980 & GD532 & 10750$\pm$125 & 850 & 0.23&8.04 &0.63 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
6429048245152936320 & 305.0718& -65.4240 & & 6500$\pm$125 & 1900 & 0.05& 8.25 & 0.74 & &{\bf \emph{comp.}}& \emph{?}\\
1837948790953103232 & 315.1447 & 21.3826 & & 15250$\pm$125&1000 & 0.44& 7.91 & 0.59 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{?}\\
6462911897617050240 & 319.9055 & -55.8382 & LAWD 84 & 9500$\pm$125&650 & 0.10& 8.02 & 0.61 & (Fa09) & \emph{disk}& {\bf disk}\\
6580498481454705408 & 320.3473 & -42.1484 & & 7500$\pm$125 & 600 & 0.26& 8.32& 0.79& &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
6811977801160882944 & 328.3816 & -26.4821 & & 14750$\pm$125 & 700 & 0.23&9.09 &1.31 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
2677851743291189888 & 335.1279 & -0.6854 & PHL 5038 & 7500$\pm$125 & 1050 & 0.12 & 7.87& 0.53& (De11) &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
2595728287804350720 & 336.0726 & -16.2631 & PHL 5103 & 10000$\pm$125 & 1450 & 0.04&8.12 &0.67 & (Ro15)& \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
1900545847646195840 & 337.4920 & 30.4028 & PM J22299+3024 & 10500$\pm$125 & 2550 & 0.08&7.41 &0.35 & &{\bf \emph{comp.}}& \emph{disk/comp.}\\
2622979271185741312 & 338.3480 & -6.0278 & & 8250$\pm$125 & 850 & 0.31&8.07 &0.63 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
6594180460552162944 & 338.477 & -38.5436 & LP 1033-28 & 8500$\pm$125 & 1000 & 0.07& 8.05& 0.62& &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
2712240064671438720 & 344.3588 & 7.9285 & G28-27 & 13750$\pm$125 & 950 & 0.07& 9.36& 1.44& (De11) &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\\
1995097319287822080 & 346.3820 & 51.4227 & & 12750$\pm$125 & 1800 & 0.04&7.93 &0.57 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
6499095244738784128 & 349.0564 & -55.4912 & & 10250$\pm$125 & 950& 0.10& 8.35&0.81 & &{\bf \emph{disk}}&\emph{disk}\\
2660358032257156736 & 352.1975 & 5.2478 & V* ZZ Psc & 10750$\pm$125&950 & 0.19 & 7.90 & 0.55 & (Re05)& \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
1923682286712356992 & 352.9001 & 41.0248 & EGGR 160 & 14500$\pm$125&700 & 0.36& 7.94& 0.58& (Ho13)& \emph{disk} &{\bf disk}\\
6538863343364422528 & 355.1527 & -37.1458 & EC 23379-3725 & 12250$\pm$125 & 700 & 0.41& 7.74& 0.48& &{\bf \emph{disk}}& \emph{disk}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Comments:]
(*) Marginal IR excess. No reliable values of blackbody effective temperature and radius.
\item[References:]
(Fa10): \cite{Farihi10},
(Gi12): \cite{Girven12},
(St13): \cite {Steele13}
(Fa04): \cite{Farihi2004}
(Fa09): \cite{Farihi09},
(Ju07): \cite{Jura07},
(Ho13): \cite{Hoard13},
(Ba16): \cite{Barber16},
(Xu15): \cite{Xu2015}
(Fa11): \cite{Farihi2011},
(De16): \cite{Dennihy16},
(Fa08): \cite{Farihi08b},
(Ki12) \cite{Kilic12},
(De11): \cite{Debes2011},
(De17): \cite{Dennihy17}
(Re05): \cite{Reach05}.
(Ro15): \cite{Rocchetto15}.
\end{list}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{List of 33 IR-excess WD candidates with available photometry
at only mid IR wavelengths.}
\label{t:dusty3}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.3ex}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
Gaia ID & RA & DEC & Name \\
&(ICRS) & (ICRS) & \\
DR2 & deg & deg & \\
\hline
2741440172922171008 & 4.2305 & 5.0786 & SDSS J001655.37+050442.1 \\
2858896086675180928 & 7.2235 & 30.0918 & \\
2344098385998773120 & 11.3746 & -25.0516 & \\
377520826387065856 & 13.0183 & 45.0927 & \\
306805388153226368 & 16.7916 & 27.1691 & \\
306350606950880128 & 16.8592 & 25.3099 & \\
2790417540424293120 & 16.9558 & 21.1294 & SDSS J010749.34+210745.2 \\
5161531373793965440 & 49.6922 & -13.0005 & \\
568168544844912128 & 57.0280 & 80.8102 & \\
4887631143142117632 & 57.4624 & -30.5289 & \\
498487545190443136 & 89.8444 & 72.9873 & \\
992771180686912000 & 98.8498 & 52.2593 & \\
921804126089222784 & 122.9556 & 42.2025 & KUV 08084+4221 \\
1118374024628715264 & 129.4702 & 69.2181 & \\
1051954485699665280$^{1}$ & 152.5329 & 61.9211 & \\
738060065046666240 & 163.0523 & 33.3884 & \\
789712823515276416 & 169.3462 & 48.8665 & \\
3705386281897262848 & 193.0632 & 4.1786 & HS 1249+0426 \\
3938156295111047680 & 196.4251 & 18.0179 & V* GP Com \\
1281989124439286912$^{2}$ & 224.5277 & 29.6223 &EGGR 298 \\
1157317008497672320 & 227.7374 & 6.4638 & SDSS J151056.99+062749.7 \\
1219699145026398848 & 237.2293 & 24.8536 & SDSS J154855.04+245112.9 \\
1316607896578157824$^{3}$ & 240.4179 & 27.5969 & LSPM J1601+2735 \\
1199686173677816576$^{1}$ & 242.1648 & 17.3935 & \\
1428562506980546688 & 244.1432 & 54.1698 & \\
4555079659441944960 & 262.1905 & 20.8949 & \\
6845706900891884928 & 303.9679 & -28.5888 & \\
6886271973655421824 & 312.8046 & -15.3495 & \\
6809396800693752576 & 314.4396 & -20.0568 & \\
6884996230921934976 & 316.6775 &-14.7588 & \\
2284456545980836736 & 319.6924 & 76.9831 & \\
1946495125767488896 & 326.3801 & 32.8618 & \\
2199338643594260352 & 329.6359 & 58.0752 & Lan 432 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[References:]
(2): \cite{Farihi08b},
(1): \cite{Debes2011},
(3): \cite{Dennihy17}
\end{list}
\end{table}
\section{Methodology assessment}
\label{method}
The efficiency of our methodology was assessed using the false
negative rate, i.e. the fraction of known IR-excess WDs that were not
rediscovered in our search. In particular, we compiled a list of 24
WDs at less than 100 pc and with IR excess confirmed by Spitzer. 20
objects (83\%) were identified using our methodology and are included
in Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty3}. The remaining four objects
were not identified due to the following two reasons:
(1) Contamination of the WISE photometry due to the presence of a
nearby source (WD1929+011 and WD0950-572). It is worth noting that
these two objects are not included in the SEIP Spitzer catalogue,
otherwise VOSA would have very likely detected the IR excess.
(2) Unreliable WISE photometry in W3 and W4 bands (WD2132+096 and
WD2328+107). These targets are not included in the SEIP Spitzer
catalogue neither, hence VOSA could not detect the IR excess.
These results confirm the robustness of our methodology (a success
rate of 83\%) to identify WDs with IR excess. We therefore assume our
IR-excess sample to be 83\% complete. It is also important to note
that if we take into account that the four objects that we could not
recover were identified from publicly unavailable Spitzer data (i.e.
data not included in the SEIP catalogue), then the success rate of our
method would increase to 100\%.
Assuming an IR-excess completeness of 83\% for our sample does not
imply that we have discovered 83\% of all WDs displaying IR excess
within 100 pc from the Sun. First, we are basing our methodology
assessment on \emph{confirmed} WDs with IR excess by Spitzer,
therefore there may exist WDs without Spitzer data and displaying IR
excess that we are not taking into account and that are consequently
missed by this and all previous studies. Second, and more important,
we are only considering 3,733 objects with reliable IR photometry and
with $G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}$ colours below 0.8 mag within our {\it
Gaia} 100 pc sample.
\section{Characterization of the sample}
\label{charac}
It is widely accepted that there are three main possibilities to
explain the IR excess detections in WDs such as those listed in
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}: the presence of a brown dwarf
companion, the presence of low-mass stellar companion and the
existence of a circumstellar dust disk. To discern the origin of the
IR excess we follow two different approaches, namely the use of a
colour-colour diagram and the visual inspection of the SEDs. The
classification of IR-excess origin based on these two methods are
provided in the last and second-last columns of
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}, respectively.
We use the colour-colour diagram proposed by \citet{Barber14}.
Fig.\ref{fig:excess} compares the IR colours of the 54 WDs with excess
included in Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2} and with good 2MASS
(Qflg $\neq$ U in the J and H bands) and WISE (ccf=0 and qph=A/B in
the W2 band) photometry to those of M, L, T dwarf stars and brown
dwarfs. 15 objects (pink bullets in Figure\,\ref{fig:excess}) have
been classified as dusty WDs in the literature, while for one object
(green bullet) the IR excess has been ascribed to the presence of a BD
companion. 31 objects (black bullets) are located well apart from the
stellar/brown dwarf loci, and we hence classify them as dusty WDs
based on their IR colours. Two objects (yellow bullets) lie either
near the brown dwarf locus or near a confirmed WD+BD binary as we thus
classify them as WD+BD candidates. For one of these objects (Gaia ID:
152740654933891072) the morphology flag of the UKIDSS catalogue
indicates the possibility that this source was extended at more than
one bandpass, which is an additional evidence supporting the
hypothesis that the IR excess is due to nearby brown dwarf. The
remaining five (black triangles) lie in colour regions expected for T
brown dwarfs where also confirmed dusty WDs are located, therefore it
becomes difficult to asses the origin of the IR excess in these
objects. We explored their quality flags associated to the {\it Gaia}
astrometry. Following the latest recommendations published by the
{\it Gaia} ESA team in the {\it Known issues with the {\it Gaia} DR2
data} web page\footnote{
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dr2-known-issues}, we defined
sources with good astrometry as those having the re-normalised unit
weight error (RUWE) $<$ 1.4. Sources having a higher value of RUWE may
have a worse astrometric solution due to different effects, one of
those being the presence of a close companion. However, we got a value
of RUWE$<$1.4 for the five objects, which prevented us from
discriminating between a disk or brown dwarf/low-mass star origin of
their IR excesses.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{colourcolour.eps}
\caption{$J$-$H$ vs $H$-$W2$ colour-colour diagram showing the
loci of stars and brown dwarfs of M (blue squares), L (grey
squares) and T (red squares) spectral types. M dwarfs have been
taken from \citet{Reiners18} while L,T objects are from
\citet{Smart17}. Bullets represent the 54 WDs with IR excess
listed in Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2} with good 2MASS
and WISE photometry. Pink bullets (15) represent objects
classified as confirmed dusty WDs in the last column of
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}, while green bullets (1)
are objects classified as confirmed WD+BD systems in the same
column. Black (31) and yellow (2) bullets are objects classified
as dusty WDs or WD+BD systems, respectively according to their
position in the diagram. Black triangles (5) represent objects
for which the origin of the IR excess is uncertain.}
\label{fig:excess}
\end{figure}
In order to further explore the origin of the IR excesses we visually
inspected the SEDs of the 77 candidates. Eight of them benefit only
from J 2MASS and WISE photometry, hence we do not have enough
information at hand to reach a conclusion. In these cases we flag the
origin of the excess as unknown (\emph{?} in the second last column of
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}). For eight additional objects
the IR excesses arise at the J and/or H bands, which supports the idea
of these WDs being in binary systems with either low-mass stars or
brown dwarf companions. Two objects (\emph{Gaia} IDs
2588874825669925504 and 5135466183642594304) are in fact confirmed,
and one more (152740654933891072) is a candidate to harbour a brown
dwarf based on its IR colours (Fig.\,\ref{fig:excess}). These objects
are flagged to harbour companions in the second-last column of
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2} and we include the brown dwarf
classification of the three discussed targets in the last column of
the same tables. The SEDs of 61 WDs display IR excess at K-band or
longer wavelengths, characteristic features of circumstellar disk
candidates. These objects are hence flagged as such in the second-last
column of Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{s-disc}
We have identified 77 IR-excess WD candidates within the 100\,pc {\it
Gaia} WD catalogue, 52 of which have not been published before (see
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}--\ref{t:dusty2}). The WD effective temperatures
are derived fitting the photometric SED of each WD using VOSA
(Section\,\ref{Iden}), which together with the bolometric luminosities
(also provided by VOSA by making use of the {\it Gaia} parallaxes)
yield the radii of the WDs from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The WD
masses are estimated interpolating the radii and effective
temperatures obtained in this way in the WD cooling tracks for
hydrogen-rich, DA, atmospheres of \citet{Renedo2010}, following our
procedure described in \citet{Jimenez-Esteban18}. Given that {\it
Gaia} DR2 does not provide stellar spectra, the reliability of the
determined masses relies on the assumption that all our WDs are
DAs. As we showed in \citet{Jimenez-Esteban18}, the contribution of DB
(helium-rich) WDs to the sample of WDs with determined stellar
parameters should be no higher than $\simeq$6\%. The average
uncertainties that are introduced when assuming DA models when
deriving the effective temperatures and masses of DB WDs are
1700$\pm$1680\,K and 0.08$\pm$0.06M$_{\odot}$, respectively, where the
errors are the standard deviations. These values are obtained
comparing the stellar parameters calculated by
\citet{Jimenez-Esteban18} for 152 common SDSS DB WDs in the
spectroscopic catalogue of \citet{Koester2015} with relative error
below 10\% in effective temperature and surface gravity errors below
0.05 dex.
Four WDs have determined masses under 0.45\,M$_\mathrm{\odot}$, which
indicates these objects are likely members of close binaries with
sub-stellar or low-mass companions (from which the IR excess likely
arises) that formed through common envelope evolution. Another
possibility is that these are non-DA WDs, in which case the masses
cannot be considered as reliable. The four potentially low-mass WDs
have the following {\it Gaia} IDs: 2588874825669925504
(LSPM\,J0135+1445), 3329569015639064192 (LSPM J0602+0904),
5490140356700680576, 1900545847646195840 (PM
J22299+3024). LSPM\,J0135+1445 is a confirmed WD+BD binary
\citep{Steele13}. 3329569015639064192 is classified as a disk
candidate based on its SED, which supports the idea of this WD being
of a non-DA spectral class. 5490140356700680576 is classified as a
companion and brown dwarf by its SED and IR colours, respectively,
which strongly indicates this WD is indeed part of a close
binary. Finally, the SED and IR colours of 1900545847646195840
indicate a companion and disk origin, respectively, and therefore more
information is required (e.g. IR spectroscopy) to confirm this WD is
in a close binary system.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{histo_wd.eps}
\caption{Left panels: WD effective temperature and mass
distributions in logarithmic scale. In gray we show the entire
100\,pc sample of {\it Gaia} WDs with reliable IR photometry, in
black those WD candidates to show IR excess due to a
circumstellar disk
(Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}--\ref{t:dusty2}). Right panels: the
parameter distributions in linear scale of the WD candidates to
show IR excess due to the presence of a cirsumstellar disk. The
WD masses above 1M$_{\odot}$ should be taken with caution, especially
for those objects displaying IR excess, since these are possibly
non-DA WDs.}
\label{fig:histo_wd}
\end{figure}
The effective temperature and mass distributions for the 60 WDs in
which the IR excess is confirmed/expected to arise from the presence
of a circumstellar dust disk (indicated in bold face in the last two
columns of Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}) are illustrated in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:histo_wd}. Inspection of the Figure reveals the
effective temperatures are concentrated between 6,000-20,000\,K, with
a peak at $\simeq$9,000\,K. No WDs are found below 6,000\,K due to the
$G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP} <$ 0.8 mag cut we imposed in
Section\,\ref{Iden}. The drop of IR-excess WD candidates above
$\simeq$20,000\,K is in line with previous studies
\citep[e.g.][]{Bergfors2014, Barber14, Barber16}. The physical
mechanism causing this could be that the accretion of the material
onto the WD is supplied by a pure gas disc, which results from the
sublimation of optically thin dust due to the high effective
temperatures \citep{Bonsor2017}. A drop in the fraction of IR-excess
WDs below $\simeq$8,000--10,000,K is also reported in previous works
\citep[e.g.][]{Bergfors2014}, a result that favours a positive
correlation between the WD effective temperature and the detection of
IR-excess. In the top-left panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:histo_wd} one can
clearly see the same tendency, i.e. the fraction of cool
($\la$8,000--10,000\,K) WDs displaying IR excess decreases. However,
since the {\it Gaia} 100pc WD sample is volume-limited and hence
dominated by WDs cooler than 10,000\,K \citep{Jimenez-Esteban18}, the
peak of the effective temperature distribution occurs at
$\simeq$9,000\,K rather than at higher temperatures (see the top-right
panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:histo_wd}).
The mass distribution of the WD candidates for displaying IR excess
due to a circumstellar dust disk is clearly dominated by $\simeq$0.6
M$_\mathrm{\odot}$ objects. Indeed, $\simeq$50\% of the objects have
masses between 0.55 and 0.65\,M$_{\odot}$. It is worth mentioning that three
WDs have masses above 1M$_{\odot}$, one of them near the Chandrasekhar mass
limit. The masses of these WDs should be taken with caution since
there exists the possibility these are non-DAs. WDs more massive than
$>$0.8 M$_\mathrm{\odot}$ are not generally found to display IR excess
\citep{Mullally2007, Barber16}. This is also observed in our mass
distribution, where only $\simeq$5\% of the objects are located in the
0.8--1.0 mass range.
Based on the 60 confirmed/expected dusty WDs in
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2}, we calculate a fraction of
IR-excess WDs due to the existence of a circumstellar dust disk of
1.6$\pm$0.2\% \footnote{The error is calculated as $\sqrt{\frac{frac
\times \left( 1-frac \right) }{N_\mathrm{tot}}}$, where
N$_\mathrm{tot}$ is the total number of WDs and \emph{frac} is the
IR-excess fraction of WDs.}. As we have already mentioned, the
detection of IR-excess seems to be positively correlated with the WD
effective temperature. Thus, if we exclude all WDs with effective
temperatures below 8,000\,K from our sample, the fraction of IR-excess
WDs increases to 2.3$\pm$0.3\%, as expected. For completeness, we
provide the fractions at different effective temperature bins in
Table\,\ref{t:fractions}, where one can see the values gradually
decrease as soon as we move towards cooler effective temperatures.
The fractions we derived are in excellent agreement with the 1--5\%
measured percentages by other studies \citep{Debes2011, Barber16,
Bonsor2017, Wilson2019}. It has to be emphasised however that these
values should be considered as lower limits, since many WDs in our
sample with reliable IR photometry have no counterparts at near IR
wavelengths (we remind the reader that all our candidates have
reliable IR photometry at both near and mid IR wavelengths). Of the
3,733 WDs in our analysed sample, 2802 have near and mid IR
counterparts. This implies a revised overall WD IR-excess fraction of
2.1$\pm$0.3\%. Moreover, if we take into account that we assumed our
IR-excess sample to be 83\% complete (Section\,\ref{method}), this
implies a completeness-corrected fraction of 2.6$\pm$0.3\%.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The fraction of IR-excess WDs due to the existence of a
circumstellar dust disk for different effective temperature bins.}
\label{t:fractions}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.6ex}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
T$_\mathrm{eff}$ range (K) & fraction (\%) & error (\%) \\
\hline
6,000-8,000 & 0.8 & 0.2 \\
8,000-10,000 & 1.8 & 0.5 \\
10,000-12,000 & 2.8 & 0.8 \\
12,000-14,000 & 2.9 & 1.0 \\
14,000-16,000 & 4.0 & 1.3 \\
16,000-18,000 & 0.7 & 0.7 \\
18,000-20,000 & 4.5 & 2.2 \\
20,000-22,000 & 2.0 & 2.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Our sample of 77 IR-excess WD candidates contains two confirmed WD+BD
binaries (LSPM\,J0135+1445 and GD\,1400) and two more that are also
likely to harbour brown dwarf companions: PM\,J04339+2827 (Gaia
ID$=$54901403567006805) and 549014035670068057 (yellow dots in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:excess}). We thus derive a fraction of IR-excess WDs
due to brown dwarf companions of 0.10$\pm$0.05\%. If we assume that
the IR excess of all WDs expected to harbour companions in
Tables\,\ref{t:dusty}-\ref{t:dusty2} is due to a brown dwarf rather
than due to a low-mass star, the percentage increases to
0.20$\pm$0.05\%, or 0.23$\pm$0.05\% if we take into account the
incompleteness of our sample. Our results are in agreement with the
expected value of $<$0.5\% claimed by \citet{Farihi2005}.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that all IR-excess WD candidates found
in this study are classified to be members of the Galactic thin disk,
according to the Random Forest identification algorithm we presented
in \citet{Torres2019}. The proportion of WDs within the {\it Gaia}
100\,pc sample belonging to the thin/thick disk within the colour
limits considered ($G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}$<0.8 mag) is expected to be
96.5:3.5 \citep{Torres2019}, which translates into an expected number
of $\simeq$74 thin disk and $\simeq$3 thick disk IR-excess WDs among
our 77 identified objects. Thus, the expected number of thick disk WDs
is at odds with the observed value. Given that thick disk WDs are
generally old ($\ga$9\,Gyr), and taking into account that the fraction
of IR-excess WDs drops for cooler (hence generally older) objects, the
discrepancy between the expected and the observed number of thin/thick
disk IR-excess WDs seems to be naturally explained.
\section{Conclusions}
We have analysed the SEDs of 3,733 WDs within 100pc from the {\it
Gaia} volume-limited sample of \citet{Jimenez-Esteban18} with
reliable IR photometry and with $G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}$ colours below
0.8 mag with the aim of detecting IR excess candidates. The search has
resulted in 77 identifications, 52 of which are new. 33 additional WDs
have been also identified as potential IR-excess candidates. However,
the fact that no near IR photometry is available in these cases makes
the reliability of the dectections less certain. We have provided the
largest volume-limited sample of IR excess WD candidates to date,
which represents a fraction of 2.6$\pm$0.3\% of the sample analysed in
this work. Having this large number of WD candidates for harbouring a
circumstellar disk at hand opens up the possibility to considerably
increase our understanding of the properties of extreme planetary
systems. A similar exercise to the one performed in this work but for
the entire \emph{Gaia} sample of WDs is encouraging. Even though the
\emph{Gaia} WD catalogue icluding WDs at all distances is magnitude-
rather than volume-limited, such an analysis would result in the
identification of many additional WDs displaying IR-excess, important
for future follow-up studies.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA)
mission {\it Gaia} (\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia}), processed
by the {\it Gaia} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC,
\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium}). Funding
for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular
the institutions participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral
Agreement. This publication makes use of VOSA, developed under the
Spanish Virtual Observatory project supported from the Spanish MINECO
through grant AyA2017-84089. This research has made use of the SIMBAD
database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We acknowledge use of
the ADS bibliographic services. This research has made use of "Aladin
sky atlas" developed at CDS, Strasbourg Observatory, France. This
research has made use of Topcat \citep{Taylor05}. ARM acknowledges
support from the MINECO under the Ram\'on y Cajal programme
(RYC-2016-20254). ARM and ST acknowledge support from the
AYA2017-86274-P grant and the AGAUR grant SGR-661/2017. F.J.E.
acknowledges financial support from the Spacetec-CM project
(S2013/ICE-2822), and from ASTERICS project (ID:653477,
H2020-EU.1.4.1.1. - Developing new world-class research
infrastructures). We thank the anonymous referee for her/his
suggestions and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider the critical Lane--Emden system
\begin{equation}\label{eq-LEs}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta U = V^p &\text{in } \mathbb R^N,\\
-\Delta V = U^q &\text{in } \mathbb R^N,\\
U,V >0\ &\text{in } \mathbb R^N
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $N \ge 3$, $p,q>0$ and $(p,q)$ belongs to the {\em critical hyperbola}
\begin{equation}\label{eq-hyp}
\frac{1}{p+1} + \frac{1}{q+1} = \frac{N-2}{N}.
\end{equation}
In \cite[Corollary I.2]{Li}, Lions found a positive ground state
\[(U,V) \in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N) \times\dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N) \]
of \eqref{eq-LEs}, by transforming it into an equivalent scalar equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq-LEsc}
\Delta \left(|\Delta U|^{\frac{1}{p}-1} \Delta U\right) = |U|^{q-1}U \quad \text{in } \R^N
\end{equation}
and employing a concentration-compactness argument to the associated minimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq-K_pq}
\begin{aligned}
\inf \left\{\|\Delta u\|_{L^\frac{p+1}p(\R^N)}: \|u\|_{L^{q+1}(\R^N)} = 1 \right\}
&= \inf_{u \in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N) \setminus \{0\}} \frac{\int_{\R^N} |\Delta u|^{\frac{p+1}p}}{(\int_{\R^N} |u|^{q+1})^{\frac{p+1}{p(q+1)}}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As shown by Alvino et al.~\cite{AlLiTr} (see also \cite[Corollary I.2]{Li}), it is always radially symmetric and decreasing in $r = |x|$, after a suitable translation.
Moreover, Wang in \cite[Lemma ~3.2]{Wa} and Hulshof and Van der Vorst in \cite[Theorem ~1]{HuvdV} proved that a ground state solution of \eqref{eq-LEs} is unique up to scalings.
\medskip
The present paper deals with the non-degeneracy for the critical Lane--Emden system.
Let $(U,V)$ be a ground state solution to system \eqref{eq-LEs}.
The invariance of the system under dilations and translations leads to natural solutions of the linearized system around $(U,V)$. More precisely, the functions
$$ (U_{\delta,\xi}(x),V_{\delta,\xi}(x)) := \left(\delta^{\frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1}} U(\delta(x-\xi)), \delta^{\frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1}} V(\delta(x-\xi))\right) \quad \hbox{for any}\ \delta>0,\ \xi\in\R^N$$
are solutions to system \eqref{eq-LEs}. Hence, if we differentiate the system
$$\begin{cases}
-\Delta U_{\delta,\xi} = V^p_{\delta,\xi} &\text{in } \R^N,\\
-\Delta V_{\delta,\xi} = U^q_{\delta,\xi} &\text{in } \R^N
\end{cases}
$$
with respect to the parameters at $(\delta,\xi)=(1,0)$,
we immediately see that the $(N+1)$ linearly independent functions
\begin{equation}\label{z0}\left(\Psi_0(x), \Phi_0(x)\right):= \left(x\cdot\nabla U + \frac {2(p+1)}{pq-1} U, x\cdot\nabla V + \frac {2(q+1)}{pq-1} V\right)\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{zi}\left(\Psi_i(x), \Phi_i(x)\right):= \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_i}, \frac{\partial V}{\partial x_i}\right)
\quad \text{for } i=1,\dots,N
\end{equation}
solve the linear system
\begin{equation}\label{eq-lin}\begin{cases}
-\Delta \Psi = p \, V^{p-1}\Phi &\text{in } \R^N,\\
-\Delta \Phi = q \, U^{q-1}\Psi &\text{in } \R^N.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
A fundamental question regarding the linear system \eqref{eq-lin} is to classify all its solutions which vanish, in a certain sense, at infinity.
Notably, one can ask if all such solutions of \eqref{eq-lin} result from the invariance of \eqref{eq-LEs}.
Such a property, which we call the {\em non-degeneracy} for system \eqref{eq-LEs}, is a key ingredient
in analyzing the blow-up phenomena of solutions to various elliptic systems on bounded or unbounded domains in $\R^N$ or Riemannian manifolds whose asymptotic behavior is encoded in \eqref{eq-LEs}.
It also plays a crucial role in building new types of bubbling solutions to the Lane--Emden systems as well as their parabolic and hyperbolic counterparts.
In this paper, we provide an affirmative answer to the question mentioned earlier,
by proving the non-degeneracy for the critical Lane--Emden system \eqref{eq-LEs} for all dimensions $N \ge 3$ and all possible pairs $(p,q)$.
Here is the precise description of our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Suppose that $N \ge 3$, $p,q>0$, $(p,q)$ satisfies \eqref{eq-hyp}, and $(U,V)$ is a ground state solution to \eqref{eq-LEs}.
Then all the solutions $(\Psi,\Phi)\in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N) \times \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$
to \eqref{eq-lin} are linear combinations of $\left(\Psi_i , \Phi_i \right),$ $i=0,1,\dots,N.$
\end{theorem}
In fact, we may drop the condition $\Phi \in \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$ in the statement,
because the assumption that $\Psi \in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N)$ implies this; see Subsection \ref{subsec:amd} for more comments.
In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:main}, we perform an angular momentum decomposition.
Namely, we decompose the linear system \eqref{eq-lin} and its solutions into spherical harmonics.
Because our natural function space is not a Hilbert space such as $\dot W^{1,2}(\R^N)$, the step to determine relevant function spaces is somewhat tricky. Once it is done, we carefully study the corresponding radial parts by employing delicate ODE techniques.
\medskip
Furthermore, by using the precise decay estimate of a ground state solution to \eqref{eq-LEs} due to Hulshof and Van der Vorst \cite[Theorem 2]{HuvdV} and the maximum principle, one can prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{decene}
Suppose that $N \ge 3$, $p,q>0$, $(p,q)$ satisfies \eqref{eq-hyp}, and $(U,V)$ is a ground state solution to \eqref{eq-LEs}. Let $(\Psi,\Phi)\in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N) \times \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$ be a weak solution to \eqref{eq-lin} with
$$
\lim_{|x| \to \infty} (\Psi(x), \Phi(x)) = 0 \,.
$$
Then $(\Psi,\Phi)\in \dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N) \times \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$.
\end{lemma}
Combining this fact and Theorem \ref{thm:main}, we deduce the following result which, we believe, is also of practical use.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:main}
Suppose that $N \ge 3$, $p,q>0$, $(p,q)$ satisfies \eqref{eq-hyp}, and $(U,V)$ is a ground state solution to \eqref{eq-LEs}.
Then all the weak solutions $(\Psi,\Phi)$ to \eqref{eq-lin} such that $\lim_{|x| \to \infty} (\Psi(x), \Phi(x)) = 0$
are linear combinations of $\left(\Psi_i , \Phi_i \right),$ $i=0,1,\dots,N.$
\end{corollary}
The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} and Lemma \ref{decene}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}
\subsection{Angular momentum decomposition}\label{subsec:amd}
We write
$$
U(x) = u(|x|) \,,
\qquad
V(x) = v(|x|) \,,
$$
so that the PDE system \eqref{eq-LEs} becomes the ODE system
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eqsystode}
-u'' - \frac{N-1}{r} u' = v^p \,,
\qquad
-v'' - \frac{N-1}{r} v' = u^q
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, since $U$ and $V$ are regular on $\R^N$, the values $u(0)$ and $v(0)$ are finite and
$$
u'(0) = v'(0)= 0 \,.
$$
Since $U$ and $V$ are radial, we can make a partial wave decomposition of \eqref{eq-lin}, that is, write
$$
\Psi(x) = \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \sum_{m\in\mathcal M_{\ell,N}} \Psi_{\ell,m}(|x|) Y_{\ell,m}(x/|x|) \,,
\qquad
\Phi(x) = \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \sum_{m\in\mathcal M_{\ell,N}} \Phi_{\ell,m}(|x|) Y_{\ell,m}(x/|x|) \,,
$$
where $Y_{\ell,m}$ is a basis of spherical harmonics in $L^2(\Sph^{N-1})$. The parameter $\ell\in\N_0$ is the degree of the spherical harmonic (`angular momentum' in physics terminology) and the parameter $m$ from the index set $\mathcal M_{\ell,N}$ labels the degeneracy. In the following it will only be important that
$$
\#\mathcal M_{0,N} = 1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\#\mathcal M_{1,N} = N \,,
$$
as well as that $Y_{0,0}$ is a constant function and that $\spa\{ Y_{1,m} :\ m\in\mathcal M_{1,N}\}$ coincides with the span of the coordinate functions $x_n/|x|$, $n=1,\ldots,N$. For each $\ell$ and $m$, the pair of functions $(\Psi_{\ell,m},\Phi_{\ell,m})$ satisfies the following equations, where, for simplicity, we write $(\psi,\phi)$ instead of $(\Psi_{\ell,m},\Phi_{\ell,m})$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eqlinsystode1}
-\psi'' - \frac{N-1}{r}\psi' + \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2}\psi & = p\, v^{p-1}\phi
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,, \\
\label{eq:eqlinsystode2}
-\phi'' - \frac{N-1}{r}\phi' + \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2}\phi & = q\, u^{q-1}\psi
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,.
\end{align}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eqlinsystodebc}
\lim_{r\to 0} r^{-\ell} \psi(r)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\lim_{r\to 0} r^{-\ell} \phi(r)
\qquad\text{exist}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eqlinsystodebc1}
\lim_{r\to 0} (r^{-\ell} \psi)'(r) =
\lim_{r\to 0} (r^{-\ell} \phi)'(r) =0 \,.
\end{equation}
Finally, let us comment on the relevant function spaces. We are concerned with solutions $\Psi\in\dot W^{2,\frac{p+1}{p}}(\R^N)$ and then \eqref{eq-lin} and $U,\Psi\in L^{q+1}(\R^N)$ (by Sobolev) implies that $\Phi\in \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$. Let us deduce corresponding properties of the $\Psi_{\ell,m}$ and $\Phi_{\ell,m}$. We denote by $\mathcal E_\ell^s$ the completion of $r^\ell C^2_c[0,\infty)$ with respect to
$$
\|f\|_{\mathcal E^s_\ell} := \left( \int_0^\infty \left|\left(f'' + \frac{N-1}{r}f' - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2}f \right)\right|^s r^{N-1}\,dr \right)^{\frac 1s} \,.
$$
(We suppress $N$ from the notation of $\mathcal E_\ell^s$ for the sake of simplicity.) We claim that
$$
\Psi_{\ell,m}\in \mathcal E_\ell^\frac{p+1}{p} \,,
\qquad
\Phi_{\ell,m}\in \mathcal E_\ell^\frac{q+1}{q} \,.
$$
Indeed, if the $Y_{\ell,m}$ are normalized in $L^2(\Sph^{N-1})$, then
$$
\Psi_{\ell,m}(r) = \int_{\Sph^{N-1}} \overline{Y_{\ell,m}(\omega)} \Psi(r\omega)\,d\omega
$$
and
$$
\Psi_{\ell,m}'' + \frac{N-1}{r}\Psi_{\ell,m}' - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2}\Psi_{\ell,m} = \int_{\Sph^{N-1}} \overline{Y_{\ell,m}(\omega)} (\Delta\Psi)(r\omega)\,d\omega \,.
$$
Thus, by H\"older's inequality on $\Sph^{N-1}$,
\begin{align*}
& \| \Psi_{\ell,m} \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^{\frac{p+1}{p}}} \leq \|\Delta\Psi\|_{L^\frac{p+1}{p}(\R^N)} \|Y_{\ell,m}\|_{L^{p+1}(\Sph^{N-1})} \,.
\end{align*}
A similar argument shows
\begin{align*}
& \| \Phi_{\ell,m} \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^{\frac{q+1}{q}}} \leq \|\Delta\Phi\|_{L^\frac{q+1}{q}(\R^N)} \|Y_{\ell,m}\|_{L^{q+1}(\Sph^{N-1})} \,.
\end{align*}
In view of the above fact, Theorem \ref{thm:main} is an immediate consequence of the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{mainprop}
Let $(\psi,\phi)\in\mathcal E_\ell^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_\ell^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ be a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} satisfying \eqref{eq:eqlinsystodebc} and \eqref{eq:eqlinsystodebc1}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $\ell=0$, then $(\psi,\phi)$ is a multiple of $(ru' + \frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1} u, rv'+ \frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1} v)$.
\item[(b)] If $\ell=1$, then $(\psi,\phi)$ is a multiple of $(u',v')$.
\item[(c)] If $\ell\geq 2$, then $(\psi,\phi)\equiv 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
We will prove the proposition in the following two subsections, which will deal with the two different aspects of this result. On the one hand, for $\ell=0,1$ we need to show that there are no other solutions than the known ones. This is proved using a uniqueness result in Lemma \ref{unique}. On the other hand, for $\ell\geq 2$ we need to prove that there are no non-trivial finite energy solutions at all. This is proved by adapting and completing an argument from \cite{LuWe} for the special case $p=1$, $q=\frac{N+4}{N-4}$.
\subsection{A uniqueness theorem}
Our first goal will be to prove the following uniqueness result.
\begin{lemma}\label{unique}
Let $(\psi,\phi)$ be a solution to \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} with $\lim_{r\to 0} r^{-\ell}\psi(r)=0$ and $\psi\not\equiv 0$. Then $r^{-\ell}\psi$ is strictly monotone. In particular, $\psi$ is strictly monotone and $\psi\not\in\mathcal E_\ell^{\frac{p+1}{p}}$.
\end{lemma}
Before giving the proof, let us apply it to prove the first half of Proposition \ref{mainprop}. We shall often use the fact (see, e.g., \cite[Cor.~I.2]{Li})
that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gspos}
u > 0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
v > 0
\qquad\text{in}\ [0,\infty) \,.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gsmono}
u' < 0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
v'<0
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,.
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{mainprop}. Parts (a) and (b).]
Note that $(\Psi_0,\Phi_0)$ defined in \eqref{z0} corresponds to angular momentum $\ell=0$, while $(\Psi_i,\Phi_i)$ for $i=1,\dots,N$ correspond to angular momentum $\ell=1$. By the above discussion, this means that $(ru' + \frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1} u, rv'+ \frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1} v)$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} with $\ell=0$ and $(u',v')$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} for $\ell=1$. Moreover, since the right sides of the equations satisfy the corresponding integrability conditions, we have $(ru' + \frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1} u, rv'+ \frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1} v)\in \mathcal E_0^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_0^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ and $(u',v')\in \mathcal E_1^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_1^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$.
It remains to be proved that these are the only solutions. We first assume that $\ell=0$. If $(\psi,\phi)\in\mathcal E_0^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_0^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2}, then
$$
\left(\psi,\phi \right) - \frac{pq-1}{2(p+1)}\,\frac{\psi(0)}{u(0)}\, \left(ru' + \frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1} u,\ rv'+ \frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1} v \right)
$$
is a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} in $\mathcal E_0^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_0^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ whose first component vanishes at zero. (Note that here we use $u(0)\neq 0$ which follows from \eqref{eq:gspos}.) Thus, by Lemma \ref{unique}, the above solution vanishes identically, which means that $(\psi,\phi)$ is a multiple of $(ru' + \frac{2(p+1)}{pq-1} u, rv'+ \frac{2(q+1)}{pq-1} v)$.
The proof for $\ell=1$ is similar, except that now we use the fact that $u'(0)=0$ and, by equation \eqref{eq:eqsystode} and \eqref{eq:gspos},
$$
u''(0) = - N^{-1} v(0)^p \neq 0 \,.
$$
Thus, if $(\psi,\phi)\in\mathcal E_1^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_1^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2}, then
$$
(\psi,\phi) - \frac{\psi'(0)}{u''(0)}\, (u', v')
$$
is a solution in $\mathcal E_1^{\frac{p+1}{p}}\times \mathcal E_1^{\frac{q+1}{q}}$ whose first component is $o(r)$ at the origin. Thus, by the lemma the above solution vanishes identically, which means that $(\psi,\phi)$ is a multiple of $(u',v')$. This completes the proof of parts (a) and (b) in the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{unique}]
\emph{Step 1. The case $\ell=0$.} Since zeros of solutions of ordinary differential equations cannot accumulate at a finite point, we know that $\psi$ is either positive or negative in a right neighborhood of zero. By multiplying both $\psi$ and $\phi$ by $-1$ if necessary, we may assume that $\psi$ is positive in a right neighborhood of zero. Let
$$
R:= \sup\{ r>0 :\ \psi>0 \ \text{in}\ (0,r) \} \,,
$$
so, by assumption, $R>0$. We will show that $\psi$ is strictly increasing in $(0,R)$. Note that this implies, in particular, that $R=\infty$, because otherwise we had $\psi(R)=0$ and then $0=\psi(R)-\psi(0)=\int_0^R \psi'(r)\,dr >0$, a contradiction.
Writing the equation for $\phi$ as $(r^{N-1}\phi')' = - q r^{N-1} u^{q-1}\psi$ and using the fact that $\lim_{r\to 0} r^{N-1}\phi'(r)=0$, we obtain
$$
r^{N-1} \phi'(r) = -q \int_0^r u(s)^{q-1}\psi(s) s^{N-1}\,ds \,.
$$
By \eqref{eq:gspos}, this proves that $\phi'<0$ in $(0,R)$. We now deduce from the equation for $\psi$ that
$$
- N \psi''(0) = \lim_{r\to 0} \left(-\psi''(r) - \frac{N-1}{r}\psi'(r)\right) = \lim_{r\to 0} p\, v(r)^{p-1}\phi(r) = p\, v(0)^{p-1}\phi(0) \,.
$$
Since $v(0)>0$ (again from \eqref{eq:gspos}) and $\psi''(0)\geq 0$ (this follows from the fact that $\psi$ is positive in a right neighborhood of zero and $\psi(0)=\psi'(0)=0$), we conclude that $\phi(0)\leq 0$. This, together with the fact that $\phi'<0$ in $(0,R)$ implies that $\phi<0$ in $(0,R)$.
Now writing the equation for $\psi$ as $(r^{N-1}\psi')' = -p r^{N-1} v^{p-1}\phi$ and using the fact that $\lim_{r\to 0} r^{N-1}\psi'(r)=0$, we obtain
$$
r^{N-1} \psi'(r) = - p \int_0^r v(s)^{p-1}\phi(s) s^{N-1}\,ds \,.
$$
By \eqref{eq:gspos} and $\phi<0$ in $(0,R)$, we conclude that $\psi'>0$ in $(0,R)$, as claimed.
\medskip
\emph{Step 2. The case $\ell\geq 1$.} We use a standard trick to reduce the case $\ell\geq 1$ to the case $\ell=0$ by increasing $N$. Let $\tilde\psi(r) := r^{-\ell}\psi(r)$ and $\tilde\phi(r):=r^{-\ell}\phi(r)$ and note that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eqlinsystodealt}
-\tilde\psi'' - \frac{N+2\ell-1}{r}\tilde\psi' & = p\, v^{p-1}\tilde\phi
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,. \\
-\tilde\phi'' - \frac{N+2\ell-1}{r}\tilde\phi' & = q\, u^{q-1}\tilde\psi
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,.
\end{align}
Moreover, we have
$$
\tilde\psi'(0) = \tilde\phi'(0)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\lim_{r\to 0} \tilde\phi(r)
\ \text{exists}
$$
and, by the assumption of the lemma,
$$
\tilde\psi(0)=0 \,.
$$
Therefore, from Step 1 we infer that $\tilde\psi= r^{-\ell}\psi$ is strictly monotone. Since it vanishes at the origin, this implies, in particular, that $r^{-\ell} \psi$ has the same sign as $(r^{-\ell}\psi)'$. Thus, $\psi' = r^\ell (r^{-\ell}\psi)' + \ell r^{-1} \psi$ has a fixed sign, which means that $\psi$ is strictly monotone, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\subsection{An identity for solutions and its consequences}
The following two functions will play an important role in what follows,
$$
I_1(r) := r^{N-1} (v''(r)\psi(r) - v'(r)\psi'(r)) \,,
\qquad
I_2(r) := r^{N-1} (u''(r)\phi(r) - u'(r)\phi'(r)) \,.
$$
In the next lemma we compute their derivatives and prove an integral representation for their sum.
\begin{lemma}\label{poho}
For any $r>0$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:i1der}
I_1'(r) & = r^{N-1} \left( -q u^{q-1}u'\psi + p v^{p-1} v'\phi - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2}v'\psi \right), \\
\label{eq:i2der}
I_2'(r) & = r^{N-1} \left( - p v^{p-1} v'\phi + q u^{q-1}u'\psi - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2}u'\phi \right).
\end{align}
In particular, for any $R>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:poho}
I_1(R) + I_2(R) = - \int_0^R \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2} ( u'(r)\phi(r)+ v'(r)\psi(r))r^{N-1}\,dr \,.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
In the proof of part (a) of Proposition \ref{mainprop} we have already shown that $(u',v')$ solves \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} with $\ell=1$. For easier reference we record the equation (which is obtained from \eqref{eq:eqsystode} by differentiation),
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eqlinsystodezm1}
-u''' - \frac{N-1}{r}u'' + \frac{N-1}{r^2}u' & = p v^{p-1}v'
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,, \\
\label{eq:eqlinsystodezm2}
-v''' - \frac{N-1}{r}v'' + \frac{N-1}{r^2}v' & = q u^{q-1}u'
\qquad\text{in}\ (0,\infty) \,.
\end{align}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{poho}]
Using the equations \eqref{eq:eqlinsystodezm2} and \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1} for $v'$ and $\psi$,
\begin{align*}
I_1'(r) & = r^{N-1} \left( (v''' + \frac{N-1}{r}v'')\psi - v'(\psi''+ \frac{N-1}{r}\psi') \right) \\
& = r^{N-1} \left( (- q u^{q-1}u' + \frac{N-1}{r^2}v') \psi - v'( -p v^{p-1}\phi + \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2} \psi) \right) \\
& = r^{N-1} \left( -q u^{q-1}u'\psi + p v^{p-1} v'\phi - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2}v'\psi \right).
\end{align*}
Similarly, using the equations \eqref{eq:eqlinsystodezm1} and \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} for $u'$ and $\phi$,
\begin{align*}
I_2'(r) & = r^{N-1} \left( (u'''+\frac{N-1}{r}u'')\phi - u' (\phi'' + \frac{N-1}{r}\phi') \right) \\
& = r^{N-1} \left( (-p v^{p-1}v' + \frac{N-1}{r^2} u')\phi - u' (-q u^{q-1}\psi + \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)}{r^2}\phi) \right) \\
& = r^{N-1} \left( - p v^{p-1} v'\phi + q u^{q-1}u'\psi - \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2}u'\phi \right).
\end{align*}
This proves the first two formulas in the lemma. To prove the third one, we add the first two and integrate them between $0$ and $R$.
\end{proof}
We finally turn to the
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{mainprop}. Part (c)]
Our goal is to prove that if $(\psi,\phi)$ solves \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode1}, \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} for $\ell\geq 2$, then $(\psi,\phi)\equiv 0$. To prove this, it suffices to show that $\psi\equiv 0$. To prove the latter, we argue by contradiction and assume $\psi\not\equiv 0$. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{unique}, we may assume, without loss of generality, that $\psi$ is positive in a right neighborhood of zero. Let
$$
r_1 :=\sup\{ r>0 :\ \psi>0 \ \text{in}\ (0,r) \} \,,
$$
so, by assumption, $r_1>0$. Moreover, if $r_1<\infty$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psibdry}
\psi(r_1) = 0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\psi'(r_1)\leq 0 \,.
\end{equation}
We claim that $\phi$ is positive in a right neighborhood of zero. Since $\phi(0)=0$ (because $\ell>0$), this is a consequence of the following two facts,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi$ has no negative local minimum in $(0,r_1)$.
\item $\phi$ takes a positive value in $(0,r_1)$.
\end{enumerate}
Item (1) follows from the equation \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} for $\phi$, since by \eqref{eq:gspos} at a negative local minimum the left side would be negative whereas the right side is positive in $(0,r_1)$. To prove item (2) note that $\psi$ has a positive local maximum in $(0,r_1)$ (since $\psi(0)=0$ and $\lim_{r\to r_1}\psi(r)=0$). Evaluating the equation for $\psi$ at this point, we see that the left side is positive and therefore so is the right side. Thus, by \eqref{eq:gspos}, $\phi$ at this point is positive.
Because of the preceding arguments
$$
r_2:= \sup\{ r>0:\ \phi>0 \ \text{in}\ (0,r)\}
$$
is positive. Clearly, if $r_2<\infty$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phibdry}
\phi(r_2) = 0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\phi'(r_2)\leq 0 \,.
\end{equation}
Next, we show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psiphioutside}
\psi<0 \ \text{in}\ (r_1,r_2) \ \text{if}\ r_1<r_2 \,,
\qquad
\phi<0 \ \text{in}\ (r_2,r_1) \ \text{if}\ r_2<r_1 \,.
\end{equation}
We begin with the second assertion. We first argue that $\phi$ is negative in a right neighborhood of $r_2$. Recall from \eqref{eq:phibdry} that $\phi'(r_2)\leq 0$. The negativity in a right neighborhood is clear if $\phi'(r_2)<0$, while if $\phi'(r_2)=0$, the equation \eqref{eq:eqlinsystode2} for $\phi$ evaluated at $r_2$, together with the fact that $\psi(r_2)>0$, implies $\phi''(r_2)<0$, which again implies the negativity in a right neighborhood. The negativity in the whole interval $(r_2,r_1)$ now follows from item (1) above. The assertion for $\psi$ follows from the same arguments.
\medskip
After these preliminaries we now turn to the main part of the proof of part (c) of Proposition \ref{mainprop}. We first assume that $\min\{r_1,r_2\}<\infty$ and choose $R=\min\{r_1,r_2\}$ in identity \eqref{eq:poho} in Lemma \ref{poho}. Note that with this choice, using $\ell\geq 2$ and \eqref{eq:gsmono},
$$
\int_0^R \frac{\ell(\ell+N-2)-(N-1)}{r^2} ( u'(r)\phi(r)+ v'(r)\psi(r))r^{N-1}\,dr <0 \,.
$$
We now show that for the above choice of $R$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:iproof}
I_1(R) + I_2(R) \leq 0 \,,
\end{equation}
which will lead to the desired contradiction.
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:iproof1}
I_1(R) \leq 0
\qquad\text{if}\ R=r_1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
I_2(R) \leq 0
\qquad\text{if}\ R=r_2 \,.
\end{equation}
Indeed, if $R=r_1$, then, by \eqref{eq:gsmono} and \eqref{eq:psibdry}, $I_1(R) = - r_1^{N-1} v'(r_1)\psi'(r_1)\leq 0$ and if $R=r_2$, then, by \eqref{eq:phibdry}, $I_2(R) = -r_2^{N-1}u'(r_2)\phi'(r_2) \leq 0$.
We now show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:iproof2}
I_2(R) \leq 0
\qquad\text{if}\ R=r_1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
I_1(R) \leq 0
\qquad\text{if}\ R=r_2 \,.
\end{equation}
Note that in case $r_1=r_2$ this follows from the previous assertion, so we may assume that $r_1\neq r_2$ (and we continue to assume that $\min\{r_1,r_2\}<\infty$). In order to prove the first assertion in \eqref{eq:iproof2}, let $r_1<r_2$. Using \eqref{eq:psiphioutside}, \eqref{eq:gsmono} and $\ell\geq 2$, we see that each one of the three terms in the parenthesis on the right side of \eqref{eq:i2der} is positive in $(r_1,r_2)$. Thus, $I_2'>0$ in $(r_1,r_2)$ and therefore
$$
I_2(r_1)<I_2(r_2)\leq 0
$$
where the second inequality follows from \eqref{eq:iproof1}.
Similarly, in order to prove the second assertion in \eqref{eq:iproof2}, let $r_2<r_1$. Using \eqref{eq:psiphioutside}, \eqref{eq:gsmono} and $\ell\geq 2$, we see that each one of the three terms in the parenthesis on the right side of \eqref{eq:i1der} is positive in $(r_2,r_1)$. Thus, $I_1'>0$ in $(r_2,r_1)$ and therefore
$$
I_1(r_2)<I_1(r_1)\leq 0
$$
where the second inequality follows from \eqref{eq:iproof1}.
This completes the proof of \eqref{eq:iproof2} and therefore the proof of \eqref{eq:iproof}.
\medskip
We still need to deal with the case $\min\{r_1,r_2\}=\infty$, that is, $r_1=r_2=\infty$. We let $R\to\infty$ in \eqref{eq:poho}. Since the integrand on the right side is negative, the left side converges as $R\to\infty$ either to $+\infty$ or to a positive number. The following lemma implies that the left side converges, along a subsequence, to $0$, which is again a contradiction and concludes the proof of part (c) of Proposition \ref{mainprop}.
\end{proof}
In the previous proof we used the following fact.
\begin{lemma}
If $(\psi,\phi)\in\mathcal E^\frac{p+1}{p}\times\mathcal E^\frac{q+1}{q}$, then
$$
\liminf_{R\to\infty} |I_1(R) + I_2(R)|= 0 \,.
$$
\end{lemma}
There are several possible proofs of this lemma. One possibility would be a detailed ODE analysis giving the precise asymptotics of $\psi$, $\phi$ and their derivatives at infinity. We have chosen a softer approach, based only on the finite energy assumption, together with Sobolev embedding theorems. More precisely, we shall use the inequalities
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sob1}
\| f \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^\frac{p+1}{p}} & \gtrsim \left( \int_0^\infty |f|^{q+1} \,r^{N-1}\,dr \right)^\frac{1}{q+1} \,, \\
\label{eq:hardy}
\| f \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^\frac{q+1}{q}} & \gtrsim
\left( \int_0^\infty r^{-\frac{q+1}{q}} |f'|^\frac{q+1}{q} r^{N-1}\,dr \right)^\frac{q}{q+1} \,, \\
\label{eq:sob2}
\| f \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^\frac{p+1}{p}} & \gtrsim \left( \int_0^\infty |f'|^t \,r^{N-1}\,dr \right)^\frac{1}{t} \,, \qquad \frac{1}{t} = \frac{p}{p+1}-\frac{1}{N} \,, \\
\label{eq:sob3}
\| f \|_{\mathcal E_\ell^\frac{q+1}{q}} & \gtrsim \left( \int_0^\infty |f'|^s \,r^{N-1}\,dr \right)^\frac{1}{s} \,, \qquad \frac{1}{s} = \frac{q}{q+1}-\frac{1}{N} \,.
\end{align}
Inequality \eqref{eq:sob1} follows from the Sobolev inequality $\|\Delta F\|_{L^\frac{p+1}{p}(\R^N)} \gtrsim \|F\|_{L^{q+1}(\R^N)}$, applied to $F(x)=f(|x|)Y_{\ell,m}(x/|x|)$. Similarly, inequalities \eqref{eq:hardy}, \eqref{eq:sob2} and \eqref{eq:sob3} follow from Hardy and Sobolev inequalities, bounding $|\nabla F|\geq |f'| |Y_{\ell,m}|$. Note that Sobolev's inequality is applicable since $\frac{q}{q+1} > \frac1N$ and $\frac{p}{p+1} > \frac1N$. Indeed, the latter are equivalent to $\frac{1}{q+1}<\frac{N-1}{N}$ and $\frac{1}{p+1}<\frac{N-1}{N}$, and these inequalities are valid since the scaling relation \eqref{eq-hyp} implies that $\frac{1}{q+1}<\frac{N-2}{N}$ and $\frac{1}{p+1}<\frac{N-2}{N}$.
\begin{proof}
We show that
$$
\int_0^\infty \left( |I_1(r)| + |I_2(r)| \right)dr <\infty \,,
$$
which clearly implies the assertion. We prove this only for $I_1$, the argument $I_2$ being similar.
Using the equation for $v$ we write
$$
I_1(r) = r^{N-1} \left(-u(r)^q \psi(r) - \frac{N-1}{r}v'(r)\psi(r) - v'(r)\psi'(r) \right)
$$
and show that all three terms on the right side are separately integrable. By \eqref{eq:sob1} with $f=u,\psi$, we have $u\in L^{q+1}(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$ and $\psi\in L^{q+1}(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$ and therefore $u^q\psi\in L^1(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$, which means $r^{N-1} u^q\psi\in L^1(\R_+)$. Moreover, $\Delta V = -U^q \in L^{\frac{q+1}q}(\R^N)$ and therefore, by \eqref{eq:hardy} with $f= v$, we have $r^{-1} v' \in L^\frac{q+1}{q}(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$. Together with $\psi\in L^{q+1}(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$ this implies $r^{N-2}v'\psi\in L^1(\R_+)$. Finally, \eqref{eq:sob2} with $f=\psi$ and \eqref{eq:sob3} with $f=v$ imply that $\psi'\in L^t(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$ and $v'\in L^s(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$, where $\frac1s = \frac{q}{q+1} - \frac1N$ and $\frac1t = \frac{p}{p+1} - \frac1N$. Moreover, \eqref{eq-hyp} implies that $\frac{1}{s} + \frac{1}{t}=1$ and therefore $v'\psi'\in L^1(\R_+,r^{N-1}\,dr)$, which means $r^{N-1}v'\psi'\in L^1(\R_+)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
As we mentioned before, the basic idea for treating the case $\ell\geq 2$ comes from \cite{LuWe}. However, we do not see where the case $r_1=r_2=\infty$ is handled in that paper.
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{decene}}
\subsection{Scheme of the proof}
After interchanging the roles of $p$ and $q$ if necessary, we may and will assume that $q \geq p$. Thus, $\frac{2}{N-2} < p \le \frac{N+2}{N-2} \leq q$.
We will prove Lemma \ref{decene} by a repeated application of the maximum principle, using the asymptotic behavior of the ground state, which we quote from \cite[Theorem 2]{HuvdV}.
\begin{lemma}
For each $\frac{2}{N-2} < p \le \frac{N+2}{N-2}$, there are positive constants $a_p$ and $b_p$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_dec}
\lim_{r \to \infty} r^{N-2}\, v(r) = b_p
\quad \hbox{and} \quad
\begin{cases}
\lim\limits_{r \to \infty} r^{p(N-2)-2}\, u(r) = a_p &\text{if } \frac{2}{N-2} < p < \frac{N}{N-2}\,,\\
\lim\limits_{r \to \infty} \dfrac{r^{N-2}}{\log r}\, u(r) = a_p &\text{if } p = \frac{N}{N-2}\,,\\
\lim\limits_{r \to \infty} r^{N-2}\, u(r) = a_p &\text{if } \frac{N}{N-2} < p \le \frac{N+2}{N-2} \,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{The case $\frac{2}{N-2} < p < \frac{N}{N-2}$}
We begin with an elementary algebraic lemma.
\begin{lemma}
If $\frac{2}{N-2} < p < \frac{N}{N-2}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq_ineq}
(p(N-2)-2)(q-1) > 4-(N-2)(p-1) > 2.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Set $A = (p+1)(N-2) \in (N, 2(N-1))$. Note that
\begin{align*}
(N-2)(p-1) + (p(N-2)-2)(q-1) > 4 &\Leftrightarrow (A-N)(q+1) > A \\
&\Leftrightarrow \frac{A-N}{A} > \frac{1}{q+1} = (N-2)\left(\frac{A-N}{AN}\right) \\
&\Leftrightarrow 1 > \frac{N-2}{N}.
\end{align*}
Clearly, the last inequality holds for all $N \ge 3$. Thus the first inequality in \eqref{eq_ineq} is true.
The second inequality in \eqref{eq_ineq} is a direct consequence of the condition that $p > \frac{2}{N-2}$.
\end{proof}
We are now in position to prove Lemma \ref{decene} for $\frac{2}{N-2} < p < \frac{N}{N-2}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{decene} for $\frac{2}{N-2} < p < \frac{N}{N-2}$]
The proof is divided into 3 steps.
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 1.} We assert that for any pair $(\alpha, \nu)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_12}
\alpha \ge 0 \quad \text{and} \quad 0 < \nu < \min\{N-2, (p(N-2)-2)(q-1)-2+\alpha\}
\end{equation}
one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_11}
|\Psi(x)| \le \frac{C}{|x|^{\alpha}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\}\quad \Rightarrow\quad |\Phi(x)| \le \frac{C'}{|x|^{\nu}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\} \,.
\end{equation}
Observe that the minimum in \eqref{eq_proof_12} is positive by virtue of \eqref{eq_ineq}.
Consider
\[G_{\nu}(x) = \Phi(x) - \frac{m_{\nu}}{|x|^{\nu}}
\quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\}\]
where $m_{\nu} > 0$ is a number to be determined. If $m_\nu\geq \sup_{\{|x|=1\}}\Phi(x)$, then
\[G_{\nu}(x) \le 0 \quad \text{on } \{|x| = 1\}\]
Moreover, \eqref{eq_proof_12}, the first inequality in \eqref{eq_proof_11} and \eqref{eq_dec} show that
\begin{align*}
-\Delta G_{\nu}(x) &= q\, U^{q-1} \Psi - \frac{m_{\nu} \nu (N-2-\nu)}{|x|^{\nu+2}} \\
&\le \frac{C''}{|x|^{(p(N-2)-2)(q-1)+\alpha}} - \frac{m_{\nu} \nu (N-2-\nu)}{|x|^{\nu+2}} \le 0 \quad \text{in } \{|x| >1\}
\end{align*}
provided $m_{\nu} \geq C''/(\nu(N-2-\nu))$. The maximum principle yields that for any number $R > 1$,
\[G_{\nu}(x) \le \max_{\{|x| = R\}} (G_{\nu}(x))_+ \quad \text{on } \{1 \le |x| \le R\}.\]
Taking $R \to \infty$ and using the uniform decay assumption on $\Phi$, we deduce
\[G_{\nu}(x) \le 0, \quad \text{i.e.,} \quad \Phi(x) \le \frac{m_{\nu}}{|x|^{\nu}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\}.\]
By the same reasoning, we obtain a similar upper bound on $-\Phi$ in $\{|x| \ge 1\}$. This proves the assertion \eqref{eq_proof_11}.
\medskip
An analogous argument shows that for any pair $(\beta,\mu)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_22}
\beta \ge 0 \quad \text{and} \quad 0 < \mu < \min\{N-2, (N-2)(p-1)-2+\beta\}
\end{equation}
one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_21}
|\Phi(x)| \le \frac{C}{|x|^{\beta}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\} \quad \Rightarrow \quad |\Psi(x)| \le \frac{C'}{|x|^{\mu}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\} \,.
\end{equation}
Unlike \eqref{eq_proof_12}, the minimum in \eqref{eq_proof_22} may be non-positive unless $\beta$ is large enough.
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 2.} We assert that for any $\eta > 0$ there is a $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_opt_dec}
|\Psi(x)| \le \frac{C}{1+|x|^{(N-2)p-2-\eta}}
\quad \text{and} \quad
|\Phi(x)| \le \frac{C}{1+|x|^{N-2-\eta}} \quad \text{in } \R^N.
\end{equation}
The uniform decay condition tells us that $|\Psi(x)| \le C$ in $\R^N$.
Hence, taking $\alpha =\alpha_1 = 0$ in \eqref{eq_proof_11}, we find
\[|\Phi(x)| \le \frac{C'}{|x|^{\beta_1}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\}\]
for any fixed $0 < \beta_1 < \min\{N-2, (p(N-2)-2)(q-1)-2\}$.
Next, taking $\beta = \beta_1$ in \eqref{eq_proof_21}, we also find
\[|\Psi(x)| \le \frac{C''}{|x|^{\alpha_2}} \quad \text{on } \{|x| \ge 1\}\]
for any fixed $0 < \alpha_2 < \min\{N-2, (N-2)(p-1) + (p(N-2)-2)(q-1)-4\}$. (By \eqref{eq_ineq}, the minimum is positive and therefore such $\alpha_2$ does exist.)
Taking $\alpha = \alpha_2$, we again employ \eqref{eq_proof_11} to update the range of $\beta$.
In this way, we can construct a (finite) sequence $\{(\alpha_n, \beta_n)\}_{n \in \N}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] Each of $\{\alpha_n\}$ and $\{\beta_n\}$ is increasing;
\item[-] For each $n$, it holds that $\beta_n > \alpha_{n+1}$;
\item[-] $\beta_n \nearrow N-2$ as $n$ gets large. In particular, $\alpha_{n+1} \nearrow (N-2)p-2$.
\end{itemize}
By picking $(\alpha_n, \beta_n)$ such that $\alpha_n \ge (N-2)p-2-\eta$ and $\beta_n \ge (N-2)-\eta$, we conclude that \eqref{eq_opt_dec} is true.
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 3.} We conclude the proof. By \eqref{eq_dec} and \eqref{eq_opt_dec},
\[\|\Delta \Psi\|_{L^{\frac{p+1}p}(\R^N)} = p \|V^{p-1} \Phi\|_{L^{\frac{p+1}p}(\R^N)}
\le C \left(\int_{\R^N} \frac{dx}{1+|x|^{(N-2)(p+1)-\eta}}\right)^{\frac p{p+1}}\]
where $\eta > 0$ can be taken arbitrarily small.
Hence we infer from the relation $(N-2)(p+1) > N$ that the above integral is finite.
This confirms that $\Psi \in \dot{W}^{2,{\frac{p+1}p}}(\R^N)$. This in turn yields that $\Phi \in \dot W^{2,\frac{q+1}{q}}(\R^N)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case $\frac{N}{N-2} \le p \le \frac{N+2}{N-2}$}
In this subsection, we slightly modify the argument in the previous subsection to cover the remaining case.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{decene} for $\frac{N}{N-2} \le p \le \frac{N+2}{N-2}$]
As before, the proof is divided into 3 steps.
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 1.} The claim that \eqref{eq_proof_22}-\eqref{eq_proof_21} continues to hold.
On the other hand, the comparison argument and \eqref{eq_dec} now imply that \eqref{eq_proof_11} holds for any pair $(\alpha, \nu)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_32}
\alpha \ge 0 \quad \text{and} \quad 0 < \nu < \min\{N-2, (N-2)(q-1)-2+\alpha\}.
\end{equation}
The minimum in \eqref{eq_proof_22} is always non-negative (and positive if $p > \frac{N}{N-2}$), and that of \eqref{eq_proof_32} is always positive.
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 2.} The behavior of the parameters $\alpha, \beta, \mu, \nu$ differs from the one in the previous subsection.
Because of this reason, in this time, for any $\eta>0$ there is a $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_31}
|\Psi(x)| \le \frac{C}{1+|x|^{N-2-\eta}}
\quad \text{and} \quad
|\Phi(x)| \le \frac{C}{1+|x|^{N-2-\eta}} \quad \text{in } \R^N.
\end{equation}
In fact, the iteration process produces a (finite) sequence $\{(\alpha_n, \beta_n)\}_{n \in \N}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] Each of $\{\alpha_n\}$ and $\{\beta_n\}$ is increasing;
\item[-] For each $n$, it holds that $\beta_n \le \alpha_{n+1}$;
\item[-] $\alpha_{n+1}, \beta_n \nearrow N-2$ as $n$ gets large.
\end{itemize}
\medskip \noindent
\textsc{Step 3.} Having \eqref{eq_proof_31} in hand, one can conclude the proof of Lemma \ref{decene} by the same reasoning as before.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Discussion}
Though our system is designed to address different needs
from other NLP annotation tools, components such as annotation viewing are
also addressed in other established systems. Our implementation decouples
backend analysis from the front-end interface; in future work, we plan to
add support for integrating our annotation and ranking systems into existing
platforms such as brat. Our tool can also easily be extended to both
multi-class and multilabel applications; for a detailed discussion, see
Appendix~\ref{app:extension}.
In terms of document ranking methods, it may be preferred to rank
documents jointly instead of independently, in order to account for challenges
such as duplication of information
(common in clinical data; \citet{Taggart2015}) or subtopics.
However, these decisions are highly task-specific, and are an important focus
for designing ranking utility within specific domains.
\section{Introduction}
As natural language processing techniques become useful for an increasing
number of new information domains, it is not always clear how best to identify
information of interest, or to evaluate the output of automatic annotation
tools. This can be especially challenging when target data in the form of
long strings or narratives of complex structure, e.g., in financial data
\cite{Fisher2016} or clinical data \cite{Rosenbloom2011}.
We introduce HARE, a \ul{H}ighlighting \ul{A}nnotator for \ul{R}anking and
\ul{E}xploration. HARE includes two main components: a workflow for supervised
training of automated token-wise relevancy taggers, and a web-based
interface for visualizing and analyzing automated tagging output.
It is intended to serve two main purposes: (1) triage of documents
when analyzing new corpora for the presence of relevant information, and
(2) interactive analysis, post-processing, and comparison of output from
different annotation systems.
In this paper, we demonstrate an application of HARE to information about
individuals' mobility status, an important aspect of functioning concerned
with changing body position or location. This is a relatively new type of
health-related narrative information with largely uncharacterized linguistic
structure, and high relevance to overall health outcomes and work
disability programs. In
experiments on a corpus of 400 clinical records, we show that
with minimal tuning,
our tagger
is able to produce a high-quality ranking of documents based on their relevance
to mobility, and to capture mobility-likely document segments with high
fidelity. We further demonstrate the use of post-processing and qualitative
analytic components of our system to compare the impact of different feature
sets and tune processing settings to improve relevance tagging quality.
\section{Related work}
Corpus annotation tools are plentiful in NLP research: brat
\cite{Stenetorp2012} and Knowtator \cite{Ogren2006} being two heavily used
examples among many. However, the primary purpose of these tools is to
streamline \textit{manual} annotation by experts, and to support review
and revision of manual annotations. Some tools,
including brat, support automated pre-annotation,
but analysis of these annotations and corpus exploration is not commonly
included. Other tools, such as SciKnowMine,\footnote{
\url{https://www.isi.edu/projects/sciknowmine/overview}
} use automated techniques for triage, but for routing to experts
for curation rather than ranking and model analysis. Document ranking
and search engines such as Apache Lucene,\footnote{
\url{https://lucene.apache.org/}
} by contrast, can be overly fully-featured for early-stage
analysis of new datasets, and do not directly offer tools for annotation
and post-processing.
Early efforts towards extracting mobility information have
illustrated that it is often syntactically and semantically
complex, and difficult to extract reliably
\cite{Newman-Griffis2018a,Newman-Griffis2019}. Some characterization of
mobility-related terms has been performed as part of larger work on functioning
\cite{Skube2018}, but a lack of standardized terminologies limits the
utility of vocabulary-driven clinical NLP tools such as CLAMP \cite{Soysal2018}
or cTAKES \cite{Savova2010}. Thus, it forms a useful test case for HARE.
\section{Conclusions}
We introduced HARE, a supervised system for highlighting relevant information
and interactive exploration of model outcomes. We demonstrated its utility in
experiments with clinical records annotated for narrative descriptions of
mobility status. We also provided qualitative analytic tools for
understanding the outcomes of different annotation models. In future work, we
plan to extend these analytic tools to provide rationales
for individual token-level decisions. Additionally, given the clear importance
of contextual information in token-level annotations, the static transition
probabilities used in our Viterbi smoothing technique are likely to degrade its
effect on the output. Adding support for dynamic, contextualized
estimations of transition probabilities will provide more fine-grained modeling
of relevance, as well as more powerful options for post-processing.
Our system is available online at \url{https://github.com/OSU-slatelab/HARE/}.
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the
National Institutes of Health and the US Social Security Administration.
\section{Results on mobility}
Table~\ref{tbl:results} shows the token-level annotation and document ranking
results for our experiments on mobility information. Static and
contextualized embedding models performed equivalently well on token-level annotations;
BERT embeddings actually underperformed static embeddings and ELMo on both
precision and recall. Interestingly, static embeddings yielded the best ranking
performance of $\rho=0.862$, compared to $0.771$ with ELMo and $0.689$ with BERT.
Viterbi smoothing makes a minimal difference in token-level tagging, but increases
ranking performance considerably, particularly for contextualized models. It also
produces a qualitative improvement by trimming out extraneous tokens at the start
of several segments, as reflected by the improvements in precision.
The distribution of token scores from each model (Figure~\ref{fig:score-patterns})
shows that all three embedding models yielded a
roughly bimodal distribution, with most scores in the ranges $[0,0.2]$ or $[0.7,1.0]$.
\input{figures/fig-score-patterns}
\section{System Description}
Our system has three stages for analyzing document sets, illustrated
in Figure~\ref{fig:workflow}. First, data
annotated by experts for token relevance can be used to train relevance
tagging models, and trained models can be applied to produce relevance scores
on new documents (Section~\ref{ssec:relevance-tagging-workflow}). Second,
we provide configurable post-processing tools for cleaning and smoothing
relevance scores (Section~\ref{sec:post-processing}). Finally, our system
includes interfaces for reviewing detailed relevance output, ranking documents
by their relevance to the target criterion, and analyzing
qualitative outcomes of relevance scoring output
(Sections~\ref{ssec:annotation-viewer}-\ref{ssec:qualitative-analysis});
all of these interfaces
allow interactive re-configuration of post-processing settings and switching
between output relevance scores from different models for comparison.
For our experiments on mobility information, we
use an extended version of the dataset described by \citet{Thieu2017}, which
consists of 400 English-language Physical
Therapy initial assessment and reassessment notes from the Rehabilitation
Medicine Department of the NIH Clinical Center. These text documents have been
annotated at the token level for descriptions and assessments of patient
mobility status. Further information on this dataset is given in
Table~\ref{tbl:btris}. We use ten-fold cross validation for our experiments,
splitting into folds at the document level.
\subsection{Relevance tagging workflow}
\label{ssec:relevance-tagging-workflow}
All hyperparameters discussed in this section were tuned on held-out
development data in cross-validation experiments. We report the best
settings here, and provide full comparison of hyperparameter settings
in Appendix~\ref{app:hyperparameters}.
\input{figures/fig-workflow}
\subsubsection{Preprocessing}
Different domains exhibit different
patterns in token and sentence structure that affect preprocessing.
In clinical text, tokenization is not a consensus issue, and a variety of
different tokenizers are used regularly \cite{Savova2010,Soysal2018}. As
mobility information is relatively unexplored, we relied on
general-purpose
tokenization with spaCy \cite{spaCy} as our default tokenizer, and WordPiece
\cite{Wu2016} for experiments using BERT. We did not apply sentence segmentation,
as clinical toolkits often produced short segments that
interrupted mobility information in our experiments.
\subsubsection{Feature extraction}
Our system supports feature extraction for individual tokens in input documents
using both static and contextualized word embeddings.
\textbf{Static embeddings} Using static (i.e., non-contextualized) embeddings,
we calculate input features for each token as the mean embedding of the token and
10 words on each side (truncated at sentence/line breaks). We used FastText
\cite{Bojanowski2017} embeddings trained on
a 10-year collection of physical and occupational therapy records from the NIH
Clinical Center.
\textbf{ELMo} \cite{Peters2018} ELMo features are calculated for each token by
taking the hidden states of the two bLSTM layers and the token layer,
multiplying each vector by learned weights,
and summing to produce a final embedding. Combination weights are trained
jointly with the token annotation model.
We used a 1024-dimensional ELMo model pretrained on PubMed data\footnote{
\url{https://allennlp.org/elmo}
} for our mobility experiments.
\textbf{BERT} \cite{Devlin2019} For BERT features, we take the hidden states of
the final $k$ layers of the model; as with ELMo embeddings, these outputs are
then multiplied by a learned weight vector, and the weighted layers are summed
to create the final embedding vectors.\footnote{
Note that as BERT is constrained to use WordPiece tokenization, it may use
slightly longer token sequences than the other methods.
} We used the 768-dimensional clinicalBERT \cite{Alsentzer2019} model\footnote{
\url{https://github.com/EmilyAlsentzer/clinicalBERT}
} in our experiments, extracting features from the last 3 layers.
\input{figures/fig-thresholding}
\subsubsection{Automated token-level annotation}
We model the annotation process of assigning a relevance score for
each token using a feed-forward deep neural network that takes embedding
features as input and produces a binomial softmax distribution as output.
For mobility information, we used a DNN with three 300-dimensional hidden
layers, relu activation, and 60\% dropout.
As shown in Table~\ref{tbl:btris}, our mobility dataset is considerably
imbalanced between relevant and irrelevant tokens. To adjust for this balance,
for each epoch of training, we used all of the relevant tokens
in the training documents, and sampled irrelevant tokens at a 75\% ratio
to produce a more balanced training set; negative points were
re-sampled at each epoch. As token predictions are conditionally independent
of one another given the embedding features, we did not maintain any sequence
in the samples drawn. Relevant samples were weighted at a ratio of 2:1 during
training.
After each epoch, we evaluate the model on all tokens in a held-out 10\% of
the documents, and calculate F-2 score (preferring recall over precision) using
0.5 as the binarization threshold of model output.
We use an early stopping threshold of 1e-05 on this F-2 score, with a patience
of 5 epochs and a maximum of 50 epochs of training.
\subsection{Post-processing methods}
\label{sec:post-processing}
Given a set of token-level relevance annotations, HARE
provides three post-processing techniques for analyzing and improving
annotation results.
\textbf{Decision thresholding} The threshold for binarizing token
relevance scores is configurable between 0 and 1, to support more or less
conservative interpretation of model output; this is akin to exploring the
precision/recall curve. Figure~\ref{fig:thresholding} shows precision, recall,
and F-2 for different thresholding values from our mobility experiments,
using scores from ELMo embeddings.
\textbf{Collapsing adjacent segments} We consider any contiguous sequence
of tokens with scores at or above the binarization threshold to be a relevant
\textit{segment}. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:collapsing}, multiple segments
may be interrupted by irrelevant tokens such as punctuation, or by noisy
relevance scores falling below the binarization threshold. As multiple adjacent segments may inflate a document's
overall relevance, our system includes a setting to collapse any adjacent
segments that are separated by $k$ or fewer tokens into a single segment.
\input{figures/fig-collapsing}
\input{figures/fig-viterbi-smoothing}
\textbf{Viterbi smoothing} By modeling token-level decisions as conditionally
independent of one another given the input features, we avoid assumptions
of strict segment bounds, but introduce some noisy output, as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:viterbi-smoothing}. To reduce some of this noise, we
include an optional smoothing component based on the Viterbi algorithm.
\input{figures/fig-annotation-viewer}
We model the ``relevant''/``irrelevant'' state sequence discriminatively, using
annotation model outputs as state probabilities for each timestep, and calculate
the binary transition probability matrix by counting transitions in the training
data. We use these estimates to decode the most likely relevance state sequence
$R$ for a tokenized line $T$ in an input document, along with the corresponding path
probability matrix $W$, where $W_{j,i}$ denotes the likelihood of being in state
$j$ at time $i$ given $r_{i-1}$ and $t_i$. In order to produce continuous scores for
each token, we then backtrace through $R$ and assign score
$s_i$ to token $t_i$ as the conditional probability that $r_i$ is ``relevant'', given
$r_{i-1}$. Let $Q_{j,i}$ be the likelihood of transitioning from state $R_{i-1}$ to
$j$, conditioned on $T_i$, as:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
Q_{j,i} = \frac{W_{j,i}}{W_{R_{i-1},i-1}}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{equation}
The final conditional probability $s_i$ is calculated by normalizing over
possible states at time $i$:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}
s_i = \frac{Q_{1,i}}{Q_{0,i}+Q_{1,i}}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{equation}
These smoothed scores can then be binarized using the configurable decision
threshold.
\subsection{Annotation viewer}
\label{ssec:annotation-viewer}
Annotations on any individual document can be viewed using a web-based
interface, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:annotation-viewer}. All tokens with scores
at or above the decision threshold are highlighted in yellow, with each
contiguous segment shown in a single highlight. Configuration settings for
post-processing methods are
provided, and update the displayed annotations when changed. On click,
each token will display the score assigned to it by the annotation model after
post-processing.
If the document being viewed is labeled with gold annotations, these are shown
in bold red text. Additionally, document-level summary statistics and
evaluation measures, with current post-processing, are
displayed next to the annotations.
\input{figures/fig-ranking-interface}
\subsection{Document set ranking}
\label{ssec:document-ranking}
\subsubsection{Ranking methods}
Relevance scoring methods are highly task-dependent, and may
reflect different priorities such as information density or diversity of
information returned.
In this system, we
provide three general-purpose relevance scorers, each of which operates after
any post-processing.
\textbf{Segments+Tokens} Documents are scored by multiplying their number of
relevant segments by a large constant and adding the number of relevant tokens
to break any ties by segment count. As relevant information may be sparse,
no normalization by document length is used.
\textbf{SumScores} Documents are scored by summing the continuous relevance
scores assigned to all of their tokens. As with the Segments+Tokens scorer,
no adjustment is made for document length.
\textbf{Density} Document scores are the ratio of binarized relevant tokens
to total number of tokens.
The same scorer can be used to rank gold annotations and
model annotations, or different scorers can be chosen. Ranking quality is
evaluated using Spearman's $\rho$, which ranges
from -1 (exact opposite ranking) to +1 (same ranking), with 0 indicating no
correlation between rankings. We use Segments+Tokens as default; a comparison
of ranking methods is in Appendix~\ref{app:ranking}.
\subsubsection{Ranking interface}
Our system also includes a web-based ranking interface, which displays the
scores and corresponding ranking assigned to a set of annotated documents, as
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ranking-interface}. For ease of visual distinction, we
include colorization of rows based on configurable score thresholds. Ranking
methods used for model scores and gold annotations (when present) can be
adjusted independently, and our post-processing methods
(Section~\ref{sec:post-processing}) can also be adjusted to affect ranking.
\subsection{Qualitative analysis tools}
\label{ssec:qualitative-analysis}
We provide a set of three tools for performing qualitative analysis of
annotation outcomes. The first measures lexicalization of each unique token
in the dataset with respect to relevance score, by averaging the assigned
relevance score (with or without smoothing) for each instance of each token. Tokens
with a frequency below a configurable minimum threshold are excluded.
Our other tools analyze the aggregate relevance score patterns in an annotation
set. For labeled data, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:thresholding}, we provide a
visualization of precision, recall, and F-2 when varying the
binarization threshold, including identifying the optimal threshold with respect
to F-2. We also include a label-agnostic analysis of patterns in output
relevance scores, illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:score-patterns}, as a way to
evaluate the confidence of the annotator. Both of these tools are provided at
the level of an annotation set and individual documents.
\subsection{Implementation details}
Our automated annotation, post-processing, and document ranking algorithms
are implemented in Python, using the NumPy and Tensorflow libraries. Our
demonstration interface is implemented using the Flask library, with all
backend logic handled separately in order to support modularity of the user
interface.
\section{Hyperparameters}
\label{app:hyperparameters}
This section describes each of the settings evaluated for the various
hyperparameters used in our experiments on mobility information.
We first experimented with different pretrained embeddings used for each of
our embedding model options; results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:app-embedding-models}.
\textbf{Static embedding model} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-static-models}) We
evaluated three commonly used benchmark embedding sets: word2vec skipgram \cite{Mikolov2013a}
using GoogleNews,\footnote{
\url{http://google.com/archive/p/word2vec/}
}
FastText skipgram with subword information on WikiNews,\footnote{
\url{https://fasttext.cc/docs/en/}
}
and GloVe \cite{Pennington2014} on 840 billion tokens of Common Crawl.\footnote{
\url{http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/}
}
Additionally, we experimented with two in-domain embedding sets, trained on
10 years of Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy records from the NIH
Clinical Center (referred to as ``PT/OT''), using word2vec skipgram and
FastText skipgram. word2vec GoogleNews embeddings produced the best dev F-2.
\textbf{ELMo model} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-elmo-models}) We experimented with
three pretrained ELMo models:\footnote{
All downloaded from \url{https://allennlp.org/elmo}
} the ``Original'' model trained on the 1 Billion Word Benchmark, the
``Original (5.5B)'' model trained with the same settings on Wikipedia and
machine translation data, and a model trained on PubMed abstracts. The
Original (5.5B) model produced the best dev F-2.
\textbf{BERT model} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-bert-models}) We experimented with
three pretrained BERT models: BERT-Base,\footnote{
\url{https://github.com/google-research/bert}
} BioBERT \cite{Lee2019} (v1.1) trained on 1 million PubMed abstracts,\footnote{
\url{https://github.com/naver/biobert-pretrained}
} and clinicalBERT \cite{Alsentzer2019} trained on MIMIC data.\footnote{
\url{https://github.com/EmilyAlsentzer/clinicalBERT}
}
We use uncased versions of BERT-Base and clinicalBERT, as casing is not a
reliable signal in clinical data; BioBERT is only available in a cased version.
clinicalBERT produced the best dev F-2.
Once the best embedding models for each method were identified, we experimented
with network and training hyperparameters, with results shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:app-hyperparameters}.
\textbf{Irrelevant:relevant sampling ratio} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-neg-ratio})
We experimented with the ratio of irrelevant to relevant samples drawn for
each training epoch in ${0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}$. A ratio of
0.75 gave the best dev F-2.
\textbf{Positive fraction} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-pos-fraction}) We varied the
fraction of total dataset positive samples drawn for each training epoch
from 10\% to 100\% at intervals of 10\%. The best dev F-2 was produced by
using all positive samples in each epoch.
\textbf{Dropout rate} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-dropout}) We experimented with
an input dropout rate from 0\% to 90\%, at intervals of 10\%; the best
results were produced with a 60\% dropout rate.
\textbf{Weighting scheme} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-class-weights}) Given the imbalance
of relevant to irrelevant samples in our dataset, we experimented with
weighting relevant samples by a factor of 1 (equal weight), 2, 3, 4, and 5.
A weighting of 2:1 produced the best dev F-2.
\textbf{Hidden layer configuration} (Figure~\ref{fig:hp-layers}) We
experimented with the configuration of our DNN model, using hidden
layer size $\in \{10, 100, 300\}$ and number of layers from 1 to 3.
The best dev F-2 results were achieved using 3 hidden layers of size
300.
\section{Ranking methods}
\label{app:ranking}
A comparison of ranking methods used for model and gold scores is provided
in Figure~\ref{fig:app-ranking-methods}. We found that for our experiments,
Segments+Tokens and SumScores correlated fairly well with one another, but Density,
due to its normalization for document length, works best when used to rank
both model and gold scores. SumScores provided the best overall ranking
correlation; however, we use Segments+Tokens as the default setting for our
system for its clear interpretation.
\section{Extending to multi-class/multilabel applications}
\label{app:extension}
Our experiments focused on binary relevance with respect to mobility information.
However, our system can be fairly straightfowardly extended to both multi-label
(i.e., multiple relevance criteria) and multi-class (e.g., NER) settings.
For multi-label settings, such as looking for evidence of limitations in either
mobility or interpersonal interactions, the only requirement is having data that
are annotated for each relevance criterion. These can be the same data with
multiple annotations, or different datasets; in either case, binary relevance
annotators can be trained independently for each specific relevance criterion.
Our post-processing components such as Viterbi smoothing can then be applied
independently to each set of relevance annotations as desired. The primary
extension required would be to the visualization interface, to support display
of multiple (potentially overlapping) annotations. Alternatively, our modular
handling of relevance annotations could be redirected to another visualization
interface with existing support for multiple annotations, such as brat.
Extending to multi-class settings would require fairly minimal updates to both
the interface and our relevance annotation model. Our model is trained using
two-class cross (relevant and irrelevant) cross-entropy; this could easily be
extended to $n$-ary cross entropy for any desired number of classes, and trained
with token-level data annotated with the appropriate classes. In terms of
visualization and analysis, the two modifications required would be adding
differentiating displays for the different classes annotated (e.g., different
colors), and updating the displayed evaluation statistics to micro/macro
evaluations over the multiple classes. Qualitative analysis features such as
relevance score distribution and lexicalization are already dependent only on
the scores assigned to the ``relevant'' class, and could be presented for each
class independently.
\input{figures/fig-app-embedding-models}
\input{figures/fig-app-hyperparameters}
\input{figures/fig-app-ranking-methods}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A graph labeling is the assignment of
labels, traditionally represented by integers, to the vertices or edges, or both, of a graph, subject to certain conditions. As mentioned in the survey by Gallian \cite{BTT11}, more than one thousand papers are devoted to this subject. Among all variations, the most popular and studied graph labelings are the $\beta$-valuations introduced by Rosa in 1966 \cite{Rosa}, and later called {\it graceful labelings} by Golomb \cite{Golomb}. Formally, given a graph $G$ with vertex set $V$ and $q$ edges, a graceful labeling of $G$ is an injection $f:V\rightarrow\{0,1,\ldots,q\}$ such that, when each edge $uv$ is assigned the label $\vert f(v)-f(u)\vert$, the resulting edge labels are distinct. In other words, the vertices are labeled using integers in $\{0,1,\ldots,q\}$, and these vertex labels induce an edge labeling from $1$ to $q$. The famous Ringel-Kotzig conjecture, also known as the graceful labeling conjecture, hypothesizes that all trees are graceful. It is the focus of many papers and is still open, even for some very restricted graph classes such that trees with 5 leaves, and trees with diameter 6. The survey by Gallian \cite{BTT11} lists several papers dealing with graceful labelings of particular classes of graphs, such that the disjoint union of cliques, the disjoint union of cycles, and the union of cycles with one common vertex.\\
For a directed graph with vertex set $V$ and $q$ edges, a graceful labeling of $G$ is an injection $f:V\rightarrow\{0,1,\ldots,q\}$ such that, when each arc (i.e., directed edge) $uv$ is assigned the label $(f(v)-f(u))\ (mod\ q+1)$, the resulting arc labels are distinct. As mentioned in \cite{BTT11} and \cite{Feng}, most results and conjectures on graceful labelings of directed graphs concern directed cycles, the disjoint union of directed cycles, and the union of directed cycles with one common vertex or one common arc. In particular, it is proved that $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$, the disjoint union of $n$ copies of the directed cycle with three vertices, has a graceful labeling only if $n$ is even. However, it is not known whether this necessary condition is also sufficient.\\
In this paper, we study {\it graceful difference labelings} of directed graphs, which are defined as follows.
A graceful difference labeling (gdl for short) of a directed graph $G=(V,A)$ is a bijection $f:V\rightarrow\{1,\ldots,\vert V\vert\}$ such that, when each arc
$uv$ is assigned the {\it difference label} $f(v)-f(u)$, the resulting arc labels are distinct. The absolute value $|f(v)-f(u)|$ is called the {\it magnitude} of arc $uv$, while $f(v)$ is the {\it vertex label} of $v$. Note that in a gdl of $G$, two arcs $uv$ and $u'v'$ may have the same magnitude $|f(v)-f(u)|=|f(v')-f(u')|$ but their difference labels must then be opposite, i.e., $f(v)-f(u)=-(f(v')-f(u'))$.\\
Given two graphs $G_i=(V_i,A_i)$ and $G_j=(V_j,A_j)$ with $V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset,$ their disjoint union, denoted $G_i+G_j$, is the graph with vertex set $V_i\cup V_j$ and arc set $A_i\cup A_j$. By $pG$ we denote the disjoint union of $p$ copies of $G$. For $k\ge 2$ we denote by $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$ a circuit on $k$ vertices isomorphic to the directed graph with vertex set $V=\{v_1,\ldots, v_k\}$ and arc set $A=\{v_iv_{i+1}:\ 1\le i<k\}\cup\{v_kv_1\}$. The circuit $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ is also called a directed triangle, or simply a triangle. For all graph theoretical terms not defined here the reader is referred to \cite{West}.\\
Not every directed graph has a gdl. Indeed, a necessary condition for $G=(V,A)$ to have a gdl is $\vert A\vert\le2(\vert V\vert-1)$. Nevertheless this condition is not sufficient since, for example, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has no gdl. Indeed, all bijections $f:V\rightarrow\{1,2,3\}$ induce two difference labels equal to 1, or two equal to -1. As a second example, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has no gdl. Indeed,
\begin{itemize}
\item if the two arcs of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}$ have a magnitude equal to 1, 2, or 3, then $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ also has an arc with the same magnitude, which means that two arcs in $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ have the same difference label;
\vspace{-0.3cm}\item if the magnitude of two arcs of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}$ is equal to 4, then two difference labels in $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ are equal to 1 or to -1.
\end{itemize}
We conjecture that all disjoint unions of circuits have a gdl, except for the two cases mentioned above. We were not able to prove this conjecture, but give partial results on it. In particular, we show that $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl if and only if $n\geq 2$.
\section{Partial proof of the conjecture}
We are interested in determining which disjoint unions of circuits have a gdl. As already mentioned in the previous section, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ and $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ have no gdl. We conjecture that these two graphs are the only two exceptions. As first result, we show that if $G$ is a circuit of length $k=2$ or $k\geq 4$, then $G$ has a gdl. We next prove that if $G$ has a gdl, and if $G'$ is obtained by adding to $G$ a circuit of even length $k=2$ or $k\geq6$, or two disjoint circuits of length 4, then $G'$ also has a gdl. We also show that the disjoint union of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ with a circuit of odd length has a gdl. All together, these results prove that if $G$ is the disjoint union of circuits, among which at most one has an odd length, then $G$ has a gdl, unless $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ or $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.\\
We next show that the disjoint union of $n\geq 2$ circuits of length 3 has a gdl, and this is also the case if a $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ is added to $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$. Hence, if $G$ is the union of disjoint circuits with no odd circuit of length $k\geq 5$, then $G$ has a gdl, unless $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ or $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.
In order to prove the above stated conjecture, it will thus remain to show that if $G$ is the disjoint union of circuits with at least two odd circuits, among which at least one has length $k\geq 5$, then $G$ has a gdl. \\
Our first lemma shows that all circuits have a gdl, except $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Ck}
The circuit $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$ with $k=2$ or $k\geq 4$ has a gdl. Moreover, if $k\geq 5$, then $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$ has a gdl with exactly one arc of magnitude 1.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}$ has a gdl since the two bijections $f\ : \ V\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ have $1$ and $-1$ as difference labels. So assume $k\geq 4$. We distinguish four cases, according to the value of $k\mod4$:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $k=4p,p\ge 1$, we consider the following vertex labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{2i+1})=i+1, 0\le i\le 2p-2$;
\item $f(v_{2i})=4p+1-i, 1\le i\le 2p-2$;
\item $f(v_{4p-2})=2p+1$, $f(v_{4p-1})=2p+2$, $f(v_{4p})=2p$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}Clearly, $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with the following difference labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{i+1})-f(v_i)=(-1)^{i+1}(4p-i),1\le i\le 4p-4$;
\item $f(v_{4p-2})\!-\!f(v_{4p-3})\!=\!2$, $f(v_{4p-1})\!-\!f(v_{4p-2})\!=\!1$, $f(v_{4p})\!-\!f(v_{4p-1})\!=\!-2$, $f(v_{1})\!-\!f(v_{4p})\!=\!-2p+1$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}All magnitudes are distinct, except in three cases:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{4p-2})-f(v_{4p-3})=2$ and $f(v_{4p})-f(v_{4p-1})=-2$;
\item for $p\geq 3$, $f(v_{2p+2})-f(v_{2p+1})=2p-1$ and $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p})=-(2p-1)$;
\item for $p=1$, $f(v_{4p-1})-f(v_{4p-2})=1$ and $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p})=-1$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}Hence, $f$ is a gdl, and there is exactly one arc of magnitude 1 when $p\geq 2$.
\item if $k=4p+1,p\ge 1$, we consider the following vertex labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm} \begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{2i+1})=i+1, 0\le i\le 2p$;
\item $f(v_{2i})=4p+2-i, 1\le i\le 2p$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm} Again, $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with the following difference labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{i+1})-f(v_i)=(-1)^{i+1}(4p+1-i),1\le i\le 4p$;
\item $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p+1})=-2p$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}All magnitudes are distinct, except for one pair of arcs : $f(v_{2p+2})-f(v_{2p+1})=2p$ and $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p+1})=-2p$. Hence, $f$ is a gdl with exactly one arc of magnitude 1.
\item if $k=4p+2,p\ge 0$, we consider the following vertex labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{2i+1})=i+1, 0\le i\le 2p$;
\item $f(v_{2i})=4p+3-i, 1\le i\le 2p+1$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}Here also, $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with the following difference labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{i+1})-f(v_i)=(-1)^{i+1}(4p+2-i),1\le i\le 4p+1$;
\item $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p+2})=-2p-1$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}There are only two equal magnitudes : $f(v_{2p+2})-f(v_{2p+1})=2p+1$ and $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p+2})=-(2p+1)$. Hence, $f$ is a gdl with exactly one arc of magnitude 1 when $p\geq 1$.
\item if $k=4p+3,p\ge 1$, we consider the following vertex labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{2i+1})=i+1, 0\le i\le 2p-1$;
\item $f(v_{2i})=4p+4-i, 1\le i\le 2p$;
\item $f(v_{4p+1})=2p+2$, $f(v_{4p+2})=2p+1$, $f(v_{4p+3})=2p+3$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}For this last case, $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with the following difference labels:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{i+1})-f(v_i)=(-1)^{i+1}(4p+3-i),1\le i\le 4p-1$;
\item $f(v_{4p+1})\!-\!f(v_{4p})\!=\!-2$, $f(v_{4p+2})\!-\!f(v_{4p+1})\!=\!-1$, $f(v_{4p+3})\!-\!f(v_{4p+2})\!=\!2$, $f(v_{1})\!-\!f(v_{4p+3})\!=\!-(2p+2)$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}All magnitudes are distinct, except in two cases:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{4p-2})-f(v_{4p-3})=2$ and $f(v_{4p})-f(v_{4p-1})=-2$;
\item $f(v_{2p+2})-f(v_{2p+1})=2p+2$ and $f(v_{1})-f(v_{4p+3})=-(2p+2)$.
\end{itemize}
Hence, $f$ is a gdl with exactly one arc of magnitude 1.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.6cm}\end{proof}
We now show how to add two circuits of length 4, or one even circuit of length $k\geq 6$ to a graph that has a gdl.
\begin{lemma}\label{2C4}
If a graph $G$ has a gdl, then $G+2\overrightarrow{\bf C_{4}}$ also has a gdl.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$ be the vertex set of the first $\overrightarrow {\bf C_{4}}$, and let $\{v_1v_2,v_2v_3,v_3v_4,v_4v_1\}$ be its arc set. Also, let $\{v_5,v_6,v_7,v_8\}$ be the vertex set of the second $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{4}}$, and let $\{v_5v_6,v_6v_7,v_7v_8,v_8v_5\}$ be its arc set.
Suppose $G=(V,A)$ has a gdl $f$. Define $f'(v)=f(v)+4$ for all $v\in V$ as well as $f'(v_1)=1, f'(v_2)=\vert V\vert+8, f'(v_3)=2, f'(v_4)=\vert V\vert+6, f'(v_5)=3, f'(v_6)=\vert V\vert+5, f'(v_7)=4,$ and $f'(v_8)=\vert V\vert+7$. Clearly, $f'$ is a bijection between $V\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_8\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,\vert V\vert +8\}$. Moreover, the difference labels on the arcs of the two circuits are $f'(v_2)-f'(v_1)=\vert V\vert+7, f'(v_3)-f'(v_2)=-(\vert V\vert+6), f'(v_4)-f'(v_3)=\vert V\vert+4, f'(v_1)-f'(v_4)=-(\vert V\vert+5), f'(v_6)-f'(v_5)=\vert V\vert+2, f'(v_7)-f'(v_6)=-(\vert V\vert+1), f'(v_8)-f'(v_7)=\vert V\vert+3,$ and $f'(v_5)-f'(v_8)=-(\vert V\vert+4)$. Since all magnitudes in $G$ are at most equal to $\vert V\vert-1$, $f'$ is a gdl for $G+2\overrightarrow{\bf C_{4}}$.
\end{proof}
Note that in the proof of Lemma \ref{2C4}, $G$ can be the empty graph $G$ with no vertex and no arc. Hence $2\overrightarrow{\bf C_{4}}$ has a gdl.
\begin{lemma}\label{C2k}
If a graph $G$ has a gdl, then $G+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$ also has a gdl for $k\ge 1,k\ne 2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $G=(V,A)$ has a gdl $f$, and let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{2k}\}$ be the vertex set and $\{v_1v_2,\ldots,v_{2k-1}v_{2k},v_{2k}v_1\}$ be the arc set of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$. We consider two case.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $k$ is odd, then define $f'(v)=f(v)+k$ for all $v\in V$, as well as $f'(v_{2i-1})=k-i+1$ and $f'(v_{2i})=\vert V\vert+k+i$ for $1\le i\le k$. Clearly, $f'$ is a bijection between $V\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_{2k}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,\vert V\vert +2k\}$. Moreover, the magnitudes on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$ are all striclty larger than $\vert V\vert$ and all different, except in one case : $f'(v_{k+1})-f'(v_k)=\vert V\vert+k$ and $f'(v_{1})-f'(v_{2k})=-(\vert V\vert+k)$. Since all magnitudes in $G$ are strictly smaller than $\vert V\vert$, $f'$ is a gdl for $G+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$.
\item If $k$ is even and at least equal to $4$, then set $f'(v)=f(v)+k$ for all $v\in V$, and define the vertex labels on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$ as follows:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f'(v_{2i-1})=k-i+1$ for $1\le i\le k$;
\item $f'(v_{2i})=\vert V\vert+k+i$ for $1\le i\le k-3$;
\item $f'(v_{2k-4})=\vert V\vert+2k, f'(v_{2k-2})=\vert V\vert+2k-2, f'(v_{2k})=\vert V\vert+2k-1$.
\end{itemize}
$f'$ is bijection between $V\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_{2k}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,\vert V\vert +2k\}$, and all magnitudes on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$ are strictly larger than $\vert V\vert$. Moreover, all magnitudes on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$ are different, except in two cases :
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f'(v_{k})-f'(v_{k-1})=\vert V\vert+k-1$ and $f'(v_{1})-f'(v_{2k})=-(\vert V\vert+k-1)$;
\item $f'(v_{2k-4})-f'(v_{2k-5})=\vert V\vert+2k-3$ and $f'(v_{2k-1})-f'(v_{2k-2})=-(\vert V\vert+2k-3)$.
\end{itemize} Since all magnitudes in $G$ are strictly smaller than $\vert V\vert$, $f'$ is a gdl for $G+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.5cm}\end{proof}
Since graph $G$ in the statement of Lemma \ref{2C4} is possibly empty, it follows from Lemmas \ref{Ck}, \ref{2C4} and \ref{C2k} that all disjoint unions of circuits of even length have a gdl.
We now consider disjoint unions of circuits among which exactly one has as an odd length. As already observed, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ and $\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ have no gdl. We show that these are the only two exceptions. According to Lemmas \ref{2C4} and \ref{C2k}, it is sufficient to prove that $2\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$, $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+1}}$ ($k\geq 1$), and $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k}}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ ($k\geq 3$) have a gdl.
\begin{lemma}\label{C2C3}
$2\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_7\}$ be the vertex set and $\{v_1v_2$, $v_2v_1$, $v_3v_4$, $v_4v_3$, $v_5v_6$, $v_6v_7$, $v_7v_5\}$ be the arc set of $2\overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$. By considering the vertex labels $f(v_1)=1$, $f(v_2)=6$, $f(v_3)=3$, $f(v_4)=7$, $f(v_5)=2$, $f(v_6)=4$ and $f(v_7)=5$, it is easy to observe that $f$ is a gdl.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{C2k+1C4}
$\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+1}}$ has a gdl for every $k\ge 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+1}}$. We distinguish two cases:
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item if $k$ is odd, then $G$ contains $n=4(\frac{k+1}{2})+3$ vertices. Consider the vertex labels of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{n}}$ used in the last case of the proof of Lemma \ref{Ck}, with $p=\frac{k+1}{2}$, and assume that $\{v_1,v_{n-2},v_{n-1},v_n\}$ is the vertex set of the $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ in $G$, while $\{v_2,v_{3},\ldots,v_{n-3}\}$ is the vertex set of the $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+1}}$. It is sufficient to prove that the difference labels on $v_1v_{n-2}$ and $v_{n-3}v_2$ do not appear on any other arc of $G$.
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{n-2})-f(v_1)=(2p+2)-1=(k+3)-1=k+2$, which is an odd positive number, while all other odd difference labels are negative.
\item $f(v_2)-f(v_{n-3})=(4p+3)-(2p+4)=2p-1=k$, which is again an odd positive number, different for the other negative odd labels.
\end{itemize}
\item if $k$ is even, consider the vertex labels of $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+4}}$ used in the first case of the proof of Lemma \ref{Ck} with $p=\frac{k}{2}+1\geq 2$ (i.e., $4p=2k+4$). Also, define $f(v_{2k+5})=2k+5=4p+1$. Assume that $\{v_1,v_{2k+2},v_{2k+3},v_{2k+4}\}$ is the vertex set of the $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ in $G$, while $\{v_2,v_{3},\ldots,v_{2k+1},v_{2k+5}\}$ is the vertex set of the $\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2k+1}}$. It is sufficient to prove that the difference labels on $v_1v_{2k+2}$, $v_{2k+5}v_2$, and $v_{2k+1}v_{2k+5}$ do not appear on any other arc of $G$.
\vspace{-0.2cm}\begin{itemize}
\item $f(v_{2k+2})-f(v_1)=(2p+1)-1=(k+3)-1=k+2$, which is an even positive number, while all other even difference labels are negative.
\item $f(v_2)-f(v_{2k+5})=(4p)-(4p+1)=-1$. Since $p>1$, the only other arc with magnitude 1 is $v_{2k+2}v_{2k+3}$ which has a difference label of 1.
\item $f(v_{2k+5})-f(v_{2k+1})=(4p+1)-(2p-1)=2p+2=k+4$, which is again an even positive number, while all other even difference labels are negative.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.6cm} \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{C3Ck}
$\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl for every $k\ge 5$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{k+3}\}$ be the vertex set and $\{v_1v_2, \ldots, v_{k-1}v_{k}$, $v_kv_1$, $v_{k+1}v_{k+2}$, $v_{k+2}v_{k+3}$, $v_{k+3}v_{k+1} \}$ be the arc set of $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$. Consider the gdl $f$ defined in the proof of Lemma \ref{Ck} for $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$, and set
$f'(v_i)=f(v_i)+2$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$. If the only arc of magnitude 1 has a difference label equal to -1, then define
$f'(v_{k+1})=1$, $f'(v_{k+2})=2$, and $f'(v_{k+3})=k+3$, else define
$f'(v_{k+1})=2$, $f'(v_{k+2})=1$, and $f'(v_{k+3})=k+3$. Clearly, $f'$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{k+3}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,k+3\}$. To conclude that $f'$ is a gdl, it is sufficient to prove that the difference labels on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ do not appear on $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The arc $v_{k+1}v_{k+2}$ is of magnitude 1, and its difference label has the sign opposite to that of magnitude 1 in $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$;
\item The magnitudes of $v_{k+2}v_{k+3}$ and $v_{k+3}v_{k+1}$ are distinct and larger than $k$, while all magnitudes in $\overrightarrow{\bf C_k}$ are strictly smaller than $k$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.4cm}\end{proof}
All together, the previous lemmas show that if $G$ be the disjoint union of circuits, among which at most one has an odd length, then $G$ has a gdl if and only if $G \neq \overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ and $G\neq \overrightarrow{\bf C_2}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.
We now consider the disjoint union of $n$ circuits of length 3, and show that these graphs have a gdl for all $n\geq 2$.\\
\begin{lemma}\label{nC3}
For every $n\geq 2$, the graph $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl with at most one arc of magnitude $3n-2$, and all other arcs of magnitude strictly smaller than $3n-2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The graphs in Figures \ref{2C3},\ldots, \ref{9C3} show the existence of the desired gdl for $2\leq n \leq 9$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm,keepaspectratio=true]{2C3}
\caption{$2\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{2C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio=true]{3C3}
\caption{$3\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{3C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm,keepaspectratio=true]{4C3}
\caption{$4\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{4C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio=true]{5C3}
\caption{$5\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{5C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio=true]{6C3}
\caption{$6\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{6C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm,keepaspectratio=true]{7C3}
\caption{$7\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{7C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm,keepaspectratio=true]{8C3}
\caption{$8\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{8C3}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio=true]{9C3}
\caption{$9\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$.}
\label{9C3}
\end{figure}
We now prove the result by induction on $n$. So, consider the graph $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ with $n\geq 10$, and assume the result is true for less than $n$ directed triangles. Let $t$ and $r$ be two integers such that $-4\leq r \leq 2$ and
$$n=7t+r.$$
We thus have $t\geq 2$. We will show how to construct a gdl for $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ given a gdl for $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$. We thus have to add $n-t$ directed triangles to $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$. For this purpose, define
$$\theta=\left\lceil\frac{n-t}{2}\right\rceil=3t+\left\lceil\frac{r}{2}\right\rceil.$$
It follows that $n-t=2\theta$ if $r$ is even, and $n-t=2\theta-1$ if $r$ is odd. We now prove the lemma by considering the 4 cases A,B,C,D defined in Table \ref{tableauCas}.
\setlength{\doublerulesep}{\arrayrulewidth}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|c|}
\hline
$n-t$&$r$&$\theta$&Case\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{12pt}{$2\theta$}&-4&$3t-2$&\multirow{3}{0pt}{A}\\
&-2&$3t-1$&\\
&0&$3t$&\\
\cline{2-4}
&2&$3t+1$&\multirow{1}{0pt}{B}\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{25pt}{$2\theta-1$}&-3&$3t-1$&\multirow{2}{0pt}{C}\\
&-1&$3t$&\\
\cline{2-4}
&1&$3t+1$&\multirow{1}{0pt}{D}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Four different cases}
\label{tableauCas}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.4cm}{\bf Case A :} $n=2\theta+t$, $\theta\in \{3t-2,3t-1,3t\}$
\vspace{0.1cm}Consider $2\theta$ directed triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$, every $T_i$ having $\{v_{3i-2},v_{3i-1},v_{3i}\}$ as vertex set and $\{v_{3i-2}v_{3i-1}$, $v_{3i-1}v_{3i}$, $v_{3i}v_{3i-2}\}$ as arc set. Consider the vertex labels $f(v_i)$ for $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ shown in Table \ref{num1}.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Triangle $T_i$ &$f(v_{3i-2})$&$f(v_{3i-1})$&$f(v_{3i})$ \\
\hline
$T_1$&$1$&$2\theta+1$&$6\theta+3t-3$ \\
$T_2$&$2$&$6\theta+3t$&$4\theta+3t$ \\
$T_3$&$3$&$6\theta+3t-1$&$2\theta+2$ \\
$T_4$&$4$&$4\theta+3t-1$&$6\theta+3t-2$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
$T_{2k-1}$&$2k-1$&$2\theta+k$&$6\theta+3t-2k+2$ \\
$T_{2k}$&$2k$&$6\theta+3t-2k+1$&$4\theta+3t-k+1$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta$&&&\\
$\vdots$&{$\vdots$}&{$\vdots$}&{$\vdots$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The labeling of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ for case A.}
\label{num1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.4cm}Also, let $f'$ be a gdl for $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ with at most one arc of magnitude $3t-2$, and all other arcs of magnitude strictly smaller than $3t-2$. Define $f(v_i)=f'(v_i)+3\theta$ for $i=6\theta+1,\ldots,6\theta+3t$.
One can easily check that $f$ is a bijection between the vertex set $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{6\theta+3t}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,6\theta+3t=3n\}$.\\
For each $T_i$, we define its {\it small} difference label (small-dl for short) as the minimum among $\vert f(v_{3i-1})-f(v_{3i-2})\vert$, $\vert f(v_{3i})-f(v_{3i-1})\vert$, and $\vert f(v_{3i-2})-f(v_{3i})\vert$. Similarly, the {\it big} difference label (big-dl) of $T_i$ is the maximum of these three values, and the {\it medium} one (medium-dl) is the third value on $T_i$.
Table \ref{dl1} gives the small, medium and big difference labels of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$. By considering two dummy directed triangles $D_1$ and $D_2$, we have grouped the triangles into $\theta+1$ pairs $\pi_0,\ldots,\pi_{\theta}$, as shown in Table \ref{dl1}. Two triangles belong to the same pair $\pi_i$ if their small difference labels have the same magnitude. The difference labels given for $D_1$ and $D_2$ are artificial, but are helpful for simplifying the proof.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Pair&Triangle&Small-dl&Medium-dl&Big-dl \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_0=(T_1,T_2)$}&$T_1$&$2\theta$&$4\theta+3t-4$&$-(6\theta+3t-4)$ \\
&$T_2$&$-2\theta$&$-(4\theta+3t-2)$&$6\theta+3t-2$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_1=(T_3,T_4)$}&$T_3$&$-(2\theta-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3)$&$6\theta+3t-4$ \\
&$T_4$&$2\theta-1$&$4\theta+3t-5$&$-(6\theta+3t-6)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_2=(D_1,T_5)$}&$D_1$&$-(2\theta-2)$&$-(4\theta+3t-5)$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
&$T_5$&$2\theta-2$&$4\theta+3t-7$&$-(6\theta+3t-9)$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
$\pi_k=(T_{2k},T_{2k+1})$&$T_{2k}$&$-(2\theta-k)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3k+1)$&$6\theta+3t-4k+1$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-1$&$T_{2k+1}$&$2\theta-k$&$4\theta+3t-3k-1$&$-(6\theta+3t-4k-1)$ \\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_{\theta}=(T_{2\theta},D_{2})$}&$T_{2\theta}$&$-\theta$&$-(\theta+3t+1)$&$2\theta+3t+1$ \\
&$D_{2}$&$\theta$&$\theta+3t-1$&$-(2\theta+3t-1)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The difference labels of the arcs of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta},D_1,D_2$ for case A.}
\label{dl1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.4cm} Let $s^1_i$ be the small-dl of the first triangle of $\pi_i$, and let $s^2_i$ be the small-dl of the its second triangle. Define $m^1_i$, $m^2_i$, $b^1_i$ and $b^2_i$ in a similar way for the medium and big difference labels of $\pi_i$. For example, $s^1_2=-(2\theta-2)$, $s^2_2=2\theta-2$,
$m^1_2=-(4\theta+3t-5)$, $m^2_2=4\theta+3t-7$, $b^1_2=6\theta+3t-7$, and $b^2_2=-(6\theta+3t-9)$. Note that $s^j_i+m^j_i=-b^j_i$ and $|s^j_i|+|m^j_i|=|b^j_i|$ for all $i=0,\ldots,\theta$ and $j=1,2$.
The following properties are valid for every $\pi_i$ with $2\leq i\leq \theta$:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm} \item $s^1_i$, $m^1_i$ and $b^2_i$ are negative integers, while $s^2_i$, $m^2_i$ and $b^1_i$ are positive integers;
\vspace{-0.2cm} \item $s^2_i=-s^1_i$, $m^2_i=-m^1_i-2$, and $b^2_i=-b^1_i+2$;
\vspace{-0.2cm} \item if $i<\theta$, then $s^1_{i+1}=s^1_i+1$, $m^1_{i+1}=m^1_i+3$, and $b^1_{i+1}=b^1_i-4$.
\end{itemize}
Note that all big difference labels $b^j_{i}$ have the same parity for $2\leq i\leq \theta$, $j=1,2$, while for the medium ones, the parities alternate between successive $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i+1}$. Moreover, the largest magnitude is $6\theta+3t-2= 3n-2$, and there is exactly one arc with this magnitude.
Since $\theta<3t+1$, we have $\theta+3t+1>2\theta$, which means that no medium-dl can be equal to a small-dl, with the exception of $m^2_{\theta}$ which can be equal to $2\theta$ or $2\theta-1$. But we don't care about this exception since $D_2$ (the second triangle of $\pi_{\theta}$) is a dummy triangle. Notice also that the small difference labels in Table \ref{dl1} are all distinct, which is also the case for the medium and the big ones. Since all difference labels on $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$ are distinct, we conclude that there are only two possibilities for two arcs $uv$ and $u'v'$ of $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ to have the same difference label $f(v)-f(u)=f(v')-f(u')$:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm} \item one of these arcs belongs to $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$ and the other to $T_{1},\ldots,T_{2\theta}$;
\vspace{-0.2cm} \item both arcs belong to $T_{1},\ldots,T_{2\theta}$, one having a big-dl, and the other a medium-dl.
\end{itemize}
Consider the first case. Remember that there is at most one arc on $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$ with magnitude $3t-2$, all other arcs having a smaller magnitude. Since at most one arc on $T_{1},\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ has a magnitude equal to $\theta\geq 3t-2$, we conclude that such a situation can only occur at most once (with $\theta=3t-2$), and we can avoid it by flipping all triangles $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$.
More precisely, by {\it flipping} a directed triangle $\overrightarrow{C_3}$ with vertex set $\{x,y,z\}$ and arc set $\{xy,yz,zx\}$, we mean exchanging the vertex labels of $y$ and $z$. Hence, the set of difference labels is modified from $\{f(y)-f(x), f(z)-f(y), f(x)-f(z)\}$ to $\{f(z)-f(x), f(y)-f(z), f(x)-f(y2)\}$, which means that each difference label of the original set appears with an opposite sign in the modified set, but with the same magnitude.
\\
Consider the second case, and let $i$ and $j$ be such that $b^x_{i}=m^y_{j}$ for $x,y$ in $\{1,2\}$.
Note that $0\leq j < i \leq \theta$. We say that $\pi_i$ is {\it conflicting} with $\pi_j$ and we write $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$. If $\pi_i$ is not conflicting with $\pi_j$, we write $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_j$. Note that
\begin{center}
\hspace{1.5cm}if there are $k<j<i$ such that $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$, then $\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_{\ell}$ for all $\ell<k$. \hfill(a)
\end{center}
Indeed, if $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$, then there are $x,y,z,w$ in $\{1,2\}$ such that $b^x_i=m^y_j$ and $b^z_j=m^w_k$. Then: $$|b^w_k|=|m^w_k|+|s^w_k|=|b^z_j|+|s^w_k|\geq|b^y_j|+|s^w_k|-2=|m^y_j|+|s^y_j|+|s^w_k|-2=|b^x_i|+|s^y_j|+|s^w_k|-2.$$
Since $|b^x_i|\geq 2\theta+3t+1, |s^w_k |> |s^y_j|> |s^x_i|\geq\theta$, we have $\min\{|b^1_k|,|b^2_k|\}\geq|b^w_k|-2\geq4\theta+3t$. Hence, $\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_{\ell}$ for all $\ell<k$ since there is no arc with medium magnitude at least equal to $4\theta+3t$.\\
We now show how to avoid conflicting pairs $\pi_i$ and $\pi_j$ with both $i$ and $j$ at least equal to 2. Conflicts involving $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$ (i.e., $T_{1},\ldots,T_{4}$) will be handled later. Consider $i$ and $j$ such that $2\leq j<i<\theta$ and $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$. Since $b^1_i$ and $m^2_j$ are positive, while $b^2_i$ and $m^1_j$ are negative, we either have $b^1_i=m^2_j$ or $b^2_i=m^1_j$. In the first case, we say that $\pi_i$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, while in the second case, we say that $\pi_i$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$. Note that
\begin{center}
\hspace{0.5cm}if $\pi_i$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $\pi_{i-1}$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$ and $\pi_{i+1}\nrightarrow \pi_j$. \hfill(b)
\hspace{0.5cm}if $\pi_i$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $\pi_{i+1}$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$ and $\pi_{i-1}\nrightarrow \pi_j$. \hfill(c)
\end{center}
Indeed, if $\pi_i$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^1_i=m^2_j$, which implies $b^2_{i-1}\!=\!-b^1_i\!-\!2\!=\!-m^2_j\!-\!2\!=\!m^1_j$. Since $\max\{|b^1_{i+1}|,|b^2_{i+1}|\}=|b^1_{i+1}|=b^1_i-4<m^2_j\leq \min\{|m^1_j|,|m^2_j|\}$, we have $\pi_{i+1}\nrightarrow \pi_j$.
Similarly, if
$\pi_i$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^2_i=m^1_j$, which implies $b^1_{i+1}\!=\!-b^2_i\!-\!2\!=\!-m^1_j\!-\!2\!=\!m^2_j$. Moreover, since $\min\{|b^1_{i-1}|,|b^2_{i-1}|\}=|b^2_{i-1}|=|b^2_i|+4>m^1_j= \max\{|m^1_j|,|m^2_j|\}$, we have $\pi_{i-1}\nrightarrow \pi_j$. Observe also that:
\begin{center}
\hspace{3cm}if $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ for $2\leq j$, then $\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for $2\leq k\neq i,i-1,i+1$. \hfill(d)
\end{center}
Indeed, if $2\leq k<i-1$, then
$\min\{|b^1_k|,|b^2_k|\}\geq\max\{|m^1_j|,|m^2_j|\}+4$, while for $\theta\geq k>i+1$, we have
$\max\{|b^1_k|,|b^2_k|\}\leq\min\{|m^1_i|,|m^2_i|\}-4.$
In both cases, none of $m^1_j$ and $m^2_j$ can be equal to $b^1_k$ or $b^2_k$. As next property, note that:
\begin{center}
\hspace{5cm}if $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ for $2\leq j$, then $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_k$ for $1\leq k \neq j$. \hfill(e)
\end{center}
Indeed, let us first show that $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_{j-1}$. If $j=2$, then $m^1_1\!=\!m^1_2\!-\!2\!=\!-\!m^2_2\!-\!4$ and $m^2_1\!=\!-m^1_2\!=\!m^2_2\!+\!2$. Since we have either $b^1_i=m^2_2$ and $b^2_i=-m^2_2+2$, or $b^2_i=m^1_2$ and $b^1_i=-m^1_2+2$, we see that $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_1$. For $j>2$, observe that $b^1_i,b^2_i,m^1_j,m^2_j$ all have the same parity, while $m^1_{j-1},m^2_{j-1}$ have the opposite parity. Hence $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_{j-1}$.
Similarly, $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_{j+1}$ for all $2\leq j \leq \theta-1$ since the parity of $m^1_{j+1},m^2_{j+1}$ is the opposite of the parity of $b^1_i,b^2_i$.
Now, let $x,y\in\{1,2\}$ be such $b^x_i=m^y_j$. If $1\leq k<j-1$, then $\min\{|m^1_k|,|m^2_k|\}\geq\max\{|b^1_i|,|b^2_i|\}+2$,
while for $\theta\geq k>j+1$, $\max\{|m^1_k|,|m^2_k|\}\leq\min\{|b^1_i|,|b^2_i|\}-2$.
In both cases, none of $m^1_k$ and $m^2_k$ can be equal to $b^1_i$ or $b^2_i$, which proves that $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_{k}$ for $k\geq 1, k\neq j-1,j,j+1$.
\\
In what follows, we will remove conflicts by flipping some triangles. More precisely, by flipping $\pi_i$, we mean flipping both triangles in $\pi_i$. Note that :
\begin{center}
\hspace{2.5cm}if $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ for $j\geq 2$, then $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_k$ for all $k\geq 2$ after the flip of $\pi_i$. \hfill(f)
\end{center}
Indeed, if $\pi_i$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^1_i=m^2_j$, and there is no triangle with medium-dl equal to $-b^1_i=-m^2_j=$ or $-b^2_i=b^1_i-2=m^2_j-2$. Similarly, if $\pi_i$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^2_i=m^1_j$, and there is no triangle with medium-dl equal to $-b^1_i=-b^2_i+2=-m^1_j+2$ or $-b^2_i=-m^1_j$. Hence, we have $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_k$ for all $k\geq 2$ after the flip of $\pi_i$. Also,
\begin{center}
\hspace{2.5cm}if $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ for $j\geq 2$, then $\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for all $k\leq \theta$ after the flip of $\pi_j$. \hfill(g)
\end{center}
Indeed, if $\pi_i$ is $12-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^1_i=m^2_j$, $b^2_{i-1}=m^1_j$, and there is no triangle with a big-dl equal to $-m^1_j=-b^2_{i-1}$ or $-m^2_j=-b^1_i$. Similarly, if $\pi_i$ is $21-$conflicting with $\pi_j$, then $b^2_i=m^1_j$, $b^1_{i+1}=m^2_j$, and there is no triangle with a big-dl equal to $-m^1_j=-b^2_{i}$ or $-m^2_j=-b^1_{i+1}$. Hence, we have $\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for all $k\leq \theta$ after the flip of $\pi_j$. \\
Now, let $J$ be the set of integers $j$ such that $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$ for at least one pair $i,k$ of integers with $2\leq k<j<i\leq \theta$. Also, let $J'$ be the set of integers $j'$ such that there is $k\geq 2$ and $j\neq j'$ in $J$ with $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$ and $\pi_{j'}\rightarrow \pi_k$. Note that $J\cap J'=\emptyset$. Indeed, consider $j'\in J'$, and $j\neq j'$ in $J$ such that $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$ and $\pi_{j'}\rightarrow \pi_k$. It follows from (b), (c) and (d) that $j'\!=\!j\!-\!1$ or $j'\!=\!j\!+\!1$. Since $j\in J$, $m^1_{j}$ and $m^2_{j}$ have the same parity as the big difference labels on $T_5,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$, which means that $m^1_{j'}$ and $m^2_{j'}$ have the opposite parity. Hence, there is no $i$ with $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_{j'}$, which proves that $j'\notin J$.\\
By flipping all $\pi_{\ell}$ with $\ell\in J\cup J'$, we get $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for all $2\leq j<i\leq \theta$ with $i$ or $j$ in $J\cup J'$. Indeed, it follows from (a) that we cannot have $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ with both $i$ and $j$ in $J\cup J'$, since this would imply the existence of $k,k'$ with $2\leq k <k'\leq \theta$ and $\pi_{k'}\rightarrow \pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$. Hence, it follows from (f) and (g) that $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for $i$ or $j$ in $J$, $2\leq j<i\leq \theta$. Moreover, as observed above, $j'\in J'$ implies that $m^1_{j'}$ and $m^2_{j'}$ do not have the same parity as the big diffrence values on $T_5,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$. Hence, it follows from (f) that $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_j$ for $i$ or $j$ in $J'$, $2\leq j<i\leq \theta$.\\
So, after the flipping of all $\pi_{\ell}$ with $\ell\in J\cup J'$, the remaining conflicts $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ with $2\leq j <i\leq \theta$ are such that $\{i,j\}\cap (J\cup J')=\emptyset$ . Consider any such conflict. If there is $i'\neq i$ such that $\pi_{i'}\rightarrow \pi_j$, then we know from (d) that $i'=i-1$ or $i+1$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $i'=i+1$ (else we permute the roles of $i$ and $i'$). Since none of $j,i,i'$ belongs to $J\cup J'$, there is no $k$ such that $\pi_k\rightarrow \pi_i$, $\pi_k\rightarrow \pi_{i'}$ or $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$. Also, it follows from (d) that there is no $k\neq i,i'$ such that $\pi_k\rightarrow \pi_{j}$
\begin {itemize}
\item if $i\leq 2\theta/3$, we flip $\pi_j$. We then have $\min\{|b^1_i|,|b^2_i|\}\geq 6\theta+3t-4(2\theta/3)-1=10\theta/3+3t-1$. It follows that $j\leq 2\theta/9$ else $\max\{|m^1_j|,|m^2_j|\}\leq 4\theta+3t-3(2\theta)/9-2=10\theta/3+3t-2$. Hence $\min\{|b^1_j|,|b^2_j|\}\geq 6\theta+3t-4(2\theta/9)-1=46\theta/9+3t-1>4\theta+3t-2.$ Since the medium magnitudes are at most equal to $4\theta+3t-2$, we cannot have $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_k$ after the flip of $\pi_j$. Also, it follows from (g) that, after the flip of $\pi_j$, we have
$\pi_k\nrightarrow \pi_{j}$ for $j<k\leq \theta$. Hence, after the flip of $\pi_j$, the difference labels on its two triangles are different from those on the other triangles $T_k$, $k\geq 5$.
\item if $i> 2\theta/3$, we flip $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i'}$ (if any). In this case, we have $\max\{|m^1_{i'}|,|m^2_{i'}|\}<\max\{|m^1_i|,|m^2_i|\}$ $\leq 4\theta+3t-3(2\theta/3)=2\theta+3t$. Since all big magnitudes on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ are strictly larger than $2\theta+3t$, we cannot have $\pi_k\rightarrow \pi_i$ after the flip of $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i'}$. Also, it follows from (f) that after the flip of $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i'}$,
we have $\pi_i\nrightarrow \pi_{k}$ and $\pi_{i'}\nrightarrow \pi_{k}$ for $2\leq k<i$. Hence, after the flip of $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i'}$, the difference labels on their triangles are different from those on the other triangles $T_k$, $k\geq 5$.
\end{itemize}
After all these flips, there is no $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$ with $2\leq j<i\leq \theta$. We consider now triangles $T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4$ involved in $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$. If there is $j\geq 2$ such that $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_1$ then we know from (e) that $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_k$ for all $2\leq k<j$. Hence, $j\notin J\cup J'$. If, before the flips, there was $i$ such that $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$, then $i> 2\theta/3$. Indeed, we have seen above that if $i\leq 2\theta/3$, then $\min\{|b^1_j|,|b^2_j|\}>4\theta+3t-2$, which means that $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_1$. So, $\pi_j$ was not flipped, and by flipping $\pi_1$, we get $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_1$ for all $2\leq j\leq \theta$.
Since the parity of $m^0_1$ and $m^0_2$ is the opposite of the parity of $b^1_i$ and $b^2_i$ for all $i\geq 2$, we have $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_0$ for all $2\leq j\leq \theta$.
Hence, the only possible remaining conflict is between $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$. This can only occur if $b^0_1=b^1_1$ and $\pi_1$ was flipped. In such a case, we flip $\pi_0$ to remove this last conflict.\\
{\bf Case B :} $n=2\theta+t$, $\theta=3t+1$
\vspace{0.1cm}We treat this case as the previous one. More precisely, the vertex labels $f(v_i)$ on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ are given in Table \ref{num2}. Given a gdl $f'$ for $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ with at most one arc of magnitude $3t-2$, and all other arcs of magnitude strictly smaller than $3t-2$, we set $f(v_i)=f'(v_i)+3\theta$ for $i=6\theta+1,\ldots,6\theta+3t$.
Again, one can easily check that $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{6\theta+3t}\}$ and $\{1,
\ldots,6\theta+3t=3n\}$.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Triangle $T_i$ &$f(v_{3i-2})$&$f(v_{3i-1})$&$f(v_{3i})$ \\
\hline
$T_1$&$1$&$2\theta+1$&$6\theta+3t-3$ \\
$T_2$&$2$&$6\theta+3t$&$4\theta+3t$ \\
$T_3$&$3$&$6\theta+3t-1$&$2\theta+2$ \\
$T_4$&$4$&$4\theta+3t-1$&$6\theta+3t-2$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
$T_{2k-1}$&$2k-1$&$2\theta+k$&$6\theta+3t-2k+2$ \\
$T_{2k}$&$2k$&$6\theta+3t-2k+1$&$4\theta+3t-k+1$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-1$&&&\\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
\hdashline
$T_{2\theta-1}$&$2\theta-1$&$3\theta+3t+1$&$4\theta+3t+1$ \\
$T_{2\theta}$&$2\theta$&$4\theta+3t+2$&$3\theta$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The labeling of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ for case B.}
\label{num2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.3cm}The small, medium, and big difference labels for triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ are given in Table \ref{dl2}. Again, the triangles are grouped in pairs, using two dummy triangles $D_1$ and $D_2$ which are paired with $T_5$ and $T_{2\theta-2}$, respectively. Notice that for every $uv$ on a $T_i$ with $i\leq 2\theta$ and every $u'v'$ on a $T_j$ with $j>2\theta$, we have $f(v)-f(u)\neq f(v')-f(u')$ since the smallest possible magnitude for $uv$ is $\theta=3t+1$, while the largest possible magnitude for $u'v'$ is $3t-2$. Hence, in this case, we do not have to flip triangles $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$. Note also that the largest magnitude is $6\theta+3t-2= 3n-2$, and there is exactly one arc with this magnitude.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Pair&Triangle&Small-dl&Medium-dl&Big-dl \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_0=(T_1,T_2)$}&$T_1$&$2\theta$&$4\theta+3t-4$&$-(6\theta+3t-4)$ \\
&$T_2$&$-2\theta$&$-(4\theta+3t-2)$&$6\theta+3t-2$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_1=(T_3,T_4)$}&$T_3$&$-(2\theta-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3)$&$6\theta+3t-4$ \\
&$T_4$&$2\theta-1$&$4\theta+3t-5$&$-(6\theta+3t-6)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_2=(D_1,T_5)$}&$D_1$&$-(2\theta-2)$&$-(4\theta+3t-5)$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
&$T_5$&$2\theta-2$&$4\theta+3t-7$&$-(6\theta+3t-9)$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
$\pi_k=(T_{2k},T_{2k+1})$&$T_{2k}$&$-(2\theta-k)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3k+1)$&$6\theta+3t-4k+1$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-2$&$T_{2k+1}$&$2\theta-k$&$4\theta+3t-3k-1$&$-(6\theta+3t-4k-1)$ \\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3.3cm}{$\pi_{\theta-1}=(T_{2\theta-2},D_{2})$}&$T_{2\theta-1}$&$-(\theta+1)$&$-(\theta+3t+4)$&$2\theta+3t+5$ \\
&$D_{2}$&$\theta+1$&$\theta+3t+2$&$-(2\theta+3t+3)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_{\theta}=(T_{2\theta-1},T_{2\theta})$}&$T_{2\theta-1}$&$\theta$&$\theta+3t+2$&$-(2\theta+3t+2)$ \\
&$T_{2\theta}$&$-\theta$&$-(\theta+3t+2)$&$2\theta+3t+2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The difference labels of the arcs of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta},D_1,D_2$ for case B.}
\label{dl2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.4cm}Since $\theta=3t+1$, we have $\theta+3t+2=2\theta+1$, which means that no medium-dl can be equal to a small-dl. The small, medium and big difference labels on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-2}$ are exactly the same as those of Table \ref{dl1}. Using the same arguments, as in the previous case, we can avoid conflicts involving medium and big difference labels of $\pi_0,\ldots,\pi_{\theta-1}$.
Consider now $\pi_{\theta}$:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace{-0.4cm}\item the medium difference values of $\pi_{\theta}$ can only be conflicting with the medium-dl of $D_2$, but we don't care about such a conflict since $D_2$ is a dummy triangle;
\vspace{-0.2cm}\item the big difference values of $\pi_{\theta}$ can only be conflicting with the medium-dl of a $T_k$. For this to happen, we should have $2\theta+3t+2$ equal to $4\theta+3t-3k+1$ or $4\theta+3t-3k-1$, or equivalently $k$ equal to $\frac{2\theta-1}{3}=\frac{6t+1}{3}$ or $\frac{2\theta-3}{3}=\frac{6t-1}{3}$, which is impossible since $k$ is an integer.
\end{itemize}
{\bf Case C :} $n=2\theta+t-1$, $\theta\in\{3t-1,3t\}$
\vspace{0.1cm}Again, consider the vertex labels $f(v_i)$ on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1}$ shown in Table \ref{num3}. Given a gdl $f'$ for $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ with at most one arc of magnitude $3t-2$, and all other arcs of magnitude strictly smaller than $3t-2$, we set $f(v_i)=f'(v_i)+3\theta-1$ for $i=6\theta-2,\ldots,6\theta+3t-3$. One can easily check $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{6\theta+3t-3}\}$ and $\{1,
\ldots,6\theta+3t-3=3n\}$.
The small, medium, and big difference labels for triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ are given in Table \ref{dl3}.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Triangle $T_i$ &$f(v_{3i-2})$&$f(v_{3i-1})$&$f(v_{3i})$ \\
\hline
$T_1$&$1$&$2\theta$&$6\theta+3t-6$ \\
$T_2$&$2$&$6\theta+3t-3$&$4\theta+3t-2$ \\
$T_3$&$3$&$6\theta+3t-4$&$2\theta+1$ \\
$T_4$&$4$&$4\theta+3t-3$&$6\theta+3t-5$ \\
$T_5$&$5$&$2\theta+2$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
$T_{2k}$&$2k$&$6\theta+3t-2k-2$&$4\theta+3t-k-1$ \\
$T_{2k+1}$&$2k+1$&$2\theta+k$&$6\theta+3t-2k-3$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-1$&&&\\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The labeling of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1}$ for case C.}
\label{num3}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Pair&Triangle&Small-dl&Medium-dl&Big-dl \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_0=(T_1,T_2)$}&$T_1$&$2\theta-1$&$4\theta+3t-6$&$-(6\theta+3t-7)$ \\
&$T_2$&$-(2\theta-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-4)$&$6\theta+3t-5$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_1=(T_3,T_4)$}&$T_3$&$-(2\theta-2)$&$-(4\theta+3t-5)$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
&$T_4$&$2\theta-2$&$4\theta+3t-7$&$-(6\theta+3t-9)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_2=(D_1,T_5)$}&$D_1$&$-(2\theta-3)$&$-(4\theta+3t-7)$&$6\theta+3t-10$ \\
&$T_5$&$2\theta-3$&$4\theta+3t-9$&$-(6\theta+3t-12)$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
$\pi_k=(T_{2k},T_{2k+1})$&$T_{2k}$&$-(2\theta-k-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3k-1)$&$6\theta+3t-4k-2$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-1$&$T_{2k+1}$&$2\theta-k-1$&$4\theta+3t-3k-3$&$-(6\theta+3t-4k-4)$ \\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The difference labels of the arcs of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1},D_1$ for case C.}
\label{dl3}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Again, the triangles are grouped in pairs, using one dummy triangle $D_1$ which is paired with $T_5$. Notice that for every $uv$ on a $T_i$ with $i\leq 2\theta-1$ and every $u'v'$ on a $T_j$ with $j>2\theta-1$, we have $f(v)-f(u)\neq f(v')-f(u')$ since the smallest possible magnitude for $uv$ is $\theta\geq 3t-1$, while the largest possible magnitude for $u'v'$ is $3t-2$. Hence, also in this case, we do not have to flip $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$. Note also that the largest magnitude is $6\theta+3t-5=3n-2$, and there is exactly one arc with this magnitude. \\
\vspace{-0.1cm}Since $\theta<3t+1$, we have $\theta+3t>2\theta-1$, which means that no medium-dl can be equal to a small-dl. Using the same arguments, as in the previous cases, we can avoid conflicts involving $\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_{\theta-1}$. \\
\vspace{-0.1cm} If there is $j\geq 2$ such that $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_0$, then assume there is $i>j$ such that $\pi_i\rightarrow \pi_j$. If $i\leq 2\theta/3$, then $\min\{|b^1_i|,|b^2_i|\}\geq 6\theta+3t-4(2\theta/3)-4=10\theta/3+3t-4$. It follows that $j\leq (2\theta+3)/9$ else $\max\{|m^1_j|,|m^2_j|\}\leq 4\theta+3t-3(2\theta+3)/9-4=10\theta/3+3t-5$. Hence $\min\{|b^1_j|,|b^2_j|\}\geq 6\theta+3t-4(2\theta+3)/9-4=46\theta/9+3t-48/9>4\theta+3t-4$, which contradicts $\pi_j\rightarrow \pi_0$.
Hence, we necessarily have $i>2\theta/3$, and since $j$ cannot belong to $J\cup J'$, we conclude that $j$ was not flipped. Hence, by flipping $\pi_0$, we get $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_0$ for all $j\geq 2$.\\
\vspace{-0.1cm} Since the parity of $m^1_1$ and $m^2_1$ is the opposite of the parity of $b^1_i$ and $b^2_i$ for all $i\geq 2$, we have $\pi_j\nrightarrow \pi_1$ for all $j\geq 2$.
Hence, the only possible remaining conflict is between $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$. This can only occur if $b^1_0=b^1_1$ and $\pi_1$ was flipped. In such a case, we flip $\pi_1$ to remove this last conflict.\\
{\bf Case D :} $n=2\theta+t-1$, $\theta=3t+1$
\vspace{0.1cm}Consider the vertex labels $f(v_i)$ on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1}$ shown in Table \ref{num4}. Given a gdl $f'$ for $t\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ with at most one arc of magnitude $3t-2$, and all other arcs of magnitude strictly smaller than $3t-2$, we set $f(v_i)=f'(v_i)+3\theta-1$ for $i=6\theta-2,\ldots,6\theta+3t-3$. One can easily check $f$ is a bijection between $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{6\theta+3t-3}\}$ and $\{1,
\ldots,6\theta+3t-3=3n\}$.
\vspace{-0.1cm} \begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Triangle $T_i$ &$f(v_{3i-2})$&$f(v_{3i-1})$&$f(v_{3i})$ \\
\hline
$T_1$&$1$&$2\theta$&$6\theta+3t-6$ \\
$T_2$&$2$&$6\theta+3t-3$&$4\theta+3t-2$ \\
$T_3$&$3$&$6\theta+3t-4$&$2\theta+1$ \\
$T_4$&$4$&$4\theta+3t-3$&$6\theta+3t-5$ \\
$T_5$&$5$&$2\theta+2$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
$T_{2k}$&$2k$&$6\theta+3t-2k-2$&$4\theta+3t-k-1$ \\
$T_{2k+1}$&$2k+1$&$2\theta+k$&$6\theta+3t-2k-3$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-3$&&&\\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$ \\
\hdashline
$T_{2\theta-4}$&$2\theta-4$&$4\theta+3t-1$&$3\theta+3t+1$ \\
$T_{2\theta-3}$&$2\theta-3$&$4\theta+3t+2$&$3\theta-2$ \\
$T_{2\theta-2}$&$2\theta-2$&$3\theta+3t$&$4\theta+3t+1$ \\
$T_{2\theta-1}$&$2\theta-1$&$3\theta-1$&$4\theta+3t$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The labeling of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1}$ for case D.}
\label{num4}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}. \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.05cm}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Pair&Triangle&Small-dl&Medium-dl&Big-dl \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_0=(T_1,T_2)$}&$T_1$&$2\theta-1$&$4\theta+3t-6$&$-(6\theta+3t-7)$ \\
&$T_2$&$-(2\theta-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-4)$&$6\theta+3t-5$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_1=(T_3,T_4)$}&$T_3$&$-(2\theta-2)$&$-(4\theta+3t-5)$&$6\theta+3t-7$ \\
&$T_4$&$2\theta-2$&$4\theta+3t-7$&$-(6\theta+3t-9)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3cm}{$\pi_2=(D_1,T_5)$}&$D_1$&$-(2\theta-3)$&$-(4\theta+3t-7)$&$6\theta+3t-10$ \\
&$T_5$&$2\theta-3$&$4\theta+3t-9$&$-(6\theta+3t-12)$ \\
\hdashline
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
$\pi_k=(T_{2k},T_{2k+1})$&$T_{2k}$&$-(2\theta-k-1)$&$-(4\theta+3t-3k-1)$&$6\theta+3t-4k-2$ \\
$k=3,\ldots,\theta-3$&$T_{2k+1}$&$2\theta-k-1$&$4\theta+3t-3k-3$&$-(6\theta+3t-4k-4)$ \\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3.9cm}{$\pi_{\theta-2}=(T_{2\theta-3},T_{2\theta-2})$}&$T_{2\theta-3}$&$-(\theta+1)$&$-(\theta+3t+4)$&$2\theta+3t+5$ \\
&$T_{2\theta-2}$&$\theta+1$&$\theta+3t+2$&$-(2\theta+3t+3)$ \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{3.9cm}{$\pi_{\theta-1}=(T_{2\theta-1},T_{2\theta-4})$}&$T_{2\theta-1}$&$\theta$&$\theta+3t+1$&$-(2\theta+3t+1)$ \\
&$T_{2\theta-4}$&$-(\theta-2)$&$-(\theta+3t+5)$&$2\theta+3t+3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The difference labels of the arcs of $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-1},D_1$ for case D.}
\label{dl4}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The small, medium, and big difference labels for triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta}$ are given in Table \ref{dl4}. Again, the triangles are grouped in pairs, using one dummy triangle $D_1$ which is paired with $T_5$. Notice that for every $uv$ on a $T_i$ with $i\leq 2\theta-1$ and every $u'v'$ on a $T_j$ with $j>2\theta-1$, we have $f(v)-f(u)\neq f(v')-f(u')$ since the smallest possible magnitude for $uv$ is $\theta-2=3t-1$, while the largest possible magnitude for $u'v'$ is $3t-2$. Hence, also in this case, we do not have to flip $T_{2\theta+1},\ldots,T_{2\theta+t}$. Note also that the largest magnitude is $6\theta+3t-5=3n-2$, and there is only one arc with this magnitude.\\
\vspace{-0.1cm}Since $\theta=3t+1$, we have $\theta+3t+1=2\theta$, which means that no medium-dl can be equal to a small-dl. The small, medium and big difference labels on $T_1,\ldots,T_{2\theta-5}$ are exactly the same as those of Table \ref{dl3}. Using the same arguments, as in the previous case, we can avoid conflicts involving $\pi_0,\ldots,\pi_{\theta-3}$.\\
\vspace{-0.1cm}Consider now $\pi_{\theta-2}$ and $\pi_{\theta-1}$. The medium magnitudes $|m^1_{\theta-2}|,|m^2_{\theta-2}|,|m^1_{\theta-1}|$ and $|m^2_{\theta-1}|$ do not appear on any other triangle. Also, the medium magnitudes on a $\pi_k$ with $2\leq k\leq \theta-3$ are equal to $4\theta+3t-3k-1=15t-3k+3$ or $4\theta+3t-3k-3=15t-3k+1$, which mean that they are all equal to $0$, or $1\mod 3$. Hence, the big magnitudes $|b^2_{\theta-2}|=|b^2_{\theta-1}|=2\theta+3t+3=9t+5$ do not appear on any other triangle as medium magnitude. Therefore, these two big magnitudes will not be conflicting if we either flip both $\pi_{\theta-1}$ and $\pi_{\theta-2}$, or none of them. The only remaining possible conflicts involve a medium-dl on a $T_i$ ($i<\theta-2$) and $b^1_{\theta-2}$ or $b^1_{\theta-1}$\\
\vspace{-0.1cm}Assume there is a triangle $T_i$ with magnitude $2\theta+3t+1=|b^1_{\theta-1}|$. This means that $2\theta+3t+1\leq 4\theta+3t-3i-1$, which is equivalent to $i\leq (2\theta-2)/3$. Hence, $\pi_i$ was not flipped. Also, if there is a triangle $T_j$ with magnitude $2\theta+3t+5=b^1_{\theta-2}$, then $j<i\leq (2\theta-2)/3$, which means that $\pi_j$ was not flipped. Now,
\begin{itemize}
\item if there is a triangle $T_i$ with medium-dl $-(2\theta+3t+1)$, then $m^1_{i}=b^1_{\theta-1}$, and $m^2_{i-2}=-b^1_{\theta-1}+4=2\theta+3t+5=b^1_{\theta-2}$, and we can avoid both conflicts by flipping both $\pi_{\theta-1}$ and $\pi_{\theta-2}$;
\item if there is a triangle $T_j$ with medium-dl $2\theta+3t+5$, then $m^2_{j}=b^1_{\theta-2}$, and $m^1_{j+2}=-b^1_{\theta-2}+4=-(2\theta+3t+1)=b^1_{\theta-1}$, and we can avoid both conflicts by flipping both $\pi_{\theta-1}$ and $\pi_{\theta-2}$.
\item if there is no triangle with medium-dl $-(2\theta+3t+1)$ or $2\theta+3t+5$, there is no conflict.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.5cm}\end{proof}
We already know from Lemma \ref{C2k+1C4} that $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl. We now show that this is also the case for $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$, $n\geq 2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{C4C3}
$\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}+n\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ has a gdl for every $n\ge 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The graphs in Figures \ref{2C3C4},\ldots, \ref{8C3C4} show the existence of the desired gdl for $2\leq n \leq 8$.
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{2C3C4}
\caption{$2\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{2C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm,keepaspectratio=true]{3C3C4}
\caption{$3\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{3C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{4C3C4}
\caption{$4\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{4C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{5C3C4}
\caption{$5\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{5C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm,keepaspectratio=true]{6C3C4}
\caption{$6\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{6C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm,keepaspectratio=true]{7C3C4}
\caption{$7\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{7C3C4}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{8C3C4}
\caption{$8\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}+\protect\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$.}
\label{8C3C4}
\end{figure}
For $n\ge 9$, we know from Lemma \ref{nC3} that there is a gdl for $(n+1)\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$, which can be obtained by performing a set $F$ of flips, starting from the labelling $f$ defined in Tables \ref{num1}, \ref{num2}, \ref{num3}, and \ref{num4} for cases A, B, C and D, respectively. We distinguish two cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item For cases A and B, we consider the graph $G$ obtained from $(n+1)\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ by inserting a new vertex $v_0$ between $v_5$ and $v_6$. More precisely, $G$ is obtained by replacing $T_2$ in $(n+1)\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ by a $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ with vertex set $\{v_0,v_4,v_5,v_6\}$ and arc set $\{v_4v_5,v_5v_0,v_0v_6,v_6v_4\}$.
We then define $f'$ by setting $f'(v_0)=1$ and $f'(v_i)=f(v_i)+1$ for $i=1,\ldots,3(n+1)$. Clearly, $f'$ is bijection between $\{v_0,\ldots,v_{3(n+1)}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,3n+4\}$. In order to prove that by performing exactly the same set $F$ of flips, we get a gdl for $G$, it is sufficient to show that the difference labels on $v_5v_0$ and $v_0v_6$ cannot appear on other arcs of $G$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vert f'(v_0)-f'(v_5)\vert=\vert 1-(6\theta+3t+1)\vert =6\theta+3t$, which means that $v_5v_0$ has a magnitude larger than that of any other arc in $G$.
\item $f'(v_6)-f'(v_0)=(4\theta+3t+1)-1=4\theta+3t$. Since this value is strictly larger than any other medium magnitude in $G$, the difference label on $v_0v_6$ can only be conflicting with a big-dl on a $T_i$ with $i\geq 5$. But this does not occur since these big difference labels have the opposite parity of $4\theta+3t$.
\end{itemize}
\item For cases C and D, we consider the graph $G$ obtained from $(n+1)\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ by inserting a new vertex $v_0$ between $v_9$ and $v_7$. More precisely, $G$ is obtained by replacing $T_3$ in $(n+1)\overrightarrow{\bf C_3}$ by a $\overrightarrow{\bf C_4}$ with vertex set $\{v_0,v_7,v_8,v_9\}$ and arc set $\{v_7v_8,v_8v_9,v_9v_0,v_0v_7\}$. We then define $f'$ by setting $f'(v_0)=3n+4=6\theta+3t-2$ and $f'(v_i)=f(v_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,3(n+1)$. Clearly, $f'$ is bijection between $\{v_0,\ldots,v_{3(n+1)}\}$ and $\{1,\ldots,3n+4\}$. In order to prove that by performing exactly the same set $F$ of flips, we get a gdl for $G$, it is sufficient to show that the difference labels on $v_0v_7$ and $v_9v_0$ do not appear on other arcs of $G$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $f'(v_7)-f'(v_0)=3-(6\theta+3t-2) =-(6\theta+3t-5)$. The same difference label appears on $T_2$ but with an opposite sign. These two arcs could be conflicting if exaclty one of $\pi_{0}$ and $\pi_{1}$ is flipped, but this does not occur since $T_1$ and $T_3$ have big difference labels of the same magnitude, but with opposite signs.
\item $f'(v_0)-f'(v_9)=(6\theta+3t-2)-(2\theta+1)=4\theta+3t-3$. Since this value is strictly larger than any other medium magnitude in $G$, the difference label on $v_9v_0$ can only be conflicting with a big-dl on a $T_i$ with $i\geq 5$. But this does not occur since these big difference labels have the opposite parity of $4\theta+3t-3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
All together, the results shown in the eight lemmas of this section can be summarized as follows.
\begin{theorem}
If $G$ is the disjoint union of circuits, among which at most one has an odd length, or all circuits of odd length have 3 vertices, then $G$ has a gdl, unless $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$ or $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2}}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusion}
As mentioned in the introduction, it is an open question to determine the values of $n$ for which $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$ has a graceful labeling, i.e., an injection $f:V\rightarrow\{0,1,\ldots,q\}$ such that, when each arc $xy$ is assigned the label $(f(y)-f(x))\ (mod\ q+1)$, the resulting arc labels are distinct. Considering graceful difference labelings, we could show that $n\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$ has a gdl if and only if $n\geq 2$. We have also proved additional cases that support the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}
If $G$ is the disjoint union of circuits, then $G$ has a gdl, unless $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$ or $G=\overrightarrow{\bf C_{2}}+\overrightarrow{\bf C_{3}}$.
\end{conjecture}
|
\section{Introduction.}
We say that $f:\mathds{N}\to\mathds{C}$ \textit{resembles} the M\"obius function $\mu$ if $f$ is multiplicative, supported on the squarefree integers, \textit{i.e.}, $f(n)=0$ whenever $n$ is divisible by some perfect square, and $f(p)\in\{+1,-1\}$ for each prime $p$.
The set of the squarefree integers $\mathcal{S}$ is an abelian group under the operation $n \circ m := \frac{\lcm(n,m)}{\gcd(n,m)}$. Further, all the complex-valued group characters of $(\mathcal{S},\circ)$ are the real valued multiplicative functions $f$ that have support on the squarefree integers, and on primes $f(p)\in\{-1,1\}$, see \cite{Hilberdinkthegroupsquarefree}.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the set of prime numbers. In \cite{Maierresembling} the authors called such $f$ as a multiplicative function that resembles the M\"obius $\mu$, and their main result provide a condition on the values $(f(p))_{p\in\mathcal{P}}$ for which the partial sums $M_f(x):=\sum_{n\leq x}f(n)$ are $O(x^{1/2+o(1)})$.
If the values $(f(p))_{p\in\mathcal{P}}$ are given by independent random variables that have equal probability to be either $\pm 1$, then with probability one $M_f(x)=o(x^{1/2+\epsilon})$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Further, these partial sums are not (with probability one) $o(x^{1/2-\epsilon})$, see \cite{wintner} for these and other interesting results. Further, up to this date, the best upper bound for $M_f(x)$ can be found in \cite{tenenbaum2013} and the best $\Omega$-result can be found in \cite{harpergaussian}.
The solution of the Erd\H{o}s discrepancy problem (see \cite{taodiscrepancy}) implies that a completely multiplicative function $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ has unbounded partial sums. However, a completely multiplicative function $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,0,1\}$ may have bounded partial sums, for instance, a real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi$. Also, a multiplicative function $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ may have bounded partial sums, see \cite{klurmancorrelation} for a complete classification of such $f$, and see \cite{klurmanchudakov} for the proof of Chudakov's conjecture. In the case $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ is completely multiplicative there are known examples for which $M_f(x)$ is $O(\log x)$, see \cite{Borweindicrepancy}.
Here we address the following question:\\
\textit{For which values of $\alpha>0$ there exists a multiplicative function $f$ resembling the M\"obius function $\mu$ such that its partial sums $M_f(x)$ are $o(x^\alpha)$?}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorema 1} There exists a multiplicative function $f$ resembling $\mu$ and such that $M_f(x)=o(\sqrt{x})$. Further, if we assume RH, there exists $f$ such that
$M_f(x)=o( x^{2/5+\epsilon})$, for any $\epsilon>0$.
\end{theorem}
Further:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 2} Let $f$ be a multiplicative function resembling $\mu$. Let $p$ be a generic prime number. Assume that for some real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi$ and for some constant $c>0$
\begin{equation}\label{equation strongly pretentious condition}
\sum_{p\leq x}|1-f(p)\chi(p)|\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(c\sqrt{\log x})}.
\end{equation}
Then for some $\lambda>0$
\begin{equation}\label{equation consequence of strongly pretentiousness}
M_f(x)\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\lambda(\log x )^{1/4})}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As Theorem \ref{theorem 2} suggests, our examples of $f$ resembling $\mu$ with small partial sums are related to the real non-principal Dirichlet characters $\chi$. Indeed, the proof of Theorem \ref{theorema 1} is elementary in the following sense: We begin with a real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi$, extend it to a completely multiplicative function $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ and then we restrict it to the squarefree integers $f=\mu^2g$. The partial sums $M_f(x)$ are $o(x^{2/5+\epsilon})$ under RH, and unconditionally $\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\lambda (\log x)^{1/4})}$ for some $\lambda>0$.
This raises the question of how small the partial sums $M_f(x)$ can be for $f$ resembling $\mu$ and such that $f=\mu^2 g$, where $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ is a completely multiplicative extension of a real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi\mod k$, \textit{i.e.}, $g$ is completely multiplicative, $g(n)=\chi(n)$ whenever $\gcd(n,k)=1$ and for each prime $p|k$, $g(p)=\pm1$. It is worth mentioning that the best upper bound we can obtain for $M_f(x)$ for such $f$ seems to be $o(x^{1/4})$, and further the claim $M_f(x)=o(x^{\alpha})$ for some $\alpha<1/2$ is linked with zero free regions for $\zeta$. Indeed, we have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 3} Let $f=\mu^2g$ where $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ is a completely multiplicative extension of a real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi$. Assume that RH holds for the $L$-function $L(s,\chi)$, \textit{i.e.}, all the zeros on the half plane $\mathbb{H}_0:=\{z=\sigma+it\in\mathds{C}:\sigma>0\}$ of $L(s,\chi)$ have real part equals to $1/2$. If $M_f(x)$ is $o(x^{\alpha})$ for some $\alpha>0$, then:\\ i. $\alpha\geq 1/4$;\\
ii. $\zeta$ has no zeros in the half plane $\mathds{H}_{2\alpha}$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements.} I would like to thank Adam Harper for fruitful email exchanges and for suggesting that the first part of Theorem 1.1 could be obtained by adjusting a real Dirichlet character. I was partially supported by UFMG -- Bolsa Rec\'em Doutor no. 23853.
\section{Proofs of the main results}
\subsection*{Notation} Here $M_f(x):=\sum_{n\leq x}f(n)$. We use both $f(x)\ll g(x)$ and $f(x)=O(g(x))$ whenever there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all large $x>0$ we have that $|f(x)|\leq C|g(x)|$. Further, $\ll_\delta$ means that the implicit constant may depend on $\delta$. The standard $f(x)=o(g(x))$ means that $\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=0$. We let $\mathcal{P}$ for the set of primes and $p$ for a generic element of $\mathcal{P}$. The notation $p^k\| n$ means that $k$ is the largest power of $p$ for which $p^k$ divides $n$. The M\"obius function is denoted by $\mu$, \textit{i.e.}, the multiplicative function with support on the square free integers and such that at the primes $\mu(p)=-1$. Dirichlet convolution is denoted by $\ast$. Given a subset $A\subset\mathds{N}$, we denote by $\mathds{1}_A(n)$ the characteristic function of $A$. Finally, $\omega(k)$ is the number of distinct primes that divide a certain $k$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem 2}} We begin with the following
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 3} Let $h:\mathds{N}\to[0,\infty)$ be a multiplicative function such that:\\
i. $h(p)\leq2$ and $h(p^k)\leq h(p)$, for all primes $p$ and all powers $k\geq 2$;\\
ii. For some constant $c>0$, $\sum_{p\leq x}h(p)\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(c\sqrt{\log x})}$.\\
Then there exists a $\delta>0$ such that $M_h(x)\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log x})}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We are going to show that the series
\begin{equation*}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{h(n)\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log n})}{\sqrt{n}}
\end{equation*}
converges for some small $0<\delta<c/2$, and hence, the proof of the desired result is obtained either by partial summation or by Kroenecker's Lemma (see \cite{shiryaev} pg. 390).
Since $\sqrt{\log n}= \sqrt{\sum_{p^k\|n} \log p^k } \leq \sum_{p^k\| n} \sqrt{ \log p^k}$ we have that
\begin{equation*}\sum_{n\leq x}\frac{h(n)\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log n})}{\sqrt{n}}\leq\sum_{n\leq x}\frac{\tilde{h}(n)}{\sqrt{n}},
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{h}$ is the multiplicative function such that $\tilde{h}(p^k)=\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log p^k})h(p^k)$, for all primes $p$ and all powers $k$. Hence, by the Euler product formula, we only need to show that the series $\sum_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{\tilde{h}(p^k)}{p^{k/2}}$ converges.
Let $0<\delta<c/2$ be small such that $\frac{\exp(\delta \sqrt{\log p})}{\sqrt{p}}<1$ for all $p\in\mathcal{P}$. Condition i. combined with the formula for the the sum of a geometric series implies
\begin{equation}\label{equation lema 3}
\sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac{\tilde{h}(p^k)}{p^{k/2}}\leq h(p)\frac{\exp(2\delta \sqrt{\log p})}{p}\frac{1}{1-\frac{\exp(\delta \sqrt{\log p})}{\sqrt{p}}}\ll_{\delta} \frac{h(p)\exp(2\delta \sqrt{\log p})}{\sqrt{p}}.
\end{equation}
Put $T(x)=0$ for $0\leq x <1$ and $T(x)=\sum_{p\leq x}h(p)$ for $x\geq1$. We have that:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{p\leq x} \frac{h(p)\exp(2\delta\sqrt{\log p})}{\sqrt{p}}&=\int_{1}^x \frac{\exp(2\delta\sqrt{\log t})}{\sqrt{t}} dT(t)\\
&\ll T(x)\frac{\exp(2\delta\sqrt{\log x})}{\sqrt{x}}+\int_{1}^x T(t)\frac{\exp(2\delta\sqrt{\log t})}{t^{3/2}}dt\\
&\ll \frac{1}{\exp((c-2\delta)\sqrt{\log x})}+\int_{1}^x \frac{1}{t\exp((c-2\delta)\sqrt{\log t})}dt\\
&\ll 1.
\end{align*}
This estimate combined with (\ref{equation lema 3}) gives that $\sum_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{\tilde{h}(p^k)}{p^{k/2}}$ converges. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lema 4} Let $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ be completely multiplicative. Assume that for some real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi\mod k$ $f$ satisfies (\ref{equation strongly pretentious condition}). Then for some $\delta>0$, $M_f(x)\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log x})}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $h=f\ast \chi^{-1}$, where $\chi^{-1}$ is the Dirichlet inverse of $\chi$. Then $\chi^{-1}$ is multiplicative and it is supported on the square free integers. It follows that for each prime $p$ and any power $k$:
\begin{align*}
|h(p^k)|&=|f\ast\chi^{-1}(p^k)|=|f(p^k)+f(p^{k-1})\chi^{-1}(p)|=|f(p^k)||1-f(p)\chi(p)|\\
&=|1-f(p)\chi(p)|=|h(p)|.
\end{align*}
Hence $|h|$ satisfies the conditions i-ii of Lemma \ref{lemma 3}. Since
$f=h\ast \chi$, it follows that $M_f(x)=\sum_{n\leq x}h(n) M_{\chi}(x/n)$, and since $\chi$ has (uniformly) bounded partial sums, it follows that $M_f(x)\ll_\chi M_{|h|}(x)$. \end{proof}
We complete the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem 2} with the following
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 1} Let $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ be completely multiplicative and such that
\begin{equation*}
M_g(x)\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\delta \sqrt{\log x})}.
\end{equation*}
Let $f=\mu^2 g$. Then $M_f(x)$ satisfies (\ref{equation consequence of strongly pretentiousness}).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $h:=f\ast g^{-1}$, where $g^{-1}$ is the Dirichlet inverse of $g$. Let $F$, $G$ and $H$ be the associated Dirichlet series of $f$, $g$ and $h$ respectively. The Euler product formula yields
\begin{equation*}
G(s)=\prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\bigg{(}1-\frac{g(p)}{p^s}\bigg{)}^{-1},\;F(s)=\prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\bigg{(}1+\frac{g(p)}{p^s}\bigg{)}.
\end{equation*}
Since $h=f\ast g^{-1}$:
\begin{equation*}
H(s)=\frac{F(s)}{G(s)}=\prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\bigg{(}1-\frac{1}{p^{2s}} \bigg{)}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $h$ has support on the perfect squares and $h(n)=\mathds{1}_{\mathds{N}}(\sqrt{n}) \mu(\sqrt{n})$. Further, the Vinogradov-Korobov zero free region for $\zeta$ implies that $M_\mu(x)\ll x \exp(-c\sqrt{\log x})$, for some constant $c>0$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{equation somas parcias de h}
M_h(x)=M_{\mu}(\sqrt{x})\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(c\sqrt{\log \sqrt{x}})}.
\end{equation}
The Dirichlet hyperbola method yields: For all $U\geq 1$ and $V\geq 1$ such that $UV=x$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation dirichlet hyperbola}
M_f(x)=\sum_{n\leq U}h(n)M_g\bigg{(}\frac{x}{n}\bigg{)}+\sum_{n\leq V}g(n)M_h\bigg{(}\frac{x}{n}\bigg{)}-M_g(V)M_h(U):=A+B-C.\\
\end{equation}
We choose $V=\exp(\epsilon(\sqrt{\log x}))$ where $0<\epsilon<\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $U=\frac{x}{V}$. Further, $\lambda>0$ is a parameter
$\lambda<\min(\delta\sqrt{\epsilon},\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}-\epsilon)$.
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $A$.}
\begin{align*}
|A|&\leq \sum_{n\leq U} \mathds{1}_{\mathds{N}}(\sqrt{n})|M_g(x/n)|=\sum_{n\leq \sqrt{U}} |M_g(x/n^2)|\\
&\ll\sum_{n\leq \sqrt{U}} \frac{\sqrt{x}}{n}\frac{1}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log x/n^2})}\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}\log U}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log x/U})}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}\exp(\log\log x)}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\log V})}\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}\exp(\log\log x)}{\exp(\delta\sqrt{\epsilon}(\log x)^{1/4})}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\lambda (\log x)^{1/4})},
\end{align*}
since our $\lambda<\delta\sqrt{\epsilon}$.
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $B$.} By (\ref{equation somas parcias de h}) we obtain:
\begin{align*}
|B|&\leq \sum_{n\leq V} |M_h(x/n)|\ll \sum_{n\leq V} \sqrt{\frac{x}{n}}\exp\bigg{(}-\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\log x/n)} \bigg{)}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp\bigg{(}\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\log x/V} \bigg{)}}\sum_{n\leq V} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp\bigg{(}\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\log x-\log V } \bigg{)}}\cdot \sqrt{V}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp\bigg{(}\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\log x-\epsilon(\log x )^{1/2}} -\frac{\epsilon}{2}\sqrt{\log x} \bigg{)}}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\lambda(\log x )^{1/4})},
\end{align*}
since our $0<\lambda<\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $C$.}
\begin{align*}
C&\ll\frac{\sqrt{V}}{\exp(\delta \sqrt{\log V})}\frac{\sqrt{U}}{\exp(\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\log U})} \ll \frac{\sqrt{UV}}{\exp(\delta \sqrt{\log V}))}\\
&\ll \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\exp(\lambda(\log x)^{1/4})}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorema 1}}
The first part is a consequence from Theorem \ref{theorem 2} proved above. Next we are going to proof the part that depends on RH.
We say that $f:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,+1\}$ is a completely multiplicative extension of a real character $\chi\mod k$ if $f$ is completely multiplicative and $f(n)=\chi(n)$ whenever $\gcd(n,k)=1$. The following result is closely related to corollary 4 and 5 of \cite{Borweindicrepancy}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 2}
Let $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ be the completely multiplicative extension of a real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi\mod k$ such that:
\begin{align*}
g(n)&= \chi(n),\mbox{ if } \gcd(n,k)=1,\\
g(p)&=1, \mbox{ for each prime }p|k.
\end{align*}
Then:
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{x\to\infty} \frac{|M_g(x)|}{(\log x)^{\omega(k)}}\leq \frac{\max_{y\geq 1} |M_\chi(y)|}{\omega(k)!}\prod_{p|k}\frac{1}{\log p}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $g$ be as above and $h=g\ast \chi^{-1}$. Let $G$, $H$ and $L$ be the Dirichlet series of $g$, $h$ and $\chi$ respectively. Observe that
\begin{equation*}
G(s)=H(s)L(s)=L(s)\prod_{p|k}\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p^s}}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\tilde{h}(n)=n h(n)$. Observe that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\tilde{h}(n)}{n^{s}}=H(s-1)$ converges for all $s=\sigma+it$ with $\sigma>1$. Further, $H(s-1)$ has pole at $s=1$ of order $\omega(k)$, since
\begin{equation*}
1-\frac{1}{p^s}\sim s\log p.
\end{equation*}
In particular
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\tilde{h}(n)}{n^s}\sim \frac{1}{(s-1)^{\omega(k)}}\prod_{p|k}\frac{1}{\log p}.
\end{equation*}
Further, $\tilde{h}(n)\geq 0$. By the Theorem of Hardy-Littlewood-Karamata (see \cite{tenenbaumlivro}, Theorem 8, pg. 227) we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
M_h(x)=\sum_{n\leq x}\frac{\tilde{h}(n)}{n}\sim \frac{1}{\omega(k)!}\prod_{p|k}\frac{\log x}{\log p}.
\end{equation*}
Since $g=h\ast\chi$, we have:
\begin{equation*}
M_g(x)=\sum_{n\leq x}h(n)M_\chi \bigg{(}\frac{x}{n} \bigg{)}}\newcommand{\RR}{\mathds{R}.
\end{equation*}
Thus $|M_g(x)|\leq (\max_{y\geq 1}|M_\chi(y)|)M_h(x)$ completes the proof. \end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorema 1}]
Let $g$ be as in Lemma \ref{lemma 2}. In particular $M_g(x)\ll x^{\alpha}$ for any $\alpha>0$. Let $f=\mu^2 g$ and $h=f\ast g^{-1}$. Thus, as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma 1}, $h(n)=\mathds{1}_\mathds{N}(\sqrt{n})\mu(\sqrt{n})$. Under RH, we have for any $\epsilon>0$:
\begin{equation*}
M_{h}(x)\ll x^{1/4+\epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
Next, we proceed with the Dirichlet Hyperbola method in the same line of reasoning of the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma 1}. Let $A,B$ and $C$ be defined as in (\ref{equation dirichlet hyperbola}); $V=x^{1/5}$ and $U=x^{4/5}$. It is worth mentioning that these choices for $U$ and $V$ are optimal.
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $A$.}
\begin{align*}
A\ll x^\alpha U^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}\ll x^{\alpha}x^{4/5(1/2-\alpha)}
\ll x^{2/5+\alpha/5}.
\end{align*}
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $B$.}
\begin{align*}
B\ll \sum_{n\leq V} \frac{x^{1/4+\epsilon}}{n^{1/4+\epsilon}}
\ll x^{1/4+\epsilon}V^{3/4-\epsilon}
\ll x^{1/4+\epsilon}x^{1/5(3/4-\epsilon)}
\ll x^{2/5+4/5\epsilon}.
\end{align*}
\noindent \textit{Estimate for $C$.}
\begin{align*}
C\ll V^\alpha U^{1/4+\epsilon}= x^{\alpha/5 +4/5(1/4+\epsilon)}=x^{1/5+\alpha/5+4\epsilon/5}
\end{align*}
We complete the proof by choosing $\alpha>0$ and $\epsilon>0$ arbitrarily small. \end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem 3}}
\begin{proof} Let $\chi$ be a real non-principal Dirichlet character and $L(s,\chi)$ be its Dirichlet series. Assume that RH holds for $L(s,\chi)$. Let $g:\mathds{N}\to\{-1,1\}$ be a completely multiplicative extension of $\chi$ and $f=\mu^2 g$. Let $F(s)$ and $G(s)$ be the Dirichlet series of $f$ and $g$ respectively. It follows that $G(s)$ is analytic in the half plane $\mathds{H}_0$ and share same zeros (with same multiplicty) with $L(s,\chi)$. On the other hand, the hypothesis $M_f(x)=o(x^\alpha)$ implies that $F$ is analytic in $\mathds{H}_\alpha$. Observe that $\frac{F(s)}{G(s)}=\frac{1}{\zeta(2s)}$. Since $\frac{1}{\zeta(2s)}$ is analytic in some open set containing the closed half plane $\mathds{H}_{1/2}^*$ and has a zero only at $s=1/2$, it follows that $F$ has the same zeros as $G$ (with the same multiplicity, with a possible exception at $s=1/2$) in this open set. Hence the zeros of $\zeta(2s)$ are poles for $F(s)$, which implies that $\alpha\geq 1/4$. Further, the RH for $L(s,\chi)$ implies that $\frac{F(s)}{G(s)}$ is analytic where $F$ is; In particular it is analytic in $\mathds{H}_\alpha$. It follows that $\frac{1}{\zeta(2s)}$ is analytic in $\mathds{H}_\alpha$. \end{proof}
|
\section{A Curious Phenomenon}
\subsection{Introduction.} The purpose of this paper is to discuss a phenomenon that is connected to problems in Harmonic Analysis, Combinatorics, Number Theory and Approximation Theory. Perhaps the simplest instance of the phenomenon that we do not understand is the following: let $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be an even function with mean value 0 and satisfy $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c |k|^{-2}$ for some fixed constant $c>0$ and all $k \neq 0$ (this is a quantitative form of the function being positive definite). A simple example of such a function is the second Bernoulli polynomial which, identifying $\mathbb{T} \cong [0,1]$, can be written as
$$ f(x) = x^2 - x + \frac{1}{6}.$$
We now define a sequence of points by starting with an arbitrary initial set of points $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_m \right\} \subset [0,1]$ and then setting, in a greedy fashion,
$$ x_n = \arg\min_{x \in \mathbb{T}} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x-x_k)}.$$
Here and throughout the paper we adopt the convention that if the minimum is not attained at a unique point, then any of the points can be chosen. The main contribution of our paper is to point out that such sequences seem
to enjoy \textit{remarkable} distribution properties; these observations are mainly empirical at this stage. We refer to the papers \cite{stein, stein2} for some numerical experiments (see also below).
We summarize the existing results and derive some new ones; however, the overall phenomenon is largely unexplained.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Open Problem 1.} Is it true that
$$ \sum_{k, \ell = 1}^{n}{ f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \lesssim \log{n}?$$
\item \textbf{Open Problem 2.} Is it true that
$$ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \log{n}?$$
\end{enumerate}
Before embarking on a discussion of these problems, we quickly illustrate Open Problem 2 with a simple example. Indeed, Open Problem 2 can be stated in very simple terms. We fix again $ f(x) = x^2 - x + 1/6$ and obtain
a sequence by starting with $x_1 = 0.3, x_2 = 0.8$ and using the greedy algorithm to obtain all subsequent elements of the sequence. We also abbreviate
$$ f_n(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x-x_k)}.$$
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\node at(0,0) {\includegraphics[width = 8cm]{picfunc2.pdf}};
\node at (-1,-2.4) {$f_{101}$ has its minimum here};
\node at (-0.5,-1.5) {$f_{101}$};
\draw [thick, ->] (-0.8, -1.5) -- (-1.2,-1.4);
\draw[thick] (-2.3,-1.7) circle (0.4cm);
\node at (-3.8, -0.2) {$f_{102}$};
\draw [thick, ->] (-3.5,-0.2) -- (-2.9, -0.2);
\node at (-0.8, 1.5) {$f(x-x_{101})$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{We obtain $f_{102}$ by finding the point $x_{101}$ at which $f_{101}$ assumes its minimum and $f_{102}(x) = f_{101}(x) + f(x-x_{101})$. }
\end{figure}
As seen in Figure 1, the function $f_n$ does not seem to be very large: this is only possible if the sequence elements are so regular that the sum over $f(x-x_k)$ leads to good cancellation properties. This is one instance of the `curious' phenomenon alluded to in the title: why is $\|f_n\|_{L^{\infty}}$ so remarkably small in $n$?
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\node at(0,0) {\includegraphics[width = 8cm]{picfunc3.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The functions $f_{100}, f_{110}, f_{120} \dots, f_{200}$. We observe that they are quite different from one another and have an interesting behavior. Most importantly, they all seem to be quite small with $\|f_n\|_{L^{\infty}}$ barely exceeding $\|f\|_{L^{\infty}}$.}
\end{figure}
The inequalities posed in Open Problems 1 and 2 above, if true, would indicate that the sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ satisfies very good distribution properties. What is remarkable is that, in a certain sense, these properties would be close to optimal and connect to a variety of problems related to several different fields. We will derive below that
$$ \sum_{k, \ell = 1}^{n}{ f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \lesssim n \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim n^{1/2}$$
but these estimates seem to be very far from sharp. Any improvement of these estimates would immediately yield improvements of our other results via the arguments outlined below.
In the converse direction, it is an interesting problem whether the following is true: if $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an even, continuous function with mean 0 such that $\widehat{f}(k) > c|k|^{-2}$ for all $k \neq 0$, is it true that for any sequence $(x_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$
$$ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \qquad \mbox{is unbounded in}~n?$$
For the `double' sum, this is a known result of Proinov \cite{proinov} who showed that, for some constant $c_f > 0$ depending only on the function and any sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$,
$$ \sum_{k, \ell = 1}^{n}{ f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \geq c_f \log{n} \qquad \mbox{for infinitely many}~n.$$
In particular, this shows that the bounds conjectured in Open Problem 1 would be optimal.
It seems reasonable to assume that the condition $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c |k|^{-2}$, or some condition like it, is necessary for this phenomenon to occur; it is certainly necessary for our proof that the sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed. It may be of interest to study the dynamical system when $f$ is a trigonometric polynomial: it seems that in this case the sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ will not even be uniformly distributed.
\subsection{Connections To Other Problems.}
We start with a simple example. Let us define, as above, $f(x) = x^2 - x + 1/6$ and consider the sequence obtained via
$$ x_n = \arg\min_{x \in \mathbb{T}} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x-x_k)}$$
when starting with $\left\{1/3, 4/5\right\}$. The sequence is easy to compute and starts
$$ \frac{1}{3}, \frac{4}{5}, 0.066, 0.566, 0.941, 0.441, 0.191, 0.691, \dots$$
Empirically, this sequence (and seemingly any sequence obtained in this way) seems to have remarkable regularity properties. These properties can be stated in a variety of different ways (all of which are mutually connected), we refer to \cite{bc, dick, drmota, kuipers}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Combinatorial.} For every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the set $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$ has the property that for every interval $J \subset [0,1]$, the number of elements in $J$ is $|J| \cdot n$ with a very small error. It is known \cite{sch} that the error has to be at least of size $\gtrsim \log{n}$ for infinitely many values of $n$ and there are constructions where the error is indeed uniformly bounded by $\sim \log{n}$ in $n$.\\
\item \textbf{Analytical} (Erd\H{o}s-Tur\'an \cite{erd1, erd2})\textbf{.} The sequence has the property that $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$ satisfy favorable exponential sum estimates on expressions of the form
$$ \sum_{k=1}^{n}{ \frac{1}{k} \left| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{ e^{2\pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right|} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \sum_{k=1}^{n}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{ e^{2\pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right|^2}.$$
The exponential sum $\sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{\exp(2 \pi i k x_{\ell})}$ is `small' for `small' values of $k$.\\
\item \textbf{Numerical} (Koksma-Hlawka \cite{hlawka})\textbf{.} The set $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$ is a good set for numerical integration: we have
$$ \int_{0}^{1}{f(x)dx} \sim \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x_k)}$$
with a `small' error for `smooth' functions $f$.\\
\item \textbf{Geometric} (Roth \cite{roth})\textbf{.} The two-dimensional set
$$ \left\{ \left( \frac{i}{n}, x_i\right): 1 \leq i \leq n \right\} \subset [0,1]^2$$
is regularly distributed in the unit square: every cartesian box $[a,b] \times [c,d]$ contains roughly $(b-a)(d-c)n$ elements with a small error (see Fig. 3).
\end{itemize}
These problems have been intensively studied for over a century starting with the seminal paper of Weyl \cite{weyl}. We refer to the foundational results \cite{aard, beck, bil3, bil4, erd1,erd2, hlawka, roth, sch}, the survey paper \cite{bil} and the textbooks \cite{bc, chazelle, dick, drmota, kuipers} (also with regard to various different ways of interpreting the notion of `small' and `smooth' in the above statements and to which extent they are connected to one another).\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\node at(0,0) {\includegraphics[width = 6.6cm]{pic1.pdf}};
\draw [thick] (-2.78,-2.78) -- (2.78,-2.78) -- (2.78,2.78) -- (-2.78,2.78) -- (-2.78,-2.78);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{250 points created starting with $\left\{1/3, 4/5\right\}$ and using the second Bernoulli polynomial for $f$. We display the points $(n/250, x_n) \in [0,1]^2$ for $1\leq n \leq 250$. Why is this distribution so regular?}
\end{figure}
We introduce two very structurally different examples of sequences that are both known to be optimally behaved with respect to all of the above properties. These two competing examples are the
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Kronecker sequence} given by $x_n = \left\{n \sqrt{2}\right\}$ (where $\left\{ \cdot \right\}$ denotes the fractional part). Here, $\sqrt{2}$ could be replaced by any other number with bounded continued fraction expansion.
\item \textit{van der Corput sequence} given by taking $x_n$ to be the rational number whose binary expansion is the reversed string of bits of $n$ when written in binary. It is known that base 2 can be replaced by any other prime basis.
\end{enumerate}
We can now state our question as follows.
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Open Problem 3.} Are these greedy sequences, up to constants, comparable to the behavior of the best Kronecker sequence or the van der Corput sequence in all the ways outlined above?
\end{quote}
If this were indeed the case, it could have very interesting consequences. Both the Kronecker sequence and the van der Corput sequence are known to be optimal in the one-dimensional setting (a result of Schmidt \cite{sch}, see also \cite{larcher0, larcher} for an improved constant). However, nobody knows what sequences are optimal in even $d=2$ dimensions (we refer to the excellent survey of Bilyk \cite{bil}). So, if there was a greedy-type construction with optimal behavior in $d=1$ dimension, it might suggest sequences of similar quality in higher dimensions as well -- this would be interesting because the greedy sequence seems to be unlike any that has been studied; in particular, if it enjoys good distribution properties, this seems like it would have to be because of a different underlying mechanism.
\subsection{Known results.} This type of construction was first proposed by the second author in \cite{stein}. There it was shown that if the function is
$$ f(x) = -\log{\left(2 \sin{(\pi |x|)} \right)},$$
then the arising sequence satisfies, for all intervals $J \subset [0,1]$,
$$ \left| \frac{\#\left\{1 \leq i \leq n: x_i \in J \right\} }{n} - |J| \right| \leq c\frac{\log{n}}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
The arguments are based on the explicit structure of the Fourier series of $f(x)$ and do not generalize to other functions. It is already discussed in \cite{stein} that much stronger results seem to be true and that the sequence arising from this function $f$ seems, numerically, as well behaved with regard to all these aspects as the Kronecker or the van der Corput sequence. The same idea, interpreted differently, has also led to a numerical scheme that seems to be effective at regularizing point sets \cite{stein2}.
It was also noted in \cite{stein} that if one starts with a single element $\left\{x_1\right\}$, then the arising sequence seems to be related to the van der Corput sequence -- this is indeed the case and was subsequently proven by Pausinger \cite{pausinger}. Pausinger's theorem holds for the much larger family of strictly convex functions $f:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that are symmetric around $x=1/2$. There it is also shown that for general functions of this type, the arising construction results in a sequence satisfying for all $J \subset [0,1]$,
$$ \left| \frac{\#\left\{1 \leq i \leq n: x_i \in J \right\} }{n} - |J| \right| \leq \frac{c}{n^{1/3}}.$$
The bound stated in Open Problem 1 would improve this estimate to $\lesssim \log{n}/n^{2/3}$ (which, however, is still not at the $\log{n}/n$ level that we observe numerically).
Other types of greedy constructions of sequences have been considered in the literature, we refer to work of Kakutani \cite{kaku} and Temylakov: \cite{temr1, temr2} and \S 6.11 in \cite{tem1}. [Note added in print: Temlyakov has since used this type of sequence to establish an endpoint result for a result in Numerical Integration \cite{temnew}.]
\section{Results}
\subsection{Wasserstein distance.} The main purpose of this paper is to (1) describe the phenomenon and its connections in a concise way and (2) to point out that we can obtain slightly improved regularity results by switching to the Wasserstein distance. The Wasserstein distance \cite{wasser, villani} is a notion of distance between two measures (roughly `how much mass has to be transported how far from an initial measure to achieve a target measure'). We will only discuss the case where one measure is the empirical distribution
$$ \mu = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}{ \delta_{x_k}} \qquad \mbox{and the other measure is} \qquad \nu = dx.$$
The $p-$Wasserstein distance between two measures
$\mu$ and $\nu$ is defined as
$$ W_p(\mu, \nu) = \left( \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma(\mu, \nu)} \int_{M \times M}{ |x-y|^p d \gamma(x,y)}\right)^{1/p},$$
where $| \cdot |$ is the metric and $\Gamma(\mu, \nu)$ denotes the collection of all measures on $M \times M$
with marginals $\mu$ and $\nu$, respectively (also called the set of all couplings of $\mu$ and $\nu$).
In our setting, we trivially have $0 \leq W_p(\mu, \nu) \leq 1$.
The known inequality \cite{pausinger}
$$ \left| \frac{\#\left\{1 \leq i \leq n: x_i \in J \right\} }{n} - |J| \right| \leq \frac{c}{n^{1/3}}$$
can be coupled with the Monge-Kantorovich formula (see e.g. \cite{villani}) to obtain
$$ W_1\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim \frac{1}{n^{1/3}}.$$
\subsection{Main Results.}
Our main result is an improvement for the $W_2-$distance. H\"older's inequality shows that
$W_1(\mu, \nu) \leq W_2(\mu, \nu)$, so the result also implies improved bounds for the $W_1$ distance.
\begin{theorem} Let the even function $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfy $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c |k|^{-2}$ for some fixed constant $c>0$ and all $k \neq 0$. Define a sequence via
$$ x_n = \arg\min_x \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x-x_k)},$$
then this sequence satisfies
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim \frac{1}{n^{1/2}},$$
where the implicit constant depends only on the initial set, $f(0)$ and $c$.
\end{theorem}
One way of interpreting the Theorem is as follows: given $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$ we can interpret these points as Dirac measures with weight $1/n$. It is then possible to `break' these points up and move their $L^1$-mass a distance of, on average, not more than $\sim n^{-1/2}$ to recreate the uniform distribution. The result seems to be far from the truth, which we believe to be at scale $n^{-1}$ up to logarithmic factors (see below).
We also obtain the following corollary (which was suggested to us together with its proof by Igor Shparlinski).
\begin{corollary} Suppose $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is even, has mean value 0 and satisfies both
$$\widehat{f}(k) > 0 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f}(k) < \infty.$$
Then, for any sequence $(x_n)$ arising from the algorithm outlined above,
$$\left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim \sqrt{n}.$$
\end{corollary}
Again, we believe this to be far from optimal and expect the quantity to grow not much faster than (at most) logarithmically.
We have a slight refinement of this statement in the case $\widehat{f}(k) \sim |k|^{-2}$
\begin{theorem} Let $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be an even function with mean 0 satisfying $c_1 |k|^{-2} \leq \widehat{f}(k) \leq c_2 |k|^{-2}$ for all $k \neq 0$ for some universal $c_1, c_2 > 0$. Then
$$\left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim n^{1/3} \qquad \mbox{for infinitely many}~n.$$
\end{theorem}
The argument is slightly finer than this: we will prove that
$$\left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \lesssim n^{1/3} \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x - x_k)} \right\|^{1/3}_{L^{1}}$$
and then prove that the $L^1-$term has to be $\lesssim 1$ infinitely many times.
We note that this result is below the $n^{1/2}-$threshold that we would expect from randomly chosen points. Again, as mentioned above, we expect the error rate to actually be much smaller than this.\\
We will now discuss why Wasserstein distance is a very canonical way of capturing problems of this type.
We state this formally in the following estimate.
\begin{corollary} Suppose $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is even, has mean value 0 and satisfies $\widehat{f}(k)\geq c |k|^{-2}$ for $k \neq 0$. Then, for any set $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\} \subset \mathbb{T}$, we have
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{n}{f(x_k - x_{\ell})}\right)^{1/2}.$$
\end{corollary}
Fix now a function such that $\widehat{f}(k) \sim |k|^{-2}$ for $k\neq 0$ (in the sense of having corresponding upper and lower bounds). Open Problem 1 asks whether
$$ \sum_{k, \ell = 1}^{n}{ f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \lesssim \log{n} \qquad \mbox{might hold}$$
and, conversely, which kind of lower bounds exist. Corollary 2 shows that any such estimate would imply
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{\log n}}{n}.$$
This connects to yet another problem, that of \textit{irregularities of distribution}. A seminal result of Schmidt \cite{sch} implies that for \textit{any} sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ there are infinitely many integers $n$ and intervals $J_n$ such that
$$ \left| \frac{\# \left\{x_1, \dots, x_n:x_i \in J_n\right\}}{n} - |J_n|\right| \geq \frac{1}{100} \frac{\log{n}}{n}.$$
This result shows that, in a sense, irregularities of distribution are unavoidable.
A natural question now is the following: does a similar phenomenon exist for the Wasserstein distance?
This was answered by Cole Graham \cite{graham} who proved the following result.
\begin{thm}[Graham \cite{graham}] For any sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $[0,1]$, we have
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \gtrsim \frac{ \sqrt{ \log{n}}}{n}\quad \mbox{for infinitely many}~n.$$
\end{thm}
The second author has already remarked in \cite{stein0} that this is sharp for the Kronecker sequence $x_n = \left\{n \alpha\right\}$ for any badly approximable $\alpha$ (say, $\alpha = \sqrt{2}$). An implication of Graham's result coupled with our Corollary above is the following result that was first established by Proinov.
\begin{thm}[Proinov, \cite{proinov}] Let $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a function with mean value 0 satisfying $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c |k|^{-2}$ for $k \neq 0$. Then, for any sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$,
we have
$$ \sum_{k,\ell=1}^{n}{f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \gtrsim \log{n} \qquad \mbox{for infinitely many}~n.$$
\end{thm}
Using again the Kronecker sequence, we can show that there are sequences for which this notion of energy does indeed grow very slowly; this result is folklore, we include it for the convenience of the reader. The same result is also known for the van der Corput sequence, we refer to Proinov \& Grozdanov \cite{proinov2}.
\begin{proposition} Let $f:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ have mean value 0 satisfying $\widehat{f}(k) \leq c |k|^{-2}$ for $k \neq 0$. Then, for any badly approximable $\alpha$, the sequence $x_n = \left\{n \alpha \right\}$ satisfies
$$ \sum_{k,\ell=1}^{n}{f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \lesssim \log{n}.$$
\end{proposition}
The proof of the proposition makes explicit use of a rather delicate property of the sequence $\left\{n \alpha\right\}$. It is thus even more striking that, possibly, the greedy sequence
$$ x_n = \arg\min_x \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x-x_k)}$$
might conceivably behave in a similar manner. Naturally, this falls into the realm of Approximation Theory and, more specifically, the Greedy Algorithm \cite{dev, tem0, tem1} and its use in Approximation Theory.
Indeed, we can interpret this greedy sequence as a way to approximate the constant function 0 by means of translates $f(x- x_k)$. The Greedy Algorithm is well understood to yield reasonable
estimates for a broad class of functions -- what is of special interest here is that in our case the greedy algorithm seems to perform much better than one would usually expect from a greedy algorithm; moreover, it seems to be comparable in efficiency to subtle constructions in Number Theory that make use of delicate notions such as badly approximable numbers.
\subsection{Two Remarks.} All our estimates are based on the inequality
$$ \sum_{k, \ell = 1}^{n}{f(x_k - x_{\ell})} \leq n f(0).$$
It is not difficult to see (see below) that this is indeed satisfied for our greedy construction. However, the inequality (and therefore our main Theorem) is also valid if $x_n$ is chosen in such a way that
$$ \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x_n - x_k)} \leq 0.$$
We observe that $f$ has mean value 0 and thus
$$ \int_{\mathbb{T}} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x - x_k)}dx = 0$$
and it is always possible to choose a new element $x_n$ with this property (and, usually, there are many of those). However, presumably these elements can be chosen in rather terrible ways and there is no reason to expect these sequences $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ to have particularly good distribution properties; it would seem our Theorem is close to optimal for these types of sequences though we do not know how to show this. It also shows the bottleneck in our current approach: we do not know how to make use of the fact that the algorithm chooses the minimal value and not merely a value not exceeding the expected value. The second remark concerns uniform distribution of the sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$. We have the following fact.
\begin{corollary} If $\widehat{f}(k) > 0$ for all $k \neq 0$, then the sequence $x_n$ defined via
$$ x_n = \arg\min_x \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{f(x-x_k)}.$$
is uniformly distributed on $\mathbb{T}$.
\end{corollary}
The argument is so short that we can give it right here.
\begin{proof} We have
\begin{align*}
nf(0) \geq \sum_{m, \ell = 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell})} = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \geq \widehat{f}(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2
\end{align*}
from which we obtain
$$ \frac{1}{n} \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right| \leq \sqrt{ \frac{f(0)}{\widehat{f}(k)} } \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
This tends to 0 from which we obtain uniform distribution from Weyl's theorem.
\end{proof}
We emphasize that the argument also shows that the size of $\widehat{f}(k)$ will play a role in the quality of the distribution: if it decays very rapidly, the convergence rate might be quite slow.
\subsection{Higher dimensions.} The same phenomenon exists in higher dimensions and it does so at a great level of generality. Indeed, the scaling in higher dimensions is fundamentally different and this allows us to obtain optimal results. Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact manifold without boundary. We use $\phi_k$ to denote the $L^2-$normalized eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator
$$ -\Delta \phi_k = \lambda_k \phi_k.$$
We will now define admissible kernels $K:M \times M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ to be functions of the form
$$ K(x,y) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{ a_k \frac{ \phi_k(x) \phi_k(y)}{\lambda_k}}$$
where the coefficient $a_k$ is assumed to satisfy a two-sided bound:
$$ c_1 < a_k < c_2 \qquad \mbox{for all}~k \geq 1$$
and some positive constants $c_1, c_2$.
We note that the sum starts at $k=1$ and thus excludes the trivial (constant) eigenfunction $\phi_0$. In particular, all these kernels have mean value 0. This definition is an extension of our assumption $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c |k|^{-2}$ in the one-dimensional setting.
A particularly natural kernel arises from setting $a_k = 1$ in which case we obtain the Green's function of the Laplacian $G(x,y)$. This function has the property that
$$ -\Delta_x \int_{M}{G(x,y) f(y) dy} = f(x),$$
i.e. it solves the equation $-\Delta u = f$. We will now consider sequences of the form
$$ x_n = \arg\min_{x \in M} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{K(x,x_k)}.$$
\begin{theorem} Let $x_n$ be a sequence obtained in such a way on a $d-$dimensional compact manifold. Then
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim_M \begin{cases}n^{-1/2} \sqrt{\log{n}} \qquad &\mbox{if}~d=2 \\
n^{-1/d} &\mbox{if}~d \geq 3. \end{cases}$$
\end{theorem}
We note that this result is optimal for $d \geq 3$. We do not know whether the logarithmic factor is necessary for $d=2$. The main ingredient is a favorable estimate of the Wasserstein distance that was recently obtained by the second author \cite{stein3} that allows for a greedy formulation. We note that while the static case, the structure of point
sets minimizing the Green energy, has been an active field of study \cite{beltran, carlos, bet, ch, criado, garcia, lev, marzo, stein3}, we are not aware of results in the dynamic setting.
\begin{corollary} If $d \geq 3$, then there exists a sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ on $\mathbb{T}^d$ such that
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{x_k} , dx \right) \lesssim_d \frac{1}{n^{1/d}} \qquad \mbox{uniformly in}~n.$$
\end{corollary}
This Corollary seems to be new: it gives a constructive proof that Wasserstein distance does not have an irregularities of distribution phenomenon in dimensions $d \geq 3$. We have the same result up to a factor of $\sqrt{\log{n}}$ in two dimensions. By Graham's result \cite{graham}, the loss of a factor of $\sqrt{\log{n}}$ is indeed necessary in $d=1$.
\section{Proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem 1, Corollary 1 and Corollary 2.}
\begin{proof}
The proof decomposes into two parts. In the first part we argue exactly as in \cite{pausinger}. We can assume w.l.o.g. that $f$ has mean value 0. We first observe that
$$ \sum_{m, \ell = 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell})} \leq n f(0). \qquad \qquad (\diamond)$$
which follows from the identity
$$\sum_{m, \ell = 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell})} = n f(0) + 2 \sum_{m, \ell = 1\atop m < \ell}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell})},$$
the reformulation
$$ \sum_{m, \ell = 1\atop m < \ell}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell})} = \sum_{\ell=2}^{n}{ \sum_{m=1}^{\ell-1} f(x_{\ell} - x_m)}$$
and the greedy algorithm: by definition of $x_{\ell}$, we have
$$ \sum_{m=1}^{\ell-1} f(x_{\ell} - x_m) = \min_x \sum_{m=1}^{\ell-1} f(x - x_m) \leq \int_{\mathbb{T}} \sum_{m=1}^{\ell-1} f(x_{} - x_m) dx = 0.$$
Rewriting quantities in terms of Fourier Analysis then shows that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{m, \ell= 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell}) }&= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \sum_{m, \ell = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k(x_m - x_{\ell})}} \\
&= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \left(\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right) \left(\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k(-x_m)}\right) }\\
&= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \left(\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right) \overline{\left(\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i kx_m}\right) } }\\
&= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 }.
\end{align*}
We first use this fact to establish the statement of the Corollary 1. This corollary was suggested to us by Igor Shparlinski, and we are grateful to be able to incorporate it here.
Note that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{f(x-x_{\ell})} = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f}(k) \left( \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{e^{-2 \pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right) e^{2 \pi i k x}
\end{align*}
and thus, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
\begin{align*}
\left\| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{f(x-x_{\ell})} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} &\leq \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f}(k) \left| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{e^{-2 \pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right| \\
&= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f}(k)^{1/2} \widehat{f}(k)^{1/2} \left| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{e^{-2 \pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right| \\
&\le \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f}(k) \right)^{1/2} \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{ \widehat{f}(k)\left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}{e^{2\pi i k x_m}}\right|^2 } \right)^{1/2} \\
&=\sqrt{f(0)} \left( \sum_{m, \ell= 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell}) } \right)^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
Coupled with the inequality ($\diamond$) above, we obtain
$$\left\| \sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{f(x-x_{\ell})} \right\|_{L^{\infty}} \le f(0)\sqrt{n}\lesssim \sqrt n,$$
which was the desired statement. To prove Theorem 1 and Corollary 2, we may further assume $\widehat f(k)\ge c|k|^{-2}$ for all $k\ne 0$, and thus
\begin{align*}
n^2 \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\frac{c}{k^2} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i kx_m}\right|^2} &
\le \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat f(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i kx_m}\right|^2}\\
&=\sum_{m,\ell=1}^nf(x_m-x_\ell)\le nf(0),
\end{align*}
so we have
$$ \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\frac{c}{k^2} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \leq \frac{f(0)}{n}.$$
Reformulating,
$$ \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\frac{1}{k^2} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}{e^{2\pi i k x_m}}\right|^2 } \right)^{1/2} \lesssim_{c, f(0)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
We note that this last argument has been previously stated in the literature in a very different context (integration error of periodic functions in terms of Zinterhof's diaphony \cite{zinterhof}) in a paper of Zinterhof \& Stegbuchner \cite{zinterhof2}. It remains to prove the second Corollary and Theorem 1.
For that we use an estimate of Peyr\'e \cite{peyre} (the one-dimensional case of Peyr\'e's inequality is an identity and can also be found in \cite[Exercise 64]{santa}): this estimate states that,
for any measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{T}$
$$ W_2(\mu, dx) \lesssim \|\mu\|_{\dot H^{-1}} = \left( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{ \frac{|\widehat{\mu}(k)|^2}{k^2} }\right)^{1/2}.$$
We apply this estimate to the measure
$$ \mu = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}{\delta_{x_k}}$$
to obtain
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}{\delta_{x_k}}, dx\right) \lesssim\left( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left| \frac{1}{n}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n}{e^{2 \pi i k x_{\ell}}} \right|^2 }\right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
This establishes Theorem 1. Corollary 2 follows from remarking that, as seen above,
$$
\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{m, \ell= 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell}) } =\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 }.$$
Moreover, since $\widehat{f}(k) \geq c|k|^{-2}$ for $k \neq 0$ and $\widehat{f}(0)=0$, we can bound this quantity from below by
$$ \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \gtrsim
\sum_{k \neq 0}{\frac{1}{|k|^2} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 }.$$
This, in turn, is the $\dot H^{-1}-$norm of $\mu$ and therefore, from another application of Peyr\'{e}'s inequality,
$$ \sum_{k \neq 0}{\frac{1}{|k|^2} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \gtrsim W_2(\mu, dx).$$
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem 2}
\begin{lemma} We have
$$ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} f(x-x_k) \right\|_{L^1} \leq 2f(0) \qquad \emph{for infinitely many}~n.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let us suppose that the inequality fails for some fixed $n$. Then, since
$$\int_{ \mathbb{T}} \sum_{k=1}^{n} f(x-x_k) dx = 0,$$
we have that the positive mass and the negative mass cancel and thus, by pigeonholing,
$$ \min_{x \in \mathbb{T}} \sum_{k=1}^{n} f(x-x_k) \leq -\frac{1}{2}\left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} f(x-x_k)\right\|_{L^1} \leq -f(0).$$
This, in turn, then implies that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n+1} f(x_k - x_{\ell}) &= \sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n} f(x_k - x_{\ell}) + f(0) + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{n}{f(x_{n+1} - x_k)}\\
&\leq \sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n} f(x_k - x_{\ell}) - f(0)
\end{align*}
and we see that the quantity is decaying since $f(0) > 0$.
However, the quantity cannot decay indefinitely since
$$ \sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n} f(x_k - x_{\ell}) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \geq 0.$$
This means that the desired inequality has to eventually be true. The argument shows slightly more: since
$$ \sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n} f(x_k - x_{\ell}) \leq f(0)n,$$
we can infer that if the $L^1-$norm is bigger than $2f(0)$ for some fixed $n$, then it holds true for some $m \leq 2n$. However, we will not need this refined information.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 2]
We now fix such a value of $n$ where the $L^1-$norm is smaller than $2f(0)$. We argue that
\begin{align*}
\left\| \frac{d}{dx} \sum_{m=1}^{n} f(x-x_m) \right\|_{L^2} &= \left\| \frac{d}{dx} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}^{} \widehat{f}(k) \sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k (x-x_m)} \right\|_{L^2} \\
&\lesssim \left\| \frac{d}{dx} \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}^{} \frac{1}{k^2} \sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k (x-x_m)} \right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \left\| \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}^{} \frac{1}{k} \sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k (x-x_m)} \right\|_{L^2}\\
&= \left( \sum_{k \neq 0} \frac{1}{k^2} \left| \sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m} \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \\
&\lesssim \left( \sum_{k, \ell=1}^{n} f(x_k - x_{\ell})\right)^{1/2} \lesssim n^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
The final ingredient in our argument is a Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality: for differentiable $g:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with mean value 0, we have
$$ \| g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T})} \lesssim \left\| \frac{d}{dx} g\right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T})}^{2/3} \|g\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T})}^{1/3},$$
which establishes the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Proposition}
\begin{proof} We have
$$\sum_{m, \ell= 1}^{n}{f(x_m - x_{\ell}) } = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z} \atop k \neq 0}{\widehat{f}(k) \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \lesssim \sum_{k =1}^{\infty}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 }.$$
This quantity was already estimated in \cite{stein0}, we recall the argument for the convenience of the reader. We observe that, trivially,
$$ \sum_{k =n^2}^{\infty}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \leq n^2 \sum_{k=n^2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k^2} \lesssim 1.$$
It thus remains to estimate the first $n^2$ sums. We split these sums into dyadic pieces and estimate
$$ \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \lesssim \frac{1}{2^{2\ell}} \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 }.$$
We recall the geometric series and use it to estimate
$$ \left| \sum_{m=1}^{n}{e^{2 \pi i k m \alpha}} \right| = \left| \frac{e^{2\pi i k n \alpha } - 1}{e^{2\pi i k \alpha} - 1} \right| \leq \frac{2}{\left| e^{2\pi i k \alpha} - 1 \right|} \lesssim \frac{1}{ \left\| k \alpha \right\|},$$
where $\| x \| = \min(x-\left\lfloor x \right\rfloor, \left\lceil x \right\rceil - x)$ is the distance to the nearest integer. Since $\alpha$ is badly approximable, i.e.
$$ \left| \alpha - \frac{p}{q} \right| \geq \frac{c_{\alpha}}{q^2},$$
we have that, for any $2^{\ell} \leq k_1< k_2 \leq 2^{\ell+1}$,
$$ \left| \|k_1 \alpha\| - \|k_2 \alpha\| \right| \geq \frac{c_\alpha}{2^{\ell+1}}.$$
Moreover, we also have
$$ \frac{c_\alpha}{2^{\ell+1}} \leq \|k_1 \alpha\| , \|k_2 \alpha\| \leq 1- \frac{c_\alpha}{2^{\ell+1}}.$$
This shows that the sum
$$ \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \lesssim \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \frac{1}{\|k\alpha\|^2}}$$
can be estimated from above by
$$ \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \frac{1}{\|k\alpha\|^2}} \lesssim_{\alpha} \sum_{k=1}^{2^{\ell}}{ \frac{1}{ (k/2^{\ell})^2} }\lesssim 2^{2\ell}.$$
Altogether this shows that over every dyadic block
$$ \sum_{2^{\ell} \leq k \leq 2^{\ell+1}}^{}{ \frac{1}{k^2} \left|\sum_{m = 1}^{n}e^{2\pi i k x_m}\right|^2 } \lesssim \frac{1}{2^{2\ell}} \lesssim 1$$
and thus the sum simplifies to the number of dyadic blocks up to $n^2$ which is $\sim \log{n}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem 3}
\begin{proof} We can see that $K$ is positive-definite and equivalent to the Green's function $G$. Thus, it suffices to prove the desired result for the Green's function $G$ instead. The proof follows by induction from the main result of \cite{stein3}. Fixing a $d-$dimensional manifold $(M,g)$ with $d\geq 3$, we have for any set of $n$ points
$\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\} \subset M$ that
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}{\delta_{x_k}}, dx\right) \lesssim_M \frac{1}{n^{1/d}} + \frac{1}{n} \left| \sum_{k \neq \ell} G(x_k, x_{\ell})\right|^{1/2}.$$
If the manifold is two-dimensional, $d=2$, then we have
$$ W_2\left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n}{\delta_{x_k}}, dx\right) \lesssim_M \frac{\sqrt{\log{n}}}{n^{1/2}} + \frac{1}{n} \left| \sum_{k \neq \ell} G(x_k, x_{\ell})\right|^{1/2}.$$
We emphasize that $G(\cdot, y)$ has mean value 0 and thus, by the usual argument, we obtain that
$$ \min_{x \in M} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{G(x,x_k)} \leq 0$$
and thus
$$ \sum_{k \neq \ell} G(x_k, x_{\ell}) \leq 0.$$
We recall the Corollary from \cite{stein3} which implies that for \textit{any} set of points
$$\sum_{k, \ell =1 \atop k \neq \ell}^{n} G(x_k, x_{\ell}) \gtrsim_M - n^{2-2/d}$$
for $d \geq 3$.
If the manifold is two-dimensional, then we have the estimate
$$\sum_{k, \ell =1 \atop k \neq \ell}^{n} G(x_k, x_{\ell}) \gtrsim_M - n^{} \log{n}.$$
These two results combined imply the desired statement.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowedgments.} Part of this work was carried out while the second author was attending Dagstuhl Seminar 12391 (`Algorithms and Complexity for Continuous Problems'), he is grateful to Vladimir Temlyakov for valuable discussions. The authors are also grateful to Igor Shparlinski for helpful comments and for suggesting one of the Corollary 1 as well as its proof.
|
\section*{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Measurement devices in many quantum experiments, and notably in quantum optics, have a finite non-unit efficiency: such devices may refuse to provide an outcome for the desired measurement, and produce a ``no-click'' event instead~\cite{Had09}. This lack of detection can usually be explained in simple physical terms, e.g., the photon to be measured is not always absorbed on the chip of the detector. In a simplified physical model of the apparatus, the occurrence of a no-click event is completely independent of the state of the quantum system to be measured. Based on this model, one is tempted to ignore the no-click events altogether and remove them from the measurement data, a.k.a.\ performing a \emph{post-selection}.
However, from a black-box perspective, a no-click event must be considered as a measurement outcome, just like the others\footnote{A non-detection event is obtained when a detector is supposed to click but, instead, it doesn't. These non-detections can be distinguished from the normal ``silent'' state of the device by means of a \textit{trigger event}: a classical signal indicating that a quantum state has been sent to the detector within a certain time window.}.
This outcome has to be added to the alphabet corresponding to possible values of the measured quantity~\cite{CHSH69, CH74, Pearle70}. The action of ignoring these events is not always harmless: in the context of testing of Bell inequalities this is known as the \textit{detection loophole}, and there are explicit examples where the use of post-selection can lead to wrong claims about the performed Bell test, e.g.\ erroneously deducing the non-locality of a local model~\cite{Pearle70, GM87, MP03}. Such canny local models are not abstract theoretical constructions, but have been produced experimentally with simple optical elements and detectors that are commonly used~\cite{PS11, GL11, RG13, JE15, Jogenfors17}.
Nevertheless, an accurate physical understanding of the measurement device \textit{in the lab} may suggest that the no-click events are locally random and independent of system state and measurement settings. If this is really the case, data acquisition and post-selection is equivalent to directly generating the data with an \textit{ideal} measurement device that has unit efficiency but is otherwise the same as the detector \textit{in the lab}. Thus, any claim that could be made in the ideal setting carries over when using the experimental post-selected data. This logical step is known as \textit{fair sampling assumption} (or \emph{no-enhancement assumption}, at the origins~\cite{CHSH69, CH74}). It is important to realize that fair sampling is indeed an assumption and cannot be ensured from the measurement probabilities alone -- post-selected local models as mentioned above can reproduce those perfectly.
Thanks to the advancement in quantum technologies we have recently witnessed the first experimental violations of Bell inequalities free of loopholes~\cite{NoLoop1, NoLoop2, NoLoop3, NoLoop4, NoLoop5}, conclusively ruling out that locally causal models could explain the correlations observed in quantum experiments. In the aftermath of achieving this long-standing goal, renewed interest in Bell inequalities was spurred by their technological applications within the framework of \emph{device-independent quantum information processing}~\cite{MY03, SB19}. Namely, the sole violation of a Bell inequality can be used to certify devices, to guarantee the randomness of measurement results or the security of a quantum key distribution, without the need to know the internal functioning of the devices used to perform the Bell test~\cite{PABG07, PABG09, MYS12, Kan16, SBWS18}. Device-independent quantum information processing is at the verge of experimental feasibility~\cite{Ban18}. However, performing Bell tests devoid of the detection loophole is still challenging and, as such, most experiments at present still rely on fair sampling. This naturally raises the following question: if assessing fair sampling requires a detailed description of the way the measurement device works, what remains of the device-independent framework in scenarios based on Bell tests relying upon the fair sampling assumption? The aim of our work is to provide a concrete answer to this question.
We first explain how a lossy detector can be understood in terms of \textit{filters}: we represent a finite-efficiency measurement as a two-step process where first a filter is applied to the classical input and to the quantum state which either accepts or rejects them (corresponding, respectively, to a successful or failed detection) and subsequently a lossless measurement is performed on the filtered quantum state. This is schematically illustrated in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{Fig1}. An equivalent formulation based on the positive operator-valued measure (POVM) description of the measurement devices is also provided; this formulation allows to directly verify if a detector satisfies fair sampling, given a full specification of its behaviour.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Detector.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Mathematical model of a lossy device. In panel (a) we illustrate that any device having finite efficiency can always be modelled as a \textit{filter} acting jointly on the classical setting $\mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X}$ and on the input quantum state $\rho \in S(\mathcal{H})$, followed by by an \textit{ideal lossless measurement device}. The filter returns a flag $\mathsf{f} \in \{{\checkmark}, \textup{\,\o\,}\}$ with a probability that depends on $\mathsf{x}$ and $\rho$, and the ideal measurement is performed only if $\mathsf{f} = {\checkmark}$. In panel (b) we illustrate the \emph{fair sampling} condition: the filter factorizes in two components $\mathcal{F}_C$ and $\mathcal{F}_Q$ which act independently on the classical and quantum input, respectively, and a detection occurs only when both accept (indicated by a $\wedge \equiv$ logical AND). In panel (c) we illustrate \emph{strong fair sampling}: the component acting on the quantum input is proportional to the identity channel.}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
Following the work of Berry et.\ al.~\cite{Berry10}, we then give a very general formulation of fair sampling: to have fair sampling, it is sufficient to require that the filter operates independently on the classical input and on the quantum state, see panel (b) of Figure~\ref{Fig1}. Under this assumption the sampling can be regarded as ``fair'', since the post-selected data can be seen as being generated from an ideal quantum experiment where lossless devices measure a \emph{filtered} state\footnote{For instance, in quantum optics experiments the vacuum component of photonic states is often ignored. This corresponds to applying a filtering operation that projects the quantum state onto the non-vacuum component.}. This allows to reach trusted conclusions on the quantum properties of this filtered state and the corresponding measurement statistics can be used reliably for verifiable randomness generation~\cite{CK11, AM16} or for quantum key distribution~\cite{PABG07, PABG09}.
In this work, we also discuss a stronger version of the fair sampling assumption, corresponding to what is usually assumed to be the very definition of fair sampling (see e.g.~\cite{WJS98, MMB04}). In strong fair sampling, filter operating on the state is proportional to the identity, see panel (c) of Figure~\ref{Fig1}. We show that, in this case, the post-selected statistics is an unbiased representation of the statistics that would be obtained with unit-efficiency detectors measuring the actual \emph{experimental} state.
The motivation of the present work is thus to bridge the gap between theoretical studies of device-independent certifications and experimental realizations thereof. To this end, we describe concrete examples of experiments that can be used for device-independent quantum information processing and show that, under fair sampling, these experiments allow one to get semi-device-independent conclusions. In fact, even present-day experiments frequently rely upon a fair sampling assumption~\cite{exp1,exp2,exp3,exp4}, and this will likely continue to be necessary in future years; however, often there is very little or no theoretical analysis of the consequences that post-selection has in these experiments. Furthermore, we study what happens when small deviations from exact fair sampling are present and we show that the results are robust against small perturbations. Concretely, we provide a prescription for the minimal information that in an actual quantum experiment should be directly assessed in order to verify that a device (approximately) satisfies fair sampling. Assuming that this minimal information is publicly available and trusted, the certification of the device can be safely completed using a standard device-independent protocol with post-selected data.
\subsubsection*{Paper structure}
In Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} we describe the general setup and establish part of the notation. In Section~\ref{sec:quantum_model} we give the general mathematical formulation of lossy measurement devices, as represented in panel~(a) of Figure~\ref{Fig1}. In Section~\ref{sec:fair_sampling} we formalize the definition of fair sampling as depicted in panel~(b) of Figure~\ref{Fig1} (equivalent to the definition introduced in reference~\cite{Berry10}); we then prove that, under this assumption, the post-selected data can be reproduced by an ideal quantum experiment involving only lossless detectors. We then introduce the stronger notion of fair sampling in Section~\ref{sec:strong_fs}, corresponding to panel~(c) of Figure~\ref{Fig1}. In Section~\ref{sec:crypto} we discuss the use of fair sampling in cryptographic settings. In Section~\ref{sec:fs_in_quantum_optics} we give concrete examples of fair sampling based on a quantum optics setup used to measure the polarization of photons. In Section~\ref{sec:approximate_fair sampling} we investigate the robustness of the results against small perturbations from exact fair sampling, and we show that the deviations in the post-selected data are linear in the perturbations from the exact case. We go back to the optical setup in Section~\ref{sec:appr_fs_in_quantum_optics} and analyse the consequence of approximate fair sampling in this context. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:state-dependent} we show that even more general notions of fair sampling are possible, considering cases of fair sampling that are state-dependent. Supplementary material and further considerations are presented in the Appendices.
\section{Preliminary notions}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\paragraph*{Bell tests:}
We consider a Bell test~\cite{Brunner14} involving two or more parties, which we will denote as $A, B, \ldots, N,$ each party having a measurement device with different possible measurement settings. A source produces particles which are distributed to the individual parties. As customary in this context, it is assumed that each party is in an isolated location, i.e., posterior to each party receiving its particle, no further information can be exchanged among them, at least not without their agreement.
\paragraph*{Quantum framework:}
We assume that quantum theory provides a valid description of the source and measurements used in the Bell test. To each party $k \in \{A, B, \ldots, N\}$ is associated a local Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_k$ and the global Hilbert space is $\mathcal{H} := \mathcal{H}_A \!\otimes\! \mathcal{H}_B \!\otimes\! \ldots \!\otimes\! \mathcal{H}_N$. The particles are described by a quantum state $\Psi$ which is in general a density operator (i.e., a mixed quantum state) $\Psi \in S(\mathcal{H})$, where $S(\mathcal{H})$ denotes the class of positive semi-definite unit-trace operators on $\mathcal{H}$. The local spaces are denoted as $S(\mathcal{H}_{k})$, and we usually call $\rho$ a state that is received and measured by a local detector, $\rho \in S(\mathcal{H}_{k})$. The measurement devices are described in terms of general positive operator valued measures (POVMs) and we assume that outcomes in a sequence of measurement rounds are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). When one of the parties has only partial information about a measurement device, she will possess a more coarse-grained POVM description. We avoid the use of coarse-grained descriptions, as these open the side to attacks, see Section~\ref{sec:crypto}.
\paragraph*{Inputs and outputs:}
Each party has full control over the setting $\mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X}$ which can be chosen, e.g., by turning a knob or via digital control. For each measurement, there is a set of possible outcomes $\a \in \mathsf{A}$. In the following, we will be mainly interested in the case where both the set of inputs and of outputs are finite\footnote{This is customarily the setting used in Bell tests, although cases with continuous outputs have also been considered~\cite{He10}. Note that the results we present do not depend on the size of the classical input and output spaces; hence, they can be generalized to continuous-variable cases.}. For instance, in the standard Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality~\cite{CHSH69,CH74} the set of inputs is $\mathsf{X} = \{0,1\}$ and the possible outcomes are $\mathsf{A} = \{+1,-1\}$, for party A's device and similarly for party B's device. We suppose that along the set of ``good'' outcomes, labelled by an index $\a \in \mathsf{A}$, there is a special label $\textup{\,\o\,}$ for the ``no-click'' event (i.e., a failed detection in correspondence of a trigger signal) so that the entire alphabet of outcomes becomes $\mathsf{A}' := \{\textup{\,\o\,}\} \cup \mathsf{A}$.
\paragraph*{Fair sampling for multiple parties:}
In the following presentation we will often restrict our attention to a single measurement device and to a local Hilbert space (so we can take, e.g., $\mathcal{H} \equiv \mathcal{H}_{A}$). In fact, fair sampling is an assumption on a single apparatus, i.e., can be considered outside of the context of Bell inequalities. For a Bell test involving $N$ measurement devices, we can say that the setup satisfies fair sampling when each of the $N$ devices, considered individually, satisfies the assumption. However, one obtains a completely equivalent mathematical formulation by considering the $N$ devices as a single collective measurement device split across $N$ locations, and then requiring that this global multipartite device satisfies fair sampling. Hence, all the considerations made for a single device will hold also for the global setup, provided that the fair sampling assumption holds for each device.
\section{Quantum model of a lossy detector}
\label{sec:quantum_model}
We now provide a description of a \emph{measurement device} having non-unit efficiency. We show in particular that such a measurement can be seen as the combination of a filter and an ideal unit-efficiency measurement. We then link this description to the efficiency of the device.
\subsection{POVM elements}
\label{sec:POVM_elements}
We describe the measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ as a set of POVM elements $\{M_\a := \sum_{\mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X}} \proj{\mathsf{x}} \!\otimes\! M^\mathsf{x}_\a\}$ ``taking'' both $\mathsf{x}$ and $\rho$ and returning the outcome $\a$ with a certain probability ${\Pr}_\mathcal{M}(\a\,|\, \mathsf{x} , \rho) $:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}: \ S(\;\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \; \otimes \mathcal{H}\,)
\; & \to \;
\mathcal{D}(\mathsf{A}') \nonumber\\
\proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \, \rho ~~~
& \mapsto \;
\big[\, {\Pr}_\mathcal{M}(\a\,|\, \mathsf{x} , \rho) = \mathrm{Tr}(M_\a \, \proj{\mathsf{x}} \!\otimes\! \rho) \,\big]_{\a\in\mathsf{A}'}
\;.
\end{align}
$\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X}$ is a Hilbert space with an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{\mathsf{x}}\}_{\mathsf{x}\in\mathsf{X}}$ and $\mathcal{D}(\mathsf{A}')$ is the set of probability distributions on $\mathsf{A}'.$ For each $\a \in \mathsf{A}'$, the channel $\mathcal{M}_\a^\mathsf{x}(\,\cdot\,) := \mathrm{Tr}(M^\mathsf{x}_\a \;\cdot\,)$ is a real-valued completely-positive (CP) map~\cite{NC02} satisfying $\sum_{\a \in \mathsf{A}'} \mathrm{Tr}(M_\a^\mathsf{x} \rho) = 1$ for all density operators $\rho.$
We introduce two flags $\mathsf{f} = {\checkmark}$ and $\mathsf{f} = \textup{\,\o\,}$ associated to two complementary operators $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ and $M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\mathsf{x}$ which satisfy
\begin{align}
\forall \mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X} \qquad
& M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \; := \; \sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} M_\a^\mathsf{x} \;, \\
\text{so~that} \qquad
& M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} + M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\mathsf{x}
\; = \; \sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}'} M_\a^\mathsf{x}
= \; \mathds{1} \;.
\end{align}
As we will show later, a description of the operators $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ (or equivalently of $M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\mathsf{x}$) is all that is required to know if a device satisfies fair sampling, while he full POVM description $M_\a^\mathsf{x}$ is not necessary to this end.
\subsection{Filters}
\label{sec:filters}
We can now introduce the notion of \textit{filtering}: for any lossy device $\mathcal{M}$, one can always find a corresponding pair of completely-positive trace-preserving (CPTP) maps
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M_decomposition}
\mathcal{F}:& ~~~~ S(\,\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}\,) ~~~~
\; \to \;
S(\,\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{f} \otimes \mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H} \,) \nonumber\\
\bar{\cM}:& \; S(\,\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{f} \otimes \mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}\,)
\; \to \;
\mathcal{D}(\mathsf{A}')
\end{align}
such that $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$. Here, $\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{f} = \t{span}(\ket{\textup{\,\o\,}},\ket{{\checkmark}})$, $\mathcal{F}$ represents the filter operation, and $\bar{\cM}$ a lossless measurement device. Notice that for mathematical consistency of the equation $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ the set of outputs of $\bar{\cM}$ must be equal to the set of outputs of $\mathcal{M}$ and thus also include a ``no-click'' outcome. We therefore consider $\bar{\cM}$ to be lossless if a flag $\textup{\,\o\,}$ has the only effect of ``disabling'' $\bar{\cM}$, i.e., $\bar{\cM}$ outputs $\textup{\,\o\,}$ if and only if the filter $\mathcal{F}$ has already produced a $\textup{\,\o\,}$ flag.
We remark that the factorization $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ is not unique, since we have freedom in redefining $\mathcal{F}$ and $\bar{\cM}$. For instance, we can consider any invertible linear operator $\mathcal{A}$ such that $\bar{\cM}' := \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{A}^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{F}' := \mathcal{A} \circ \mathcal{F}$ are both CPTP maps and obtain $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F} = \bar{\cM}' \circ \mathcal{F}'$. Observe that complete-positivity is surely preserved if $\mathcal{A}$ is a unitary channel, thus the decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ is certainly not unique.
Given a measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ with POVM elements $\{M_\a\},$ one can construct a decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ as follows\footnote{We have in this case $M_\a = \sum_{\mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X}} \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes M^\mathsf{x}_\a$, but the construction of the decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ does not rely on this property.}. We have $M_{\checkmark} := \sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} M_\a$, so that $M_{\checkmark} + M_\textup{\,\o\,} = \mathds{1}$. Then, we define the filter $\mathcal{F}$ as a CPTP map having Kraus operators~\cite{NC02}:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
F_\textup{\,\o\,} \, & := \;
\ket{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \sqrt{M_\textup{\,\o\,}} \,, \\
F_{\checkmark} \, & := \;
\ket{{\checkmark}} \otimes \sqrt{M_{\checkmark}} \,, \label{eq:Kraus_ok}
\end{split}
\end{align}
which satisfy the completeness relation $F_{\checkmark}^\dag F_{\checkmark} + F_\textup{\,\o\,}^\dag F_{\o} = \mathds{1}$. Correspondingly, $\bar{\cM}$ is defined as the measurement device acting on the output of $\mathcal{F}$ (including the flag) and having POVM elements:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lossless_M}
\forall \a \in \mathsf{A} \qquad
\bar{M}_\a \; & = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes (M_{\checkmark})^{-1/2} \, M_\a \, (M_{\checkmark})^{-1/2}
\end{align}
where the inverse square roots are defined on the support of the operators\footnote{I.e., an Hermitian operator $M = \sum_j p_j \ket{\psi_j}\!\bra{\psi_j}$, with $p_j \geq 0$, is mapped to $(M)^{-1/2} = \sum_j f(p_j) \ket{\psi_j}\!\bra{\psi_j}$, with $f(p) = 1/\sqrt{p}$ if $p>0$ and $f(0) = 0$.}. One can immediately verify that $\sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} \bar{M}_\a = \proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \Pi_{\checkmark}$, where $\Pi_{\checkmark}$ is the projector on the support of $M_{\checkmark}$. This means that $\bar{\cM}$ has unit efficiency when it receives $\mathsf{f} = {\checkmark}$ and a state $\rho$ in the support of $M_{\checkmark}$.
From these definition, we can immediately show that $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ ensues. In fact, using the shorthand $\xi := \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho$, we have:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F}(\xi) \; & = \;
F_{\checkmark} \,\xi\, F_{\checkmark}^\dag +
F_\textup{\,\o\,} \,\xi\, F_\textup{\,\o\,}^\dag \nonumber\\
& = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \sqrt{M_{\checkmark}} \,\xi\, \sqrt{M_{\checkmark}} \; + \;
\proj{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \sqrt{M_\textup{\,\o\,}} \,\xi\, \sqrt{M_\textup{\,\o\,}} \;,
\end{align}
and thus, using the cyclicity of the trace:
\begin{align}
{\Pr}_{\bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}} (\a\,|\,\xi)
\; & = \;
\mathrm{Tr}\!\left[(M_{\checkmark})^{-1/2} M_\a (M_{\checkmark})^{-1/2} \, \sqrt{M_{\checkmark}} \,\xi \,\sqrt{M_{\checkmark}} \right]
\nonumber\\
& = \;
\mathrm{Tr}\big(\Pi_{\checkmark} M_\a \,\Pi_{\checkmark} \, \xi \big)
\; = \;
\mathrm{Tr}\big(M_\a \,\xi \big)
\nonumber\\[1mm]
& = \;
{\Pr}_{\mathcal{M}} (\a\,|\,\xi)
\end{align}
for all $\a\in\mathsf{A}$. Consequently, we also have ${\Pr}_{\bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}} (\textup{\,\o\,}\,|\,\xi) = {\Pr}_{\mathcal{M}} (\textup{\,\o\,}\,|\,\xi)$.
\subsection{Efficiency}
The operator $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ allows to compute the \textit{efficiency} $\mathcal{E}$ of the device. The efficiency is, per definition, the probability of obtaining a good outcome ($\mathsf{f} = {\checkmark}$) when using a setting $\mathsf{x}$ and an input quantum state $\rho$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:efficiency_def}
\mathcal{E}(\mathsf{x}, \rho) \; := \; {\Pr}_\mathcal{M}(\checkmark\,|\, \mathsf{x}, \rho)
\; = \;
\mathrm{Tr}(M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \, \rho )
\; = \;
\mathrm{Tr}\big[F_{\checkmark} \, (\,\proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho \,) \, F_{\checkmark}^\dag\big] \;.
\end{align}
The last equality shows that the efficiency $\mathcal{E}(\mathsf{x}, \rho)$ can be computed from just the specification of the filter, rather than requiring the full POVM description of $\mathcal{M}$. Moreover, the efficiency of the detector is a physical property which can be assessed experimentally, provided access to a reliable source of quantum states $\rho \in S(\mathcal{H})$. Hence, the efficiency does not depend upon the specific decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F} = \bar{\cM}' \circ \mathcal{F}'$.
The efficiency of the detector allows one to compute the post-selected outcome probabilities
\begin{align}
\label{eq:post-selected-prob}
{\Pr}_\textup{p.s.} (\a \, | \, \mathsf{x}, \rho)\; := \;
\frac{{\Pr} (\a \,|\, \mathsf{x}, \rho)}{{\Pr} ({\checkmark} | \,\mathsf{x}, \rho)} \;,
\end{align}
where $\a \in \mathsf{A}$ are ``good'' outcomes, so that $\sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} {\Pr}_\textup{p.s.} (\a | \mathsf{x}, \rho) = 1$.
\section{The fair sampling assumption}
\label{sec:fair_sampling}
The fair sampling assumption is a restriction on the physical models of lossy detectors. We introduce a definition which is equivalent to the one introduced by Berry et.\ al.~\cite{Berry10}. We then discuss the consequences and the applications of this definition.
\begin{definition}[Fair sampling]
\label{def:fair_sampling}
We say that a lossy measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies the (weak) \emph{fair sampling assumption} if there exists a decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ (as specified in Section~\ref{sec:filters}) whereby the filter $\mathcal{F}$ factorizes in a part $\mathcal{F}_C: S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X}) \to S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{f} \otimes \mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X})$ acting on the \textit{classical} setting $\mathsf{x}$ and in a part $\mathcal{F}_Q:S(\mathcal{H}) \to S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{f} \otimes \mathcal{H})$ acting on the \textit{quantum} input $\rho$. That is, we require:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F}\big( \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho \big) \; = \;
\wedge \left[\;
\mathcal{F}_C\big( \proj{\mathsf{x}} \big) \otimes \mathcal{F}_Q \big(\rho \big)
\;\right]\;,
\label{eq:def_filter}
\end{align}
where the function $\wedge$ (logical AND) acts only on the flags and it means that the filter $\mathcal{F}$ returns ${\checkmark}$ if and only if both $\mathcal{F}_C$ and $\mathcal{F}_Q$ return ${\checkmark}$.
\end{definition}
A few remarks are now in order. First and foremost, the main reason for using this definition stems from Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling}. There, we show the following strong result: if the factorization of Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter} holds, for a given (real) quantum experiment involving lossy detectors and post-selection, there is another (ideal) quantum experiment that involves lossless detectors (and possibly a different quantum state) that exactly reproduces the post-selected statistics of the real experiment. In other words, the post-selected statistics are physical.
Second, in Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling} we have a decomposition of a filter in two sub-filters. In more general scenarios involving $N$ devices and $2N$ sub-filters, we assume that a successful round of the experiment is obtained only when all filters return $\mathsf{f} = {\checkmark}$. In fact, in most quantum experiments a single detection failure is sufficient to invalidate the current observation round\footnote{An exception is provided by experiments on loss-tolerant quantum error correcting codes, which are specifically designed to retain quantum information in a subspace even when some of the physical quantum systems are lost.}.
Third, although it is not possible to verify if a measurement device satisfies fair sampling in a device-independent way, fair sampling does impose restrictions on the outcome probabilities. If these conditions are violated, the experimenter can directly conclude that fair sampling does not hold. See Appendix~\!\ref{app:necessary} for details.
Last, the classical filter is a stochastic map which, given an input $\proj{\mathsf{x}}$ can generate a probabilistic mixture of settings, i.e., the ``real'' setting is $\sum_{\mathsf{x}'} \Pr(\mathsf{x}'|\mathsf{x})\proj{\mathsf{x}'}$. As a physical example, the experimenter may electronically set a rotation angle $\theta_0$ of a polariser, but the polariser actually rotates by an angle $\theta = \theta_0 + \delta \theta$ (with $\delta \theta$ small and stochastic)~\cite{Rosset12}. However, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\mathcal{F}_C$ does not change the setting $\mathsf{x}$, i.e.\ it only assigns different success probabilities to different settings. In fact, we can simultaneously re-define $\bar{\cM}$ and $\mathcal{F}_C$ so that the definition of the physical device $\mathcal{M}$ remains unchanged while the classical filter takes the form $\mathcal{F}_{C,{\checkmark}}(\proj{\mathsf{x}}) = \Pr({\checkmark} |\, \mathsf{x}) \proj{\mathsf{x}}$, as we show in Appendix~\!\ref{app:filter}.
\begin{proposition}[Equivalent formulations of fair sampling]
\label{prop:equivalence}
Consider a lossy measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ (as formalized in Section~\ref{sec:quantum_model}). The following three properties are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies fair sampling, as given in Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling}.
\item The efficiency of the device factorizes as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}( \mathsf{x}, \rho ) \; = \; \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \, \mathcal{E}_Q(\rho)
\label{eq:def_efficiency}
\end{align}
for some real-valued functions $\mathcal{E}_C$ and $\mathcal{E}_Q$. This is the definition that was given in Ref.~\cite{Berry10}.
\item The POVM element $M_{\checkmark}$, associated to the set of good outcomes of $\mathcal{M}$, factorizes as in
\begin{align}
M_{\checkmark} \; =\; M_{C,{\checkmark}} \otimes M_{Q,{\checkmark}}
\label{eq:def_POVM}
\end{align}
where $M_{C,{\checkmark}}$ acts on the classical setting and $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ acts on the quantum input. Moreover, $M_{C,{\checkmark}} = \sum_{\mathsf{x}} \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \proj{\mathsf{x}}$ is a diagonal matrix, equivalently, $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} = \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ and therefore $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ and $M_{\checkmark}^{\mathsf{y}}$ are proportional for all $\mathsf{x}, \mathsf{y} \in \mathsf{X}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter} immediately implies Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_efficiency}, since:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\mathsf{x},\rho)
\; & = \;
{\Pr}_{\bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}} ({\checkmark} | \mathsf{x},\rho) \;
= \;
{\Pr}_{\mathcal{F}} ({\checkmark} | \mathsf{x},\rho) \nonumber\\
& = \;
{\Pr}_{\mathcal{F}_C} ({\checkmark} | \mathsf{x}) \, {\Pr}_{\mathcal{F}_Q} ({\checkmark} | \rho) \nonumber\\
& \equiv \;
\mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \, \mathcal{E}_Q(\rho) \;.
\end{align}
To show that Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_efficiency} implies Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_POVM}, we use the fact that the efficiency $\mathcal{E}: S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H} ) \rightarrow [0,1]$ is a CP linear map, hence $\mathcal{E}_C$ and $\mathcal{E}_Q$ are also linear maps (over probabilistic mixtures of inputs) and we can assume, without loss of generality, that both maps take values in $[0,1]$. Since any CP linear map $\mathcal{E}$ taking value in $[0,1]$ can be written as $\mathcal{E}(\,\cdot\,) = \mathrm{Tr}(M \,\cdot\,)$, for some matrix satisfying $0 \preccurlyeq M \preccurlyeq \mathds{1}$, we have:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\mathsf{x},\rho) \; & = \;
\mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \, \mathcal{E}_Q(\rho) \nonumber\\
& \equiv \;
\mathrm{Tr}(M_{C,{\checkmark}}\proj{\mathsf{x}} ) \, \mathrm{Tr}(M_{Q,{\checkmark}}\rho) \nonumber\\
& = \;
\mathrm{Tr}\big[\, (M_{C,{\checkmark}} \otimes M_{Q,{\checkmark}}) \, (\proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho ) \, \big] \;,
\end{align}
for some matrices $M_{C,{\checkmark}}$ and $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$. Hence, defining $M_{\checkmark} := M_{C,{\checkmark}} \otimes M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_POVM} holds. Moreover, $M_{C,{\checkmark}} = \sum_{\mathsf{x}} \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \proj{\mathsf{x}}$ is diagonal.
Finally, to show that Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_POVM} implies Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter}, we construct filters $\mathcal{F}_C$ and $\mathcal{F}_Q$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Kraus_ok}, that is, via the Kraus operators:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
F_{C,{\checkmark}} \, & := \;
\ket{{\checkmark}} \otimes \sqrt{M_{C,{\checkmark}}} \,, \\
F_{Q,{\checkmark}} \, & := \;
\ket{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \sqrt{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}} \,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We then set $\mathcal{F}( \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho) := \wedge \left[\;\mathcal{F}_C( \proj{\mathsf{x}} ) \otimes \mathcal{F}_Q (\rho)\;\right]$, and defining the POVM elements of a lossless device $\bar{\cM}$ as in Section~\ref{sec:filters} allows one to show that $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ holds.
\end{proof}
We now provide a result that motivates using the factorization in Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter} as definition of fair sampling. The formalism of filters turns out to be very handy: the essence of the proof Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} is illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig2}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.3]{BellTest.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of a two-party experiment (e.g., a test of a Bell inequality). The picture schematically illustrates how the factorization property of Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling} leads to fair sampling. }
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition} [Probabilities achievable under fair sampling]
\label{prop:fair_sampling}
Consider any (real) experiment involving a source that produces an $N$-partite quantum state $\Psi \in S(\mathcal{H}_{1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{2} \otimes\ldots \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N})$, with $N \geq 1$. The state $\Psi$ is measured by a collection of $N$ lossy detectors, $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}} := (\mathcal{M}_1, \mathcal{M}_2,\ldots, \mathcal{M}_N)$, each acting on a local sub-system of $\Psi$ and each satisfying fair sampling as in Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling}. Call $\vec{\mathsf{x}} := (\mathsf{x}_1,\mathsf{x}_2,\ldots, \mathsf{x}_N)$ the collection of $N$ settings of the devices in a given experimental run, and call $\vec{\a} := (\a_1,\a_2,\ldots, \a_N)$ the collection of $N$ measurement outcomes\footnote{Each party $k$ may have a different set of inputs and outputs, $\mathsf{x}_k \in \mathsf{X}_k$ and $\a_k \in \mathsf{A}_k$.}, each of which could also be a ``no-click'' event $\textup{\,\o\,}$. A round of the experiment is successful when all the detectors click, and the post-selected statistics is obtained by restricting only to the successful runs.
Then, there is an (ideal) experiment involving a source of a quantum state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ (defined on the same Hilbert space as $\Psi$) and $N$ lossless measurement devices $\overrightarrow{\cM}^{\checkmark} := (\mathcal{M}_1^{\checkmark}, \mathcal{M}_2^{\checkmark},\ldots, \mathcal{M}_N^{\checkmark})$ whose outcome statistics is equal to the post-selected statistics of the real experiment. That is, we have:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:post-selection_equality}
{\Pr}^\textup{p.s.}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}\big(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi\big)
\;\equiv\;
\frac{{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi)}
{{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}( {\checkmark} |\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi)}
\; = \;
{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\cM}^{\checkmark}}\big(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi_{\checkmark}\big) \;,
\end{align}
restricting to the settings $\vec{\mathsf{x}}$ such that ${\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}({\checkmark}|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi) \neq 0$\footnote{A setting $\vec{\mathsf{y}}$ having zero acceptance probability effectively can be erased from the set of allowed settings, since $\vec{\mathsf{y}}$ does not appear in the post-selected data. Then, Eq.~\eqref{eq:post-selection_equality} will hold on the restricted collection of settings.}. Moreover, the state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ can be obtained probabilistically from $\Psi$ via probabilistic local operations.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We decompose each measurement device $\mathcal{M}_k$, acting on the $k$-th subsystem, as a filter followed by a lossless measurement, $\mathcal{M}_k = \bar{\cM}_k \circ \mathcal{F}_k$. Moreover, each filter $\mathcal{F}_k$ factorizes as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F}_k\big( \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \rho \big) \; = \;
\wedge \left[\;
\mathcal{F}_{k,C}\big( \proj{\mathsf{x}} \big) \otimes \mathcal{F}_{k,Q} \big(\rho \big)
\;\right]\;,
\end{align}
and each sub-filter can herald either a success or a failure:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_{k,C}
\; & = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{k,C,{\checkmark}} \, + \;
\proj{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{k,C,\textup{\,\o\,}} \\
\mathcal{F}_{k,Q}
\; & = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{k,Q,{\checkmark}} \, + \;
\proj{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{k,Q,\textup{\,\o\,}} \;.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We then define the normalized quantum state:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Psi'}
\Psi_{\checkmark} \; := \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_Q(\Psi)} \Big( {\bigotimes}_{k} \, \mathcal{F}_{k,Q,{\checkmark}} \Big) (\Psi ) \;,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{E}_Q(\Psi) = \mathrm{Tr}\big[\big( \bigotimes_{k} \mathcal{F}_{k,Q,{\checkmark}} \big) (\Psi)\big]$ is the probability that all the filters $\mathcal{F}_{k,Q}$ return ${\checkmark}$, and we assume $\mathcal{E}_Q(\Psi) > 0$. The physical interpretation of $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ is as follows: apply to the $N$ sub-systems of $\Psi$ the filters $\mathcal{F}_{k,Q}$ and post-select on all of them returning ${\checkmark}$ at the same time. That is to say, it is possible to perform a heralded preparation of $\Psi_{\checkmark}$.
Analogously, we can define lossless measurement devices $\mathcal{M}_k^{\checkmark}$ for each party $k$ through the maps $(\mathcal{M}_k^{\checkmark})^\mathsf{x}_\a:S(\mathcal{H}_{k}) \to [0,1]$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M'}
\big(\mathcal{M}_k^{\checkmark}\big)^\mathsf{x}_\a \, (\,\cdot\,)
\; := \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_{k,C} (\mathsf{x})}
\mathrm{Tr}\Big\lbrace \big(\bar{M}_k\big)_\a \;
\big[\, \proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes
\mathcal{F}_{k,C,{\checkmark}} (\proj{\mathsf{x}}) \otimes \,\cdot\;
\big]
\Big\rbrace \;.
\end{align}
Here $(\bar{M}_k)_\a$ are the POVM elements associated to $\bar{\cM}_k$ as, e.g., in Eq.~\eqref{eq:lossless_M}, and we assume $\mathcal{E}_{k,C} (\mathsf{x}) = \mathrm{Tr}[\,\mathcal{F}_{k,C,{\checkmark}} (\proj{\mathsf{x}})\,] > 0$ for all parties\footnote{We can interpret $\mathcal{M}_k^{\checkmark}$ as follows. We repeatedly send some value $\mathsf{x}$ to the filter $\mathcal{F}_{k,C}$, until this accepts it. In this moment, the measurement device $\mathcal{M}^{\checkmark}_k$ has been ``switched on'' and it is ready to measure an incoming quantum state $\rho$ (without failure): this is a heralded activation of $\mathcal{M}^{\checkmark}_k$.}. We also remark that, as shown in Appendix~\ref{app:filter}, we can assume without loss of generality that the filters do not change the setting, $\mathcal{F}_{k,C,{\checkmark}}(\proj{\mathsf{x}}) = \mathcal{E}_{k,C}(\mathsf{x}) \proj{\mathsf{x}}$; in this case Eq.~\eqref{eq:M'} simply gives $\mathcal{M}_k^{\checkmark} = \bar{\cM}_k$.
As the final step of the proof, we have to compute the probability of obtaining a collection of outcomes $\vec{\a}$ given inputs $\vec{\mathsf{x}}$ when measuring the state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ with the devices $\overrightarrow{\cM}^{\checkmark}$, and verify that Eq.~\eqref{eq:post-selection_equality} is satisfied. This is a simple formal manipulation, which is given in Appendix\!~\ref{app:complementary}.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} is very powerful and general: it ensures that the post-selected statistics obtained using lossy devices is equal to the data one could collect with ideal lossless devices measuring the filtered state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$. This has several interesting consequences.
For example, in a scenario where the post-selected data violates a Bell inequality~\cite{CHSH69,CH74}, we can conclude under the fair sampling assumption that the state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ is Bell-correlated \cite{Schmied16}. This implies in particular that $\Psi$ itself contains hidden nonlocality \cite{Gisin96}. Additional information about the state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ can also be obtained from existing device-independent tools: if the Bell violation is high enough, the post-selected data can be used in the framework of self-testing~\cite{MY03, SB19}, to certify directly the exact structure of $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ or as a step aiming to certify quantum operations including quantum gates~\cite{SBWS18} or entangling measurements~\cite{RHBS11, BSP18, RKB18}.
We remark, furthermore, that Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} can be generalized to cases in which some devices are fully characterized, while others are not. In such cases, one needs to appeal to fair sampling only for the not-fully-characterized devices.
For instance, in \emph{quantum steering} a trusted and an untrusted quantum device jointly measure an entangled quantum state $\Psi$~\cite{CS16}: here, we need to apply fair sampling only to the (single) untrusted device.
Finally, we note that if $\Psi$ is a separable quantum state, then $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ is also separable since it can be obtained from $\Psi$ through local probabilistic operations. Consequently, a separable quantum state cannot violate any Bell inequality when using lossy detectors and post-selection, if fair sampling holds. Similarly, under fair sampling it is impossible to violate the quantum bound of a Bell operator with post-selected statistics: in fact, the models and experiments showing that post-selection can lead to incorrect conclusions~\cite{Pearle70, GM87, MP03, PS11, GL11, RG13, JE15, Jogenfors17} do not satisfy fair sampling.
\section{The strong and homogeneous fair sampling assumptions}
\label{sec:strong_fs}
Now we consider two special cases of fair sampling, which we call \emph{strong} and \emph{homogeneous} fair sampling. Incidentally, strong homogeneous fair sampling is what, by and large, is implicitly assumed as the standard definition of fair sampling~\cite{Berry10, WJS98, MMB04}.
\begin{definition}[Strong fair sampling]
\label{def:strong_fair sampling}
Consider a measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ that satisfies fair sampling, as in Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling}. The sub-filters $\mathcal{F}_Q$ and $\mathcal{F}_C$ herald either a failure or a success, hence they can be written as:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_{C}
\; & = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{C,{\checkmark}} \; + \;
\proj{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{C,\textup{\,\o\,}} \\
\mathcal{F}_{Q}
\; & = \;
\proj{{\checkmark}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{Q,{\checkmark}} \; + \;
\proj{\textup{\,\o\,}} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{Q,\textup{\,\o\,}} \;.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We say that $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies \emph{strong} fair sampling if there exists a decomposition $\mathcal{M} = \bar{\cM} \circ \mathcal{F}$ such that the sub-filter $\mathcal{F}_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ is proportional to the identity channel: $\mathcal{F}_{Q,{\checkmark}} = P_{Q,{\checkmark}} \textup{Id}$, where $P_{Q,{\checkmark}} > 0$ is the success probability. Moreover, if it is possible to write $\mathcal{F}_{C,{\checkmark}} = P_{C,{\checkmark}} \textup{Id}$ for some success probability $P_{C,{\checkmark}} > 0$, we say that $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies \emph{homogeneous} fair sampling.
\end{definition}
The notion of \emph{homogeneous} fair sampling is introduced in analogy with the notion of \emph{strong} fair sampling and it means that the detection probability is independent of $\mathsf{x}$. However, not much is to be gained from the homogeneity property. This is because the classical input $\mathsf{x}$ is under full control of the experimenter, therefore it is possible to directly estimate the efficiency $\mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x})$ from the experimental data (assuming that fair sampling holds) and one can compensate any inhomogeneity in the efficiency. However, in quantum experiments it often happens that devices that (approximately) satisfy fair sampling naturally also possess the homogeneity property. This is the case, e.g., for the \emph{polarization analyser}, a measurement device that we examine in Section~\ref{sec:fs_in_quantum_optics}.
In contrast, \emph{strong} fair sampling does give more stringent guarantees on the experiment. In fact, the state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ which reproduces the post-selected statistics is obtained from the state $\Psi$ after the application of the filters $\mathcal{F}_{k,Q}$. But if these filters are all proportional to the identity channel, this implies $\Psi_{\checkmark} = \Psi$. That is, under the strong fair sampling assumption, the post-selected statistics is a fair representation of the statistics that would be obtained with unit-efficiency detectors.
More in detail, consider again a $N$-local quantum experiment involving $N$ detectors each acting on a part of an entangled quantum state $\Psi$. If all detectors $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}} = (\mathcal{M}_1, \mathcal{M}_2,\ldots, \mathcal{M}_N)$ satisfy strong fair sampling, then we have that the post-selected probabilities are equal to those that one can obtain acting on the actual experimental state $\Psi$ with some lossless devices $\overrightarrow{\cM}^{\checkmark}$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:post-selection_equality_strong}
{\Pr}^\textup{p.s.}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}\big(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi\big)
\;\equiv\;
\frac{{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi)}
{{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}}( {\checkmark} |\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi)}
\; = \;
{\Pr}_{\overrightarrow{\cM}^{\checkmark}}\big(\vec{\a}\,|\,\vec{\mathsf{x}}, \Psi\big) \;.
\end{align}
Consequently, if strong fair sampling holds, any claim on $\Psi$ based on the post-selected probabilities will be as good as if the data was produced by lossless devices. That is, the conclusions about non-locality, device-independent entanglement, self-testing, and so on, will hold even if they are based on post-selected data.
However, this strong notion of fair sampling comes at a cost: the conditions specified in Definition~\ref{def:strong_fair sampling} are very stringent and rarely met in actual quantum experiments. We therefore recommend the usage of weak fair sampling as the default definition to be used in experimental settings. The notion of weak fair sampling is more widely applicable and, as argued in Section~\ref{sec:fair_sampling}, it still allows to obtain sharp conclusions based on the post-selected statistics.
Finally, we specialize Proposition~\ref{prop:equivalence} to the case of strong fair sampling.
\begin{proposition}[Equivalent formulations of strong fair sampling]
\label{prop:equivalence2}
Consider a lossy measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ which satisfies fair sampling, as in Definition~\ref{def:fair_sampling}. Then, $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies \emph{strong} fair sampling if and only if its efficiency is $\mathcal{E}(\mathsf{x},\rho) = \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x})$ or, equivalently, if and only if the POVM element associated to ${\checkmark}$ has the form $M_{\checkmark} = M_{C,{\checkmark}} \otimes \mathds{1}_Q$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is an immediate consequence of specializing the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:equivalence} to the cases in which $\mathcal{F}_Q$ is proportional to the identity map.
\end{proof}
\section{Fair sampling in cryptographic scenarios}
\label{sec:crypto}
Under fair sampling, the post-selected measurement results of a Bell test can also be used for cryptographic tasks, e.g., for random number generation or quantum key distribution~\cite{PABG09, CK11, AM16}. The fair sampling assumption has to be added to the standard \emph{no-leakage} assumption (i.e., no information about the actual measurement is leaked to the adversary) as required also for fully device-independent quantum cryptography \cite{BCK13}. Moreover, device-independent certifications can be used as subroutines in more complex cryptograhic protocols. If a certification is performed employing the fair sampling assumption, then the larger cryptographic protocol will be secure provided that such certification is \emph{securely composable}~\cite{MR09} and, naturally, provided that the fair sampling assumption is valid to begin with.
It is important to note that different parties can have disparate POVM descriptions of the same measurement device, reflecting the degree of knowledge that each party has; in particular, an attacker might have access to some hidden information about the internal functioning of the devices. This also means that parties having different POVM descriptions of one and the same detector might disagree on whether it satisfies fair sampling. We argue that protocols involving lossy devices and post-selection are secure if fair sampling holds unconditionally, and in particular also \emph{according to the POVM description possessed by the adversary}.
\subsection{Explicit attack model}
We consider the so-called \emph{Makarov attack}~\cite{LWW10} as an example where fair sampling appears to hold to the honest parties, but is violated according to the fuller description possessed by the adversary. A detector having settings $\mathsf{X} = \{0,1\}$ and outputs $\mathsf{A}' = \{\textup{\,\o\,},+,-\}$ purportedly performs the following lossy measurement:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:traced_out}
\begin{array}{ll}
M_+^0 \; = \; \frac{1}{4}\proj{0} & \quad
M_+^1 \; = \; \frac{1}{4}\proj{+} \\
M_-^0 \; = \; \frac{1}{4}\proj{1} & \quad
M_-^1 \; = \; \frac{1}{4}\proj{-}
\end{array}
\end{align}
with $\ket{\pm}:=(\ket{0} \pm \ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$ and thus the no-click events are $M_\textup{\,\o\,}^0 = M_\textup{\,\o\,}^1 = \frac{3}{4} \mathds{1}$. These measurements are the ones canonically used in CHSH-Bell tests, apart from having efficiency $1/4$, and they seem to satisfy (strong and homogeneous) fair sampling. However, the device is maliciously designed by the adversary: in actuality, it draws uniformly a random variable $r \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, which is unknown to the user, and performs a different measurement depending on $r$. Specifically:
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{r|cccc}
& r=1 & r=2 & r=3 & r=4 \\
\hline\\[-9pt]
M_+^0 &\proj{0}& 0 & 0 & 0 \\[1pt]
M_-^0 & 0 &\proj{1}& 0 & 0 \\[1pt]
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^0 &\proj{1}&\proj{0}&\mathds{1} & \mathds{1}\\[2pt]
\hline
M_+^1 & 0 & 0 &\proj{+} & 0 \\[1pt]
M_-^1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \proj{-} \\[2pt]
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^1 &\mathds{1}&\mathds{1}&\proj{-} & \proj{+}\\[2pt]
\end{array}
\end{align}
so that tracing out the value of $r$ results in the POVM of Eq.~\eqref{eq:traced_out}. In a cryptographic protocol, the parties must communicate when the detection has succeeded (over a classical authenticated channel). However, this piece of information, together with the knowledge of $r$\footnote{The adversary can know the value of $r$ even under the no-leakage assumption. For instance, a long list of random choices of $r$ could have been stored in a hidden memory inside the device, or they could be obtained algorithmically by a pseudo-random number generator.}, allows the adversary to infer the setting $\mathsf{x}$ and the outcome $\a$ for each successful detection, completely compromising the security. We emphasize that, in this example, from the point of view of the adversary the POVMs describing the detector have the elements
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{ll}
M_+^0 \; = \; \proj{0}\otimes\proj{1}_r & \quad
M_+^1 \; = \; \proj{+} \otimes\proj{3}_r\\
M_-^0 \; = \; \proj{1} \otimes\proj{2}_r& \quad
M_-^1 \; = \; \proj{-}\otimes\proj{4}_r,
\end{array}
\end{align}
which act on the the quantum input of the detector but also on the random variable $r$ which is chosen uniformly at random by the attacker. Manifestly, the POVMs above violate the fair sampling assumption, which corrupts the security guarantees. However, if the variable $r$ is held by the environment (as a physical realization of the loss channel) and can not be accessed by the adversary, her POVM description of the detector is no better than the one of Eq.~\eqref{eq:traced_out}.
Moreover, with two detectors that implement Makarov's attack, it is possible to fake the violation of the CHSH inequality using only separable states, and even saturate the algebraic bound of the operator~\cite{MP03}. That is, calling $\mathsf{x},\mathsf{y} \in \{0,1\}$ the two inputs and $\a,\b \in \{+,-\}$ the post-selected outputs, these always satisfy $\a\,\b = (-1)^{\mathsf{x}\,\mathsf{y}}$. This can be realized by sending to the two detectors a state $\rho_{r_A,r_B}$ which explicitly depends on the hidden parameters $r_A$ and $r_B$ of the first and second device. A possible choice for $\rho_{r_A,r_B}$ is given in the following table:
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{l|cccc}
& r_B=1 & r_B=2 & r_B=3 & r_B=4 \\
\hline\\[-9pt]
r_A=1 & [0,0] & \t{vac} & [0,+] & \t{vac} \\[1pt]
r_A=2 & \t{vac} & [1,1] & \t{vac} & [1,-] \\[1pt]
r_A=3 & [+,0] & \t{vac} & \t{vac} & [+,-] \\[1pt]
r_A=4 & \t{vac} & [-,1] & [-,+] & \t{vac}
\end{array}
\end{align}
where $[p,q]$ is a shorthand for the separable state $\proj{p}\otimes\proj{q}$, while ``vac'' denotes the vacuum state which, naturally, does not trigger the detector; taking into account the detector efficiencies and the vacuum component, the overall detection probability is $1/32 = 1/4 \times 1/4 \times 1/2$. Of course, surpassing the quantum bound of the CHSH operator would reveal that something suspicious is happening. But by adding some white noise in the input states, the expectation value of the CHSH operator can be brought in the region between the classical and quantum limit.
In conclusion, we have to impose that the provided POVM description represents the ``true'' behaviour of the measurement device and that therefore we can be confident that fair sampling holds also according to the adversary's description of the device. In this way, Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} can be immediately applied to prove security against this adversary, to whom the post-selected statistics are as good as if it were produced by an ideal device. It may seem rather artificial to impose fair sampling in this form, but we argue that there are cryptographic scenarios where this assumption might be plausible. For example, imagine that a trusted company manufactures and sells lossy measurement devices that are guaranteed to work properly, but no information about the internal functioning is provided to the end-users (e.g., as a way to preserve industrial secrets) so that they can only model the device as a black box. A third-party attacker might be able to study a copy of the device, reverse-engineer its functioning, obtain a full POVM description, and discover that fair sampling holds indeed. This would be a setting were Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} can be put to use and security guarantees recovered, without further assumptions on the structure or calibration of the measurements.
\subsection{Extending to non i.i.d.\ settings}
In this Section we briefly discuss what happens when we do not assume that the measurement statistics are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), as done in the rest of the paper. Under no-leakage, the most general attack strategy is obtained when the device internally stores all the quantum states that have been received (and measured) in the past, so that the measurement outcome in a certain round can depend on all the states (and measurement results) at previous rounds. Consequently, the device acts on a Hilbert space whose dimension increases in time and it has a different POVM description at every round. This enables very sophisticated and convoluted attack strategies that are very far from the contexts where fair sampling is a reasonable assumption. Nonetheless, considering fair sampling in non i.i.d.\ settings may be necessary when the measurement devices are not stable in time, e.g.\ as consequence of thermal drift.
Consider now running a Bell experiment where the state preparation and the measurements are repeated for $T$ rounds, in order to collect statistics, and remove the i.i.d.\ assumption, i.e., the devices may behave differently in each of the $T$ rounds (and thus the outcomes are not identically distributed) and there may be memory effect (so that the outcomes are not independent). Are the results of Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} applicable in these cases?
We remark that the fair sampling assumption can be extended to the non i.i.d.\ case in different ways. To keep the analysis simple, here we propose a redefinition of fair sampling which allows to extend the results of Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} in a straightforward manner. More general definitions of fair sampling may still be viable, but they would require a more careful analysis.
\begin{definition}[Fair sampling in non i.i.d.\ settings]
\label{def:fair_sampling2}
Consider a lossy measurement device $\mathcal{M}^{(T)}$ that is used for $T$ rounds in a protocol or experiment. In a general formulation, $\mathcal{M}^{(T)}$ consists of $T$ devices $\mathcal{M}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{M}_T$ where each device $\mathcal{M}_t$ has a setting $\mathsf{x}_t$, an outcome $\a_t$ and measures a (entangled) state $\rho_t \in S(\mathcal{H}_t)$; moreover, $\mathcal{M}_t$ can access an internal memory storing the classical and quantum information it has received or produced during all previous rounds. Each lossy device $\mathcal{M}_t$ admits a decomposition $\mathcal{M}_t = \bar{\cM}_t \circ \mathcal{F}_t$, where $\bar{\cM}_t$ is a lossless device and $\mathcal{F}_t$ a filter. Both $\bar{\cM}_t$ and $\mathcal{F}_t$ can act on all the information available at round $t$.
We say that $\mathcal{M}^{(T)}$ satisfies fair sampling if and only if each filter $\mathcal{F}_t$ acts only on $\rho_t$ and $\mathsf{x}_t$ (i.e., it acts as the identity channel on the internal memory of the device) and moreover $\mathcal{F}_t$ factorizes as $\mathcal{F}_t = \wedge[\mathcal{F}_{t,C} \otimes \mathcal{F}_{t,Q}]$, as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter}.
\end{definition}
Similarly as done in Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling}, we now consider a Bell experiment involving $N$ physically separated non-communicating devices, used for $T$ consecutive rounds, which collectively measure a global quantum state $\Psi$ having $N\times T$ subsystems. A round $t$ of the experiment is successful if and only if all the $N$ devices outputs a ${\checkmark}$ flag simultaneously; we then collect the sequence of successes/failures in a list $\vec{f} = \{\mathsf{f}_1, \ldots, \mathsf{f}_T\}$ with $\mathsf{f}_t \in \{\textup{\,\o\,},{\checkmark}\}$ for each $t$. Notice that the probability that all rounds are successful is exponentially small in $T$ and will essentially never occur when $T$ is large, as is required for having a significant statistical sample. Thus, we suppose that only $T'$ rounds are successful (with $T' \leq T$) and introduce a filtered state $\Psi_{\vec{\mathsf{f}}}$ which is obtained by applying all the $N \times T'$ local filters corresponding to the successful rounds and tracing out the systems involved in unsuccessful rounds.
Following the line of reasoning given in Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} we can now see that the post-selected measurement statistics of the real experiment is exactly reproduced by the measurement statistics of an ideal experiment where a filtered state $\Psi_{\vec{\mathsf{f}}}$ is measured by lossless devices\footnote{Notice that the filtered state $\Psi_{\vec{\mathsf{f}}}$ now explicitly depends on the sequence of flags $\vec{\mathsf{f}}$ obtained in the experiment. This is not an issue, since in a device-independent protocol the state $\Psi$ is arbitrary to begin with.}. Therefore, in this non i.i.d.\ version of fair sampling we are able to certify in a device-independent way the properties of a quantum state $\Psi_{\vec{\mathsf{f}}}$ that could have been obtained with local probabilistic operations from the state that was present in the lab. Hence, the security proofs that have been developed for certifiable random number generation~\cite{CK11, AM16, PAM10, CZY16, MS16} and device-independent quantum key distribution~\cite{PABG09, LPM13, VV14, ARV19} immediately extend to these devices that satisfy the non i.i.d.\ version of fair sampling.
\section{Fair sampling in quantum optics experiments}
\label{sec:fs_in_quantum_optics}
In this Section we provide a concrete example of a measurement apparatus commonly used in quantum optics, with the intent of showing a possible real-world application of our formalism and also to better understand the conditions that are required to satisfy weak and strong fair sampling, illuminating also how to deal with the case where losses are present prior to the measurement. Specifically, we consider a \emph{polarization analyser}, a device which allows measuring the polarization of incoming photons in arbitrary directions~\cite{Aspect82,SZ99} and the classical setting is the measurement angle $(\mathsf{x} \equiv \theta)$. The layout of the apparatus is schematically depicted in Figure~\ref{Fig4}.
\subsection{Description of a polarization analyser}
We assume that the photons entering the apparatus are described by bosonic operators $b^\dag_H$ and $b^\dag_V$ for the horizontal and vertical polarization, respectively. These operators satisfy canonical commutation relations $[b_H, b_H^\dag] = [b_V, b_V^\dag] = \mathds{1}$. A polarizing beam-splitter (PBS) is followed by two non-photon-number-resolving (NPNR) detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$ having POVM elements
\begin{align}
D_1:
\begin{cases}
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta =
(1-\eta_1)^{b_\theta^\dag b_\theta}~~~~~\,=
R_1^{\hat{N}_\theta} \\
E_{\checkmark}^\theta =
\mathds{1} - (1-\eta_1)^{b_\theta^\dag b_\theta} =
\mathds{1} - R_1^{\hat{N}_\theta}
\end{cases}
~
D_2:
\begin{cases}
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta^\bot} =
(1-\eta_2)^{b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag b_{\theta^\bot}}~~~~~\,=
R_2^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}\\
E_{\checkmark}^{\theta^\bot} =
\mathds{1} - (1-\eta_2)^{b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag b_{\theta^\bot}} =
\mathds{1} - R_2^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Here, $\eta_1 = 1 - R_1$ and $\eta_2 = 1 - R_2$ are the efficiencies of detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$. Note also that $\hat{N}_\theta = b_\theta^\dag b_\theta$ and $\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot} = b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag b_{\theta^\bot}$ are the number operators associated to photons having $\theta$ and $\theta^\bot$ polarization, respectively. The angles $\theta, \theta^\bot$ are chosen using a variable polarization rotator (PR) preceding the PBS and are linked to the horizontal/vertical polarization via
\begin{align}
\bigg(\begin{array}{c}
b_{\theta}^\dag \\
b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag
\end{array}\bigg)
\; := \;
\bigg(\begin{array}{rr}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
- \sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}\bigg)
\bigg(\begin{array}{c}
b_H^\dag \\
b_V^\dag
\end{array}\bigg) \;.
\end{align}
If we assume, for the moment being, that the two detectors have equal efficiency $\eta_1 = \eta_2 = \eta = 1-R,$ the four POVM elements of the polarization analyser are:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta \, := \;
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}_\theta} \, R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}} \ = \ R^{\hat{N}} \\
M_1^\theta \; := \;
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_{\checkmark}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}_\theta} \, \big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}\big) \\
M_2^\theta \; := \;
E_{\checkmark}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
\big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_\theta}\big) \, R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}\\
M_{1\&2}^\theta \; := \;
E_{\checkmark}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_{\checkmark}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
\big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_\theta}\big) \, \big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}\big) \;.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here, the tensor product represents the bipartition across detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$. In the first line we have used $[\hat{N}_\theta , \hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}] = 0$ and introduced $\hat{N} = \hat{N}_\theta +\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}.$
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.8]{PolarizationAnalyser.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{A polarization analyser. The polarization of the incoming photons is transformed by a variable polarization rotator (PR); then, the horizontal and vertical components are separated through a polarizing beam-splitter (PBS) in two optical paths; finally, the photons are collected by two non-photon-number-resolving (NPNR) detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$. }
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fair sampling with polarization analysers}
We now show that the polarization analyser previously described (with detectors having equal efficiencies $\eta$ and no dark counts) satisfies the fair sampling assumption. We consider the general case where an arbitrary number of photons can enter the apparatus and, in particular, the input state $\rho$ may have a zero-photon (i.e.\ vacuum) component. Notice that no-click events are caused by two distinct physical processes: either the photons are lost before reaching the apparatus, or some photons reached it, but were not detected. Distinguishing between these two processes is not always possible but also, especially in a device-independent context, not necessary. When dealing with states having a vacuum component, no-clicks would thus occur even while using lossless detectors. Consequently, the ideal experiment reproducing the post-selected data (where no $\textup{\,\o\,}$ are present) both requires a lossless detector and a filtered state, in which the vacuum component has been discarded.
The relevant Hilbert space is the Fock space consisting of photons that are only distinguishable in their polarization degree of freedom:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H} \; = \;
\t{span} \big\lbrace\,
\big(b_\theta^\dag\big)^{n_{\theta}} \big(b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag\big)^{n_{\theta^\bot}} \ket{\t{vac}}
\; \big| \;
n_\theta, n_{\theta^\bot} \in \mathds{N} \,\big\rbrace \;,
\end{align}
where $n_\theta$ and $n_{\theta^\bot}$ are the number of photons polarized in direction $\theta$ and in the orthogonal direction~$\theta^\bot$, respectively. In this Hilbert space, the POVM elements of the polarization analyser are given by\footnote{Here, we have the possibility that both NPNR detectors click at the same time, corresponding to the POVM element $M_{1\&2}^\theta$. If it is required that the device has only two possible measurement outcomes, we can arbitrarily re-assign this outcome to either $M_1^\theta$ or $M_2^\theta$.}
\begin{align}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta \; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}} \; = \;
\proj{\t{vac}} +
\sum_{n=1}^\infty R^n \; \Pi_n
\\
M_{\checkmark}^\theta
\; & = \;
M_1^\theta + M_2^\theta + M_{1\&2}^\theta
\; = \;
\mathds{1} - R^{\hat{N}}
\label{eq:multi-photonM}
\end{align}
where $\Pi_n$ is the ($\theta$-invariant) projector onto the $n$-photon sector of the Fock space. The expression on the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:multi-photonM} is invariant under change of rotation angle $\theta$: hence, we are in a (homogeneous) fair sampling situation.
We also remark that $M_{\checkmark}^\theta$ has no overlap with the vacuum, $\bra{\t{vac}} M_{\checkmark}^\theta \ket{\t{vac}} = 0$, which immediately implies that the filtered state
\begin{align}
\rho_{{\checkmark}}
\; = \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_Q(\rho)}
\sqrt{M_{\checkmark}^\theta} \, \rho \, \sqrt{M_{\checkmark}^\theta}
\end{align}
also does not have overlap with the vacuum. As a special case, notice that when $\eta=1$ (the detector are lossless) we have $M_{\checkmark}^\theta = \mathds{1} - \proj{\t{vac}}$ and therefore post-selecting is equivalent to using a filtered state where the vacuum component has been projected out.
\subsection{Strong fair sampling with polarization analysers}
We now look under which conditions the \emph{strong} version of fair sampling holds. From Eq.~\eqref{eq:multi-photonM} it follows that strong fair sampling is formally verified whenever we restrict the Hilbert space to the $k$-photon sector (for any fixed integer $k>0$). However, we consider only the case $k=1$, which already corresponds to a very stringent experimental requirement. That is, we imagine that in each round of the experiment exactly one photon enters the detector. Thus we have:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}
\; = \;
\t{span} \big\{\,
\ket{\theta} = b_\theta^\dag \ket{\t{vac}}, \;
\sket{\theta^\bot} = b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag \ket{\t{vac}}\,
\big\} \;,
\end{align}
with $\theta$ and $\theta^\bot$ any two orthogonal polarization directions. This yields:
\begin{align}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta
\; & = \;
R^{\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}} R^{\sket{\theta^\bot}\sbra{\theta^\bot}}
\; = \;
R^\mathds{1}
\; = \;
(1-\eta) \, \mathds{1} \nonumber\\
M_{\checkmark}^\theta
\; & = \;
\mathds{1} - M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta
\; = \;
\eta \, \mathds{1} \;.
\label{eq:1photonM}
\end{align}
The expression on the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:1photonM} is manifestly independent of $\theta$ and is proportional to the identity: the (homogeneous) strong fair sampling assumption holds in this case.
\subsection{Experimental applicability}
As discussed, the polarization analyser satisfies strong fair sampling only when the input quantum state consists of exactly one photon. This is a very demanding condition that is not met in any experiment that we know of, as currently there is no technology capable of producing individual photons with high fidelity and (almost) unit efficiency \cite{FSS18,SP19}. To this end, the best we can achieve is through the \emph{heralded} preparation of a photon, e.g., by first producing a photon pair and exploit the fact that one of the two photons has triggered a detector to infer the presence of the second one in a separated optical path. Even in this case, though, the applicability of strong fair sampling is debatable, since losses are always present in practice. To this end, we show in Section~\ref{sec:state-dependent} how to extend the results to input states that can only be approximated as a single-photon states.
When the input quantum is not restricted to the single-photon sector, we have shown that the polarization analyser satisfies (weak) fair sampling. This happens, e.g., when the state has a (significant) overlap with the vacuum. However, since the polarization analyser can click only when one or more photons are present in the apparatus, the filtered state does not have overlap with the vacuum.
We could then consider sources that (up to an excellent degree of accuracy) emit at most one photon at a time. In these cases, the \emph{filtered} state will have exactly one photon entering the polarization analyser. We could also consider sources that could emit multiple photons at a time, as is the case in spontaneous up- and down-conversion processes in non-linear crystals. In these cases, the filtered quantum state does not contain the vacuum, but it does contain multi-photon components. Noticing that the more photons enter the device, the higher is the probability of a detection we deduce that, correspondingly, the filtered state $\rho_{\checkmark}$ has more weight on large photon-number components, compared to the experimental state $\rho$.
Finally, we can give a concrete recommendation for proof-of-principle demonstrations of device-independent protocols relying on post-selected data. The measurement device should be extensively tested and calibrated. Subsequently, one should publish the best available estimation of the efficiency of the device (the POVM elements $M_{\checkmark}^\theta$), together with the uncertainty to which they are known. From an abstract perspective, this is less information than having the individual POVM description of $M_1^\theta, M_1^\theta$, and $M_{1\&2}^\theta$, which would be required in device-specific protocols (such as, say, the BB84 protocol). Moreover, in some cases the estimation of $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ might be experimentally easier than the estimation of all $M_\a^\mathsf{x}$ elements, for instance when the number of possible outcomes (the size of the set $\mathsf{A}$) is large. Provided that the fair sampling condition is satisfied, this approach provides the means to demonstrate the fundamental elements of device-independent protocols with post-selected data, avoiding the stringent requirement of having a extremely high detector efficiency.
\section{Approximate fair sampling}
\label{sec:approximate_fair sampling}
Here we investigate what happens when the fair sampling assumption is not satisfied exactly. Intuitively, we expect that the probability distributions that can be obtained after post-selection are close to those that can be obtained measuring the filtered state $\rho_{\checkmark}$ with a lossless device. And indeed, a small deviation from the exact fair sampling condition induces a small perturbation in the post-selected probability distribution (with linear dependence, to the leading order). In turn, the fact that the post-selected probabilities are close to the ideal ones implies, e.g., that the experimental expectation values of Bell operators are also close to the ideal value.
\subsection{Bound on the total variation distance}
As a starting point, we recall that $M_{C,{\checkmark}}$ is diagonal, hence we have $M_{\checkmark} = \sum_{\mathsf{x}} \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ or, equivalently, $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} = \mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$. We can rewrite this as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:starting_point}
\mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x}) \,\Pi_{\checkmark}
\; = \;
M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}
\end{align}
where $\Pi_{\checkmark}$ is the projector onto the support of $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ (and on the support of $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}$ as well) and thus we have
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}_C(\mathsf{x})
\; = \;
\norm{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}} \;.
\end{align}
Here and in the following, the norms are operator norms. We then consider small deviations from fair sampling as expressed in Eq.~\eqref{eq:starting_point}.
\begin{proposition}[Approximate fair sampling]
\label{prop:approximate_fs}
Consider a lossy device $\mathcal{M}$ having POVM elements $M_\a^\mathsf{x}$ and $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} = \sum_{\a\in \mathsf{A}} M^\mathsf{x}_\a$. We suppose that there exists a positive semi-definite operator $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}\succcurlyeq 0$ such that each $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ satisfies, for some $\epsilon \in [0,1)$:
\begin{align}
\norm{\,
\Pi_{\checkmark} -
\frac {M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}}
{\norm{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}}}
\,}
\; \leq \;
\epsilon
\label{eq:approx}
\end{align}
where $\Pi_{\checkmark}$ is the projector on the support of $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$. We also assume $\Pi_{\checkmark} M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \Pi_{\checkmark} = M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}$ for all $\mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X}$ and $\Pi_{\checkmark} \rho \, \Pi_{\checkmark} \neq 0$ for the experimentally relevant input states.
Then, there exists a normalized quantum state $\rho_{\checkmark}$, which can be probabilistically filtered from $\rho$, and there exists a lossless device $\bar{\cM}$ such that:
\begin{align}
\sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} \frac{1}{2}
\left\vert\,
\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(M_\a^\mathsf{x} \rho)}{\mathrm{Tr}(M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \rho)} -
\mathrm{Tr}(\bar{M}_\a^\mathsf{x} \rho_{\checkmark})
\,\right\vert
\; \leq \;
\frac{\epsilon}{1 - \epsilon}
\label{eq:approx_result}
\end{align}
When the measurement device $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies inequality~\eqref{eq:approx} we say that the $\epsilon$-\emph{approximate} (weak) fair sampling assumption holds.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix\!~\ref{app:proof}.
\end{proof}
A few remarks are in order. First, in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$ approximate fair sampling becomes the condition for (exact) fair sampling. Second, the left hand side of inequality~\eqref{eq:approx_result} is the total variation distance between the post-selected probability distribution ${\Pr}_{\mathcal{M}}^{\t{p.s.}}(\a|\mathsf{x},\rho)$ and the distribution ${\Pr}_{\bar{\cM}}(\a|\mathsf{x},\rho_{\checkmark})$ obtained by measuring the filtered state $\rho_{\checkmark}$ with a lossless detector\footnote{The total variation distance is the classical analogue of the trace distance for density matrices. It expresses the expected distinguishability between two distributions using random samples from one of the distributions.}. Finally, we can specialize the Proposition to approximate \emph{strong} fair sampling by consider the special condition $M_{Q,{\checkmark}} = \mathds{1}$. In this case, Eq.~\eqref{eq:approx} simply becomes:
\begin{align}
\norm{\,
\mathds{1} -
\frac {M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x}}
{\norm{M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} }}
\,}
\; \leq \;
\epsilon
\end{align}
and the filtered state is equal to the experimental state, $\rho_{\checkmark} = \rho$.
\subsection{Approximate fair sampling in multipartite settings}
\label{sec:appr_str_fs_consequences}
Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs} links an inequality regarding the POVM of a measurement device to an inequality on the probability distributions that can be observed using such a device. In a multipartite quantum experiment this probability distribution corresponds to the marginal distribution that is observed by a single detector, ignoring the measurement outcomes of all other devices involved in the experiment. Therefore, Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs} does not (directly) bound the deviation for the global distribution over all possible outcome configurations of the devices. However, this shortcoming can be easily amended, using the following simple idea.
Consider a quantum experiment where $N$ parties are involved, measuring a multipartite state $\Psi$ with lossy devices $\mathcal{M}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{M}_N$ which approximately satisfy fair sampling. Then, we can equivalently consider the multipartite measurement device $\overrightarrow{\mathcal{M}}$ consisting of the collection of these $N$ devices, whose settings (and outputs) consists in the collection of settings (and outputs) of the individual devices. It is straightforward to verify that this joint device then satisfies $\epsilon_\t{tot}$-approximate fair sampling; the total approximation error $\epsilon_\t{tot}$ is essentially given by the sum of the approximation errors for the individual devices. Therefore, for this multipartite device Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs} directly applies. That is, it is possible to bound to the deviation of the post-selected probability distribution from the result of measuring a filtered state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ with $N$ lossless devices. More details can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:multipartite}. As a further consequence, suppose we want to measure the expectation value of a $N$-partite Bell operator $B$. Using the (slightly skewed) post-selected distribution the relative error on $\langle B \rangle$ is upper bounded by $2 \epsilon_\t{tot}$ -- for the proof, see Appendix~\ref{app:X}.
Finally, we remark that if the $N$ separated devices satisfy approximate \emph{strong} fair sampling, then the entire multipartite setting also satisfies approximate strong fair sampling; this implies that the outcome statistics for the collection of devices is close (in total variation distance) to what could be obtained measuring the actual experimental state $\Psi$ with lossless devices. In this case, the global approximation error $\epsilon_\t{tot}$ for the multipartite device is also roughly equal the sum of the errors for individual devices.
\section{Approximate fair sampling in quantum optics}
\label{sec:appr_fs_in_quantum_optics}
In Section~\ref{sec:fs_in_quantum_optics} we have shown that a polarization analyser satisfies fair sampling provided that the two NPNR detectors have equal efficiency $\eta$. Now, we will consider the case where the efficiencies of the NPNR detectors are very similar, but not exactly equal. In this case, we show that the polarization analyser satisfies \emph{approximate} fair sampling; moreover, if the input state contains exactly one photon, \textit{approximate} strong fair sampling holds.
\subsection{Polarization analyser with unequal detectors}
\label{sec:unequal_detectors}
We generalize the quantum modelling of the polarization analyser given in Section~\ref{sec:fs_in_quantum_optics} to the case in which the two detectors have similar (but not exactly equal) efficiencies, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. We assume without loss of generality $\eta_2 \geq \eta_1$ and we write $R = R_2 \leq R_1 = R \,(1+\delta)$, with $\delta \geq 0$. This results in the following four POVM elements:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta \, := \;
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}_\theta} (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}} \, R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}}
\; = \; R^{\hat{N}} (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}} \\
M_1^\theta \; := \;
E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_{\checkmark}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}_\theta} (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}} \,\big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}} \big) \\
M_2^\theta \; := \;
E_{\checkmark}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_\textup{\,\o\,}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
\big[\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_\theta} (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}}\big] \, R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}} \\
M_{1\&2}^\theta \; := \;
E_{\checkmark}^{\theta} \!\otimes\! E_{\checkmark}^{\theta^\bot} \; & = \;
\big[\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_\theta} (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}}\big] \, \big(\mathds{1}-R^{\hat{N}_{\theta^\bot}} \big) \;.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsection{Approximate fair sampling with a polarization analyser}
We now consider photonic states which have a (possibly large) component of vacuum and a certain probability of emitting more than one photon, as common in experiments that use up- or down-conversion processes. The Hilbert space is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H} \; = \;
\t{span} \big\lbrace\,
\big(b_\theta^\dag\big)^{n_{\theta}} \big(b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag\big)^{n_{\theta^\bot}} \ket{\t{vac}}
\; \big| \;
n_\theta, n_{\theta^\bot} \in \mathds{N} \,\big\rbrace \;.
\end{align}
The operator $M_{\checkmark}^\theta$ has an explicit (small) dependence from the setting $\theta$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta
\; & = \;
R^{\hat{N}} \, (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}}
\\
M_{\checkmark}^\theta
\; & = \;
\mathds{1} - R^{\hat{N}} \, (1+\delta)^{\hat{N}_{\theta}} \;.
\label{eq:multi-photon_approx}
\end{split}
\end{align}
We now have to find a suitable positive semi-definite operator $M_{Q,{\checkmark}}$ and a projector $\Pi_{\checkmark}$ in order to show that weak fair sampling is approximately satisfied. We choose:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M_Q}
M_{Q,{\checkmark}} & := \; \mathds{1} - R^{\hat{N}} \\
\Pi_{\checkmark} \; & := \; \mathds{1} - \proj{\t{vac}} \;.
\end{align}
In Appendix\!~\ref{app:F} we show that, with these definition, the condition
\begin{align}
\norm{\,
\Pi_{\checkmark} -
\frac {M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\theta M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}}
{\norm{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2} M_{\checkmark}^\theta M_{Q,{\checkmark}}^{-1/2}}}
\,}
\; & = \;
\frac{1 - \eta }{\eta}\, \delta
\end{align}
holds. Thus, we can directly apply the results on approximate weak fair sampling derived in Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs}. The maximum deviation in the post-selected probability and those obtainable from $\rho_{\checkmark}$ is of order $\delta \, (1-\eta)/\eta$, in total variation distance.
We can also characterize the filtered state $\rho_{\checkmark}$ that allows to (approximately) reproduce the post-selected probabilities:
\begin{align}
\rho_{\checkmark}
\; = \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_{Q}(\rho)}
\sqrt{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}} \, \rho \, \sqrt{M_{Q,{\checkmark}}}
\; = \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_{Q}(\rho)}
\sqrt{\mathds{1} - R^{\hat{N}}} \, \rho \, \sqrt{\mathds{1} - R^{\hat{N}}} \;.
\end{align}
In particular, the state $\rho_{\checkmark}$ has no overlap with the vacuum.
\subsection{Approximate strong fair sampling with a polarization analyser}
In this Section, we restrict to cases where exactly one photon is entering the apparatus, i.e., we assume that we are employing an (almost) perfect single-photon source. The Hilbert space is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}
\; = \;
\t{span} \big\{\,
\ket{\theta} = b_\theta^\dag \ket{\t{vac}}, \;
\sket{\theta^\bot} = b_{\theta^\bot}^\dag \ket{\t{vac}}\,
\big\} \;,
\end{align}
and the POVM elements associated to a failed/successful detection are:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta \; & = \;
R \, (1+\delta)^{\ket{\theta}\bra{\theta}} \; = \;
(1-\eta) \, \big(\mathds{1} + \delta \proj{\theta}\big) \\
M_{\checkmark}^\theta \; & = \;
\mathds{1} - M_\textup{\,\o\,}^\theta
~~~~~~~\: = \;
\eta \, \mathds{1} - (1-\eta) \delta \proj{\theta} \;. \label{eq:1photonA}
\end{split}
\end{align}
The POVM element $M_{\checkmark}^\theta$ has an explicit (small) dependence on $\theta$. In fact, we can explicitly show that the condition for approximate strong fair sampling holds. Assuming $\delta \geq 0$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\forall \theta \qquad
\big|\big|{M_{\checkmark}^\theta}\big|\big|
\; = \;
\norm{\,\eta \, \mathds{1} - (1-\eta) \delta \sproj{\theta^\bot}\,}
\; = \; \eta \;,
\end{align}
and then
\begin{align}
\norm{ \mathds{1} - \frac{M_{\checkmark}^\theta}{\norm{M_{\checkmark}^\theta}}} \; = \;
\norm{ \mathds{1} - \frac{M_{\checkmark}^\theta}{\eta}} \; = \;
\norm{ \frac{1-\eta}{\eta}\, \delta \, \sproj{\theta^\bot}} \; = \;
\frac{1-\eta}{\eta}\, \delta \;.
\end{align}
This result directly allows us to employ Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs}, specialized to the case of strong fair sampling. We can conclude that the post-selected statistics obtained with this device can have a deviation (in total variation distance) at most of order $\delta \, (1-\eta)/\eta$ from the statistics obtained measuring the single-photon state with a lossless device.
As previously discussed, single photon sources are not achievable with current technology, heralded photon preparation being the method that comes the closest to this goal. Therefore, in the next Section we analyse what happens in the case in which the input state is only approximately a single-photon state and has a small vacuum and multi-photon component.
\section{Assumptions on the input state}
\label{sec:state-dependent}
In this final Section, we consider the case in which the quantum state has a small component not belonging to the reference Hilbert space. We show that the outcome statistics is not overly affected by the presence of such perturbations. Next, we extend the fair sampling assumption to the case where the factorization of Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_filter} holds only for the specific state $\Psi$ that is employed in the (multipartite) quantum experiment. We call this the \emph{state-dependent} fair sampling assumption.
\subsection{Effects of imperfections in state preparation}
Consider an imperfectly prepared quantum state having the form
\begin{align}
\hat\rho
\ & \in \
S(~~~\mathcal{H}~~~ \oplus ~~~\mathcal{H}^\bot~~)
\nonumber\\
\hat\rho
\; & = \,
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(1-\epsilon') \, \rho & c \\
c^\dag & \epsilon' \, \rho^\bot
\end{array}
\right)
\;,
\label{eq:rho_hat}
\end{align}
where $\rho$ and $\rho^\bot$ are normalized quantum states and $c$, $c^\dag$ are the coherence terms. The Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ represents the set of states for which the measurement device has been calibrated, and $\mathcal{H}^\bot$ is an orthogonal space containing all other degrees of freedom. The fair sampling assumption holds for states $\rho \in S(\mathcal{H})$, while the behaviour of the measurement device for an input state $\rho^\bot \in S(\mathcal{H}^\bot)$ can be arbitrary.
As a concrete example, consider a photonic state $\hat\rho$ entering a polarization analyser. Strong fair sampling holds when the input consists of exactly one photon, but the experimental state $\hat\rho$ also possess a small component $\epsilon'\rho^\bot$ which overlaps with the vacuum and with multi-photon states. As a second example, a polarization analyser satisfies (weak) fair sampling when $\hat\rho$ consists of photons that are only distinguishable in polarization. That is, the photons must have the correct frequency, waveform, spatial mode, and so on, consistent with the specifications and calibration of the measurement device. However, the experimental state $\hat\rho$ may have a small component $\epsilon' \rho^\bot$ of photons that have different properties, for which the behaviour of the device is not known. If $\epsilon'$ is small, the deviation in the post-selected statistics will also be small; quantitatively, we have the following result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:state}
Consider a quantum state $\hat\rho \in S(\mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}^\bot)$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:rho_hat}. Consider a lossy detector having POVM elements $\{\hat{M}_\a^\mathsf{x}\}$ acting on $\mathcal{H} \oplus \mathcal{H}^\bot$ and define $M_\a^\mathsf{x} := \Pi \hat{M}_\a^\mathsf{x} \Pi$, $\hat{M}_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} := \sum_{\a \in \mathsf{A}} \hat{M}_\a^\mathsf{x}$ and $M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} := \sum_{\a \in \mathsf{A}} M_\a^\mathsf{x}$. Then, the following trace distance bound holds:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:result2}
\sum_{\a\in\mathsf{A}} \frac{1}{2}
\left\vert\,
\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{M}_\a^\mathsf{x} \hat\rho)}{\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{M}_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \hat\rho)} -
\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(M_\a^\mathsf{x} \rho)}{\mathrm{Tr}(M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \rho)}
\,\right\vert
\; \leq \;
\frac{2 \left(\norm{c}_\mathrm{Tr} + \epsilon'\right)}
{\max
\left\lbrace
\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{M}_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \hat\rho)
\, , \,
\mathrm{Tr}(M_{\checkmark}^\mathsf{x} \rho)
\right\rbrace}
\;,
\end{align}
where $\norm{c}_\mathrm{Tr} := \mathrm{Tr}(\sqrt{c^\dag c})$ is the trace norm of $c$, which satisfies $\norm{c}_\mathrm{Tr} \leq \sqrt{\epsilon'(1-\epsilon')}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\!\ref{app:proof2}.
\end{proof}
In general, the deviation in the post-selected statistics can be of order $\sqrt{\epsilon'}$. However, if the state has no coherence terms ($c=0$), then the deviation is only of order $\epsilon'$. Thermal light is an instance of this case, being completely incoherent in the photon-number basis.
We also remark that in the realistic case where both device calibration and state preparation are not perfect, the bounds given in Proposition~\ref{prop:state} and in Proposition~\ref{prop:approximate_fs} can be combined. The deviation from the ideal case is at most the sum of the bounds given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:approx_result} and in Eq.~\eqref{eq:result2}, as can be shown applying the triangle inequality.
\subsection{State-dependent fair sampling}
We suppose that the measurement device $\mathcal{M}_1 =\bar{\cM}_1 \circ \mathcal{F}_1$ used by the first party of a Bell-like experiment does not satisfy fair sampling (not even approximately). We require, instead, that the application of the successful branch $\mathcal{F}_{1,{\checkmark}}: S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{1}) \to S(\mathcal{H}_\mathsf{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{1})$ to the first component of the state $\Psi \in S(\mathcal{H}_{1}\!\otimes\! \cdots \!\otimes\! \mathcal{H}_{N})$ results in:
\begin{align}
\forall \mathsf{x} \in \mathsf{X} \qquad
\big(\mathcal{F}_{1,{\checkmark}} \otimes \t{Id}_\t{R} \big) \,
\big(\proj{\mathsf{x}} \otimes \Psi \big)
\; = \;
\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{1,C,{\checkmark}}\big(\proj{\mathsf{x}}\big) \otimes
\mathcal{E}_{1,Q}(\Psi) \, \Psi_{1,{\checkmark}}
\end{align}
where $\t{Id}_\t{R}$ is the identity channel on the rest of the parties, $\Psi_{\checkmark}$ is a (normalized) quantum state that can be locally filtered from $\Psi$, and $\mathcal{E}_{1,Q}(\Psi)$ is proportional to the probability of successfully filtering the state $\Psi_{1,{\checkmark}}$ from $\Psi$. That is, there exists a CP map $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{1,Q,{\checkmark}}$ such that:
\begin{align}
\Psi_{1,{\checkmark}}
\; = \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_{1,Q}(\Psi)} \,
\big( \widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{1,Q,{\checkmark}} \otimes \t{Id}_\t{R} \big) \,
\big( \Psi \big) \;.
\end{align}
Then, the same results as in Proposition~\ref{prop:fair_sampling} apply in this case. Consider, in fact, the post-selection corresponding to first device clicking (we ignore the post-selection applied by the other parties for now). Then, the post-selected probabilities that one observes in the realized quantum experiment can be reproduced by an ideal experiment where the first device is lossless, defined as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:M'}, and the state that has been distributed to the $N$ parties is the filtered state $\Psi_{\checkmark}$.
We can then apply the same reasoning to each of the parties involved in the experiment. Suppose that all the measurement devices satisfy \emph{state-dependent} fair sampling; then, the global post-selection (where the devices click contemporaneously) produces probabilities that are equal to those one would obtain when all parties use lossless devices, defined as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:M'}, acting on the normalized quantum state:
\begin{align}
\Psi_{\checkmark}
\; = \;
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_{1,Q}(\Psi) \cdots \mathcal{E}_{N,Q}(\Psi)} \,
\big(\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{1,Q,{\checkmark}} \otimes \cdots \otimes \widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{N,Q,{\checkmark}} \big) \,
\big( \Psi \big) \;,
\end{align}
where each $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{k,Q,{\checkmark}}$ is a local extraction map that depends on $\mathcal{M}_k$ and on $\Psi$.
We can also consider approximate versions of state-dependent version fair sampling, taking into account detector and state preparation imperfections. The results previously derived for approximate fair sampling would also hold in this case.
\section*{Discussion}
In this paper, we have analysed the effect of post-selection on the outcome statistics of a measurement apparatus in the context of Bell-like experiments. To this end, we have employed a general and fully quantum model of the measurement device, described in terms of POVM elements. We have identified a condition, equivalent to the one of Ref.~\cite{Berry10}, which allows the measurement statistics to exactly correspond to the statistics of some ideal quantum experiment, involving \emph{ideal} lossless detectors and a \emph{filtered} quantum state. The filtered state is (possibly) different from the actual experimental state but can be obtained from it through local probabilistic filters. In simple terms, this condition amount to the fact that the device acts independently on the classical and quantum inputs it receives, conditioned on having had a successful detection. Differently from what is done in most of the previous literature, it is this condition that we identify as the (weak) fair sampling assumption.
We argue that the weak notion of fair sampling is the most useful and applicable one, especially in the context of quantum optics. In fact, in quantum optics experiments the produced photonic states have a component of vacuum, but the common praxis is to characterize properties (such as fidelity, purity, or expectation values of observables) of a quantum state where the vacuum component has been projected out. This exactly corresponds to the filtering operation induced by fair sampling.
To make the result of this work applicable in real experimental settings, we have investigated the effect of small deviations from exact fair sampling. We have shown that imperfections in the calibration of the device result in a deviation in the post-selected probabilities that scales essentially linearly in the size of the miscalibration, but is amplified by a factor inversely proportional to the efficiency of the device. For a polarization analyser to satisfy fair sampling the two photon detectors are required to have the same efficiency, which could be enforced by artificially decreasing the efficiency of one of the detectors. Our analysis of approximate fair sampling takes care of any remaining efficiency mismatch. We have also considered the effect of imperfect state preparations, which lead the input state to have a small component not belong to the Hilbert space where the measurement device satisfies fair sampling. In this case, the presence of off-diagonal coherence terms in the density matrix can make the error in the statistics to scale (unfavourably) as the square root of the state preparation error.
We have also argued that the measurement devices can be securely used in cryptographic protocols, provided that they satisfy fair sampling. It is paramount in this case that fair sampling holds also from the perspective of the adversary. If, for instance, the adversary possesses a more complete description (a.k.a., a purification) of the measurement devices where fair sampling does not hold, explicit attack strategies can be exhibited.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Matthias Bock and Christoph Becher for discussions which motivated us to work on the effect of post-selections on device-independent claims. We acknowledge funding by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through the Grant PP00P2-179109 and by the Army Research Laboratory Center for Distributed Quantum Information via the project SciNet.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{S:intro}
Kiselev's black hole spacetime~\cite{Kiselev:2002},
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = - \left(1-{2m\over r} - {K\over r^{1+3w}} \right) dt^2 + {dr^2\over1-{2m\over r} - {K\over r^{1+3w}}}
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_2^2,
\end{equation}
is a remarkably popular toy model. Directly and indirectly, Kiselev's model has accum\-ulated over 200 citations, with over 150 of the citing articles being published.
One reason for this model's popularity is its generality: $w=0$ corresponds to Schwarzschild, $w=1/3$ corresponds to Reissner--Nordstr\"om, and $w=-1$ corresponds to Schwarzschild-(anti)-de~Sitter (Kottler).
Unfortunately a very large fraction of the subsequent follow-up papers discussing Kislev's model get basic aspects of the physics wrong. Despite (very) many assertions to the contrary, the Kiselev spacetime is not a perfect fluid spacetime, neither does it have anything to do with the cosmologist's notion of quintessence.
Perhaps the fastest way to see something is wrong with the \emph{terminology} (without having to do a calculation) is to consider the special case $w=1/3$ with $K=-Q^2$ (that is, Reissner--Nordstr\"om), and note that the electromagnetic field is not a perfect fluid, nor can the electromagnetic field meaningfully be described as quintessence.
\clearpage
Despite these \emph{terminological} issues, the Kiselev black hole does have some interesting physical and mathematical properties, and does merit investigation --- as long as one does so carefully, and uses terminology in a manner consistent with the broader astrophysical and general relativity communities.
\section{Stress-energy}
Working in an orthonormal frame it is easy to see
\begin{equation}
G_{\hat t\hat t} = - G_{\hat r \hat r} = -{3Kw\over r^{3(1+w)}};
\qquad\qquad
G_{\hat\theta\hat\theta} = G_{\hat\phi \hat\phi} = - {3Kw(1+3w)\over2r^{3(1+w)}}.
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{equation}
\rho = - p_r = -{3Kw\over8\pi r^{3(1+w)}};
\qquad\qquad
p_t = - {3Kw(1+3w)\over16\pi r^{3(1+w)}}.
\end{equation}
This is not isotropic, so it is not a perfect fluid.
For the average pressure we have
\begin{equation}
\bar p = {p_r +2p_t\over3} =-{3Kw^2\over8\pi r^{3(1+w)}};
\qquad\qquad
{\bar p\over\rho} = w.
\end{equation}
While such an average pressure can always be defined, doing so does not magically convert an anisotropic stress-energy into a perfect fluid.
Indeed for the pressure ratio and relative pressure anisotropy we explicitly have
\begin{equation}
{p_t\over p_r} = - {1+3w\over2};
\qquad\qquad
\Delta ={\Delta p\over\bar p} = {p_r-p_t\over\bar p} = -{3(1+w)\over2w}.
\end{equation}
Note that this basic Kiselev spacetime has the interesting feature that both of the ratios $p_t/p_r$ and $\Delta$ are position-independent constants.
However, since for $w\neq-1$ we have both $p_t/p_r \neq 1$ and $\Delta\neq0$, this is certainly not a perfect fluid spacetime.
Unfortunately, mistakenly mis-identifying anisotropic stress-energies as perfect fluids has a distressingly long history in general relativity~\cite{Delgaty:1998}. (This was unfortunate but perhaps understandable in the days before computer-based symbolic algebra packages, when all curvature calculations had to be done by hand~\cite{Delgaty:1998}, it is considerably less understandable in the present day.) In the present context, very few of the follow-up papers to Kiselev's original result~\cite{Kiselev:2002} have been careful in this regard --- for a notable exception see reference~\cite{Cvetic:2016} where the authors very carefully and explicitly specify the stress-energy tensor being used, and pointedly do not refer to this spacetime as a perfect fluid spacetime.
Note that because the Kiselev spacetime is static and spherically symmetric it \emph{will} be possible to model the matter distribution by some linear combination of perfect fluid plus scalar field (with spacelike gradient) and electromagnetic field~\cite{Boonserm}, but that is a very different statement from the assertion that it is a perfect fluid spacetime.
Let us turn now to the word ``quintessence'' as used within the cosmology community. At its most basic ``quintessence'' refers to a scalar field with a timelike gradient, see for instance~\cite{Caldwell:1997,Zlatev:1998,Sahni:2002,Padmanabhan:2002,Sahni:2004,Copeland:2006}.
In particular, the stress-energy tensor associated with quintessence is that of a zero-vorticity perfect fluid. Therefore the Kiselev spacetime does not represent quintessence in the sense that this word is normally used within the cosmology community.
Even those cosmological models that seek to break quintessence away from the scalar field framework~\cite{Capozziello:2003}, still retain a perfect fluid stress-energy tensor, and so are intrinsically incompatible with the matter distribution in the Kiselev spacetime.
Now on the one hand this is just a matter of \emph{terminology}, on the other hand terminology matters --- only if there is widespread agreement on the meaning of the words being used can useful scientific communication take place.
\section{Generalized Kiselev black holes I}
Consider now a slightly generalized two-component version of Kiselev spacetime~\cite{Kiselev:2002}
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = - \left(1-{2m\over r} - {K_1\over r^{1+3w_1}} -{K_2\over r^{1+3w_2}} \right) dt^2
+ {dr^2\over1-{2m\over r} - {K_1\over r^{1+3w_1}} -{K_2\over r^{1+3w_2}} }
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_2^2.
\end{equation}
This two-component generalization is already enough to see interesting new effects.
For the stress-energy we now have
\begin{equation}
\rho = - p_r = -{3(K_1\,w_1\, r^{-3w_1} +K_2\,w_2\, r^{-3w_2}) \over8\pi r^3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
p_t = - {3(K_1\,w_1\,(1+3w_1)\, r^{-3w_1} + K_2\,w_2\,(1+3w_2)\, r^{-3w_2} )\over16\pi r^3}.
\end{equation}
For the average pressure we now have
\begin{equation}
\bar p = {p_r +2p_t\over3} =-{3(K_1\,w_1^2\,r^{-3w_1} + K_2\,w_2^2\,r^{-3w_2}) \over8\pi r^3},
\end{equation}
while we now define
\begin{equation}
w_\mathrm{effective} := {\bar p\over\rho} =
{K_1\,w_1^2\,r^{-3w_1} + K_2\,w_2^2\,r^{-3w_2}\over K_1\,w_1\, r^{-3w_1} +K_2\,w_2\, r^{-3w_2}}.
\end{equation}
Note that $w_\mathrm{effective}$ is no longer position independent; it can however be viewed as a position-dependent weighted average of $w_1$ and $w_2$.
For the relative pressure anisotropy we now have
\begin{equation}
\Delta ={\Delta p\over\bar p} = {p_r-p_t\over\bar p} = {p_r - (3\bar p - p_r)/2\over\bar p} = {3\over2} \, {p_r - \bar p\over\bar p}
= -{3\over2} \, {\rho + \bar p\over\bar p},
\end{equation}
whence
\begin{equation}
\Delta = -{3(1+w_\mathrm{effective})\over2w_\mathrm{effective}}.
\end{equation}
Note the the relative pressure anisotropy is also no longer position independent.
If one wishes to be explicit
\begin{equation}
\Delta = -{3\over2}
\left(1+
{K_1\,w_1\,r^{-3w_1} + K_2\,w_2\,r^{-3w_2}\over K_1\,w_1^2\, r^{-3w_1} +K_2\,w_2^2\, r^{-3w_2}}
\right).
\end{equation}
So while one can still do quite simple calculations in this two-component model, one has lost one of the most compelling features of the simple one-component model --- the relative pressure anisotropy is now a somewhat complicated function of position.
\section{Generalized Kiselev black holes II}
Now consider the $N$-component generalized Kiselev spacetime~\cite{Kiselev:2002}
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = - \left(1 - {\sum_{i=1}^N K_i \,r^{-3w_i}\over r} \right) dt^2
+ {dr^2\over 1 - {\sum_{i=1}^N K_i \,r^{-3w_i}\over r}}
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_2^2.
\end{equation}
Any Schwarzschild mass term that might be present has now been absorbed into one of the $K_i$ by setting the corresponding $w_i$ to zero.
Effectively one is defining a position-dependent mass function $m(r)$ by setting
\begin{equation}
\label{E:mass}
2\, m(r) = \sum_{i=1}^N K_i \,r^{-3w_i},
\end{equation}
and considering a metric of the form~\cite{Jacobson:2007}
\begin{equation}
\label{E:normal}
ds^2 = - \left(1 - {2m(r)\over r} \right) dt^2
+ {dr^2\over 1 - {2m(r)\over r}}
+ r^2 \,d\Omega_2^2.
\end{equation}
Spacetime metrics of this form have very special properties~\cite{Jacobson:2007}, and
it is then an utterly standard calculation to show
\begin{equation}
\rho = - p_r = {m'(r)\over4\pi r^2},
\qquad
\hbox{and}
\qquad
p_t = -{m''(r)\over8\pi r}.
\end{equation}
For the average pressure we now have
\begin{equation}
\bar p = {p_r +2p_t\over3} =-{m'(r) + r m''(r)\over12\pi r^2};
\qquad\qquad
w_\mathrm{effective}:= {\bar p\over\rho} = -{1\over3} - {r m''(r)\over 3 m'(r)}.
\end{equation}
For the ratio of pressures we now have
\begin{equation}
{p_t\over p_r} = {r\,m''(r)\over2m'(r)} = - {3 w_\mathrm{effective}+1\over2},
\end{equation}
and so for the relative pressure anisotropy
\begin{equation}
\Delta ={\Delta p\over\bar p} = {p_r-p_t\over w_\mathrm{effective}\rho} = - {1-(p_t/p_r)\over w_\mathrm{effective}}
= -{3(1+w_\mathrm{effective})\over2w_\mathrm{effective}}.
\end{equation}
In general $w_\mathrm{effective}$, the ratio of pressures $p_t/p_r$, and the relative pressure anisotropy $\Delta$ are now all position dependent. Note that these key properties follow directly from the general form of the metric as given in (\ref{E:normal}) and do not need the explicit form of the mass function $m(r)$ as given in (\ref{E:mass}).
However, if one wishes to be explicit and keep all the individual $K_i$ and $w_i$ visible, then it is easy to see that for the stress-energy
\begin{equation}
\rho = - p_r = -{3 \sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i\, r^{-3w_i} \over8\pi r^3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
p_t = - {3 \sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i\,(1+3w_i)\, r^{-3w_i} \over16\pi r^3}.
\end{equation}
For the average pressure we now have
\begin{equation}
\bar p = {p_r +2p_t\over3} =-{3 \sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i^2\,r^{-3w_i} \over8\pi r^3},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
w_\mathrm{effective} := {\bar p\over\rho} =
{\sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i^2\,r^{-3w_i} \over \sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i \,r^{-3w_i} }.
\end{equation}
Note that $w_\mathrm{effective}$ can now be viewed as a position-dependent weighted average of all the $w_i$.
Finally
\begin{equation}
\Delta = -{3\over2}
\left(1+
{\sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i\,r^{-3w_i} \over \sum_{i=1}^N K_i\,w_i^2 \,r^{-3w_i} }
\right).
\end{equation}
So while one can still easily do various straightforward explicit calculations in this $N$-component generalized Kiselev model, one has lost many of the more compelling features of the simple one-component model.
\section{Rastallization}
Rastall gravity was introduced in 1972, some 47 years ago~\cite{Rastall:1972}. Unfortunately modern implementations of Rastall's original idea have evolved into what is merely a physically empty redefinition of parameters~\cite{Visser:2017}. These issues become particularly acute when one attempts to Rastallize the Kiselev black hole~\cite{Heydarzade:2017}.
Effectively, the central idea of Rastall gravity is to split the ordinary conserved stress energy tensor (satisfying the ordinary Einstein equations) into two individually non-conserved pieces:
\begin{equation}
[T_\mathrm{conserved}]^{ab} = [T_\mathrm{Rastall}]^{ab}
+ {1\over4} \,{\lambda\over1-\lambda} \,[T_\mathrm{Rastall}] \, g^{ab}.
\end{equation}
Equivalently
\begin{equation}
[T_\mathrm{Rastall}]^{ab} = [T_\mathrm{conserved}]^{ab} - {1\over4} \,\lambda \, [T_\mathrm{conserved}] \, g^{ab}.
\end{equation}
As long as the Rastall parameter $\lambda$ satisfies $\lambda\neq1$ this can always be done, but it is merely a redefinition of what one chooses to call the stress-energy~\cite{Visser:2017}. If we now calculate the Rastall stress-energy for the one-component Kiselev spacetime in terms of the usual stress-energy we first note that
\begin{equation}
T=-\rho+3\bar p = -\rho(1-3w).
\end{equation}
Using this we obtain
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} = \rho - {1\over4}\, \lambda\, \rho\, (1-3w) = \rho\left(1-{\lambda(1-3w)\over4}\right);
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(p_r)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} = p_r + {1\over4} \,\lambda\, \rho\,(1-3w);
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(p_t)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} = p_t + {1\over4}\, \lambda\, \rho\,(1-3w).
\end{equation}
Consequently the absolute pressure anisotropy is invariant
\begin{equation}
(p_r)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} - (p_t)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} = p_r -p_t,
\end{equation}
while for the average pressure there is a simple shift
\begin{equation}
(\bar p)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} = \bar p + {1\over4} \lambda \rho(1-3w)
= \rho\left(w+{\lambda(1-3w)\over4}\right).
\end{equation}
Furthermore
\begin{equation}
w_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}}
= {(\bar p)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}}\over \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} }
= {w+{\lambda(1-3w)\over4}\over1-{\lambda(1-3w)\over4} }.
\end{equation}
Finally
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} =
{(p_r)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} - (p_t)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} \over (\bar p)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}}}
={ p_r-p_t\over (\bar p)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}}}
= \Delta \times {\;\; \bar p \over (\bar p)_{\scriptscriptstyle\mathrm{Rastall}} }
=
\Delta\times { w \over w+{\lambda(1-3w)\over4}}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that the limit $\lambda\to0$ where the Rastall parameter is set to zero is well-behaved.
Note that the Kiselev spacetime, being anisotropic (not a perfect fluid) before Rastallization, will remain anisotropic (not a perfect fluid) after Rastallization, (As an aside, note that in reference~\cite{Visser:2017} I had performed a similar calculation for perfect fluid spacetimes; the calculation above now applies to any static spherically symmetric spacetime, including the Kiselev spacetime.)
The key physics point here is that while these formulae might superficially look somewhat impressive, they amount merely to a redefinition of parameters --- a choice as to how to split up the conserved stress-energy into two individually non-conserved pieces.
If one starts with any spacetime satisfying the usual Einstein equations, then Rastall\-ization does not change the geometry, it is merely a book-keeping exercise applied to the stress-energy tensor.
Specifically, since the Rastall stress-energy tensor and the usual stress-energy tensor differ only by a term proportional to the metric, the Rastallization process cannot ever affect the Hawking--Ellis classification (types I--II--III--IV) of the stress-energy tensor. (See for instance~\cite{Hawking-Ellis, Prado:2019, Prado:2018b, Prado:2018a}.) In the current context, for the spherically symmetric static Kiselev spacetime the type I stress-energy tensor remains type I. Similarly the Rainich conditions~\cite{Rainich:1925,Plebanski:1964}, and related Rainich classification of stress-energy tensors~\cite{Senovilla:2000,Bergqvist:2001,Prado:2017}, are only trivially modified by an overall shift in the Lorentz-invariant eigenvalues, leaving the eigenvectors invariant.
Further afield, the null energy condition (NEC) is never affected by Rastallization. However the weak, strong, dominant, flux, and trace energy conditions (WEC, SEC, DEC, FEC, TEC) are modified by a constant book-keeping offset, proportional to the trace of the stress-energy tensor. (For a general discussion see references~\cite{Hawking-Ellis,twilight,Lobo:2004,Prado:2013b,Prado:2013a,Prado:LNP}.)
Similarly the null Raychaudhuri equation and its generalizations are never affected by Rastallization, though the timelike Raychaudhuri equation and its generalizations pick up a book-keeping offset proportional to the trace of the stress-energy~\cite{Raychaudhuri:1953,Raychaudhuri:2007,Ehlers:2007,Raychaudhuri:2011}. No physics is modified by Rastallization, merely book-keeping.
\clearpage
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{S:Conclusions}
Terminology is important --- only when there is widespread agreement in terminology can useful scientific progress be made.
Having some 200 articles (over 150 of them published) use such basic concepts as ``perfect fluid'' and ``quintessence'' in a manner that is at best completely orthogonal to the usage in the bulk of the scientific community is somewhat alarming.
While the Kiselev spacetime is an interesting toy model that does have some attractive physical and mathematical properties, the presentation is quite often seriously deficient.
Specifically:
\begin{itemize}
\item Do not refer to the Kiselev spacetime as perfect fluid; it isn't.
\item Do not refer to the matter in the Kiselev spacetime as quintessence; it isn't.
\item Do not try to read more into Rastall gravity than a redefinition of parameters.
\end{itemize}
I reiterate: The fastest way to see something is wrong with the \emph{terminology} typically used to describe the Kiselev spacetime (without having to do a calculation) is simply to consider the special case $w=1/3$ with $K=-Q^2$, (where it reduces to Reissner--Nordstr\"om spacetime), and then to note that the electromagnetic field is not a perfect fluid, nor can the electromagnetic field meaningfully be described as quintessence.
\acknowledgments{
This work was supported by the Marsden Fund, via a grant administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
Many theories beyond the Standard Model (SM) which treat quarks and leptons in a similar footing include a particular type of bosons called `leptoquarks'. These particles are present in Gran Unified Theories, such as
$SU(5)$~\cite{Georgi:1974sy}, $SU(4)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$~\cite{Pati:1974yy}, or $SO(10)$~\cite{Georgi:1974my}, where quarks and leptons usually appear in the same multiplets, but can also show up in some models with dynamical symmetry breaking like technicolor or extended technicolor \cite{Dimopoulos:1979es,Farhi:1980xs}.
Leptoquarks can turn a quark into a lepton and vice versa and, due to this unique nature, the discovery of leptoquarks would be an unambiguous signal of new physics (NP).
Extensive searches for leptoquarks have been conducted in past experiments and the hunt is still very much on in recent colliders as well.
So far, the LHC has not found any signal of new particles beyond the SM (BSM), pushing their mass scale further up to the TeV range. Under this circumstance, relatively low-energy phenomena can be important to indirectly identify the possible evidence of leptoquarks. At low energies, leptoquarks induce interactions between two leptons and two quarks, and/or four leptons (quarks), which are in some cases either stringently suppressed or forbidden in the SM. We use such measurements or upper bounds for decay modes from various experiments to constrain the leptoquark couplings. In most of the cases the analysis is done within the model-independent effective theory approach and thus can be used for other types of NP scenarios as well.
There exist several thorough studies dealing with diverse aspects of leptoquark phenomenology~\cite{Buchmuller:1986iq,Davidson:1993qk,Hewett:1997ce,Dorsner:2016wpm,Arnold:2013cva}. Moreover, the experimental flavour anomalies recently observed in some $B$ decay modes have triggered a renewed interest in leptoquark interactions as a possible explanation of the data \cite{Dorsner:2013tla,Sakaki:2013bfa,Hiller:2014yaa,Bauer:2015knc,Alonso:2015sja,Freytsis:2015qca,Barbieri:2015yvd,Das:2016vkr,Becirevic:2016oho,Becirevic:2016yqi,Becirevic:2017jtw,Buttazzo:2017ixm,Choudhury:2017qyt,Bobeth:2017ecx,Bordone:2017bld,Blanke:2018sro,Greljo:2018tuh,Bordone:2018nbg,Becirevic:2018afm,Kumar:2018kmr,Angelescu:2018tyl,DiLuzio:2018zxy,Faber:2018qon,Mandal:2018kau,Fornal:2018dqn,Bar-Shalom:2018ure,Baker:2019sli,Cornella:2019hct,Hati:2019ufv,Gripaios:2014tna,Sahoo:2016pet,Crivellin:2017zlb,Cai:2017wry,deMedeirosVarzielas:2018bcy,Alok:2017jaf,Crivellin:2017dsk,Calibbi:2017qbu,Crivellin:2018yvo,Crivellin:2019qnh}.
In this paper we reconsider various decay modes which could be potential candidates to hint for possible evidence of leptoquark interactions.
Since most of the recent analyses have focused on the leptoquark couplings to heavy quarks, we restrict ourselves to leptons and mesons with light quarks, namely kaons for this work. Many of the modes that we consider have been already studied in the past.
However, we carefully re-examine them by including almost all possible effects within the SM that were previously neglected.
The experimental precision has been improved significantly in some cases and, therefore, the interference terms between the SM contribution and the NP interaction can be very important and need to be properly taken into account.
Leptoquarks can be scalar or vector particles. In this article we discuss only the scalar leptoquarks because they can be more easily analyzed in a model-independent way. The phenomenology of vector leptoquarks is much more sensitive to the ultra-violet (UV) completeness of a particular model. The particle content of the full UV theory can in principle affect the low-energy phenomena abruptly, hence the obtained limits on vector leptoquark couplings may not be that robust. Our bounds on the scalar leptoquark couplings are extracted from data at a low-energy scale of about few GeV. When constructing a full leptoquark theory, a proper scale evolution through renormalization group (RG) equations must be then incorporated.
The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section~\ref{sec:Model} we briefly discuss a generic interaction Lagrangian, containing all five scalar leptoquarks, which will be the starting point of our analysis. The most general effective Lagrangian at low energies, arising from these scalar leptoquark interactions, is then derived in Section~\ref{sec:Eff}, where we also set up the notation. We discuss the bounds originating from several rare decays of leptons, and from their electric and magnetic moments, in Section~\ref{sec:Lepton}. The limits from kaon decays are derived in Section~\ref{sec:Kaon}.
Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:summary} we summarize our results.
\section{Scalar leptoquarks}
\label{sec:Model}
In this section we discuss the interaction of scalar leptoquarks with the SM fields. From the representations of quark and lepton fields under the SM gauge group $SU(3)_C\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$, the leptoquarks can be classified in five different categories. We follow the nomenclature widely used in the literature~\cite{Davidson:1993qk,Dorsner:2016wpm} for these leptoquarks as $S_1\,({\bf \bar{3},\,1},\,1/3)$, $\tilde{S}_1\,({\bf \bar{3},\,1},\,4/3)$, $R_2~({\bf 3,\,2},\,7/6)$, $\tilde{R}_2\,({\bf 3,\,2},\,1/6)$ and $S_3\,({\bf\bar{3},\,3},\,1/3)$. It can be seen that while $S_1$ and $\tilde{S_1}$ are singlets under the $SU(2)_L$ gauge group, $R_2$ and $\tilde{R_2}$ are doublets and $S_3$ transforms as a triplet.
The hypercharge normalization is chosen in such a way that the electromagnetic (EM) charge $Q_{\rm em}=T_3+Y$, where $T_3$ is the eigenvalue of the diagonal generator of $SU(2)_L$.
We denote the left-handed SM quark (lepton) doublets as $Q$ ($L$), while $u_R$ ($d_R$) and $\ell_R$ are the right-handed up (down)-type quark and lepton singlets, respectively.
The so-called genuine leptoquarks~\cite{Dorsner:2016wpm}, $R_2$ and $\tilde{R_2}$, can be assigned a definite baryon ($B=\frac{1}{3}$) and lepton ($L=-1$) number, but $S_1$, $\tilde{S_1}$ and $S_3$ could violate in principle the conservation of these quantum numbers through diquark interactions.
The leptoquark couplings to diquarks induce proton decays and thus have to be very suppressed. In this paper we neglect such couplings, as we are only interested in low-energy phenomena, and will assume that there is some symmetry in the UV theory that forbids these terms.
Using the freedom to rotate the different equal-charge fermion fields in flavour space, we adopt a `down' basis where the down-type-quark and charged-lepton Yukawas are diagonal. In this basis, the transformation from the fermion interaction eigenstates to mass eigenstates is simply given by
$u_L \to V^\dagger u_L$ and $\nu_L\to U \nu_L$, where $V$ is the quark Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix \cite{Cabibbo:1963yz,Kobayashi:1973fv} and $U$ the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) unitary matrix in the neutrino sector \cite{Pontecorvo:1957cp,Maki:1962mu,Pontecorvo:1967fh}.
Following the notation used in Ref.~\cite{Dorsner:2016wpm}, we write the
fermionic interaction Lagrangian for the five mentioned scalar leptoquarks as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Lfull}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{LQ}}\; &=\; \overline{Q^c}\, i \tau_2\, Y_{\tiny S_1} L\; S_1 + \overline{ u^c_R} \,Z_{\tiny S_1} \ell_R\; S_1 \nonumber \\
&+ \overline{d^c_R} \, Y_{\tiny \tilde{S_1}} \ell_R\; \tilde{S}_1 \nonumber \\
&+\overline \ell_R \,Y_{\tiny R_2}\, R_2^\dagger\, Q - \bar u_R \,Z_{\tiny R_2}\,
R_2^T\, i \tau_2 \, L \nonumber \\
&- \overline{d}_R \,Y_{\tiny \tilde{R_2}}\, \tilde{R}_2^T\, i \tau_2 L\, \nonumber \\
& + \overline{Q^c}\, Y_{\tiny S_3} \,i\tau_2 \, {\boldsymbol \tau\bf \cdot S_3} \, L
+ \mathrm{h.c.} \, ,
\end{align}
where $f^c\equiv \mathcal{C}\bar f^{\, T}$ indicates the charge-conjugated field of the fermion $f$.
Here $Y_{\tiny\rm LQ}$ and $Z_{\tiny \rm LQ}$ are completely arbitrary Yukawa matrices in flavour space and $\tau_k,~k\in \{1,2,3\}$ are the Pauli matrices. We have suppressed the $SU(2)_L$ indices for simplicity. Expanding the interaction terms in the mass-eigenstate basis we get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Lfull2}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{LQ}}\; &= \left[ {\overline{u^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i} (V^* Y_{\tiny S_1})^{ij} \ell_L^j - {\overline{d^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i}\, (Y_{\tiny S_1}U)^{ij}\, \nu_L^j + {\overline{ u^c_{R\!}}}^{\, i}\, Z_{\tiny S_1}^{ij} \ell_R^j \right] S_1 \nonumber \\
&+{\overline{d^c_{R\!}}}^{\, i} \,Y_{\tiny \tilde{S_1}}^{ij}\, \ell_R^j\, \tilde{S}_1 \nonumber \\
&+\overline{\ell}_R^{\, i} Y_{\tiny R_2}^{ij} d_L^j\,{R_2^{2/3}}^* + \overline{ u}_R^{\, i} (Z_{\tiny R_2} U)^{ij}\,
\nu_L^j\,R_2^{2/3} + \overline{\ell}_R^{\, i} (Y_{\tiny R_2} V^\dagger)^{ij}\,
u_L^j\,{R_2^{5/3}}^* - \overline{u}_R^{\, i} Z_{\tiny R_2}^{ij} \ell_L^j\,R_2^{5/3} \nonumber \\
& - \overline{d}_R^{\, i} \,Y_{\tiny \tilde{R_2}}^{ij}\, \ell_L^j\, \tilde{R}_2^{2/3} + \overline{d}_R^{\, i} \,(Y_{\tiny \tilde{R_2}}U)^{ij}\, \nu_L^j\, \tilde{R}_2^{-1/3} \nonumber \\
& -{\overline{d^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i} (Y_{\tiny S_3}U)^{ij} \nu_L^j\, S_3^{1/3} \!-\! \sqrt{2}\, {\overline{d^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i} Y_{\tiny S_3}^{ij}\, \ell_L^j\, S_3^{4/3} + \sqrt{2}\, {\overline{u^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i} (V^*Y_{\tiny S_3}U)^{ij} \nu_L^j\, S_3^{-2/3} - {\overline{u^c_{L\!}}}^{\, i} (V^* Y_{\tiny S_3})^{ij} \ell_L^j\, S_3^{1/3} \nonumber \\
&+ \rm{h.c.}\,.
\end{align}
We have explicitly shown the generation indices in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lfull2}, where $i,j\in \{1,2,3\}$. The superscripts for $R_2,~\tilde{R_2}$ and $S_3$ denote the EM charge of the corresponding leptoquark. Being doublets, $R_2$ and $\tilde{R_2}$ each have two components, while for the triplet $S_3$ we get three components differing by their EM charges. As we neglect the diquark couplings, a baryon and lepton number can be assigned to all leptoquarks in a consistent way. In the subsequent sections we explore the constraints that arise on the arbitrary Yukawa matrices $Y_{\tiny\rm LQ}$ and $Z_{\tiny \rm LQ}$ from various lepton and kaon decay modes.
\section{Effective Lagrangian }
\label{sec:Eff}
The tree-level exchange of scalar leptoquarks
($\phi = S_1,\, \tilde S_1, \, R_2,\, \tilde R_2, \, S_3$) generates a low-energy effective Lagrangian,
\bel{eq:L-LQ_0}
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{LQ}}\, =\,
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{cc}} + {\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{nc},\ell}
+ {\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{nc},\nu}\, ,
\end{equation}
where ($i,k,m,n$ are flavour indices)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Lcc}
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{cc}}& =& \sum_{i,k,m,n}\left\{
[C_{V_L}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar u_L^i\gamma^\mu d_L^k) (\bar \ell_L^m\gamma_\mu \nu_L^n)
\, +\,
[C_{V_R}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar u_R^i\gamma^\mu d_R^k) (\bar \ell_L^m\gamma_\mu \nu_L^n)
\right.\nonumber\\ &&\left.\hskip .8cm\mbox{}\,
+\, [C_{S_L}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar u_R^i d_L^k) (\bar \ell_R^m \nu_L^n)
\, +\, [C_{S_R}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar u_L^i d_R^k) (\bar \ell_R^m \nu_L^n)
\right.\nonumber\\[5pt] &&\left.\hskip .8cm\mbox{}\,
+\, [C_{T}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar u_R^i\sigma^{\mu\nu} d_L^k) (\bar \ell_R^m\sigma_{\mu\nu} \nu_L^n)
\right\} \; +\; \mathrm{h.c.}\, ,
\eeqn
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:LncLep}
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{nc},\ell}&\!\!\! =&\!\!\! \sum_{i,k,m,n}\sum_{q=u,d}\left\{
[g_{V,q}^{LL}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_L^i\gamma^\mu q_L^k) (\bar \ell_L^m\gamma_\mu \ell_L^n)
\, +\,
[g_{V,q}^{LR}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_L^i\gamma^\mu q_L^k) (\bar \ell_R^m\gamma_\mu \ell_R^n)
\right.\nonumber\\ &&\left.\hskip 1.5cm\mbox{}\, +\,
[g_{V,q}^{RL}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_R^i\gamma^\mu q_R^k) (\bar \ell_L^m\gamma_\mu \ell_L^n)
\, +\,
[g_{V,q}^{RR}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_R^i\gamma^\mu q_R^k) (\bar \ell_R^m\gamma_\mu \ell_R^n)
\right.\nonumber\\[5pt] &&\left.\hskip 1.5cm\mbox{}\, +\,
[g_{S,q}^{L}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_R^i q_L^k) (\bar \ell_R^m \ell_L^n)
\, +\,
[g_{S,q}^{R}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_L^i q_R^k) (\bar \ell_L^m \ell_R^n)
\right.\nonumber\\[5pt] &&\left.\hskip 1.5cm\mbox{}\, +\,
[g_{T,q}^{L}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_R^i\sigma^{\mu\nu} q_L^k) (\bar \ell_R^m \sigma_{\mu\nu}\ell_L^n) \, +\,
[g_{T,q}^{R}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_L^i\sigma^{\mu\nu} q_R^k) (\bar \ell_L^m \sigma_{\mu\nu}\ell_R^n)
\right\}\, ,\quad
\eeqn
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LncNeu}
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{nc},\nu}\; = \; \sum_{i,k,m,n}\sum_{q=u,d}\left\{
[N_{V_L}^{q}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_L^i\gamma^\mu q_L^k) (\bar \nu_L^m\gamma_\mu \nu_L^n)
\, +\,
[N_{V_R}^{q}]^{ik,mn}\, (\bar q_R^i\gamma^\mu q_R^k) (\bar \nu_L^m\gamma_\mu \nu_L^n)
\right\}\, .
\end{equation}
We detail next the contributions from the different scalar leptoquarks. Only those Wilson coefficients that are non-vanishing (up to Hermitian conjugation) are listed. Notice that the following coefficients do not receive any contribution from scalar leptoquark exchange:
\begin{equation}
C_{V_R} = C_{S_R} = g_{S,d}^{L} = g_{T,d}^{L} = g_{S,d}^{R} = g_{T,d}^{R} = 0\, .
\end{equation}
\goodbreak
\noindent
\\{\large \bf $\bullet\quad \mathbf{S_1}$ exchange}
All Wilson coefficients are proportional to $w_1\equiv 1/(2 M^2_{S_1})$. Defining $\{ C , g, N\} \equiv w_1\, \{ \hat C , \hat g, \hat N\}$, one gets:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:S1op}
[\hat C_{V_L}]^{ik,mn} & = - (Y_{S_1} U)^{kn}\; (V Y_{S_1}^*)^{im}\, ,
\qquad &
[\hat C_{S_L}]^{ik,mn} &= -4\, [\hat C_{T}]^{ik,mn} \, =\,
(Y_{S_1} U)^{kn}\; (Z_{S_1}^*)^{im}\, ,
\nonumber\\[2pt]
[\hat g_{V,u}^{LL}]^{ik,mn} & = (V^* Y_{S_1})^{kn}\; (V Y_{S_1}^*)^{im}\, ,
&
[\hat g_{S,u}^{L}]^{ik,mn} & = -4\, [\hat g_{T,u}^{L}]^{ik,mn}
\, =\, - (V^* Y_{S_1})^{kn}\; (Z_{S_1}^*)^{im}\, ,
\nonumber\\[2pt]
[\hat g_{V,u}^{RR}]^{ik,mn} & = (Z_{S_1})^{kn}\; (Z_{S_1}^*)^{im}\, ,
&
[\hat g_{S,u}^{R}]^{ik,mn} & = -4\, [\hat g_{T,u}^{R}]^{ik,mn}
\, =\, - (Z_{S_1})^{kn}\; (V Y_{S_1}^*)^{im} \, ,
\nonumber\\[2pt]
[\hat N_{V_L}^{d}]^{ik,mn} & = (Y_{S_1} U)^{kn}\; (Y_{S_1}^*U^*)^{im}\, .
&
\end{align}
\noindent
\\{\large \bf $\bullet\quad \mathbf{\tilde{S}_1}$ exchange}
Only one operator gets a non-zero contribution in this case:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S1Top}
[g_{V,d}^{RR}]^{ik,mn}\, =\, \frac{1}{2 M^2_{\tilde S_1}}\; Y_{\tilde S_1}^{kn} \, (Y_{\tilde S_1}^*)^{im}\, .
\end{equation}
\noindent
\\{\large \bf $\bullet\quad \mathbf{R_2}$ exchange}
Similar to the previous cases all Wilson coefficients are proportional to $w_2\equiv 1/(2 M^2_{R_2})$. Thus, we define $\{ C , g, N\} \equiv w_2\, \{ \hat C , \hat g, \hat N\}$. However, we separate the contributions from leptoquarks with different electric charges, so that leptoquark mass splittings can be easily taken into account. The exchange of $R_2^{2/3}$ gives
\begin{align}
\label{eq:R21op}
[\hat C_{S_L}]^{ik,mn} &= 4\, [\hat C_{T}]^{ik,mn} \, =\,
- (Z_{R_2} U)^{in}\; (Y_{R_2})^{mk}\, , &
\nonumber\\[2pt]
[\hat g_{V,d}^{LR}]^{ik,mn} & = - (Y_{R_2}^\dagger)^{in}\; (Y_{R_2})^{mk}\, ,
&
[\hat N_{V_R}^{u}]^{ik,mn} & = - (Z_{R_2} U)^{in}\; (Z_{R_2}^*U^* )^{km}\, ,
\end{align}
while $R_2^{5/3}$ exchange leads to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:R22op}
[\hat g_{V,u}^{LR}]^{ik,mn} & = - (V Y^\dagger_{R_2})^{in}\; (Y_{R_2} V^\dagger)^{mk}\, ,
&
[\hat g_{S,u}^{L}]^{ik,mn} & = 4\, [\hat g_{T,u}^{L}]^{ik,mn}
\, =\, (Z_{R_2})^{in}\; (Y_{R_2} V^\dagger)^{mk}\, ,
\nonumber\\[2pt]
[\hat g_{V,u}^{RL}]^{ik,mn} & = - (Z_{R_2})^{in}\; (Z_{R_2}^*)^{km}\, ,
&
[\hat g_{S,u}^{R}]^{ik,mn} & = 4\, [\hat g_{T,u}^{R}]^{ik,mn}
\, =\, (V Y_{R_2}^\dagger)^{in}\; (Z_{R_2}^*)^{km} \, .
\end{align}
\noindent
\\{\large \bf $\bullet\quad \mathbf{\tilde{R}_2}$ exchange}
The two different components of $\tilde{R}_2$ give rise to one operator each, given as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R2Top}
[g_{V,d}^{RL}]^{ik,mn}\, =\, - \frac{1}{2 M^2_{\tilde R_2^{2/3}}}\; Y_{\tilde R_2}^{in} \; (Y_{\tilde R_2}^*)^{km}\, ,
\qquad
[N_{V_R}^{d}]^{ik,mn}\, =\,
- \frac{1}{2 M^2_{\tilde R_2^{-1/3}}}\; (Y_{\tilde R_2}U)^{in} \; (Y_{\tilde R_2}^* U^*)^{km}\, .
\end{equation}
\goodbreak
\noindent
\\{\large \bf $\bullet\quad \mathbf{S_3}$ exchange}
All Wilson coefficients are proportional to $w_3\equiv 1/(2 M^2_{S_3})$. Again, we define $\{ C , g, N\} \equiv w_3\, \{ \hat C , \hat g, \hat N\}$, and separate the contributions from leptoquarks with different electric charges. The exchange of $S_3^{1/3}$ gives
\begin{align}
\label{eq:S31op}
[\hat C_{V_L}]^{ik,mn} & = (V Y_{S_3}^*)^{im}\; (Y_{S_3} U)^{kn} \, ,
\qquad &
[\hat g_{V,u}^{LL}]^{ik,mn} & = (V Y_{S_3}^*)^{im}\; (V^* Y_{S_3})^{kn} \, ,
\nonumber \\[2pt]
[\hat N_{V_L}^{d}]^{ik,mn} & = (Y_{S_3}^*U^*)^{im}\; (Y_{S_3} U)^{kn} \, ,
&
\end{align}
while $S_3^{4/3}$ only contributes to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S32op}
[\hat g_{V,d}^{LL}]^{ik,mn} = 2\, (Y_{S_3}^*)^{im}\; (Y_{S_3})^{kn} \, ,
\end{equation}
and $S_3^{-2/3}$ leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S33op}
[\hat N_{V_L}^{u}]^{ik,mn} = 2\, (V Y_{S_3}^*U^*)^{im}\; (V^*Y_{S_3} U)^{kn} \, .
\end{equation}
We denote the elements of the matrices $Y_{\rm LQ}$ and $Z_{\rm LQ}$ with lowercase, namely, $y_{\rm LQ}^{ij}$ and $z_{\rm LQ}^{ij}$. As we see from the above expressions, particular combinations of these Yukawa matrix elements arise several times, and hence for convenience we introduce the following notation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:notation}
{y^\prime_{\rm LQ}}^{\!\!\!\!\!\!ij}\equiv (Y_{\rm LQ}\,V^\dagger)^{ij},
\qquad\qquad
{\tilde{y}_{\rm LQ}}^{ij}\equiv (V^*\, Y_{\rm LQ})^{ij},
\qquad\qquad
\hat{y}_{\rm LQ}^{ij}\equiv (Y_{\rm LQ}\,U)^{ij}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{QCD running}
The previous derivation of the Wilson coefficients (matching calculation) applies at the high scale $\mu = M_{\mathrm{LQ}}$, where QCD interactions amount to very small corrections because $\alpha_s(M_{\mathrm{LQ}})$ is small. However, we need to evolve these predictions, using the renormalization group, to the much lower scales where hadronic decays take place. Neglecting electroweak corrections, we only need to care about the quark currents. One obtains then the simplified result:
\begin{equation}
W(\mu) \, =\, \Omega_W(\mu,M_{\mathrm{LQ}})\; W(M_{\mathrm{LQ}})\, ,
\end{equation}
where W refers to any of the Wilson coefficients in Eqs.~\eqn{eq:Lcc} to \eqn{eq:LncNeu}. At lowest order (leading logarithm), the evolution operator is given by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_W(\mu,M_{\mathrm{LQ}})\, =\, \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_q^{f+1})}\right)^{-\gamma^J_1/\beta_1^{(n_f)}}
\cdots\quad
\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(m_b)}{\alpha^{(5)}_s(m_t)}\right)^{-\gamma^J_1/\beta_1^{(5)}}\;
\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(6)}(m_t)}{\alpha^{(6)}_s(M_{\mathrm{LQ}})}\right)^{-\gamma^J_1/\beta_1^{(6)}}
\end{equation}
with $n_f$ the relevant number of quark flavours at the hadronic scale considered and $m_q^{f+1}$ the lightest (integrated out) heavy quark. The powers are governed by the first coefficients of the QCD $\beta$ function, $\beta_1^{(n_f)}= (2 n_f-33)/6$, and the current anomalous dimensions:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1^V = 0\, ,\qquad\qquad
\gamma_1^S = 2\, ,\qquad\qquad
\gamma_1^T = -2/3\, .
\end{equation}
Notice that the vector currents do not get renormalized, while the scalar and tensor currents renormalize multiplicatively.
Electroweak corrections generate sizable mixings between the scalar and tensor operators \cite{Gonzalez-Alonso:2017iyc,Aebischer:2017gaw}.
\section{Bounds from leptons}
\label{sec:Lepton}
In this section we consider processes involving charged leptons in the initial and/or final states. This includes $\mu$ and $\tau$ decays, the electric and magnetic dipole moments of the electron and the muon, and $\mu$ conversion inside nuclei. These processes are either very precisely measured at experiments or very suppressed, and even in some cases they are disallowed in the SM. As a result, strong constraints can be imposed on the leptoquark couplings which induce such phenomena.
\subsection[$\tau $ decays to mesons]{$\boldsymbol{\tau}$ decays to mesons}
\label{subsec:tau}
The heaviest charged lepton in the SM, $\tau$, is the only lepton which can decay to mesons \cite{Pich:2013lsa}. Lepton-flavour-violating $\tau$ decays into mesons and a lighter lepton $\ell = e, \mu$ are forbidden in the SM (up to tiny contributions proportional to neutrino masses that are completely negligible). However the leptoquark scenarios considered in this paper contribute to such decays at tree level.
The experimental upper bounds on several $\tau^- \to P\,\ell^-$ and $\tau^- \to V \ell^-$ decay modes, where $P$ ($V$) is a pseudo-scalar (vector) meson,
put then strong constraints on the Yukawa couplings given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lfull2}.
After integrating out the leptoquarks, these decay modes get tree-level contributions from the neutral-current operators with charged leptons in Eq.~\eqref{eq:LncLep}~\cite{He:2019xxp,He:2019iqf,Babu:2019mfe}.
For a pseudoscalar final state with flavour quantum numbers $P_{ij}^0 \equiv q^i\bar q^j$, we find
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}(\tau\to \ell\,P_{ij}^0)\, =\, \frac{i}{2}\, f_P\; \left\{ \alpha^{ij}_q\; (\bar\ell_L\tau_R) + \beta^{ij}_q\; (\bar\ell_R\tau_L)\right\}\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha^{ij}_q & = & \left[ m_\tau\, (g_{V,q}^{LL}-g_{V,q}^{RL}) - m_\ell\, (g_{V,q}^{LR}-g_{V,q}^{RR}) - \frac{m_P^2}{m_{q^i}+m_{q^j}}\, g_{S,q}^{R}
\right]^{ij,\ell 3}\, ,
\nonumber \\
\beta^{ij}_q & = & \left[ - m_\ell\, (g_{V,q}^{LL}-g_{V,q}^{RL}) + m_\tau\, (g_{V,q}^{LR}-g_{V,q}^{RR}) + \frac{m_P^2}{m_{q^i}+m_{q^j}}\, g_{S,q}^{L}
\right]^{ij,\ell 3}\, .
\eeqn
The QCD renormalization-scale dependence of the scalar Wilson coefficients $g_{S,q}^{R}$ and $g_{S,q}^{L}$ is exactly canceled by the running quark masses.
The numerical values of the meson decay constants $f_P$ are given in Appendix~\ref{app:FF}, where we compile the relevant hadronic matrix elements.
We remind that for the physical mesons one must take into account their quark structure. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\pi^0}\, =\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, (\alpha^{11}_u-\alpha^{11}_d)\, ,
\qquad\qquad
\alpha_{K_{S,L}}\, \approx\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, [\alpha^{12}_d (1 + \bar\epsilon_K)\mp \alpha^{21}_d (1 - \bar\epsilon_K)]\, ,
\end{equation}
and similar expressions for $\beta_P$.
The decay width is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\tau\to\ell\, P^0)\, =\, \frac{f_P^2\,\lambda_P^{1/2}}{128\pi m_\tau^3}\;\left\{
(m_\tau^2 + m_\ell^2 -m_P^2)\; \left( |\alpha_P|^2 + |\beta_P|^2\right)
+ 4 m_\tau m_\ell\,\mathrm{Re}\left(\alpha_P\beta^*_P\right)\right\} ,
\end{equation}
with $\lambda^{1/2}_{P,V}\equiv \lambda^{1/2}(m_\tau^2,m_\ell^2,m_{P,V}^2)$ where $\lambda(x,y,z)\equiv x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz$ is the
K\"allen function.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\resizebox{1.1\textwidth}{!}{\hspace*{-2.cm}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
& ${\rm BR_{exp}}$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Scalar leptoquark couplings} & Bound \\
\rm Mode &($\times10^{-8}$) &$R_2$ & $S_1$ & $\tilde{R}_2,\,\tilde{S}_1$ & $S_3$ &$\times \left(M_{\mathrm{LQ}}/{\rm TeV}\right)^4 $ \\[0.2ex] \hline
\noalign{\vskip1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$e \pi^0 $} & \multirow{4}{*}{ $8.0$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime-y_{31}^*y_{11}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^* _{11}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^\dagger _{11}\!-\! 2\,y_{13}y_{11}^*|^2$& $6.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|z_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$6.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$1.1\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{11}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ & $|z_{13} \tilde{y}_{11}^*|^2$& &&$1.1\times 10^{-3}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mu \pi^0 $} &\multirow{4}{*}{$11.0$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}y_{21}^\prime - y_{31}^*y_{21}|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{12}^*|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^\dagger _{21}\!-\! 2\,y_{13}y_{12}^*|^2$& $8.3\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|z_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & && $8.3\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$1.5\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{21}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ &$|z_{13}\tilde{y}_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$1.5\times 10^{-3}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$e K_S $ & $2.6 $ & $|y_{31}^*y_{12} - y_{32}^*y_{11}|^2$ & &$|y_{13}y_{21}^* - y_{23}y_{11}^*|^2$ &$4\, |y_{23}y_{11}^* - y_{13}y_{21}^*|^2$&$ 7.2\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$\mu K_S $ & $2.3 $ & $|y_{31}^*y_{22}-y_{32}^*y_{21}|^2$ & & $|y_{13}y_{22}^* - y_{23}y_{12}^*|^2$ &$4\, |y_{23}y_{12}^* - y_{13}y_{22}^*|^2$&$ 6.4\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$e \eta $ } & \multirow{4}{*}{$9.2$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime+y_{31}^*y_{11}\!-\!1.7\, y_{32}^*y_{12}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{11}^*\!-\!1.7\,y_{23} y_{21}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}\!+\! 2\,y_{13}y_{11}^* \!-\!3.4\,y_{23}y_{21}^*|^2$ &$ 1.3\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& &$|z_{13}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|z_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$ & &&$ 1.3\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$ 8.0\times 10^{-6}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{11}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ & $|z_{13} \tilde{y}_{11}^*|^2$& &&$ 8.0\times 10^{-6}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mu \eta$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$6.5$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{21}^\prime+y_{31}^*y_{21}\!-\!1.7\, y_{32}^*y_{22}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{12}^*\!-\!1.7\,y_{23} y_{22}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}\!+\! 2\,y_{13}y_{12}^* \!-\!3.4\,y_{23}y_{22}^*|^2$ &$ 9.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|z_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$ 9.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & && $ 5.7\times 10^{-6}$\\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{21}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ &$|z_{13}\tilde{y}_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$ 5.7\times 10^{-6}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$e \eta^\prime $ } & \multirow{4}{*}{$16.0$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime+y_{31}^*y_{11}\!+\!2\, y_{32}^*y_{12}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{11}^*\!+\!2\,y_{23} y_{21}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}\!+\! 2\,y_{13}y_{11}^* \!+\!4\,y_{23}y_{21}^*|^2$ &$ 3.2\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& &$|z_{13}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|z_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$ & &&$ 3.2\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$ 3.0\times 10^{-6}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{11}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ & $|z_{13} \tilde{y}_{11}^*|^2$& &&$ 3.0\times 10^{-6}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mu \eta^\prime$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$13.0 $} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{21}^\prime+y_{31}^*y_{21}\!+\!2\, y_{32}^*y_{22}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{12}^*\!+\!2\,y_{23} y_{22}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}\!+\! 2\,y_{13}y_{12}^* \!+\!4\,y_{23}y_{22}^*|^2$ &$ 2.6\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|z_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$ 2.6\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & && $ 2.4\times 10^{-6}$\\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{21}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ &$|z_{13}\tilde{y}_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$ 2.4\times 10^{-6}$ \\[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{90\% C.L. bounds on scalar leptoquark couplings from $\tau\to \ell\, P$ decays.}
\label{Table:meson}
\end{table}
The decay amplitude into a vector final state takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}(\tau\to\ell\, V_{ij}^0)& =& \frac{1}{2}\, m_V f_V \varepsilon^\mu(k)^*\;
\left(\bar\ell\gamma_\mu \left[ (g_{V,q}^{LL}+g_{V,q}^{RL})\,{\cal P}_L +
(g_{V,q}^{LR}+g_{V,q}^{RR})\,{\cal P}_R\right]^{ij,\ell 3}\tau\right)
\nonumber\\ & - &
i\, f_V^\perp(\mu)\, k^\mu\varepsilon^\nu(k)^*\;
\left(\bar\ell\, \sigma_{\mu\nu}
[g_{T,q}^{L}{\cal P}_L + g_{T,q}^{R}{\cal P}_R]^{ij,\ell 3}\tau\right)\, .
\eeqn
Denoting by $\alpha_V^L$, $\alpha_V^R$, $\alpha_V^{TL}$ and $\alpha_V^{TR}$
the corresponding combinations of leptoquark couplings
$(g_{V,q}^{LL}+g_{V,q}^{RL})^{ij,\ell 3}$,
$(g_{V,q}^{LR}+g_{V,q}^{RR})^{ij,\ell 3}$,
$(g_{T,q}^{L})^{ij,\ell 3}$ and
$(g_{T,q}^{R})^{ij,\ell 3}$,
respectively, for a given vector meson $V$, we find,
\begin{align}
\Gamma(\tau\to\ell\, V^0)\, =&\, \frac{\lambda_V^{1/2}}{128\pi m_\tau^3}\;
\left[
f_V^2\,\left\{ [(m_\tau^2-m_\ell^2)^2+m_V^2\, (m_\tau^2+m_\ell^2) - 2 m_V^4]
\left( |\alpha_V^L|^2 + |\alpha_V^R|^2 \right)
\right.\right. \nonumber \\ & \hskip 2.7cm\left.\left.
-\, 12\, m_\tau m_\ell\, m_V^2\;\mathrm{Re}\left(\alpha_V^L \alpha_V^{R*}\right)\right\}
\right. \nonumber\\ & \left.
+\, 4 f_V^\perp(\mu)^2 \left\{ [2\, (m_\tau^2-m_\ell^2)^2-m_V^2\, (m_\tau^2+m_\ell^2) - m_V^4] \left[ |\alpha_V^{TL}|^2 + |\alpha_V^{TR}|^2 \right]
\right.\right. \nonumber\\ & \hskip 2.7cm\left.\left.
-\, 12\, m_\tau m_\ell m_V^2\;\mathrm{Re}\left(\alpha_V^{TL} \alpha_V^{TR*}\right)\right\}
\right. \nonumber \\ & \left.
+\,12\, f_V f_V^\perp(\mu)\, m_V \left\{
m_\ell\, (m_\tau^2-m_\ell^2 + m_V^2)\;
\mathrm{Re}\left( \alpha_V^L \alpha_V^{TL*} + \alpha_V^R \alpha_V^{TR*}\right)
\right.\right. \nonumber\\ & \hskip 3.cm\left.\left.
-\, m_\tau\, (m_\tau^2-m_\ell^2 - m_V^2)\;
\mathrm{Re}\left( \alpha_V^L \alpha_V^{TR*} + \alpha_V^R \alpha_V^{TL*}\right)
\right\}
\right]\, .
\end{align}
The vector-meson couplings to the tensor quark currents, $f_V^\perp(\mu)$, are defined in Appendix~\ref{app:FF}, where their currently estimated values are also given.
\begin{table}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\resizebox{1.08\textwidth}{!}{\hspace*{-1.cm}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c}
\hline \hline
& ${\rm BR_{exp}}$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Scalar leptoquark couplings} & Bound \\
\rm Mode &($\times10^{-8}$) &$R_2$ & $S_1$ & $\tilde{R}_2,~(\tilde{S}_1)$ & $S_3$ &$\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^4 $ \\[0.2ex] \hline
\noalign{\vskip1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$e \rho^0$} &\multirow{4}{*}{ $1.8$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime-y_{31}^*y_{11}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{11}^*|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}- 2\,y_{13}y_{11}^*|^2$&$ 3.0\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|z_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$ & &&$ 3.0\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$1.2\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{11}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ & $|z_{13} \tilde{y}_{11}^*|^2$& &&$1.2\times 10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mu \rho^0$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$1.2$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}y_{21}^\prime - y_{31}^*y_{21}|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{12}^*|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}- 2\,y_{13}y_{12}^*|^2$&$ 2.0\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{12}^*|^2$ &$|z_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & && $2.0\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$7.8\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{21}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ &$|z_{13}\tilde{y}_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$7.8\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$e \omega $} & \multirow{4}{*}{$4.8$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime +y_{31}^*y_{11}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{11}^*|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{11}+ 2\,y_{13}y_{11}^*|^2$&$ 9.9\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|z_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$ & && $ 9.9\times 10^{-5}$\\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{11}^*|^2$& &&$3.1\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{11}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ & $|z_{13} \tilde{y}_{11}^*|^2$& &&$3.1\times 10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mu \omega$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$4.7$} & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}y_{21}^\prime + y_{31}^*y_{21}|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}|^2$ & $|y_{13} y_{12}^*|^2$ &$|\tilde{y}_{13}\tilde{y}^*_{12}+ 2\,y_{13}y_{12}^*|^2$& $ 9.8\times 10^{-5}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|z_{13}z_{12}^*|^2$ &$|z_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & && $ 9.8\times 10^{-5}$\\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{13}^{\prime\,\dagger}z_{12}^*|^2$
&$|\tilde{y}_{13} z_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$3.1\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
& & $|y_{21}^\prime z_{13}|^2$ &$|z_{13}\tilde{y}_{12}^*|^2$ & &&$3.1\times 10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$e K^{*0} $ & $3.2 $ & $|y_{31}^*y_{12}|^2$ & &
$|y_{13}y_{21}^*|^2 ,(|y_{23}y_{11}^*|^2)$ &
$4\, |y_{23}y_{11}^*|^2$ &$ 5.8\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$\mu K^{*0}$ & $5.9$ & $|y_{31}^*y_{22}|^2$ & &
$|y_{13}y_{22}^*|^2 ,(|y_{23}y_{12}^*|^2)$
&$4\, |y_{23}y_{12}^*|^2$ &$1.1\times 10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$e \overline{K}^{*0} $ & $3.4 $ & $|y_{32}^*y_{11}|^2$ & &
$|y_{23}y_{11}^*|^2,(|y_{13}y_{21}^*|^2)$ &
$4\, |y_{13}y_{21}^*|^2$ &$ 6.2\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$\mu \overline{K}^{*0}$ & $7.0$ & $|y_{32}^*y_{21}|^2$ & &
$|y_{23}y_{12}^*|^2 ,(|y_{13}y_{22}^*|^2)$
&$4\, |y_{13}y_{22}^*|^2$ &$1.3\times 10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$e \phi $ & $3.1 $ & $|y_{32}^*y_{12}|^2$ & & $|y_{23}y_{21}^*|^2$
& 4\,$|y_{23}y_{21}^*|^2$ &$5.1\times 10^{-5}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$\mu \phi$ & $8.4 $ & $|y_{32}^*y_{22}|^2$ & & $|y_{23}y_{22}^*|^2$
& 4\,$|y_{23}y_{22}^*|^2$ &$1.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.2ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{90\% C.L. bounds on scalar leptoquark couplings from $\tau\to \ell\, V$ decays.}
\label{Table:meson2}
\end{table}
There are strong experimental (90\% C.L.) upper bounds on the $\tau\to \ell\, P$ and $\tau\to \ell\, V$ decay modes, with $P=\pi^0,K_S,\eta,\eta^\prime$ and $V=\rho^0,\omega,K^{*0},\overline{K}^{*0},\phi$ \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. In Tables~\ref{Table:meson} and \ref{Table:meson2} we highlight the corresponding upper limits on the product of leptoquark Yukawa couplings that arise from such measurements, for the five different types of scalar leptoquarks.
Columns 3 to 6 indicate the combinations of couplings that get bounded in each case.
For simplicity we have dropped the subscript with the leptoquark name in the Yukawa matrix elements.
The upper bounds on these couplings are given in the last column of the Tables.
Notice that the limits scale with $M_{\mathrm{LQ}}^4$ (the numbers correspond to $M_{\mathrm{LQ}}= 1~\mathrm{TeV}$) and deteriorate very fast with increasing leptoquark masses.
For the $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquarks,
the decay amplitudes $\tau\to \pi^0\ell,\eta\ell,\eta^\prime\ell$ and $\tau\to \rho^0 \ell,\omega\ell$
can receive contributions from several combinations of couplings that
we have separated in four rows. The first two correspond to contributions from vector and axial-vector operators, which can arise when either $\ensuremath{Y_{\rm LQ}}$ or $\ensuremath{Z_{\rm LQ}}$ is non-zero. The first row assumes $\ensuremath{Z_{\rm LQ}}=0$ in order to bound $\ensuremath{Y_{\rm LQ}}$, while the opposite is done in the second row.
The pseudoscalar and tensor operators can only generate contributions when both $\ensuremath{Y_{\rm LQ}}$ and $\ensuremath{Z_{\rm LQ}}$ are non-vanishing; the corresponding combinations of couplings are given in the third and fourth rows, and their limits assume all other contributions to be absent. Obviously, these bounds are weaker since they neglect possible interference effects that could generate fine-tuned cancellations.
We have neglected the tiny $CP$-violating component of the $K_S$ state. We remind that the `prime' and `tilde' notations imply the inclusion of the CKM matrix $V$ as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:notation}. In several decays similar combinations of couplings with the same lepton flavour appear, e.g., $\pi^0,~\eta,~\eta^\prime,~\rho^0,~\omega$. For these cases the strongest bound on vector operators comes from the $\rho^0$ mode, while the $\eta^\prime$ channel provides a stronger limit on the scalar and tensor contributions.
\subsection{Leptonic dipole moments and rare decays of leptons}
\label{subsec:g-2}
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{diarare.pdf}
\caption{Scalar leptoquark ($\phi$) contributions to lepton dipole moments ($\ell' = \ell$) and $\ell\to\ell^\prime\gamma$.}
\label{dia:rare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The leptoquark coupling to a charged lepton and a quark can give rise to an anomalous magnetic or electric dipole moment of the corresponding charged lepton (when $\ell^\prime\equiv\ell$), or to the radiative lepton-flavour-violating decay $\ell\to\ell^\prime\gamma$, via the one-loop diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{dia:rare}.
\subsubsection{Anomalous magnetic moments}
The interaction term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:efflq}
\bar \ell_i ( \lambda_L^{ij} P_R + \lambda_R^{ij} P_L ) q_j \:
\phi^* + {\rm h.c.} \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\phi$ being the scalar leptoquark and $\lambda^{ij}$ the corresponding Yukawa coupling, induces NP contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment $a_\ell \equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(g-2\right)_\ell$ given by~\cite{Choudhury:2001ad,Cheung:2001ip}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:g-2}
\Delta a_{\ell_i}\, =\, \frac{-3}{16 \pi^2}
\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\, \sum_{j}\, &\bigg\{
( |\lambda_L^{ij}|^2 + |\lambda_R^{ij}|^2 )\, \left[ Q_{q_j} F_1(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ} F_2(x_j) \right] \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{m_{q_j}}{m_\ell}\; \text{Re}
(\lambda_L^{ij} \lambda_R^{ij*})\, \left[ Q_q F_3(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ} F_4(x_j)\right]
\bigg\}\, ,
\end{align}
where the loop functions are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_1(x_j) &=&
\frac{1}{6 \,(1-x_j)^4} \, (2+3 \, x_j-6 \, x_j^2+x_j^3+6 \, x_j \, \ln x_j) \;, \nonumber \\
F_2(x_j) &=& \frac{1}{6 \, (1-x_j)^4} \, (1-6 \, x_j+3 \, x_j^2+2 \, x_j^3-6 \, x_j^2 \, \ln x_j) \; ,
\nonumber \\
F_3(x_j) &=&
\frac{1}{(1-x_j)^3} \, (-3+4 \, x_j-x_j^2-2 \, \ln x_j) \; ,
\nonumber \\
F_4(x_j) &=& \frac{1}{(1-x_j)^3} \, (1-x_j^2+2 \, x_j \,\ln x_j) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above expression, $Q_q$ and $Q_{\rm LQ} $ are the EM charges of the quark and leptoquark flowing in the loop, respectively, $x_j=m_{q_j}^2/M^2_{\rm LQ}$, and we have neglected terms proportional
to $m_\ell^2/M^2_{\rm LQ}$. Note that when working in the charge-conjugate quark basis one has to flip the sign of the mass and charge of the corresponding quark in the above expressions.
It is interesting to note that the current discrepancies between data and theoretical estimates for the muon and electron $g-2$ have opposite signs. The difference $\Delta a_\mu \equiv a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}$ is non-zero and positive with a significance of $3.7\sigma$~\cite{Bennett:2006fi,Davier:2017zfy,Jegerlehner:2017lbd,Keshavarzi:2018mgv,Blum:2018mom}, whereas the deviation is at the $2.4\sigma$ level for $\Delta a_e\equiv a_e^{\rm exp}-a_e^{\rm SM}$ and with the opposite sign~\cite{Hanneke:2008tm,Mohr:2015ccw,Aoyama:2017uqe,Parker:2018vye,Davoudiasl:2018fbb}.
The explicit values are quoted in the first column of Table~\ref{Table:g-2}.
It can be easily seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:g-2} that leptoquarks having both left- and right-handed couplings to charged leptons can generate much larger contributions than those with only one type (either left or right) of interaction, due to the enhancement from the quark mass in the loop, especially the top quark. In that case, the second term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:g-2} dominates over the first term. Such scenario occurs for the $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquarks. After summing over the contributions from the second and third quark generations in the loop (the contribution from the first generation is negligible), the respective constraint equations for $R_2$ and $S_1$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R2G-2}
\text{Re}(y^\prime_{i3}z_{3i})+0.029 \,\text{Re}(y^\prime_{i2}z_{2i})
\; =\; \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle (1.2\pm 0.5)\!\times\! 10^{-4}\;\left(\frac{M_{\rm LQ}}{\rm TeV}\right)^2 & & (i=1),
\\[3ex]
\displaystyle \displaystyle (-1.8\pm 0.5)\!\times\! 10^{-3}\;\left(\frac{M_{\rm LQ}}{\rm TeV}\right)^2 & \hskip-20pt & (i=2),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S1G-2}
\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{3i}z_{3i}^*)+0.042 \,\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{2i}z_{2i}^*)
\; =\;\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle (2.0\pm 0.8)\!\times\! 10^{-4}\;\left(\frac{M_{\rm LQ}}{\rm TeV}\right)^2 & & (i=1),
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle (-3.0\pm 0.8)\!\times\! 10^{-3}\;\left(\frac{M_{\rm LQ}}{\rm TeV}\right)^2 & & (i=2),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $i=1,2$ represent the electron and muon cases, respectively. As the loop functions depend on the leptoquark mass, it is not possible to
completely factor out the dependence on $M_{\rm LQ}$.
The numerical coefficients written above have been obtained with $M_{\rm LQ}=1$~TeV.
These two equations depict the allowed $\pm 1\sigma$ regions that could explain the measured anomalous magnetic moments. In the first and second rows of Table~\ref{Table:g-2} we separately highlight the needed ranges of leptoquark couplings for the discrepancy to be fully ascribed to either the top or charm quark flowing in the loop, respectively. It can be noted from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:R2G-2} and \eqref{eq:S1G-2} that the difference in limits is not simply linear in quark masses, as the loop functions depend significantly on $m_{q_j}$. The explanation of the muon $g-2$ anomaly in explicit leptoquark models is subject to several other constraints; some detailed studies can be found in Refs.\cite{ColuccioLeskow:2016dox,Kowalska:2018ulj}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c}
\hline \hline
$\Delta a_\ell \equiv a_\ell^{\rm exp}-a_\ell^{\rm SM}$ &
$R_2$ leptoquark & $S_1$ leptoquark
\\
\hline \noalign{\vskip3pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$\Delta a_e = \left(-87\pm 36\right)\!\times\!10^{-14} $ }& $\text{Re}(y^\prime_{13}z_{31})\!\in\! [7,17]\!\times\!10^{-5} $ & $\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{31}z_{31}^*)\!\in\! [12,28]\!\times\!10^{-5}$ \\[0.5ex]
& $\text{Re}(y^\prime_{12}z_{21})\!\in\! [24,58]\!\times\!10^{-4} $ & $\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{21}z_{21}^*)\!\in\! [27,66]\!\times\!10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$\Delta a_\mu = \left(2.74\pm 0.73\right)\!\times\!10^{-9}$} & $\text{Re}(y^\prime_{23}z_{32})\!\in\! [-23,-13]\!\times\!10^{-4}$ & $\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{32}z_{32}^*)\!\in\![-37,-22]\!\times\!10^{-4}$\\[0.5ex]
& $\text{Re}(y^\prime_{22}z_{22})\!\in\! [-78,-45]\!\times\!10^{-3}$ & $\text{Re}(\tilde{y}_{22}z_{22}^*)\!\in\![-88,-51]\!\times\!10^{-3}$\\[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$1\sigma$ ranges of $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquark couplings able to explain the electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments, for
$M_{\rm LQ}=1$~TeV. For larger leptoquark masses, the numbers increase approximately as $M_{\rm LQ}^2$.}
\label{Table:g-2}
\end{table}
In the absence of either the left- or right-handed coupling to charged leptons, the expression in Eq.~\eqref{eq:g-2} simplifies significantly and can be written, in the limit $x_j\to 0$, as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:g-2-2}
\Delta a_{\ell_i}\, &=\, \frac{-3}{16 \pi^2}
\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\: \sum_{j}
|\lambda_{L/R}^{ij}|^2 \left[ Q_q F_1(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ} F_2(x_j) \right], \nonumber \\
&=\, \frac{-3}{96 \pi^2}
\frac{m_\ell^2}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\:\sum_{j} |\lambda_{L/R}^{ij}|^2 \left( 2\,Q_q + Q_{\rm LQ} \right).
\end{align}
Due to the $m_\ell$ suppression, the resulting ranges of couplings are irrelevant for a TeV-mass leptoquark, as they exceed the perturbativity limit.
Therefore, we do not show them in Table~\ref{Table:g-2} and simply conclude that the $\tilde{R_2},~\tilde{S_1}$ and $S_3$ leptoquarks cannot provide an explanation of the magnetic moment anomalies.\footnote{Ref.~\cite{Dorsner:2019itg} avoids the chiral suppression through scenarios which combine two different leptoquarks with fermionic couplings of opposite chirality.}
\subsubsection{Electric dipole moments}
Leptoquarks can also induce a lepton electric dipole moment (EDM) through the imaginary part of the Yukawa couplings in Eq.~\eqn{eq:efflq}. The effect is significant only when the leptoquark couples directly to both the left- and right-handed charged lepton, so that at one loop the top quark mass can induce the chirality flip. The relevant expression is given by~\cite{Cheung:2001ip}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:EDM}
|d_{\ell_i}|\; =\; \frac{3\,e}{32 \pi^2}\: \sum_{j}
\frac{m_{q_j}}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\; \big|\text{Im}
(\lambda_L^{ij} \lambda_R^{ij*}) \left[ Q_q F_3(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ} F_4(x_j) \right]\big|\, .
\end{align}
The most stringent limit on the electron EDM, extracted from polar ThO molecules~\cite{Baron:2013eja}, is given in the second column of Table~\ref{Table:EDM}. This 90\% C.L. bound excludes several BSM models with time-reversal symmetry violating interactions and, as expected, the ensuing limits on the imaginary part of the product of leptoquark couplings (for $R_2$ and $S_1$) are also very restrictive. However the current bound on the muon EDM~\cite{Bennett:2008dy} gives a much weaker constraint on these NP couplings, with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values still allowed.
The experimental EDM limits constrain combinations of couplings similar to the l.h.s of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:R2G-2} and \eqref{eq:S1G-2}, replacing the real parts by their imaginary parts. Instead of summing over contributions from all quarks, we separately show each contribution in Table~\ref{Table:EDM}, where the bounds on the top quark couplings are written in the first rows, for both electron and muon EDMs; however, for the charm quark only the electron EDM provides a relevant bound, shown in the second row. A discussion on the constraints from EDMs of nucleons, atoms, and molecules on scalar leptoquark couplings can be found in Ref.~\cite{Dekens:2018bci}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c}
\hline \hline
$|d_\ell|$& $|d_\ell^{\rm\, exp}|$ ($e$\,cm) &
$R_2$ leptoquark & $S_1$ leptoquark
\\
\hline \noalign{\vskip4pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$|d_e| $} & \multirow{2}{*}{$<\, 8.7\times 10^{-29} $} & $|\text{Im}(y^\prime_{13}z_{31})|<6.2 \times 10^{-10} $ & $|\text{Im}(\tilde{y}_{31}z_{31}^*)|< 1.0\times 10^{-9}$ \\[0.5ex]
& & $|\text{Im}(y^\prime_{12}z_{21})|<2.2 \times 10^{-8} $ & $|\text{Im}(\tilde{y}_{21}z_{21}^*)|< 2.4\times 10^{-8}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$|d_\mu| $ & $<\, 1.9\times\!10^{-19}$ & $|\text{Im}(y^\prime_{23}z_{32})|< 1.4$ & $|\text{Im}(\tilde{y}_{32}z_{32}^*)|<2.1$\\[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Bounds on $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquark couplings from the electric dipole moments of leptons, at 90\% C.L. (95\% C.L.) for the electron (muon), for $M_{\rm LQ}=1$~TeV. For larger leptoquark masses, the numbers increase approximately as $M_{\rm LQ}^2$.}
\label{Table:EDM}
\end{table}
\subsubsection[Radiative $\ell \to \ell^\prime \gamma$ decays]{Radiative $\boldsymbol{\ell \to \ell^\prime \gamma}$ decays}
The interaction term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:efflq} can also generate the rare lepton-flavour-violating decays $\ell \to \ell^\prime \gamma$. Apart from the two Feynman topologies shown in Fig.~\ref{dia:rare}, there exist two more diagrams where the photon is emitted from any of the external lepton lines. Including all four contributions, the decay width can be written as \cite{Lavoura:2003xp,Benbrik:2008si}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Gamma}(\ell_i \to \ell'_k \gamma) &=& \frac{\alpha}{4}\,
\frac{(m^2_\ell - m^2_{\ell'})^3}{ m^3_\ell }\;\sum_{j} \bigg(
|A_{R}^{ijk}|^2 + |A_{L}^{ijk}|^2 \bigg),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:AR}
A_{R}^{ijk} &=& \frac{3}{32 \pi^2}
\frac{1}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\; \Bigg\{
\big(m_{\ell_i} \lambda_L^{ij} \lambda_L^{kj*} + m_{\ell'_k}\lambda_R^{ij} \lambda_R^{kj*} \big)
\big[ Q_qF_{1}(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ}F_{2}(x_j)\big]
\nonumber \\
&&\hskip 1.95cm\mbox{}+ m_{q_j}\,
\big(\lambda_L^{ij} \lambda_R^{kj*}\big) \big[ Q_q F_{3}(x_j) + Q_{\rm LQ}
F_4 (x_j)\big]\Bigg\}\, ,
\\
A_{L}^{ijk} &=& A_{R}^{ijk}( R \leftrightarrow L)\, .
\end{eqnarray}
The terms proportional to $m_{\ell^{(\prime)}}$ arise from the topologies where the photon is emitted from the $\ell^{(\prime)}$ line. These contributions are suppressed compared to the enhancement due to heavy quarks flowing in the loop, as shown by the last term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:AR}. Similarly to the previous discussion of dipole moments, only the leptoquarks having both left- and right-handed couplings to charged leptons can generate such enhancement.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\resizebox{1.02\textwidth}{!}{\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\hline \hline
LQ &Bounds from $\mu \to e \gamma $ & Bounds from $\tau \to e \gamma $ & Bounds from $\tau \to \mu \gamma $
\\
\hline \noalign{\vskip3pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$R_2 $} & $|y^\prime_{23}z_{31}|^2,|y^\prime_{13}z_{32}|^2\!<\!1.2\times10^{-15}$ & $|y^\prime_{33}z_{31}|^2,|y^\prime_{13}z_{33}|^2\!<\!1.4\times10^{-7}$ &$|y^\prime_{33}z_{32}|^2,|y^\prime_{23}z_{33}|^2\!<\!1.9\times10^{-7}$ \\[0.5ex]
& $|y^\prime_{22}z_{21}|^2,|y^\prime_{12}z_{22}|^2\!<\!1.3\times10^{-12}$ & $|y^\prime_{32}z_{21}|^2,|y^\prime_{12}z_{23}|^2\!<\!1.6\times10^{-4}$ &$|y^\prime_{32}z_{22}|^2,|y^\prime_{22}z_{23}|^2\!<\!2.2\times10^{-4}$
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$S_1 $} & $|\tilde{y}_{32}z_{31}^*|^2,|\tilde{y}_{31}z_{32}^*|^2\!<\!3.0\times10^{-15} $ & $|\tilde{y}_{33}z_{31}^*|^2, |\tilde{y}_{31}z_{33}^*|^2\!<\!3.8\times10^{-7}$ & $|\tilde{y}_{33}z_{32}^*|^2,|\tilde{y}_{32}z_{33}^*|^2\!<\!5.0\times10^{-7} $\\[0.5ex]
& $|\tilde{y}_{22}z_{21}^*|^2,|\tilde{y}_{21}z_{22}^*|^2\!<\!1.7\times10^{-12} $ & $|\tilde{y}_{23}z_{21}^*|^2, |\tilde{y}_{21}z_{23}^*|^2\!<\!2.1\times10^{-4}$ & $|\tilde{y}_{23}z_{22}^*|^2,|\tilde{y}_{22}z_{23}^*|^2\!<\!2.8\times10^{-4} $
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
$\tilde{S_1} $ & $|y_{32}y_{31}^*|^2\!<\!5.4\times10^{-7} $ & $|y_{33}y_{31}^*|^2\!<\!2.3\times10^{-1}$ & $|y_{33}y_{32}^*|^2\!<\!3.1\times10^{-1} $
\\[.2ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip 1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$S_3 $} & $|y_{32}y_{31}^*|^2\!<\!1.3\times10^{-7} $ & $|y_{33}y_{31}^*|^2\!<\!5.8\times10^{-2}$ & $|y_{33}y_{32}^*|^2\!<\!7.7\times10^{-2} $\\[0.5ex]
& $|\tilde{y}_{32}\tilde{y}_{13}^\dagger|^2\!<\!3.4\times10^{-6} $ & $|\tilde{y}_{33}\tilde{y}_{13}^\dagger|^2\!<\!1.5$ & $|\tilde{y}_{33}\tilde{y}_{23}^\dagger|^2\!<\! 1.9 $\\[0.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Bounds on leptoquark couplings from $\ell \to \ell^\prime \gamma$, at 90\% C.L.\,. The limits are obtained for $M_{\rm LQ}=1$~TeV, and scale (approximately for $R_2 $ and $S_1$) as $M_{\rm LQ}^4$ for heavier leptoquark masses.}
\label{Table:rare}
\end{table}
The MEG experiment provides the most stringent upper limit on $\mu\to e\gamma$ \cite{TheMEG:2016wtm}, while for $\tau \to \ell\gamma$ the strongest bounds have been put by BaBar \cite{Aubert:2009ag}. The current 90\% C.L. limits are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:datalgamma}
{\rm BR}(\mu\to e\gamma)< 4.2\times 10^{-13}, \quad
{\rm BR}(\tau\to e\gamma)< 3.3\times 10^{-8},\quad
{\rm BR}(\tau\to \mu\gamma)< 4.4\times 10^{-8}.
\end{eqnarray}
These experimental bounds imply the constraints on the appropriate combinations of leptoquark Yukawa parameters given in Table~\ref{Table:rare}.
As discussed above, due to the large top-loop contribution, we find severe limits for the $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquark couplings, as shown in their first row in the table. Whereas the second row for these two leptoquarks displays much weaker limits on the charm couplings (assuming that only the charm quark contributes in the loop). For $R_2$, the relevant contributions come from its component $R_2^{5/3}$, because the other charge component $R_2^{2/3}$ couples only to right-handed leptons as can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lfull2}. It is interesting to note in Table~\ref{Table:rare} that, contrary to the case of lepton dipole moments where reasonable bounds are absent for the leptoquarks with only left- or right-handed interactions, here, in these rare decays we find significant upper bounds (especially in $\mu\to e \gamma$) for the $\tilde{S_1}$ and $S_3$ leptoquarks. For $S_3$, the first and second rows in the table correspond to the limits arising from its $S_3^{4/3}$ and $S_3^{1/3}$ components, respectively. There are no useful bounds for $\tilde{R_2}$ because the corresponding combination of EM charges and loop functions, $Q_d F_{1}(x_j) + Q_{\tilde{R_2}} F_{2}(x_j)$, is almost vanishing for down-type quarks and a TeV-mass $\tilde{R_2}$.
\subsubsection[Rare $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$ decays]{Rare $\boldsymbol{\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}}$ decays}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{3ldiaP.pdf}\hspace*{3cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.27\linewidth]{3ldiaB.pdf}
\caption{Penguin and box scalar leptoquark ($\phi$) contributions to the decays $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$. Diagrams with the leptoquark and quark lines interchanged are not shown.}\label{dia:3l}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The rare lepton-flavour-violating decays $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$ are also induced by the leptoquarks, at the one-loop level. These decays proceed via penguin diagrams with $Z$ and $\gamma$ exchanges, and via box diagrams with quarks and leptoquarks within the loop, as shown in the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{dia:3l}, respectively.
The interaction term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:efflq} generates the
following decay rate into final leptons with identical flavour~\cite{Arganda:2005ji,Benbrik:2010cf,deBoer:2015boa,Abada:2014kba}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3l}
{\rm BR}(\ell_i^- \to (3\ell_n)^-) \;=\;\frac{\alpha_e^2m_{\ell_i}^5}{32\pi\Gamma_{\ell_i}}\;
&\bigg\{ |T_{1L}|^2+|T_{1R}|^2+\left(|T_{2L}|^2+|T_{2R}|^2\right)\left(\frac{16}{3}\ln\frac{m_{\ell_i}}{m_{\ell_n}}-\frac{22}{3}\right)\nonumber\\
&-4\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{1L}T_{2R}^*+T_{2L}T_{1R}^*]\nonumber\\
&+\frac16\left(|B_{1L}|^2+|B_{1R}|^2\right)+\frac13\left(|B_{2L}|^2+|B_{2R}|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac13\left(2\left(|Z_L g_{Ll}|^2+|Z_R g_{Rl}|^2\right)+|Z_L g_{Rl}|^2+|Z_R g_{Ll}|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{1L}B_{1L}^*+T_{1R}B_{1R}^*+T_{1L}B_{2L}^*+T_{1R}B_{2R}^*]\nonumber\\
&-\frac43\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{2R}B_{1L}^*+T_{2L} B_{1R}^* +T_{2L}B_{2R}^*+T_{2R} B_{2L}^*]\nonumber\\
&+\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[B_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+B_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Rl}+B_{2L}Z_L^*g_{Rl}+B_{2R}Z_R^*g_{Ll}]\nonumber\\
&+\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[2\, (T_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+T_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Rl})+T_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Rl}+T_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Ll}]\nonumber\\
&+\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[-4\, (T_{2R}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+T_{2L}Z_R^*g_{Rl})-2(T_{2L}Z_R^*g_{Ll}+T_{2R}Z_L^*g_{Rl})]\bigg\}\,.
\end{align}
This expression gets slightly modified when there are two different lepton flavours in the final state\cite{Abada:2014kba}~:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:llplp}
{\rm BR}(\ell_i^- \to \ell_m^- \ell_n^- \ell_n^+) \;=\;\frac{\alpha_e^2m_{\ell_i}^5}{32\pi\Gamma_{\ell_i}}\;
&\bigg\{ \frac23 (|T_{1L}|^2+|T_{1R}|^2)+\left(|T_{2L}|^2+|T_{2R}|^2\right)\left(\frac{16}{3}\ln\frac{m_{\ell_i}}{m_{\ell_n}}-8\right)\nonumber\\
&-\frac83\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{1L}T_{2R}^*+T_{2L}T_{1R}^*]\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{12}\left(|B_{1L}|^2+|B_{1R}|^2\right)+\frac13\left(|B_{2L}|^2+|B_{2R}|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac13\left(|Z_L g_{Ll}|^2+|Z_R g_{Rl}|^2+|Z_L g_{Rl}|^2+|Z_R g_{Ll}|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac13\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{1L}B_{1L}^*+T_{1R}B_{1R}^*+2\,(T_{1L}B_{2L}^*+T_{1R}B_{2R}^*)]\nonumber\\
&-\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{2R}B_{1L}^*+T_{2L} B_{1R}^* +2\,(T_{2L}B_{2R}^*+T_{2R} B_{2L}^*)] \nonumber\\
&+\frac13\,\mathrm{Re}[B_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+B_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Rl}+2\,(B_{2L}Z_L^*g_{Rl}+B_{2R}Z_R^*g_{Ll})]\nonumber\\
&+\frac23\,\mathrm{Re}[ T_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+T_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Rl}+T_{1L}Z_L^*g_{Rl}+T_{1R}Z_R^*g_{Ll}]\nonumber\\
&-\frac43\,\mathrm{Re}[T_{2R}Z_L^*g_{Ll}+T_{2L}Z_R^*g_{Rl}+T_{2L}Z_R^*g_{Ll}+T_{2R}Z_L^*g_{Rl}]\bigg\}\,,
\end{align}
The contributions from photon penguin diagrams are encoded in the $T_{1L,1R}$ and $T_{2L,2R}$ terms, whereas the $Z$-penguin effects are included in $Z_{L,R}$. The box-diagram decay amplitudes are denoted by $B_{1L,1R},\, B_{2L,2R}$.
\tp{It} can be seen from the detailed expressions given in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:T1exp}--\eqref{eq:B2exp}, that the penguin contributions are enhanced by a factor $\ln(M_{\rm LQ}^2/m_{q_j}^2)$ and dominate over the box contributions, for leptoquark masses in the TeV range:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:T1exp}
T_{1L,1R}\; &=\; -\frac3{16\pi^2}\frac1{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\;\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*} \left[\left(\frac49+\frac13\ln x_j\right)Q_q+\frac{1}{18}\, Q_{\rm LQ}\right]\,,\\
T_{2L,2R}\; &=\; -\frac3{16\pi^2}\frac1{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\,\bigg\{ \left[\frac16\,\lambda_{R,L}^{ij}\lambda_{R,L}^{mj*}+\frac{m_{q_j}}{m_{\ell_j}}\,\lambda_{R,L}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\left(\frac32+\ln x_j\right)\right] Q_q\nonumber\\
&\hskip 2.9cm\mbox{}
+\left(\frac1{12}\,\lambda_{R,L}^{ij}\lambda_{R,L}^{mj*}-\frac12\,\frac{m_{q_j}}{m_{\ell_i}}\,\lambda_{R,L}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\right) Q_{\rm LQ}\bigg\}\,,\\
Z_{L,R}\; &=\; -\frac3{16\pi^2}\frac1{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\;\lambda_{L,R}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\frac1{m_Z^2\sin^2\theta_w\cos^2\theta_w}
\nonumber\\
&\times\left[\frac34\, m_{\ell_i}^2\,
g_{Lq,Rq}-m_{q_j}^2\left(1+\ln x_j\right)g_{Rq,Lq}
- \frac34\, m_{\ell_i}^2\, g
\right]\, ,
\\
B_{1L,1R}\; &=\;\frac3{32\pi^2}\frac{-1}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\;\lambda_{L,R}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\left|\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}\right|^2\,,\\
\label{eq:B2exp}
B_{2L,2R}\; &=\;\frac3{64\pi^2}\frac{-1}{M^2_{\rm LQ}}\;\lambda_{L,R}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\left|\lambda_{R,L}^{nk}\right|^2,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
g_{Ll,Rl}=T_3^{(l_L,l_R)}+ \sin^2\theta_w\,,\quad g_{Lq,Rq}=T_3^{(q_L,q_R)}-Q_q \sin^2\theta_w\,,\quad g=T_3^{\rm LQ}-Q_{\rm LQ}\sin^2\theta_w\,.
\end{align}
Here, $T_3^{\rm LQ}$, $T_3^{(l_L,l_R)}$ and $T_3^{(q_L,q_R)}$ denote the third components of the weak isospin of the leptoquark, the SM charged leptons and the quarks, respectively.
These rare decays have not been yet observed at experiments. The current 90\% C.L. upper bounds are~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:data3l}
&{\rm BR}(\mu^- \to e^- e^-e^+)<1.0\times 10^{-12}\, ,
\nonumber \\
&{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to e^- e^-e^+)<2.7\times 10^{-8}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to \mu^- \mu^-\mu^+)<2.1\times 10^{-8}\, ,
\nonumber \\
&{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to e^- \mu^- \mu^+)<2.7\times 10^{-8}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to \mu^- e^-e^+)<1.8\times 10^{-8}\, ,
\nonumber \\
&{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to e^+ \mu^- \mu^-)<1.7\times 10^{-8}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
{\rm BR}(\tau^- \to \mu^+ e^-e^-)<1.5\times 10^{-8}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
For the first five modes both the penguin and box diagrams contribute, whereas the last two decays proceed only via box diagrams. We note that for the leptoquarks having both left- and right-handed couplings to quarks and leptons, i.e., $R_2$ and $S_1$, the resulting limits on the product of Yukawa couplings are two to three orders of magnitude weaker in the $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$ mode compared to the corresponding rare decay $\ell \to \ell^\prime \gamma$ (shown in Table~\ref{Table:rare}). Hence we do not quote such limits here. Instead we obtain constrained equations among various couplings of the form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cons3l}
|\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}|^2 \left[ a_1^j+ a_2^j\, \sum_{k=1}^3\left|\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}\right|^2 +\left( \sum_{k=1}^3\left|\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}\right|^2\right)^{\!\!2} \right] \le\, a_3\, .
\end{align}
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{c| c c c c c }
\hline \hline
&$R_2$ & $S_1$ & $\tilde{R}_2$ & $\tilde{S}_1$ & $S_3$ \\
& ($R_2^{5/3},R_2^{2/3}$)&&&& ($S_3^{4/3},S_3^{1/3}$)\\ \hline \hline
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$a_2^{1,2,3}$} & $-47.2,-24.6,8.0$ & $45.4,22.8,-9.8$ & $20.9,15.6,8.6$ &$-22.7,-17.4,-10.4$& $-22.7,-17.4,-10.4$ \\
& $20.9,15.6,8.6$&&&& $45.4,22.8,-9.8$\\[.3ex] \hline
\parbox[c]{1mm}{\multirow{7}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\mu^-\!\! \to 3\,e$}}} \multirow{2}{*}{$|\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}|^2$}
& $| y^\prime_{2j} y_{j1}^{\prime\,\dagger}|^2,|z_{j2}z_{j1}^*|^2$& $|\tilde{y}_{j2}\tilde{y}_{1j}^\dagger|^2,|z_{j2}z_{j1}^*|^2$ & $|y_{j2}y_{j1}^*|^2$ &$|y_{j2}y_{j1}^*|^2$ & $4|y_{j2}y_{j1}^*|^2$ \\
&$| y_{2j} y_{j1}|^2$&&&& $|\tilde{y}_{j2}\tilde{y}_{1j}^\dagger|^2$\\[.5ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}$} & $y^\prime_{1k},z_{k1}$ &$\tilde{y}_{k1},z_{k1}$&$y_{k1}$ & $y_{k1}$ & $\sqrt{2} y_{k1}$ \\
& $y_{1k}$ &&& & $ \tilde{y}_{k1}$ \\[.3ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$a_1^{1,2,3}$} & $861.5,252.4,95.2$& $776.8,197.9,71.4$ & $164.1,91.0,27.7$ & $204.7,124.4,51.8$& $204.7,124.4,51.8$\\
& $164.1,91.0,27.7$ &&& & $776.8,197.9,71.4$\\[.3ex]
$a_3$ &$2.9\times 10^{-3}$&$2.9\times 10^{-3}$&$2.9\times 10^{-3}$&$2.9\times 10^{-3}$&$2.9\times 10^{-3}$\\
\hline \noalign{\vskip2pt}
\parbox[t]{1mm}{\multirow{9}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\tau^-\!\! \to 3\,e\; (\mu^- 2\,e)$}}} \multirow{2}{*}{$|\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}|^2$}
& $| y^\prime_{3j} y_{j1}^{\prime\,\dagger}|^2,|z_{j3}z_{j1}^*|^2$& $|\tilde{y}_{j3}\tilde{y}_{1j}^\dagger|^2,|z_{j3}z_{j1}^*|^2$ & $|y_{j3}y_{j1}^*|^2$ &$|y_{j3}y_{j1}^*|^2$ & $4|y_{j3}y_{j1}^*|^2$ \\
&$| y_{3j} y_{j1}|^2$&&&& $|\tilde{y}_{j3}\tilde{y}_{1j}^\dagger|^2$\\[.5ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}$} & $y^\prime_{1k},z_{k1}$ &$\tilde{y}_{k1},z_{k1}$&$y_{k1}$ & $y_{k1}$ & $\sqrt{2} y_{k1}$ \\
& $y_{1k}$ &&& & $ \tilde{y}_{k1}$ \\[.3ex]
\multirow{4}{*}{$a_1^{1,2,3}$} & $884.1,275.0,117.8$ & $779.3,200.4,74.0$ & $164.1,91.0,27.7$ & $214.7,134.4,61.8$ & $214.7,134.4,61.8$\\
&($1213.0,401.0,221.4$) &$(1042.9,271.1,124.0)$ &$(218.8,121.3,37.0)$ & ($301.5,194.5,97.8$) & ($301.5,194.5,97.8$) \\
& $164.1,91.0,27.7$ &&& & $779.3,200.4,74.0$\\
&$(218.8,121.3,37.0)$ & & & & $(1042.9,271.1,124.0)$ \\[.3ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$a_3$} &$4.4\times 10^{2}$&$4.4\times 10^{2}$&$4.4\times 10^{2}$&$4.4\times 10^{2}$&$4.4\times 10^{2}$\\
&$(5.8\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(5.8\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(5.8\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(5.8\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(5.8\!\times\! 10^{2})$ \\
\hline \noalign{\vskip2pt}
\parbox[t]{3mm}{\multirow{9}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\tau^-\!\! \to 3\,\mu\; (e^- 2\,\mu)$}}} \multirow{2}{*}{$|\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}|^2$}
& $| y^\prime_{3j} y_{j2}^{\prime\,\dagger}|^2,|z_{j3}z_{j2}^*|^2$& $|\tilde{y}_{j3}\tilde{y}_{2j}^\dagger|^2,|z_{j3}z_{j2}^*|^2$ & $|y_{j3}y_{j2}^*|^2$ &$|y_{j3}y_{j2}^*|^2$ & $4|y_{j3}y_{j2}^*|^2$ \\
&$| y_{3j} y_{j2}|^2$&&&& $|\tilde{y}_{j3}\tilde{y}_{2j}^\dagger|^2$\\[.5ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}$} & $y^\prime_{2k},z_{k2}$ &$\tilde{y}_{k2},z_{k2}$&$y_{k2}$ & $y_{k2}$ & $\sqrt{2} y_{k2}$ \\
& $y_{2k}$ &&& & $ \tilde{y}_{k2}$ \\[.3ex]
\multirow{4}{*}{$a_1^{1,2,3}$} & $841.3,232.3,75.0$ & $774.5,195.7,69.2$ & $164.1,91.0,27.7$ & $195.7,115.4,42.8$ & $195.7,115.4,42.8$\\
& ($1127.5,315.5,135.8$) & $(1033.4,271.1, 114.5)$ & $(218.8,121.3,37.0)$ & ($263.5,156.5,59.7$) & ($263.5,156.5,59.7$)\\
& $164.1,91.0,27.7$ &&& & $774.5,195.7,69.2$ \\
&$(218.8,121.3,37.0)$ &&&& $(1033.4,271.1, 114.5)$ \\[.3ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$a_3$} &$3.4\!\times\! 10^{2}$ &$3.4\!\times\! 10^{2}$ &$3.4\!\times\! 10^{2}$& $3.4\!\times\! 10^{2}$&$3.4\!\times\! 10^{2}$\\
&$(8.7\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(8.7\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(8.7\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(8.7\!\times\! 10^{2})$&$(8.7\!\times\! 10^{2})$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Coefficients of the constrained equation \eqref{eq:cons3l},
arising from $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$,
for all five scalar leptoquarks and $M_{\rm LQ}=1\,$TeV.}
\label{Table:3l}
\end{table}
Writing the constraints in this manner, we find that the coefficients $a_{1,2}^j$, where $j$ is the generation index of the quark going in the loop, depend on the corresponding quark mass whereas $a_3$ is independent of it. Here $k$ is the index of the other quark in the box diagram. The values of these coefficients are shown in Table~\ref{Table:3l}. It can be seen that $a_{2}^j$ are process independent and depend on the mass and quantum numbers of the leptoquark. For $R_2$ and $S_3$ we show the bounds separately for each component $R_2^{5/3},R_2^{2/3}$ and $S_3^{4/3},S_3^{1/3}$ in two consecutive rows.
The numerical coefficients $a_{2}^j$ are one order of magnitude smaller than $a_1^j$, which indeed reflects that the box contributions are suppressed compared to the penguin terms. Also note that the logarithms of $x_j$ are large for light quarks and therefore the bounds are stronger for them, opposite to what was obtained in the $\ell\to \ell^\prime\gamma$ channel, as the loop functions are quite different. The
constraints extracted from $\mu\to3\,e$ are quite acceptable, e.g., $|\lambda_{L,R}^{ij} \lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}|^2\sim 10^{-5}$ in absence of $\lambda_{L,R}^{nk}$, whereas the $\tau$ modes fail to impose reasonable limits as almost $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values are permitted. This also holds true for the last two decay modes in Eq.~\eqref{eq:data3l}, which proceed only via box diagrams, where we find that the combination $\lambda_{L,R}^{ij}\lambda_{L,R}^{mj*}\left|\lambda_{R,L}^{nk}\right|^2$ is allowed up to $\sim2^4$ for leptoquark masses of ${\cal O}(1\,\mathrm{TeV})$. Future improvements in data can be important to obtain limits on these coupling constants.
\subsection[$\mu-e$ conversion]{$\boldsymbol{\mu-e}$ conversion}
\label{subsec:mue}
Similarly to the lepton-flavour-violating decays discussed in the preceding section, muon conversion in nuclei is also another interesting process providing complementary sensitivity to NP. Currently the strongest
bound is found in the case of gold nuclei where the 90\% C.L. limit is set by the SINDRUM experiment as~\cite{Bertl:2006up}
\begin{align}
{\rm BR}^{\mathrm{Au}}_{\mu-e}\; =\; \frac{\Gamma (\mu^- {\rm Au} \to e^- {\rm Au})}{\Gamma_{\rm capture}} \;\le\; 7 \times 10^{-13}.
\end{align}
Here the muon capture rate for gold is $\Gamma_{\rm capture}= 8.6\times 10^{-18} $\,GeV~\cite{Suzuki:1987jf}.
The operators contributing to $\mu-e$ conversion within nuclei, arising from leptoquark interactions, are given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:LncLep} with $m=1$ and $n=2$.
There are additional contributions from dipole operators, namely $\bar{e}_{L,R}\, \sigma_{\mu\nu}\, \mu_{L,R} F^{\mu\nu}$, where $F^{\mu\nu}$ is the EM field strength tensor. However, the constraints on these dipole operators from $\mu-e$ conversion are one order of magnitude weaker than the bounds from $\mu\to e \gamma$ given in Table~\ref{Table:rare}, and hence we do not quote them here.
We use the results derived in Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2002mt}, where the conversion rate is given by
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\rm conv}\, =\, 4 m_\mu^5\; \Big| \tilde{g}_{LS}^{(p)}\, S^{(p)}+\tilde{g}_{LS}^{(n)}\, S^{(n)} + \tilde{g}_{LV}^{(p)}\, V^{(p)}+\tilde{g}_{LV}^{(n)}\, V^{(n)} \Big|^2 + {( L \to R)},
\end{align}
with the coupling constant $\tilde{g}$'s defined as
\begin{align}
\tilde{g}_{LS,RS}^{(p)}\;=\; &\sum_{q} G_S^{(q,p)} \frac{1}{2}[g_{S,q}^{R,L}]^{ii,12}\, ,\\
\tilde{g}_{LS,RS}^{(n)}\;=\; &\sum_{q} G_S^{(q,n)} \frac{1}{2}[g_{S,q}^{R,L}]^{ii,12}\, , \end{align}
\begin{align}
\tilde{g}_{LV}^{(p)}\;=\; &([g^{LL}_{V,u}]^{11,12}+[g^{RL}_{V,u}]^{11,12} )+\frac{1}{2}\, ([g^{LL}_{V,d}]^{11,12}+[g^{RL}_{V,d}]^{11,12})\, , \\
\tilde{g}_{RV}^{(p)}\;=\; &([g^{RR}_{V,u}]^{11,12}+[g^{LR}_{V,u}]^{11,12} )+\frac{1}{2}\, ([g^{RR}_{V,d}]^{11,12}+[g^{LR}_{V,d}]^{11,12})\, , \\
\tilde{g}_{LV}^{(n)}\;=\; &\frac{1}{2}\, ([g^{LL}_{V,u}]^{11,12}+[g^{RL}_{V,u}]^{11,12} )+([g^{LL}_{V,d}]^{11,12}+[g^{RL}_{V,d}]^{11,12})\, , \\
\tilde{g}_{RV}^{(n)}\;=\; &\frac{1}{2}\, ([g^{RR}_{V,u}]^{11,12}+[g^{LR}_{V,u}]^{11,12} )+([g^{RR}_{V,d}]^{11,12}+[g^{LR}_{V,d}]^{11,12})\, .
\end{align}
The overlap-integral values are
$S^{(p)}=0.0523$, $S^{(n)}=0.0610$, $V^{(p)}=0.0859$ and $V^{(n)}=0.108$, and the coefficients for scalar operators are evaluated as $G_S^{u,p}=G_S^{d,n}=5.1,~G_S^{d,p}=G_S^{u,n}=4.3$ and $G_S^{s,p}=G_S^{s,n}=2.5$~\cite{Kosmas:2001mv}.
Using all these inputs we depict in Table~\ref{Table:mue} the extracted bounds on the product of leptoquark Yukawa elements. It can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{eq:S1op}--\eqref{eq:S33op}, that only the $R_2,S_1$ and $S_3$ leptoquarks couple to the $u$ quark and charged leptons. These couplings, for the vector and axial-vector operators, are shown in the first two rows of Table~\ref{Table:mue}, where quite strong bounds are visible. The third row displays those combinations of couplings for vector and axial-vector operators dealing with $d$ quarks and charged leptons where bounds are stronger. The last row shows the contributions from scalar operators, which arise only for the $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquark couplings to the $u$ quark and charged leptons, and provide the strongest limit.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.07}
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline \hline
& & & & Bound \\
$R_2$ & $S_1$ & $\tilde{R}_2,~\tilde{S}_1$ & $S_3$ &$\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^4 $ \\[0.5ex] \hline
\noalign{\vskip2pt}
$|0.14\,y_{12}^{\prime\,\dagger} y_{11}^\prime\!+\! 0.15\,y_{11} y_{21}^*|^2$ & & & $|0.14\,\tilde{y}_{12}\tilde{y}^\dagger_{11} \!+\! 0.30\, y_{12}y_{11}^* |^2$& $4.7\times 10^{-11}$ \\[1.ex]
$|z_{12} z_{11}^*|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{12}\tilde{y}^\dagger _{11}|^2,\,|z_{12} z_{11}^*|^2$ & & & $2.4\times 10^{-11}$ \\[1.5ex]
& & $|y_{12} y_{11}^*|^2$& &$2.1\times 10^{-11}$ \\[1.5ex]
$|y_{12}^{\prime\,\dagger} z_{11}^*|^2,\,|y_{11}^{\prime\,\dagger} z_{12}|^2$ & $|\tilde{y}_{12} z_{11}^*|^2,\,|\tilde{y}_{11}^{\dagger} z_{12}|^2$& & &$6.7\times 10^{-12}$ \\[.2ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Bounds on leptoquark couplings from muon conversion to electron in gold nuclei.} \label{Table:mue}
\end{table}
\section{Bounds from kaons}
\label{sec:Kaon}
Some of the rare (semi)leptonic decays of $K$ mesons are mediated by FCNCs and thus are suppressed in the SM. Although most of these processes are dominated by long-distance contributions and significant efforts are devoted to sharpen the SM predictions \cite{Cirigliano:2011ny}, these modes are also important in constraining BSM interactions.\footnote{Correlations between leptoquark contributions to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ and rare kaon decays have been investigated in Ref.~\cite{Bobeth:2017ecx}.}
This is achievable due to the
strong suppression of the SM decay amplitude $\mathcal{A}_{\rm SM}$, as well as the improvements in experimental sensitivity.
In the next three subsections we discuss the effect of NP operators, arising from scalar leptoquarks, in $K\to \ell_i^-\ell_j^+,~ \pi \ell_i^-\ell^+_j$ and $ \pi \nu \bar{\nu}$.
The total amplitude for these decays can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_{\rm SM} + \mathcal{A}_{\rm LQ}\, .
\end{equation}
Owing to the conservation of lepton flavour, $\mathcal{A}_{\rm SM}=0$ when $\ell_i\not=\ell_j$ up to tiny contributions proportional to neutrino masses.
\subsection{Rare leptonic decays of kaons}
\label{sec:Kaonlep}
The rare decays $K_{L,S}^0\to \ell^+\ell^-$ are forbidden at tree level in the SM. However, leptoquarks can contribute to these modes at lowest order, which imposes strong constraints on their coupling constants. The neutral-current operators with down-type quarks given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:LncLep} lead to such decays.
The SM amplitude $\mathcal{A}_{\rm SM}$ is dominated by the long-distance contribution arising from a two-photon intermediate state:
$K_{S,L}^0\to \gamma^* \gamma^* \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ \cite{Ecker:1991ru}.
The estimated $K_S^0$ branching ratios are \cite{Cirigliano:2011ny}:
\begin{align}
{\rm BR}^{\mathrm{LD}}(K_S^0\to e^+ e^-) = 2.1\times 10^{-14}
\qquad\quad \mathrm{and} \qquad\quad
{\rm BR}^{\mathrm{LD}}(K_S^0\to \mu^+ \mu^-) = 5.1\times 10^{-12} \, .
\end{align}
In the SM, there exists a small $CP$-violating short-distance contribution
to $K_S^0\to \mu^+ \mu^-$ that is one order of magnitude smaller:
${\rm BR}^{\mathrm{SD}}(K_S^0\to \mu^+ \mu^-) \simeq 1.7\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{Buchalla:1995vs,Isidori:2003ts}. Owing to its helicity suppression
($\mathcal{A}_{\rm SM}^{\mathrm{SD}}\propto m_\ell$),
the analogous short-distance contribution to the electron mode is completely negligible. The current experimental upper bounds on the electron \cite{Ambrosino:2008zi} and muon \cite{Aaij:2017tia,LHCb:2019aoh} modes, shown in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon}, are larger than their predicted SM values by five and two orders of magnitude, respectively. Hence, to constrain the leptoquark couplings, we can neglect the SM contributions and assume that the leptoquark amplitudes saturate the experimental limits.
It can be seen from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:S1op}--\eqref{eq:S33op} that
$S_1$ cannot contribute at tree level to these transitions, while for each of the other four scalar leptoquark types the contribution to $\mathcal{A}_{\rm LQ}$ is generated by a single (axial)vector operator with Wilson coefficient $g_{V,d}^{XY}$, where $X,Y\in \{L,R\}$. The corresponding decay rate of the $P^0_{ki}\equiv q_k \bar{q}_i$ meson is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:Pll-decay}
\Gamma_{\rm LQ}(P^0_{ki} \to \ell_n^+ \ell_m^-)\, =\, \frac{f_P^2 \,\big|[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{ik,mn} \big|^2}{64 \pi m_P^3}\, \lambda^{1/2}(m_P^2,m_{\ell_m}^2,m_{\ell_n}^2) \left[ m_P^2( m_{\ell_m}^2\!+\! m_{\ell_n}^2)- (m_{\ell_m}^2\! - m_{\ell_n}^2)^2 \right].
\end{align}
The relevant coupling combinations are obviously
$\left\{[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mn} (1+\bar\epsilon_K)\mp [g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{12,mn} (1-\bar\epsilon_K)\right\}/\sqrt{2}$
for the $K_{S,L}^0$ decays, although we will neglect the small $CP$-violating admixture $\epsilon_K$.
We can see from Table~\ref{Table:Kaon} that for the $K_S^0\to e^+e^-$ mode, $\mathcal{O}(1)$ couplings are allowed, due to the explicit lepton-mass suppression in \eqn{eq:Pll-decay},
while for $K_S^0\to \mu^+\mu^-$ we get strong limits on the respective couplings.
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c}
\hline \hline
& & & & Bound \\
Modes & ${\rm BR_{exp}}$ & $R_2$ & $\tilde{R}_2,~\tilde{S}_1,~4\!\times\! S_3$ & $\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^2$ \\
\hline \noalign{\vskip4pt}
$K_S^0 \to e^+e^- $ & $<9.0\times10^{-9} $ & $|\text{Im}(y_{11}y_{12}^*)|$ & $|\text{Im}(y_{11}^*y_{21})|$ & $2.0$ \\[1.5ex]
$K_S^0 \to \mu^+\mu^- $ & $< 2.1\times 10^{-10} $ & $|\text{Im}[(y_{21}y_{22}^*)|$ & $|\text{Im}(y_{12}^*y_{22})|$ & $1.6\times 10^{-3}$ \\[1.5ex]
$K_L^0 \to e^+e^- $ & $9^{+6}_{-4}\times10^{-12}$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{11}y_{12}^*)|$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{11}^*y_{21})|$ & $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ \\[1.5ex]
$K_L^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-$ &$(6.84\pm0.11)\times10^{-9}$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{21}y_{22}^*)|$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{12}^*y_{22})|$ & $4.7\times 10^{-5}$ \\[1.5ex]
$K_L^0 \to e^\pm \mu^\mp$ & $<4.7\times 10^{-12}$ & $|y_{21}y_{12}^*+ y_{11}^*y_{22}|$ & $|y_{21}y_{12}^*+ y_{11}y_{22}^*|$ & $1.9\times 10^{-5}$ \\[1.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Limits on leptoquark couplings from leptonic kaon decays. The experimental upper bounds are at 90\% C.L.\,.} \label{Table:Kaon}
\end{table}
The situation is a bit different for the observed decay modes $K_L^0\to \ell^+ \ell^-$. The absorptive long-distance contribution \cite{GomezDumm:1998gw} nearly saturates the precisely measured $BR(K_L^0\to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ \cite{Ambrose:2000gj}, leaving little room for the dispersive component which would include both the leptoquark and short-distance SM contributions. The long-distance prediction for the electron mode \cite{Cirigliano:2011ny} is also in agreement with the experimental value \cite{Ambrose:1998cc}, the tiniest branching ratio ever measured, although the uncertainties are much larger in this case. In order to impose bounds on the leptoquark couplings, we allow them to saturate the $1\sigma$ experimental uncertainties, which gives the limits quoted in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon}.
Since only a single $g_{V,d}^{XY}$ coupling can generate the $K^0\to\ell^+\ell^-$ transition, the tree-level leptoquark exchange gives rise to an helicity-suppressed pseudoscalar leptonic amplitude $\bar u_\ell\gamma_5 v_\ell$. Therefore, the final lepton pair is produced in a s-wave configuration (${}^1S_0$) that is odd under $CP$, implying that the $K^0_S$ leptoquark amplitude violates $CP$, while the $K^0_L$ transition preserves this symmetry. Both decays are then complementary since they constrain the imaginary and real parts, respectively, of the relevant combination of leptoquark couplings.
For the lepton-flavour-violating decay $K_L^0\to \mu^\pm e^\mp$, an stringent upper bound is obtained for the corresponding leptoquark couplings, as no SM contribution exists for this mode.
\subsection{Rare semileptonic decays of kaons}
\label{sec:Kaonsemi}
In the SM, the FCNC semileptonic decay $K^+\to \pi^+\ell^+\ell^-$ is completely dominated by the $CP$-conserving amplitude arising from virtual photon exchange, $K^+\to \pi^+\gamma^*$, which is a vector contribution \cite{Ecker:1987qi}. There exist short-distance $Z$-penguin and $W$-box contributions, involving also axial-vector lepton couplings, but they are negligible in the total decay rate (three orders of magnitude smaller for the muon mode).
Adopting the usual parameterization for the $K(k)\to \pi(p)$ hadronic matrix element,
\begin{align}
\langle \pi^-|\bar{d} \gamma^\mu s|K^- \rangle\, &=\, -\langle \pi^+|\bar{s} \gamma^\mu d|K^+ \rangle\, =\, (k+p)^\mu\, f_+^{K\pi}(q^2) + (k-p)^\mu\, f_-^{K\pi}(q^2) \, ,
\nonumber \\
f_-^{K\pi}(q^2)\, &=\, \frac{m_K^2-m_\pi^2}{q^2}\, \left[f_0^{K\pi}(q^2)-f_+^{K\pi}(q^2)\right] ,
\end{align}
where $q^2 \equiv(k-p)^2$,
and including the leptoquark contribution proportional to $g_{V,d}^{XY}$,
the differential decay distribution for $K^+(k) \to \pi^+(p)\ell^+(q_1)\ell^-(q_2)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Kpill}
\frac{d\Gamma}{dz} \big(K^\pm \to \pi^\pm \ell^+_m\ell^-_m\big)\, &=\; \frac{G_F^2\alpha^2m_K^5}{12\pi(4\pi)^4}\, \sqrt{\bar{\lambda}}\; \sqrt{1-4\frac{r_\ell^2}{z}}
\nonumber \\ & \times\; \Bigg\{\bar \lambda\,\bigg(1+2\frac{r_\ell^2}{z} \bigg) \bigg[|V_+(z)|^2 + \frac{2 \pi}{G_F\, \alpha}\,\text{Re}\left(V_+^*(z)\, [g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm}\right)\, f_+^{K\pi}(z)\bigg]
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{2 \pi^2}{G_F^2\, \alpha^2}\,\big|[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm}\big|^2 \bigg[\bar{\lambda}\,\bigg(1-\frac{r_\ell^2}{z} \bigg)\, [f_+^{K\pi}(z)]^2 +\frac{3r_\ell^2}{z}\big(1-r_\pi^2)^2\, [f_0^{K\pi}(z)]^2 \bigg] \Bigg\}\,,
\end{align}
where we have used the dimensionless variable $z\equiv q^2/m_K^2$ and $\bar{\lambda}\equiv\lambda(1,z,r_\pi^2)$ with $r_i=m_i/m_K$.
The SM vector contribution is usually defined as~\cite{Cirigliano:2011ny}
\begin{align}
A_\text{V}^{K^+\to \pi^+\ell^+\ell^-} &=\, -\frac{G_F\alpha}{4\pi}\, V_+(z)\;\bar{u}_\ell(q_2)(\slashed{k}+\slashed{p}) v_\ell(q_1)\,.
\end{align}
where the vector form factor $V_+(z)$ vanishes at $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$ in chiral perturbation theory ($\chi$PT) and can be parametrized as \cite{Ecker:1987qi,DAmbrosio:1998gur}
\begin{equation}
V_+(z) = a_+ + b_+z + V_+^{\pi\pi}(z)\,,
\label{V_dec}
\end{equation}
which is valid to ${\cal O}(p^6)$.
The unitary loop correction $V_+^{\pi\pi}(z)$ that contains the $\pi\pi$ re-scattering contributions can be obtained from Refs.~\cite{Cirigliano:2011ny,Bijnens:2002vr}. The parameters $a_+$ and $b_+$ encode local contributions from $\chi$PT low-energy constants, which at present can only be estimated in a model-dependent way~\cite{Cirigliano:2011ny}.
Integrating over the allowed phase space, $4r_\ell^2 \le z\le (1-r_\pi)^2$,
and using PDG~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca} inputs for all parameters, we
obtain the following numerical expressions for the branching fractions:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eeNeq}
{\rm BR}(K^+ \to \pi^+e^+e^-) = 10^{-8} \times\, &\big[ 0.1 + 58.9\, a_+^2 + 1.7\,b_+^2 + 15.9 \,a_+ b_+ - 3.2\, a_+ - 0.8\, b_+ \nonumber \\
&+\, 5.8\times 10^{4} \,|\tilde{g}_1|^2 \nonumber \\
&+ (-58.4 + 2.2\times 10^{3}\, a_+ + 2.9\times 10^{2}\, b_+ )\,\text{Re}\,\tilde{g}_1 + 4.5\, \text{Im}\,\tilde{g}_1\big]\, ,
\\[5pt]
\label{eq:mumuNeq}
{\rm BR}(K^+ \to \pi^+\mu^+\mu^-) = 10^{-9} \times\, &\big[ 1.1 + 117.6\, a_+^2 + 10.3\,b_+^2 + 67.7\,a_+ b_+ - 19.1\, a_+ - 6.3\, b_+ \nonumber \\
&+\, 2.7\times 10^{5} \,|\tilde{g}_2|^2 \nonumber \\
&+ (-3.5\!\times\! 10^{2}\! + 4.3\!\times\! 10^{3}\, a_+\! +\! 1.2\!\times\! 10^{3}\, b_+ )\,\text{Re}\,\tilde{g}_2 + 41.1\, \text{Im}\,\tilde{g}_2\big]\, .
\end{align}
Here $\tilde{g}_m\equiv 2\,[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm}\times (\mathrm{1\,TeV})^2$
for the electron ($m=1$) and muon ($m=2$) modes, respectively. The explicit form of $\tilde{g}_m$ in terms of Yukawa elements
can easily be read from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:R21op}--\eqref{eq:S33op},
for the four leptoquark types giving tree-level contributions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{S_1}:y_{1m}y_{2m}^*\, ,
\qquad
R_2:y_{m1}y_{m2}^*\,,
\qquad
\tilde{R_2}: y_{1m}^*y_{2m}\,,
\qquad
S_3: 2\,y_{1m}y_{2m}^*\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
times a factor $(1~\mathrm{TeV}/ M_{\rm LQ})^2$.
The experimental branching fractions for these two modes~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}
are given in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2}.
In absence of any NP contributions to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eeNeq} and \eqref{eq:mumuNeq}, the parameters $a_+$ and $b_+$ have been extracted
from a fit to the measured $z$ distribution by NA48/2 \cite{Batley:2009aa,Batley:2011zz}:
\begin{eqnarray}
a_+^{ee}=-0.578\pm 0.016,~ b_+^{ee}=-0.779\pm 0.066,
a_+^{\mu\mu}=-0.575\pm 0.039,~ b_+^{\mu\mu}=-0.813\pm 0.145\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Leptoquarks would introduce two more real parameters in the fit.
However, due to the limited statistics available in these modes, the full fit (including the NP couplings) may not be worth to impose bounds on these couplings. While $\mathcal{O}(1)$ values are expected, in the SM, for $a_+$ and $b_+$, it can be seen from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:eeNeq} and \eqref{eq:mumuNeq} that for
$\tilde g_m\sim{\cal O}(1)$ the tree-level leptoquark contribution would be three orders of magnitude larger than the contributions arising from these two parameters.
Hence we take a conservative approach and determine the bounds on the NP couplings quoted in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2}, by neglecting the SM effects, i.e., assuming that the leptoquark contribution alone saturates the measured branching fractions.
The lepton-flavour-violating modes $K^+\to\pi^+\mu^\pm e^\mp$ do not receive any SM contribution. The differential decay widths induced by the corresponding leptoquark-mediated amplitudes are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Kpimue}
\frac{d\Gamma}{d z}\big(K^+\to\pi^+\mu^\pm e^\mp\big)\, &=\,
\frac{m_K^5 }{48(4\pi)^3}\;\big|[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mn} \big|^2\;
\sqrt{\bar{\lambda}}\; \bigg(1-\frac{r_\mu^2}{z}\bigg)^2
\nonumber \\
&\times
\bigg\{\bar\lambda\,\bigg(2+\frac{r_\mu^2}{z}\bigg)\, [f_+^{K\pi}(z)]^2 + \frac{3r_\mu^2}{z}\,\big(1-r_\pi^2\big)^2\, [f_0^{K\pi}(z)]^2\bigg\}\,.
\end{align}
with $m,n\in\{1,2\}$ and $m\ne n$.
We use the stringent upper bound on BR$(K^+\to\pi^+\mu^+ e^-)$, from the BNL E865 experiment \cite{Sher:2005sp}, to constrain the leptoquark couplings.
After integrating over the allowed phase space, $r_\mu^2 \le z\le (1-r_\pi)^2$,
this gives the 90\% C.L. limit quoted in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2}.
\begin{table}[thb]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c}
\hline \hline
& & & & Bound (or range) \\
Modes& ${\rm BR_{exp}}$ & $R_2$ & $\tilde{R}_2,~\tilde{S}_1,~4\!\times\! S_3$ & $\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^2$ \\
\hline \noalign{\vskip4pt}
$K^+ \to \pi^+e^+e^- $ & $(3.00\pm 0.09)\times 10^{-7} $ & $
|y_{11}y_{12}^*|$ & $|y_{11}^*y_{21}|$ & $2.3\times 10^{-2}$ \\[1.5ex]
$K^+ \to \pi^+\mu^+\mu^- $ & $(9.4\pm 0.6)\times10^{-8} $ & $|y_{21}y_{22}^*|$ & $|y_{12}^*y_{22}|$ & $1.9\times 10^{-2}$
\\[1.5ex]
$K^+ \to \pi^+\mu^+ e^- $ & $<1.3\times10^{-11} $ & $|y_{21}y_{12}^*|$, $|y_{11}y_{22}^*|$ & $|y_{21}y_{12}^*|$, $|y_{11}^*y_{22}|$ & $1.9\times 10^{-4}$ \\[1.5ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip3pt}
$K_S^0 \to \pi^0 e^+e^- $ & $(5.8^{+2.9}_{-2.4})\times10^{-9} $
& $|\text{Re}(y_{11}y_{12}^*)|$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{11}^*y_{21})|$ & $3.1\times 10^{-2}$
\\[1.5ex]
$K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \mu^+\mu^-$ &$(2.9^{+1.5}_{-1.2})\times10^{-9}$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{21}y_{22}^*)|$ & $|\text{Re}(y_{12}^*y_{22})|$ & $3.3\times 10^{-2}$
\\[1.5ex]\hline \noalign{\vskip3pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{$K_L^0 \to \pi^0 e^+e^- $} & \multirow{2}{*}{$<2.8\times10^{-10}$} & $\text{Im}(y_{11}y_{12}^*)$& $\text{Im}(y_{11}^*y_{21})$ (for $\tilde{S}_1$) & $[-4.1,\,2.6]\!\times\! 10^{-4}$ \\[1.ex]
&&& $\text{Im}(y_{11}^*y_{21})$& $[-3.6,\,2.9]\!\times\! 10^{-4}$ \\[1.5ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$K_L^0 \to \pi^0 \mu^+\mu^-$} &\multirow{2}{*}{$<3.8\times10^{-10}$} & $\text{Im}(y_{21}y_{22}^*)$ & $\text{Im}(y_{12}^*y_{22})$ (for $\tilde{S}_1$) & $[-6.5,\,5.1]\!\times\! 10^{-4}$ \\[1.ex]
&&& $\text{Im}(y_{12}^*y_{22})$ & $[-5.8,\,5.7]\!\times\! 10^{-4}$ \\[1.5ex]
$K_L^0 \to\pi^0 e^\pm \mu^\mp$ & $<7.6\times 10^{-11}$ & $|(y_{21}y_{12}^* - y_{11}^*y_{22})|$ & $|(y_{21}y_{12}^* - y_{11}y_{22}^*)|$ & $2.9\times 10^{-4}$ \\[1.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{90\% C.L. bounds on leptoquark couplings from rare semileptonic kaon decays.} \label{Table:Kaon2}
\end{table}
The decays $K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$ are very similar to $K^+\to \pi^+\ell^+\ell^-$. Their differential decay distribution can be directly obtained from Eq.~\eqn{eq:Kpill}, replacing the vector form factor $V_+(z)$ by
$V_S(z) = a_S + b_S z + V_S^{\pi\pi}(z)$, and $[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm}$ by the appropriate combination of leptoquark couplings
$\tilde g^+_m\equiv ([g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm} + [g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{12,mm})/\sqrt{2}$.
The branching fractions take then the numerical form:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eeNeq2}
{\rm BR}(K_S \to \pi^0e^+e^-) = 10^{-10}\times\, & \big[ 0.02 + 46.90\, a_S^2 + 1.45\,b_S^2 + 13.03 \,a_S b_S - 0.79\, a_S - 0.25\, b_S \nonumber \\
+&\, 8.50\times 10^{4}\, |\tilde{g}_1^+|^2
\nonumber \\
+& (-20.59 + 2.45\times\! 10^{3}\, a_S + 3.39\!\times\! 10^{2} \, b_S )\,\text{Re}\,\tilde{g}_1 \!+\! 3.90 \,\text{Im}\,\tilde{g}_1^+ \big] ,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mumuNeq2}
{\rm BR}(K_S \to \pi^0\mu^+\mu^-) = 10^{-11} \times\, &\big[ 0.15 + 101.85\, a_S^2 + 9.13\,b_S^2 + 59.18\,a_S b_S - 5.98\, a_S - 2.04\, b_S \nonumber \\
+&\, 3.91\times 10^{5}\, |\tilde{g}_2^+|^2
\nonumber \\
+& (-1.56\!\times\! 10^{2}\! + 5.32\!\times\! 10^{3}\, a_S\! +\! 1.54\!\times\! 10^{3}\, b_S )\,\text{Re}\,\tilde{g}_2 + 35.55 \,\text{Im}\,\tilde{g}_2^+ \big] .
\end{align}
As the $K_S\to 2\pi$ modes saturate more than 99\% of the total $K_S$ decay width and only branching fraction measurements are available for $K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$, it is not possible to extract the two form factor
parameters from data. Assuming the vector-meson-dominance relation
$b_S/a_S=1/r_V^2\approx0.4$ \cite{DAmbrosio:1998gur}, the NA48 data \cite{Batley:2003mu,Batley:2004wg} imply
\begin{eqnarray}
|a_S^{ee}|=1.06^{+0.26}_{-0.21}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
|a_S^{\mu\mu}|=1.54^{+0.40}_{-0.32}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly to the $K^+\to \pi^+ \ell^+\ell^-$ mode, we neglect the SM contributions and obtain the 90\% C.L. limits shown in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2}.
Next we move to the decay $K_L^0\to \pi^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$, which is an interesting mode as it receives contributions from three different mechanisms within the SM \cite{Ecker:1987hd}: an indirect $CP$-violating amplitude due to the $K^0-\bar{K^0}$ oscillation, a direct $CP$-violating transition induced by short-distance physics and a $CP$-conserving contribution from $K_L^0\to \pi^0 \gamma\gamma\to \pi^0\ell^+ \ell^-$.
The relevant $g_{V,d}^{XY}$ leptoquark coupling generates a $K^0\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$ amplitude with vector ($1^{--}$), axial-vector ($1^{++}$) and pseudoscalar ($0^{-+}$) leptonic structures, giving rise to a $CP$-even
$\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$ final state. Therefore, the $K_L^0\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$ leptoquark amplitude violates $CP$.
Combining the two $CP$-violating SM amplitudes with the leptoquark contribution, the differential distribution can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:KLCPV}
\frac{d\Gamma }{d z}\big(K_L^0\to \pi^0 \ell^+ \ell^-\big)_{CPV}&=\frac{G_F^2\alpha^2 m_K^5}{12\pi(4\pi)^4}\; \sqrt{\bar{\lambda}}\; \sqrt{1-4\frac{r_\ell^2}{z}}\nonumber \\
&\times\Bigg\{\bar{\lambda}\,\bigg(1+\frac{2r_\ell^2}{z} \bigg) \bigg[|V_0(z)|^2+ \frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{G_F\alpha}\,\text{Re}[V_0^*(z)\,\tilde g_m^-]
\, f_+^{K\pi}(z) +|A_0(z)|^2\bigg]\nonumber \\
&+6r_\ell^2\,\big(2+2r_\pi^2-z\big)\,|A_0(z)|^2+ \frac{3}{2}\, r_\ell^2 z\, |P_0(z)|^2
- 6r_\ell^2\,\big(1-r_\pi^2\big)\,\text{Re}\big[A_0(z)^*P_0(z)\big] \nonumber \\
& + \frac{ \pi^2}{G_F^2 \alpha^2}\,\big|\tilde g_m^-
\big|^2\, \bigg[\bar{\lambda}\,\big(1-\frac{r_\ell^2}{z} \big)\, [f_+^{K\pi}(z)]^2 +\frac{3r_\ell^2}{z}\,\big(1-r_\pi^2)^2\, [f_0^{K\pi}(z)]^2 \bigg]
\nonumber \\
& + s_Y\,\frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{G_F\alpha}\,\text{Re}[A_0^*(z)\,\tilde g_m^-]
\, \bigg[\bar{\lambda}\,\big(1-\frac{4 r_\ell^2}{z} \big)\, f_+^{K\pi}(z) +\frac{6r_\ell^2}{z}\,\big(1-r_\pi^2)^2 f_0^{K\pi}(z) \bigg]
\nonumber\\
& - s_Y\,\frac{\sqrt{2} \pi}{G_F\alpha}\,\text{Re}[P_0^*(z)\,\tilde g_m^-]\,
3 r_\ell^2 (1-r_\pi^2)\, f_0^{K\pi}(z)
\Bigg\}\,,
\end{align}
where we have defined $\tilde g_m^- \equiv\displaystyle
([g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm} - [g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{12,mm})/\sqrt{2}$.
The factor $s_Y$ accounts for the different sign of the axial leptonic coupling in right-handed ($s_R=+1$) and left-handed ($s_L=-1$) currents.
The SM vector, axial-vector and pseudoscalar amplitudes for $K_L^0(k)\to \pi^0(p) \ell^+(q_1) \ell^-(q_2)$ are defined as
\begin{align}
A_\text{V}^{K_L\to \pi^0\ell^+\ell^-} &= -\frac{G_F\alpha}{4\pi}\; V_0(z)\;\bar{u}_\ell(q_2)(\slashed{k}+\slashed{p}) v_\ell(q_1)\,,\notag\\
A_\text{A}^{K_L\to \pi^0\ell^+\ell^-} &= -\frac{G_F\alpha}{4\pi}\; A_0(z)\;\bar{u}_\ell(q_2)(\slashed{k}+\slashed{p})\gamma_5 v_\ell(q_1)\,,\notag\\
A_\text{P}^{K_L\to \pi^0\ell^+\ell^-} &= + \frac{G_F\alpha}{4\pi}\; P_0(z)\, m_\ell\;\bar{u}_\ell(q_2)\gamma_5 v_\ell(q_1)\,.
\end{align}
The indirect $CP$-violating contribution is related to the $K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ amplitude, which is fully dominated by its vector component:
\begin{equation}
V_0^\text{indirect}(z)\, =\, \epsilon_K\; \left[ a_S+b_S z + V_S^{\pi\pi}(z)\right]\,\approx\, \epsilon_K\, a_S\,\Big(1+\frac{z}{r_V^2}\Big)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_K\sim e^{i\pi/4}\, |\epsilon_K|$ parametrizes $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ mixing with $|\epsilon_K|=(2.228\pm 0.011)\times 10^{-3}$.
In the SM, the direct $CP$-violating contributions
are given by
\begin{align}
V_0^\text{direct}(z)&=i\,\frac{2\pi\sqrt{2}}{\alpha}\, y_{7V}\, f_+^{K\pi}(z)\,\text{Im}\lambda_t\,,\notag\\
A_0^\text{direct}(z)&=i\,\frac{2\pi\sqrt{2}}{\alpha}\, y_{7A}\,
f_+^{K\pi}(z)\,\text{Im}\lambda_t\,,\notag\\
P_0^\text{direct}(z)&=-i\,\frac{4\pi\sqrt{2}}{\alpha}\, y_{7A}\,
f_-^{K\pi}(z)\,\text{Im}\lambda_t\,,
\end{align}
where $\lambda_t=V_{ts}^*V_{td}$. We use the estimates of the $K_{3\ell}$ form factors $f_\pm^{K\pi}(z)$ from Ref.~\cite{Antonelli:2008jg} and the Wilson coefficients $y_{7V,7A}$ from Ref.~\cite{Buchalla:2003sj}.
For the electron mode the $CP$-conserving contribution is estimated to be one order of magnitude smaller than the $CP$-violating one, while for the muon channel both of them are similar in magnitude with a slightly larger $CP$-violating amplitude~\cite{Cirigliano:2011ny}.
However the experimental 90\% C.L. upper bounds for these modes are still $\mathcal{O}(10^{-10})$ \cite{AlaviHarati:2003mr,AlaviHarati:2000hs}, which is one order of magnitude above their SM estimates. Hence, in order to constrain the leptoquark couplings, we ignore the $CP$-conserving SM contributions;
this is a conservative attitude, since they do not interfere with the $CP$-violating amplitudes in the decay rate. The SM $CP$-violating contributions and their interference with the leptoquark couplings are fully taken into account in our numerical analysis, which gives the allowed range for couplings depicted in Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2}.
It can be seen from Tables~\ref{Table:Kaon} and \ref{Table:Kaon2} that similar couplings are involved in these leptonic and rare semileptonic decay modes of kaons. The $K_S^0$ and $K_L^0$ decays are complementary, providing separate access to both the real and imaginary parts of the NP couplings, while the decays of the charged kaon restrict their absolute value. We highlight the situation in Fig.~\ref{fig:Kaon}, for both electron (left panel) and muon (right panel) modes, separately, where
\begin{equation}
x_e = \left(\frac{1~\mathrm{TeV}}{M_{\mathrm{LQ}}}\right)^2\times\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
y_{11}^{\phantom{*}} y_{12}^* \\[2pt] y_{11}^{\phantom{*}} y_{21}^*
\end{array} \right.\, ,
\qquad\qquad
x_\mu = \left(\frac{1~\mathrm{TeV}}{M_{\mathrm{LQ}}}\right)^2\times\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
y_{21}^{\phantom{*}} y_{22}^* \\[2pt] y_{12}^{\phantom{*}} y_{22}^*
\end{array} \right.\, .
\end{equation}
The first line in the brackets corresponds to the leptoquark $R_2$, while the second line refers to $\tilde R_2,\, \tilde S_1,\, 4\times S_3$, as indicated in Tables~\ref{Table:Kaon} and \ref{Table:Kaon2}.
The decay modes of the long-lived neutral kaon, $K_L^0\to\ell^+\ell^-,\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$, put obviously more stringent constraints that their $K_S^0\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-,\ell^+\ell^-$ counterparts.
Other kaon decay modes, such as $K\to \ell\nu,\,\pi \ell\nu,\, \pi \pi \ell\nu$, with much larger SM contributions, cannot provide limits on the leptoquark couplings competitive with the ones extracted from rare decays.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{Keeplot.pdf} \hskip 25pt
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{Kmumuplot.pdf}
\caption{Allowed regions in the plane $(\mathrm{Re}[x_\ell], \mathrm{Im}[x_\ell])$,
arising from leptonic and rare semileptonic kaon decays, for the electron (left panel) and muon (right panel) channels. }\label{fig:Kaon}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Similarly to the $K^+$ case, the lepton-flavour-violating decays $K_L^0\to\pi^0\mu^\pm e^\mp$ have much simpler expressions, being mediated only by the leptoquark contribution. Their differential branching fractions are given by Eq.~\eqn{eq:Kpimue}, replacing $[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mm}$ by the appropriate combination of leptoquark couplings
$([g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{21,mn}-[g_{V,d}^{XY}]^{12,mn})/\sqrt{2}$.
We notice in the last row of Table~\ref{Table:Kaon2} that a very stringent constraint arises from the current experimental upper limit on these modes \cite{Abouzaid:2007aa}.
The lepton-flavour-violating decays are absent in the SM and have not yet been seen in experiments. Hence the corresponding combinations of NP couplings have to be strictly suppressed to obey the experimental upper bounds.
\subsection{\boldmath $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$}
\label{sec:Kaonnunu}
Let us now consider the short-distance dominated decays $K\to \pi \nu \bar{\nu}$, which are thus expected to serve as very clean modes to look for BSM effects.
These decay modes receive contributions from similar leptoquark couplings, but they involve three generations of neutrinos and the PMNS rotation has to be included suitably.
In the presence of the leptoquark-induced operators with left-handed neutrinos and down-type quarks in Eq.~\eqn{eq:LncNeu}, the branching fractions for $K^+$ and $K_L^0$ can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Kppinunu}
{\rm BR}\left( K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}
\right)\, & =\, \frac{\kappa_{\nu}^{+}}{3\, |V_{us}|^{10}}\,\left( 1+\Delta_{EM}\right)\,
\left\{ \sum_{\ell=1}^3\,
\left| y_{\nu} - \frac{ \pi\, \sin^2{\theta_{W}}}{\sqrt{2}\, G_F\, \alpha} \,
[N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,\ell\ell} \right|^2
\right.\nonumber\\ &\hskip 4.2cm\left.\mbox{}
+ \frac{ \pi^2\, \sin^4{\theta_{W}}}{2\, G_F^2\, \alpha^2}
\,\sum_{m\not= n}\, \left| [N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,mn} \right|^2\right\}\, ,
\\[2ex]
\label{eq:KLpinunu}
{\rm BR}\left(K_{L}^0\rightarrow\pi^{0}\nu\bar{\nu}\right)\, &=\,
\frac{\kappa_{\nu}^{L}}{3\, |V_{us}|^{10}}\, \left( 1-\delta_\epsilon\right)\,
\left\{ \sum_{\ell=1}^3\,
\left| \text{Im}\left( y_{\nu} - \frac{ \pi\, \sin^2{\theta_{W}}}{\sqrt{2}\, G_F\, \alpha} \, [N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,\ell\ell}\right)
\right|^2
\right.\nonumber\\ &\hskip 3.6cm\left.\mbox{}
+ \frac{ \pi^2\, \sin^4{\theta_{W}}}{8\, G_F^2\, \alpha^2}
\,\sum_{m\not= n}\, \left| [N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,mn} - [N_{V_X}^{d}]^{12,mn} \right|^2\right\}\, ,
\end{align}
where $X\in \{L,R\}$ and we have summed over all possible undetected neutrinos in the final state.
In the last expression we have made use of the hermiticity of the Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{nc},\nu}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:LncNeu}), which implies $([N_{V_X}^{q}]^{ik,mn})^* = [N_{V_X}^{q}]^{ki,nm}$.
The overall factors
\begin{equation}
\kappa_{\nu}^{+,\,L} =\tau_{+,L}\,\frac{G_{F}^{2}\,\alpha ^{2}\,m_{K^{+,0}}^{5}}{256\,\pi^{5}\sin^{4}\theta_{W}}\, \left| V_{us}\right|^{8}
\left| V_{us}\times f_{+}^{K^i\pi^i}\left( 0\right) \right|^{2}\, \mathcal{I}_{\nu}^{+,0}
\end{equation}
are extracted from $K_{\ell 3}$ data. They encode the hadronic matrix element information,
with $\mathcal{I}_{\nu}^{+,0}$ the phase-space integral over the normalized vector form factor:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{I}_{\nu}^{i} & =\int_{0}^{\left( 1-r_{\pi}\right) ^{2}}%
dz\; \bar{\lambda}^{3/2}\,\left| \frac{f_{+}^{K^{i}\pi^{i}}\left( z\right) }%
{f_{+}^{K^{i}\pi^{i}}\left( 0\right) }\right|^{2}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
i\in \{+,0\}.
\end{align}
The Wilson coefficient $y_\nu$ is given by
\begin{equation}
y_{\nu}=\left( \mathrm{Re}\lambda_{t}+i\,\mathrm{Im}\lambda_{t}\right)
X_{t}+\left| V_{us}\right| ^{4}\mathrm{Re}\lambda_{c}\,P_{u,c}\;,
\label{NUCoeff}%
\end{equation}
with $\lambda_{c}=V_{cs}^{\ast}V_{cd}$, $X_{t}=1.464\pm0.041$ and $P_{u,c}=0.41\pm0.04$ \cite{Buras:2005gr,Buras:2006gb}. The electromagnetic correction
takes the value $\Delta_{EM} = -0.003$~\cite{Mescia:2007kn} and $\delta_\epsilon\simeq0.03$ accounts for the small
$K^0-\bar{K^0}$ mixing contribution~\cite{Cirigliano:2011ny,Buchalla:1996fp}.
Using PDG values~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca} for all other inputs, we quote the constraint on the leptoquark couplings arising from the decay $K^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:KpnunuCons}
\sum_{\ell=1}^3 \bigg|\left(-23.0 + i\, 6.6\right)\times 10^{-5}- \tilde{N}_\ell \bigg|^2 + \sum_{m\not= n} |\tilde{N}_{mn}|^2 \pm 1.5
\times 10^{-8} \le 3.6\times 10^{-7}\, ,
\end{align}
where
the last term in the left-hand side accounts for the uncertainty on the SM prediction, while the right-hand side reflects the
(90\% C.L.) upper bound $\mathrm{BR}(K^+ \to\pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}) < 1.85\times 10^{-10}$, recently reported by the NA62 collaboration \cite{NA62_kaon2019}.
The parameters
$\tilde{N}_\ell\equiv 2\,[N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,\ell\ell} \times (\mathrm{1\,TeV})^2$ and $\tilde{N}_{mn}\equiv 2\,[N_{V_X}^{d}]^{21,mn} \times (\mathrm{1\,TeV})^2$
contain the leptoquark couplings for identical and different neutrino flavours in the final state,
respectively. The explicit expressions of these couplings for the three relevant types of leptoquarks are quoted in Table~\ref{Table:KaonNu}, where we separately show, in the first and second rows, the allowed ranges for their real and imaginary parts for each neutrino generation $\ell$, and, in the third row, the bounds on the moduli of products of couplings with different neutrino flavours.
Due to the interference with the SM contribution, we find allowed ranges for the leptoquark couplings when the two final neutrinos have the same flavour, whereas an upper bound is obtained for different flavours.
Since the SM predictions are very accurately known, the resulting bounds on the NP couplings are quite stringent, as can be seen from Table~\ref{Table:KaonNu}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c}
\hline \hline
& & & Range (or bound) \\
Modes& ${\rm BR_{exp}}$ & $S_1, ~ S_3, ~ \tilde{R}_2$ & $\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^2$ \\
\hline \noalign{\vskip4pt}
\multirow{3}{*}{$K^+ \to\pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ }& \multirow{3}{*}{$< 1.85\times 10^{-10}$}
& $s_{\mbox{\tiny LQ}}\,\text{Re}(\hat{y}_{1\ell}\, {\hat{y}}_{2\ell}^*)$
& $[-3.7,\,8.3]\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.5ex]
& & $\text{Im}(\hat{y}_{1\ell}\, {\hat{y}}_{2\ell}^*)$
& $[-5.3,\,6.7]\times 10^{-4}$ \\[0.5ex]
&& $\big[\!\sum \limits_{m\not=n}\!|\hat{y}_{1m}\, {\hat{y}}_{2n}^*|^2\,\big]^{1/2}$
& $6.0 \times 10^{-4}$ \\[3ex]
\multirow{2}{*}{$K_L^0 \to\pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}$} &\multirow{2}{*}{ $<3.0\times 10^{-9}$} &
$\text{Im}(\hat{y}_{1\ell}\, {\hat{y}}_{2\ell}^*)$
& $[-1.1,\,1.2]\times 10^{-3}$ \\[0.5ex]
&&$\big[\!\sum \limits_{m\not=n}\!|
\hat{y}_{1m}\, {\hat{y}}_{2n}^* - \hat{y}_{2m}\, {\hat{y}}_{1n}^*
|^2\,\big]^{1/2}$
& $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ \\[1.5ex]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{90\% C.L. bounds on leptoquark couplings from $K \to\pi \nu \bar{\nu}$ decays. The sign factor $s_{\mbox{\tiny LQ}}=+1$ for the leptoquarks $S_{1,3}$, while $s_{\mbox{\tiny LQ}}=-1$ for $\tilde{R}_2$.} \label{Table:KaonNu}
\end{table}
A constraint equation analogous to \eqn{eq:KpnunuCons} is obtained for $K_{L}^0\rightarrow\pi^{0}\nu\bar{\nu}$, but only the imaginary part of the relevant product of leptoquark couplings contributes to the decay into identical neutrino flavours. The extracted bounds, also shown in Table~\ref{Table:KaonNu}, are weaker than in the $K^+$ case because the current experimental sensitivity is not so good.
The neutral and charged bounds, for identical neutrino flavours, are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:KaonNu}, where
\begin{equation}
x_\nu = \left(\frac{1~\mathrm{TeV}}{M_{\mathrm{LQ}}}\right)^2\times
\hat y_{1\ell}^{\phantom{*}} \hat y_{2\ell}^*
\end{equation}
is the appropriate combination of leptoquark couplings.
Notice that the $\tilde S_1$ and $R_2$ leptoquarks do not generate contributions to these decay modes at tree level. A study on loop-induced effects in $K^+ \to\pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ and $K_L^0 \to\pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}$ can be found in Ref.~\cite{Fajfer:2018bfj}, for the $R_2$ and $S_3$ leptoquarks.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{Knunuplot.pdf}
\caption{Allowed regions in the plane $(s_{\mbox{\tiny LQ}}\,\mathrm{Re}[x_\nu], \mathrm{Im}[x_\nu])$,
arising from $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ decays.}\label{fig:KaonNu}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The KOTO collaboration has recently reported the observation of four events in the neutral decay mode~\cite{KOTO_kaon2019}, with an expected background
of only $0.05\pm 0.02$ events. Removing one of the events that is suspected to originate in underestimated upstream activity background, the quoted single event sensitivity of $6.9\times 10^{-10}$ would correspond to
$\mathrm{BR}(K_L^0 \to\pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}) \sim 2\times 10^{-9}$, well above the new Grossman-Nir limit~\cite{Grossman:1997sk} implied by the NA62 upper bound on $\mathrm{BR}(K^+ \to\pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu})$. This limit is valid under quite generic assumptions, provided the lepton flavour is conserved, and in the leptoquark case it can be directly inferred from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Kppinunu}) and (\ref{eq:KLpinunu}). If there are only identical neutrino flavours in the final state, these two equations imply
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{BR}(K_L^0 \to\pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu})}{\mathrm{BR}(K^+ \to\pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu})}\, <\, \frac{\kappa_{\nu}^L \left( 1-\delta_\epsilon\right)}{\kappa_{\nu}^+ \left( 1+\Delta_{EM}\right)} \, =\, 4.2\, ,
\end{equation}
and, therefore, $\mathrm{BR}(K_L^0 \to\pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}) < 7.8\times 10^{-10}$. The only way to increase this result and reach the KOTO signal would be through the decays into neutrinos with different flavours, $n\not= m$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Kppinunu}) and (\ref{eq:KLpinunu}). Thus, a confirmation of the KOTO events would clearly indicate a violation of lepton flavour. Given their very preliminary status, we refrain from dwelling more on the physical meaning of these events. Some possible NP interpretations have been already considered in Ref.~\cite{Kitahara:2019lws}.
\subsection{$K^0-\bar{K^0}$ mixing}
\label{sec:KaonMix}
The leptoquarks contribute to kaon mixing via a box diagram mediated by leptons and leptoquarks similar to Fig.~\ref{dia:3l} (right panel) with the quark and lepton lines interchanged. The SM contribution to the off-diagonal element $M_{12}$ in the neutral kaon mass matrix is given by~\cite{Buras:1998raa}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M12SM}
M_{12}^{\rm SM}=\; & \frac{\langle K^0|\mathcal{H}^{\rm SM}_{\Delta S=2}|\bar{K^0}\rangle}{2m_K} \nonumber \\
=\; & \frac{G_F^2 m_W^2}{12\pi^2}\, f_K^2 \hat{B}_K m_K \left[{\lambda_{c}^*}^2 \eta_{cc} S_0(z_c)+ {\lambda_t^*}^2 \eta_{tt} S_0(z_t)+ 2\lambda^*_c \lambda_t^* \eta_{ct} S_0(z_c,z_t)\right]\, ,
\end{align}
where $f_K$ is the kaon decay constant, $\hat{B}_K$ is the reduced bag parameter, the short-distance QCD effects are described through the correction factors $\eta_i$ and $S_0(z)$ are the Inami-Lim functions:
\begin{align}
S_0(z_c)&= z_c\, , \\
S_0(z_t)&= \frac{4z_t-11z_t^2+z_t^3}{4(1-z_t)^2}-\frac{3z_t^3 \,{\rm ln}z_t}{2(1-z_t)^3}\,, \\
S_0(z_c,z_t)&= z_c \left[{\rm ln}\frac{z_t}{z_c}- \frac{3z_t}{4(1-z_t)}- \frac{3z_t^2 {\rm ln}z_t}{4(1-z_t)^2}\right].
\end{align}
Here $z_{c,t}$ are defined as $z_{c,t}=m_{c,t}^2/m_W^2$.
A scalar leptoquark, with the interaction term $\left(\lambda_{ij}\bar{d}^i_{L,R}\,\ell_{R,L}^j +\lambda_{ij}^\prime \bar{d}^i_R\,\nu_L^j\right)\phi$, gives rise to the following extra contribution to the $\Delta S=2$ Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}^{\rm LQ}_{\Delta S=2}= \frac{1}{128 \pi^2 M_{\rm LQ}^2}\,
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{3}(\lambda_{1j}\lambda_{2j}^*+\lambda_{1j}^\prime\lambda_{2j}^{\prime*})\right]^2 (\bar{d}_{L,R} \gamma^\mu s_{L,R})(\bar{d}_{L,R} \gamma^\mu s_{L,R})\, .
\end{align}
Here we have neglected the contributions proportional to lepton masses which generate (pseudo)scalar operators $(\bar{d}_{R,L} s_{L,R})(\bar{d}_{R,L}s_{L,R})$.
Including the NP effect, the total dispersive matrix element can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:M12Tot}
M_{12}=M_{12}^{\rm SM}+ \frac{1}{384 \pi^2 M_{\rm LQ}^2}\, f_K^2 \hat{B}_K m_K
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{3}(\lambda_{1j}\lambda_{2j}^*+\lambda_{1j}^\prime\lambda_{2j}^{\prime*})\right]^2.
\end{align}
The two observables $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$ are related to $M_{12}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:obs}
\Delta m_K \approx 2\, \text{Re}\, M_{12}\, ,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\epsilon_K \approx \kappa_\epsilon\,\frac{e^{i\pi/4}}{\sqrt{2}\Delta m_K}\, \text{Im}\, M_{12}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the phenomenological factor $\kappa_\epsilon\!=0.94\pm 0.02$ accounts for the estimated long-distance corrections to $\epsilon_K$~\cite{Buras:2010pza}.
The experimental measurements of these observables are~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta m_K = (3.484\pm 0.006)\times 10^{-15}\,{\rm GeV}\, ,
\qquad\qquad
|\epsilon_K|=(2.228\pm 0.011)\times 10^{-3}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
In the numerical analysis, we use estimates of various parameters in Eq.~\eqref{eq:M12SM} from~\cite{Aoki:2019cca,Cirigliano:2011ny} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{B}_K\!=0.717\pm 0.024\, ,
\quad
\eta_{cc}\!=1.43\pm 0.23\, ,
\quad
\eta_{tt}\!=0.5765\pm 0.0065\, ,
\quad
\eta_{ct}\!=0.496\pm0.047\, .
\end{eqnarray}
In the SM the charm box diagram dominates the $CP$-conserving contribution to $M_{12}$ over the top loop effect, in spite of its large mass enhancement in the loop function, as the later is CKM suppressed.
In addition, there are sizable long-distance contributions to $\Delta m_K$, which are difficult to quantify.
Hence we adopt a very conservative approach and allow the NP contributions alone (without the SM effect) to saturate the measured kaon mass difference. The resulting bounds are shown in Table~\ref{Table:mix}.
However, $\text{Im}\, M_{12}$ is well predicted in the SM and while using the expression for $\epsilon_K$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:obs}, we take the measured value for $\Delta m_K$ and combine all theoretical and experimental uncertainties. To be explicit, we find the range for NP couplings for which $|\text{Im} M_{12}|\approx (1.17\pm 0.03)\times 10^{-17}$ is satisfied. The results are depicted in Table~\ref{Table:mix}, where we separately show the contribution arising from charged leptons and neutrinos flowing in the loop.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c }
\hline \hline
LQ & Bound from $\Delta m_K$: & Range from $|\epsilon_K|$:
\\
& $<7.1\!\times\! 10^{-4}\times \left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^2$ & $[-2.4,\,7.2]\!\times\! 10^{-6}\!\times \!\left(M_{\rm LQ}/{\rm TeV}\right)^2$
\\[1ex] \hline \noalign{\vskip2pt}
$R_2$ & $\big|[\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{i2}y_{i1}^*)]^2\!-\![\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{i2}y_{i1}^*)]^2\big|$ & $\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{i2}y_{i1}^*)\,\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{i2}y_{i1}^*)$
\\[2.2ex]
$\tilde{R}_2,\tilde{S}_1,4\times S_3$ & $\big|[\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{1i}y_{2i}^*)]^2\!-\![\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{1i}y_{2i}^*)]^2\big|$ & $\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{1i}y_{2i}^*)\,\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}y_{1i}y_{2i}^*)$
\\[-1.5ex] (for $\ell$-loop) &&
\\[.5ex]
$S_1,\tilde{R}_2,S_3$ & $\big|[\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}\hat{y}_{1i}\hat{y}_{2i}^*)]^2\!-\![\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}\hat{y}_{1i}\hat{y}_{2i}^*)]^2\big|$ & $\text{Re}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}\hat{y}_{1i}\hat{y}_{2i}^*)\,\text{Im}(\sum \limits_{i=1}^{3}\hat{y}_{1i}\hat{y}_{2i}^*)$
\\[-1.5ex] (for $\nu$-loop) &&
\\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Bounds on leptoquark couplings from neutral kaon mixing.} \label{Table:mix}
\end{table}
\section{Summary and discussion}
\label{sec:summary}
In this work we have presented a detailed catalog of upper limits on scalar leptoquark interactions with SM fermions, arising from various decay modes of charged leptons and kaons. Compared to previous analyses, we attempted to be as much rigorous as possible to carefully include all contributions within the SM. We have first derived the most general low-energy four-fermion effective Lagrangian induced by tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange, and have worked out the particular values of its Wilson coefficients for the five possible types of leptoquarks.
We started with the decays of the tau lepton to pseudoscalar or vector meson states accompanied with a charged lepton. A few of these modes were examined in Ref.~\cite{Davidson:1993qk} (with the data available at that time), where the limits were obtained by comparing with the corresponding mode with neutrinos.
The much stronger experimental upper bounds on these decays currently available imply substantially improved constraints on the leptoquark parameters from all channels, which
are presented in Tables~\ref{Table:meson} and \ref{Table:meson2}.
The most stringent limits on scalar operators are obtained from $\tau \to \eta^\prime \ell$, while the $\tau \to \rho^0 \ell$ decay mode puts the strongest constraint on vector operators.
Transitions in purely leptonic systems can only be induced at the loop level.
Interestingly, the rare lepton-flavour-violating decay $\mu \to e \gamma$ is found to be immensely constraining for all scalar leptoquarks except $\tilde{R_2}$.
The analogous limits from $\tau \to e \gamma$ and $\tau \to \mu \gamma$
are also quite strong for the $R_2$ and $S_1$ leptoquarks, but much weaker for $\tilde S_1$ and $S_3$.
We have also shown that from the electric and magnetic dipole moment measurements of leptons, only the leptoquarks having interactions with both left- and right-handed quarks and leptons, i.e., $R_2$ and $S_1$, can be constrained. Essentially the top and/or charm quark going in the loop can enhance the rate for these two leptoquarks.
The rare lepton decay $\ell\to\ell^\prime\ell^\prime\ell^{\prime\prime}$ can not compete with the corresponding radiative modes; however, taking into account all contributions from penguin and box diagrams, we have still derived constrained equations among different leptoquark couplings that must be satisfied. The expression for different lepton flavours in the final state has also been pointed out in this context.
Next we have investigated the rare decays of kaons, focusing on the very suppressed FCNC leptonic and semileptonic modes. We have derived the differential distributions of the $K\to\pi\ell^+\ell^-$ decays, taking into account all known effects within the SM. Owing to the strong suppression of the SM decay amplitudes, we have been able to derive useful limits on the leptoquarks couplings, even neglecting the SM contributions in some cases, e.g., $K^+ \to \pi^+ \ell^+\ell^-$ and $K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$. The decays $K_S^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$ ($K_L^0 \to \ell^+\ell^-$) and $K_L^0 \to \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$ ($K_S^0 \to \ell^+\ell^-$) constrain the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the same combination of leptoquark couplings, while $K^+ \to \pi^+ \ell^+\ell^-$ restricts its absolute value.
The stronger constraints are extracted from the $K^0_L$ decays, owing to its long-lived nature that increases the sensitivity to the leptoquark contributions.
In addition to higher statistics and more accurate data, future improvements on these limits would require taking properly into account the interference between the SM and NP amplitudes, which in same cases it is currently hampered by poorly determined non-perturbative parameters.
We have also analyzed the strong constraints from $K\to\pi \nu \bar{\nu}$, taking into account the most recent limits from NA62 and KOTO.
The recent four events observed by KOTO, which violate the Grossman-Nir limit, most probably originate in underestimated background/systematics. Nevertheless, we have pointed out that decay modes into neutrinos with different flavours could provide a possible explanation of the data in the leptoquark context.
For completeness, we have also compiled the constraints from
$K^0-\bar{K^0}$ mixing emerging from the one-loop leptoquark contributions.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Jorge Portol\'es and Avelino Vicente for useful discussions.
This work has been supported in part by the Spanish Government and ERDF funds from the EU Commission [Grant FPA2017-84445-P], the Generalitat Valenciana [Grant Prometeo/2017/053] and the Spanish Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa Programme [Grant SEV-2014-0398]. R.M. also acknowledges the support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through a postdoctoral research fellowship.
|
\section{Introduction}
Reusing existing datasets helps in improving productivity and reducing cost for application developers.
In order to support convenient search of datasets that match a developer's \emph{data needs}, Google Dataset Search and other \emph{dataset search engines} have recently emerged. However, there is much room for improving their usability.
Existing efforts mostly focus on metadata management~\cite{google}, result filtering~\cite{DBLP:conf/semco/KunzeA13}, and dataset browsing~\cite{DBLP:conf/semweb/PietrigaGADCGM18}.
At the same time little attention has been given to the queries in dataset search, which may differ considerably from general Web search queries.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/framework.pdf}
\caption{Proposed framework for dataset search.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
In this ongoing work towards developing a more usable dataset search engine, we first analyze real data needs collected from user-submitted posts on a variety of websites.
We reveal the complex constitution of a typical dataset search query, where various elements of both metadata and data content can be mentioned.
This brings us to the idea that as a specialization of information retrieval~\cite{DBLP:conf/semco/KunzeA13}, dataset search poses unique challenges.
Based on our empirical findings,
in Figure~\ref{fig:framework} we present a new \emph{query-centered framework} for dataset search that has four main components. (i)~\emph{Query Processing} component understands how a data need is formulated as an input query and pre-processes the query in order to achieve best query results. The query is interpreted by semantic parsing, and will be rewritten (e.g.,~relaxed) when needed (e.g.,~to avoid empty results).
(ii)~\emph{Indexing and Ranking} component determines which datasets are relevant to the query. We compute relevance and construct indexes for fast computation. (iii)~\emph{Snippet Generation} component explains how a retrieved dataset is relevant to the query and reflects the underlying data need. A query-biased snippet is extracted from its metadata and/or its content.
(iv)~All these components are supported by the \textit{backend module}, which crawls, caches, and cleans datasets.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\caption{Query Annotation Scheme and Its Distribution in Dataset Search Queries}
\label{tab:scheme}
\begin{tabular}{llrp{11cm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Category} & \% of Queries & Example Query \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{Metadata} & Name & $3.54\%$ & \emph{HUST-ASL} Dataset \\
& Domain/Topic & $94.45\%$ & \emph{weather} dataset with solar radiance and solar energy production \\
& Data Format & $16.23\%$ & \emph{jpg images} for all unicode characters \\
& Language & $3.90\%$ & annotated moive review dataset in \emph{German} \\
& Accessibility & $7.40\%$ & \emph{open source} handwritten English alphabets dataset \\
& Provenance & $0.21\%$ & \emph{FDA datasets} about medicine name and the result has adverse events \\
& Statistics & $2.98\%$ & dataset contains at least \emph{1000} examples of opinion articles \\
& Overall & $96.05\%$ & \\
\hline
\multirow{7}{*}{Content} & Concept & $50.59\%$ & dataset about people, include \emph{gender}, \emph{ethnicity}, \emph{name} \\
& Geospatial & $19.21\%$ & judicial decisions in \emph{France} \\
& Other Entities & $0.41\%$ & datasets with nutrition data for many commercial food products (i.e., \emph{Lucky Charms}, \emph{Monster Energy}, \emph{Nutella}, etc.) \\
& Temporal & $9.35\%$ & \emph{2011--2013} MoT failure rates on passenger cars \\
& Other Numbers & $1.59\%$ & businesses that employ over \emph{1000} people in Yorkshire region \\
& Overall & $63.79\%$ & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Some components in the framework have attracted research interests, such as dataset ranking~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/ToupikovUDHT09}.
Others are still rather ad hoc; they lack rigorous solutions or their performance has not been rigorously evaluated. In this paper, we report our progress in two aspects: \emph{characterizing data needs} (Section~\ref{sect:needs}) and \emph{generating dataset snippets} (Section~\ref{sect:snippet}). Our contribution is summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We collect real data needs from diverse sources, including user-submitted posts from online communities and data requests submitted to a national open data portal. We derive 1,947~dataset search queries and semantically annotate them using a novel fine-grained scheme. Our analysis provides implications for enhancing dataset search.
\item For RDF data, in contrast to query-independent illustrative dataset snippet~\cite{DBLP:conf/wsdm/ChengJDXQ17}, we extract a query-biased snippet from the content of a dataset by adapting a state-of-the-art algorithm for the group Steiner tree problem~\cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/LiQYM16}. We conduct a user study to evaluate the usefulness of these two types of snippets, and also quantitatively analyze their features.
\end{itemize}
\section{Characterization of Data Needs}\label{sect:needs}
Comparing to general Web search,
the knowledge about dataset search is rather limited. Therefore, we collect and analyze real data needs to provide empirical findings and implications for enhancing dataset search. We will now discuss this in details.
\subsection{Collection and Preprocessing}
\textbf{Collection.}
We collected descriptions of real data needs from four sources, including three online communities, namely Stack Overflow, Open Data Stack Exchange, and Reddit, and one national open data portal, namely data.gov.uk. For each online community, we leveraged its search function to retrieve posts with the query ``looking for dataset''.
Note that since Reddit covers a wide range of topics, our search was performed within its r/datasets community. From the search results, we manually identified 50~top-ranked posts where a clear data need was described, e.g.,
\begin{quote}
\textit{I am looking for datasets that lists the location of accidents or traffic (latitude and longitude) with date and time in many countries. I found datasets for USA and UK, now looking for datasets for other countries. Any type of road accident would be great.}\footnote{https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/11146/dataset-for-road-accidents-or-traffic}
\end{quote}
\noindent For data.gov.uk, we reused 50~user-submitted data requests which were sampled and published by the authors of~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/KacprzakKTS18}. To summarize, a total of 200~descriptions of data needs\footnote{http://ws.nju.edu.cn/datasetsearch/query-cikm2019/dataneeds.txt} were collected.
\textbf{Preprocessing.}
The description of a data need may be long and noisy. To improve the accuracy of analysis, we recruited ten human experts to summarize each description and remove irrelevant information. Specifically, each description was independently presented to every human expert. The expert summarized the data need by reformulating it as a concise free-form \emph{dataset search query} containing 1--20~words.
For the 150~posts collected from online communities, we received $1,500$~reformulated queries from ten experts; an example such query is:
\begin{quote}
\textit{location of accidents or traffic with date and time in many countries \,.}
\end{quote}
\noindent
From the resulting set we removed 2 queries
that were arguably meaningless.
Moreover, the 50~data requests submitted to data.gov.uk had been processed in the same way by crowd workers~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/KacprzakKTS18}, producing 449~queries. To summarize, a total of $1,947$~dataset search queries\footnote{http://ws.nju.edu.cn/datasetsearch/query-cikm2019/queries.txt} were derived from the collected descriptions of data needs.
\subsection{Analysis and Implications}\label{sect:analysis}
\textbf{Annotation Scheme.}
We propose a fine-grained scheme in Table~\ref{tab:scheme} to annotate dataset search queries with their semantics.
The scheme allows to distinguish between mentions of metadata and of data content. The latter is further divided into schema-level elements (i.e.,~concepts), instance-level elements (i.e.,~geospatial or other entities), and data values (i.e.,~temporal or other numbers). Using the proposed scheme, all the 1,947~queries have been annotated manually by two human experts. The results are accessible online\footnote{http://ws.nju.edu.cn/datasetsearch/query-cikm2019/annotations.txt}.
\textbf{Results.}
Among the 1,947 queries we collected, a query in average contains 9.22~words. More than half~($58.60\%$) of the queries contain 5-11~words. Three types of queries are identified: phrases~($63.33\%$), keywords~($31.38\%$), and sentences~($5.29\%$).
As summarized in Table~\ref{tab:scheme}, queries usually mention some metadata~(96.05\%), especially the domain/topic of interest~($94.45\%$). Data format and accessibility also occupy notable proportions~($>5\%$). On the other hand, most queries~($63.79\%$) mention the data content, mainly some schema-level concepts~($50.59\%$), followed by instance-level geospatial entities~($19.21\%$) which appear more often in the data requests submitted to data.gov.uk~($46.55\%$) but less often in other queries~($11.01\%$). Besides, temporal information is not neglectable~(9.35\%). Moreover, $60.61\%$~of the queries mention both metadata and data content.
\textbf{Implications.}
First, it would be insufficient to only take metadata into account in indexing, ranking, and result presentation like Google Dataset Search~\cite{google}. Data content should also be considered.
Second, the constitution of a dataset search query is complex, requiring novel semantic parsing techniques to process, understand, and finally improve the accuracy of search.
Third, data needs collected from different sources exhibit different features. The results of analyzing a single type of data needs (e.g.,~those submitted to national open data portals~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/KacprzakKTS18,DBLP:journals/ws/KacprzakKIBTS19}) may not be generalizable.
\section{Snippet Generation}\label{sect:snippet}
The above analysis reveals that dataset search queries mention the elements of both metadata and data content. However, current dataset search engines only present metadata about each dataset in search results pages.
In order to complement this metadata and help the users to quickly identify relevant datasets,
we propose to extract a snippet from data content. We now present our two such methods and report preliminary evaluation results.
\subsection{Methods}
We currently focus on graph data, or more precisely RDF datasets. The content of an RDF dataset is a directed graph where nodes and edges are associated with meaningful labels.
\textbf{Query-biased Snippet.}
In the first method, a dataset search query is treated as a set of keywords after removing stop words. Each keyword is mapped to a set of nodes in the graph-structured data content. We intend to generate a query-biased snippet by extracting a subgraph that not only fully covers the query but also reflects the relationships between query keywords. We formulate the problem as finding an optimal connected subgraph that spans at least one mapped node from each query keyword. Optimality is defined by the minimization of total edge weights. We follow~\cite{DBLP:conf/icde/DingYWQZL07} to weight edges. This gives rise to an instance of the group Steiner tree problem (GST), and we implement a state-of-the-art algorithm~\cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/LiQYM16} for solving this NP-hard problem.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Human-rated Usefulness of Snippets (1--5)}
\label{tab:userstudy}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\toprule
& Mean $\pm$ Standard Deviation \\
\midrule
Query-biased Snippets & $1.91 \pm 1.22$ \\
Illustrative Snippets & $3.04 \pm 1.23$ \\
\hline
$t$-test: \quad $p=0.0127$ & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textbf{Illustrative Snippet.}
Our second method we implement is to generate an illustrative snippet~\cite{DBLP:conf/wsdm/ChengJDXQ17} which is query-independent. It is an optimal size-constrained connected subgraph extracted from data content. Optimality is defined by a linear combination of (i)~covering the most frequent schema-level elements that appear in the data content, i.e.,~classes and properties in the RDF schema, and (ii)~covering the most central instance-level elements, i.e.,~entities. We implement the approximation algorithm presented in~\cite{DBLP:conf/wsdm/ChengJDXQ17} for solving this NP-hard problem.
\subsection{Preliminary Results}
\textbf{Design of User Study.}
We recruited 15~researchers/developers to participate in a user study. We crawled 311~RDF datasets from DataHub.
Each participant was assigned 5~datasets and had access to their metadata and schema-level elements. For each dataset, the participant was asked to describe a data need that could be fulfilled by the dataset, by formulating a query where the keywords could be fully covered by the dataset.
Then, a query-biased snippet was computed online and compared with the precomputed illustrative snippet. The size of the former was automatically determined by the algorithm, whereas the latter was constrained to have at most 20~edges (i.e.,~RDF triples). Both snippets were blindly visualized as two node-link diagrams. The participant rated, on a scale of 1--5, the usefulness of each snippet in supporting relevance judgment.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.4\textwidth]{figs/snippet.pdf}
\caption{A query-biased snippet for the dataset \emph{Learned Genre Ontology Intl} w.r.t. the query \emph{blues rock reggae}. }
\label{snippet}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Results.}
As summarized in Table~\ref{tab:userstudy}, illustrative snippets significantly outperform query-biased snippets~($p < 0.05$). However, they are both not very satisfying, leaving room for improvement.
Post-experiment interviews partially explained the above results.
For query-biased snippets, a snippet like the one illustrated in Figure~\ref{snippet} could cover all the query keywords, which was appreciated by the participants. However, most participants complained that such a snippet contained very limited information, due to the minimality of group Steiner trees. Indeed, in average, this kind of snippet only covered $6\%$~of the schema-level elements after weighting\footnote{Classes and properties are weighted by their frequencies in data content.}.
In contrast, for illustrative snippets, most participants confirmed their richness and the diversity of information they contain. Such snippets in average covered $75\%$~of the (weighted) classes and properties that appeared in the data content. Thus, the illustrations (or exemplifications) of schema-level concepts
that form illustrative snippets were beneficial for user comprehension of the dataset. On the other hand, illustrative snippets often failed to match the keywords appearing in the query. This kind of weak relevance to the query was criticized by the participants.
Therefore, we conclude that the two types of snippets showed complementary features. A promising direction for future work would be to combine their advantages.
\section{Related Work}\label{sect:rw}
\textbf{Dataset Search.}
Google Dataset Search~\cite{google} supports keyword search and presents the metadata for each retrieved dataset. A query is processed using the same methodology as a Web search engine, but is only matched with the metadata of a dataset. Other prototype systems~\cite{DBLP:conf/semco/KunzeA13,DBLP:conf/semweb/PietrigaGADCGM18} support faceted search.
All these systems
exploit \emph{metadata} but ignore the \emph{content} of a dataset. By comparison, our proposed framework of dataset search is centered around the relationship between the query and the content of a retrieved dataset. We highlight semantic query parsing and query-biased snippet generation in order to understand and reflect the data need underlying a query, respectively.
\textbf{Snippet Generation.}
The utility of metadata in relevance judgment is limited because the information it spans is almost orthogonal to the content of a dataset where elements are often mentioned in a query. A promising way to complement this approach is to also present a snippet generated from the data content. IlluSnip~\cite{DBLP:conf/wsdm/ChengJDXQ17} generates an \emph{extractive} snippet by selecting a small illustrative subset of data. HIEDS~\cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/ChengJQ16} generates an \emph{abstractive} snippet by producing a hierarchical grouping of the data content. However, none of these static snippets can precisely explain how the dataset is relevant to the query. We are among the first who explore query-biased snippet generation for datasets. Our preliminary results suggest combining the coverage of the data content~\cite{DBLP:conf/wsdm/ChengJDXQ17} with the relevance to the query~\cite{DBLP:conf/sigmod/LiQYM16} for future work.
\textbf{Query Analysis.}
Currently there is no public access to the query logs of commercial dataset search engines.
Research efforts are restricted to the queries submitted to national open data portals. In~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/KacprzakKTS18}, data requests submitted to data.gov.uk are transformed into queries by crowd workers. In~\cite{DBLP:journals/ws/KacprzakKIBTS19}, queries are extracted from the query logs of four national open data portals. The analysis in~\cite{DBLP:conf/www/KacprzakKTS18,DBLP:journals/ws/KacprzakKIBTS19}
mainly considers query length and query annotation. Their annotation scheme only includes geospatial, temporal, file/data type, numbers, and abbreviations. Their \emph{lexical} annotation is carried out automatically based on a predefined keyword mapping. They show that dataset search queries differ from general Web search queries in their length, topic, and structure. By comparison, our extended annotation scheme is more fine-grained, focusing on the \emph{semantics} of a query.
Besides, the data needs we collect are more diverse, including data requests submitted to a national open data portal as well as user-submitted posts on three online communities. Therefore, our results may exhibit better generalizability.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}\label{sect:concl}
On the way of developing a more usable dataset search engine, we summarize our findings presented in this paper as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Real data needs mention both metadata and data content.
\item The constitution of a dataset search query is complex.
\item Snippet generation for dataset search should combine query relevance with schema coverage.
\end{itemize}
\noindent These empirical findings and implications support our idea of designing a query-centered framework for dataset search. Extending the methods that have been implemented and priliminarily evaluated in this work, we have identified the following further steps for future development of our system.
First of all, dataset search requires specialized query processing. The analyzed data needs have exhibited some query patterns that are captured by our annotation scheme. It inspires us to formulate automated query parsing as a sequence labeling task and we plan to solve it using supervised learning techniques. To this end, a large set of data needs or dataset search queries should be labeled as training data. This in turn may reveal new patterns and requires extending our annotation scheme, until convergence.
Query processing is tightly coupled with indexing, ranking, and snippet generation. As a query may mention both the metadata and the content of a target dataset, it would be desirable to consider both of them in retrieval models and snippets. Metadata is relatively easy to handle, as it can be viewed as a semi-structured document and hence existing Web search methods may apply. By contrast, indexing, ranking, and summarizing data content pose new challenges related to both effectiveness and efficiency, as a dataset is much larger than a webpage.
With all these components being implemented, we plan to assemble a prototype of a new dataset search engine, and conduct user study to evaluate its end-to-end performance. We will start with RDF datasets, and progressively extend to other formats.
|
\section{Keywords:} photonic, reservoir computing, passive, coherent, distributed nonlinearity, Kerr, fiber-ring }
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
In this work, we discuss an efficient, i.e. high speed and low power, analogue photonic computing system based on the concept of reservoir computing (RC) \cite{maass2002,jaeger2004}. This framework allows to exploit the transient dynamics of a nonlinear dynamical system for performing useful computations. In this neuromorphic computing scheme, a network of interconnected computational nodes (called neurons) is excited with input data. The ensemble of neurons is called the reservoir, and the interneural connections are fixed and can be chosen at random. For the coupling of the input data to the reservoir an input mask is used: a set of input weights which determines how strongly each of the inputs couples to each of the neurons. The randomness in both the input mask and internal reservoir connections ensures diversity in the neural responses.
The reservoir output is constructed through a linear combination of neural responses (possibly first processed by a readout function) with a set of readout weights. The strength of the reservoir computing scheme lies in the simplicity of its training method, where only the readout weights are tuned to force the reservoir output to match a desired target. In general, a reservoir exhibits internal feedback through loops in the neural interconnections. As a result any reservoir has memory, which means it can retain input data for a finite amount of time, and it can compute linear and nonlinear functions of the retained information.
Within the field of reservoir computing two main approaches exist: in the network-based approach networks of neurons are implemented by connecting multiple discrete nodes \cite{verstraeten2007}, and in the delay-based approach networks of virtual neurons are created by subjecting a single node (often a nonlinear dynamical device) to delayed feedback \cite{appeltant2011}. In the latter, the neurons are called virtual because they correspond with the travelling signals found in consequent timeslots in the continuous delay-line system. On account of this time-multiplexing of neurons, the input weights are translated into a temporal input mask, which is mixed with the input data before it is injected into the reservoir. Besides ensuring diversity in the neural responses, this input mask also keeps the virtual neurons in a transient dynamic regime, which is a necessary condition for good reservoir computing performance.
Multiple opto-electronic reservoirs have been implemented, both delay-based \cite{paquot2012,larger2012,duport2016,larger2017} and network-based \cite{bueno2018}. Several all-optical reservoirs have been realized, both network-based systems \cite{vandoorne2011,vandoorne2014,katumba2018,bueno2018,harkhoe2018} and delay-based systems \cite{duport2012,brunner2013,vinckier2015}. An overview of recent advances is given in Ref. \cite{vandersande2017}. We observe that in the field of optical reservoir computing, some implementations operated in an incoherent regime, while others operated in a coherent regime. Coherent reservoirs have the advantage that they can exploit the complex character of the optical field, exploit interferences, and can use the natural quadratic nonlinearity of photodiodes. As a drawback, coherent bulk optical reservoirs typically need to be stabilized, but this is not a problem for on chip implementations.
Here we investigate the potential advantage of having a coherent reservoir with nonlinearity inside the reservoir. We show that it can increase the performance of the reservoir on certain tasks and we expect that future coherent optical reservoir computers will make use of such nonlinearities.
State of the art photonic implementations target simple reservoir architectures \cite{harkhoe2018}, which can easily be upscaled to increase the number of computational nodes or neurons, thereby enhancing the reservoir’s computational capacity. Even a linear photonic cavity can be a potent reservoir \cite{vinckier2015}, provided that some nonlinearity is present either in the mapping of input data to the reservoir, or in the readout of the reservoir’s response. Despite advances towards all-optical RC \cite{bienstman2018}, many state of the art photonic reservoir computers inherently contain some nonlinearity as they are usually set up to process and produce electronic signals. This means that even if the reservoir is all-optical, the reservoir computer in its entirety is of an opto-electronic nature. Commonly used components like a Mach-Zehnder modulators (MZM) and photodetectors (PD) provide means for transitioning back and forth between the electronic and optical domains, and they also – almost inevitably - introduce nonlinearities which boost the opto-electronic reservoir computer’s performance beyond the merits of the optical reservoir itself. When transitioning towards all-optical reservoir computers, such non-linearities can no longer be relied on, and thus the required nonlinear transformation of information must originate elsewhere. One option is then to use multiple strategically placed nonlinear components in the reservoir, but this can be a costly strategy when upscaling the reservoir \cite{vandoorne2011}.
In this paper, we study a delay-based reservoir computer, based on a passive coherent optical fiber ring cavity following Ref. \cite{vinckier2015} and exploit the inherent nonlinear response of the waveguiding material to build a state-of-the-art photonic reservoir. This means that the nonlinearity of our photonic reservoir is not found in localized parts, but rather it is distributed over the reservoir’s entire extent. To correctly characterize the effects of such distributed nonlinearity, we also consider in this study all other nonlinearities that may surround the reservoir. In terms of the reservoir’s input mapping, we examined the system responses when receiving optical inputs (linear mapping), and when receiving electronic inputs coupled to the optical reservoir through a Mach-Zehnder modulator with a nonlinear mapping. For the reservoir’s readout layer, we examined both linear readouts (coherent detection) and nonlinear readouts through the quadratic nonlinearity of a photodiode measuring the power of the optical field. Taking these different options into account, we then constructed different scenarios in terms of the presence of nonlinearities in the input and/or output layer of these reservoir computers. In all these scenarios we numerically benchmarked the RC performance, thus quantifying the difference in performance between systems which do or do not have such distributed nonlinearity inside the reservoir. In the next sections, we show our numerical results, which show a broad range of optical input power levels at which these RCs benefit from the self-phase modulation experienced by the signals due to the nonlinear Kerr effect induced by the waveguide material. We also show the results of our experimental measurements that indicate how much this distributed nonlinearity boosts the reservoir's capacity to perform nonlinear computation. In the discussion section, we analyze the impact of these findings on the future of photonic reservoir computing.
\section{Materials and Methods}
\subsection{Setup} \label{section:setup}
Our reservoir computing simulations and experiments are based on the set of dynamical systems which are discussed in this section. The reservoir itself is implemented in the all-optical fiber-ring cavity shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_core}, using standard single-mode fiber. A polarization controller is used to ensure that the input field $E_{in}$ (originating from the green arrow) excites a polarization eigenmode of the fiber-ring cavity. A fiber coupler, characterized by its power transmission coefficient $T=50\%$, couples light in and out of the cavity. The fiber-ring is characterized by the roundrip length $L=\SI{10}{\meter}$ (or roundtrip time $t_R$), the propagation loss $\alpha$ (taken here \SI{0.18}{\deci\bel\per\kilo\meter}), the fiber nonlinear coefficient $\gamma$ (which is set to $0$ to simulate a linear reservoir, and set to $\gamma_{Kerr}=\SI{2.6}{\milli\radian\per\meter\per\watt}$ to simulate a nonlinear reservoir), and the cavity detuning $\delta_0$, i.e. the difference between the roundtrip phase and the nearest resonance (multiple of $2\pi$). This low-finesse cavity is operated off-resonance, with a maximal input power of \SI{50}{\milli\watt} (\SI{17}{\dBm}). A network of time-multiplexed virtual neurons is encoded in the cavity field envelope. The output field $E_{out}$ is sent to the readout layer (through the orange arrow) where the neural responses are demultiplexed.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{setup_core}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic of the fiber-ring cavity of length $L$ used to implement an optical reservoir. The green (orange) arrow indicates a connection with an input (output) layer. A polarization controller maps the input polarization onto a polarization eigenmode of the cavity. A coupler with power transmission coefficient $T$ couples the input field $E_{in}^{(n)}(\tau)$ to the cavity field $E^{(n)}(z,\tau)$ and couples to the output field $E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau)$, where $n$ is the roundtrip index, $\tau$ is time (with $0<\tau<t_R$) and $z$ is the longitudinal position in the ring cavity. }\label{fig:setup_core}
\end{figure}
The input field $E_{in}$ can originate from one of two different optoelectronic input schemes. Firstly we consider a scenario where the input signal $u(n)$ (with discrete time $n$) is amplitude-encoded in an optical signal $E\sim u(n)$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(a). The reservoir's input mask $m(\tau)$ is mixed with the input signal by periodic modulation of the optical input signal using an MZM. This scheme was implemented in Ref. \cite{duport2016}, but the nonlinearity of the MZM was avoided through pre-compensation of the electronic input signal. Note that the discrete time $n$ corresponds with the roundtrip index. And as delay-based reservoirs are typically set up to process 1 sample each roundtrip, $n$ also corresponds with the sample index. However, we have chosen to hold each input sample over multiple roundtrips, for reasons which are explained in the Results section (that is, $u(n)$ is constant over multiple values of $n$). Secondly we consider a scenario where we use the MZM to modulate a CW optical pump following Ref. \cite{duport2012}, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(b). Here the input signal is first mixed with the input mask and then used to drive the MZM. It is known that the MZM's nonlinear transfer function can affect the RC system's performance \cite{vinckier2015}, but the implications for a coherent nonlinear reservoir have not yet been investigated.
Similarly, the output field $E_{out}$ can be processed by two different optoelectronic readout schemes. Firstly we consider a coherent detection scheme as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(c). Mixing the reservoir's output field with a reference field $E_{LO}$ allows to record the complex neural responses, time-multiplexed in the output field $E_{out}$. Secondly, we consider a readout scheme where a photodetector (PD) measures the optical power of the neural responses $|E_{out}|^2$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(d).
With high optical power levels and small neuron spacing (meaning fast modulation of the input signal), dynamical and nonlinear effects other than the Kerr nonlinearity may appear, such as photon-phonon interactions causing Brillouin and Raman scattering, and bandwidth limitations caused by the driving and readout equipment. We want to focus in the present work on the effects of the Kerr nonlinearity. Combined with the memory limitations of the oscilloscope, we therefore limit our reservoir to $20$ neurons, with a maximal input power of \SI{100}{\milli\watt}.
The current setup is not actively stabilized. We have found that the cavity detuning $\delta_0$ does not vary more than a few \SI{}{\milli\radian} over the course of any single reservoir computing experiment, where a few thousand input samples are processed. A short header, added to the injected signal, allows us to recover the detuning $\delta_0$ post-experiment. We effectively measure the interference between a pulse which reflects off the cavity and a pulse which completes one roundtrip through the cavity. However, we find that the precise value of $\delta_0$ has no significant influence on the experimental reservoir computing results.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{setup_inputs_outputs}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematics of input and output layers connecting to the reservoir shown in Fig. \ref{fig:setup_core}. In the linear input scheme \textbf{(a)} the Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) superimposes the reservoir's input mask $m(\tau)$ on the optical signal $E\sim u(n)$ carrying the input data. In the (possibly) nonlinear input scheme \textbf{(b)} the input data is mixed with the input mask and then drives the MZM to modulate a CW optical pump. In the linear output scheme \textbf{(c)} a reference field $E_{LO}$ is used to implement coherent detection, allowing a quadrature of the complex optical field to be measured. Note that coherent detection requires two such readout arms with phase-shifted reference fields in order to measure the complex output field $E_{out}$. In the nolinear output scheme \textbf{(d)} only a photodetector (PD) is used, thus only allowing the optical output power $|E_{out}|^2$ to be recorded.} \label{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Physical model}
Here we discuss the mean-field model used to describe the temporal evolution of the electric field envelope $E^{(n)}(z,\tau)$ inside the cavity, where $n$ is the roundtrip index, $0<\tau<t_R$ is time (bound by the cavity roundtrip time $t_R$ and $0<z<L$ is the longitudinal coordinate of the fiber ring cavity with length $L$. The position $z=0$ corresponds to the position of the fiber coupler. The position $z=L$ corresponds to the same position, but after propagation through the entire fiber-ring. We will describe the evolution on a per-roundtrip basis (i.e. with varying roundtrip index $n$). With this notation $E^{(n)}(z,\tau)$ represents the cavity field envelope measured at position $z$ at time $\tau$ during the $n$-th roundtrip. For each roundtrip we model propagation through the nonlinear cavity to obtain $E^{(n})(z=L,\tau)$ from $E^{(n)}(z=0,\tau)$. We then express the cavity boundary conditions to obtain $E^{(n+1)}(0,\tau)$ from $E^{(n)}(L,\tau)$ and to obtain the field $E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau)$ at the output of the fiber-ring reservoir. For now we will omit $\tau$.
Firstly, to model propagation in the fiber-ring cavity we take into account propagation loss and the nonlinear Kerr-effect. Since the nonlinear propagation model is independent from the roundtrip index $n$, this subscript is omitted in the following description. The nonlinear propagation equation is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nonlinearpropagation}
\partial_z E = i\gamma |E|^2E-\alpha E.
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha$ is the propagation loss and $\gamma$ is the nonlinear coefficient which is set to $\gamma=0$ to simulate a linear reservoir, and set to $\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$ to include the nonlinear Kerr effect caused by the fiber waveguide. We do not include dispersion effects at the current operating point of the system, since the neuron separation is much larger than the diffusion length, hence also $\tau$ can be omitted in the nonlinear propagation model. The evolution of the power $|E(z)|^2$ is readily obtained by solving the corresponding propagation equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:powerequation}
\partial_z |E|^2 = E^* \partial_z E + E \partial_z E^* = -2\alpha |E|^2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:powersolution}
|E(z)|^2 = |E(0)|^2 e^{-2\alpha z}.
\end{equation}
With $\phi_{_z}$ the nonlinear phase acquired during propagation over a distance $z$, we know that the solution of $E(z)$ will be of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fieldsolutionformal}
E(z) = E(0) e^{i\phi_{_z}-\alpha z}.
\end{equation}
Since this nonlinear phase depends on the power evolution given by Eq. \eqref{eq:powersolution}, an expression for $\phi_{_z}$ is found to be
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nonlinearphase}
\phi_{_z} = \gamma \int_0^z |E(v)|^2\delta v = \gamma |E(0)|^2 \int_0^z e^{-2\alpha v}\delta v = \gamma |E(0)|^2 \frac{1-e^{-2\alpha z}}{2 \alpha}.
\end{equation}
At this point, we can introduce the effective propagation distance $z_{eff}$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:effectivedistance}
z_{eff} = \frac{1-e^{-2\alpha z}}{2 \alpha}.
\end{equation}
In general (since $\alpha\geq0$) we have $z_{eff}\leq z$.
Substituting these result in Eq. \eqref{eq:fieldsolutionformal} yields the complete solution for propagation of the cavity field envelope
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fieldsolutionfull}
E(z) = E(0) \exp\left(i\gamma |E(0)|^2 z_{eff}-\alpha z\right).
\end{equation}
Finally, we reinstitute the roundtrip index $n$ and the time parameter $\tau$ which allows us to combine this nonlinear propagation model with the cavity boundary conditions.
\begin{align} \label{eq:fullmodel}
\left \{ \begin{array}{rl} E^{(n)}(L,\tau) &= E^{(n)}(0,\tau) \exp\left(i\gamma |E^{(n)}(0,\tau)|^2 L_{eff}-\alpha L\right) \\ E^{(n+1)}(0,\tau) &= \sqrt{T}E_{in}^{(n+1)}(\tau) + \sqrt{1-T}e^{i\delta_{_0}}E^{(n)}(L,\tau) \\ E_{out}^{(n+1)}(\tau) &= \sqrt{1-T}E_{in}^{(n+1)}(\tau) + \sqrt{T}e^{i\delta_{_0}}E^{(n)}(L,\tau) \end{array} \right.
\end{align}
In these equations, $T$ represents the power transmission coefficient of the cavity coupler, and $\delta_0$ represents the cavity detuning (i.e. difference between the roundtrip phase and the closest cavity resonance). Further, the input field $E_{in}=E_{in}^{(n)}(\tau)$ changes with the roundtrip index $n$ as new data samples can be injected into the system, and is modulated in time using the input mask to create a network of virtual neurons. The output field $E_{out}=E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau)$ containing the neural responses is sent to a measurement stage.
\subsection{Reservoir computing}
The framework of reservoir computing allows to exploit the transient nonlinear dynamics of a dynamical system to perform useful computation \cite{maass2002,jaeger2004}.
For the purpose of reservoir computing, virtual neurons (dynamical variables, computational nodes) are time-multiplexed in $\tau$-space of the physical system described by Eq. \eqref{eq:fullmodel}, following the delay-based reservoir computing scheme originally outlined in Ref. \cite{appeltant2011}. As such, the input field $E_{in}^{(n)}(\tau)$ varies with $n$ as new input samples arrive, and varies with $\tau$ to implement the input mask, which excites the neurons into a transient dynamic regime. Subsequently, the neural responses are encoded in the output field $E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau)$ and need to be demultiplexed from $\tau$-space.
As in Refs. \cite{paquot2012,vinckier2015} the length $t_M$ of the input mask $m(\tau)$ is deliberately mismatched from the cavity roundtrip time $t_R$. Instead, we set $t_M = t_R N / (N+1)$ which provides interconnectivity between the $N$ virtual neurons in a ring topology. The input mask $m(\tau)$ is a piecewise constant function, with intervals of duration $\theta = t_M/N$. The signal $I^{(n)}(\tau)$ injected into the RC is constructed by multiplying the input series $u(n)$ with the input mask, $I^{(n)}(\tau) = u(n)m(\tau)$. When the input is coupled linearly to the reservoir then $E_{in}^{(n)}(\tau) \sim I^{(n)}(\tau)$. This would be the case when $u(n)$ is an optical signal periodically modulated with the input mask signal $m(\tau)$. When a MZM modulator with transfer function $f$ is used to convert the electronic signal $I^{(n)}(\tau)$ to the optical domain then $E_{in}^{(n)}(\tau) \sim f(I^{(n)}(\tau))$, where $f$ can be nonlinear.
Note that in Ref. \cite{vinckier2015} the sample duration $t_S$ is matched to the length of the input mask $t_M$, allowing the reservoir to process 1 input sample approximately every roundtrip, as $t_S=t_M\smallerrel{\lesssim} t_R$. However, for reasons explained in the Results section, we will study different sample durations by holding input samples over multiple durations of the input mask, $t_S=k\ t_M$ with integer $k$ as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:timing}. This inevitably slows the reservoir down, as it only processes 1 input sample approximately every $k$ roundtrips. But it also provides practically straightforward means to accumulate more nonlinear processing of the data inside the reservior, which can then be measured and quantified.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{timing_time}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic of input and output timing, with $t_S$ the sample duration, $t_M$ the input mask duration and $t_R$ the roundtrip time. Input samples are injected during (integer) $k$ roundtrips (bars in alternating colors) and the neural responses are recorded at times $\{\tau_i\}$ (blue tick marks) during the last of those $k$ roundtrips.} \label{fig:timing}
\end{figure}
Since the virtual neurons are time-multiplexed in this delay-based reservoir computer, they need to be de-multiplexed from $E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau)$ in the readout layer by sampling this output field at a set of times $\{\tau_i\}$ (with $i$ the neuron index and $1<i<N$ when $N$ neurons are used) as shown in Fig \ref{fig:timing}. The dynamical neural responses $x_i(n) = E_{out}^{(n)}(\tau_i)$ are recorded and used to train the reservoir to perform a specific task. That is, we optimize a set of readout weights $w_i$ which are used to combine the neural readouts into a single scalar reservoir output $y(n)$. In general the reservoir output is constructed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RCoutput}
y(n) = \sum_{i=1}^N w_i g(x_i(n))
\end{equation}
where the neural responses $x_i(n)$ are first parsed by an output function $g(x)$ taking into account the operation of the readout layer and readout noise $\nu$. In all simulations the fixed level of readout noise is matched to the experimental conditions. When the complex-valued reservoir states are directly recorded, then $g(x) = x+\nu$ and the readout weights $w_i$ are complex too, such that $y$ is real. If however, a PD measures the power of the neural responses, then $g(x)=|x|^2+\nu$ which is real-valued, and the readout weights will be real-valued too.
Tasks are defined by the real-valued target output $\hat{y}$.
Optimization of the readout weights occurs over a training set of $T_{train}$ input and target samples, and is achieved through least squares regression. This procedure minimizes the mean squared error between the reservoir output $y$ and target output $\hat{y}$, averaged over all samples.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:regression}
\{w_i\} = \argmin_{\{w_i\}} \langle \left( \hat{y} - \sum_{i=1}^N w_i g(x_i) \right)^2 \rangle_{_{T_{train}}}.
\end{equation}
These optimized readout weights are then validated on a test set of $T_{test}$ new input and target samples. A common figure of merit to quantify the reservoir's performance is the normalized mean square error (NMSE) defined as
\begin{equation}
NMSE(y,\hat{y}) = \frac{\langle \left( y-\hat{y} \right)^2 \rangle_{_{T_{test}}}}{\langle \hat{y} ^2 \rangle_{_{T_{test}}}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Balanced Mach-Zehnder modulator operation} \label{section:MZM}
Here we briefly investigate the relevant nonlinearities which occur when mapping an electronic signal to an optical signal using an MZM. The operation of our balanced MZM can be described as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:MZM}
\frac{E_{in}}{E_0} = \cos\left(\frac{V}{V_{\pi}}\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $E_0$ represents the incident CW pump field, $E_{in}$ is the transmitted field which will be the input field to the optical reservoir, $V_{\pi}$ determines at which voltage the zero intensity point occurs (point of no transmission), and $V$ is the voltage of the applied electronical signal consisting of a bias contribution $V_{b}$ and a zero-mean signal $V_s$, i.e. $V = V_{b}+V_{s}$. For our numerical investigation, we will set the amplitude of the signal voltage to $|V_s| = V_{\pi}/2$. First, we investigate the zero intensity bias point, $V_b=V_{\pi}$. In this case, we can approximate Eq. \eqref{eq:MZM} with the following Taylor expansion
\begin{align}
\frac{E_{in}}{E_0} &= f(V_s) + \mathcal{O}\left(V_s^5 \right) \\
f(V_s) &= -\frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}V_s +\frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}\right)^3 V_s^3 \label{eq:taylorexpansion1}
\end{align}
With $\left(E_{in}/E_0\right)_{max}$ representing the maximal value of $\frac{E_{in}}{E_0}$ with the given bias voltage $V_b$ and signal amplitude $|V_s|$, the relative error $r.e.$ of the Taylor expansion \eqref{eq:taylorexpansion1}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:relativeerror}
r.e. = \frac{|\frac{E_{in}}{E_0}-f(V_s) |}{\left(\frac{E_{in}}{E_0}\right)_{max}}
\end{equation}
is smaller than $1\%$. When the cubic term ($\sim V_s^3$) of the approximation $f(V_s)$ is omitted, this error increases to $11\%$. This means that at this operating point of the MZM, there is a significant nonlinearity which scales with the input signal cubed.
Next, we investigate the linear intensity operating point, $V_b = V_{\pi}/2$. Although the MZM's transfer function at this operating point is the most linear in terms of the transmitted optical power, it is highly nonlinear in terms of the transmitted optical field. In this case, we replace Eq. \eqref{eq:taylorexpansion1} with
\begin{equation}
f(V_s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(1-\frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}V_s + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}\right)^2 V_s^2 + \frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}\right)^3 V_s^3 + \frac{1}{24} \left( \frac{\pi}{2V_{\pi}}\right)^4 V_s^4 \right),
\end{equation}
as we need all polynomial terms up to order 4 to keep the relative error defined by Eq. \eqref{eq:relativeerror} below $1\%$.
In this case, omitting terms of orders above 1 in the approximation $f(V_s)$ increases the relative error of the Taylor expansion to $26\%$. This means that at this operating point of the MZM there are multiple polynomial nonlinearities and that the total nonlinear signal distortion is stronger compared with the zero intensity bias point.
Furthermore, during our experiments we have decided to operate the MZM in a linear regime. This allows for the nonlinear effects inside the reservoir to be more readily measured. To this end, we tuned the MZM close to the zero intensity operating point, $V_b=V_{\pi}-\delta_V$ with $\delta_V \ll V_{\pi}$ and reduced the signal amplitude $|V_s|$. The small deviation $\delta_V$ is used to generate a bias in the optical field injected into the reservoir
\subsection{Memory capacities} \label{section:memorycapacities}
To benchmark the performance of an RC, one can train it to perform one or several benchmark tasks. Alternatively, there exists a framework to quantify the system's total information processing capacity. This capacity is typically split into two main parts: the capacity of the system to retain past input samples is captured by the linear memory capacity \cite{jaeger2002}, and the capacity of the system to perform nonlinear computation is captured by the nonlinear memory capacity\cite{dambre2012}. It is known that the total memory capacity has an upper bound given by the number of dynamical variables in the system, which in our system is the number of neurons in the reservoir. It is also known that readout noise reduces this total memory capacity, and that there is a trade-off between linear and nonlinear memory capacity, depending on the operating regime of the dynamical system.
In order to measure these capacities for our reservoir computer a series of independent and identically distributed input samples $u(n)$ drawn uniformly from the interval $[-1,1]$ is injected into the reservoir, with discrete time $n$. The RC is subsequently trained to reconstruct a series of linear and nonlinear polynomial functions depending on past inputs $u(n-i)$, looking back $i$ steps in the past. Following Ref. \cite{dambre2012} these functions are chosen to be Legendre polynomials $P_d(u)$ (of degree $d$), because they are orthogonal over the distribution of the input samples. As an example, we can train the reservoir to reproduce the target signal $\hat{y}(n)$, given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:memorytask}
\hat{y}(n) = P_2(u(n-1))P_1(u(n-3)).
\end{equation}
The ability of the RC to reconstruct each of these functions is evaluated by comparing the reservoir's trained output $y$ with the target $\hat{y}$ for previously unseen input samples. This yields a memory capacity $C$ which lies between $0$ and $1$ \cite{dambre2012},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:memorycapacity}
C = 1-\frac{\langle \left(\hat{y}-y\right)^2 \rangle}{\langle \hat{y}^2 \rangle},
\end{equation}
where $\langle . \rangle$ denotes the average over all samples used for the evaluation of $C$. Due to the orthogonality of the polynomial functions over the distribution of the input samples, the capacities corresponding to different functions yield independent information and can thus be summed to quantify the total memory capacity, i.e. the total information processing capacity of the RC. The memory functions are typically grouped by their total degree, which is the sum of degrees over all constituent polynomial functions, e.g. Eq. \eqref{eq:memorytask} has total degree 3. Summing all memory capacities corresponding with functions of identical total degree yields the total memory capacity per degree. This allows to quantify the contributions of individual degrees to the total memory capacity of the RC, which is the sum over all degrees. As the memory capacities will become small for large degrees, the total memory capacity is still bound.
Since the reservoirs are trained and their performance is evaluated on finite data sets, we run the risk of overestimating the memory capacities $C$, whose estimator Eq. \eqref{eq:memorycapacity} is plagued by a positive bias \cite{dambre2012}. Therefore, a cutoff capacity $C_{co}$ is used ($C_{co}\approx 0.1$ for 1000 test samples) and capacities below this cutoff are neglected (i.e. they are assumed to be 0).
Note that the trade-off between linear and nonlinear memory capacity is typically evaluated by comparing the total memory capacity of degree 1 (linear) with the total memory capacity of all higher degrees (nonlinear). However, special attention is due when a PD is present in the readout layer of our RC. If a reservoir can (only) linearly retain past inputs $u(n-i)$ ($i$ steps in the past) then any neural response $x(n)$ consists of a linear combination (with a bias term $b$ and fading coefficients $a_i$) of those past inputs
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linearreservoirstate}
x(n) = b + \sum_i a_iu(n-i)
\end{equation}
and subsequently the optical power $P_x$ measured by the PD is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:PD}
P_x(n) = x(n)\bar{x}(n) =|b|^2 + \sum_{i}2\text{Re}(b\bar{a_i})u(n-i)\ + \sum_{i,j}2\text{Re}(a_i\bar{a_j})u(n-i)u(n-j)
\end{equation}
which consists of polynomial functions of past inputs of degree 1 and 2.
Thus, in this case the total linear memory capacity of the RC is represented by the total memory capacity of degrees 1 and 2 combined. In case the bias term $b$ is lacking, only memory capacities of degree 2 will be present. On the other hand, if a PD is used in the output and memory capacities of degree higher than 2 are present, then this indicates that the reservoir itself is not linear, i.e. cannot be represented by a function of the form Eq. \eqref{eq:linearreservoirstate}.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Numerical RC performance: Sante Fe time series prediction}
For the injection of input samples to the optical reservoir, we consider two strategies as discussed in Section \ref{section:setup} and in Figs. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(a) and (b), referred to here as the linear and nonlinear input regimes respectively. The exact shape of the nonlineariy in the nonlinear regime depends, among other things, on the operating point (or bias voltage) of the MZM, as discussed in Section \ref{section:MZM}. We will demonstrate this by showing results around both the linear intensity operating point and the zero intensity operating point of the MZM. For the readout of the reservoir response, we also consider two cases as discussed in Section \ref{section:setup} and in Figs. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(c) and (d), referred to here as the linear and nonlinear output regimes respectively.
We have thus identified 4 different scenarios based on the absence or presence of nonlinearities in the input and output layer of the reservoir computer. As we will show, we have for each of these cases numerically investigated the effect of the distributed nonlinear Kerr effect, present in the fiber waveguide, on RC performance. For this evaluation, we have used $100$ neurons to solve the Santa Fe time series prediction task \cite{weigend1993} and each input sample is injected during 6 roundtrips ($t_S=kt_M$ with $k=6$) for reasons which will become clear in Section \ref{section:experimentalresults}. Here, a pre-existing signal generated by a laser operating in a chaotic regime is injected into the reservoir. The target at each point in time is for the reservoir computer to predict the next sample. Performance is evaluated using the NMSE, where lower is better. Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults} has 4 panels corresponding to these 4 scenario's. Each panel shows the NMSE as function of the average optical power per neuron inside the cavity. Dashed blue lines correspond with simulation results of linear reservoirs (i.e. with the nonlinear coefficient $\gamma$ set to $0$), and full red lines correspond with simulation results of reservoirs with Kerr-nonlinear waveguides (i.e. $\gamma$ set to $\gamma_{Kerr}$).
In Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(a) both the input and output layers of the reservoir are strictly linear (i.e. optical input and coherent detection). It is clear that the linear reservoir ($\gamma=0$) scores poorly, with the NMSE approaching $20\%$. For a wide range of optical power levels, the presence of the Kerr nonlinear effect ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$) induced by the fiber waveguide boosts the RC performance, with an optimal NMSE just below $1\%$. This can be readily understood as it is well known that for this task, some nonlinearity is required in order to obtain good RC performance. Note that the average neuron power $\langle P_x \rangle$ can be used to estimate the average nonlinear phase $\phi_{Kerr}$ the signals will acquire during the sample duration $t_S$, as $\phi_{Kerr}=\gamma_{Kerr}\langle P_x \rangle L t_S/t_M$.
We observe that without the presence of phase noise in the cavity, the boost to the RC performance due to the Kerr effect starts at very small values of the estimated nonlinear phase, and breaks down when $\phi_{Kerr} \gtrsim 1$. Switching to Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(b) we have now introduced the square nonlinearity by using a PD in the readout layer. Focusing on the results obtained with a linear reservoir, we see that the PD's nonlinearity alone decreases the NMSE down from $20\%$ to approximately $5\%$ ($\gamma=0$). Although the PD's nonlinearity clearly boosts the RC performance on this task, its effect is rather restricted. The PD only generates squared terms, and linear terms if a bias is present, see Section \ref{section:memorycapacities}, depending on the MZM's operating point. Furthermore this nonlinearity does not affect the neural responses nor the operation of the reservoir itself, as it only applies to the readout layer. It can thus be understood that the introduction of the Kerr nonlinearity inside the reservoir warrants an additional significant drop in NMSE, to below $1\%$ ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$).
In Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(c), the output layer is linear again, but now we have introduced the MZM in the input layer.
The closed markers correspond with simulations where the MZM operates around the zero intensity operating point or the point of minimal transmission ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}$). In terms of the optical field modulation, this is the most linear regime. It is thus no surprise that the performance of both linear and nonlinear reservoirs mimics that Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(a) where no nonlinearity was present in the input layer. The only difference is that the error of the linear reservoir drops from $20\%$ to about $13\%$ ( $\gamma=0$, $V_{bias}=V_{\pi}$) because of the small residual nonlinearity at this operating point of the MZM.
The round markers correspond with simulations where the MZM operates around the linear intensity operating point ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}/2$). In terms of the optical field modulation, the nonlinearity in the mapping of input samples to the optical field injected into the reservoir is more nonlinear at this operating point. This is why even the linear reservoir manages to achieve errors below $4\%$ ($\gamma=0$, $V_{bias}=V_{\pi}/2$). Again we see that the introduction of the nonlinear Kerr effect allows the NMSE to drop even further, to below $1\%$ ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$). In fact, this scenario is similar to the scenario with linear input mapping and nonlinear output mapping, Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(b).
Finally, in Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(d), nonlinearities are present in both the input mapping and readout layer. With the MZM operating around the zero intensity operating point, there is only a weak nonlinearity in the input mapping and thus, as expected, both linear and nonlinear reservoirs show trends which are very similar to the scenario where the input mapping is linear, Fig. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(c). With the MZM operating around the linear intensity operating point ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}/2$) however, we observe a scenario in which the RC does not seem to benefit from the presence of the Kerr nonlinear effect. It seems that with significant nonlinearities present in both input and output layers of the RC the distributed nonlinear effect inside the reservoir cannot further descrease the NMSE below values attained by the linear reservoir, which is below $1\%$ ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}/2$). In all other cases, Figs. \ref{fig:numericalresults}(a,b,c), we find that the distributed nonlinearity inside the reservoir significanlty boosts RC performance, and we find that its presence is critical when no other nonlinearities are available.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.5cm]{numericalresults_labels}
\end{center}
\caption{Numerical results of fiber-ring reservoir computer on Santa Fe time series prediction tasks. In all panels the prediction error (NMSE) is plotted versus the average neuron power $\langle P_x \rangle$. Panels \textbf{(a)} and \textbf{(c)} correspond with a linear input layer, where panels \textbf{(b)} and \textbf{(d)} correspond with a nonlinear input layer using the MZM's nonlinear transfer function. The nonlinear input regime shows results for 2 different operating points of the MZM with different strengths of nonlinear transformation. Panels \textbf{(a)} and \textbf{(b)} correspond with a linear output layer, where panels \textbf{(c)} and \textbf{(d)} correspond with a nonlinear output layer using the PD.}\label{fig:numericalresults}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimental verification: linear and nonlinear memory capacity} \label{section:experimentalresults}
In this Section we compare experimental results with detailed numerical simulations. For the experimental verification of our work, we are currently limited to operate with 20 neurons, as explained in Section \ref{section:setup}. Therefore, we have chosen not to perform the reservoir computing experiment on the Santa Fe task. With this few neurons, tasks like the Santa Fe task become hard for the reservoir. Instead we turn to a more academic task which allows us to quantify the reservoir's memory and nonlinear computational capacity in a more complete and task-independent way. We experimentally measure the linear and nonlinear memory capacities considered in Section \ref{section:memorycapacities}. Even with this few neurons the evaluation of the memory capacities can yield meaningful results while taking up comparatively little processing time.
For these experiments, the input layer to our fiber-ring reservoir contains a balanced MZM tuned to operate in a linear regime as outlined in Section \ref{section:MZM}. The output layer employs a PD to measure the neural responses. That is, we use the setups of Figs. \ref{fig:setup_inputs_outputs}(b) and (d) but with the MZM operated as in Eq. \eqref{eq:taylorexpansion1}. Following Ref. \cite{dambre2012}, we have driven the reservoir with a series of independent and identically distributed random samples and trained the RC to reproduce different linear and nonlinear polynomial functions of past input samples. The capacity of the reservoir to reconstruct these functions was then evaluated and results were grouped according to the function's polynomial degree. To retain oversight on the results, we will only show the total capacity per degree, by summing all capacities corresponding with functions of the same total polynomial degree. In Fig. \ref{fig:experimentalverification} we show the total memory capacity per degree, encoded in the height of vertically stacked and color-coded bars. The stacking allows to visualize the contributions of individual degrees to the total overall memory capacity (summed over all degrees). Capacities of degree higher than 4 are not considered, as they were found not to contribute significantly to the total memory capacity of the system.
For results labeled \textit{bias off} the MZM operates at the zero-intensity point ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}$), and moving towards the \textit{bias on} label, we tuned the MZM's bias voltage ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}-\delta_V$, with $\delta_V \ll V_{\pi}$). This introduces a small bias component to the optical field injected into the reservoir, without compromising the linear operation of the MZM.
The experiment was also repeated for different values of the sample duration $t_S$ with respect to the input mask periodicity $t_M$ (approximately equal to the cavity roundtrip $t_R$). We expect the sample duration to play a very important role, since it determines how much time a piece of information spends inside the cavity, and thus how much nonlinear phase can be acquired. The ratio $t_S/t_M$ is gradually increased from $t_S=2t_M$ in (first row) Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(a), (b) and (c), to $t_S=6t_M$ in (middle row) Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(d), (e) and (f), and finally to $t_S=10t_M$ in (bottow row) Figs \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(g), (h) and (i).
The experimental results in (left column) Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(a),(d) and (g) are compared with numerical results on a linear reservoir ($\gamma=0$) in (middle column) Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(b), (e) and (h), and a nonlinear reservoir ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$) in (right column) Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(c), (f) and (i).
Firstly, in Fig. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(a) we observe that without bias to the optical input field ($V_{bias}=V_{\pi}$) the total memory capacity originates almost completely from the polynomial functions of degree 2 which means (given the presence of the PD in the readout layer) that the optical system is almost completely linear.
Then, as an optical field bias is introduced we find that the total linear memory capacity of the system is now shared between degrees 1 and 2. As expected on account of quadratic nonlinearity due to the PD, Eq. \eqref{eq:PD}, the contribution of (odd) degree 1 grows with the increasing bias. Beyond these capacities of degree 1 and 2, we also observe a small contribution of capacities of degrees 3 and 4. We ascribe these contributions to the imperfect tuning of the MZM and thus a small residual nonlinearity in the input mapping. Note that the simulations take into account the quasi-linear input mapping of the MZM, but seemingly underestimate the residual nonlinearities to be insignificant. The imperfection of the MZM tuning also leads to a small residual bias component to the optical injected field, resulting in a small non-zero capacity of degree 1. Numerical simulations of linear ($\gamma=0$) and nonlinear ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$) reservoirs in Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(b) and (c) respectively, show the same growth in the memory capacity of degree 1 at the expense of the memory capacity of degree 2 when the bias is changed. Note that both simulations seem to overestimate the minimal bias required to obtain a significant memory capacity of degree 1. At this sample duration ($t_S=2t_M$) neither simulations indicate any significant contributions of capacities with degrees beyond 2.
When increasing the sample duration ($t_S=6t_M$ and $t_S=10t_M$), the experimenal results in Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(d) and (g) show a steady increase in the contributions of capacities with degrees 3 and 4. This increase is attributed to the nonlinear Kerr effect, due to the larger accumulation of nonlinear phase during the time each sample is presented to the reservoir. At the same time we see a decrease in the capacities of degrees 1 and 2. As explained before, due to the PD these capacities capture the reservoir's capacity to linearly retain past samples. This trade-off between linear memory capacity (here degrees 1 and 2) and nonlinear computational capacity (here degrees 3 and 4) is well documented \cite{dambre2012}. Because we use the sample duration ($t_S=kt_M\approx kt_R$) to control the cumulative nonlinear effect inside the reservoir, we inevitably increase the mismatch between the inherent timescale of the input data (i.e. the sample duration $t_S$) and the inherent timescale of the reservoir (i.e. the cavity roundtrip $t_R$). and alter the reservoir’s internal topology. When each sample is presented longer, past samples have spent more time inside the lossy cavity by the time they are accessed through the reservoir’s noisy readout. Thus, on the longer timescales ($t_S$) at which information is now processed, it is harder for the reservoir (operating at timescale $t_R$) to retain past information. These aspects explain why the overall total memory capacity (summed over all degrees) decreases with increased sample duration $t_S$.
The numerical results on both the linear reservoir ($\gamma=0$) in Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(e) and (h) and the nonlinear reservoir ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$) in Figs. \ref{fig:experimentalverification}(f) and (i) correctly predict a drop in the total linear memory capacities (degrees 1 and 2). Due to the memory capacity cutoff explained in Section 2.5, small capacities are harder to quantify accurately and systematic underestimation can occur. This explains why the small total memory capacities obtained experimentally are larger than the small total memory capacity obtained numerically. The correspondence for large total memory capacities is better as they are largely unaffected by the cutoff. But besides the drop in linear memory capacities, only the nonlinear reservoir model can explain the steady increase in nonlinear memory capacities (degrees 3 and 4) with longer sample durations. With increasing sample duration $t_S$ the simulated nonlinear reservoir shows the contribution of the total nonlinear memory capacity (degrees 3 and 4) to the total memory capacity (all degrees) growing from $0\%$ to $25.4\%$, and in the experiment this contribution starts at $6.4\%$ and grows up to $23.6\%$. This sizable increase in nonlinear computation capacity can be of considerable significance to the reservoir's performance on other tasks, as shown earlier. When comparing the experimental results with the nonlinear reservoir model for all given sample durations $t_S$, the main difference is that the capacities of degree 3 seem to appear sooner (i.e. for smaller sample duration) in the experiment. This can be explained by the residual bias component to the optical injected field. Such a bias makes it easier to produce polynomial functions of odd degrees, thus explaining their earlier onset. This can be explained by the quadratic nature of the Kerr nonlinearity, as the reasoning previously applied to the quadratic nonlinearity of the PD in Eq. \eqref{eq:PD} can be generalized to memory capacities of higher degree.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{experimentalresults}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between experimental results \textbf{(a,d,g)} and numerical models with linear ($\gamma=0$) \textbf{(b,e,h)} and nonlinear ($\gamma=\gamma_{Kerr}$) reservoirs \textbf{(c,f,i)}. The stacked vertical bars are color-coded to respresent the total memory capacities (TMC) of degree 1 (blue), 2 (red), 3 (orange), and 4 (purple). As such, the total height represents the total overall memory capacity. A control variable to the MZM $\delta_V$, is varied to include a small bias component to the injected optical field, where \textit{bias off} corresponds with $\delta_V=0$ and \textit{bias on} corresponds with a small nonzero value $0<\delta_V\ll V_{\pi}$. The sample duration $t_S$ is varied from 2 times \textbf{(a,b,c)}, to 6 times \textbf{(d,e,f)} and finally to 10 times \textbf{(g,h,i)} the input mask period $t_M$ ($\approx$ cavity roundtrip time $t_R$).}\label{fig:experimentalverification}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
We have identified and investigated the role of nonlinear transformation of information inside a photonic computing system based on a passive coherent fiber-ring reservoir. Nonlinearities can occur at different places inside a reservoir computer: the input layer, the bulk and the readout layer.
State-of-the-art opto-electronic RC systems often include one or several components which inevitably introduce nonlinearities to the computing system. On the reservoir's input side, we have compared a linear input regime with the usage of a MZM, which has a nonlinear transfer function, to convert electronic data to an optical signal. On the reservoir's output side, we have compared a linear output regime with the usage of a PD which measures optical power levels, that scale quadratically with the optical field strength of the neural responses. We numerically evaluated such systems using a benchmark test and found that nonlinear input and/or output components are needed to obtain good RC performance when the optical reservoir itself (i.e. the core of the RC system) is a strictly linear system.
Internal to the reservoir, we investigated the effect of the optical Kerr nonlinear effect on RC performance. Our numerical benchmark test showed a large band of optical powers where the presence of this distributed nonlinear effect, caused by the waveguiding material of the reservoir, significantly decreased the RC's error figure. Our numerical and experimental measurements of the linear and nonlinear memory capacity of this RC system showed that the accumulation of nonlinear phase due to the distributed nonlinear Kerr effect strongly improves the system's nonlinear computational capacity. We can thus conclude that for photonic reservoir computers with nonlinear input and/or output components, the presence of a distributed nonlinear effect inside the optical reservoir improves the RC performance. Furthermore the distributed nonlinearity is essential for good performance in the regime where nonlineariies are absent from both the input and ouput layer. This may be the case in an all-optical reservoir computer (i.e. with optical input and output layers). We have shown that the effect of the distributed nonlinearity is strong enough to compensate for the lack of nonlinear transformation of information elsewhere in the system, and that it allows to build a computationally strong photonic computing system.
Finally, we expect a design approach including distributed nonlinear effects to improve the scalability of these types of computational devices. In general, when harder tasks are considered, larger reservoirs are required. One way to increase the size of a delay-based reservoir is to implement a longer delay-line. This increase in length of the signal propagation path naturally increases the effect of distributed nonlinearities as considered in this work. Similarly, increasing the size of a network-based reservoir will also lead to more and/or longer signal paths, resulting in the increased accumulation of nonlinear effects, although waveguides with stronger nonlinear effects may have to be considered to compensate for the shorter connection lengths in on-chip implementations. We believe that the natural increase in the strength of nonlinear effects, following the increase in size of the reservoir, may diminish the need to place discrete nonlinear components inside large networks used for strongly nonlinear tasks. As such, both the complexity and cost of such systems would be reduced. Since the waveguiding material itself is used to induce nonlinear effects, the waveguide properties (such as material and geometry) determines the optical field confinement and thus regulate the strength of nonlinear interactions. Consequently it may be possible to create reservoirs where deliberate variations in the waveguide properties are used to tune the strength of the distributed nonlinear effect in different regions of the system. This would allow for a trade off between the system's linear memory capacity and its nonlinear computational capacity, such that a large number of past input samples can be retained (in some parts of the system) and then nonlineary processed to solve difficult tasks (in other parts of the system). These considerations indicate why distributed nonlinear effects may play a major role in future implementations of powerful photonic reservoir computers.
\section*{Conflict of Interest Statement}
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
\section*{Author Contributions}
The idea was first conceived by GVdS and finalized together with GV and SM. JP was responsible for the physical modelling, the numerical calculations and the experimental verification and wrote most of the manuscript. All coauthors contributed to the discussion of the results and writing of the manuscript.
\section*{Funding}
We acknowledge financial support from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) under grants 11C9818N, G028618N and G029519N, the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS), the Hercules Foundation and the Research Council of the VUB.
\section*{Data Availability Statement}
The data used in this study for the Sante Fe prediction task \cite{weigend1993} is one of the data sets from the “Time Series Prediction Competition” sponsored by the Santa Fe Institute, initiated by Neil Gershenfeld and Andreas Weigend in the early 90’s, no licenses/restrictions apply. No further datasets were used or generated.
\bibliographystyle{frontiersinHLTH&FPHY}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec_intro}
Stability conditions on triangulated categories were introduced by Bridgeland in \cite{Bri07_triang_cat}.
A remarkable feature of Bridgeland's construction is that the set $\Stab(\mathcal{D})$ of all stability conditions admits a natural topology, and is in fact endowed with the structure of a complex manifold \cite[Theor. 1.2]{Bri07_triang_cat}. Even when $\mathcal{D}=D^b(\Coh(X))$ is the bounded derived category of a smooth projective variety $X$, it is challenging to study $\Stab(\mathcal{D})$, and questions about its non-emptiness, connectedness or simple-connectedness are difficult problems. The stability manifold is completely understood only in the case of curves (see \cite{Oka06,BMW15} for $\pr 1$, \cite{Bri07_triang_cat} for elliptic curves and \cite{Mac07} for the other cases). A connected component is described in \cite{Bri08_k3} for K3 and abelian surfaces (and in \cite{HMS08} for their twisted counterparts. See also \cite{BB17} for a more detailed description of K3 surfaces of Picard rank 1). A general construction - recently extended to the positive characteristic case \cite{Kos20} - of stability conditions on surfaces is given in \cite{AB13}, and alternative constructions in the presence of curves of negative self-intersection appear in \cite{Tod13, Tra17} (these can be interpreted as stability conditions on orbifold surfaces as in \cite{LR20}).
In dimension three, in a series of remarkable papers, stability conditions have been constructed on Fano threefolds (see for example \cite{Mac14,BMT14} for $\pr 3$, \cite{Li19_FanoPic1} for Picard rank 1, and \cite{Piy17,BMSZ17} for the general case), abelian threefolds \cite{BMS16,MP15,MP16}, some resolutions of finite quotients thereof \cite{BMS16}, quintic threefolds \cite{Li19_5ic}.
On the other hand, stability conditions allow for the construction of moduli spaces of stable objects of $\mathcal{D}$. It is interesting to investigate properties of these moduli spaces, like non-emptiness, irreducibility, smoothness, or projectivity, or to relate them to other classical moduli spaces: for example, Bridgeland stability regulates the birational geometry of the Hilbert scheme of points of surfaces (see \cite{ABCH13} for the case of $\pr 2$, and \cite{BC13} for other surfaces), or of moduli spaces of sheaves on a K3 surface \cite{BM14_K3}.
If $\mathcal{D}$ admits an exceptional collection, Bayer, Macr\`i, Lahoz and Stellari give a sufficient condition to induce a stability condition on the right orthogonal of the collection, starting from a (weak) stability condition on $\mathcal{D}$ \cite{BLMS17}. The criterion applies for example to cubic fourfolds and Fano threefolds of Picard rank one \cite{BLMS17} and to Gushel-Mukai varieties \cite{PPZ19}.
In this paper, we focus on Fano manifolds $Y$ of Picard rank 1 and index 2 (i.e., $H\coloneqq -K_Y/2$ is an ample generator of $\Pic(Y)$). They are classified by Iskovskih \cite{Isk77} and belong to one of the following 5 families, indexed by thir \textit{degree} $d\coloneqq H^3\in\set{1,..,5}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y_5= \Gr(2,5) \cap \pr 6 \subset \pr 9$ is a linear section of codimension 3 of the Grassmannian $\Gr(2,5)$ in the Pl\"ucker embedding;
\item $Y_4 = Q \cap Q' \subset \pr 5$ is the intersection of two quadric hypersurfaces;
\item $Y_3 \subset \pr 4$ is a cubic hypersurface;
\item $Y_2 \xrightarrow{\pi} \pr 3$ is a double cover ramified over a quartic surface, or equivalently a hypersurface of degree 4 in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P(1,1,1,1,2)$;
\item $Y_1$ is a hypersurface of degree 6 in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P(1,1,1,2,3)$, or equivalently a double cover branched over a cubic of the cone over the Veronese surface in $\pr 5$.
\end{itemize}
If $Y$ is one of the above, Kuznetsov shows in a series of papers that the derived category of $Y$ admits a semi-orthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_SOD_of_Y}
D(Y)=\langle \mathsf{Ku}(Y), \mathcal{O}_Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1) \rangle
\end{equation}
whose non-trivial part
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_def_of_Ku}
\mathsf{Ku}(Y)\coloneqq \set{E\in D(Y) \st \Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y,E[i])=\Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y(1),E[i])=0 \mbox{ for all }i\in \mathbb{Z}}
\end{equation}
is called the \textit{Kuznetsov component of $Y$} \cite{Kuz09_threefolds, Kuz14}. We identify the numerical Grothendieck group $K_{\text{num}}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$ with the image of the chern character map $$\Ch: K(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))\to H^\ast(Y,\mathbb{Q}).$$ It is a rank 2 lattice spanned by the classes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_def_of_v_w}
v\coloneqq \left[ 1-\dfrac{1}{d}H^2\right] \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad w\coloneqq \left[ H -\dfrac{1}{2}H^2+\left(\dfrac{1}{6}-\dfrac{1}{d}\right)H^3 \right]
\end{equation}
with a bilinear form given by the Euler pairing
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 \\
1-d & -d
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
In this paper, we focus on moduli spaces of complexes of class $w$, with particular attention to the degree 2 and 1 cases.
A more detailed study of moduli of class $w$ for cubic threefolds appears in \cite{Bayer}; moduli of objects of class $v$ are studied in \cite{PY20} (for degrees $d\geq 2$) and in \cite{PR20_veronese} for the case of degree 1.
\subsection*{Summary of the results}
Throughout the paper, we work under some mild generality assumptions for $Y$, these control the singularities that may appear in the hyperplane sections of $Y$ (see Sec. \ref{sec_hyperplane sections+generality}) and allow us to rely on previous results of \cite{Wel81,Tih82}.
The main result of our work is a description of the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$, which parametrizes complexes in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ of class $w$, semistable with respect to one of the stability conditions $\sigma$ constructed in \cite{BLMS17}.
First, we study the moduli spaces of Gieseker-stable sheaves on $Y$ of class $w$. For a hyperplane section $S\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_Y(1)}$ of $Y$, a \textit{root} of $S$ is a divisor $D\in \Pic(S)$ satisfying $D^2=-2$ and $D.H_{|S}=0$. By a root of $Y$ we mean a sheaf of the form $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))$, with $S\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_Y(1)}$ and $D$ a root of $S$ (see Def. \ref{def_of_root_of_S}).
\begin{proposition}[= (\ref{gieseker})]
Let $Y$ be a general Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and index 2. The moduli $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ of Gieseker-semistable objects of class $w$ on $Y$ has two irreducible components. One, denoted $\mathcal{P}$, has dimension $d+3$ and parametrizes ideal sheaves $I_{p|S}$ of a point in a hyperplane section $S$ of $Y$. A point $[I_{p|S}]\in \mathcal P$ is smooth in $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ iff $p$ is a smooth point of $S$.
The second component has dimension $d+1$ and its smooth points parametrize roots of $Y$
Both components are smooth outside their intersection, which is the locus parametrizing $I_{p|S}$, with $S$ singular at $p$.
\end{proposition}
We relate $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ and $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ via wall-crossing: there is a two-parameter family $\sigma_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ of weak stability conditions on $D^b(Y)$. We show on the one hand that the moduli space of $\sigma_{(\alpha,\beta)}$-stable complexes of class $w$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ for $\beta=-\frac12$ and $\alpha \gg 0$ (Prop. \ref{prop_tilt}), and on the other hand that $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable objects with $\beta=-\frac12$, $0<\alpha \ll 1$ (Prop. \ref{kuzistilt}).
Then, we deform the parameter $\alpha$: there is a unique wall between $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ and $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ and the universal family of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ induces a wall-crossing morphism, defined at the level of sets by replacing objects $I_{p/S}$, fitting in a triangle
\[ I_p\to I_{p/S} \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1], \]
with extensions of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq_def_of_Ep}
\mathcal{O}(-1)[1] \to E_p \to I_p
\end{equation} (Proposition \ref{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}). In this way we obtain a general description for all $d$:
\begin{thm}[= (\ref{thm_Section2}) + (\ref{thm_moduliY2}) + (\ref{thm_moduliY1})]\label{introduction_1}
Let $Y$ be a general Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and index 2. Then, the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is proper. It contains two smooth subvarieties $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{C}$.
The locus $\mathcal{Y}$ is isomorphic to $Y$ and it parametrizes objects $E_p$ of the form \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}, while the locus $\mathcal{C}$ has dimension $d+1$ and parametrizes roots of $Y$.
For $d\geq 3$, $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is projective and irreducible and $\mathcal{Y}$ is contained in the closure of $\mathcal{C}$; $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ are distinct irreducible components for degree $d\leq 2$.
\end{thm}
For $d\leq 2$, we relate $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ to the intermediate Jacobian $J(Y)$ of $Y$ (a similar approach has been considered before for higher degrees, results are recollected in Section \ref{sec_higher_degrees}). We do this by defining an Abel--Jacobi mapping, starting from the usual one
\[
\Phi \colon\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}} \to J(Y)\coloneqq H^1(Y, \Omega^2_Y)^{\vee} \Big{/} H^3(Y,\mathbb{Z}),
\]
defined on the space $\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}}$ of one-dimensional, homologically trivial algebraic cycles on $Y$. The map $\Phi$ sends one such $Z$ to the integral over a 3-chain $\Gamma$ such that $\partial\Gamma = Z$ (see \cite[Sec. 2]{Wel81},\cite[Sec. 12.1]{Voi03_volumeI}). One can then use the second Chern class of objects of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ to construct an analogous map
\[
\Psi \colon \xymatrix@R-2pc{\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \ar[r] & J(Y) \\ F \ar@{|->}[r] & \Phi(c_2(F))}
\]
(see Section \ref{sec_AJ_map}). In degree 2, $Y$ is a double cover of $\pr 3$ ramified over a quartic K3 surface $R$. The intersection $\mathcal{Y}\cap \mathcal{C}$ is isomorphic to $R$ (see Theorem \ref{thm_moduliY2}), $\Psi$ contracts the component $\mathcal{Y}$ to a point, and it is a generic embedding on the component $\mathcal{C}$ (Cor. \ref{cor_C_generically_embedded_by_AJ}). The strict transform of $\Psi(\mathcal{C})$ in the blow-up of $J(Y)$ at $\Psi(\mathcal{Y})$ intersects the exceptional divisor in a surface isomorphic to $R$ (Cor. \ref{prop_strict_transform_Y2}).
For degree 1, we show that $\mathcal{C}\simeq F(Y)$, the Fano surface of lines of $Y$, and the intersection $\mathcal{Y}\cap F(Y)$ in $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is a curve $C$. The map $\Psi$ is an embedding outside $C$, and its image suffices to determine $Y$ \cite{Tih82}.
Finally, in the case of degree 2, we apply our result to show a (refined) categorical Torelli theorem:
\begin{thm}[=\ref{thm_torelliY2}]\label{introduction_3}
Let $Y$ and $Y'$ be two general quartic double solids. There exists an equivalence $u \colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \simeq \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ if and only if $Y'\simeq Y$.
\end{thm}
Our proof technique is inspired by that of \cite{BMMS12}; we use the equivalence $u$ to construct an isomorphism between moduli spaces and argue that this is sufficient to conclude.
\subsection*{Related work and further questions}
Fano threefolds of one of the five families listed above, and their related moduli spaces, have been considered in the past. In Section \ref{sec_higher_degrees} we give a more detailed account of these results, which are only outlined here.
In the case of degree 5, Theorem \ref{introduction_1} recovers the description of $Y_5$ within the Hilbert scheme of three points on $\pr 2$ \cite{Muk92}. If the degree is 4, $Y$ is the intersection of 2 quadrics. Work of Miles Reid \cite{Rei72} relates $Y$ to a certain genus 2 curve $C$ (proving for example that the Fano surface of lines on $Y$, the intermediate Jacobian of $Y$, and the Jacobian variety of $C$ are isomorphic). As it turns out, there is an equivalence $D^b(C)\simeq \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ \cite{BO95}, so we can reinterpret Reid's result as an occurrence of Theorem \ref{introduction_1}.
The use of the Abel--Jacobi map in our work owes to the notion of the intermediate Jacobian introduced by Clemens and Griffiths \cite{Clemens1972}. The categorical techniques we use in the paper rely on the stability condition constructed in \cite{BLMS17}, and on the base-change results of \cite{Kuz11_base_change}. Bridgeland moduli spaces on $Y$ have been studied in other recent papers, such as \cite{Bayer} (where moduli of objects of class $w$ are used to give a new parametrization of the Theta divisor of a cubic threefold), \cite{PY20} (where the authors study objects of class $v$ for degree $\geq 2$ and describe a component of the stability manifold), and \cite{PR20_veronese} (which considers the case of moduli of class $v$ for degree 1).
The general expectation is that the Kuznetsov component contains sufficient information to recover $Y$ (results in this spirit are usually called (refined) derived Torelli theorems).
Such reconstruction theorems are now known to hold in a few cases: for example, $\mathsf{Ku}(X)$ determines $X$ if $X$ is a cubic fourfold (see \cite{BLMS17} for general $X$, and \cite{LPZ18} for all $X$) of if $X$ is a general Enriques surface \cite{LNSZ19}.
In the case of Fano threefolds, four of the five families considered satisfy a refined Torelli theorem: $Y_5$ is rigid in moduli, so the statement is vacuously true. Degrees 4 and 3 are showed in \cite{BO95} and \cite{BMMS12} (recently, \cite{PY20} gives an alternative proof of the cubic case). For degree 2, our result (Theorem \ref{introduction_3}) strengthens the statement of Bernardara--Tabuada \cite[ Cor. 3.1 (iii)]{BT16}, who show that the same holds under the additional assumption that the equivalence be of Fourier--Mukai type. \\
There are some natural questions which remain unanswered by this work.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \textit{(Torelli theorem for $d=1$)} It is expected that an analogue of Theorem \ref{introduction_3} holds in degree 1 as well. Unfortunately, the heart of the stability condition $\sigma$ has homological dimension 3 (instead of 2) in degree 1 \cite[Remark 2.6]{PR20_veronese}, so a different technique will be needed.
\item \textit{(Equivalences of Fourier--Mukai type)} A conjecture of Kuznetsov \cite[Conj.~3.7]{kuz07HPD} implies, in the case of quartic double solids, that every equivalence $u\colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y')\xrightarrow{\sim}\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is of Fourier--Mukai type (i.e. that the composition $D(Y')\to \mathsf{Ku}(Y')\xrightarrow{u}\mathsf{Ku}(Y)\to D(Y) $ is a Fourier--Mukai functor). Combining Theorem \ref{introduction_3} with \cite[Prop. 3.5]{BT16} shows that $\mathsf{Ku}(Y')$ and $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ are equivalent if and only if they are Fourier--Mukai equivalent. However, this is not sufficient to prove the statement of \cite[Conj. 3.7]{kuz07HPD} for degree 2.
Interestingly, this conjecture is incompatible with Kuznetsov's conjecture on Fano threefolds (see \cite[Conj. 3.7]{Kuz09_threefolds} for the conjecture, and \cite[Theorem 4.2]{BT16} for a proof of incompatibility). The conjecture on Fano threefolds has been recently disproved in \cite{Zha20}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Structure of the paper}
Section \ref{sec_preliminaries} contains preliminary notions on (weak) stability conditions (\ref{appendixstability}, \ref{sec_weak_stab_D(X)}), moduli spaces (\ref{sec_properties_moduli}), Fano threefolds of Picard rank 1 and index 2 and the geometry of their hyperplane sections (\ref{sec_hyperplane sections+generality}). Section \ref{sec_basechange_mutations} recalls results of base change of semiorthogonal decompositions from \cite{Kuz11_base_change}, they represent our main technical tool to work with universal families.
In Section \ref{sec_construction_of_moduli} we describe the moduli spaces of Gieseker-stable sheaves of class $w$ (\ref{sec_Gieseker_moduli}), of $\sigma_{(\alpha,\beta)}$-stable complexes in $D^b(Y)$ (\ref{sec_tilt moduli}) and of $\sigma$-stable complexes in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ (\ref{sec_sigma_moduli}). We conclude with the definition, and some properties, of the Abel--Jacobi map $\Psi$ (\ref{sec_AJ_map}).
Section \ref{sec_higher_degrees} summarizes and illustrates our results for degrees $d=3,4,5$. Analogs of our results for degree $d=4,5$ have been known in the literature, and the $d=3$ case recently appeared in \cite{Bayer}.
Section \ref{sec_d=2} provides more details to the description of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ in the remaining cases of degree $d=2,1$, with Section \ref{sec_d=1} dedicated to $d=1$.
Finally, Section \ref{sec_Torelli} contains the proof of the Torelli theorem for quartic double solids (Theorem \ref{thm_torelliY2}).
\subsection*{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to our doctoral advisor, Aaron Bertram, for his guidance and his enthusiasm. We wish to thank Arend Bayer for encouraging us in pursuing this problem. We also thank Paolo Stellari and Huachen Chen, for discussing this problem with us on various occasions. This project benefited from the participation of the second and third author to the workshop \emph{``Semiorthogonal decompositions, stability conditions and sheaves of categories''} held in Toulouse in 2018 and of the first and third author to the workshop on \emph{``Derived Categories, Moduli Spaces and Deformation Theory''} held in Cetraro in 2019. We thank the organizers and the participants of these events. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for the invaluable feedback on a first version of this work. We thank to Laura Pertusi, Song Yang, and Shizhuo Zhang for our conversations on these topics.
\begin{comment}
It is a well-established principle that the bounded derived category $D(Y)$ of a smooth projective variety contains rich information about the geometry of $Y$. One technique to extract this information is the study of semi-orthogonal decompositions of $D(Y)$
\[D(Y)=\pair{\mathcal{A}_1,...,\mathcal{A}_n} \]
where $\mathcal{A}_i$ are full triangulated subcategories satisfying semi-orthogonality conditions. It is often the case that all but one $\mathcal{A}_i$ are equivalent to the derived category of a point, while the remaining one is non-trivial and carries information about $Y$.
This strategy is particularly fruitful if $Y$ is a smooth Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and index 2. These have been classified by Mori and Iskovskih (see \cite{fano_classification}) and belong to one of the following 5 families, indexed by the \textit{degree} $d\coloneqq H^3\in\set{1,..,5}$ (here $H$ denotes the ample generator of $\Pic (Y)\simeq \mathbb{Z}$):
$ $\\
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y_5= \Gr(2,5) \cap \pr 6 \subset \pr 9$ is a linear section of codimension 3 of the Grassmannian $\Gr(2,5)$ in the Pl\"ucker embedding;
\item $Y_4 = Q_1 \cap Q_2 \subset \pr 5$ is the intersection of two quadric hypersurfaces;
\item $Y_3 \subset \pr 4$ is a cubic hypersurface;
\item $Y_2 \xrightarrow{\pi} \pr 3$ is a double cover ramified over a quartic surface, or equivalently a hypersurface of degree 4 in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P(1,1,1,1,2)$;
\item $Y_1$ is a Veronese double cone, or equivalently a hypersurface of degree 6 in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P(1,1,1,2,3)$.
\end{itemize}
$ $\\
If $Y$ is one of the above, Kuznetsov shows in a series of papers that the derived category of $Y$ admits a semi-orthogonal decomposition
\[
D(Y)=\langle \mathsf{Ku}(Y), \mathcal{O}_Y, \mathcal{O}_Y(1) \rangle
\]
whose non-trivial part $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ captures a great deal of the geometry of $Y$ \cite{kuz3fold, Kuz14}. The numerical Grothendieck group $K_{\text{num}}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$ is a rank 2 lattice spanned by the classes
\[
v\coloneqq 1-\dfrac{1}{d}H^2 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad w\coloneqq H -\dfrac{1}{2}H^2+\left(\dfrac{1}{6}-\dfrac{1}{d}\right)H^3 \]
with a bilinear form given by the Euler pairing
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 \\
1-d & -d
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
$ $\\
\begin{remark}\label{previouscases}
In some cases, the nontrivial component $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ can be explicitly described:
\begin{itemize}
\item[($d=5$)] The restrictions $U_2$ and $U_3$ of tautological bundles on $\Gr(2,5)$ of rank $2$ and $3$ to $Y$ form an exceptional pair, and they generate $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Since $\hom(U_2,U_3)=3$, then $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is equivalent to the derived category of representations of a Kronecker quiver with two vertices and $3$ arrows \cite{Or91}.
\item[($d=4$)] The moduli space of spinor bundles on $Y$ is a genus $2$ hyperelliptic curve $C$, and $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is equivalent to the bounded derived category $D(C)$ \cite{BO95}.
\item[($d=3$)] The category $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is orthogonal to an exceptional object in the derived category of certain twisted sheaves on $\pr{2}$ \cite{BMMS12}.
\item[($d=2$)] The category $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is an \emph{Enriques category} \cite{KP17}.
\item[($d=1$)] In this case, we are unaware of any nice description of $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
In \cite{BLMS17} the authors construct a Bridgeland stability condition on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. This allows the formulation of moduli problems in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$: the purpose of this work is to investigate certain moduli spaces of Bridgeland-stable objects of $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$; in particular, we focus on objects of class~$w$. With a similar approach, the authors of \cite{PY20} study moduli spaces of objects of class $v$, and some properties of the stability manifold $\Stab(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$.
\subsection*{Summary of the results}
Let $Y$ be a smooth Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and index 2 of fixed degree $d$. As in \cite{BLMS17}, there is a weak stability condition $\sigma^{0}_{\alpha,\beta}= (\Coh(X)^{0}_{\alpha, \beta}, Z^0_{\alpha,\beta})$ on $D(Y)$, which induces a stability condition $\sigma$ on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Let $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ denote the moduli spaces of $\sigma$-semistable objects in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ of class $w$.
Our first result is a description of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$:
\begin{thm}\label{introduction_1}
The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is projective for all $d$. There is a subvariety $\mathcal{Y} \subset \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ isomorphic to $Y$ parametrizing objects $E_p$ fitting in a distinguished triangle
\begin{equation}\label{eq_def_of_Ep}
\mathcal{O}(-1)[1] \to E_p \to \mathcal{I}_p,
\end{equation}
for $p$ a point in $Y$. The complement $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\setminus \mathcal{Y}$ is smooth of dimension $d+1$ and parametrizes sheaves $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))$, where $\iota\colon S\hookrightarrow Y$ is a hyperplane section and $D$ is a divisor on $S$ with $D.(H_{|S})$, $D^2=-2$.
\AAA{Can we say anything more?I think we can make one big theorem in the intro, and reference different results in different places}
\end{thm}
This theorem is proven in Section \ref{sec_construction_of_moduli} by comparing $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ with $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, the moduli space of Gieseker-semistable sheaves on $Y$ with respect to the polarization $H$. In fact, the general Gieseker-semistable sheaf on $Y$ is either the ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}_{p/S}$ of a point of $Y$ restricted to a hyperplane section $S$, or one of the $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(\ell_1-\ell_2))$ (Proposition \ref{gieseker}).
Then, we show that $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is isomorphic to the space $\mathcal{M}^{tilt}(w)$ of \emph{tilt}-semistable objects in $D(Y)$ of class $w$ (Proposition \ref{kuzistilt}), which is related to $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ via wall-crossing. The proof shows how wall-crossing replaces objects $I_{p/S}$, fitting in a triangle
\[ I_p\to I_{p/S} \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1], \]
with extensions of the form \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep} (Proposition \ref{prop_tilt}).
In the case $d\leq 2$, we ggive a more detailed description of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ and we relate it to the intermediate Jacobian $J(Y)$ of $Y$. We do this by defining an Abel--Jacobi mapping, starting from the usual one
\[
\Phi \colon\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}} \to J(Y)\coloneqq H^1(Y, \Omega^2_Y)^{\vee} \Big{/} H^3(Y,\mathbb{Z}),
\]
defined on the space $\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}}$ of one dimensional, homologically trivial algebraic cycles on $Y$. The map $\Phi$ sends one such $Z$ to the integral over a 3-chain $\Gamma$ such that $\partial\Gamma = Z$ (see \cite[Sec. 2]{Wel81},\cite[Sec. 12.1]{1-voisin}). In Section \ref{sec_AJ_map}, we use the second Chern class of objects of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ to construct an analogous map
\[
\Psi \colon \xymatrix@R-2pc{\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \ar[r] & J(Y) \\ F \ar@{|->}[r] & \Phi(c_2(F)).}
\]
In Sections \ref{sec_d=2} and \ref{sec_d=1}, we compare the image of $\Psi$ with the divisor $\Theta$ of $J(Y)$ (this is defined up to translation to be the effective divisor associated with the principal polarization of $J(Y)$, see for example \cite[Sec. 3]{clemens-griffiths}).
In Section \ref{sec_d=2}, we treat the degree 2 case, in which $Y$ is a double solid ramified over a quartic surface $R$. Then, we have:
\begin{thm}\label{introduction_2}
Suppose $d=2$. The space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is projective of pure dimension 3, and it has two irreducible components $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{C}$. The component $\mathcal{Y}$ is isomorphic to $Y$, and intersects $\mathcal{C}$ exactly at the ramification locus $R$; morevoer, $\mathcal{C}$ is smooth outside of $R$.
The map $\Psi \colon \mathcal{M}_{\sigma}(w) \to J(Y)$ contracts the component $\mathcal{Y}$ to a singular point $y$ of the Theta divisor and is a generic embedding on $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{thm}
As an application, we prove a (refined) categorical Torelli theorem:
\begin{thm}\label{introduction_3}
Let $Y$ and $Y'$ be two Fano threefolds of index 2 with Picard rank 1 and degree 2 such that there exists an equivalence $u \colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Then $Y'\simeq Y$.
\end{thm}
This theorem improves a result of Bernardara and Tabuada \cite[ Cor. 3.1 (iii)]{BT16} who show that the same holds under the additional assumption that $u$ be of Fourier--Mukai type. Our technique is inspired by that of \cite{BMMS12}; we use the equivalence to construct an isomorphism between moduli spaces and argue that this is sufficient to conclude.
In Section \ref{sec_d=1}, we assume that $Y$ is general of degree 1, prove the analogue of Theorem \ref{introduction_2}, with similar arguments. In this case the description involves the Fano surface of lines $F(Y)$, and the special one-dimensional locus $C\subset F(Y)$ parametrizing \textit{singular lines}
\AAA{IDEA: we may consider stopping here in the intro, and move the theorem to sec d=1, instead of stating it here.} (see Section \ref{sec_d=1} for the details, in particular for the observation that there is a copy of $C$ contained in $Y$).
\begin{thm}\label{introduction_4}
Suppose $Y=Y_1$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass_generalityY1}. The space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is projective and it has two irreducible components $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{F}$, isomorphic respectively to $Y$ and $F(Y)$. The two intersect exactly at the curve $C$, in particular $\mathcal{F}$ is smooth outside of $C$.
The Abel--Jacobi map $\Psi \colon \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \to J(Y)$ contracts $\mathcal Y$ to a singular point $y$ in the theta-divisor and it is an embedding elsewhere. Moreover, the image $\Psi(\mathcal{M})$ determines $Y$ uniquely.
\end{thm}
\subsection*{Further problems} There are some natural questions which remain unanswered by this work.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \textit{(Torelli theorem for $d=1$)} It is expected that an analogue of Theorem \ref{introduction_3} holds in degree 1 as well. Unfortunately, the same proof doesn't work because the heart of a $t$-structure has larger homological dimension \cite[Remark 2.6]{PR20}.
\item \textit{(Equivalences of Fourier--Mukai type)} A conjecture of Kuznetsov \cite[Conj.~3.7]{KuzHPD07} implies, in the case of quartic double solids, that every equivalence $u\colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y')\xrightarrow{\sim}\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is of Fourier--Mukai type (i.e. that the composition $D(Y')\to \mathsf{Ku}(Y')\xrightarrow{u}\mathsf{Ku}(Y)\to D(Y) $ is a Fourier--Mukai functor). Combining Theorem \ref{introduction_3} with \cite[Prop. 3.5]{BT16} shows that $\mathsf{Ku}(Y')$ and $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ are equivalent if and only if they are Fourier--Mukai equivalent, but at the moment we are unable to prove the statement of \cite[Conj.~3.7]{KuzHPD07} for degree 2.
\item \AAA{aCM bundles?}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to our doctoral advisor, Aaron Bertram, for his guidance and his enthusiasm. We wish to thank Arend Bayer for encouraging us in pursuing this problem. We also thank Paolo Stellari and Huachen Chen, for discussing this problem with us on various occasions. This project benefited from the participation of the second and third author to the workshop \emph{``Semiorthogonal decompositions, stability conditions and sheaves of categories''} held in Toulouse in 2018 and of the first and third author to the workshop on \emph{``Derived Categories, Moduli Spaces and Deformation Theory''} held in Cetraro in 2019. We thank the organizers and the participants of these events. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for the invaluable feedback on a first version of this work.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Preliminaries}\label{sec_preliminaries}
\subsubsection{Weak stability conditions} \label{appendixstability}
In this section we refer to \cite{BLMS17} and briefly summarize definitions and results on weak (and Bridgeland) stability conditions.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a triangulated category and $K(\mathcal{D})$ its Grothendieck group; fix a lattice $\Lambda\subset K(\mathcal{D})$ and a surjective homomorphism $v \colon K(\mathcal{D}) \twoheadrightarrow \Lambda$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{heart of a bounded t-structure} is a full abelian subcategory $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{D}$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For all $E$,$F\in \mathcal{A}$ and $n<0$ we have $\Hom(E,F[n])=0$;
\item For every $E\in \mathcal{D}$ there exist a filtration, i.e. objects $E_i\in \mathcal{D}$, integers $k_1 > \dots > k_m$ and triangles
\[
\xymatrix{0=E_0 \ar[r] & E_1\ar[d] \ar[r] &E_2 \ar[d]\ar[r] &\dots \ar[r] &E_{m-1} \ar[d]\ar[r]&E_m=E \ar[d]
\\ & A_1[k_1] \ar@{-->}[ul]& A_2[k_2] \ar@{-->}[ul]& & A_{m-1}[k_{m-1}] \ar@{-->}[ul]& A_m[k_m] \ar@{-->}[ul]}
\]
such that $A_i\in \mathcal{A}$; these objects are called the \emph{cohomologies} of $E$ and are often denoted by $\mathcal{H}^i_{\mathcal{A}}(E)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an abelian category; a group homomorphism $Z\colon K(\mathcal{A})\to \mathbb{C}$ is called a \emph{weak stability function} if for all $E \in \mathcal{A}$ we have $\Im Z(E) \geq 0$, and $\Im Z(E)=0$ implies $\Re Z(E) \leq 0$. If moreover $\Im Z(E)=0$ and $E\neq 0$ implies $\Re Z(E) < 0$, then $Z$ is called a \emph{stability function}.
\end{definition}
A (weak) stability function has an associated slope function
\[
\mu_Z(E) = \begin{cases} -\dfrac{\Re Z(E)}{\Im Z(E)} \quad \text{if } \ \Im Z(E) > 0 \\ +\infty \quad \text{otherwise}\end{cases},
\]
\begin{definition}
An object $E\in\mathcal{A}$ is called \emph{semistable (resp. stable)} with respect to $Z$ if for every quotient $E\twoheadrightarrow Q$ in $\mathcal{A}$ we have $\mu_Z(E)\leq\mu_Z(Q)$ (resp. $\mu_Z(E)<\mu_Z(Q)$).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a triangulated category, and let $\Lambda$ and $v$ be as above; a \emph{weak stability condition} on $\mathcal{D}$ is a pair $\sigma=(\mathcal{A}, Z)$ where $\mathcal{A}$ is the heart of a bounded t-structure and $Z$ is a group homomorphism $Z \colon \Lambda \to \mathbb{C}$ , satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The composition $Z \circ v \colon K(\mathcal{A})=K(\mathcal{D}) \to \Lambda \to \mathbb{C}$ is a weak stability function on $\mathcal{A}$;
\item We require all $E\in \mathcal{A}$ to have Harder--Narasimhan filtration with factors $F_i\in \mathcal{A}$ semistable with respect to $Z$, with strictly decreasing slopes;
\item There exists a quadratic form $Q$ on $\Lambda\otimes \mathbb{R}$ that is negative definite on $\ker Z$, such that $Q(v(E))\geq 0$ for $E$ semistable.
\end{enumerate}
If moreover $Z$ is a stability function, then the pair $(\mathcal{A},Z)$ is a \emph{Bridgeland stability condition}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} \label{def_stability_app}
An object $E\in\mathcal{D}$ is called (semi)stable if there exists $m\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $E[m]\in\mathcal{A}$ and $E[m]$ is (semi)stable; in that case we also say that $E$ is (semi)stable of phase $-m+\frac{1}{\pi}\arg Z(E)$.
Then any $E\in \mathcal{D}$ has a Harder--Narasimhan filtration
\[ 0=E_0 \subset E_1 \subset E_2 \subset ... \subset E_{m-1} \subset E_m=E \]
such that each factor $F_i\coloneqq E_i/E_{i-1}$ is semistable of phase $\phi_i$, with $\phi_1>\cdots>\phi_m$.
\end{definition}
Given a weak stability condition, we can produce a new heart of a bounded t-structure by \emph{tilting}; indeed, given $\sigma=(\mathcal{A},Z)$ and a choice $\mu\in \mathbb{R}$, define
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{T}^{\mu,\sigma}=\{E \in \mathcal{A} \ | \text{ All HN factors $F$ of $E$ have slope $\mu_Z(F)>\mu$} \} \\
&\mathcal{F}^{\mu,\sigma}=\{E \in \mathcal{A} \ | \text{ All HN factors $F$ of $E$ have slope $\mu_Z(F)\leq\mu$} \}.
\end{align*}
We use the notation $\pair{-}$ to denote the extension closure, i.e. the smallest subcategory of $\mathcal{D}$ containing the objects in the brackets and closed under extensions (note that this is not the same as $\pair{-}$ used in the semiorthogonal decomposition, but context will make the meaning clear). Then:
\begin{proposition}[\cite{HRS96}, \cite{BLMS17}] \label{tiltofheart}
The category $\mathcal{A}^{\mu, \sigma} \coloneqq \langle \mathcal{T}^{\mu,\sigma}, \mathcal{F}^{\mu,\sigma}[1] \rangle$ is the heart of a bounded t-structure.
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{Weak stability conditions on $D^b(X)$}\label{sec_weak_stab_D(X)}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $n$, and let $H$ be an ample divisor on $X$. We follow the setup of \cite[Sec. 2]{BLMS17} and recall the construction of weak stability conditions on $D^b(X)$.
For $j\in\set{0,...,n}$ define lattices $\Lambda_H^j\simeq \mathbb{Z}^{j+1}$ generated by
\[ \left(H^n \Ch_0, H^{n-1}\Ch_1,...,H^{n-j}\Ch_j \right) \subset \mathbb{Q}^{j+1} \]
with the sujective map $v_H^j\colon K(X) \to \Lambda_H^j$ given by the Chern character.
Then, Mumford slope gives rise to a weak stability condition $\sigma_H \coloneqq (\Coh(X),Z_\mu)$ where $Z_H\colon \Lambda_H^1\to \mathbb{C}$ is defined by
\[ Z_H(E)\coloneqq -H^{n-1}\Ch_1(E) + i H^n\Ch_0(E). \]
We can define a new weak stability condition from the one above via tilting: for $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$, define $\Coh^\beta(X)$ to be the heart obtained from $\sigma_H$ via tilting at slope $\mu_H=\beta$. Before introducing the central charge, recall the notation $\Ch^\beta(E) \coloneqq \Ch(E) \cdot e^{-\beta H}$. We make the first three terms explicit for convenience:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Ch_0^\beta = \Ch_0\\
\Ch_1^\beta = \Ch_1 - \beta H\Ch_0\\
\Ch_2^\beta = \Ch_2 - \beta H \Ch_1 + \frac{\beta^2H^2}{2}\Ch_0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have the following:
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Prop. 2.12]{BLMS17}}] \label{def_tilt_stability}
For all $(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathbb{R}_{>0}\times \mathbb{R}$, the pair given by $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}=(\Coh^\beta(X), Z_{\alpha,\beta})$ with
\[
Z_{\alpha,\beta}(E) = -H^{n-2}\Ch_2^\beta(E) + \dfrac{\alpha^2}{2}H^n\Ch_0^\beta(E) + i H^{n-1}\Ch_1^\beta(E)
\]
defines a weak stability condition on $D^b(X)$. Moreover, these weak stability conditions vary continuously with $(\alpha,\beta)$.
\end{proposition}
In virtue of the proposition above, we will consider the upper half plane
$\set{(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \st \alpha >0 }$ as a space parametrizing the weak stability conditions $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$. We write $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}\coloneqq \mu_{Z_{\alpha,\beta}}$ for the slope function associated to $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$. We can now define \textit{walls} and \textit{chambers}:
\begin{definition}\label{def_walls}
Fix a vector $v\in \Lambda^2_H$.
A \textit{numerical wall} for $v$ is the set of pairs $(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathbb{R}_{>0}\times \mathbb{R}$ such that there exists a vector $w\in \Lambda^2_H$ for which $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(v)=\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(w)$.
A \textit{wall} for $F\in \Coh^\beta(X)$ is a numerical wall for $v=\Ch_{\leq 2}(F)$ such that for every $(\alpha,\beta)$ in the numerical wall there exists a short exact sequence of semistable objects $0\to E\to F\to G\to 0$ satisfying $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(E)=\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(F)=\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(G)$.
A \textit{chamber} is a connected component of the complement of the union of walls in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}\times\mathbb{R}$.
\end{definition}
The key features of this wall and chamber decomposition is that walls with respect to a fixed $v\in \Lambda^2_H$ are locally finite in the upper half plane. In particular, if $v=\Ch_{\leq 2}(E)$ for some $E\in \Coh^\beta(X)$, stability of $E$ is constant as $(\alpha,\beta)$ varies within a chamber (see \cite[Prop. B.5]{BMS16}).
We conclude recalling another construction of a weak stability condition. In the notation of Proposition \ref{tiltofheart}, fix $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ and define $\Coh^{\mu}_{\alpha, \beta}(X) := \Coh^{\beta}(X)^{\mu,\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}}$ endowed with a stability function
\[
Z^\mu_{\alpha,\beta} := \dfrac{1}{u} Z_{\alpha,\beta},
\]
where $u\in \mathbb{C}$ is the unique unit vector such that $\mu = -\dfrac{\Re u}{\Im u}$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Prop. 2.15]{BLMS17}}]\label{tiltoftilt}
The pair $\sigma^{\mu}_{\alpha,\beta}= (\Coh^{\mu}_{\alpha, \beta}(X), Z^\mu_{\alpha,\beta})$ is a weak stability condition on $D(X)$.
\end{proposition}
Finally, again in \cite{BLMS17}, the authors induce a stability condition on the Kuznetsov component of $Y$ using weak stability conditions:
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theor. 1.1]{BLMS17}}]
\label{thm_stab_con_on_Ku}
Let $Y$ be a Fano threefold of index 2 with $\Pic(Y)=\mathbb{Z}$, and let $\sigma^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}$ be the weak stability condition constructed in Proposition \ref{tiltoftilt} for $\mu=0$, $\beta=-\dfrac{1}{2}$ and $0<\alpha \ll 1$; let moreover $\mathcal{A}= \mathsf{Ku}(Y) \cap \Coh^{0}_{\alpha, \beta}(X)$ and $Z = Z^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}$. Then the pair $\sigma=(\mathcal{A}, Z)$ is a Bridgeland stability condition on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$.
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{Moduli spaces}\label{sec_properties_moduli}
Let $Y$ be a Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and index 2, and fix $H$ to be the ample class generating $\Pic(Y)$. Recall that $Y$ admits a semiorthogonal decomposition \eqref{eq_SOD_of_Y} and a subcategory $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ whose numerical Grothendieck group $K_{num}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))\subset K_{num}(Y)$ is generated by classes $v,w$ (see \eqref{eq_def_of_v_w}).
Here we recall the definitions and some properties of the moduli spaces of stable objects, focusing on those of class $w\in K_{num}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$.
Our starting point is the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ of sheaves of class $w$ which are stable in the sense of Gieseker (we refer the reader to \cite[Chapter 4]{HL10} for the definition and additional details). The space $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ is a projective scheme of finite type, whose Zariski tangent space at a point $[F]$ is canonically isomorphic to
\begin{equation}\label{eq_Tangent_M_G}
T_{[F]}\mathcal{M}_G(w)\simeq \Ext^1(F,F).
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ is a \textit{fine} moduli space. In other words, there is a universal family on $Y\times \mathcal{M}_G(w)$: this is a consequence of \cite[Theorem 4.6.5]{HL10}, combined with the observation that, if $L$ in $Y$ is any smooth line (i.e., a smooth one dimensional subscheme of Hilbert polynomial $1+t$, with respect to the polarization $H$), we have $\chi(w \otimes \mathcal{O}_L)=\chi(\mathbb{C}_p)=1$.
Given a (weak) stability condition $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$ on $D^b(Y)$ as in Proposition \ref{def_tilt_stability}, one can define the moduli functor parametrizing $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable objects of fixed class $w$.
This functor is corepresented by an algebraic stack of finite type \cite[Prop. 3.7]{Toda13_BG_counting}, denoted $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha,\beta}(w)$, which is proper if every $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable objects is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable (quasi-properness is \cite[Theor. 1.2]{TP15}, and properness is a consequence of \cite{AP06}, with a standard argument as in \cite[Lemma 6.6]{BM14}).
\subsubsection{$T$-linear categories, projections, and base change}
\label{sec_basechange_mutations}
We recall some aspects of \cite{Kuz11_base_change}, which represents the main technical tool of some parts of this paper. For any quasi-projective variety $V$, we will use $D(V)$ to denote the category of perfect complexes on $V$. In particular, for a smooth $V$, we will have $D(V)\simeq D^b(V)$ the derived category of bounded coherent sheaves.
Let $T$ be a quasi-projective variety, and $Y$ a smooth projective variety. We say that a subcategory $\mathcal{T}\subset D(Y\times T)$ is $T$-\textit{linear} if it is stable under tensoring by pull-backs of objects of $D(T)$ under the projection $Y\times T\to T$.
A functor $\Phi\colon \mathcal{T} \to \mathcal{T}'$ between two $T$-linear categories is $T$\textit{-linear} if $\Phi(F\boxtimes G)\simeq \Phi(F)\boxtimes G$ for all $F\in \mathcal{T}$, $G\in D(T)$.
Analogously, a semiorthogonal decomposition $D(Y\times T)=\pair{\mathcal{T}_1,...,\mathcal{T}_n}$ is $T$-linear if the $\mathcal{T}_i$ are. If $\pair{\mathcal{T}_1,...,\mathcal{T}_n}$ is a $T$-linear semiorthogonal decomposition, then the associated projection functors are $T$-linear.
We summarize the results of \cite{Kuz11_base_change} which will be used in our work. Here, we write Kuznetsov's results in the case of a $T$ linear category arising from an exceptional object on $Y$, which allows us to be more explicit.
Now let $E$ be an exceptional object on $Y$. Then, the category \[\pair{E}_T\coloneqq \pair{E\boxtimes G \st G\in D(T)}\subset D(Y\times T)\] is $T$-linear (\cite[Cor. 5.9]{Kuz11_base_change}).
There are $T$-linear projection functors $\mathbb R_E^T$ and $\mathbb L_E^T$ on $\!^\perp\pair{E}_T$ and $\pair{E}_T^\perp$ respectively (\cite[Sec. 2.3]{Kuz11_base_change}). They are defined as the cones of the (co)evaluation morphisms, as described by the triangles:
\begin{align*}
E\boxtimes q_*R\mathcal{H}om(p^*E,X) \xrightarrow{ev} X \to \mathbb L_E^T(X) \\
\mathbb R_E^T(X) \to X \xrightarrow{coev} E\boxtimes q_{*}R\mathcal{H}om(p^*E, X \otimes \omega_q),
\end{align*}
where $p$ (resp. $q$) denotes the projections from $Y\times T$ onto the first (resp. second) factor.
By \cite[Sec. 5]{Kuz11_base_change}, the projection functors commute with base change, in the following sense. For any $f\colon S\to T$, denote by $\bar{f}\colon Y\times S \to Y\times T$ the corresponding base-change morphism. Then we have $\mathbb R_E^S(\bar{f}^*(X)) \simeq \bar{f}^*(\mathbb R_E^T(X))$ for all $X\in D(Y\times T)$, and similarly for $\mathbb L$. In particular, at every closed point $t\in T$ the projection functors $\mathbb R_E^t$ and $\mathbb L_E^t$ are the \textit{right} and \textit{left mutation} of objects on $D(Y\times \set{t})\simeq D(Y)$ across the exceptional object $E$:
\begin{align*}
E\otimes \Hom^\bullet(E,X) \xrightarrow{ev} X \to \mathbb L_E^t(X) \\
\mathbb R_E^t(X) \to X \xrightarrow{coev} E\otimes \Hom^\bullet(X,E)^\vee.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Hyperplane sections of $Y$}\label{sec_hyperplane sections+generality}
Let $Y$ denote a smooth Fano threefold of Picard Rank 1 and index 2. As anticipated in the Introduction, $Y$ belongs to one of five families, indexed by degree. The assumption of smoothness suffices to prove our results if $d=3,4,5$, but we introduce (mild) additional assumptions for lower degrees: we make them explicit here, and fix some notation.
If $d=2$, we assume that $Y_2 \xrightarrow{\pi} \P^3$ is a general double cover ramified over a quartic surface $R$ (which will be often identified with the branching locus). In this case, $\mathcal{O}_Y(1)$ is the pullback of $\mathcal{O}_{\pr 3}(1)$. The generality assumption here is that of \cite{Wel81,TM03}, whose results we will need. Precisely, we assume $R$ to be smooth and to not contain lines \cite[\S 1]{Wel81}, consequently, $Y$ and its Fano surface of lines are smooth \cite[Remark 2.2.9]{KPS18_hilbert_schemes}. See Section \ref{sec_d=2} for more details.
Finally, $Y_1$ is a sextic hypersurface in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P\coloneqq \pr{}(1,1,1,2,3)$ and $\Pic(Y_1)$ is generated by restriction of $\mathcal{O}_\mathbb{P}(1)$. Projection onto the first four variables induces a two-to-one cover $Y_1 \to K$, where $ K$ is a cone over a Veronese surface (for this reason, $Y$ is often referred to as to a \textit{double Veronese cone}). We use $\pi$ to denote the projection $\pi\colon K\dashrightarrow \pr 2$, defined away from the vertex of $K$. The cover branches over a surface $D\subset K$, whose projection to the Veronese surface ramifies at a curve $C$ (see Section \ref{sec_d=1} for a more detailed description). Throughout, we make the same generality assumption as \cite{Tih82}: we assume that $C$ is smooth, irreducible, and general in moduli, and that the dual curve $\pi(C)^\vee\subset \Check{\mathbb P}^2$ only has ordinary double points or simple inflection points (see \cite[Prop. 2.3]{Tih82}).
In all cases, general hyperplane sections of $Y$ are del Pezzo surfaces, we then recall here some of the related notions and some aspects of degenerations of del Pezzo surfaces. We define:
\begin{definition}\label{def_of_root_of_S}
Let $S$ be a hyperplane section of $Y$, i.e. $S\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_Y(1)}$. A \textit{root} of $S$ is a (possibly Weil) divisor $D$ such that $D.K_S=0$ and $D^2=-2$ (see \cite[\S 8.2.3]{Dol12}).
By a root of $Y$ we mean a sheaf of the form $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))$, where $S\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_Y(1)}$, $D$ is a root of $S$, and $\iota\colon S\to Y$ is the inclusion map.
\end{definition}
We'll use the following definition (see for example \cite[\S 8.1]{Dol12}) to describe degenerations of del Pezzo surfaces (which arise as hyperplane sections of $Y$, by Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}).
Let $\Sigma=\set{x_1,...,x_{9-d}}$ be a set of $9-d$ points in $\pr 2$. Denote by $\Sigma_j$ the set $\set{x_1,...,x_j}$ for $1\leq j\leq 9-d$, and by $V_j\to \pr 2$ the blow-up of $\pr 2$ with center $\Sigma_j$. Then there is a chain of morphisms
\[ V_{9-d} \to V_{9-d-1} \to ... \to V_1 \to \pr 2 \]
where the exceptional set of the $j$-th step, $E_j\subset V_j$, is contracted to $x_j\in V_{j-1}$. Every smooth del Pezzo surface arises as $V_{9-d}$ where the $x_j$ are chosen to be in general position \cite[\S 8.1.25]{Dol12}.
\begin{definition}\label{def_almost_general_position}
The points of $\Sigma$ are said to be in \textit{almost general} position if:
\begin{itemize}
\item $d\geq 1$;
\item the dual graph of (the strict transforms of) $\cup_j E_j\subset V_{9-d}$ is a disjoint union of chains;
\item no line of $\pr 2$ passes through 4 points of $\Sigma$;
\item no conic of $\pr 2$ passes through 7 points of $\Sigma$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We now describe hyperplane sections of $Y$:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_hyperplane_sections}
Let $Y$ be a rank 1 index 2 Fano threefold, and let $S\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_Y(1)}$ be a hyperplane section of $Y$. Suppose moreover that if $d\leq 2$ $Y$ is general in the above sense. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S$ is an integral, normal, Gorenstein surface with anti-canonical bundle $-K_S\simeq \mathcal{O}_Y(1)_{|S}$;
\item The general $S$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree $d$. If $S$ is singular, then either
\begin{itemize}
\item it has ordinary double points , or
\item it is a cone over an elliptic curve.
\end{itemize}
The degenerations above are realized by specializing $9-d$ on $\pr 2$ to an almost general position (in which case they obtain rational double points) or by degenerating a del Pezzo surface to a cone over a section of $\abs{-K_S}$;
\item The set of roots of $S$ is finite in $\mathrm{Cl}(S)$. In any of the cases above, $S$ contains no effective roots.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $Y$ has Picard rank 1, all $S$ are irreducible and reduced.
Normality is a consequence of Zak's theorem on tangencies: \cite[Cor. 3.4.19]{positivityI} gives normality immediately if $d=3,4,5$. For $d=1,2$ we again apply Zak's theorem, but not to $S$:
for example, in the degree 2 case, $S$ is the pullback of a plane $P \subset \pr 3$, and is also a double cover, ramified over the quartic $R\cap P$. Then, $S$ is only singular if the branching locus $R\cap P$ is, i.e. if $P$ is tangent to $R$. But the finiteness of the Gauss map of $R$ (\cite[Cor. 3.4.18]{positivityI}) implies that singularities of $S$ must be isolated. Similarly, a hyperplane section of $Y_1$ is pulled back from a line $L$ in $\pr 2$, and is singular iff $L$ is tangent to the curve $\pi(C)$. Then, the finiteness of the Gauss mapping for $\pi(C)$ suffices to conclude (this follows from the generality assumption as in \cite[Prop. 2.3]{Tih82}).
All surfaces $S$ are Gorenstein, their anti-canonical bundle being the restriction $\mathcal{O}_Y(1)_{|S}$ (the adjunction formula \cite[\S 4.1]{Kol13} applies to this case and the different vanishes \cite[Prop. 4.5(1)]{Kol13}). Moreover, for a root $D$ we have $D.K_S=-D.H_{|S}=0$ and $H_{|S}$ is ample, so $D$ cannot be effective.
Normal Gorenstein surfaces with ample anti-canonical bundle are classified in \cite{hidaka1981}: if they are smooth, then they are del Pezzo surfaces of degree $d=K_S^2$. If they have rational singularities, they are obtained from a smooth del Pezzo surface by specializing $9-d$ points in $\pr 2$ to almost general position, and contracting all $(-2)$ curves (see \cite[\S 3]{hidaka1981}). The only non-rational singularity that may occur is obtained by degenerating a del Pezzo surface to a cone over an elliptic curve $C\in \abs{-K_S}$ \cite[\S 4]{hidaka1981}.
Roots are finite for a smooth del Pezzo surface $S$ of degree $d\leq 5$ \cite[\S 8.2.3]{Dol12}. Therefore, they are also finite for surfaces obtained from $S$ by contracting $(-2)$ curves. If, instead, $S$ is a cone over an elliptic curve, then its divisor group contains no roots \cite[Prop. 3.14]{Kol13}.
\end{proof}
\section{Construction of the moduli spaces}\label{sec_construction_of_moduli}
In this section, we describe three moduli spaces of objects of class $w$. Our main interest lies in the moduli space of $\sigma$-stable objects in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$, denoted $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$, where $\sigma$ is one of the stability conditions of Proposition \ref{thm_stab_con_on_Ku}. To describe it, we will make use of the moduli space of Gieseker stable sheaves of class $w$, denoted $\mathcal{M}_{G}(w)$, and of moduli $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha,\beta}(w)$ of $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable objects (see \ref{sec_properties_moduli}). We begin our study from $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ (Proposition \ref{gieseker}), then we perform wall-crossing and compare $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ with one of the spaces $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha,\beta}(w)$ (Proposition \ref{prop_tilt}). Finally, we show that $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha,\beta}(w)$ and $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ coincide (Proposition \ref{kuzistilt}).
\subsection{The Gieseker moduli space $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$}\label{sec_Gieseker_moduli}
\begin{proposition}\label{gieseker}
The moduli $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ of Gieseker-semistable objects of class $w$ on $Y$ has two irreducible components. One, denoted $\mathcal{P}$, has dimension $d+3$ and parametrizes ideal sheaves $I_{p|S}$ of a point in a hyperplane section $S$ of $Y$. A point $[I_{p|S}]\in \mathcal P$ is smooth in $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ iff $p$ is a smooth point of $S$.
The second component has dimension $d+1$, and its smooth points parametrize roots of $Y$ (see Def. \ref{def_of_root_of_S}).
The components intersect in the locus parametrizing $I_{p|S}$ with $S$ singular at $p$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since the class $w$ is torsion, a Gieseker-stable sheaf $E$ of class $w$ must be pure. This implies that $E=\iota_*(F)$ for some sheaf $F$ supported on a hyperplane section $\iota \colon S \hookrightarrow Y$, otherwise the kernel of the map $E\to \iota_*\iota^*E$ would give a destabilizing subsheaf of smaller dimension. Stability of $E$ implies that $F$ is a torsion-free rank-one stable sheaf on $S$.
Now we claim that $F$ must have the form $F=I_Z \otimes \mathcal{O}_S(D)$, with $Z$ a zero-dimensional subscheme and $\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ a reflexive sheaf of rank 1 associated to a Weil divisor $D$ on $S$. By Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}, $S$ is integral and normal. Since $S$ is integral, the map $F\to F^{\vee\vee}$ is injective \cite[Theor. 2.8]{Schwede2010}. Since $S$ is normal, $F^\vee$ is reflexive and therefore $F^\vee\simeq \mathcal{O}_{S}(-D)$ for some Weil divisor $D$ \cite[Sec. 3]{Schwede2010}. Then, $F\otimes\mathcal{O}(-D)\subset F^{\vee\vee}\otimes \mathcal{O}(-D)\simeq \mathcal{O}_S$ and $F\otimes\mathcal{O}(-D)$ must be an ideal sheaf of a subscheme supported in codimension 2, which shows the claim. In particular, we have $\Ch(F)=\left([S],D,\Ch_2(\mathcal{O}_S(D))-z[\mathrm{pt}]\right)$.
Next, we apply the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem to compute $\Ch(F)\in H^*(S)$. The computation can be done assuming that $S$ is smooth: a Riemann-Roch theorem continues to hold for local complete intersections
\cite[\S 4]{Suw03}, and the Chern class of $N_{S/Y}\simeq \mathcal{O}_Y(H)_{|H}$ does not depend on the choice of $S$ in its linear series. Then we have
\[ \Ch(w)=\iota_*(\Ch(F) \cdot \td(N_{S/Y})) \]
which implies that $\Ch(F)=([S],D,-[\mathrm{pt}])\in H^*(S)$, where $D\in H^2(S)$ satisfies $D.(H_{|S})=0$. Then, there are two possibilities: $z=1$ and $\Ch_2(F)=0$, or $z=0$ and $\Ch_2(F)=-1$.
To proceed, we need to be more precise about the second Chern class for reflexive rank-one sheaves. The Riemann-Roch formula on normal surfaces presents a correction term $\delta_S(D)\in \mathbb{Q}$, only depending on $D$ and the singularities of $S$:
\[
\chi(\mathcal{O}_S(D))= \chi(\mathcal{O}_S) + \dfrac{1}{2}(D^2-K_S.D) + \delta_S(D).
\]
For $S$ as in Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}, $\delta_S(D)\leq 0$ (see \cite[Theor. 9.1]{Rei87} for rational singularities, and \cite[\S 7.7]{Lan00} for the elliptic ones).
Consistently with the Riemann-Roch formulae, we define the second Chern character
\[
\Ch_2(\mathcal{O}_S(D))=\dfrac{D^2}{2}+\delta_S(D).
\]
Let $p\colon \tilde{S}\to S$ denote the minimal resolution of $S$. If $z=1$, then $0=D^2=(p^*(D))^2$. Then, by the Hodge index theorem \cite[Cor. 2.16]{BHPV04}, $p^*D=0$ and therefore $D=0$ in $H^2(S)$.
If $z=0$, then $D$ is a root unless $(p^*D)^2=\frac{D^2}{2}=-1$ and $\delta_S(D)=-\frac 12$. If $S$ is a cone, this cannot happen since $\delta_S(D)\leq -1$ \cite[\S 7.7]{Lan00}. If $S$ has ADE singularities, then $\tilde S$ is a crepant resolution, hence $K_{\tilde S}=p^*K_S=p^*(-H_{|S})$ and therefore $(p^*D).K_{\tilde S}=D.(H_{|S})=0$. But then, the Riemann Roch theorem on $\tilde S$ implies that $(p^*D)^2$ is even, a contradiction.
For the claims about smoothness, observe the following: the locus parametrizing sheaves of the form $I_{p|S}$ has dimension $d+3=\dim \mathbb P (H^0(\mathcal{O}_{Y_d}(1))+2$, which coincides with the rank of the Zariski tangent space of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ at $[I_{p|S}]$ iff $p$ is a smooth point of $S$ by Lemma \ref{d+3} and the isomorphism \eqref{eq_Tangent_M_G}.
On the other hand, the locus of sheaves $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ has dimension $d+1=\dim \mathbb P (H^0(\mathcal{O}_{Y_d}(1))$, since $S$ has finitely many roots by Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}. Then, each of these points is smooth in $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ by Lemma \ref{dimensiond+1} and the isomorphism \eqref{eq_Tangent_M_G}.
Now we claim that the two components intersect exactly at those points parametrizing sheaves $I_{p|S_0}$, with $S_0$ a hyperplane section of $Y$ singular at $p$. Indeed, if $S_0$ has rational singularities, then one can exhibit a flat family of sheaves of the form $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ degenerating to $I_{p|S}$: we do this for one explicit degeneration in Example \ref{explicitfamily}, the other degenerations are completely analogous. If $S_0$ is a cone, by the properness of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ any family of $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ supported on a smoothing of $S_0$ has limit $I_{p|S_0}$, since $\mathrm{Cl}(S_0)$ contains no roots (Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{d+3}
Let $S\subset Y_d$ be a hyperplane section, let $p$ a smooth point of $S$. Then we have
$$\dim \Ext^i(I_{p|S},I_{p|S})=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if }i=3\\
2 & \text{ if }i=2\\
d+3 & \text{ if }i=1\\
1 & \text{ if }i=0.\end{cases}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $I_{p/S}\simeq[\mathcal{O}_S\rightarrow \mathbb{C}_p]$ in $D^b(Y)$, then
$R\Hom( I_{p/S},I_{p/S})$ is the totalization of a double complex $K^{\bullet,\bullet}$ isomorphic to
$$K^\bullet\coloneqq \left[R\Hom(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathcal{O}_S)\rightarrow R\Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathcal{O}_S)\oplus R\Hom(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)\rightarrow R\Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathbb{C}_p)\right],$$ so we may compute $\Ext^i( I_{p/S},I_{p/S})$ using a spectral sequence
$$E_1^{p,q}=H^q(K^{\bullet,p})\Rightarrow H^{p+q}(K^\bullet).$$
Then the first page $E^{p,q}_1$ of the spectral sequence is
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\\
$\Ext^1(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathcal{O}_S)$ & $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathcal{O}_S)\oplus \Ext^1(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)$ &$\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathbb{C}_p)$\\
$\Hom(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathcal{O}_S)$ & $\Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathcal{O}_S)\oplus \Hom(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)$ &$\Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathbb{C}_p)$\\
\hline
($p=-1$)&($p=0$)&($p=1$)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
with arrows pointing to the right. The dimensions of the vector spaces above are given in the table below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
1 & 1 &0\\
1 & 3 &0\\
0 & $d+4$ &1\\
0 & 2 &1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The map in the top row is an isomorphism $\Ext^3(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathcal{O}_S)\rightarrow \Ext^3(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)$. The map in the bottom row is surjective because $\Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathcal{O}_S)\rightarrow \Hom(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathbb{C}_p)$ is.
Consider the maps in the third and second row. We claim that if $p$ is smooth in $S$, then these two are both non-zero, and if $p$ is singular, then they are both $0$.
For example, the map in the third row is $\Ext^1(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)\rightarrow \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_S,\mathbb{C}_p)$. By applying the functor $\Hom(-,\mathbb{C}_p)$ to the sequence $I_{p|S} \to \mathcal{O}_S \to\mathbb{C}_p$, one sees that its kernel is $\Hom(I_{p|S},\mathbb{C}_p)$. On the other hand we have
\[ \Hom(I_{p|S},\mathbb{C}_p)\simeq \Hom_S(I_{p|S},\mathbb{C}_p)\simeq \Ext^1_S(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)\simeq T_p S,\]
and the latter has rank 2, resp. 3, if $p$ is smooth, resp. singular, in $S$.
The map in the second row is $\Ext^2(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathcal{O}_S)\to \Ext^2(\mathbb{C}_p,\mathbb{C}_p)$, and the argument for the claim is similar.
This shows that the second page of the spectral sequence is supported on the central column of the table, and hence $E_2^{p,q}$ abuts to the claimed dimensions.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{d+4}
If $p\in S$ is singular, then
\[
\dim \Ext^i(I_{p|S},I_{p|S})=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if }i=3\\
3 & \text{ if }i=2\\
d+4 & \text{ if }i=1\\
1 & \text{ if }i=0.\end{cases}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the above proof, we see that the dimensions of the objects on the second page are
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
0 & 0 &0\\
1 & 3 &0\\
0 & $d+4$ &1\\
0 & 1 &0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
and conclude that $\Ext^1(I_{p|S},I_{p|S})$ is either $\mathbb{C}^{d+4}$ or $\mathbb{C}^{d+5}$. Using the same spectral sequence as above, only this time starting with the short exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{def_IpS}
\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_p\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_{p|S}
\end{equation}
it is not hard to see that it can only be $\mathbb{C}^{d+4}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{dimensiond+1}
Suppose that $E=\iota_\ast F$, where $F=\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ is a reflexive sheaf on a hyperplane section $\iota :S\rightarrow Y$. Then $$R^i\mathcal{H}\text{om}(E,E)=\begin{cases} \iota_\ast\mathcal{O}_S & \text{ if }i=0\\ \iota_\ast\mathcal{O}_S(1) & \text{ if }i=1\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}\end{cases}$$
Therefore $\Ext^1(E,E)=\mathbb{C}^{d+1}$, and $\Ext^2(E,E)=\Ext^3(E,E)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By adjunction,
\begin{equation}\label{gvduality}
R\mathcal{H}om_Y(E,E) \simeq R\mathcal{H}om_S(Li^*E,F).
\end{equation}
We can compute $E\otimes^L\mathcal{O}_S$ by tensoring the short exact sequence
$\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_Y\to \mathcal{O}_S$
with $E$. Then, since $\iota^\ast=\iota^{-1} (\underline{\hspace{1em}}\otimes^L\mathcal{O}_S)$, we get $L^0\iota^\ast E=F$ and $L^1 \iota^\ast E=F(-1)$. Since $F$ is reflexive, we have $\mathcal{H} om_S(F,F)=\mathcal{O}_S$, so the statement follows from the spectral sequence for hypercohomology of the complex in \eqref{gvduality}.
\end{proof}
In the following example we exhibit a flat family of sheaves whose general element has the form $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$, for $\iota\colon S \to Y$ a hyperplane section and $D$ a root of $S$, which specializes to $I_{p|S_0}$ (where $p$ is a singular point in a hyperplane section $S_0$).
\begin{example}[$I_{p/S}$ as a flat limit of $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))$'s]\label{explicitfamily}
Let $f:Y=Y_d\rightarrow \pr{d+1}$ be the map induced by $-K_Y/2$ (assume $d\geq 2$). Denote with $\mathcal{S}$ the universal hyperplane section. Let $h_0\in (\P^{d+1})^\vee$ cut out a hyperplane section $S_0\subset Y$ that is singular at $p$.
Let $\Delta\subset (\P^{d+1})^\vee$ be a 1-dimensional analytic disk containing $h_0$. Hyperplane sections with rational singularities arise by specializing the $9-d$ points in $\pr 2$ (Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}). Therefore, after possibly replacing it with a finite cover, $\Delta$ supports a family of hyperplane sections of $Y$ constructed by blowing up $9-d$ sections $s_i$ of the projection $p:\Delta\times \pr 2\rightarrow \Delta$.
For $h_t\in \Delta$, we denote by $S_t\subset Y$ the corresponding hyperplane section, and by $f_t:S_t\rightarrow \pr d$ the restriction of $f$ to~$S_t$. The sections $s_i$ are in general position for $t\neq 0$, and they are in almost general position (see Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}) over $t=0$. We now assume that $s_1,s_2,s_3$ are collinear over $t=0$, but one can carry over the same argument for the other degenerations. Denote the blowup with $g:\mathcal{S}'\rightarrow \Delta\times \pr{2}$. The map induced by the dual of the relative dualizing sheaf $\omega_{p\circ g}$ factors through the universal hyperplane section pulled back to $\Delta$:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
\mathcal{S}' \arrow[r, "-\omega_{p\circ g}"] \arrow[rd,dotted]
& \Delta\times \pr {d} & \\
& \mathcal{S}_\Delta \arrow[u ] \arrow[r]& \Delta\times Y
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
Here the vertical map is induced by the dual of the relative dualizing sheaf of $\mathcal{S}_\Delta\rightarrow \Delta$. Its fibers are $f_t:S_t\rightarrow \pr d$.
Let $\mathcal{E}_i$ be the exceptional divisors of $g$. Define $D=-g^\ast(\mathcal{O}_{\pr{2}}(1))+\mathcal{E}_1+\mathcal{E}_2+\mathcal{E}_3$. Then the fiber of $D$ over $t\neq 0$ is a Cartier divisor $D_t$ of degree $0$ and $D_t^2=-2$, and when $t=0$, $D$ restricts to $-E$, where $E$ is the $(-2)$ curve in the central fiber of the blowup $g$. If we pushforward to $\Delta\times Y$, we get a flat family of divisors $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_{S_t}(D_t))$ over a general fiber, and $I_{p/S_0}$ in the central fiber.
\end{example}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk_PtoY_univ_fam}\AAA{wrong! $I_{p|S}$ has two maps to O(-1)!}
We give a more precise description of the component $\mathcal P$. In fact, $\mathcal{P}$ is a projective bundle over $Y$, with projection
\begin{equation}\label{eq_map_PtoY}
[\mathcal{I}_{p|S}] \mapsto p
\end{equation} and fiber $\mathbb P(\Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y(-1),\mathcal{I}_p))\simeq \mathbb P(H^0(\mathcal{I}_p(1)))\simeq \pr^d$. To show that the assignment \eqref{eq_map_PtoY} is an algebraic morphism, and for future reference, we construct a flat family of sheaves on $\mathcal{P}$ parametrizing ideal sheaves of points of $Y$, so that the map \eqref{eq_map_PtoY} is given by the universal property of $Y$, interpreted as a Hilbert scheme of points of $Y$.
Since $\mathcal P$ is a component of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, it admits a universal family $\mathcal J\in D(T \times \mathcal P)$.
The category $\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_{\mathcal P}$ is a $\mathcal P$-linear admissible subcategory of $D^b(Y\times \mathcal P)$, in the sense of Section \ref{sec_basechange_mutations}. Consider the projection functor $\mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^{\mathcal P}\colon D^b(Y\times \mathcal P) \to \!^\perp\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_{\mathcal P}$. Then, $\mathcal{I}\coloneqq \mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^{\mathcal P}(\mathcal J)$ is the desired family: the restriction of $\mathcal{I}$ to a fiber $Y\simeq Y\times \set{x}$ above a closed point $x=[I_{p|S}]\in \mathcal P$ is the mutation of $I_{p|S}$ across the exceptional object $\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)$, and it fits in a triangle
\[ I_p \to I_{p|S} \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1], \]
whence $\mathcal{I}_x=I_p$. The family $\mathcal{I}$ realizes $\mathcal P$ as a $\pr d$-bundle over $Y$ as claimed.
\end{remark}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Moduli spaces and wall crossing in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane}\label{sec_tilt moduli}
Now we turn to the study of the wall crossing; we investigate moduli spaces of stable objects of class $w$ with respect to a stability condition $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$ of Proposition \ref{def_tilt_stability}. In particular, we fix $\beta=-1/2$, $\alpha^+ \gg 1$ and $0<\alpha^-\ll 1$. We denote the corresponding moduli spaces by $\mathcal{M}_+(w)$, $\mathcal{M}_-(w)$ respectively. In Proposition \ref{prop_tilt} we describe them and show that the former coincides with $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ and is separated from the latter by a single wall. We need a preparatory Lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{possiblesubs}
The only tilt-semistable sheaves $A\in \Coh_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$ having truncated Chern class
$\Ch^{-\frac{1}{2}}_{\leq 2}(A)=\left(1,\dfrac{H}{2},\dfrac{H^2}{8}\right)$
are $\mathcal{O}_Y$ and $I_Z$, with $Z$ a zero-dimensional subscheme.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Such an object $A$ has $H^2\Ch_1^{-\frac{1}{2}}(A)=\frac{H^3}{2}$, which is the minimal positive value of $H^2\Ch_1^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ on objects of $\Coh_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$. By \cite[Lemma 7.2.2]{BMT14}, $A$ must be a slope-stable sheaf, so in particular torsion-free. Since the untwisted Chern character of $A$ is
$\Ch_{\leq 2}(A)=\left(1,0,0\right)$,
we must have $A\simeq \mathcal{O}_Y$ or $A\simeq I_Z$ for some zero-dimensional subscheme $Z$.
\end{proof}
We will also need the following definition: let $p$ be a point on $Y$ and $I_p$ its ideal sheaf; applying the functor $\Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y, -)$ to the short exact sequence
\[
0 \to I_p(-1)\to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1) \to \mathbb{C}_p \to 0
\]
and since $\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)$ has no cohomology, one computes that $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_Y,I_p(-1))=\mathbb{C}$. Serre duality with $K_Y=\mathcal{O}_Y(-2)$ gives $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}_Y,I_p(-1))=\Ext^1(I_p, \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1])^\vee$: let then $E_p$ be the unique non-trivial extension \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep} so that $[E_p]=w$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_tilt}
There are only two chambers in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane for class $w$, and the line $\beta=-\frac 12$ intersects both.
The moduli space of $\sigma_{\alpha,-\frac 12}$-semistable objects for $\alpha\gg 1$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$.
If $0< \alpha \ll 1$, $\sigma_{\alpha,-\frac 12}$-semistable objects of class $w$ have the form $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ (where, as usual, $D$ is a root of a hyperplane section $S$), or $E_p$ as in \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The isomorphism $\mathcal{M}_+(w)\simeq \mathcal{M}_G(w)$ is a standard argument: every object in $\mathcal{M}_+(w)$ is Gieseker-stable \cite[Lemma 7.2.1]{BMT14}. Conversely, assume $E$ is a Gieseker-stable sheaf of class $w$ on $Y$. Then $H^2\Ch^{-\frac 12}_1(E)=H^3$ is twice the minimal positive value of $H^2\Ch^{-\frac 12}_1$ on $\Coh^{-\frac12}(Y)$. Then, the only possibility for a destabilizing sequence $A \to E\to B$ is that $A$ satisfies $H^{2}\Ch^{-\frac12}_1(A)\leq\frac{H^3}{2}$, and hence $A$ must be a slope stable sheaf of dimension $\geq 2$ (by applying \cite[Lemma 7.2.2]{BMT14} to $A$, and observing that $H^{-1}(A)=0$, since $H^{-1}(E)=0$). If $A$ has dimension 2, we must have $H^{-1}(B)=0$, but $E$ is pure of dimension 2 so $A$ cannot destabilize it. If, instead, $\rk(A)>0$, we must have $\mu_H(A)>-\frac{1}{2}$ and therefore $H^2\Ch^{\frac 12}_1(A)>0$. Then, one has
\[ \mu_{\alpha,-\frac12}(A)= \frac{H\Ch^{\frac12}_2(A) - \frac{\alpha^2}{2}\Ch_0(A)}{H^2\Ch^{\frac 12}_1(A)} \xrightarrow{\alpha \to +\infty} - \infty,\]
so $A$ cannot destabilize for $\alpha$ sufficiently large. Equivalently, $E$ is $\sigma_{\alpha^+,-\frac12}$-stable if and only if it is Gieseker stable, and the two moduli spaces are isomorphic.
Since $w$ is a torsion class, walls in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane are concentric semicircles centered at $\alpha=0$ and $\beta = -\dfrac{1}{2}$ \cite[Theorem 2.2]{BMSZ17}. In particular, the line $\beta = -\dfrac{1}{2}$ intersects all the possible walls for the class $w$. The twisted Chern character of $E$ satisfies
\[
\Ch^{-\frac{1}{2}}_{\leq 2}(E) = (0,H,0),
\]
hence if $A$ gives a numerical wall for $E$ and $\Ch^{-\frac{1}{2}}_{\leq 2}(A)=(x,y,z)$, the equation of the wall at the point with coordinate $\beta=-\dfrac{1}{2}$ yields
\[
z-\dfrac{\alpha^2}{2}x=0
\]
meaning that $z$ and $x$ must have the same sign and cannot be equal to 0 (otherwise they would not give a wall).
An actual wall in tilt-stability intersecting the vertical line $\beta=-1/2$ must be given by a short exact sequence $0\to A \to E \to B \to 0$ with $0< \Ch_1^{-1/2}(A)< \Ch_1^{-1/2}(E)=1$; since $\Ch_1^{-1/2}(A)\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{Z}$, we get $\Ch_1^{-1/2}(A)=\dfrac{1}{2}$.
Moreover, by the support property one has $0 \leq \Delta(A) \leq \Delta(E)=1$, which can be rearranged to
\[
-1 \leq -8xz \leq 3;
\]
since $\beta=-\dfrac{1}{2}$, it follows that $8z \in \mathbb{Z}$, and since $x$ and $z$ have the same sign and can't be 0 we must have $x=1$ and $z=\dfrac{1}{8}$.
This means there's only one possible actual wall, and it would be given by a subobject with $\Ch^{-\frac{1}{2}}_{\leq 2}(A)=\left(1,\dfrac{H}{2},\dfrac{H^2}{8}\right)$. As before, $A$ must be a sheaf and we can assume $A$ to be tilt-semistable. By Lemma \ref{possiblesubs}, either $A\simeq \mathcal{O}_Y$ or $A\simeq I_Z$ for $Z$ a zero-dimensional subscheme.
Now if $E=\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$, with $D$ as in Prop. \ref{gieseker}, neither of the $A$'s can map to $E$: in both cases, a map $A\to E$ would produce a section of $\mathcal{O}_S(D)$, by restricting to $S$ and then dualizing $A_{|S} \to \mathcal{O}_S(D)$ twice. This does not happen since $D$ is not effective by Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}.
On the other hand, there are always maps $I_p \to I_{p/S}$ fitting in the triangle
\[
0\to I_p \to I_{p/S} \to \mathcal{O}(-1)[1]\to 0.
\]
This means that the numerical wall is an actual wall: all objects in $\mathcal{M}_G(w) \setminus \mathcal{P}_d$ are stable on both sides of the wall, while the $I_{p/S}$'s are destabilized. In turn, the unique extensions
\[
0 \to \mathcal{O}(-1)[1]\to E_p \to I_p \to 0,
\]
are also unstable at the wall and become stable below it, since both $\mathcal{O}(-1)[1]$ and $I_p$ are stable, and stay such in the whole chamber because there are no other walls.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_Families_IpEp}
There is an isomorphism of functors $\left(\Sch/\mathbb{C}\right)^o\to \Sets$ between
\begin{align*}
&\mathtt I\colon T\longmapsto \left\lbrace \text{$\mathcal{I} \in D(Y\times T)$ a flat family of ideal sheaves of points of $Y$}\right\rbrace\\
&\mathtt E\colon T\longmapsto \left\lbrace \text{$\mathcal{E} \in D(Y\times T)$ a flat family of complexes $E_p$ for some $p\in Y$}\right\rbrace.
\end{align*}
Consequently, any moduli space for the second functor is a fine moduli space isomorphic to $Y$, since the scheme $Y$ represents the first functor.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the lemma, we will show that a scheme $S$ parametrizes a flat family of sheaves of the form $I_p$, for $p\in Y$, if and only if $S$ parametrizes a flat family of sheaves of the form $E_p$, for $p\in Y$, and that moreover this correspondence is natural, i.e. it commutes with the pull back of families.
Let $\mathcal{I}\in D^b(Y\times S)$ be a family of ideal sheaves of points of $Y$. Then, using the notation of \ref{sec_basechange_mutations}, we consider the projection $\mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^S\coloneqq D^b(Y\times S) \to \!^\perp\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_S$, and the fibers of $\mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^S(\mathcal{I})$ over $Y\times \set{[I_p]}$ fit in triangles
\[ \mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^S(\mathcal{I})_p \to I_p \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[2]. \]
Hence $\mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^S(\mathcal{I})_p\simeq E_p$ by \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}. Conversely, if $\mathcal{E}$ is a family of $E_p$ over $S$, one can apply the left mutation functor (see Sec. \ref{sec_basechange_mutations}) and obtain $\mathbb L_S(\mathcal{E})_p\simeq I_p$.
The statement about naturality follows from the base-change properties of the projection functors, that about moduli from the universal properties of moduli spaces.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}
There is a locus $\mathcal{Y} \subset \mathcal{M}_{-}(w)$, isomorphic to $Y$, parametrizing objects defined as in \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}, and a wall-crossing morphism $s:\mathcal{M}_G(w) \to \mathcal{M}_-(w)$. The map $s$ is surjective on closed points. It is an isomorphism on $\mathcal{M}_G(w) \setminus \mathcal{P}$, so that the complement of $\mathcal{Y}$ parametrizes roots of $Y$. Its fiber over a point $p$ of $Y$ is the projective space $\mathbb P(I_p(1))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem_Families_IpEp} shows that $Y$ supports a family of objects $E_p$, which gives a morphism $\phi\colon Y\to \mathcal{M}_-(Y)$. Denote by $\mathcal Y$ its schematic image. We claim $\mathcal Y$ corepresents the functor $\mathtt E$: every scheme $T$ parametrizing a family $\mathcal{T}$ of $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable objects has a map $\psi\colon T\to \mathcal{M}_-(w)$, and by Lemma \ref{lem_Families_IpEp} $\psi$ factors through $\phi$ if and only if $\mathcal{T}_t$ is isomorphic to some $E_p$ for all $t\in T$ closed.
Then, $Y$ and $\mathcal Y$ corepresent isomorphic functors. This implies that they are isomorphic (see e.g. \cite[Sec. 2.2]{HL10}) and that $\phi$ is an isomorphism between them.
To define $p$, we construct a family of $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable objects on $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, starting from the universal family $\mathcal{G}$ of Gieseker stable sheaves on $Y\times \mathcal{M}_G(w)$.
Then, let $\mathcal J \coloneqq \mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^{\mathcal{M}_G(w)}(\mathcal{G})\in D(Y\times \mathcal{M}_G(w))$ the projection of $\mathcal{G}$ onto the category $\!^\perp\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_{\mathcal{M}_G(w)}$. We claim that $\mathcal J$ parametrizes $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable object, and therefore induces a morphism $p\colon\mathcal{M}_G(w)\to \mathcal{M}_-(w)$.
This can be checked after restricting to fibers $Y\times \set{x}$ for $x\in \mathcal{M}_G(w)$. If $x$ represents a sheaf $I_{p|S}$, then one computes $\Hom^\bullet(I_{p|S},\mathcal{O}_Y(-1))\simeq \mathbb{C}[1]\oplus \mathbb{C}[2]$ and sees that
$\mathcal J_x$ fits in the right mutation triangle
\[ \mathcal J_x \to I_{p|S} \xrightarrow{coev} \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]\oplus \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[2]. \]
Applying the octahedral axiom to the composition of $coev$ with the projection onto the summand $\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]$, we find a distinguished triangle
\[ \mathcal J_x \to I_p \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[2]. \]
It follows that $\mathcal J_x$ is isomorphic to $E_p$ (see the triangle \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}) and is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable. On the other hand, if $x=[\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)]$, we have
\[ \Hom^*(\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D),\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)) \simeq \Hom^{3-*}(\mathcal{O}_Y(1), \iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D))^\vee=0, \]
by Serre duality and Lemma \ref{osd} below, so $\mathcal J_x\simeq \iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable.
This defines the map $p$. The statements about its properties also follow from the description of the objects $\mathcal J_x$ just given: for example, the map $p_{|\mathcal P}\colon \mathcal P \to \mathcal Y$ coincides with the assignment $[I_{p|S}]\mapsto p$, and the fiber over a point $p\in \mathcal Y$ is the projective space $\mathbb P(\Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y(-1),I_p))\simeq\mathbb P(H^0(I_p(1)))\simeq \pr d$.
\begin{comment}
Let $\mathcal{F}\in D(Y\times \mathcal{C})$ be the universal family of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ restricted to $\mathcal{C}$, denote by $R$ the intersection $\mathcal{P}\cap \mathcal C$ and by $r$ the restriction map $r\colon \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}_R \eqqcolon \mathcal{F}_{|Y\times R}$.
Let $\pi \colon Y\times R \to Y$ denote the projection onto the second factor, and $u$ the map $\mathcal{F}_R \xrightarrow{u} \pi^*\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]$
defining the mutation $\mathbb R_R(\mathcal{F}_R)$. Then, define $\mathcal{F}'$ to be the cone of the composition $u\circ r$:
\[ \mathcal{F}' \to \mathcal{F} \xrightarrow{u\circ r} \pi^*\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]. \]
Clearly, $\mathcal{F}'$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are isomorphic on $(Y\times \mathcal{C}) \setminus(Y\times R) )$, while the octahedral axiom gives a triangle
\[ I_R\otimes \mathcal{F}\to \mathcal{F}' \to \mathbb R_R(\mathcal{F}_R)\]
consider a limit of sheaves $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ to the boundary of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)\setminus \mathcal P$ in $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, i.e. a pointed scheme $0\in T$ and a sheaf $\mathcal{F}\in D(Y\times T)$ whose fibers are $\mathcal{F}_t\simeq \iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ for $t\neq 0$ and $\mathcal{F}_0\simeq I_{p|S}$ for some singular $p$ of a hyperplane $S$ of $Y$. We perform an elementary modification of $\mathcal{F}$ as follows. Let $r$ be the restriction $\mathcal{F}\to\mathcal{F}_0$, and denote by $u$ the morphism $I_{p|S} \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]$ from \eqref{def_IpS} (and, by abuse of notation, also the same morphism of sheaves on $Y\times \set{0}$). Let $\mathcal{F}'$ be the cone of the composition $u\circ r$:
\[ \mathcal{F}' \to \mathcal{F} \xrightarrow{r} \mathcal{F}_0. \]
Clearly, $\mathcal{F}'$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are isomorphic outside $Y\times \set{0}$. Applying the octahedral axiom to the composition, and restricting to the central fiber, one sees that $\mathcal{F}'_0\simeq E_p$.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\subsection{The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$}\label{sec_sigma_moduli}
Fix $0<\alpha\ll 1$ and $\beta=-\frac 12$. Consider the weak stability condition $\sigma^0_{\alpha,\beta}=(\Coh^0_{\alpha,\beta}(Y), Z_{\alpha, \beta}^0)$ on $D(Y)$ defined in Proposition \ref{tiltoftilt}. Recall that $\Coh^0_{\alpha,\beta}(Y)$ is a tilt of $\Coh^\beta(Y)$, and
\[
Z_{\alpha,\beta}^0(E) = H^2\Ch^{\beta}_1(E) +i \left(H\Ch_2^\beta(E) -\dfrac{\alpha^2}{2}H^3\Ch_0(E)\right).
\]
The condition $\sigma^0_{\alpha,\beta}$ gives rise to a stability condition $\sigma=(\mathsf{Ku}(Y) \cap \Coh(X)^{0}_{\alpha, \beta},Z^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}})$ on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ by Proposition \ref{thm_stab_con_on_Ku}. In this section, we focus on the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ of $\sigma$-semistable objects of $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ of class $w$, and we prove:
\begin{proposition}\label{kuzistilt}
$\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{M}_-(w)$.
\end{proposition}
We start by relating stability with respect to $\sigma$, $\sigma^0_{\alpha,-\frac12}$, and $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$.
\begin{remark} \label{rmkstable} Notice that with this choice of stability condition, $Z^0_{\alpha,\beta}(w)=1$, so an object $E$ of class $-w$ is stable if and only if an even shift $E[i]$ of it belongs to the heart $\Coh^0_{\alpha,\beta}(Y)$. Indeed, such an object $E[i]$ has infinite slope, so it is semistable; moreover, the class $w$ is primitive in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$, so that there are no strictly semistable objects of that class.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{connection}
Let $E\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ of class $-w$. Then $E$ is stable with respect to $\sigma$ if and only if $E$ is $\sigma^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}$-semistable in $D(Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $E \in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is $\sigma$-stable, up to a shift we have $E \in \mathcal{A} = \Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y) \cap \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$, so in particular $E\in \Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$. Since $E$ is in the heart of a (weak) stability condition and it has maximal phase (because $\im Z^0_{\alpha,\beta}(E)=\im Z^0_{\alpha,\beta}(w)=0$), by definition $E$ must be semistable.
Conversely, if $E\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is semistable in $\Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$ then in particular $E$ belongs to the heart $\mathcal{A}$, hence it is stable by the above Remark \ref{rmkstable}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop_semistable_objects2}
If $E\in \Coh^0_{\alpha,\beta}(Y)$ be $\sigma^0_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable object of class $-w$, then $E[-1]\in \Coh^\beta(Y)$ and it is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $E$ is in $\Coh^0_{\alpha,\beta}(Y)$, there is a triangle
$$E'[1]\to E\to T$$
with $E'\in \Coh^\beta(Y)_{\mu_{\alpha,\beta}\leq 0}$, $T\in \Coh^\beta(Y)_{\mu_{\alpha,\beta}> 0}$. Since $E$ is semistable with respect to $\mu^0_{\alpha,\beta}$, $Z_{\alpha,\beta}(T)$ has to be $0$, so $T$ is supported on points, that is, $T$ has finite length.
Also, $E'$ needs to be $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable, because otherwise the destabilizing subobject of $E'$ would make $E$ $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}^0$-unstable.
We now prove that $T$ must vanish, and conclude.
By a result of Li \cite{Li15}, we have $\Ch^\beta_3(E')\leq 0$. Now, $\Ch(E')=w + t\frac{H^3}{d}$, where $t$ denotes the length of $T$.
The inequality then reads
\[ \Ch^\beta_3(E')=H^3\left[ \frac{t}{d} + \frac{(d-6)}{6d} -\frac18\right]=H^3\left[ \frac{1}{24} + \frac{t-1}{d} \right]\leq 0 \]
which shows $t=0$, and therefore $T=0$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{connection} and Lemma \ref{prop_semistable_objects2}, together, show that if an object $E\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is $\sigma$-semistable then it is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable. Next, we work towards a converse: we classified all $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable objects of class $w$ in Prop. \ref{prop_tilt}, we check that they belong to $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ in Lemma \ref{ep} and Lemma \ref{osd} below.
\begin{lemma} \label{ep}
Let $E_p$ be defined as in \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}. Then $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y(1),E_p)=\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y,E_p)=~0$. In other words,
the objects $E_p$ belong to $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}From the short exact sequence
\[
0 \to I_p\to \mathcal{O}_Y \to \mathbb{C}_p \to 0,
\]
it is straightforward to see that $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y,I_p)=0$, and we already pointed out that $\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)$ has no cohomology, so that $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y,E_p)=0$ using the defining sequence \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}.
On the other hand, from the sequence above we have $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(1),I_p)\simeq \mathbb{C}[2]$, and again by applying $\Hom(\mathcal{O}_Y(1),-)$ to the distinguished triangle \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep} we see that $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y(1),E_p)=0$.
\begin{comment}
On the other hand, one computes $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{I}_p)= \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(1), \mathcal{I}_p)\simeq \mathbb{C}$ and also $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{O}(-1)[1])= \Ext^2(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{O}(-1)[1])\simeq \mathbb{C}$; so if we prove that the connecting morphism $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(1), \mathcal{I}_p) \to \Ext^2(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{O}(-1)[1]) $ is non-zero we get the desired vanishing for $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(1),E_p)$ as well.
The connecting map is given by composing $\alpha \in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(1), \mathcal{I}_p)=\Hom(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{I}_p[1])$ with the unique map $\mathcal{I}_p[1]\xrightarrow{\phi} \mathcal{O}(-1)[3]$ given by the triangle defining $E_p$, to obtain a map $\beta \in\Ext^2(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{O}(-1)[1])= \Hom(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{O}(-1)[3])$; our vanishing is proven if $\beta \neq 0$ whenever $\alpha \neq 0$.
We claim that both $\alpha$ and $\phi$ factor through $\mathbb{C}_p$: in fact, one proves that $\Hom(\mathcal{O}(1), \mathcal{I}_p[1])=\mathbb{C}$ and $\Hom(\mathcal{I}_p[1], \mathcal{O}(-1)[3])=\mathbb{C}$ by showing that these spaces are respectively isomorphic to $\Hom(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathbb{C}_p)$ and $\Hom(\mathbb{C}_p, \mathcal{O}(-1)[3])$ through the short exact sequence for $\mathcal{I}_p$, which exactly means that $\alpha$ and $\phi$ must factor via $\mathbb{C}_p$.
The non-vanishing of $\beta$ is now equivalent to the non-vanishing of the composition $\mathcal{O}(1)\to \mathbb{C}_p \to \mathcal{O}(-1)[3]$; but now applying the functor $\Hom(\text{---}, \mathcal{O}(-1)[3])$ to the triangle $\mathcal{O}(1) \to \mathbb{C}_p \to \mathcal{I}_p(1)[1]$ one has $\Hom(\mathcal{I}_p(1)[1],\mathcal{O}(-1)[3])\simeq \Ext^1(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{I}_p)=0$ and therefore every map $\mathcal{O}(1)\to \mathcal{O}(-1)[3]$ is determined by the corresponding map $\mathbb{C}_p \to \mathcal{O}(-1)[3]$, hence the desired composition cannot be 0 since the map induced by $\phi$ is not.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{osd}
Let $S$ be a hyperplane section of $Y$, and $D$ a root of $S$. Then $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y(1), \iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))=\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y, \iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))=0$. In other words, $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By adjunction of the functors $\iota_*$ and $\iota^*$, it's enough to check the required vanishing on $S$.
Let $H$ be the pullback of the ample divisor on $Y$ to $S$: we get $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y(1), \iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))\simeq H^\bullet(S,\mathcal{O}_S(D-H))$ and $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_Y, \iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))\simeq H^\bullet(S,\mathcal{O}_S(D))$.
The adjunction isomorphisms above, and the condition $\chi([\mathcal{O}_Y],w)=\chi([\mathcal{O}_Y(1)],w)=0$, imply that $\chi(S,\mathcal{O}_S(D))=\chi(S,\mathcal{O}_S(D-H))=0$. Since $D$ and $D-H$ are not effective (see Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}), we have $H^0(D)=H^0(D-H)=0$, and by Serre duality it follows that $H^2(D)=H^2(D-H)=0$. Then $H^1(D)=H^1(D-H)=0$ must be $0$ as well, and the claim is proven.
\end{proof}
We're now ready to prove Proposition \ref{kuzistilt} and lastly Theorem \ref{introduction_1}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{kuzistilt}]
The proposition follows from the fact that the two moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_-(w)$ and $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ corepresent isomorphic functors. Observe that stability and semistability coincide for both $\sigma$ and $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$ and class $w$.
Then, for all $E\in D(Y)$, we have that $E$ is a $\sigma$-stable object of $\mathcal{A}$ if and only if $E[-1]\in\Coh^\beta(Y)$ and $E$ is $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable: the forward direction follows from Lemma \ref{connection} and Lemma \ref{prop_semistable_objects2}. For the converse, observe that $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-stable objects have been classified in Proposition \ref{prop_tilt}, and all belong to $\mathcal{A}$ (after a shift) by Lemma \ref{ep} and Lemma \ref{osd}. Therefore, they must be stable by Remark \ref{rmkstable}.
\end{proof}
We recollect here the results of Section \ref{sec_construction_of_moduli}:
\begin{thm}\label{thm_Section2}
The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is proper. There is a subvariety $\mathcal{Y} \subset \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$, isomorphic to $Y$, parametrizing objects $E_p$ fitting in a distinguished triangle \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}. The complement $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\setminus \mathcal{Y}$ is smooth of dimension $d+1$ and parametrizes roots of $Y$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof
The statement is a combination of the description of $\mathcal{M}_-(w)$ (Proposition \ref{prop_tilt}, Proposition \ref{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}), and the isomorphism $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\simeq \mathcal{M}_-(w)$ (Proposition \ref{kuzistilt}). Properness follows from properness of $\mathcal{M}_-(w)$ (see Section \ref{sec_properties_moduli}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Abel--Jacobi map on $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$}
\label{sec_AJ_map}
Here we recall some facts about the intermediate Jacobian $J(Y)$ of a Fano threefold $Y$ and its associated Abel--Jacobi map (we refer the reader to \cite[Sec. 12.1]{Voi03_volumeI} for more details), with particular focus to the case of curves on threefolds. We also recall the \textit{tangent bundle sequence (TBS)} technique developed in \cite[Sec. 2]{Wel81} to study the infinitesimal behavior of the AJ map.
The \emph{intermediate Jacobian} of $Y$ is the complex torus
\[
J(Y) \coloneqq H^1(Y, \Omega^2_Y)^{\vee} \Big{/} H^3(Y,\mathbb{Z});
\]
and it comes equipped with an \emph{Abel--Jacobi} map $\Phi \colon\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}} \longrightarrow J(Y)$, where $\mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}}$ is the space of 1-dimensional algebraic cycles on $Y$ which are homologous to 0, defined as follows. Every $Z\in \mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}}$ admits a 3-chain $\Gamma$ in $Y$ such that $\partial \Gamma=Z$. Then one has the linear map on $H^{3,0}(Y)\oplus H^{2,1}(Y)$ given by integration against $\Gamma$, whose image in $J(Y)$ (projecting onto the second factor) is well-defined and defines the map
\[ \Phi(Z) \coloneqq \int_\Gamma. \]
Now suppose $T$ is a smooth variety parametrizing algebraic 1-cycles $\{Z_t\}_{t \in T}$ on $Y$. Picking a base point $0\in T$ yields a map $T\to \mathcal{Z}_1(Y)^{\text{hom}}$, which one composes with $\Phi$ to define an analogous map (see \cite[Sec. 2]{Wel81}):
\[
\Psi \colon \xymatrix@R-2pc{T \ar[r] & J(Y) \\ Z_t \ar@{|->}[r] & \Phi(Z_t-Z_0)}.
\]
We will apply this construction to families of complexes of sheaves, using the (Poincar\'e dual of) the second Chern class $c_2$: to every point in $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$, parametrizing an object $F\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$, we associate an algebraic 1-cycle $c_2(F)$. Abusing notation, we identify points of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ with the objects they parametrize, and pick a base point $F_0$. Then, we get a map from $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ to the intermediate Jacobian:
\[
\Psi \colon \xymatrix@R-2pc{\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \ar[r] & J(Y_d) \\ F \ar@{|->}[r] & \Phi(c_2(F)-c_2(F_0))}.
\]
Finally, we recall the TBS technique of \cite[Sec. 2]{Wel81} for the infinitesimal study of $\Psi$. Suppose $Y$ is embedded in a quasi-projective fourfold $W$. Let $Z$ be a smooth curve on $Y$, and $0\in T$ a smooth family of deformations of $Z=Z_0$, so that $\Psi$ is defined on $T$. Then the dual map of the differential of $\Psi$ at $0$, denoted $\psi_Z^\vee$, appears in the following diagram:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_diagram_AJ_codiff}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
H^0(N_{Y/W}\otimes K_Y) \rar["R"] \ar["res"]{d} & H^1(\Omega^2_Y) \rar \ar["\psi_Z^\vee"]{d} & 0\\
H^0((N_{Y/W}\otimes K_Y)_{|Z}) \ar["\beta_Z"]{r} & H^1(N_{Z/Y} \otimes K_Y) \rar & H^1(N_{Z/W} \otimes K_Y).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
Here, $res$ is the restriction map, and the rows are part of long exact sequences associated, respectively, with the short exact sequence
\[ \Omega_Y^2 \otimes N_{Y/W}^\vee \to \Omega_W^3 \otimes \mathcal{O}_Y \to \Omega_Y^3, \]
(\cite[2.6]{Wel81}) and with the normal bundle sequence of $Z\subset Y \subset W$. We use the isomorphism $H^1(N_Z Y \otimes K_Y)\simeq H^0(N_Z Y)^\vee$ and the Kodaira-Spencer isomorphism $H^0(N_Z Y)^\vee \simeq \Omega_{T,0}$.
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk_YContractedByAJ}
The map $\Psi$ contracts the locus $\mathcal{Y}\subset \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$, for every $d$. One can show this in two different ways: on the one hand, the objects $E_p$ all have the same second Chern class, so $\Psi$ is constant on the set $\mathcal{Y}$ parametrizing them. Alternatively, the Abel--Jacobi map contracts rational curves since it maps to an abelian variety, and $Y_d$ (and hence $\mathcal{Y}$) is rationally connected for all degrees.
\end{remark}
\section{A summary of the cases $d=3,4,5$}\label{sec_higher_degrees}
Before focusing more on the low degree case, we recollect here some results about the $d=3,4,5$ case. In these cases, the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ have been considered in the literature, and there is often a nice interpretation for them, and for their Abel--Jacobi map. We will follow the notation given in the Introduction.
\subsection{Degree 5}
\begin{comment}
The restrictions $U_2$ and $U_3$ of tautological bundles on $\Gr(2,5)$ of rank $2$ and $3$ to $Y$ form an exceptional pair, and they generate $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Since $\hom(U_2,U_3)=3$, then $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is equivalent to the derived category of representations of a Kronecker quiver with two vertices and $3$ arrows \cite{Or91}.\\
This is just the moduli of quiver representations of the form $$U_2^3\rightarrow U_3^2.$$ It is isomorphic to the image of the map $\mathrm{Hilb}_{\pr 2}(3)\rightarrow \Gr(3,6)$ which contracts the divisor of collinear schemes to $\pr 2\subset \Gr(3,6)$; in particular, it is projective and irreducible of dimension 6 (\cite{Or91, ABCH13}). The copy of $Y_5$ can be realized by intersecting $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ with a linear section of $\Gr(3,6)$. \\
In this case the intermediate jacobian $J(Y_5)$ reduces to a single point, hence the Abel--Jacobi map is trivial;
\end{comment}
The Fano threefold of Picard rank 1 and degree 5 is often denoted $V_5$ and called the \textit{quintic del Pezzo threefold} (it is unique up to isomorphism \cite{Isk77}). It arises as the intersection of a Grassmannian $\Gr(2,5)\subset \pr 9$ with three hyperplanes of $\pr 9$ \cite[Prop. 10]{Muk92}. The universal sub-bundle and quotient on $\Gr(2,5)$ restrict to exceptional vector bundles $S,Q$ on $V_5$, moreover, it is shown in \cite{Or91} that $V_5$ has a full strong exceptional collection
$D^b(V_5)=\pair{S,Q^\vee,\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(1)}$,
which in turn gives rise to a semiorthogonal decomposition
\[ \mathsf{Ku}(V_5)\simeq \pair{S,Q^\vee}. \]
The space $\Hom(S,Q^\vee)$ is three dimensional. Therefore, the category $\mathsf{Ku}(V_5)$ is equivalent to the derived category of representations of the Kronecker quiver with three arrows.
To illustrate Theorem \ref{thm_Section2} in this case, we recall the alternative description of $V_5$ from \cite{Fae05} and the properties of the quiver moduli space from \cite{Dre88}.
First of all, consider a three dimensional vector space $B$ and the projective spaces $\pr 2= \mathbb P(B)$ and $\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2=\mathbb{P}(B^*)$. Fix a smooth conic $F\in \Sym^2 (B)$.
Then, considering $F$ as a function $F\colon \Sym^2(B^*)\to \mathbb{C}$, one sees as in \cite[Lemma 2.3]{Fae05} that the variety $V_5$ is isomorphic to the following subset of $\Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_locus_in_hilb}
\left\lbrace Z\in \Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2) \mid H^0(I_Z(2))\subset \ker F\right\rbrace,
\end{equation}
and that there is a natural isomorphism $B\simeq \Hom(S,Q^\vee)$.
On the other hand, the universal bundles have classes
\[ [S]=2-H +\frac{H^2}{10} +\frac{H^3}{30} \qquad\qquad [Q^\vee]=3-H-\frac{H^2}{10}+\frac{H^3}{30} \]
in $K_{num}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$ (see \cite[Sec. 3]{Fae05}), so that $w=2[Q^\vee]-3[S]$. In other words, $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is identified with the moduli space of quiver representations of the form $S^{\oplus 3}\rightarrow (Q^{\vee})^{\oplus 2}$.
In turn, such a map is a point of the variety $\mathbb G (2\times 3,B^*)$ of $2\times 3$ matrices on the space $B^*$, i.e.
\[\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \simeq \mathbb G (2\times 3,B^*)= \mathbb P(M_{2,3}(B^*))// \SL(2)\times \SL(3).\]
The variety $\mathbb{G}(2\times 3,B^*)$ has been studied in detail in \cite{Dre88}. The morphism
\begin{align*}
\Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2) &\rightarrow \Gr(3,6)= \Gr(3,\Sym^2(B))\\
\phantom{aaa} Z \phantom{aaa} &\mapsto H^0(I_Z(2))
\end{align*}
factors through
\[ q\colon \Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2) \to \mathbb G (2\times 3,B^*), \]
defined by sending a subscheme $Z\subset \Check{\mathbb P}^2$ to the map between the first order syzygies and the ideal generators of $I_Z(2)$. The variety $\mathbb G (2\times 3,B^*)$ is a birational model of $\Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2)$, it compactifies the locus of reduced subschemes, and $q$ contracts the locus of collinear schemes to a plane in $\mathbb{G}(2\times 3, B^*)$ \cite[Theor. 4]{Dre88}. Moreover, $q$ is an isomorphism on the set \eqref{eq_locus_in_hilb} \cite[Lemma 2.3]{Fae05}.
In summary, $V_5$ is realized in $\Gr(3,\Sym^2(B))$ as the intersection of the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ with the cell $\Gr(2,\Sym^2(B)/\pair{F})$ of subspaces containing $F$:
\[Y_5=\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\cap \Gr(2,5)\subset \Gr(3,6).\]
The intermediate Jacobian of $V_5$ is a point, so there is not much interesting to say about the Abel--Jacobi map \cite[Table 12.2]{AGV_Fano}.
\begin{comment}
\AAA{map to Gr(3,6)} This moduli space appears in \cite[\S 10.2]{ABCH13} as one of the models for the Hilbert scheme of 3 points in projective plane. It is isomorphic to the image of the map $$\Hilb_3(\pr 2)\to \Gr(3,6)$$
mapping the subscheme $Z\subset \pr 2$ to the $3$-dimensional subspace of quadrics on $\pr 2$ vanishing on $Z$. This map contracts the divisor of collinear schemes $Z$ to $\pr 2$, remembering only the line containing $Z$. To illustrate Theorem \ref{thm_Section2} in this case, we show below that $Y_5$ is realized as $$Y_5=M_\sigma(w)\cap \Gr(2,5)\subset \Gr(3,6),$$ where $\Gr(2,5)\subset \Gr(3,6)$ consists of spaces containing a fixed point $F\in H^0(\mathcal{O}_{\pr 2}(2))$. \AAA{end}
To illustrate Theorem \ref{thm_Section2} in this case, we recall Mukai's construction of the map $V_5\to \Gr(2,5)$ and the description of the quiver moduli space given in \cite{Fae05}. First of all, fix a three dimensional vector space $B$, let $\pr 2= \mathbb P(B)$ and $\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2=\mathbb{P}(B^*)$. Given a smooth conic $F\in \Sym^2 (B)$, a \textit{polar triangle} of $F$ is a triple $\Delta\coloneqq \set{f_1,f_2,f_3}\in \Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2)$ of linear forms on $B$ such that $F=f_1^2+f_2^2+f_3^2$. Let $V(3,F)$ be the variety of polar 3-sides of $F$, i.e. the closure in $\Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2)$ of the locus
\[ \left\lbrace \set{f_1,f_2,f_3}\in \Hilb_3(\Check{\mathbb{P}}^2) \mid f_1^2+f_2^2+f_3^2=F\right\rbrace. \]
As it turns out, $V(3,F)$ is isomorphic to $V_5$ \cite[Prop. 10]{Muk92}. Now, $F$ is contained in the subspace $\pair{f_1^2,f_2^2,f_3^2}\subset \Sym^2 (B)$. Therefore, $\Delta$ determines a 2-dimensional space of the 5-dimensional space $\Sym(B)/\pair{F}$, this defines the map $V_5\to \Gr(2,5)$. Moreover, this yields a natural isomorphism $\Hom(S,Q^\vee)\simeq B$ \cite[Lemma 3.3]{Fae05}.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Degree 4}
In this case, $Y$ is the complete intersection of two quadric hypersurfaces in $\pr 5$. The corresponding pencil of quadrics degenerates at 6 points, and determines a genus 2 curve $C$ defined as a double cover of $\pr 1$, ramified over the six singular quadrics.
Every smooth even dimensional quadric admits two spinor bundles $S_+$ and $S_-$. At the six singular points, the quadrics degenerate to a cone over a smooth quadric, which has only one spinor bundle. Restricting these spinor bundles to $Y$ and varying the quadric in the pencil exhibits $C$ as a moduli space on $Y$. As it turns out (see \cite[Theor. 2.9]{BO95}), $C$ is a fine moduli space, and the universal spinor bundle induces a fully faithful Fourier-Mukai functor $\phi'\colon D^b(C) \to D^b(Y)$ (depending on a choice of a line $\ell_0\subset Y$) giving rise to a decomposition $$D^b(Y)=\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1),\mathcal{O}_Y,\phi(D^b(C))}.$$
For consistency with Definition \ref{eq_def_of_Ku}, we let $\phi\colon D^b(C) \to \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ be the equivalence $\phi(M)\coloneqq \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)\otimes\phi'(M)$ for all $M\in D^b(C)$.
By construction, the functor $\phi$ sends points of $C$ to twisted spinor bundles on $X$. The numerical class in $K_{num}(Y)$ of both spinor bundles is
\[ [S_\pm]=2+H-\frac{H^3}{12} \]
(see \cite[Remark 2.9]{Ott88}). This implies $[S(-1)]=2v-w$.
On the other hand, ideal sheaves of lines of $Y$ are images of line bundles on $C$: suppose in fact that $\phi(M)=I_\ell$ for some $M\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ and some line $\ell\subset Y$. Then we have $\Hom(M,M)\simeq \Hom(I_\ell,I_\ell)=\mathbb{C}$, and by Riemann-Roch
\[ -1 = \chi_Y(v,v)=\chi_C(M,M)=-\rk(M)^2, \]
therefore $M$ is a line bundle. Indeed, it is a known fact that $\phi$ induces an isomorphism $J(C) \simeq F(Y)$ between the Jacobian of $C$ and the Fano surface of $Y$ \cite[Theor. 4.8]{Rei72}.
These remark imply that the class $w$ corresponds to the class of a rank 2 vector bundle on $C$ of fixed odd degree (we can assume that degree is 1 by tensoring the universal family with a line bundle).
Since there is a unique notion of stability on a curve, $\sigma$ must pull-back to slope-stability, and the functor $\phi$ induces an isomorphism between $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ and $M_C(2,1)$, the moduli space of slope-stable rank 2 vector bundles of degree 1 on $C$. This shows that $M_\sigma(w)$ is an irreducible smooth projective variety of dimension five. As a consequence of \cite[Theorem 4.14(c')]{Rei72}, the intermediate Jacobian $J(Y)$ is isomorphic to the Jacobian of $C$, and under this isomorphism the Abel--jacobi map coincides with the determinant:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
M_C(2,1)\dar["\det"] \rar["\sim"] & M_\sigma(w)\dar["\Psi"]\\
\Pic^{1}(C) \rar["\sim"] &J(Y)
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
Moreover, fibers of $\det$ (and hence of $\Psi$) are isomorphic to $Y_4$ \cite{new68}.
\begin{comment}
\AAA{old:}
Moreover, we have the following diagram:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
M_C(2,1)\dar["\det"] \rar["\sim"] & M_\sigma(w)\dar["\phi(\det)"] \rar &J(Y)\dar["\sim"]\\
\Pic^{1}(C) \rar["\sim"] & M_\sigma(v-w)\rar["\sim"] &J(Y)
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
\AAA{random facts:}
The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of vector bundles on $C$ of rank $2$, and fixed odd degree. This moduli is in particular projective and irreducible of dimension 5, and $Y_4$ appears as a subvariety of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ given by vector bundles with fixed determinant \cite{New68}. \\
The intermediate Jacobian $J(Y_4)$ is isomorphic to the Jacobian of the corresponding curve $J(C)$, and also to the variety of lines on $Y$ \cite{Rei72}. The map $\Psi$ can be identified with the determinant map $\det\colon \mathcal{M}_C(2,1)\to J(C)$, where $\mathcal{M}_C(2,1)$ is the moduli space of stable rank 2 vector bundles on $C$ of degree $1$.
\AAA{Explain better} Indeed, the determinant map contracts the fibers of $\Psi$ because lines in the fibers correspond to pencils of extensions of two line bundles $L_1$ and $L_0$ on $C$ ($\Ext^1(L_1,L_0)=\mathbb{C}^2$ if $\deg L_1-L_0=1$). More precisely, such line is given by a pencil of hyperplane sections of $Y$ that contain two fixed disjoint lines \cite{BO95}.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Degree 3}
The case of a cubic threefold $Y_3$ is treated in the recent \cite{Bayer}. Here, the authors show that
$\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is isomorphic to the moduli space $M_G(\kappa)$ of Gieseker-stable sheaves with $\kappa=\left(3,-H,-\frac 12 H^2, -\frac 16 H^3\right)$. The space $M_G(\kappa)$ is smooth and irreducible of dimension 4. $M_G(\kappa)$ maps birationally to the intermediate Jacobian of $Y_3$ and its image is a theta divisor $\Theta$. More precisely, $M_G(\kappa)\to \Theta$ is the blow-up of $\Theta$ in its unique singular point, and the exceptional divisor is the variety $Y_3\subset \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\simeq M_G(\kappa)$ \cite[Theorem 7.1]{Bayer}.
\begin{comment}
\AAA{old version:}
This case is treated in a forthcoming paper of one of the authors (\cite{Bayer}); our moduli space is conjecturally isomorphic to the moduli of certain rank 3 vector bundles on $Y_3$, and has dimension 4; the copy of $Y_3 \subset \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is a divisor given by projecting skyscraper sheaves into the Kuznetsov component.
We refer to (\cite{Bayer}) again; $\Psi$ maps $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ isomorphically onto the theta divisor $\Theta \subset J(Y_3)$ outside of $Y_3$, while it contracts $Y_3$ to its unique singular point $y$. Moreover, $Y_3$ can be recovered in the blow up of $\Theta$ at $y$, by intersecting the strict transform of $\Psi(\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w))$ with the exceptional divisor.
\end{comment}
\begin{remark}[Projectivity of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ for $d\geq 3$]\label{rmk_projectivity345}
We point out that $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is projective for degrees $d\geq 3$. this follows from the explicit descriptions given in these sections: In the case $d=5$, $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is projective since it is a moduli space of quiver representation, and for $d=3,4$ it is projective since it coincides with a space of Gieseker-stable sheaves.
\end{remark}
\section{Low degrees}\label{sec_d=2}
In this section we detail the study of the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ and the corresponding Abel--Jacobi maps when $d\leq 2$. We start by focusing on the degree 2 case.
\subsection{Quartic double solids ($d=2$): generalities}\label{sec_generalitiesY2}
We follow the notation of Section \ref{sec_hyperplane sections+generality}. The manifold $Y=Y_2$ (from here on, we drop the subindex everywhere) is a general double cover $\pi\colon Y\to \pr 3$ of the projective space ramified over a smooth quartic K3 surface $R$ (we will identify the branching and ramification locus, and denote both by $R$) which does not contain lines.
A hyperplane section $\iota \colon S \hookrightarrow Y$ is given by the pullback $\pi^*(P)$ of a plane in $\P^3$. It is a double cover of $\pr 2$ branched over $R\cap P$, and it is singular if and only if $P$ is tangent to $R$. The singularities that may appear are of rational type (by Lemma \ref{lem_hyperplane_sections}) (the elliptic type can only appear if $R\cap P$ is four lines meeting at a point \cite[Prop. 4.6]{hidaka1981}).
Finally, $Y$ is equipped with an involution $\tau$ that swaps the two sheets of the cover, acting on objects in the derived category via pull-back; since $\mathcal{O}_Y(1)$ is pulled-back from $\pr 3$, the involution preserves hyperplane sections, and therefore descends to an involution on each surface $S$. Following \cite{Kuz15_fractional}, we can moreover compute the Serre functor for $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ to be
\[
S_{\mathsf{Ku}(Y)}(E) = \tau E[2].
\]
Next, we focus on properties of the heart $\mathcal{A}= \mathsf{Ku}(Y) \cap \Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$ of $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ associated to the stability condition $\sigma$. We say that the heart of a bounded t-structure $\mathcal{B}\subset \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is \textit{$\tau$-invariant} if $\tau(\mathcal{B})=\mathcal{B}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_AisTauInvariant}
The heart $\mathcal{A}$ is $\tau$-invariant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $\mathcal{A}= \mathsf{Ku}(Y) \cap \Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$. Clearly $\tau(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))\subseteq \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ since up to shift $\tau$ is the Serre functor of $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Then, it suffices to show that $\tau$ preserves $\Coh^0_{\alpha,-\frac{1}{2}}(Y)$ to conclude.
Observe that $\tau$ acts trivially on numerical classes of objects in $D(Y)$, since it preserves the class $H$. Therefore, $\tau$ preserves slopes. Moreover, it preserves exact sequences of sheaves and hence slope stability. This implies that $\tau$ preserves $\Coh^\beta(Y)$ for all $\beta\in \mathbb{R}$. Similarly one sees that $\tau$ preserves $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistable objects for all $(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathbb{R}_{>0}\times \mathbb{R}$, and hence it preserves the double tilt.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{extdimension}
The homological dimension of a $\tau$-invariant heart $\mathcal{B}\subset \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ is equal to 2, i.e. $\Ext^i(E,F)=0$ for $i\neq 0,1,2$ for $E, F\in \mathcal{B}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathcal{B}$ is the heart of a bounded t-structure, we have by definition that $\Ext^i(E,F)=0$ for any $E,F \in \mathcal B$, $i<0$. Now, using the above Serre functor we get:
\[
\Ext^i(E,F)=\Hom(E,F[i])= \Hom(F[i],S_{\mathsf{Ku}(Y)}(E))= \Ext^{2-i}(F ,\tau E),
\]
which concludes the proof, since $\mathcal{B}$ is $\tau$-invariant and hence $\tau E \in \mathcal{B}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}\label{reflexiveinkuz}\AAA{I think this is exactly lemma \ref{osd}, we don't need it here.}
Let $\iota \colon S \hookrightarrow Y$ be a (possibly singular) hyperplane section of $Y$ and let $L=\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ be the reflexive rank one sheaf on $S$ associated to a Weil divisor $D\neq 0$ such that $D.H=0$ and $\chi(L)=0$. Then $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D)) \in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ and it has class $w$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is identical to that of Lemma \ref{osd}, after noticing that it only depends on $D$ not being effective and $\chi(L)=0$; indeed, $L$ has no sections by definition of effective (Weil) divisor, and since $S$ is Gorenstein the dualizing sheaf is still $\mathcal{O}_S(-1)$ even for $S$ singular, and Serre duality applies in the same way. The claim on the numerical class also follows from $\chi(L)=0$ applying Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$}\label{sec_d=2moduli_space}
In this section we refine the description of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ for general quartic double solids. The locus $\mathcal{Y}$ turns out to be an irreducible component, and the following Lemma is instrumental in describing the intersection of $\mathcal Y$ with the rest of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$. Recall that for a complex $E\in D^b(Y)$, the set of first-order infinitesimal deformations of $E$ is a torsor under the space $\Ext^1(E,E)$ \cite[\S 3]{Lie06}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_numerics} \AAA{Old version}
Let $p\in Y$ be a point and $E_p$ be one of the objects as in (\ref{eq_def_of_Ep}); then
\[
\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)=\begin{cases}\mathbb{C}^3, \quad p \not \in R \\ \mathbb{C}^4, \quad p \in R\end{cases},
\]
where $R\subset Y$ is the ramification locus. Moreover, for $p$ in $R$ there is a decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{eq_decomposition_of_tangent_space}
\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)= \Ext^1(I_p,I_p) \oplus V_p
\end{equation}
where $V_p$ is one dimensional generated by an element $f_p$ corresponding to the tangent plane of $R$ at $p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}\AAA{old proof}
First of all notice that we can make all computations in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ since $E_p$ belongs to it and the subcategory is extension closed; from $[E_p]=w$ we have $\chi(E_p,E_p)= -2$, and moreover $\Hom(E_p,E_p)=1$ since the object is stable in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Now using the Serre functor for $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ we get
\[
\Ext^2(E_p,E_p)=\Hom(E_p,\tau E_p)=\Hom(E_p, E_{\tau(p)})= \begin{cases}0, \quad p \not \in R \\ \mathbb{C}, \quad p \in R\end{cases}.
\]
For all $p$, $E_p\in \mathcal{A}$ since they are stable objects, and $\mathcal{A}$ has homological dimension 2 by Lemma \ref{extdimension}. This yields the first part of the statement.
To describe the splitting, first observe that $\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)\simeq \Ext^1(E_p,I_p)$ (e.g. by applying $\Hom(E_p,-)$ to the sequence \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}). Apply $\Hom(-,I_p)$ to \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}: there is a sequence
$$
0\to \Ext^1(I_p,I_p) \to \Ext^1(E_p,I_p) \to \ker\left(\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)\xrightarrow{\alpha} \Ext^2(I_p,I_p)\right) \to 0
$$
where $\alpha$ is pre-composition with the unique map $\epsilon_p :I_p\to \mathcal{O}(-1)[2]$ of the triangle \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}. Let $V_p\coloneqq \ker\alpha$. Since $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)\simeq H^0(I_p(1))$, every element $f\in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)$ can be identified with a hyperplane section $S_f$ containing $p$.
We now prove that a nonzero $f\in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)$ is in $\ker \alpha$ if and only if $S_f$ is tangent to $R$ at $p$. We have the following diagram:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
& I_p \dar["\epsilon_p"] &\\
I_{p/S}[1] \rar &\mathcal{O}(-1)[2] \rar["f"] & I_p[2]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
Then $\alpha(f)=0$ if and only if $f\epsilon_p=0$, which happens if and only if $\epsilon_p$ lifts to a map $I_p\rightarrow I_{p/S}[1]$. One checks that $\epsilon_p$ is in the image of $\Hom(I_p,I_{p/S}[1])\rightarrow \Hom(I_p,\mathcal{O}(-1)[2])\simeq \mathbb{C}$ if and only if $p\in S$ is a singular point, that is the hypersurface $S_f$ is tangent to $R$ at $p$. Indeed, applying $\Hom(I_p,-)$ to the triangle $$\mathcal{O}(-1)\to I_p\to I_{p|S}$$ we see from the long exact sequence
$$0\to \mathbb{C}^3\to \Ext^1(I_p,I_{p|S})\to \Hom(I_p,\mathcal{O}(-1)[2])$$
that
it suffices to show that $\Ext^1(I_p,I_{p|S})$ is $3$-dimensional if $p\in S$ i smooth, and $4$-dimensional if $p\in S$ is singular. To see this apply the $\Hom(-,I_{p|S})$ to the sequence $I_p\to \mathcal{O}_Y\to \mathbb{C}_p$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_numerics}
Let $d\leq 2$ and $Y$ of degree $d$. Consider $p\in Y$ and $E_p$ be one of the objects as in (\ref{eq_def_of_Ep}); then there is a natural identification
\begin{equation}\label{eq_decomposition_of_tangent_space}
\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)= \Ext^1(I_p,I_p) \oplus V_p\simeq \mathbb{C}^3\oplus V_p,
\end{equation}
where $V_p$ is non-zero only if there exists a hyperplane section $S$ singular at $p$, in which case it is one dimensional, generated by the element $f_p\in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)\simeq H^0(I_p(1))$ such that $S=\set{f_p=0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To describe the splitting, first observe that $\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)\simeq \Ext^1(E_p,I_p)$ (e.g. by applying $\Hom(E_p,-)$ to the sequence \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}). Applying $\Hom(-,I_p)$ to \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep} one obtains
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\Ext^3(E_p,E_p)=0; \\
0\to \Ext^1(I_p,I_p) \to \Ext^1(E_p,I_p) & \to \ker\left(\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)\xrightarrow{\alpha} \Ext^2(I_p,I_p)\right) \to 0,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha$ is pre-composition with the unique map $\epsilon_p :I_p\to \mathcal{O}(-1)[2]$ of the triangle \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}. Let $V_p\coloneqq \ker\alpha$. Since $\Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)\simeq H^0(I_p(1))$, every element $f\in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)$ can be identified with a hyperplane section $S_f$ containing $p$.
We now prove that a nonzero $f\in \Ext^1(\mathcal{O}(-1)[1],I_p)$ is in $\ker \alpha$ if and only if $S_f$ is singular at $p$. We have the following diagram:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
& I_p \dar["\epsilon_p"] &\\
I_{p/S}[1] \rar &\mathcal{O}(-1)[2] \rar["f"] & I_p[2]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
Then $\alpha(f)=f\epsilon_p=0$ if and only if $\epsilon_p$ lifts to a map $I_p\rightarrow I_{p/S}[1]$. Next, we check that $\epsilon_p$ is in the image of $\Hom(I_p,I_{p/S}[1])\rightarrow \Hom(I_p,\mathcal{O}(-1)[2])\simeq \mathbb{C}$ if and only if $p\in S$ is a singular point (this also shows that $V_p$ is at most one-dimensional). Indeed, applying $\Hom(I_p,-)$ to the triangle $$\mathcal{O}(-1)\to I_p\to I_{p|S}$$ we get an exact sequence
$$0\to \mathbb{C}^3\to \Ext^1(I_p,I_{p|S})\to \Hom(I_p,\mathcal{O}(-1)[2]).$$
This sequence shows that it suffices to argue that $\Ext^1(I_p,I_{p|S})$ is $3$-dimensional if $p\in S$ i smooth, and $4$-dimensional if $p\in S$ is singular. To see this, apply the $\Hom(-,I_{p|S})$ to the sequence $I_p\to \mathcal{O}_Y\to \mathbb{C}_p$.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
We follow the same starting argument as Proposition \ref{gieseker}, so that an element in $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ must be of the form $\iota_*(F)$, with $F=\mathcal{I}_Z \otimes L$ and $[F]=(1,D,-1)$ for a \emph{Weil} divisor with $D.H=0$ such that $L=\mathcal{O}_S(D)$. Since by construction $[F]= (1,D,\Ch_2(L)-z)$, in order to understand what happens in the case in which $S$ is singular we need to make sense of the meaning of the quantity $\Ch_2(L)$ for a reflexive rank-one sheaf.
We thus follow \cite{YPG}, where the author gives a Riemann-Roch formula for the Euler characteristic of a Weil divisor on a surface with at worst Du Val singularities, which is our case. One has
\[
\chi(D)= \chi(\mathcal{O}_S) + \dfrac{1}{2}(D^2-K_S.D) + \delta_S(D),
\]
where $\delta_S(D)\in \mathbb{Q}$ is a number depending only on $D$ and the singularities of $S$; moreover, by Theorem 9 in \cite{YPG} again, we have $\delta_S(D)\leq0$. Using the above formula, we can define the second Chern character of $L$ consistently as
\[
\Ch_2(L)=\dfrac{D^2}{2}+\delta_S(D).
\]
Now, using Hodge Index Theorem and the fact that even when singular $S$ has no numerically trivial divisors, we conclude that $\Ch_2(L)<0$. Therefore, in the notation of Proposition \ref{gieseker}, we have $z=0$ when $D\neq 0$ for \emph{all} $S$ and the first part of the statement is proven.
The second part is just a restatement of Proposition \ref{gieseker}, with the additional information from Lemma \ref{lem_numerics} $(b)$ giving us the dimension and the smoothness of all the points that do not lie in the intersection locus.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
Recall from Proposition \ref{gieseker} that $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ has two irreducible components; one, $\mathcal P$, is a rank 2 projective bundle over $Y$ parametrizing $I_{p|S}$. The complement of $\mathcal P$ is smooth and parametrizes sheaves $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ associated to roots on hyperplane sections. Points in the intersection are $I_{p|S}$ with $p$ singular in $S$. As illustrated in Section \ref{sec_generalitiesY2}, $p$ is the singular point of some hyperplane section if and only if $p\in R$, the ramification locus of the double cover $\pi\colon Y\to \pr 3$.
We restate Theorem \ref{introduction_1} in the case of a general quartic double solid:
\begin{thm}\label{thm_moduliY2}
Suppose $Y$ is a general quartic double solid. The space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ has two irreducible components $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{C}$, both of dimension 3. The component $\mathcal{Y}$ is isomorphic to $Y$, and intersects $\mathcal{C}$ exactly at the ramification locus $R$. Both components are smooth outside $R$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm_moduliY2}]
The statements about the component $\mathcal{C}$ are already in Theorem \ref{thm_Section2}. The addition is in Lemma \ref{lem_numerics}, which implies that the inclusion $Y \setminus R \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ is an open immersion into a component of $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ (since the tangent space at a point $p\in Y\setminus R$ is naturally isomorphic to the tangent space of its image).
As for the intersection, recall that the components of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ intersect at the points $[I_{p|S}]$, with $p\in S\cap R$ singular in $S$. The wall-crossing morphism $p\colon \mathcal{M}_G(w)\to \mathcal{M}_-(w)\simeq \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ corresponds to the assignment $[I_{p|S}]\to p$, and hence it maps the intersection of the components onto the image of $R$ via $R\subset Y\simeq \mathcal Y$ (see Proposition \ref{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}, Proposition \ref{kuzistilt}).
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_tan_cone_of_M_on_R}
\AAA{This lemma is now obsolete: since we know *all* $\sigma$ and $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$-semistabel objects of class $w$, if there was another component we would have seen it. Moreover, this lemma may not exclude something nasty, like a third component, of lower dimension, whose tangent cone is contained in the union of two planes that we found?}
Let $p\in R$ be a point in the intersection of $Y$ and $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{M}\coloneqq \mathcal M_\sigma(w)$. The tangent cone to $\mathcal{M}$ at $p$ consists of two distinct hyperplanes, or of a single hyperplane with multiplicity two. In particular, no more than two components of $\mathcal{M}$ meet at $p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Like in Lemma \ref{lem_numerics}, there is a decomposition $T_p\mathcal{M}\simeq \Ext^1(E_p,E_p)\simeq \Ext^1(I_p,I_p)\oplus V_p$, where $\Ext^1(I_p,I_p)$ is identified with $T_pY_2$.
The tangent cone to $\mathcal{M}$ corresponds to unobstructed deformations of $E_p$ in $\mathcal{M}$, therefore it contains $T_pY$ and it is contained in the null-space $N\subset T_p\mathcal{M}$ of the symmetric bilinear form
$$\Ext^1(E_p,E_p)\times \Ext^1(E_p,E_p)\to \Ext^2(E_p,E_p)$$
given by the cup product. Since $N$ is a quadric and it contains the hyperplane $\Ext^1(I_p,I_p)$, the only possibilities are that the tangent cone of $\mathcal{M}$ at $p$ is the union of two distinct hyperplanes or a single hyperplane with multiplicity two. Both these possibilities imply that there are no more than two components meeting at $p$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{The Abel-Jacobi map}\label{sec_AJY2}
The following construction expresses the relation between $\mathcal{C}$ and a family of conics on $Y$. First, we recollect some facts about the geometry of hyperplane sections of $Y$, following \cite[Chapter 8]{Dol12}.
\subsubsection{Del Pezzo surfaces of degree 2: roots and lines}
Smooth hyperplane sections of $Y_2$ are del Pezzo surfaces of degree 2. Every such surface $S$ can be constructed from a blowup of $\pr 2$ in 7 points in general position, its Picard group is free of rank 8, generated by the hyperplane class $\mathbf{e}_0$ of $\pr 2$ and the exceptional curves $\mathbf{e}_i$, $i=1,...,7$. The line bundle $\mathcal{O}_Y(H)$ restricts on $S$ to
\[ H_{|S}=-K_S = 3\mathbf{e}_0 - \mathbf{e_1}-...-\mathbf{e_7}.\]
The map $\phi_{\abs{-K_S}}$ realizes $S$ as a double cover of $\pr 2$ ramified over a quartic curve, and the orthogonal lattice $(K_S)^\perp$, equipped with the intersection product, is a root lattice $E_7$. The following lemma is well-known.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_hyp_sec_d=2}
Let $S$ be a hyperplane section of $Y$.
Suppose $S$ is a del Pezzo surface. Define vectors in $(K_S)^\perp$:
\begin{align*}
\alpha_i\coloneqq 2\mathbf{e}_0-\mathbf{e}_1-...-\mathbf{e}_7+\mathbf{e}_i &\quad 1\leq i \leq 7\\
\alpha_{ij}\coloneqq \mathbf{e}_i-\mathbf{e}_j, &\quad 1\leq i<j \leq 7\\
\alpha_{ijk} \coloneqq \mathbf{e}_0-\mathbf{e}_i-\mathbf{e}_j-\mathbf{e}_k, &\quad 1\leq i<j<k \leq 7
\end{align*}
\begin{itemize}
\item $S$ admits 126 roots of the form $\alpha_i,\alpha_{ij},\alpha_{ijk}$.
\item $S$ contains 56 lines. These come in pairs $(L,-K_S-L)$ (i.e., there is a unique divisor in $\abs{-K_S-L}$ and it is a line).
\item every root can be expressed (non-uniquely) as the difference of two disjoint lines. Conversely, the difference of two disjoint lines is a root in $\Pic(S)$.
\end{itemize}
If $S$ has rational singularities, then its minimal resolution $\tilde{S}\to S$ is obtained by the blowup of $\pr 2$ at 7 points in almost general position, and the morphism contracts all effective roots on $\tilde{S}$. Moreover, every singular point of $S$ lies on a line.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The roots of $S$ are computed in \cite[Prop. 8.2.7]{Dol12}. Consider the double cover $\phi_{\abs{-K_S}}\colon S\to \pr 2$, let $C$ denote the ramification locus (a smooth plane quartic). The curve $C$ has 28 bitangent lines (\cite[\S 6.1.1]{Dol12}), the preimage of which has two irreducible components, each of which is a line in $S$. Two lines obtained this way add up to $\phi^*_{\abs{-K_S}}\mathcal{O}_{\pr 2}(1)=-K_S$ in $\Pic(S)$.
One can easily list the classes of lines in $\Pic(S)$ by solving the system of equations $L.K_S=L^2=-1$, and check directly that every root can be expressed as a difference of disjoint lines. Conversely, it is straightforward to see that the difference of disjoint lines is a root.
The statement about the minimal resolutions is \cite[Theorem 3.4]{hidaka1981}. It is straightforward to check that one can always find a line through a singular point of $S$: equivalently, every effective root of $\tilde{S}$ intersects a line. This can be checked on a case by case basis using the explicit description of effective roots in \cite[\S 8.2.7]{Dol12}, together with the above description of lines.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_KodairaVan}
Let $S$ be a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree 2, and let $D$ be a root of $S$. Then, $H^1(D-K_S)=H^2(D-K_S)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We show the claim by applying the Kodaira vanishing theorem to the divisor $D-2K_S$, after showing that it is ample on $S$.
There are 126 roots on $S$ \cite[Prop. 8.2.7]{Dol12}, and the nef cone of $S$ is described in \cite[Theorem 2.4]{BC13}. It is not hard to check that if $D$ is any of the 126 roots then $D-2K_S$ belongs to the interior of the nef cone, and is therefore an ample divisor on $S$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Conics on $Y$ and the Abel--Jacobi map}
A \textit{conic} on $Y$ is, by definition, a curve $Z\subset Y$ whose image $\pi_{|Z}$ is an isomorphism onto a conic of $\pr 3$. Consider the Hilbert scheme of conics on $Y$, and let $\mathcal{C}'$ be the component of the Hilbert scheme containing smooth conics (note that since $H$ is not very ample, there may be unusual subschemes of $Y$ with Hilbert polynomial $1+2t$).
Let $Z\in\mathcal{C}'$ be a conic; its image $\pi(Z)$ spans a hyperplane of $\pr 3$ and hence it determines a hyperplane section $S\subset Y$. Suppose $S$ is smooth. Then, $Z-H$ is a root of $S$ since $(Z-H).H=0$ and $(Z-H)^2=-2$, so the push forward of the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_S(Z-H)$ to $Y$ is in the Gieseker moduli space $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, as in Prop. \ref{gieseker}.
Conversely, given a root $D$ on $S$, the divisor class $D+H$ has the Hilbert polynomial of a conic. By Riemann-Roch and Lemma \ref{lem_KodairaVan} we see $h^0(\mathcal{O}_S(D+H))=\chi(\mathcal{O}_S(D+H))=2$, and hence $|D+H|$ is in a pencil whose general element is a smooth conic.
Therefore, the assignment $Z\mapsto \iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(Z-H))$ then defines a rational map
\[ f\colon \mathcal{C}' \dashrightarrow \mathcal{C} \]
whose fibers are pencils of linearly equivalent conics (since rational equivalence implies homological equivalence), and which is dominant, since the open locus of $\iota_*\mathcal{O}_S(D)$ where $D$ is a root of a smooth $S$ is in the image of $f$.
Consider the subscheme of $\mathcal{C}'$ given by $\mathcal{C}'_0=\{Z\in \mathcal{C}' \,|\,Z\subset S\text{ with $S$ smooth}\}$, so that $f$ is defined on $\mathcal{C}_0'$
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop_AJ_factorsThroughC}
Let $Z$ be a smooth conic in $\mathcal{C}'_0$, and consider the Abel--Jacobi map $\mathcal{C}'_0\to J(Y)$. Its codifferential at $Z$ has rank 3, and the Abel--Jacobi map factors through $f\colon\mathcal{C}'_0\to \mathcal{C}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The restriction of the Abel--Jacobi map to $\mathcal{C}'_0$ is constant on pencils of curves, so it factors through $f$. We use diagram \eqref{eq_diagram_AJ_codiff} to study the codifferential (take $W$ to be weighted projective space $\mathbb{P}(1,1,1,1,2)
, which implies $N_{Y/W}\simeq \mathcal{O}_Y(4)$). Recall that the lower row of \eqref{eq_diagram_AJ_codiff} is part of the long exact sequence associated to
$$0\to N_{Z/Y} \otimes K_Y \to N_{Z/W} \otimes K_Y \to (N_{Y/W}\otimes K_Y)_{|Z} \to 0.$$
The normal bundle $N_{Z/Y}$ is computed in \cite[Lemma 1.2]{TM03} to be $\mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}(1)^{\oplus 2}$ or $\mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}(2)$; in any case, we have $h^0(N_{Z/Y}\otimes K_Y)=0$ and $h^1(N_{Z/Y}\otimes K_Y)=4$.
The bundle $N_Z W$ can be computed as follows: let $\overline{Z} \subset \pr 3$ be the smooth conic image of $Z$ under $\pi$. The standard exact sequence $ \mathcal{O}_W(2)\to \mathcal{T}_W \to \pi^*\mathcal{T}_{\pr 3} $ yields the diagram
\begin{equation*}\label{eq_normal_Z_in_E}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
& \mathcal{O}_Z(2) \ar[equal]{r} \dar & \mathcal{O}_Z(2) \dar\\
\mathcal{T}_Z \rar \ar["\cong"]{d} & \mathcal{T}_{W|Z} \rar \dar & N_{Z/W} \dar\\
\mathcal{T}_{\overline{Z}} \rar & \pi^*\mathcal{T}_{\pr 3|\overline{Z}}\rar & \pi^*N_{\overline Z/\pr 3}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where all rows and columns are exact. Since $\overline Z$ is a complete intersection we have $N_{\overline Z/\pr 3}\simeq \mathcal{O}_{\overline Z}(2)\oplus \mathcal{O}_{\overline{Z}}(1)$, hence from the third column $N_{Z/W} \otimes K_Y \simeq \mathcal{O}_{Z}^{\oplus 2}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{Z}(-1)\simeq \mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}^{\oplus 2}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}(-2)$.
Finally, we have $(N_{Y/W}\otimes K_Y)_{|Z}\simeq \mathcal{O}_{\pr 1}(4)$. Therefore the connecting homomorphism $\beta_Z\colon H^0((N_{Y/W}\otimes K_Y)_{|Z}) \to H^1(N_{Z/Y} \otimes K_Y)$ has rank 3.
To conclude that $\psi_Z$ has rank 3, it is enough to show that the restriction map $H^0(K_Y(4))\to H^0(K_Y(4)_{|Z})$ is surjective. Since $Z$ lies on a hyperplane section $S$ of $Y$, this can be checked in two steps: $H^0(K_Y(4))\to H^0(K_Y(4)_{|S})$ is surjective because $H^1(\mathcal{O}_Y(1))=0$, and the surjectivity of $H^0(K_Y(4)_{|S})\to H^0(K_Y(4)_{|Z})$ follows from the sequence
$$ \mathcal{O}_S(2H - Z) \to \mathcal{O}_S(2H) \to \mathcal{O}_Z (2), $$
since $H-Z$ is a root of $S$, and applying Lemma \ref{lem_KodairaVan} to $2H-Z=(H-Z)+H$.
\end{proof}
We summarize the above Proposition \ref{prop_AJ_factorsThroughC} and Remark \ref{rmk_YContractedByAJ} in the following Corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_C_generically_embedded_by_AJ}
The Abel--Jacobi map $\Psi\colon \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \to J(Y)$ contracts the irreducible component $\mathcal Y$ to a point $y\in J(Y)$ and is a generic embedding on $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{corollary}
We conclude this section with a description of the Abel-Jacobi differential on the intersection $R$ of the two components.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem_infinitesimal_aj_nonzero_Y2}
The differential $\psi_{p}\colon T_{p}\mathcal{M}\simeq \Ext^1(E_{p},E_{p}) \to T_yJ(Y)$ of $\Psi$ at a point $p\in R$ is non-zero.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $S_0$ be the hyperplane section of $Y$ that is singular at $p$; our generality assumption on $R$ implies that $S_0$ has rational singularities and its minimal resolution $\tilde{S_0}$ is obtained by the blowup of $\pr 2$ at 7 points in almost general position \cite{hidaka1981}.
We are in the situation of Example \ref{explicitfamily}, and we use the notation thereof. By Lemma \ref{lem_hyp_sec_d=2}, there is a line $L\subset S_0$ passing through $p$. The linear series $\abs{I_L(1)}$ is a one-dimensional family of hyperplane sections of $Y$ containing $L$, let $\Delta$ be an analytic neighborhood of $S_0$ in this pencil, and $\mathcal{S}\to \Delta$ the family of surfaces it parametrizes.
Like in Example \ref{explicitfamily}, we may pass to a cover of $\Delta$ and assume that the family $\mathcal{S}$ is obtained by blowing up 7 sections of the projection $\pr2\times \Delta \to \Delta$. Again, we assume that the degeneration is caused by three sections $s_1,s_2,s_3$ becoming collinear and that $S_0$ is obtained contracting the line $E$ passing through the three sections. We may also assume that $L=\mathcal{E}_1\cap S_0$. This helps to make the notation explicit but the same argument can be run in the other cases.
For some $0\neq t\in \Delta$, choose a line $L_t\subset S_t$ disjoint from $E$ and $L$, for example $L_t=\mathcal{E}_4\cap S_t$. Then, the sheaf $\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{E}_1 - \mathcal{E}_4)$ restricts to $\mathcal{O}_{S_t}(L-L_t)$ above $t$. The locus $\{L_t\coloneqq \mathcal{E}_4\cap S_t\}_t\subset F(Y)$ in the Hilbert scheme of lines has limit a line $L_0$ in $S_0$. This locus is contained in the incidence divisor $D_{L'}\subset F(Y)$, of lines intersecting $L' = H-L$ (see Lemma \ref{lem_hyp_sec_d=2}). The differential $\psi_p$ is equal to the differential of the Abel Jacobi map from $F(Y)$, restricted to $D_{L'}$. The assumption on $R$ and \cite[Prop. 2.13]{Wel81} imply that the Abel Jacobi map is a local embedding $F(Y)\to J(Y)$, so $\psi_p$ is nonzero.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}\AAA{old version} Let $S_0$ be the hyperplane section of $Y$ that is singular at $p$; if $p$ is general, the singularity is an $A_1$ singularity as in Example \ref{explicitfamily}.
Let $L\coloneqq \mathcal{E}_1\cap S_0$ (keeping the notation as in Example \ref{explicitfamily}). In other words, $L$ is a line through $p$ determined by an exceptional divisor in $S_t$. Let $\Delta$ be a formal neighborhood of $S_0$ in the pencil parametrizing hyperplane sections of $Y$ containing $L$.
Let $D$ be a flat family on $\Delta\times Y$, with central fiber $D_0=E_p$ and general fiber a line bundle on $S_t$, $D_t=\mathcal{O}_{S_t}(L-L_t)$, where $L_t$ is a line disjoint from $E$ in $S_t$. The locus $\{L_t\}_t\subset F(Y)$ in the Hilbert scheme of lines is contained in the incidence divisor $D_C\subset F(Y)$, of lines intersecting $C\coloneqq H-L$. The differential $\psi_p$ is equal to the differential of the Abel Jacobi map from $F(Y)$, restricted to $D_C$. The assumption on $R$ and \cite[Prop. 2.13]{Wel81} imply that the Abel Jacobi map is a local embedding $F(Y)\to J(Y)$, so $\psi_p$ is nonzero.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
From this, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{prop_strict_transform_Y2}
There is an isomorphism $\psi \colon R \xrightarrow{\sim} T$, where $T$ is the intersection of the strict transform of $\Psi(\mathcal{C})$ with the exceptional divisor $\pr 9\simeq \mathbb{P}(H^0(\mathcal{O}_{\pr 3}(2)))$ of $\Bl_y J(Y)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Combining Lemma \ref{lem_numerics} and Proposition \ref{lem_infinitesimal_aj_nonzero_Y2}, one sees that for a point $p\in R$ the vector space $\pair{f_p}$ coincides with the tangent space of $\Delta'$ in $T_{L_0}F\simeq H^0(N_{L_0}Y)$ ($\Delta'$ is the image of $\Delta$ in $F(Y)$). Then, writing diagram \eqref{eq_diagram_AJ_codiff} for $\psi_{\Delta',L_0}^\vee$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[]
H^0(\mathcal{O}_Y(2)) \rar \ar["res"]{d} & H^0(\mathcal{O}_{\pr 3}(2)) \ar["\psi_{\Delta',L_0}^\vee"]{d} \ar["\psi_{p}^\vee"]{dr} & \\
H^0(\mathcal{O}_{L_0}(2)) \ar[]{r} &H^0(N_{L_0} Y)^\vee \rar
& \pair{\psi_p(f_p)}^\vee
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
which shows that $\psi$ induces a rational map on $R$ via quadrics to $\pr 9\simeq \mathbb P\left(H^0(\mathcal{O}_{\pr 3}(2))\right)$, whose image is dense in $T$ and is generically one-to-one.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Double Veronese cones}\label{sec_d=1}
In this section, we describe $\mathcal{M}_\sigma (w)$ and its Abel--Jacobi map for a Fano threefold $Y$ of degree 1. In this case, $Y$ is cut out by a sextic equation in the weighted projective space $\mathbb P\coloneqq \pr{}(1,1,1,2,3)$ (we use $x_1,x_2,x_3$ for coordinates of degree 1, and $u,v$ for those of degree 2,3 respectively). We recall the description of \cite[\S 6.10]{Isk77}: completing a cube and a square, we may assume that the equation for $Y$ has the form
\[v^2=u^3 - f(x_1,x_2,x_3),\]
where $f$ is a degree 6 polynomial. The linear series $H\coloneqq \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P}(1)_{|Y}$ has three sections and a unique base point $y_0\coloneqq \set{x_1=x_2=x_3=0}$, hence it induces a rational map $\phi_H\colon Y \dashrightarrow \pr 2$. On the other hand, $2H\sim -K_Y$ is base point free, and induces a morphism $\phi_{2H}\colon (Y) \to \pr 6$ whose image $K\simeq \mathbb P(1,1,1,2)$ is the cone over a Veronese surface with vertex $k\coloneqq \phi(y_0)$. The morphism $\phi_{2H}$ is smooth of degree 2 outside the vertex $k$ and the divisor $D\coloneqq\set{u^3-f=0}\in \abs{\mathcal{O}_K(3)}$ (for this reason, $Y$ is often referred to as to a \textit{double Veronese cone}).
There is a commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_diagram_rational_maps}
\begin{tikzcd}
{Y} & {K} \\
{\pr 2}
\arrow["{\phi_H}"', from=1-1, to=2-1, dashed]
\arrow["{\phi_{2H}}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\pi}", from=1-2, to=2-1, dashed]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $\pi$ is the projection from $k$. Let $\sigma_K$ be the blowup $\sigma_K\colon \widetilde{K}\to K$ of the vertex $k$ with exceptional divisor $E$. Then, the pull-back $\widetilde{Y}\coloneqq Y\times_K \widetilde{K}$ resolves the indeterminacy of diagram \eqref{eq_diagram_rational_maps}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}
\widetilde{Y} & \widetilde{K} & \\
{Y} & {K} & {\pr 2}
\ar[swap, "{\widetilde{\tau}}"', from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[swap, "{\phi_{2H}}", from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow[swap, "{\sigma_Y}", from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow[swap, "{\sigma_K}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\widetilde{\pi}}", from=1-2, to=2-3]
\arrow[swap, "{\pi}", from=2-2, to=2-3, dashed]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{\tau}\colon \widetilde{Y}\to \widetilde{K}$ is a degree 2 cover ramified over the divisor $E\cup \sigma_K^{-1}(D)$.
The map $\pi$ restricted to $D$ is a 3-to-1 cover of $\pr 2$, and it ramifies at a curve $C$. Throughout this section, we assume that $Y$ is smooth, equivalently that $C$ is irreducible and general in moduli (this is the generality assumption used in \cite{Tih82}, whose results we will use).
\begin{comment}
\AAA{old version}
In this section we describe $\mathcal{M}_\sigma (w)$ and its Abel--Jacobi map in the case that $Y=Y_1$ is a Veronese double cone. It is constructed as follows (see \cite{Tih82}): let $v \colon \P^2 \to \P^5$ be the Veronese embedding, and let $K$ be the cone over $v(\P^2)$ in $\P^6$. Then, $Y$ is a double cover of $K$, branched at the vertex $k$ of $K$ and along a smooth intersection of $K$ with a cubic hypersurface $\mathcal W$ which does not pass through $k$. We denote the covering map $\tau\colon Y\to K$.
We denote by $\pi \colon K-\set{k} \to \pr 2$ the projection to the base of the cone $K$. It restricts to a three-to-one cover of $W\coloneqq \mathcal W \cap K \to \pr 2$, branched at a curve $C$. For the rest of the section, we make the same generality assumption of \cite{Tih82}:
\begin{assumption}\label{ass_generalityY1}
The curve $\pi(C)$, which is a plane curve of degree 12, is irreducible and general in moduli.
\end{assumption}
The ample generator $H$ of $\Pic(Y)$ is the pull-back of an ample class $h$ on $\pr 2$ through the composition $\pi\tau$. This implies that $Y$ only admits tangent - hence singular - hyperplane sections at points that lie in $C$.
\AAA{end old version}
\end{comment}
We now give a brief description of $F(Y)$, the Fano surface of lines in $Y$: a \emph{line} in $Y$ is defined as a closed one-dimensional subscheme $L \subset Y$ with Hilbert polynomial $p_H(t)=t+1$. Under our generality assumption, the scheme $F(Y)$ parametrizing lines in $Y$ is given by a smooth projective surface with an embedded copy of $C$ (\cite[Thm 4]{Tih82}).
The curve $C\subset F(Y)$ parametrizes \emph{singular} lines (\cite[\S 3, \S 8]{Tih82}): indeed, a line according to the above definition can either be a smooth rational curve $L$ with $L\cdot H=1$, or a rational curve with a single node at a point $p \in C$, with non-reduced scheme structure at the point.
We reformulate Theorem \ref{introduction_1} in the case of a general double Veronese cone. The arguments are similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm_moduliY2}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm_moduliY1}
Suppose $Y=Y_1$ is a general double Veronese cone. The space $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)$ has two irreducible components $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{F}$, isomorphic respectively to $Y$ and $F(Y)$. The two intersect exactly at the curve $C$, and they are smooth outside of $C$.
The Abel--Jacobi map $\Psi \colon \mathcal{M}_\sigma(w) \to J(Y)$ contracts $\mathcal Y$ to a singular point $y$ and it is an embedding elsewhere. Moreover, the image $\Psi(\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w))$ determines $Y$ uniquely.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The statements about the component $\mathcal{F}\coloneqq \overline{\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w)\setminus \mathcal{Y}}$ are already in Theorem \ref{thm_Section2}. We can argue as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm_moduliY2} (with the variation that now $p$ is a singular point of some hyperplane section if and only if $p\in C$) and conclude that $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are irreducible components of the desired dimensions, intersecting at $C$ and smooth outside the intersection.
We're then only left with proving that $\mathcal{F}$ is isomorphic to $F(Y)$.
To this end, we define a morphism $F(Y)\to \mathcal{F}$ by constructing a family of objects of $\mathcal{F}$ with base $F(Y)$. Let $\mathcal{H}\subset Y\times \mathbb P(H^0(\mathcal{O}_Y(1)))$ be the universal hyperplane section. Since any line in $Y$ is contained in a unique hyperplane section of $Y$, there is a finite map $F(Y)\to \mathbb P(H^0(\mathcal{O}_Y(1)))$, so we can define $\mathcal{S}\subset Y\times F(Y)$ as the pullback of $\mathcal{H}$.
Let $\mathcal{L}\subset\mathcal{S}\subset Y\times F(Y)$ be the universal line, and consider the sheaf $\mathcal{K}\coloneqq \mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})$ on $Y\times F(Y)$.
Its fiber is $\mathcal{O}_S(H-L)$ over a smooth line $L\in F(Y)$. Observe that $H-L$ is a root of $S$, therefore the restriction of $\mathcal{K}$ to $Y\times (F(Y)\setminus C)$ defines a rational map $F(Y)\dashrightarrow \mathcal{M}_G(w)$. By the properness of $F(Y)$ and $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$, the above map extends to a morphism $F(Y)\to \mathcal{M}_G(w)$, which is an isomorphism of $F(Y)\setminus C$ onto the smooth locus of the irreducible component of $\mathcal{M}_G(w)$ parametrizing roots on hyperplane sections. Let $\mathcal{K}'$ be the pull-back of the universal family to $Y\times F(Y)$ which is isomorphic to $\mathcal{K}$ on $Y\times (F(Y)\setminus C)$. The fiber of $\mathcal{K}'$ at a singular line in $C\subset F(Y)$ is the flat limit of a family of push forwards of roots, and therefore is of the form $I_{p|S}$ for some $p\in S$ and some hyperplane section $S$.
Then, the object $\mathcal{K}''\coloneqq \mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^{F(Y)}(\mathcal{K})\in \!^\perp\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_{F(Y)}$ (notation as in Sec. \ref{sec_basechange_mutations}) is a family of objects of $\mathcal{F}$ parametrized by $F(Y)$, and it induces the desired morphism $\mu\colon F(Y)\to \mathcal{F}$.
Moreover, $\mathcal{K}''$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{K}$ off the curve $C$, and its fiber over a singular line $[L]\in C$ fits in a triangle
\[ \mathcal \mathcal{K}''_{[L]} \to I_{p|S} \xrightarrow{coev} \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]\oplus \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[2] \]
whence $\mathcal{K}_{[L]}\simeq E_p$ (as in the proof of Prop. \ref{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}). Therefore, $\mathcal{K}''$ is a universal family for $\mathcal{F}$ supported on $F(Y)$. Then, the morphism $\mu$ is an isomorphism.
Lastly, the component $\mathcal{Y}$ is contracted by $\Psi$ as in Remark \ref{rmk_YContractedByAJ}, while the Abel--Jacobi mapping is an embedding on smooth lines by \cite[\S 10]{Tih82}, and $Y$ is determined uniquely via $\Psi(\mathcal{M}_\sigma(w))=\Psi(F(Y))$ by \cite[Thm.~12]{Tih82}.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{introduction_4}] By finiteness of the Gauss map for a smooth hypersurface, the hyperplane sections of $Y$ can only have isolated singularities; arguing as in the case $d=2$, we see that these singularities must be Du Val \AAA{all this needs to be revisited} and therefore $\mathcal{M}_G(w)\setminus \mathcal{P}$ only contains objects of the form $\iota_*(\mathcal{O}_S(D))$, with $D$ possibly a Weil divisor. As in the previous case \AAA{we should be more precise: either we reprove some lemmas, or at least we reference them well}, given that singularities can only occur along $C$ by Remark \ref{generality}, we get that after the wall crossing we obtain a component $\mathcal{Y} \simeq Y$ that intersect the rest of the moduli exactly at $C$.
We're then only left with proving that $\overline{\mathcal{M}\setminus \mathcal{Y}}:=\mathcal{F}$ is isomorphic to $F(Y)$, and projectivity of $\mathcal{M}$ will also follow. We know from Proposition \ref{gieseker} that $\mathcal{F}$ has dimension 2, and we can define a morphism $F(Y) \to \mathcal{F}$ as follows. Let $\mathcal{H}\subset Y\times (\pr 2)^\vee$ be the universal hyperplane section. Since any line in $Y$ is contained in a unique hyperplane section of $Y$, there is a finite map $F(Y)\to (\pr 2)^\vee$, so we can define $\mathcal{S}\subset Y\times F(Y)$ as a pullback of $\mathcal{H}$. Let $\mathcal{L}\subset\mathcal{S}\subset Y\times F(Y)$ be the universal line. The sheaf $\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})$ on $Y\times F(Y)$ has fiber $\mathcal{O}_S(H-L)$ over a smooth line $L\in F(Y)$, and $\mathcal{I}_{p/S}$ over a singular line, where $p$ is the embedded point of the singular line.
Next, we perform an elementary modification on $\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})$ as in \cite[Section 5]{AB13}. Let $r$ be the restriction map
\[
\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L}) \xrightarrow{r} \mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})_{|Y\times C}\eqqcolon \mathcal{U}
\]
and denote $\mathcal{V}\coloneqq p^*\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]_{|Y\times C}$.
Now compose $r$
with the natural evaluation
\[
\mathcal{U} \xrightarrow{ev} q^* Rq_*R\mathcal{H}om \left(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{U} \otimes \omega_q[3]\right) \otimes \mathcal{V}.
\]
Observe that $ev$ restricts on fibers to the unique map $\mathcal{I}_{p/S}\to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]$ (see Section \ref{sec_univ_fam_and_convolutions} for an analogous argument). Let $\mathcal{K}[1]$ denote the cone of $ev\circ r$. Then, $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})$ are isomorphic outside $Y\times C$, and the fiber $\mathcal{K}_L$ of $\mathcal{K}$ over a singular line $L\in C$ fits in a distinguished triangle
\[
\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]\to \mathcal{K}_L \to \mathcal{I}_p,
\]
where $p$ is the singular point of $L$. In other words, $\mathcal{K}_L\simeq E_p$, and $\mathcal{K}$ is a universal family for $\mathcal{F}$ supported on $F(Y)$. Then, the morphism $F(Y)\to \mathcal{F}$ induced by $\mathcal{K}$ is an isomorphism.
The component $\mathcal{Y}$ is contracted by $\Psi$ since it is rationally connected; the Abel--Jacobi mapping is an embedding on smooth lines by \cite[\S 10]{Tih82}, and $Y$ is determined uniquely via $\Psi(\mathcal{M})=\Psi(F(Y))$ by \cite[Thm.~12]{Tih82}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\section{A categorical Torelli theorem for quartic double solids}
\label{sec_Torelli}
As an application of the previous construction, this section is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \ref{introduction_3}, we state it here for the reader's convenience.
\begin{thm}\label{thm_torelliY2}
Let $Y$ and $Y'$ be two general quartic double solids such that there exists an equivalence $u \colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$. Then $Y'\simeq Y$.
\end{thm}
This theorem improves a result of Bernardara and Tabuada \cite[ Cor. 3.1 (iii)]{BT16} who show that the same holds under the additional assumption that $u$ be of Fourier--Mukai type. Our technique is inspired by that of \cite{BMMS12}; we use the equivalence to construct an isomorphism between moduli spaces and argue that this is sufficient to conclude.
\subsection{Images of stable objects} First, we prove that given an equivalence as in Theorem \ref{introduction_3}, we can produce another equivalence with nice properties on the objects parametrized by $\mathcal{M}'$. In this section, .
We start with a series of lemmas, and denote by $\mathcal{A}$ the heart of the stability condition $\sigma$ (see Sec. \ref{sec_generalitiesY2}).
\begin{lemma}
Let $u \colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ be an equivalence of categories, and let $E\in \mathsf{Ku}(Y')$ be an object of class $w$; then up to a sign, we have $[u(E)]=w$ or $[u(E)]=2v-w$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $u$ is an equivalence of categories, it must preserve dimensions of $\Hom$ spaces, so in particular $\chi(u(E),u(E))=\chi(E,E)=-2$. From the intersection matrix of the Euler form given in section 2, if $[u(E)]=av+bw$, then $\chi(u(E),u(E))=-(a+b)^2-b^2$, The only possible pairs $(a,b)$ are $(0,\pm 1)$ and $(\mp 2,\pm 1)$. Finally, since an equivalence of categories induces a homomorphism on the Grothendieck groups, we can choose the sign uniformly for all objects.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{dimext1}
Let $0\neq C\in \mathcal{A}\subset \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$; then $\dim \Ext^1(C,C)\geq 2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathcal{A}$ is the heart of a stability condition, $C\neq 0$ implies that $[C]\neq 0$. Then, we have $\chi(C,C) \leq -1$ and $\dim \Hom(C,C)\geq 1$, and $\Ext^3(C,C)=0$ from Lemma \ref{extdimension}. Therefore, $\dim \Ext^1(C,C)\geq 2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{ext1=3}
Let $C \in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ with $\dim\Ext^1(C,C)=3$; then up to shift $C \in \mathcal{A}$, and if additionally $[C]= w$ then $C$ is stable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the spectral sequence for objects in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ whose second page is given by
\begin{equation}\label{spectral}
E^{p,q}_2 = \bigoplus_i \Hom^p(\mathcal{H}^i(C), \mathcal{H}^{i+q}(C)) \Longrightarrow \Hom^{p+q}(C,C)
\end{equation}
(see \cite[Lemma 4.5]{BMMS12}), where the cohomology is taken with respect to the heart $\mathcal{A}$. Since by Lemma \ref{extdimension} the Ext-dimension of $\mathcal{A}$ is 2, it follows that $E^{1,q}_2=E^{1,q}_\infty$, so that if we take $q=0$, by Lemma \ref{dimext1} we get
\[
3=\hom^1(C,C) \geq \bigoplus_i \hom^1(\mathcal{H}^i(C), \mathcal{H}^{i}(C)) \geq 2r,
\]
where $r>0$ is the number of non-zero cohomology objects of $C$. Then $r=1$ and $C\in \mathcal{A}$ up to shift; if we also assume $[C]=w$, then $C$ must be stable since $w$ has maximal slope and is primitive.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{keylemma}
Let $C \in \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ of class $[C]=w$ with the following numerics:
\[
\hom^i(C,C)=\begin{cases}1 \qquad i=0 \\ 4 \qquad i=1 \\ 1 \qquad i=2 \\ 0 \qquad i=3\end{cases}
\]
then up to shift $C \in \mathcal{A}$, and in particular $C$ is stable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Similarly to the proof of the previous Lemma, we get that
\[
4=\hom^1(C,C) \geq \bigoplus_i \hom^1(\mathcal{H}^i(C), \mathcal{H}^{i}(C)) \geq 2r,
\]
which in this case yields $r=1$ or $r=2$. If $r=1$, we're done. Assume by contradiction that $r=2$, and call $M$ and $N$ the two non-zero cohomology objects of $C$; one necessarily has $\hom^1(M,M)=\hom^1(N,N)=2$, and since $\chi(F,F)\leq -1$ for all non-zero objects of $\mathcal{A}$, we also get $\hom^0(M,M)=\hom^0(N,N)=1$ and $\hom^2(M,M)=\hom^2(N,N)=0$, yielding $\chi(M,M)=\chi(N,N)=-1$ in particular. This means that $[M]$ and $[N]$ can only be equal to $\pm v$ or $\pm (v-w)$. Moreover, the $M$ and $N$ must be adjacent cohomologies, otherwise $C$ must splits as a sum of their shifts since $\Ext^{i}(M,N)=0$ for $i>2$, contradicting $\hom^0(C,C)=1$.
In order for their classes (with appropriate shift) to add up to $w$, for $M$ and $N$ to be in the heart at the same time and for the spectral sequence to abut to the correct numerics of $C$, we see that the only possibility is the following:
\[
\quad M= \mathcal{H}^{j}(C), \; [M]=\pm v \qquad \text{and} \qquad N= \mathcal{H}^{j\pm 1}(C), \; [N]= \mp (w-v),
\]
where the signs are determined by the parity of $j$; notice in particular that in all of these cases $\chi(M,N)=0$.
i.e. $M$ and $N$ are adjacent cohomologies, and exactly one of them has class $\pm v$ and the other has class $\mp (w-v)$,
where the signs are determined by the parity of $j$; notice in particular that in all of these cases $\chi(M,N)=0$. Now, if we gather all this information together, the second page of the spectral sequence (\ref{spectral}) has zeroes except for the spaces:
\begin{center}
$E_2^{p,q}$\quad = \quad\begin{tabular}{|ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\Hom(N,M)$ & $\Hom^1(N,M)$ & $\Hom^2(N,M)$\\
$\Hom(M,M)\oplus \Hom(N,N)$ & $\Hom^1(M,M)\oplus \Hom^1(N,N)$ &0\\
\hline
$\Hom(M,N)$ & $\Hom^1(M,N)$ & $\Hom^2(M,N)$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Therefore, the whole sequence degenerates at page 3, and the central column survives in the limit. We denote with $a,b,c,d,e,f$ the dimensions of the spaces in the first and third row, the table of dimensions for page 2 is:
\begin{center}
$\dim E_2^{p,q}$\quad = \quad \begin{tabular}{|ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
$a$ & $b$ & $c$\\
2 & 4 &0\\
\hline
$d$ & $e$ & $f$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Next, we impose the numerics of $C$, which constrain the dimensions on the diagonals of page 2. One sees right away that we must have $a=0$, $b=1$, $c=0$ and $d=0$, and a surjection $\Hom(M,M)\oplus \Hom(N,N) \twoheadrightarrow \Hom^2(M,N)$ with kernel of dimension $g \coloneqq 2-f$. On the other hand, we also have $e=f$ since the alternate sum of dimension on the row $q=-1$ is $\chi(M,N)=0$. This implies the contradiction that $1=\hom(C,C)=g+e=g+f=2$.
\begin{comment}
and the central column survives. Using the hypotesis on the numerics of $C$, we get that the next page is of the form
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0\\
$g$ & 4 &0\\
\hline
0 & $e$ & 0\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
This implies right away that $a=0$, $b=1$, $c=0$ and $d=0$; moreover, the space of dimension 2 must surject onto the one of dimension $f$ at page 2, and since the alternate sum of dimension on the line $q=-1$ is equal to $\chi(M,N)=0$, we also have $e=f$.
Finally, by $\hom^0(C,C)=1$ on page 3 we get $g+e=g+f=1$; but $g=2-f$ from page 2, contradiction.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
The category $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ admits an autoequivalence called the \textit{rotation functor} $$\mathsf R(-)\coloneqq \mathbb L_{\mathcal{O}_Y} ( - \otimes \mathcal{O}_Y(1))$$
(see \cite[Sec. 3.3]{Kuz15_fractional}, in particular \cite[Cor. 3.18]{Kuz15_fractional} for the proof of the fact that $\mathsf R$ is an autoequivalence).
\begin{lemma}\label{numfix}
The map induced on $K_{num}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$ by the rotation functor maps $w$ to $w-2v$ and $v$ to $w-v$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the first statement, we compute $\mathsf R(E_p)$ since $[E_p]=w$. Twisting the sequence \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep} and mutating across $\mathcal{O}_Y$, we see that $\mathsf R(E_p)=\mathbb L_{\mathcal{O}_Y} (I_p(1))$. The latter is computed by the triangle
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_def_of_Mp} \mathcal{O}_Y^{3} \to I_p(1)\to \mathbb L_{\mathcal{O}_Y} (I_p(1)),
\end{equation}
and it has class $[I_p(1)]-3[\mathcal{O}_Y]=2v-w$ in $K_{num}(\mathsf{Ku}(Y))$. Arguing similarly, one considers the ideal sheaf of a line $l$, which has class $v$, and checks that $[L_{\mathcal{O}_Y} (I_p(1))]=[I_l(1)]-2[\mathcal{O}_Y]=w-v$.
\end{proof}
Now if we take an object $E \in \mathcal{M}'$, then $u(E)$ has class $\pm w$ or $\pm(2v-w)$. In the latter case we can replace $u$ with $u\circ \mathsf R$ so that $u(E)$ has class $\pm w$. Lemmas \ref{ext1=3} and \ref{keylemma} show that there exists an integer $n$ such that $u(E)[n] \in \mathcal{A}$ and is stable of class $w$ (in particular, it has phase 1).
We want to prove that the shift can be taken uniformly, i.e. that, for the same $n$ and any other object $F$ in $\mathcal{M}'$, we have $u(F)[n]\in\mathcal{A}$. For all such $F$, we must have $\Hom(E,F[1])=\Ext^1(E,F)\neq 0$, since $\Hom(E,F)=0$ by stability, $\Ext^3(E,F)=\Ext^{-1}(F,E)=0$ by use of the Serre functor on $\mathsf{Ku}(Y')$, and $\chi(E,F)=-2$ because of their numerical class. Likewise, $\Hom(F,E[1])\neq 0$. Applying $u(-)[n]$ we get $\Hom(u(E)[n],u(F)[n+1])\neq 0$ and $\Hom(u(F)[n],u(E)[n+1])\neq 0$. Now, $u(E)[n]$ has phase 1, and let $\phi \in \mathbb{Z}$ be the phase of $u(F)[n]$: from the above we get $1< \phi +1$ and $\phi<2$, hence $\phi=1$ and $u(F)[n]\in \mathcal{A}$.
We can thus summarize the results of this section with the following Proposition:
\begin{proposition}\label{map_given_by_equiv}
The equivalence $u \colon \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathsf{Ku}(Y)$ induces a bijection on closed points $u\colon \mathcal{M}'(k) \to \mathcal{M}(k)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We have shown that the assignment $E\mapsto u(E)$ sends points of $\mathcal{M}'$ to points of $\mathcal{M}$ (and similarly, $u^{-1}$ takes $\mathcal{M}$ to $\mathcal{M}'$). Since $u$ is an equivalence, the induced map is a bijection on closed points.
\begin{comment}
The above discussion proves that the map is well defined. \AAA{Isn't this enough? The inverse $u^{-1}$ gives the inverse function, so it's bijective.} Since $u$ is an equivalence, the map is injective: indeed, $\hom(E,F)=\hom(u(E),u(F))$, so that if two different stable objects were sent to the same one, we would get a contradiction by stability of $E$ and $F$. Now let $u^{-1}$ be the inverse functor to $u$: by repeating the exact same argument we find that $u^{-1}$ induces a map
$u^{-1} \colon \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{M}'$ that is also injective; moreover, since $u\circ u^{-1} (E) \simeq E$ in $D(Y)$, in particular $u$ and $u^{-1}$ are inverses as maps of sets on $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M}'$. Inverse maps that are both injective are therefore bijective.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Universal families and convolutions}\label{sec_univ_fam_and_convolutions}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M}'$ denote the moduli spaces of objects of class $w$ in $\mathsf{Ku}(Y)$, resp. $\mathsf{Ku}(Y')$. As usual, we will denote by $\mathcal{Y}$ the component isomorphic to $Y$ in $\mathcal{M}$ (we use the same convention in the case of $Y'$).
The component $\mathcal Y$ admits a universal family, whose construction we outline here (see also the proof of Prop. \ref{prop_GiesekerVSTilt}). Let $\mathcal{I} \in D^b(Y \times \mathcal Y)$ be the pull back of the ideal sheaf of the diagonal via the isomorphism $Y\times \mathcal Y \xrightarrow{\sim} Y\times Y$. Then, define $\mathcal{E}\coloneqq \mathbb R_{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}^{\mathcal Y}(\mathcal{I})[-1]$ the projection to $\!^\perp\pair{\mathcal{O}_Y(-1)}_\mathcal{Y}$ (notation as in \ref{sec_basechange_mutations}). It is the desired universal family: for example the restriction of $\mathcal{E}$ to a fiber $Y\simeq Y\times \set{s}$ above a closed point $s\in S$ fits in a triangle
\[ I_s \to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[2] \to \mathcal{E}_s[1], \]
whence $\mathcal{E}_s=E_s$ (this triangle is \eqref{eq_def_of_Ep}). Likewise, define $\mathcal{E}'$ to be the universal family above $\mathcal{Y}'$.
\begin{comment}
The universal family on $\mathcal{Y}$ as a component of $\mathcal{M}$ is the object $\mathcal{E}$ defined as the cone of the triangle
\begin{equation}\label{eq_def_of_univ_fam}
\mathcal{I} \to q^* Rq_*R\mathcal{H}om \left(p^*\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1)[1],\mathcal{I} \otimes \omega_q[3]\right) \otimes p^*\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1)[1] \to \mathcal{E}[1]
\end{equation}
\AAA{explain more! what are p, q the map...}where $p$ and $q$ denote the projections onto $Y$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, respectively, and $\omega_q$ is the relative canonical bundle with respect to $q$.
\color{red}
Let $\mathcal{M}\coloneqq \mathcal{O}_\mathcal{S}(p_Y^\ast H-\mathcal{L})$ and $\mathcal{N}\coloneqq p^*\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1)[1]$ (I'm lazy). Define by $\alpha$ the composition of the restriction $\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}_C\coloneqq \mathcal{M}_{|Y\times C}$ with the natural evaluation map
\begin{equation}\label{eq_def_of_univ_fam}
\mathcal{M}_C \to q^* Rq_*R\mathcal{H}om \left(\mathcal{N}_C,\mathcal{M}_C \otimes \omega_q[3]\right) \otimes \mathcal{N}_C
\end{equation}
($q$ is projection to $C$) (I added a pull-back $q^*$ in front of the $Rq_*...$ because I think it's incorrect otherwise, just grammatically, even if it's missing from the analog we do for the torelli). Now the key point is this: given $l\in C$ a singular line, the fiber of $Rq_*R\mathcal{H}om \left(\mathcal{N}_C,\mathcal{M}_C\omega_q \right)$ above $l$ is $R\Hom(\mathcal{M}_l,\mathcal{N}_l)$ (with the right shifts...whatever). This is true in general (actually, no...but it should be true for us. This is called "commuting with base change" and this is the part Huachen told me about). What we have in our case is that $R\Hom(\mathcal{M}_l,\mathcal{N}_l)\simeq \mathbb{C}$, because we can compute it exactly, and we know that $R\Hom(\mathcal{M}_l,\mathcal{N}_l)=\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{M}_l,\mathcal{N}_l)$ is zero unless $\bullet$ is 1, and we know this bc we know $\mathcal{M}_l=I_{p/S}$, $\mathcal{N}_l=\mathcal{O}(-1)$, and we know maps between them. (All the shifts are screwed).
So, restricted to $Y\times \set{l}$, the map alpha becomes $\mathcal{M}_l \to \mathcal{O}\otimes \mathcal{N}_l$, i.e. $\mathcal{I}_{p/S}\to \mathcal{O}_Y(-1)[1]$.
\color{black}
In fact, one checks that $Rq_*R\mathcal{H}om \left(p^*\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1)[1],\mathcal{I} \otimes \omega_q[3]\right)$ \textit{commutes with base change} in the sense of \cite[Remark 1.5]{Lan83}.
Thus, the restriction of \eqref{eq_def_of_univ_fam} to a fiber $Y\times \set{s}$ above a closed point $s\in \mathcal{Y}$ is the triangle
$$ \mathcal{I}_s \to \Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1), \mathcal{I}_s\otimes \omega_Y[3])\otimes \mathcal{O}_Y(-1) \to \mathcal{E}_s[1], $$
whence $\mathcal{E}_s\simeq E_s$ because $\Hom^\bullet(\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-1), \mathcal{I}_s\otimes \omega_Y[3])\simeq \mathbb{C}$.
\end{comment}
Define the composite functor
\[
F\colon D(Y')\xrightarrow{\rho'} \mathsf{Ku}(Y') \xrightarrow{u}\mathsf{Ku}(Y)
\xrightarrow{\epsilon} D(Y)
\]
where $\rho'$ is the natural projection, $\epsilon$ the full embedding, and $u$ an exact equivalence. If $F$ is a Fourier--Mukai functor, i.e., $F\simeq \Phi_{\mathcal G}$ for some $\mathcal G\in D^b(Y\times Y')$, then one defines
$$ \Phi_{\mathcal G}\times \id_{\mathcal{Y}'} \coloneqq \Phi_{\mathcal G \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\Delta_{\mathcal{Y}'}}} \colon D^b(Y'\times \mathcal{Y}') \to D^b(Y\times \mathcal{Y}') $$
and the object
$$\tilde\mathcal{E}\coloneqq \Phi_{\mathcal G}\times \id_{\mathcal{Y}'} (\mathcal{E}') \in D^b(Y\times \mathcal{Y}')$$
is a family of objects of $D(Y)$ parametrized by $\mathcal{Y}'$, which defines a morphism $Y'\simeq \mathcal{Y}'\to \mathcal{M}$.
If $F$ is not a Fourier--Mukai functor, then one can construct the family $\tilde\mathcal{E}$ "by hand", with the same argument as in \cite[Sec. 5.2]{BMMS12}. The main technical tool is that of convolutions, we will recall here some aspects of the argument for the convenience of the reader. A \emph{right convolution} of a bounded complex
$$ A_m \xrightarrow{d_m} A_{m-1}\xrightarrow{d_{m-1}}... \xrightarrow{d_1} A_{0} $$
in a triangulated category $\mathbf{T}$ is an object $A$ with a morphism $d_0\colon A_0\to A$ such that there is a diagram in $\mathbf T$
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
A_m \arrow{rr}[name=U]{d_m} \arrow[swap]{dr}[name=D]{\id}
\arrow[to path={(U) node[below, yshift=-0.65cm, xshift=0.2cm, left,scale=1] {$\circlearrowleft$} (D)}]{}
\arrow[to path={(U) node[midway, yshift=0.15cm, xshift=-1.2cm, scale=1] {$\circlearrowleft$} (D)}]{}
\arrow[to path={(U) node[right, yshift=-0.65cm, xshift=8cm, scale=1] {$\circlearrowleft$} (D)}]{}
& & A_{m-1} \arrow{rr} \arrow{dr} & & ... & & A_1 \arrow[dr] \arrow{rr} & & A_0\arrow{dr}{d_0} \\
& A_m \arrow[ur] & & C_{m-1} \arrow{ll}{[1]} \arrow{ur} & & ... \arrow{ll}{[1]} & & C_1 \arrow{ll}{[1]} \arrow{ur} & & A \arrow{ll}{[1]}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
where the triangles with a $\circlearrowleft$ are commutative, and the others are distinguished.
If $L\in \Pic(\mathcal{Y}')$ is an ample line bundle, we can consider the (possibly infinite) resolution of $\mathcal{E}'$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_resolution_of_univ_family}
... \to \mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_i)^{\oplus n_i} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_i})^{\oplus s_i} \to ... \to \mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_0)^{\oplus n_0} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_0})^{\oplus s_0} \to \mathcal{E}',
\end{equation}
with $r_i\geq 0$, and $N_i\gg 0$ so that
$$ \Hom(\mathcal{O}_{Y'},\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_i)[p]) = \Hom(\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(1),\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_i)[p]) = 0 $$
for all $p\neq 3$. Then, choose $m$ sufficiently large and consider the (naive) truncation
\begin{equation}
O_m^\bullet \coloneqq \set{\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_m)^{\oplus n_m} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_m})^{\oplus s_m}\to ... \to \mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_0)^{\oplus n_0} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_0})^{\oplus s_0}}.
\end{equation}
Denote by $K_m\in\Coh(Y'\times \mathcal{Y}')$ the kernel of $O_{m}^\bullet \to O_{m-1}^\bullet$. Then the triangle
$$ K_m[m] \to O_m^\bullet \to \mathcal{E}' $$
splits (if $m+1>\dim Y'+\dim\mathcal{Y}'$, for example). Then, the object $K_m[m]\oplus \mathcal{E}'$ is a right convolution for the complex $O_m^\bullet$. This convolution is unique, because the terms of $O_m^\bullet$ are coherent sheaves (and not arbitrary objects of $D^b(Y'\times \mathcal{Y}')$, see \cite[Lemma 1.5]{Orl97}).
Next, one considers the complex
\begin{equation}
F_m^\bullet \coloneqq \set{F(\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_m))^{\oplus n_m} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_m})^{\oplus s_m}\to ... \to F(\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_0))^{\oplus n_0} \boxtimes (L^{\otimes -r_0})^{\oplus s_0}}
\end{equation}
whose terms are objects of $D^b(Y\times \mathcal{Y}')$.
The following lemma follows from the same argument given in \cite{BMMS12}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_unique_convolution}
The complex $F_m^\bullet$ admits a unique (up to isomorphism) split right convolution $G_m\simeq H_m \oplus E_m$ such that for some $M<m$ one has $H^i(E_m)=0$ unless $i\in[-M,0]$, and $H^i(H_m)=0$ unless $i\in[-m-M,-m]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemma 5.2]{BMMS12}.
\end{proof}
We denote $ \tilde\mathcal{E} \coloneqq E_m \in D^b(Y\times \mathcal{Y}') $.
\subsection{Conclusion of the proof} The last step of the proof is to show that the map defined in Prop. \ref{map_given_by_equiv} is a morphism which restricts to an isomorphism $Y'=\mathcal{Y}'\simeq \mathcal{Y}=Y$. For a closed point $s\in\mathcal{Y}'$, denote by $i_s$ (resp. $i'_s$) the inclusion $Y\times \set{s} \to Y\times \mathcal{Y}'$ (resp. $Y'\times \set{s} \to Y'\times \mathcal{Y}'$).
\begin{lemma}
For any closed point $s\in \mathcal{Y}'$ we have $i_s^*(\tilde\mathcal{E})\simeq F((i'_s)^*\mathcal{E}')$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Apply the functor $i_s^*$ to the complex $F_m^\bullet$ to get the complex
\begin{equation}
i_s^*(F_m)^\bullet \coloneqq \set{F(\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_m))^{\oplus n_m} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{\oplus s_m}\to ... \to F(\mathcal{O}_{Y'}(-N_0))^{\oplus n_0} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{\oplus s_0}}
\end{equation}
of objects of $D^b(Y)$. One sees that the objects $i_s^*\tilde\mathcal{E} \oplus i_s^*H_m$ and $F((i'_s)^*\mathcal{E}')\oplus F((i'_s)^*K_m[m])$ are both right convolutions of $i_s^*(F_m)^\bullet$. However, the same argument as in Lemma \ref{lem_unique_convolution} shows that $i_s^*(F_m)^\bullet$ has a unique convolution up to isomorphism, and the choice $m\gg 0$ implies $i_s^*(\tilde\mathcal{E})\simeq F((i'_s)^*\mathcal{E}')$ for any choice of $s\in \mathcal{Y}'$ a closed point.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm_torelliY2}}]
Whether $\tilde\mathcal{E}$ is constructed with a Fourier--Mukai functor or by means of convolutions, one sees that $i_s^*(\tilde\mathcal{E})\simeq F((i'_s)^*\mathcal{E}')=u(E'_s)$ for all $s\in\mathcal{Y}'$. In other words, $\tilde\mathcal{E}$ is a family of objects of $\mathcal{M}$ parametrized by $\mathcal{Y}'$, and it yields a proper morphism $\alpha\colon \mathcal{Y}'\to \mathcal{M}$ with the property that $\alpha(s)\in \mathcal{M}$ corresponds to the object $u(E'_s)$ for all $s\in \mathcal{Y}'$. Since $\mathcal{Y}'$ is irreducible, $\alpha$ factors through one of the components of $\mathcal{M}$. We claim that $\alpha$ must factor through $\mathcal{Y}$. Granting the claim for a moment, smoothness of $\mathcal{Y}$ implies that $\alpha$ is the desired isomorphism $\mathcal{Y}'\xrightarrow{\sim}\mathcal{Y}$.
To establish the claim, observe that $\alpha$ is, in particular, a morphism dominating one of the components of $M$ and $\alpha$ is birational onto its image. Since $\mathcal{Y}'$ is rationally connected and $\alpha$ preserves this property (see for example \cite{Kol96}), its image cannot lie in $\mathcal{C}$, which is not rationally connected as a consequence of Corollary \ref{cor_C_generically_embedded_by_AJ}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is partially supported by grant no. 01MD18008B of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (DigitalTWIN project).
\section{Canonical Form of the Power Allocation Problem}
\section{Conclusion}\label{s8}
In this work we have proposed an interference management and beamforming mechanism for uplink hotspot \ac{mmWave} communication on shared resources.
In particular, our centralized scheme jointly optimizes the uplink power, the \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignments, and the receive beam configurations of the \acp{AP}. The proposed approach combines a simple fixed point algorithm with a heuristic based on \ac{SA}, which is used to search for the optimal beam configurations. We showed that, if the \ac{SA} heuristic is able to find the optimal beam configuration, then the fixed point algorithm provides us with the optimal power and the \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignments. Nevertheless, even if the beam configuration produced by the \ac{SA} heuristic is a suboptimal beam configuration, then the fixed point algorithm is still optimal in the sense of maximizing the common fraction of interference-free rates for the given beam configuration.
\subsection{Interference Model} \label{s3d} %
We adopt the interference model studied in \cite{Xue2017, Zhang2018}.
An \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ is connected to a single \ac{AP} $m \in {\mathcal{M}}$, and the radiated power from other \acp{UE} $n' \neq n$ is treated as the interference power at the \ac{AP} $m$.
Hence, the overall interference at the receiver is expressed by
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
I_{m,n'} =
\sum_{\substack{n' \in {\mathcal{N}} \setminus\left \{ n \right \}}}^{ } p_{n'}h_{m,n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}),
\end{equation}
where $p_{n'}$ is the transmit power of the interfering \ac{UE} $n' \neq n$ and $h_{m,n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}})$ is the power gain of the interference channel between \ac{UE} $n'$ and \ac{AP} $m$.
The latter depends on Tx beamwidth $\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}}$, Tx beam direction $\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}}$, Rx beamwidth $\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}$, Rx beam direction, $\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}$ and the distance from \ac{AP} $m$ to \ac{UE} $n'$.
The interference power gain is expressed as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq5}
\resizebox{0.91\hsize}{!}{$
\hspace{-5pt}
h_{m,n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}) = G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}})
\hspace{2pt}
G^{\text{Rx}}_{m}(\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}})
\hspace{2pt} \text{PL}_{m,n'},
\hspace{-5pt}
$}
\end{equation}
where $G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}})$ and $G^{\text{Rx}}_{m}(\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}})$ are transmit and receive beam gains of \ac{UE} $n'$ and \ac{AP} $m$, respectively.
The scalar $\text{PL}_{m,n'}$ denotes the path loss between \ac{UE} $n'$ and \ac{AP} $m$.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{s3a}, we assume that the transmit beam width of all \acp{UE} is fixed $(\theta^{\text{Tx}}_n = \theta^{\text{Tx}}, \forall n \in {\mathcal{N}})$, and \ac{UE} $n$ is always in \ac{LoS} with \ac{AP} $m$, if this is its serving access point.
We distinguish four interference scenarios, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3} (a)-(d).
The respective transmit and receive beam gains are calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq6}
\resizebox{0.91\hsize}{!}{$
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}}) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'} &, \text{if} \hspace{5pt} 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Tx}}}{2} \\
\epsilon &, \text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
$}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq7}
\resizebox{0.91\hsize}{!}{$
G^{\text{Rx}}_{m}(\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Rx,main}}_{m} &, \text{if} \hspace{5pt} 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Rx}}_m \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Rx}}_{m}}{2} \\
\epsilon &, \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.
$}
\end{equation}
Above, $G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'}$ and $G^{\text{Rx,main}}_{m}$ denote the mainlobe gains of \ac{UE} $n'$ and \ac{AP} $m$ according to \eqref{eq1}.
For all four interference cases, expression \eqref{eq8} gives the combined transmit and receive beam gains that can be obtained in the network.
\section{Introduction}\label{s1}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{o} support huge data rates in next-generation communication systems, \ac{mmWave} technologies using wideband signals are widely considered as an attractive technology \cite{Niu2015}.
From a research perspective, one of the challenges to overcome is the high \ac{PL} of the \ac{mmWave} band compared to that of traditional bands.
The channel \ac{PL} in the \ac{mmWave} bands is generally higher than that of traditional frequencies \cite{Rappaport2013}.
In particular, the inherent propagation characteristics make the use of \ac{mmWave} transmission sensitive to blockage.
Thus, \ac{MIMO} and \ac{BF} techniques are adopted to compensate the severe \ac{PL} conditions \cite{Kutty2016, Han2017}.
Directional transmission is also known to be beneficial for reducing the interference in networks and for improving the spatial reuse of radio resources and the transmission range.
However, with the densification of networks, directional transmission with narrow beams creates additional difficulties
In contrast to traditional \ac{RRM} with physical (PHY) and \ac{MAC} cross-layer approaches, where resources are usually managed in a time-frequency domain, \ac{mmWave} communication systems also need to select appropriate transmit and receive beam directions and widths (beam configurations) of the network entities.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, the large numbers of \ac{UE} connected to different \acp{AP} would have to share the frequency resources in the uplink, thus interference managament schemes coping with mutual interference are required.
However, the design of interference management schemes that jointly optimizes the power, \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignments, and the beam configuration is difficult.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=78mm]{figures/netowrk_model_hotspot.eps}
\caption{A \ac{mmWave} network with transmit and receive beamforming for uplink connectivity in areas of high user density, where interference management is a key challenge.}
\label{fig1}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
In this study, we consider a wireless \ac{mmWave} access network where multiple low-mobility users in a hotspot area communicate with a set of \acp{AP} in the uplink using optimized beam steering.
We start by analyzing the possible interference cases in the considered multi-beam multi-user scenario.
Next, for a given power budget of \acp{UE} and discrete beam configurations of \acp{AP} in the network, we pose a weighted max-min problem involving the joint optimization of power and \ac{UE} - \ac{AP} assignments in the uplink.
We show that this problem can be easily solved with a simple fixed point algorithm that is further combined with a heuristic based on simulated annealing \cite{haggstrom2002finite} to search for an optimal beam configuration.
Our work builds upon a previous study on throughput and fairness trade-offs depending on beam width selection in multi-beam multi-user \ac{mmWave} communication systems \cite{Rafail2018}.
Interference management via transmit beam width and direction for improving the system performance is one of the center topics in \ac{mmWave} communications.
E.g., the authors in \cite{Onireti2018} consider uplink \ac{mmWave} cellular networks and minimize the interference by adapting only the transmit power of the \acp{UE}.
\cite{Luo2017} proposes a performance optimization approach for uplink \ac{mmWave} communication systems based on a spatial modulation scheme.
This scheme assumes an exact orthogonality between different beams, and such assumption is not valid for \ac{mmWave} hotspot networks.
Moreover, the impact of the transmit and receive beam widths to the system performance was not studied.
Uplink inter-user interference in \ac{mmWave} systems was considered in \cite{Li2016}.
The proposed scheme takes into consideration a single-cell scenario and assumes that the \ac{CSI} is known perfectly at the \ac{AP}.
\section{Literature Review}\label{s2}
\section{Numerical Evaluation}\label{s7}
\subsection{Millimeter-wave Propagation Model}\label{s7a}
We use the \ac{mmWave} path loss model proposed in \cite{Rappaport2017}.
It assumes omni-directional antennas with unity gain for generality.
In this work, the directional antenna patterns and gains are adapted to the \ac{PL} model.
The distance-dependent \ac{PL} function in [dB] is given as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq300}
\resizebox{0.89\hsize}{!}{$
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{PL}_{\lbrack\text{dB}\rbrack}(f_c,d) =
& \text{FSPL}(f_c,d_0) + 10 \alpha \log_{10}(d) + X_{\sigma},
\end{array}
$}
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the transmission distance in meters, $\text{FSPL}(f_c,d_0)$ is the free space path loss for carrier frequency $f_c$ in GHz at reference distance $d_0$, $\alpha$ is the path loss exponent and $X_{\sigma}$ is a zero mean Gaussian random variable with standard deviation $\sigma_{\text{SF}}$ in dB (shadowing).
It is a common assumption to set $d_0 = 1$ m.
As described in \cite{Rappaport2017}, the above model can be parametrized for the so-called urban micro (UMi) open square \ac{LoS} scenario.
For an applicable range of $6 < f_c < 100$ GHz, we then obtain:
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{equation}\label{eq301}
\resizebox{0.89\hsize}{!}{$
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{PL}_{\lbrack\text{dB}\rbrack}(f_c,d) = 32.4 + 18.5 \log_{10}(d) + 20 \log_{10}(f_c) + X_{\sigma}
\end{array}
$}
\vspace{-3pt}
\end{equation}
This scenario refers to high user density open areas with \ac{AP} heights below rooftop (approx. $20$ m), \ac{UE} heights at ground level (approx. $1.5$ m) and a shadow fading of $\sigma_{\text{SF}}=4.2$ dB.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\normalsize
\resizebox{0.95\hsize}{!}{$
\begin{tabularx}{1\linewidth}{l l}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Parameters} & \textbf{Value} \\
\hline
\vspace{-10pt} \\
\ac{UE} (Tx) number $N$ & 20 \\
\ac{AP} (Rx) number $M$ & 3 \\
Inter-site shadowing correlation & 0.5 \\
Carrier frequency $f_c$ & 28 GHz \\
System bandwidth $W$ & 1 GHz \\
Noise power density & -145 dBm/Hz \\
Sidelobe gain $\epsilon$ & 0.1 \\
\ac{UE} beam widths $\theta^{\text{Tx}}$ & $90^o$ \\
\ac{UE} beam directions $[ \beta^{\text{Tx}}_{\text{min}},\beta^{\text{Tx}}_{\text{max}} ]$ & $[ 250^o,290^o ]$ \\
\ac{AP} beam widths $\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$ & $\{30^o,45^o,60^o\}$ \\
\ac{AP} beam directions $\mathbb{D}_{\beta}$ & $\{70^o,80^o,90^o,100^o,110^o\}$ \\ [0.5ex]
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabularx}
$}
\end{center}
\caption{Basic simulation parameters.}
\label{tab1}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{-5pt}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{figures/matlab_net_config.eps}
\caption{Network layout used for the simulations (shown for the beam configuration ${\boldsymbol{\theta}} = (45^o,60^o,30^o)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} = (80^o,90^o,100^o))$.}
\label{fig10}
\vspace{-11pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation Setup} \label{s7b}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=96mm]{figures/weighted_max_min_fraction.eps}
\caption{Allocated fraction of the interference-free rate over increasing power budget per user, corresponding to weight $c$ in the \emph{proposed} scheme and to the \ac{UE} with minimum fraction in the \emph{reference} scheme.}
\label{fig7c-1}
\includegraphics[width=96mm]{figures/weighted_max_min_data_rate.eps}
\caption{Uplink rate of the \ac{UE} with minimum allocated fraction over increasing power budget per user.}
\label{fig7c-2}
\includegraphics[width=96mm]{figures/fariness.eps}
\caption{Evaluation of the fairness in the network through Jain's fairness index $\mathcal{J}=\frac{(\sum_{n=1}^N R_n)^2}{N \sum_{n=1}^N R_n^2}$ applied to the uplink rates over increasing power budget per user.}
\label{fig7c-3}
\vspace{-11pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=185mm,center]{figures/search_space_SA.eps}
\caption{Simulated annealing (SA) performance for $\overbar{P} = 30$ dBm using half of the search space ($\tau_{\text{max}} = 42$, $i_{\text{max}}=42$) compared to brute force (BF). The efficiency is $98.3397 \%$ where $100 \%$ is the global optimum by the BF solution. The outcomes (arguments) of the BF and SA solutions are: ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{\text{BF}} = (30^o,30^o,30^o)$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\text{BF}} = (80^o,90^o,100^o)$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{\text{SA}} = (45^o,45^o,45^o)$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\text{SA}} = (90^o,100^o,90^o)$ }
\label{fig7d-1}
\vspace{-20pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=95mm]{figures/sa_impovement.eps}
\caption{Solution efficiency of the SA algorithm as a function of decreasing temperature $\tau$.}
\label{fig7d-2}
\vspace{-11pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\hspace{-12pt}
\includegraphics[width=96mm]{figures/heatmap_SA.eps}
\caption{SA performance for $\overbar{P} = 30$ dBm with different parameters $\tau_{\text{max}}$ and $i_{\text{max}}$ in Algorithm 2. The parametrization influences the search space in the iterations ($\tau_{\text{max}} = 42$, $i_{\text{max}}=42$ corresponds to half search space as compared to BF)}
\label{fig7d-3}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
For the performance evaluation of our proposed method, we consider a \ac{mmWave} access network with \acp{UE} that are distributed uniformly at random within a hotspot area considering a separation distance of $4$ m.
The size of the area is $30 \times 20$ m${}^2$ and the \ac{AP} locations are as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig10}.
Further system parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab1}.
The simulations are averaged over 500 random realizations of user positions.
\subsection{Simulations} \label{s7c}
In Fig. \ref{fig7c-1} to Fig. \ref{fig7c-3}, we give the results from our \emph{proposed} scheme using fixed point algorithms for a specified beam configuration ${\boldsymbol{\theta}} = (45^o,60^o,30^o)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} = (80^o,90^o,100^o)$.
For comparison, we also show the performance of a \emph{reference} scheme, which assumes fully interfered transmissions with maximum power $\overbar{P}$ of each \ac{UE}.
It can be seen that, in the noise-limited power regime, both schemes perform similarly while our proposed approach outperforms the full power transmission in the interference-limited range.
Not only is the worst network user (with minimum allocated fraction) made better off (Fig.~\ref{fig7c-2}), but the overall fairness in the network is also largely increased (Fig.~\ref{fig7c-3}).
In addition, Fig. \ref{fig7c-1} shows that in \ac{mmWave} networks, at a certain operation point in terms of $\overbar{P}$, schemes that utilize orthogonal resources such as time-division multiple access (TDMA) may be preferable than schemes treating interference as noise (TIN), for the reason that TDMA guarantees the constant rates for all \acp{UE}.
In TDMA, the fraction of the interference-free rate can be simply given as $c \le 1/N$.
As a general outcome from the study of our simulation setup it can be stated that interference cannot be ignored in our particular \ac{mmWave} scenario.
Below, we show the improvements of the \emph{proposed} weighted rate allocation scheme after running the \acf{SA} heuristic in Algorithm 2.
First, we exemplify the performance weighted rate allocation scheme over the whole beam configurations set $Q$ in Fig. \ref{fig7d-1}, i.e., for all possible receive beam configurations with the discrete candidate sets $\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$, $\mathbb{D}_{\beta}$.
We use the small size problems since we compare the \ac{BF} solution (in a large search space \ac{BF} solution becomes an infeasible) to know the global optimum.
In particular, we show the relative performance, called solution efficiency, compared to the best solution of problem \eqref{eq11} when a brute force (BF) search is applied (denoted by $100 \%$ solution efficiency).
The red path in Fig. \ref{fig7d-1} marks the neighborhood search with jumps in the states (beam configurations) when the utility is improved.
Fig. \ref{fig7d-2} shows how the utility develops in the cooling procedure as parameter $\tau$ decreases over several iterations.
Finally, we illustrate the solution efficiency in the simulated scenario when parameters in Algorithm 2 are changing.
There is a trade-off between temperature $\tau$ and number of cycles $i_{\text{max}}$ per temperature which impact the utility.
Hence, a certain parametrization can be obtained for a desired operational point.
\section*{Open Questions}
\textbf{To do ...}
\section{Preliminaries} \label{s3}
In this study, we use the following standard definitions:
scalars and variables are denoted by lowercase letters (e.g. $x$ and $y$).
We use boldface letters to emphasize vectors (e.g. $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}$).
The $i$th element of a vector $\boldsymbol{x}$ is denoted by $x_i$.
A vector inequality $\boldsymbol{x} \le \boldsymbol{y}$ should be understood as an element-wise inequality.
Sets are defined with calligraphic fonts (e.g. $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$).
Probability distributions are denoted with calligraphic letters.
By $\left \| \cdot \right \|_{\infty }$, we denote the standard $l-\infty$ norm.
Sets of non-negative and positive reals are denoted by $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ and $\mathbb{R}_{++}$, respectively.
\subsection{Uplink Network Model} \label{s3a}
We consider a wireless network comprised of a set ${\mathcal{N}} = \{1,...,N\}$ of transmitters (Tx), called \acf{UE}, and a set ${\mathcal{M}} = \{1,...,M\}$ of receivers (Rx), called \acfp{AP}.
We assume fixed transmit beam widths $\theta^{\text{Tx}}_n = \theta^{\text{Tx}}, \forall n \in {\mathcal{N}}$.
The transmit beam directions of the \acp{UE} are uniformly distributed with $\beta^{\text{Tx}}_n \sim \mathcal{U}(\beta^{\text{Tx}}_{\text{min}},\beta^{\text{Tx}}_{\text{max}}), \forall n \in {\mathcal{N}}$.
Furthermore, we assume a transmit power constraint for each \ac{UE} given by $\overbar{P}$.
The transmit power vector ${\boldsymbol{p}} = \left ( p_1,...,p_N \right ) \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^N$ takes values from a continuous power domain; i.e., $p_n \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$, $p_n \le \overbar{P}$, $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$.
In contrast to the transmitter side, we assume that each receive beam width and direction can be adjusted by the \ac{AP}.
Let ${\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \left ( \theta^{\text{Rx}}_1,...,\theta^{\text{Rx}}_M \right ) \in \mathbb{D}^M_{\theta} \subseteq \mathbb{R}_{++}^M$ be the receive beamwidth vector, where $\theta^{\text{Rx}}_m$ takes values from a discrete set $\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$ and $\theta_{{\text{min}}}^{\text{Rx}} \le \theta^{\text{Rx}}_m \le \theta_{{\text{max}}}^{\text{Rx}}$, $\forall m \in {\mathcal{M}}$.
Similarly, each receive beam can be steered by the \ac{AP} in a specific angular direction and the vector of receive beam directions is denoted by ${\boldsymbol{\beta}} = \left ( \beta_1^{\text{Rx}},...,\beta_M^{\text{Rx}} \right ) \in \mathbb{D}^M_{\beta} \subseteq \mathbb{R}_{++}^M$, where $\beta_m^{\text{Rx}}$ takes values from a discrete set $\mathbb{D}_{\beta}$ and $\beta^{\text{Rx}}_{\text{min}} < \beta_m^{\text{Rx}} < \beta^{\text{Rx}}_{\text{max}}$, $\forall m \in {\mathcal{M}}$.
In this work, we assume that multiple \acp{UE} may be simultaneously connected to an \ac{AP}, constituting a many-to-one association scenario.
Hence, the \ac{AP} is capable of processing several incoming uplink signals at the same time.
The \ac{CSI}, which is needed to perform the beam and interference management, is assumed to be composed of the large-scale channel fading gains, based on the \ac{mmWave} \ac{PL} model (see Section \ref{s7a}), for all users.
That is, the instantaneous small-scale fading coefficients are assumed to be unknown, otherwise this would generate an excessively high amount of \ac{CSI} feedback overhead, hardly implementable in \ac{mmWave} systems.
Fig.~\ref{fig1} illustrates an example of a hotspot scenario where \acp{UE} are randomly and uniformly distributed with high density.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{figures/ideal_sector_antenna_paper.eps}
\caption{Model of a symmetric sector antenna pattern with beam width $\theta$ and beam gains $G^{\text{main}}$ in the mainlobe and $\epsilon$ in the sidelobe. \vspace{-10pt}}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=43mm,center]{figures/new_up1.eps}
\caption{$\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} = G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'}
\vspace{4pt}
\\
G^{\text{Rx}}_m = G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m
\end{array}$}
\label{fig3a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=43mm,center]{figures/new_up2.eps}
\caption{$\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} = G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'}
\vspace{4pt}
\\
G^{\text{Rx}}_m = \epsilon
\end{array}$}
\label{fig3b}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=43mm,center]{figures/new_up3.eps}
\caption{$\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} = \epsilon
\vspace{4pt}
\\
G^{\text{Rx}}_m = G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m
\end{array}$}
\label{fig3c}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=43mm,center]{figures/new_up4.eps}
\caption{$\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} = \epsilon
\vspace{4pt}
\\
G^{\text{Rx}}_m = \epsilon
\end{array}$}
\label{fig3d}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Considered interference cases: UE$_{n'}$ causes interference in the transmit mainlobe of UE$_n$ which is connected to AP$_m$}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!hb]
\hrule
\vspace{8pt}
\begin{equation} \label{eq8}\tag{8}
\resizebox{0.95\hsize}{!}{$
G^{\text{Tx}}_{n'}(\theta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}},\beta_{n'}^{\text{Tx}}) \, G^{\text{Rx}}_{m}(\theta_{m}^{\text{Rx}},\beta_{m}^{\text{Rx}}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lllll}
G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'} \, G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m &, \text{if} & 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Tx}}}{2} &\text{and} & 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Rx}}_m \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Rx}}_{m}}{2} \vspace{6pt}
\\
\epsilon \, G^{\text{Tx,main}}_{n'} &, \text{if} & 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Tx}}}{2} & \text{and} & \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Rx}}_{m}}{2} < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Rx}}_m \end{vmatrix}
\vspace{6pt}
\\
\epsilon \, G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m &, \text{if} & \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Tx}}}{2} < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Tx}}_{n'} \end{vmatrix} & \text{and} & 0 < \begin{vmatrix} \beta^{\text{LoS}}_{m,n'} - \beta^{\text{Rx}}_m \end{vmatrix} < \dfrac{\theta^{\text{Rx}}_{m}}{2}
\vspace{6pt}
\\
\epsilon^2 &, \text{otherwise} & & &
\end{array}\right.
$}
\end{equation}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Directive Antenna Patterns} \label{s3b}
The beam width is one of the key variables that we will adjust in the proposed scheme in order to improve the system performance.
We refer to an antenna model presented in \cite{Shokri2015}.
It uses the simplified and approximated beam gain pattern provided in Fig.~\ref{fig2} for both transmitters and receivers.
An antenna with a gain pattern defined by beam width $\theta \in (0,2\pi)$, gain in the mainlobe $G^{\text{main}}$, and gain in the sidelobe $\epsilon$ with $0 < \epsilon < 1 < G^{\text{main}}$ can be expressed by
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\resizebox{0.91\hsize}{!}{$
G(\gamma) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
G^{\text{main}} = \dfrac{2\pi - (2\pi - \theta)\epsilon}{\theta} &, \text{if} \hspace{5pt} |\gamma| \le \dfrac{\theta}{2} \\
\epsilon &, \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.
$}
\end{equation}
Obviously, the beam gains in the mainlobe are increasing with smaller beamwidth.
With $\theta = 2 \pi$ we have an omnidirectional mode with unit gain.
\section{Problem Statement} \label{s5}
The objective of this study is to maximize the system utility in the network, which we define as a weighted rate allocation problem.
The problem involves the optimization of the \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignments, the receive beam widths $({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$, the receive beam directions $({\boldsymbol{\beta}})$, and the transmit power $({\boldsymbol{p}})$.
In addition, the possible beam configurations are subject to discrete candidate sets $\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$ and $\mathbb{D}_{\beta}$, and each component of the power vector ${\boldsymbol{p}}$ cannot exceed the value $\overbar{P} \in \mathbb{R}_{++}$.
\vspace{-5pt}
\subsection{Uplink Data Rates} \label{s5a}
For ${\boldsymbol{p}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ given, the \ac{SINR} at \ac{AP} $m \in {\mathcal{M}} $ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hspace{-5pt}s_{n}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^N \times \mathbb{R}_{++}^M \times \mathbb{R}_{++}^M \times {\mathcal{M}} & \rightarrow & \mathbb{R}_{+} \\
({\boldsymbol{p}}, {\boldsymbol{\theta}}, {\boldsymbol{\beta}}, m) & \mapsto & \dfrac{p_n \hspace{1pt} h_{m,n}}{I_{m,n'} + \sigma^2_{\text{noise}}},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $p_n$ is the transmit power of \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ being connected to \ac{AP} $m \in {\mathcal{M}}$.
The term $I_{m,n'}$ is the interference power defined in \eqref{eq4}, $\sigma^2_{\text{noise}}$ is the noise power at all \acp{AP} (which we assume to be equal) and $h_{m,n}$ refers to the channel power gain between the serving \ac{AP} and the \ac{UE}, given by
\begin{equation*}
h_{m,n} = G^{\text{Tx,main}}_n\hspace{2pt} G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m\hspace{2pt} \text{PL}_{m,n}.
\end{equation*}
Above, $G^{\text{Tx,main}}_n$ and $G^{\text{Rx,main}}_m$ are transmit and receive beam gains in the mainlobe of \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ and \ac{AP} $m \in {\mathcal{M}}$, respectively, and $\text{PL}_{m,n}$ is the path loss.
Hereafter, the \emph{achievable rate} in the uplink of \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}} $ to its best serving \ac{AP} (e.g., \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignment) is expressed by
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
R_n({\boldsymbol{p}},{\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{max}} W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}},{\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}},m)\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the system bandwidth.
For $p_n$ being fixed to the maximum transmit power budget $\overbar{P} > 0$, the maximum achievable rate, called \emph{interference-free rate}, is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq13}
\overbar{R}_n = \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{max}} W \log_2 \left ( 1+\dfrac{\overbar{P} \hspace{2pt} h_{m,n}}{\sigma^2_{\text{noise}}} \right ).
\end{equation}
In other words, $\overbar{R}_n$ is the rate corresponding to the case of \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ transmitting alone in the network with full power to its best serving \ac{AP}.
\subsection{The Weighted Rate Allocation Problem} \label{s5b}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig5}, the objective of the optimization problem is to assign the user rates $R_n$, $\forall n \in {\mathcal{N}}$, fairly, in the sense that every \ac{UE} $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ achieves the maximum \emph{common fraction} $c \in [0,1]$ of the interference-free rates $\overbar{R}_n$.
Formally, the proposed optimization problem is stated as the following mixed integer problem:
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{subequations} \label{eq11}
\begin{alignat}{3}
& \underset{{\boldsymbol{p}},{\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}},c}{\text{\normalfont{maximize}}} & \quad & c \tag{\ref{eq11}} \\
& \text{\normalfont{subject to}} & & c\overbar{R}_n = R_n({\boldsymbol{p}},{\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}), \, \forall n \in {\mathcal{N}} \label{eq11a} \\
& & & \left \| {\boldsymbol{p}} \right \|_\infty \le \overbar{P} \label{eq11b} \\
& & & {\boldsymbol{p}} \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^N, ({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}, c \in \mathbb{R}_{++} , \label{eq11c}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
where ${\boldsymbol{p}}$ is the transmit power vector, $\overbar{P}$ is the power budget, and ${\mathcal{Q}} = \left \{ ({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_l)\right \}_{\substack{k \in (1,...,\left | \mathbb{D}_{\theta} \right |^M), \hspace{2pt} l \in (1,...,\left | \mathbb{D}_{\beta} \right |^M)}}$ is a set of all beam configurations of the \acp{AP}.
Owing to the discrete parameters, it is hard to solve problem \eqref{eq11}.
However, if the tuple $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ is fixed to a given beam configuration $(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}$, one can optimally solve the weighted rate allocation problem \eqref{eq11}.
In this case, the objective reduces to the following problem:
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{subequations} \label{eq11plus}
\begin{alignat}{3}
& \underset{\text{s.t. } ({\boldsymbol{p}},c) \in \mathcal{K}_{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}}{\text{\normalfont{maximize}}} & \quad & c \tag{\ref{eq11plus}} , \end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
\noindent where $\mathcal{K}_{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}$ is the set of constraints \eqref{eq11a}-\eqref{eq11c} excluding the constraint on the beam configurations, which are fixed to $(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$.
Problem \eqref{eq11plus} can be efficiently solved with an iterative fixed point algorithm that is described in the next section and also in the Appendix.
Problem \eqref{eq11plus} also enables us to define a function that maps an arbitrary beam configuration $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}$ to a rate fraction $c^{\star}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{utility_map}
U:{\mathcal{Q}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{++}:({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \mapsto c^{\star},
\end{equation}
where $c^{\star}$ is the component of the tuple (${\boldsymbol{p}}^{\star},c^{\star}$) that solves \eqref{eq11plus} for a given beam configuration $(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$.
In this study, we propose to maximize $U$ with a \ac{SA} algorithm that adjusts the receive beam width and direction of the \acp{AP}.
Briefly, the proposed \ac{SA} approach selects the parameters $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star)$ from a discrete beam configuration set $Q$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_utility}
({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star) \in \underset{({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}}{{\argmax}} \hspace{3pt} U({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}),
\end{equation}
and the remaining optimal variables of problem \eqref{eq11plus} are obtained with the fixed point algorithm described next.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=79mm]{figures/fraction_illustration.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the weighted rate allocation scheme. Each user gets a portion $c=35\%$ of its interference-free rate.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\section{Solution Framework} \label{s6}
\subsection{Optimal Utility Power Allocation, and \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} Assignment for a given Beam Configuration} \label{s6a}
To reformulate problem \eqref{eq11} in the canonical form \eqref{eq18} in the Appendix for a given $(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$, we first apply the following transformation for every $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$ (assuming $c>0$):
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{$
\begin{array}{rl}
c\overbar{R}_n = R_n({\boldsymbol{p}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}) \Leftrightarrow & c\overbar{R}_n = \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{max}} W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},m)\end{pmatrix} \vspace{5pt} \\
\Leftrightarrow & \dfrac{1}{c} = \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{min}}\dfrac{\overbar{R}_n}{W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},m)\end{pmatrix}} \vspace{5pt} \\
\Leftrightarrow & \dfrac{1}{c}p_n = \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{min}}\dfrac{\overbar{R}_n p_n}{W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},m)\end{pmatrix}},
\end{array}
$}
\end{equation*}
Or, more compactly,
\vspace{-1pt}
\begin{equation} \label{eq14}
{\boldsymbol{p}} \in \text{Fix} \left (cT^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})} \right),
\vspace{-1pt}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\vspace{-1pt}
\begin{equation} \label{eq15}
T^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{++}^N: {\boldsymbol{p}} \mapsto \left [ t_1^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}({\boldsymbol{p}}), ...,t_N^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}({\boldsymbol{p}}) \right ],
\vspace{-1pt}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{1.0\hsize}{!}{$
\begin{array}{rcl}
t_n^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})} :\mathbb{R}_{+}^N & \rightarrow & \mathbb{R}_{++} \\
{\boldsymbol{p}} & \mapsto & \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{min}} \dfrac{\overbar{R}_n p_n}{W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},m)\end{pmatrix}} & \text{if } p_n > 0 \\
\underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{\text{min}} \dfrac{\overbar{R}_n \ln{2}}{W h_{m,n}} \left ( I_{m,n'} + \sigma^2_{\text{noise}} \right ) & \text{otherwise,} \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}
$}
\end{equation*}
for every $n \in {\mathcal{N}}$.
Note, that $T^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})}$ is a positive concave mapping with continuous extension at $p_n = 0$ that fulfills the properties of \thref{def_2} given in the Appendix.
Consequently, for $(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}$ and a maximum power budget $\overbar{P} > 0$, the utility maximization problem in \eqref{eq11plus} can be stated as the power allocation problem:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq12}
\begin{alignat}{3}
& \underset{{\boldsymbol{p}},c}{\text{\normalfont{maximize}}} & \quad & c \tag{\ref{eq12}} \\
& \text{\normalfont{subject to}} & & {\boldsymbol{p}} \in \text{Fix}\left ( cT^{(\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})} \right )\label{eq12a} \\
& & & \left \| {\boldsymbol{p}} \right \|_\infty \le \overbar{P} \label{eq12b} \\
& & & {\boldsymbol{p}} \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^N, c \in \mathbb{R}_{++} . \label{eq12c}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
The problem in \eqref{eq12} is a particular case of \thref{problem_1} in the Appendix. It can be solved with the simple iterative fixed point algorithm given in \eqref{eq19} in the Appendix.
Its relation to problem \eqref{eq11} can summarized as follows.
Suppose that $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{\star},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\star})$ is the optimal beam configuration to problem \eqref{eq11}.
If we solve \eqref{eq12} by fixing $\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} = {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{\star}$ and $\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} = {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\star}$, then the solution $(c^{\star},{\boldsymbol{p}}^{\star})$ to \eqref{eq12} is also the optimal fraction $c^{\star}$ and power ${\boldsymbol{p}}^{\star}$ to problem \eqref{eq11} .
Furthermore, the optimal \ac{AP} assignment $m^{\star}$ to \ac{UE} $n$ can be recovered from the equality
\begin{equation}\label{ue_ap_assignment_equation}
m^{\star} \in \underset{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}{{\argmin}} \hspace{3pt} \dfrac{\overbar{R}_n p^{\star}_n}{W\log_2\begin{pmatrix}1+s_n({\boldsymbol{p}}^{\star},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{\star},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{\star},m)\end{pmatrix}}.
\end{equation}
As shown above, if the optimal beam configuration is known, \eqref{eq11} can be solved optimally with a simple algorithm.
\subsection{Receive Beam Width and Direction Adjustment using Simulated Annealing Heuristics} \label{s6b}
Now, we propose a meta-heuristic based on \ac{SA} \cite{haggstrom2002finite} to obtain the optimal beam configuration.
Recall that the \ac{SA} algorithm works with a parameter called temperature $\tau$, which is to be cooled down as the beam configurations change.
The notion of cooling is interpreted as decreasing the probability of accepting solutions with worse \emph{utility} as the search space is explored.
We define the following main components of the \ac{SA} that are relevant to our optimization problem:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=13pt]
\item \textbf{Solution presentation:} The solution presentation for $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ determines that the \emph{utility} $U({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ (obtained by solving \eqref{eq12} with $\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}} = {\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ and $\overbar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} = {\boldsymbol{\beta}}$) is associated with the beam width and direction adjustment problem.
\item \textbf{State transition mechanism (neighborhood search):} The algorithm starts from the initial state $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{\text{init}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\text{init}}) \in {\mathcal{Q}}$. The state $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{\text{init}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\text{init}})$ is chosen such that all \acp{AP} select the largest beam width possible and the direction that points to the hotspot area. The main idea of the neighborhood search is that for a given temperature $\tau$, we randomly select a new state $\left( {\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}' \right) \in {\mathcal{Q}} \setminus \left( {\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \right)$, calculate the corresponding \emph{utility} \eqref{utility_map}, and replace the current solution $\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \right)$ with $\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}' \right)$ if the \emph{utility} is improved.
\item \textbf{Cooling procedure:} At the initial stage, the \ac{SA} algorithm starts with the highest possible temperature, $\tau_{\text{max}}$.
Throughout an iterative procedure, the temperature is gradually decreased.
In each iteration and for a given temperature $\tau$, the algorithm determines $\Delta U = U({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}') -U({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ and computes the acceptance probability $\text{Pr}(\Delta U)$ of the new solution:\vspace{10pt}
\begin{equation}\label{eq17}
\text{Pr}(\Delta U) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
e^{\frac{\Delta U}{\tau}} &, \Delta U \le 0\\
1 &, \Delta U > 0
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
In case of $\Delta U>0$ the new solution is always accepted.
For $\Delta U \le 0$ the new solution accepted if $\text{Pr}(\Delta U) > rand(0,1)$.
This scheme aims to jump out from a temporary local minimum.
The acceptance probability of the new solution decreases as the temperature decreases or as the \emph{utility} of the new state is insufficient ($\Delta U$ obtains a large negative value) as shown in \eqref{eq17}.
\item \textbf{Termination criteria:} The \ac{SA} algorithm terminates if no improvement on the \emph{utility} is reached after a certain number of iterations. Otherwise, it continues the search procedure until the final temperature is reached.
\end{enumerate}
The implemented steps of our \ac{SA} scheme are given in Algorithm~\ref{alg1}.
After termination, we obtain a triplet $({\boldsymbol{p}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star)$ that solves the problem in \eqref{eq11}, and corresponding \ac{UE}-\ac{AP} assignment can be recovered from solution, as shown in \eqref{ue_ap_assignment_equation}.
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\setcounter{algorithm}{1}
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\caption{Receive Beam Width and Direction Adjustment}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $\overbar{P}, {\mathcal{Q}} , {\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{\text{init}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\text{init}}, i_{\text{max}}, \tau_{\text{max}}, \tau_{\text{min}},$
\ENSURE $({\boldsymbol{p}}^\star, {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star, {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star)$
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Initialize:}}
\ENSURE $\tau = \tau_{\text{max}}, {\boldsymbol{\theta}} = {\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{\text{init}}, {\boldsymbol{\beta}} = {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\text{init}}$
\STATE Compute \emph{utility} \eqref{utility_map} for $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$
\WHILE{$\tau > \tau_{\text{min}}$}
\FOR{$i=1$ \TO $i_{\text{max}}$}
\STATE Compute \emph{utility} \eqref{utility_map} for $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}') \in \mathcal{Q} \setminus \left( {\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \right)$
\STATE $\Delta U = U({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}') -U({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$
\STATE flag = 1
\IF{$\Delta U>0$}
\STATE Accept $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \leftarrow ({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}')$
\ELSE
\STATE Calculate probability, $\text{Pr}(\Delta U) = e^{\frac{\Delta U}{\tau}}$
\IF{$\text{Pr}(\Delta U) > rand(0,1)$}
\STATE Accept $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \leftarrow ({\boldsymbol{\theta}}',{\boldsymbol{\beta}}')$
\ELSE
\STATE Reject $({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) \leftarrow ({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$
\STATE flag = 0
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{flag = 1}
\STATE Update $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star) = ({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\vspace{3pt}
\STATE $\tau = \tau / \log(i+1)$
\vspace{3pt}
\ENDWHILE
\STATE $({\boldsymbol{p}}^\star, c^\star) \leftarrow$ solution to \eqref{eq11plus} with $({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^\star,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^\star)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-15pt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Here we present an Italian criminal case that shows how statistical methods can be used to extract information from a series of mixed DNA profiles. The case involves several different individuals and a set of different DNA traces. The case possibly involves persons of interest of a small, population of Romani origin. The Romani or Romany, colloquially known as Gypsies or Roma, are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, traditionally itinerant, living mostly in Europe and the Americas and originating from the Northern Indian subcontinent, \ie from Rajasthan, Haryana, and Punjab regions of modern-day India. We first give a brief overview of the presence of the Romani in Italy today. { Some historical background about this population is given in Appendix 1.} The case involved a certain number of persons of interest (PoI) and many DNA mixture traces. A useful index is developed for the preliminary evaluation of which potential PoI is more likely to have contributed to a set of mixed DNA samples. We base the analysis of the DNA mixture on the model described in \textcite{cowell:etal:15}. This model takes fully into account the peak heights and the possible artefacts, like stutter and dropout, that might occur in the DNA amplification process. The model is an extension of the gamma model developed in \textcite{Gammamodel} and \textcite{cowell2007identification}, and used in \textcite{cowell:etal:13}.
The likelihood ratios computed using a fully continuous model led us to subvert the inculpatory conclusions that were drawn by the public prosecutor's expert when using semi-quantitative models. We also show that using appropriate population databases is very important especially when a genetically isolated population might be involved.
In fact, the results show that using different population databases for the allele frequencies in analysing this case can lead to very different results, some seemingly inculpatory and some seemingly exculpatory. In \textit{People v. Prince case},\footnote{336 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), rev. granted, 132 P.3d 210 (Cal. 2006), rev. dismissed, 142 P.2d 1184 (Cal. 2006).} a California Court of Appeal stated that ``only the perpetrator's race be relevant to the crime; hence, it
is impermissible to introduce statistics about other races''. \textcite{kaye2008dna} rightly critiques
this reasoning and presents a logical justification
for referring to a range of races and identifies problems with the
one-race-only rule.
{ Here we also analyse the results when allowing for an ambient degree of relatedness among the Romani reference populations.}
\paragraph{The Romani in Italy}
There are roughly 130,000--170,000 people of Romani and Sinti origin in Italy. They are about 0.23\% of the total population. This percentage is among the lowest in Europe. Roughly 50\% of the Romani and Sinti people in Italy are Italian citizens.
They are not a nomadic population: 85-90\% of the Romani and Sinti people in Europe have been sedentary for a long time. Only 2-3\% in Italy are nomads. They are an extremely young population: 60\% are under 18 years of age, of those, 30\% are aged between 0 and 5 years, 47\% between 6 and 14, and 23\% are aged between 15 and 18.
Only 2-3\% are over 60.
\section{Outline of the Case}
\label{sec:case}
In a small village in North Italy, four men broke into a private courtyard trying to commit a theft. They were noticed by two bystanders and fled. The two bystanders alerted the local police station and, to escape from a patrol, the four rogues stopped a car driver, hijacked his car and then disappeared. The next day, the car was found, concealed in a country road, and a baseball cap was retrieved in the vehicle's seat. The cap did not belong to the car owner. The investigators concluded that the cap could be a link to identify one of the four offenders. The cap was brought to the local DNA laboratory, inspected under UV light and seven fabric samples were excised from its inner side. We will denote these samples B1, B2,$\cdots$,B7. The samples on the baseball cap were all DNA mixtures.
Samples B1, B2, B4 and B5 were taken from the front of the cap, B7 from the crown and B3 and B6 from the underside of the cap peak.
Five individuals - two of them of Romani ethnicity, together with the car owner - were subsequently examined. We call these persons of interest (PoI). A saliva swab was taken from all PoI to obtain their DNA profiles. These profiles were compared to the mixed DNA evidence from the baseball cap.
The analyst then concluded that, on one hand, none of the contributors matched the consensus profile he had previously given to the police. On the other hand, he declared that he noticed a
resemblance between the profiles on the cap and a profile of one of the six PoI. We will henceforth, refer to this man as the suspect $A$. The suspect was a middle aged man of Romani origin, {who had been previously condemned for other crimes.}
A forensic scientist working for the police investigation, initially delivered a written report on the case. The interpretation of the seven profiles were considered as evidence and a ``consensus'' genotype of an ``unknown'' individual was made. The ``unknown'', was assumed to have had worn the cap while committing the attempted robbery and had left his DNA on each of the seven mixed DNA samples, together with that of a couple of other
contributors unrelated to the robbery (the car owner's DNA was not in any of the mixtures). However, the {consensus} genotype was incompatible with $A$'s genotype on 16 out of 21 loci.
The statistical analysis {written in the report given to the court by the forensic scientist, involved} seven samples and was based on the use of four distinct software systems. These were {ArmedXpert}\textsuperscript{\textregistered}, LRmixStudio, LabRetriever and DNAview, none of which use a fully continuous model for the peak height information {(unlike the study we give here)}, but use semi-continuous methods, which
are based on the allele information possibly in conjunction with probabilities of allelic dropout and dropin. Seven separate likelihood ratios were reported for each analysis made with the different software systems. For sample B3, a likelihood ratio of $6.19 \times 10^6$ was given under a prosecution hypothesis that $A$ and $2$ unknowns contributed to the mixture. For sample B6, under the same prosecution hypothesis a likelihood ratio of $3.12 \times 10^{21}$ was reported. {For both these likelihood ratios the alternative hypothesis was never mentioned. We argue that this is a strongly misleading way of reporting a likelihood ratio as both prosecution and defence hypotheses need to be clearly stated.}
In the report the Caucasian\footnote{\texttt{https://strbase.nist.gov/NISTpop.htm}} and an Italian reference population of allele frequencies were used. There was no mention of the Romani ethnic group allele frequencies. { The suspect was from a small population of Romani origin, living in Piedmont, North West Italy. Romani are an ethnic group of about 10 million individuals of predominantly West Eurasian ancestry scattered throughout Europe and Asia \cite{moorjani2013reconstructing}. Due to cultural and linguistic barriers, they seldom intermingle with Caucasians. Their allele frequencies are therefore quite different from Caucasians , and Caucasian Italians. }
As the aftermath of this court case --as might occur possibly in other judiciary proceedings-- the suspect was detained for several months awaiting trial. He eventually agreed to plea a bargain, as he had already spent the time of a reduced sentence in jail. He was then sent for a further, short house detention.
{ Here we show, what we believe should have been the way that this case should have been analysed. }
\section{Statistical Methods}
\label{sec:stat}
\subsection{Selection of PoI and samples}
\label{sec:poi}
The data available consists of seven different DNA samples, namely, B1, B2,$\cdots$, B7 and the DNA profiles of six people of interest, among whom $A$ the suspect. Here we give a preliminary heuristic evaluation on which potential contributor might have contributed to each of the 7 DNA samples. To do so, we built a ``presence index" associated to each potential contributor within each DNA sample.
{ This index can be used in an investigative phase as a useful exploratory tool when one has many mixtures and potential contributors and no clear prosecution and defence hypotheses. This tool is useful to avoid having to compute all possible likelihood ratios for all combinations of contributors and mixtures for the analysis of DNA mixtures using peak height information.}
Let $j=1,2,\dots,k$ denote the various DNA samples available, $m=1,\dots,M$ the different markers having $a=1,2\dots,A_m$ allelic types. For a marker $m$, $n_{a}^m$ denotes the number of alleles of type $a$ an individual possesses, and $O_m$ denotes the set of observed alleles in a mixture above a threshold $C$. The ``presence index" associated to each potential contributor to mixture $j$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PI}
P = \frac{1}{2M }\sum_{m=1}^M \sum_{a=1}^{A_m} I_{O_m}(n_{a}^m),
\end{equation}
where
$$I_{B}(x) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if} \; \; x \in B\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$
is the indicator function.
For mixture $j$, and potential contributor $i$, the index $P_{ij}$
\begin{equation}
P_{ij}=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if all alleles possessed by $i$ have a peak above $C$ } \\
0 & \text{if none of $i$'s alleles have a peak above $C$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
$P_{ij}$ measures the proportion of each potential contributor $i$'s alleles in mixture $j$. $P_{ij}$ ranges from $0$ to $1$.
If none of an individual $i$'s alleles are present in mixture $j$ then $P_{ij}=0$. { Further details regarding the computation of index $P_{ij}$ are given in Appendix 2.}
\begin{table}[ht]
{
\caption{Presence index $P_{ij}$ for each potential contributor $i$ to each DNA mixture $j$.}
\label{tab:p.i}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|rrrrrr|r|}
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Persons of Interest} & \\
Samples & $A$&$B$&$C$&$D$&$E$&$F$& Average\\
\hline
B 1 & 0.50 & 0.62 & 0.50 & 0.35 & 0.38 & 0.42 & 0.46 \\
B 2 & 0.50 & 0.62 & 0.50 & 0.38 & 0.42 & 0.42 & 0.47 \\
B 3 & 0.58 & 0.62 & 0.62 & 0.46 & 0.62 & 0.54 & 0.57 \\
B 4 & 0.50 & 0.65 & 0.54 & 0.50 & 0.54 & 0.46 & 0.53 \\
B 5 & 0.50 & 0.62 & 0.50 & 0.35 & 0.38 & 0.42 & 0.46 \\
B 6 & 0.58 & 0.73 & 0.65 & 0.58 & 0.62 & 0.54 & 0.62 \\
B 7 & 0.50 & 0.62 & 0.58 & 0.38 & 0.42 & 0.50 & 0.50 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\end{table}
The values of $P_{ij}$ are given in \tabref{p.i} and indicate that the suspect $A$, who was charged of the crime, is more likely to be a contributor to the mixtures B3 and B6, than to the other mixtures. Samples B3 and B6 are those having the highest average presence index for suspect $A$. Individual $B$ has the highest value of $P_{ij}$ among all the PoI in samples B3 and B6 and, furthermore, $B$ has the highest value of $P_{ij}$ in these two samples.
{ The Presence index is related to potential allelic drop out from the mixture. For example, consider the genotype of suspect $B$ in sample B6. In this case, $P_{ij}$ is 0.73 ( the $6^{th}$ line of \tabref{p.i}), which implies that $73\%$ of $B$'s alleles are observed in mixture B6. So, for a proposition that assumes $B$ to be a contributor to mixture B6, $27\%$ of his alleles would have to have dropped out during the amplification process. Thus, the smaller $P_{ij}$, the smaller the likelihood that individual $i$ is a contributor to the mixture $j$. \tabref{tab1} shows the values, for the Italian reference population, of $P_{ij}$ and the corresponding likelihood ratio $\LR$ (as computed in \secref{separate}) for $H_p: S_i\&U_1\&U_2$ versus $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for mixture B6, where $S_i \in \{A,B,C,D,E,F\}$. Note that small values of $P_{ij}$ correspond to values of $\LR$ close to one, and large values of $P_{ij}$ correspond to large values of $\LR$.}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{ Presence Index $P_{ij}$ for PoI, $S_i \in\{A,B,C,D,E,F\}$, and corresponding likelihood ratio $\LR$ for $H_p: S_i\&U_1\&U_2$ $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the Italian population.}
\label{tab:tab1}
{
\begin{tabular}{|c|rrrrrr|}
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Persons of Interest} \\
& $A$&$B$&$C$&$D$&$E$&$F$\\
\hline
B 6 & 0.58 & 0.73 & 0.65 & 0.58 & 0.62 & 0.54 \\
LR & 1.04 & 44.91 & 1.87 & 1.44 & 9.91 & 1.03 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\figref{epg} shows a pictorial representation of the EPG for sample B3 at markers D3S1358 and D13S317. The labels $A$ and $B$ now denote the genotypes of the two suspects. Marker D13S317 in sample B3 has a single peak at allele $11$. $A$ and $B$ have genotypes (9,11) and (11,12), respectively, so only their allele 11 is amplified in sample B3. So, if $A$ or $B$ were a contributor to B3, one of their alleles must not have been amplified, an artefact called a dropout. For marker D3S1358, the EPG has peaks at alleles $15$, $16$, and $17$. $A$ has genotype (16,17) and $B$ has genotype (15,16), so all their alleles are present for this marker. However, under the hypothesis that both $A$ and $B$ are contributors, it is highly unlikely that the EPG would yield such a small peak at allele 16, as $A$ and $B$ would each contribute a proportion of DNA to the peak height at 16. Furthermore, if $A$ and $B$ were present their two alleles would be extremely imbalanced.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{.75\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{BF2B3F1D1.eps}}
\caption{A pictorial representation of the electropherogram, showing the peak heights and corresponding alleles, for sample $B3$ at markers D13S317 and D3S1358. The genotypes of individuals $A$ and $B$ at these markers are also given.}.
\label{fig:epg}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The weight of evidence}
\label{sec:woe}
Here we re-examine part of the evidence $E$ analysed with the semi-continuous methods used in the previous investigation. This evidence consists of the peak heights and alleles in the EPGs of samples B3 and B6, together with the genotypes of $A$ and $B$, \textit{i.e.} $E=\{A, B,\text{B3}, \text{B6}\}$. We consider how the evidence $E$ affects the comparison between the prosecution $H_p: A\& U_1\&U_2 $ and defence hypotheses $H_d:U_1\&U_2\&U_3 $
where, $H_p$ claims that $A$ and two unknown individuals, $U_1$ and $U_2$ contributed to the DNA mixture, whereas, $H_d$ states that 3 distinct unknown individuals $U_1$, $U_2$ and $U_3$ contributed to the mixture. The DNA profiles of the known individuals are
considered fixed, whereas the DNA profiles of the unknown contributors are considered mutually independent and sampled from a suitable
reference population. Similarly, a prosecution and defence hypothesis can be formulated for the other PoI, $B$, by substituting $B$ for $A$, in $H_p$. The strength of the evidence is reported as a likelihood ratio \cite{good1950probability,lindley1977problem}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:likelihoodratio}
\LR= \frac{L(H_p)}{L(H_d)}=\frac{{P}(E|H_p)}{{P}(E|H_d)}
\end{equation}
or for large values of $\LR$ as the weight of evidence: $\mbox{WoE} = \log_{10}\LR$ in the unit
ban, so that 1 ban represents a factor 10 on
the likelihood ratio \cite{good79}.
\subsection{Statistical model for DNA mixtures}
\label{sec:model}
We base the analysis of the DNA mixture on the model described in \textcite{cowell:etal:15}. This model takes fully into account the peak heights and the possible artefacts, like stutter and dropout, that might occur in the DNA amplification process. We give a brief summary of the main features of the model, for further details we refer to \textcite{cowell:etal:15}. The model is an extension of the gamma model developed in \textcite{Gammamodel} and \textcite{cowell2007identification}, and used in \textcite{cowell:etal:13}.
The model assumes that the variability at an allele is independent of the variability at other allelic positions
when the model parameters and genotypes are considered fully known. The model takes into account artefacts: stutter, whereby a proportion of a peak belonging to allele $a$ appears as a peak at allele $a-1$; and dropout, when alleles are not observed because the peak height is below a detection threshold $C$.
Consider allele $a$,
the variability of the peak height $Z_a$ at $a$ can be expressed as the gamma
distribution
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gammadist}
Z_{a} \sim \Gamma\left\{\frac{1}{\sigma^2}D_a(\phi, \xi, \mathbf{n}),\mu\sigma^2\right\},
\end{equation}
where $\phi_i$ denotes the \emph{proportion} of DNA originating
from individual $i$ prior to PCR amplification, $n_{ia}$ is the number of type $a$ alleles for individual $i$, $D_a(\phi, \xi, \mathbf{n})= (1-\xi)\sum_{i}\phi_in_{ia} + \xi\sum_{i}\phi_in_{i,a+1}$ are the effective allele counts after stutter. In a sample from a single donor, where no dropout or stutter has occurred, $\mu$ is the mean peak height and $\sigma$ is the coefficient of variation. For example, $\sigma = 0.58$ corresponds to the
standard deviation of the peak being 58\% of its mean $\mu$. The
back-stutter parameter $\xi$
determines the mean proportion of stutter that may be observed in the
allelic position one repeat less.
Here $\xi$ is the ratio of the
stutter peak with respect to the parent plus the stutter peak, rather
than the more commonly used ratio between the stutter peak and the
parent peak \cite{tvedebrink2012allelic}.
The evidence $E$ consists of the peak heights $\mathbf{z}$ as observed in the EPGs, as well
as any potential genotypes of known individuals. For given genotypes of the contributors, expressed as allele counts $\mathbf{n}=(n_{ia}, i=1,\ldots I; a =1,\ldots, A)$, given proportions $\phi$, and given values of the parameters $\psi=\left(\mu,\xi, \sigma \right)$, all observed
peak heights are independent and for a given hypothesis $\H$,
the full likelihood is obtained by summing over all possible
combinations of genotypes $\mathbf{n}$ with probabilities $P(\mathbf{n}\cd \H)$ associated with $\H$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L}
L(\H) = \Pr(E\cd \H) = \sum_{\mathbf{n}} L(\mathbf{\psi} \cd \mathbf{z},\mathbf{n}) P(\mathbf{n}\cd \H),
\end{equation}
where \[L(\mathbf{\psi} \cd \mathbf{z}, \mathbf{n})=\prod_m\prod_a L_{ma}(z_{ma})\] and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dens}
L_{ma} (z_{ma})= \left\{ \begin{array}{cr} g\{z_{ma};\sigma^{-2} D_a(\phi, \xi,\mathbf{n}),\mu \sigma^2\}& \mbox{ if $z_{ma}\geq C$}\\G\{C; \sigma^{-2} D_a(\phi,\xi,\mathbf{n}), \mu\sigma^2\}&\mbox{otherwise,}\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
with $g$ and $G$ denoting the gamma density and cumulative distribution function respectively.
The number of terms in this sum is huge for a hypothesis which involves several unknown contributors to the mixture, but can be calculated efficiently by Bayesian network techniques that represent the genotypes using a Markovian structure, \ie\ the allele counts for each individual being modelled sequentially over the alleles.
The maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) parameters are obtained using the \R package
\DNAmixtures\ \cite{graversen:package:13} which interfaces to the HUGIN API
(Hugin Expert A/S, 2012) through the \R package \RHugin\ \cite{manual:RHugin}.
\subsection{Comparison of allele frequencies database}
\label{sec:plots}
In both the prosecution and defence hypotheses that form the likelihood ratio (\ref{eq:likelihoodratio}) one can have several unknown contributors from a reference population. In order to compute the likelihood for each hypothesis in a DNA mixture (\ref{eq:L}) we need to compute the prior probabilities $P(\mathbf{n}\cd \H)$ associated with each hypothesis $\H$ by using a specific database of allele frequencies. This case concerns PoI from the Romani and Italian population, so we used the following reference population (RP) allele frequency databases: Macedonian Romani (M); Portuguese Romani (PO); Eastern Slovakian Romani (ES) \cite{havavs2007population,gusmao2010genetic,sotak2008genetic}, as well as the Italian Caucasian (IT). \tabref{number} shows the dimension of each of the reference population databases of allele frequencies.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Size of the reference population databases of allele frequencies for the Romani and the Italian Caucasian population.}
\label{tab:number}
\begin{tabular}{r|ccc|c}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Romani}& Italian \\
Reference Population & Macedonian & Portuguese & Eastern Slovakian & Caucasian \\
\hline
Dimension & 102 & 123 & 138 & 346 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
An artificial admix reference population of the $3$ different Romani subpopulations was also made by forming a weighted average of the allele frequencies having weights equal to the dimensions given in \tabref{number}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\caption{Allele frequency distribution for each population at 4 different markers: D18S51, D16S539, CSF1PO, FGA. $\leftrightline$ (black line) represents the Italian population, {\color{red}$\leftrightline $ } (red line) represents the Macedonian Romani population, {\color{green} $\leftrightline$ } (green line) represents the Eastern Slovakian Romani population, {$\leftrightline$ } (blue line) represents the Portuguese Romani population while {\color{cyan} $\leftrightline$ } represents the ``Mixed Romani population''. }
\label{fig:allele.freq}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{Allele_frequencies.eps}
\end{figure}
The allele frequency distributions for markers D8S1179, D21S11, CSF1PO and FGA are shown in Figure \ref{fig:allele.freq}. Some of the Romani allele frequencies are different from the Caucasian allele frequencies. Take for example, markers D21S11 and FGA, where the Romani populations tend to have large allele values not present among the Caucasian database, whereas the Caucasian have small allele values not observed among the Romani. However, the Caucasian database is much bigger, being based on over 346 individuals compared to the hundred odd individuals in the Romani databases. The smaller alleles present in the Caucasian database being rare might not have been observed in the Romani databases.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
The evidence $E$ consists of the peak heights and alleles in two EPGs from samples B3 and B6, together with the genotypes of the suspect $A$ and another individual $B$, \textit{i.e.} $E=\{A,B,\text{B3}, \text{B6}\}$. We consider how this evidence $E$ affects the comparison between the prosecution $H_p: A\& U_1\&U_2 $ and defence hypotheses $H_d:U_1\&U_2\&U_3 $
where, $H_p$ claims that $A$ and two unknown individuals, $U_1$ and $U_2$ contributed to the DNA mixture, whereas, $H_d$ states that 3 distinct unknown individuals $U_1$, $U_2$ and $U_3$ contributed to the mixture. Similarly, a prosecution and defence hypothesis can be formulated for the other PoI, $B$, by substituting $B$ for $A$, in $H_p$.
Here we analyse the evidence in the two samples separately and in combination. In all the analyses the standard threshold value $C=50$ is used. The additional unknown contributor in each hypothesis can account for any dropin that might occur in the amplification process.
\subsection{Separate analysis of samples B3 and B6.}
\label{sec:separate}
This case concerns PoI from the Romani and Italian population, so we used the following reference population (RP) allele frequency databases: Macedonian Romani (M); Portuguese Romani (PO); Eastern Slovakian Romani (ES) as well as the Italian Caucasian (IT).
\tabref{A} shows the parameter estimates and the likelihood ratios for comparing the hypotheses $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the DNA mixtures in samples $B3$ and $B6$ using the 4 different reference populations.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Estimated parameters for DNA mixture samples B3 and B6 under the prosecution hypothesis $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ and a defence hypothesis $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$.}
\label{tab:A}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|rrrrrr|rrrrrr|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B3} \\
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{A}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 523 & 0.88 & 0.00 & 0.55 & 0.30 & 0.16 & 517 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.68 & 0.32 & 0.00 \\
MA & 521 & 0.86 & 0.00 & 0.45 & 0.45 & 0.10 & 518 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00 \\
PO & 520 & 0.86 & 0.00 & 0.45 & 0.45 & 0.10 & 516 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00 \\
ES & 536 & 0.90 & 0.00 & 0.42 & 0.42 & 0.15 & 531 & 0.86 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00\\ \hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B6} \\ \hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{A}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 528 & 0.65 & 0.10 & 0.68 & 0.28 & 0.04 & 525 & 0.65 & 0.10 & 0.68 & 0.32 & 0.00 \\
MA & 526 & 0.68 & 0.13 & 0.68 & 0.30 & 0.02 & 529 & 0.68 & 0.12 & 0.69 & 0.16 & 0.16 \\
PO & 527 & 0.68 & 0.13 & 0.65 & 0.28 & 0.06 & 527 & 0.68 & 0.11 & 0.65 & 0.18 & 0.18 \\
ES & 531 & 0.70 & 0.18 & 0.69 & 0.17 & 0.14 & 526 & 0.69 & 0.14 & 0.69 & 0.31 & 0.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios for $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the separate analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations.}
\label{tab:ALR}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr|rrrr}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{B3} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{B6}\\ \hline
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\LR & 1.80& 1.22 & 1.38 & 1.75& 1.04& 0.99 & 1.00 & 1.83\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\tabref{A} and \tabref{B} show that the parameter estimates for $\mu$ and $\sigma$ { are similar in} in the different reference populations and the different hypotheses. This is expected as these parameters do not depend on the reference population used but only on the peak heights in the EPGs. Furthermore, the stutter parameter $\xi$ is almost null, indicating that potential stutter had been filtered out of the data. This can be dangerous as a true peak might be confused with a stutter peak.
The proportion of DNA contributed by the main suspect $A$ in \tabref{A} is small both in mixture B3, $\phi_{A} \in [0.1, 0.16]$, and even smaller in mixture B6, $\phi_{A} \in [0.02, 0.14]$. Under the prosecution proposition $A$ is always estimated to be the minor contributor to the DNA mixtures.
The likelihood ratio \LR\ in \tabref{ALR} for comparing $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the separate analysis of the samples yields a maximum value $\LR =1.75$ for B3 and $\LR = 1.83$ for B6 when using the Eastern Slovakian reference population. This result is far from being incriminating for the suspect $A$, contrary to the investigative analysis that led to the suspect being detained (see \secref{case}).
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Estimated parameters for DNA mixture samples B3 and B6 under the prosecution hypothesis $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ and a defence hypothesis $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$.}
\label{tab:B}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|rrrrrr|rrrrrr|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B3} \\
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{B}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 524 & 0.88 & 0.00 & 0.57 & 0.20 & 0.24 & 517 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.68 & 0.32 & 0.00 \\
MA & 524 & 0.87 & 0.00 & 0.48 & 0.31 & 0.21 & 518 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00 \\
PO & 522 & 0.86 & 0.00 & 0.49 & 0.35 & 0.16 & 516 & 0.84 & 0.00 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.00 \\
ES & 523 & 0.89 & 0.00 & 0.53 & 0.25 & 0.22 & 517 & 0.85 & 0.00 & 0.57 & 0.43 & 0.00 \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B6} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{B}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 532 & 0.69 & 0.10 & 0.58 & 0.14 & 0.29 & 524 & 0.65 & 0.08 & 0.67 & 0.33 & 0.00 \\
MA & 531 & 0.73 & 0.12 & 0.55 & 0.18 & 0.27 & 529 & 0.68 & 0.12 & 0.69 & 0.16 & 0.16 \\
PO & 529 & 0.72 & 0.11 & 0.52 & 0.24 & 0.24 & 527 & 0.68 & 0.11 & 0.65 & 0.18 & 0.18 \\
ES & 532 & 0.75 & 0.15 & 0.55 & 0.15 & 0.30 & 526 & 0.69 & 0.14 & 0.69 & 0.31 & 0.01 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios for $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the separate analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations.}
\label{tab:BLR}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr|rrrr}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{B3} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{B6}\\ \hline
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\LR& 24.16 & 9.38 & 2.91 & 19.94 & 44.91 & 23.58& 7.50& 54.33 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
However, in \tabref{B} the proportion of DNA contributed by the PoI $B$, is larger than that for the suspect $A$, $\phi_{B}\in [0.16, 0.24]$ for mixture B3 and $\phi_{B}\in [0.24, 0.30]$ for mixture B6. Furthermore, the $\LR$s in \tabref{BLR} for comparing $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ are much larger than that for suspect $A$. In sample B3 the maximum is $\LR=24.16$ for the Italian Caucasian RP, whereas in B6 the maximum is $\LR=54.33$ for the Eastern Slovakian Romani RP, indicating that $B$ might be a minor contributor to both mixtures. For the Portuguese Romani RP, the $\LR=2.91$ is small for sample B3 and is $\LR=7.5$ for sample B6. This illustrates how the weight of evidence can vary when using different reference populations, some potentially leading to exonerating and some to condemning a suspect.
This case shows that the Romani population might still be discriminated against in modern day Italy.
\subsection{Combining the evidence from samples B3 and B6}
\label{sec:joint}
There are many reasons for combining evidence, one important reason being
that it strengthens the information about the profiles of any shared
contributors.
Combining the information in multiple profiles requires a slightly
more complex analysis than that of single DNA mixture profiles, since it is now necessary to make assumptions about which -- if any -- contributors
may be in common \cite{graversen2019yara,pascali2012joint}. When combining replicates it is natural to make an
assumption that contributors are the same, however when combining
profiles from different samples one needs to carefully consider
whether there is perhaps only a partial overlap. However, once a
hypothesis describing the contributors is formulated, the mathematical
details in extending the model from one to multiple crime
scene profiles is completely straightforward.
One can assume in fact that, conditionally on the DNA profiles of the entire pool
of contributors (and the model parameters), the peak heights in one
EPG are independent of the peak heights in the other EPGs.
\tabref{Aunc} gives the parameter estimates for the combined analysis of samples B3 and B6 under the prosecution proposition
$H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ and a defence proposition $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$, where we assume that the unknown contributors may be in common.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Estimated parameters for the joint analysis of DNA mixture samples B3 and B6 under the prosecution hypothesis $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ and a defence hypothesis $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$.}
\label{tab:Aunc}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|rrrrrr|rrrrrr|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B3} \\
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{A}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 530 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.11 & 0.07 & 531 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
MA & 530 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.11 & 0.08 & 531 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
PO & 529 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 530 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.80 & 0.10 & 0.10 \\
ES & 529 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.08 & 0.10 & 530 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B6} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{A}$& $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 543 & 0.55 & 0.01 & 0.73 & 0.27 & 0.00 & 548 & 0.56 & 0.00 & 0.69 & 0.16 & 0.16 \\
MA & 554 & 0.57 & 0.10 & 0.76 & 0.17 & 0.07 & 551 & 0.57 & 0.05 & 0.72 & 0.14 & 0.14 \\
PO & 555 & 0.57 & 0.12 & 0.76 & 0.14 & 0.10 & 550 & 0.57 & 0.06 & 0.71 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\
ES & 555 & 0.59 & 0.18 & 0.82 & 0.00 & 0.18 & 552 & 0.58 & 0.08 & 0.74 & 0.13 & 0.13 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Comparing \tabref{Aunc} to \tabref{A} we see that the variability $\sigma$ decreases and the proportions given by each contributor to the mixture are more clear cut. This shows that combining the evidence can lead to a better inference about the mixture. Similar results can be seen for the hypotheses involving $B$, when comparing \tabref{Bunc} for the joint analysis to \tabref{B} for the separate analysis of B3 and B6.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Estimated parameters for the joint analysis of DNA mixture samples B3 and B6 under the prosecution hypothesis $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ and a defence hypothesis $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$.}
\label{tab:Bunc}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|rrrrrr|rrrrrr|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{12}{c|}{Sample B3} \\
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{$H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$} \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{B}$ & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 532 & 0.76 & 0.00 & 0.77 & 0.17 & 0.06 & 531 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
MA & 529 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.19 & 0.00 & 531 & 0.74 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
PO & 528 & 0.76 & 0.00 & 0.81 & 0.19 & 0.00 & 530 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.80 & 0.10 & 0.10 \\
ES & 531 & 0.76 & 0.00 & 0.78 & 0.16 & 0.06 & 530 & 0.75 & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.09 & 0.09 \\
\hline
& & & & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Sample B6} & & & \\
\hline
RP & $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ &$\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{B}$& $\mu$ & $\sigma$ & $\xi$ & $\phi_{U_1}$ & $\phi_{U_2}$ & $\phi_{U_3}$ \\
\hline
IT & 548 & 0.55 & 0.00 & 0.64 & 0.25 & 0.11 & 548 & 0.56 & 0.00 & 0.69 & 0.16 & 0.16 \\
MA & 549 & 0.56 & 0.04 & 0.69 & 0.24 & 0.07 & 551 & 0.57 & 0.05 & 0.72 & 0.14 & 0.14 \\
PO & 550 & 0.56 & 0.06 & 0.69 & 0.24 & 0.08 & 550 & 0.57 & 0.06 & 0.71 & 0.15 & 0.15 \\
ES & 554 & 0.58 & 0.09 & 0.69 & 0.17 & 0.14 & 552 & 0.58 & 0.08 & 0.74 & 0.13 & 0.13 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios \LR\ for $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the combined analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations when the contributors are in common and when they are distinct.}
\label{tab:ALRunc}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr}
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\hline
Common unknown contributors & 1.20 & 0.77 & 2.83 & 2.5 \\
Distinct unknown contributors & 1.87 & 1.20 & 1.38 & 3.2 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The first row of \tabref{ALRunc} gives the \LR\ for $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the combined analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations when the contributors may be in common in the two mixtures. The second row of \tabref{ALRunc} gives the combined analysis when we consider the contributors as distinct. The latter \LR\ is obtained by independence simply as the product of the $\LR$s for B3 and B6 given in \tabref{ALR}.
Similarly, \tabref{BLRunc} gives the \LR\ for $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the combined analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 when the contributors are considered in common and distinct. Note that in this case, considering the contributors as distinct yields a much larger \LR\ than when the contributors are in common. For example, when considering the Eastern Slovakian reference population under common contributors the $\LR=0.46$, whereas, for distinct contributors to B3 and B6 the $\LR= 1083$, which is over 2300 times that when the contributors are in common.
This illustrates that care should be taken in formulating the hypotheses on which contributors are in common and which are distinct in the joint analysis of two or more mixtures.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios \LR\ for $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the combined analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations when the contributors are in common and when they are distinct.}
\label{tab:BLRunc}
\begin{tabular}{r|rrrr}
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\hline
Common unknown contributors &0.81 & 0.58 & 0.70 & 0.46 \\
Distinct unknown contributors & 1085 &221 & 21 &1083 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
{\section{Population relatedness}
The standard approach to allowing for an ambient
degree of relatedness in a population is by means of the coancestry coefficient $\theta$, which corresponds to Wright's measure of interpopulation variation $F_{ST}$ \cite{wright1940breeding}.
Here we give results when assuming that there is an ambient degree of relatedness in the Romani population, by applying the methodology for DNA mixtures illustrated by Peter Green in his comment to \textcite{cowell:etal:15}, where he shows that in this scenario, when genotypes are represented by allele count arrays, the individual allele counts have a Beta-Binomial conditional distributions. This model was also used by \textcite{tvedebrink2010} for modelling kinship. }
{ The results are shown in the Table \ref{tab:UAFLR}. Note that population relatedness has only a very slight impact on the results.Similar results (not shown here) were found for the hypotheses concerning the PoI $B$. As noted by Peter Green for other examples, here too this
uncertainty can either increase (as in mixture B3) or decrease (as in mixture B6) the likelihood ratio $\LR$. This is in contrast with earlier examples using mixture models only involving discrete allele presence
\cite{green:mortera:09} or for the model in Cowell et al. (2007). In both these cases, this uncertainty
always reduced the weight of evidence.}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios for $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ for the separate analysis of the DNA samples B3 and B6 in the four different reference populations.}
\label{tab:UAFLR}
{ \begin{tabular}{r|rrr|rrrr}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{B3} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{B6}\\
Reference Population & MA & PO & ES & MA & PO & ES \\
\hline
LR - No relatedness & 1.22 & 1.38 & 1.75& 0.99 & 1.00 & 1.83\\
LR - $\theta=0.05$ & 1.19 & 1.35 & 1.74& 0.96 & 1.01& 1.69 \\
LR - $\theta=0.02$ & 1.12 & 1.28 &1.68 & 1.06 & 1.11 & 1.77 \\
LR - $\theta=0.01$ & 1.11 & 1.26 & 1.68& 1.10 & 1.15 & 1.81 \\
\end{tabular} }
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
\paragraph{Admixed Population}
Using an admix reference population made by forming a weighted average of the allele frequencies of the $3$ different Romani subpopulations, having weights equal to the subpopulation dimensions in \tabref{number}, we obtain the likelihood ratios shown in \tabref{admix2}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Likelihood ratios for prosecution hypothesis with suspect $A$ and PoI $B$, $H_p: A\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$ and $H_p: B\&U_1\&U_2$ \mbox{\textit{vs.}} $H_d: U_1\&U_2\&U_3$, for the admixed population for both the separate and combined analysis of mixtures B3 and B6.}
\label{tab:admix2}
\begin{tabular}{r|rr|rr|rr}
Sample & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{B3} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{B6} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{B3 \& B6 combined} \\
Suspect & $A$ & $B$ & $A$ & $B$ & $A$ & $B$ \\
\hline
LR& 1.30 & 6.27 & 1.00 & 19.11 & 1.52 & 0.53 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Note that mixing across subpopulations is not the same as averaging the allele frequencies and assuming an
undivided subpopulation. However, the appropriate analysis based on mixing subpopulations as in \textcite{green:mortera:09} needs to be adapted to DNA mixtures and is beyond the scope of this paper.
\paragraph{Upper bound on the \LR.}
For a single source trace the weight of evidence, WoE is simply $-\log_{10} \pi_s$, where $\pi_s= P(U=s)$ is the \emph{match probability} \ie\ the probability that a random member of the population has the specific DNA profile of a suspect $s$.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Upper bound on $\mbox{WoE}=-\log_{10} \pi_A$ for suspect $A$.}
\label{tab:piA}
\begin{tabular}{r|ccccc}
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\hline
Bound & 15.89 & 14.66 & 15.25& 16.14 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{Upper bound $\mbox{WoE}=-\log_{10} \pi_B$ for PoI $B$.}
\label{tab:piB}
\begin{tabular}{r|cccc}
Reference Population & IT & MA & PO & ES \\
\hline
Bound & 17.70 & 16.47 & 15.86& 16.30\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We point out that $\mbox{WoE}=\log_{10}\LR\leq -\log_{10} \pi_s$ implying that a mixed trace can never give stronger evidence than a high-quality trace from a single source.
\tabref{piA} (\tabref{piB}) gives the upper bound $-\log_{10} \pi_A$ ($-\log_{10} \pi_B$) on the weight of evidence which is much larger than the largest $\mbox{WoE}= \log_{10} \LR=\log_{10} 1.8=0.26$ in \tabref{ALR} and \tabref{ALRunc} ( $\mbox{WoE}=1.73$ in \tabref{BLR} and \tabref{BLRunc}).
The \emph{loss of evidential efficiency} $\mbox{WL}(E\cd A)$ against the suspect having genotype $A$ for evidence $E$
\[\mbox{WL}(E\cd A)=
- \log_{10}\pi_A - \log_{10}\frac{\Pr(E\cd H_p)}{\Pr(E\cd H_d)}.
\]
gives the number of bans that are lost due to the evidence being based on a mixture rather than a single source trace. For example, when using the Macedonian Romani reference population and mixture B3, the $\mbox{WL}(E\cd A)= 14.3$ is large. This points out that the data in this case were far from incriminating for the suspect $A$.
\bibliographystyle{oupvar}
|
\section{Calorimetry out of equilibrium}
Standard thermodynamics deals with equilibrium systems and their energy exchange with the environment as external parameters like the volume or the temperature are changed. If these changes are slow (quasistatic and along equilibria), then the entire scheme simplifies as described by the thermodynamic laws for reversible processes. There heat and entropy get proportional (Clausius heat theorem). As the ability of a specific system to exchange heat and store energy is usually given in terms of the heat capacity (the heat contribution from temperature changes) and the latent heat (when temperature is unchanged), those quantities also yield important information about the internal structure of the equilibrium system. In that way, calorimetry has provided crucial information about microscopic structures and the nature of the physical states.
Concerning possible generalizations, the first (and by now more standard) option is to go beyond quasistatic processes and towards a time-resolved thermodynamics. That can be done within the framework of linear response and it naturally leads to a frequency-dependent generalization of the heat capacity and related thermodynamic quantities. That was mostly studied for equilibrium systems, with the zero-frequency limit recovering the usual reversible thermodynamic picture. See e.g. \cite{ND} and also the very recent \cite{dio} in the context of stochastic thermodynamics.
In the present paper we suggest a similar step forward in the study of thermodynamic processes connecting steady states of nonequilibrium systems.\\
It is important to realize that in driven nonequilibrium systems the heat exchange runs upon a dissipation background. It means that the total heat exchanged with the environment goes virtually to infinity when making the process slower and slower because of its DC-component coming from the steady dissipation. Hence, we are really interested not in the (eventually diverging) total heat but in its \emph{excess} part coming from changes in the temperature and/or other parameters.
On the theoretical side, a natural question arises whether such an excess heat is well defined in the quasistatic regime, in the sense of being essentially insensitive of the actual speed of the process as long as it is slow enough. This question has been answered in the affirmative; see \cite{eu,jir}. It allows to consistently construct a generalization of the heat capacity to nonequilibrium steady states. We have checked via examples that such a steady heat capacity exhibits some new features when far from thermal equilibrium. For example, it can take negative values. Nevertheless, some more systematic understanding of how these properties reflect the structure of nonequilibrium steady states is still lacking. Response to temperature variations in the general context of fluctuation--dissipation relations has also been discussed in \cite{yol}.
Towards the experimental realization, there are other problems. First, one may want to measure the excess heat directly along a relaxation process to the new steady condition after making a small sudden change of temperature (or other parameters). One then needs to extract the transient part of the dissipated heat, i.e., the one obtained after subtracting the steady ``background'' dissipation. As a possible variation, instead of measuring the heat directly, it can also be accessed indirectly from measuring the (excess) work done by the driving forces. Yet, main issues to be solved here include the finding of the experimentally most feasible systems on which the temperature can be manipulated on time scales comparable with those of the system itself. The present paper seeks an alternative route: to extend the frequency-dependent calorimetry to truly nonequilibrium systems and to extract the quasistatic excess from its low-frequency behavior. That is the main purpose of the present paper.\\
We start in the next Section with the definition of (nonequilibrium) heat capacity. We also include in Section \ref{mar} some relevant formulae how to rewrite that specifically for processes modeled as Markov dynamics, in terms of dissipated power. The main result of the paper is in Section \ref{di} which describes the method of measuring heat capacity via temperature modulation and for which we believe the problem of excess (as a difference between very large quantities) may be avoided. Instead of making the difference of time-extensive heats, we consider there the heat flux as function of time. The heat capacity of nonequilibrium steady states then also appears as the static
limit of a nonequilibrium frequency-dependent heat capacity.
\section{Nonequilibrium theory}
We refer to \cite{eu,jir} for the initial theory and basic examples of nonequilibrium heat capacities. The basic idea builds on concepts from steady state thermodynamics as in~\cite{oon,kom2}.
The result of the present paper is to see in Section \ref{di} that the specific heat of a system under steady dissipative conditions can be measured by following the dissipated power as a function of time.
We start however next with the basic formul{\ae} which rigorously connect the nonequilibrium heat capacity with the excess heat.
\subsection{Quasistatic excess heat}
Consider a generic thermodynamic system on which external forces perform some work $W$ and which exchanges heat $Q$ with an (equilibrium) heat bath at a temperature $T$, so that
$W + Q = \De U$ is the energy balance. We assume that the external forces maintain the system under fixed nonequilibrium conditions before time zero, so that they perform work
$W_{[-t,0]} = w^{(T)}\,t$ at constant power $w^{(T)} > 0$, which passes through the system and then dissipates as heat
$-Q_{[-t,0]} = -q^{(T)}\,t$ at rate $-q^{(T)} = w^{(T)}$.
We explicitly indicate the dependence on the temperature $T$ playing the role of a control parameter. We remark that this always means the (well-defined) temperature of the equilibrium heat bath to which the system dissipates.
Both heat and work are time-extensive and nonzero because of assumed nonequilibrium conditions. In applications to fluctuating mesoscopic systems, heat and work can be physically well-defined per trajectory when the system is weakly coupled to the environment, but the heat capacity involves taking statistical averages
over possible system trajectories; see Appendix~\ref{mar}.\\
Assume now that we make a measurement of the heat under slow temperature changes starting from time zero. A general quasistatic process can be decomposed in many elementary processes, each one consisting of a tiny sudden warming up (or cooling down) and then followed by a relaxation to new steady conditions. We could sum all the elementary contributions but clearly, for both theoretical and experimental purposes, it is enough to concentrate on one such an elementary process.
Before the sudden change of temperature from $T$ to $T + \de T$ at time zero, the system was in the steady state corresponding to the bath temperature $T$. After the change, it undertakes a relaxation to the new steady state at $T + \de T$. That is a transient process and the heat
$Q_{[0,t]}$ is no longer purely extensive but it contains a transient part as well. The latter can be extracted by comparing with the steady heat under the new stationary conditions, which is $q^{(T+\de T)}\,t$. That transient contribution along the complete relaxation process,
\begin{equation}\label{qex}
\de Q^{\text{ex}} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \Bigl( Q_{[0,t]} - q^{(T+\de T)}\,t \Bigr)
\end{equation}
is called an \emph{excess heat}. Note that we really have to subtract the steady heat as corresponding to the \emph{new} temperature $T + \de T$ since the dissipation rate can be (and typically is) temperature-dependent. Under equilibrium conditions the latter would be just zero and the excess heat coincides with the total heat exchange along the elementary process. In contrast, out of equilibrium we take the difference of large (in the limit, infinite) quantities. In practice, one surely performs no time limit but, instead, let the relaxation run till it is ``essentially finished''. If $\tau$ is a characteristic time of relaxation then the excess heat $\de Q^\text{ex}$ is to be compared with the steady heat $q^{(T)} \tau$. Obviously, if
$|q^{(T)}|\tau \gg |\de Q^\text{ex}|$ then one can hardly expect the excess heat to be distinguishable against the steady dissipation background.
\subsection{Steady heat capacity}
The steady heat capacity quantifies the extra heat needed for the system to accommodate to a unit temperature change,
\begin{equation}\label{hca}
C(T) = \frac{\de Q^\text{ex}}{\de T}
\end{equation}
Analogously, one can consider more general quasistatic processes including also the change of other thermodynamic parameters, which would then lead to a nonequilibrium generalization of the latent heat (capacities). All these quantities naturally supplement the incoming heat flux $q^{(T)}$ and provide a more complete characterization of the nonequilibrium steady state and its thermal sensitivity to external perturbations.\\
Although heat is a primary quantity here, we can as well consider the \emph{excess work} defined analogously as
\begin{equation}\label{wex}
\de W^\text{ex} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \Bigl( W_{[0,t]} - w^{(T+\de T)}\,t \Bigr)
\end{equation}
where always $W_{[0,t]} + Q_{[0,t]} = U(t) - U(0)$.
Since the steady power on the system is just
$w^{(T+\de T)} = -q^{(T+ \de T)}$, we can relate~\eqref{wex} with~\eqref{qex} in the balance
$\de W^\text{ex} + \de Q^\text{ex} = \id U$. Hence, the steady heat capacity \eqref{hca} can also be written in the form
\begin{equation}\label{tex}
C(T) = \frac{\partial U}{\partial T} - \frac{\de W^\text{ex}}{\de T}
\end{equation}
where the first term is a usual temperature-energy response. Under equilibrium conditions such as constant volume and/or other thermodynamic coordinates, the second term vanishes. In this case the familiar equilibrium formula is recovered, namely that the equilibrium heat capacity coincides with the temperature-energy response coefficient. In contrast, the nonequilibrium contribution cannot be reduced to such a simple ``thermodynamic'' form and it depends on dynamical details of the system.\\
In Appendix~\ref{mar} we derive an explicit form of the nonequilibrium heat capacity for general Markov systems obeying the local detailed balance principle. The result reads that besides the steady-state average energy
$U = \langle E(x) \rangle_T$, with $E(x)$ the energy function on mesoscopic states $x$, we need still another function
$V^T(x)$, $\langle V^T(x) \rangle_T = 0$, which encapsulates the effect of nonequilibrium driving forces. In total,
\begin{equation}\label{c-mar}
C(T) = \frac{\id \langle E(x) \rangle_{T}}{\id T} -
\Bigl\langle \frac{\id V^{T}(x)}{\id T}\, \Bigr\rangle_T
\end{equation}
An important feature of the new function $V^T(x)$ is that it depends both on the state $x$ and the bath temperature $T$. Suppose we can approximately write
$V^T(x) \simeq \Phi(x) - \langle \Phi(x) \rangle_T$ with a temperature-independent ``potential'' $\Phi(x)$. Then
\begin{equation}
C(T) \simeq \frac{\id \langle \tilde E(x) \rangle_{T}}{\id T}\,,\qquad
\tilde E(x) = E(x) + \Phi(x)
\end{equation}
and we obtain an approximate formula resembling the equilibrium form for the modified energy function $\tilde E(x)$. Indeed, this is a viable simplification, e.g., in the regimes of very low or very high temperature, see~\cite{jir} for specific examples. However, such a decomposition of the function $V^T(x)$ is not possible in general.
\section{Temperature--heat response}\label{di}
In order to overcome possible experimental difficulties with measuring the excess heat above the steady dissipation background, we next discuss an alternative but theoretically equivalent scenario within the framework of time-resolved calorimetry.
The heat can generally be resolved into the time-dependent flux as
$Q_{[0,t]} = \int_0^t J^Q_s\,\id s$.
Initially we have the steady heat current $J_0^Q = q^{(T)}$ into the system (equal to minus the steady rate of dissipation at temperature $T$). Let us now modulate the temperature, $T_s = T + h_s$, at times $s \geq 0$. Within the linear response theory the heat current at time $t>0$ is
\begin{equation}\label{adm}
J^Q_t = J^Q_0 + \lambda_\infty\,h_t + \int_0^t \lambda_s\,h_{t-s}\,\id s
\end{equation}
The function $\lambda_t$ is a temporal temperature-heat ``admittance'', assumed to decay fast enough in time; $\lambda_\infty$ accounts for the immediate, non-delayed response. The latter naturally emerges in Markov systems with discrete states as a consequence of temporal coarse-graining; for a more general discussion on delayed and non-delayed contributions in the linear theories see, e.g., Section 3.1.2 in \cite{kubo}.
For other considerations of fluctuation-response relations for thermal perturbations in overdamped diffusions, see~\cite{yol}. \\
Let us again take the special case where the temperature suddenly changes at time zero from $T$ to $T+\de T$ (i.e., $h_s = \de T$ for $s>0$).
In the limit $t \to \infty$ the system approaches a new steady state at bath temperature
$T + \de T$ with the steady heat current
$J_t^Q \rightarrow J_\infty^Q = q^{(T+\de T)}$.
From~\eqref{qex}--\eqref{hca} the heat capacity $C(T)$ satisfies
\[
\int_0^\infty ( J^Q_t - J^Q_\infty)\,\id t = C(T)\,\de T
\]
so that \eqref{adm} yields
\begin{equation}\label{c-ka-relation}
C(T) = -\int_0^\infty \id t \int_t^\infty \lambda_s\,\id s = -\int_0^\infty t \lambda_t\,\id t
\end{equation}
which expresses the heat capacity in terms of the admittances. On the other hand, the shift in steady heat currents is, again from \eqref{adm},
\begin{equation}\label{sig}
J_\infty^Q - J_0^Q = B(T) \,\de T\,,\qquad
B(T) = \lambda_\infty + \int_0^\infty \lambda_t\,\id t
\end{equation}
This way both response coefficients $B(T)$ and $C(T)$ derive from the admittance $\lambda_s$ and they capture different aspects of the temperature-heat response.
As a more experimentally feasible protocol we consider the harmonic temperature oscillations
$h_s = \epsilon \,\sin(\omega s)$ with some small amplitude $\epsilon$ and frequency $\omega$. Provided the admittance $\lambda_s$ decays asymptotically as $O(e^{-\gamma s})$ with some $\gamma > 0$, the heat current at large times obtains the form
\begin{equation}\label{gaga}
J^Q_t = q^{(T)} + \epsilon\,[\si_1(\om) \sin(\om t) + \si_2(\om) \cos(\om t)] + O(e^{-\ga t})
\end{equation}
defining $\si_{1,2}(\om)$ as the in- and out-phase components of the temperature-sensitivity of the dissipation. Comparing with \eqref{adm}, they are related to the admittance $\lambda_t$ by the Fourier-Laplace transform
\
\si_1(\om) + i\, \si_2(\om) = \lambda_\infty + \int_0^\infty e^{-i\om\,t}\lambda_t\,\id t
\
From \eqref{sig} we get
$\si_1(\om = 0) = B(T)$,\, $\si_2(\om = 0) = 0$,\, and from \eqref{c-ka-relation},
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\si_1}{\partial\om}\Bigr|_{\om = 0} = 0\,,\qquad
\frac{\partial\si_2}{\partial\om}\Bigr|_{\om = 0} = C(T)
\end{equation}
Hence, combining that with \eqref{gaga}, the low-frequency asymptotics of the heat current response is
\begin{equation}
J^Q_t = J_0^Q + \epsilon\,[B(T)\, \sin(\om t) + C(T)\,\om \cos(\om t) + O(\om^2)] + O(e^{-\ga t})
\end{equation}
We see that the nonequilibrium heat capacity, as originally defined via the excess heat, provides the leading low-frequency (out-phase) correction to the steady (in-phase) linear temperature-heat relation. This also indicates how the steady heat capacity can be detected and measured from the response to slow periodic temperature variations.
Note that this is nothing but a frequency-dependent calorimetry restricted to low frequencies, see e.g.~\cite{dio}, the only difference being that in the usual equilibrium setup $J_0^Q= q^{(T)}$ vanishes. In contrast, around a steady nonequilibrium the latter provides the dominant (for $\omega \to 0$) contribution to the heat flux, whereas the heat capacity becomes the next correction.
\section{Conclusions}
Thermal properties of nonequilibria appear essential in the program of steady state thermodynamics.
Calorimetry of nonequilibrium systems may be developed to provide a useful characterization of the change in a material's thermal properties when driven away from equilibrium conditions, \cite{bioc,b2}.
Nonequilibrium heat capacities can be consistently defined in terms of the notion of excess heat, or from how the steady dissipated power varies with temperature. We have seen how temperature modulation for nonequilibria gives access to that information via the time-dependence of the instantaneous heat flux.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments:}
KN acknowledges the support from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, grant no.~17-06716S.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Four-dimensional rigid supersymmetry first appeared in 1971 in a paper
\cite{Golfand:1971iw} of Golfand and Likhtman, which is to our
knowledge the first appearance of what is now known as the $N{=}1$
$d{=}4$ Poincaré superalgebra. A few years later, Zumino
\cite{Zumino:1977av} studied rigid supersymmetry in $\mathsf{AdS}_4$, based
on the simple Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$. For many years these two
were the only known $N{=}1$ $d{=}4$ Lie superalgebras. They are both
$(10|4)$-dimensional, and, in fact, the Poincaré superalgebra can be
exhibited as a contraction of $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$ à la Inönü--Wigner. If we
wish to extend ($N{=}1$ $d{=}4$) supersymmetry beyond Minkowski and
anti~de~Sitter spacetimes, we are faced with a choice. One can study
$N{=}1$ supersymmetry algebras associated to other four-dimensional
lorentzian manifolds, as in the Lie algebraic approach of
\cite{deMedeiros:2016srz}, which results in Lie superalgebras which
are filtered deformations of subalgebras of the Poincaré superalgebra.
These filtered deformations have dimension $(n|4)$ for $n \leq 10$, and
hence, in most cases, some of the spacetime symmetry is broken. A
second approach, which is the one taken here, is to keep the
dimension of the superalgebra fixed at $(10|4)$, but sacrificing the
existence of a lorentzian metric.
In short, the present paper extends (in dimension four) the recent
classification \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} of spatially-isotropic
homogeneous spacetimes, whose geometric properties were further
studied in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2019sex}, to a classification of
$(4|4)$-dimensional simply-connected spatially-isotropic homogeneous
superspaces. In particular, we classify the $(10|4)$-dimensional Lie
superalgebras with spatial isotropy. (See later for a precise
definition.)
It is a natural question to ask, as Bacry and Lévy-Leblond did half a
century ago \cite{MR0238545}, what the possible kinematics are. This
question translates into the geometric problem of classifying the
spacetimes which admit a transitive action of a kinematical Lie group. To
answer this question, one first needs to classify kinematical Lie groups
and then study their possible homogeneous spaces. If we allow the
ambiguity of classifying homogeneous spaces up to coverings (or,
equivalently, classifying the simply-connected homogeneous spaces),
this problem has a largely algebraic solution: namely, the
classification of pairs $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$, where $\k$ is a kinematical Lie
algebra and $\mathfrak{h}$ a suitable subalgebra. With every such pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$
(subject to some mild conditions) there is associated a unique
simply-connected homogeneous space $M = \mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is a
simply-connected (and connected) kinematical Lie group with Lie
algebra $\k$ and $\mathcal{H}$ is the connected subgroup generated by $\mathfrak{h}$.
On $M$, the generators of $\k$ act as infinitesimal rotations, boosts
and spatio-temporal translations, whereas the generators of $\mathfrak{h}$ act
as infinitesimal rotations and boosts about a choice of ``origin''
determined by the subgroup $\mathcal{H}$ itself.
Let us restrict ourselves to the case of four spacetime dimensions. In
their pioneering paper \cite{MR0238545}, Bacry and Lévy-Leblond
presented a classification of kinematical Lie algebras subject to the
assumptions of the existence of automorphisms interpretable as parity
and time-reversal. These ``by no means compelling'' assumptions were
removed in \cite{MR857383}, resulting in the classification of
kinematical Lie algebras (with spatial isotropy) up to
isomorphism. Already in these papers, the observation was made that
every such kinematical Lie algebra $\k$ (of dimension 10) admits a
six-dimensional subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ so that the pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$, \emph{if
geometrically realisable as a homogeneous space}, is a
four-dimensional spatially isotropic homogeneous spacetime of a
kinematical Lie group. The precise relation between pairs $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$
and homogeneous spacetimes is a little subtle, and this problem was
revisited in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}, arriving at the
classification of simply-connected spatially-isotropic homogeneous
spacetimes which is summarised in Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes} below.
(The results in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} are not restricted to
four spacetime dimensions, but already in the four-dimensional case
they refine and slightly correct the list in \cite{MR857383}.) We
choose a basis where $\k$ is spanned\footnote{The boosts generators
$B_i$ are absent in the aristotelian spacetimes.} by
$\{J_i, B_i, P_i, H\}$ and $\mathfrak{h}$ is spanned by $\{J_i, B_i\}$, so that
the pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is uniquely determined by specifying the Lie
brackets in this basis. We use a standard shorthand notation for the
Lie brackets, where $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$ stands for $[H,B_i] = B_i$,
$[\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$ stands for $[J_i,B_j] = \epsilon_{ijk} B_k$ and
$[\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H$ stands for $[B_i,P_j]= \delta_{ij} H$, et cetera. As
already discussed in the original papers \cite{MR0238545,MR857383},
the set of isomorphism classes of kinematical Lie algebras is
partially ordered by contractions, which manifest themselves
geometrically as limits between the homogeneous spacetimes. Such
limits are discussed at length in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Simply-connected spatially-isotropic homogeneous spacetimes}
\label{tab:spacetimes}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|*{5}{>{$}l<{$}}|l}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Label} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Nonzero Lie brackets in addition to $[\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{J}] = \boldsymbol{J}$, $[\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$, $[\boldsymbol{J},\P] = \P$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Comments}\\\midrule
\hypertarget{S1}{$\mathbb{M}^4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = -\boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & & Minkowski\\
\hypertarget{S2}{$\mathsf{dS}_4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= -\boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P]= \boldsymbol{J} & de~Sitter\\
\hypertarget{S3}{$\mathsf{AdS}_4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= -\boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J} & anti~de~Sitter\\
\midrule
\hypertarget{S4}{$\mathbb{E}^4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & & euclidean\\
\hypertarget{S5}{$S^4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & [H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= \boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P]= \boldsymbol{J} & sphere\\
\hypertarget{S6}{$H^4$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= \boldsymbol{J} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J} & hyperbolic space\\
\midrule
\hypertarget{S7}{$\mathsf{G}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & & & & & galilean spacetime\\
\hypertarget{S8}{$\mathsf{dSG}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & & & & galilean de~Sitter ($\mathsf{dSG}= \mathsf{dSG}_{\gamma=-1}$)\\
\hypertarget{S9}{$\mathsf{dSG}_\gamma$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = \gamma\boldsymbol{B} + (1+\gamma)\P & & & & torsional galilean de~Sitter ($\gamma\in (-1,1]$) \\
\hypertarget{S10}{$\mathsf{AdSG}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & & & galilean anti~de~Sitter ($\mathsf{AdSG} = \mathsf{AdSG}_{\chi=0}$)\\
\hypertarget{S11}{$\mathsf{AdSG}_\chi$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H,\P] = (1+\chi^2) \boldsymbol{B} + 2\chi \P & & & & torsional galilean anti~de~Sitter ($\chi>0$) \\
\midrule
\hypertarget{S13}{$\mathsf{C}$} & & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & & carrollian spacetime\\
\hypertarget{S14}{$\mathsf{dSC}$} & & [H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} & carrollian de~Sitter\\
\hypertarget{S15}{$\mathsf{AdSC}$} & & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J} & carrollian anti~de~Sitter\\
\hypertarget{S16}{$\mathsf{LC}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & [H,\P] = -\P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H - \boldsymbol{J} & & carrollian light cone\\
\midrule
\hypertarget{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & & & & & & aristotelian static \\
\hypertarget{A22}{$\mathsf{TS}$} & & [H,\P] = \P & & & & torsional aristotelian static\\
\hypertarget{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$} & & & & & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} & Einstein static universe\\
\hypertarget{A23m}{$\mathbb{R}\times H^3$} & & & & & [\P,\P] = - \boldsymbol{J} & hyperbolic Einstein static universe\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
The homogeneous spacetimes in Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes} fall into
different classes, depending on the invariant structures that they
possess. From top to bottom, we have the lorentzian spacetimes, the
riemannian spaces, the galilean spacetimes, the carrollian spacetimes
and finally the aristotelian spacetimes. Aristotelian spacetimes are
homogeneous spaces of aristotelian Lie groups, where the boosts are
absent. Many aristotelian Lie algebras arise as quotients of
kinematical Lie algebras by the ideal generated by the boosts, when
the boosts do generate an ideal. However not all aristotelian Lie
algebras arise in this way, which motivated their classification in
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}.
The lorentzian spaces in the table ($\hyperlink{S1}{\mathbb{M}^4}$,
$\hyperlink{S2}{\mathsf{dS}_4}$ and $\hyperlink{S3}{\mathsf{AdS}_4}$) are maximally
symmetric and homogeneous spaces of the Poincaré group,
$\operatorname{Spin}(4,1) \cong \operatorname{Sp}(1,1)$ and $\operatorname{Spin}(3,2) \cong \operatorname{Sp}(4,\mathbb{R})$,
respectively. The last two isomorphisms are the spin representations,
which shows that whereas the irreducible spinor representation of
$\operatorname{Spin}(3,2)$ is real and four-dimensional, that of $\operatorname{Spin}(4,1)$ is
quaternionic and two-dimensional.
This paper aims to answer the question of what are the possible
``super-kinematics'' (in four spacetime dimensions). We will give a
full answer for the case of $N{=}1$ supersymmetry or, equivalently,
for the case of four real supercharges. In other words, we classify
the superspaces which superise the homogeneous spacetimes in
Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes}. More precisely, we classify
(simply-connected, spatially-isotropic) $(4|4)$-dimensional
homogeneous superspaces of kinematical Lie supergroups. As in the
classical (i.e., non-supersymmetric) case, we will work at the
algebraic level and will classify pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, where $\mathfrak{s}$ is a
kinematical Lie superalgebra and $\mathfrak{h}$ an admissible subalgebra,
concepts which will be defined carefully in the paper.
In a way, the superspaces in this paper belong to the same family as
the well-known Minkowski and AdS superspaces, which are recalled in
Appendix~\ref{app:lorentzian}. Two features shared by these two
superspaces is that their corresponding Lie superalgebras
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ are such that $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is a
kinematical Lie algebra (Poincaré and $\mathfrak{so}(3,2)$, respectively) and
the odd subspace $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is a four-dimensional real
representation of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ whose restriction to the rotational
subalgebra $\r \subset \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is the four-dimensional real
spinor representation of $\r \cong \sp(1)$; that is, it is the
one-dimensional quaternionic representation of $\sp(1)$ but thought of
as a real vector space. We will say that $\mathfrak{s}$ is an \emph{$N{=}1$
supersymmetric extension} of the kinematical Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ or a \emph{kinematical Lie superalgebra}, for short.
One of the main results in this paper is the classification of
kinematical Lie superalgebras up to isomorphism.
We are certainly not the first authors to ask what are the possible
``super-kinematics'' and indeed there are papers \cite{MR769149,
MR1723340,CampoamorStursberg:2008hm, Huang:2014ega} which give
partial answers to that question. In \cite{MR769149} the authors
depart from the list of kinematical Lie algebras in \cite{MR0238545}
and consider their $N{=}1$ supersymmetric extensions while still
requiring the existence of automorphisms corresponding to parity and
time-reversal. They do this by solving the Jacobi identities for the
superalgebra, having fixed the action of the rotational generators ab
initio. Their list consists of those Lie superalgebras which can be
obtained by contraction from the anti de Sitter superalgebra
$\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$. In \cite{MR1723340}, among other results unrelated to the
present paper, the authors study some of the contractions of the anti
de Sitter superalgebra $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$, paying particular attention to
(para-)Poincaré, galilean and Newton--Hooke superalgebras. In
\cite{CampoamorStursberg:2008hm}, the authors classify the kinematical
contractions of $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$ (and also of the corresponding anti de
Sitter Lie algebras of order $3$) and arrive at supersymmetric
extensions of the Poincaré, galilean, Carroll and Newton--Hooke Lie
algebras. Finally, in \cite{Huang:2014ega} the authors classify the
contractions of $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$ and in addition contract the associated
superspaces. Some of these contractions, particularly those which
result in a galilean superalgebra have also been studied by other
authors (see, e.g.,
\cite{Puzalowski:1978rv,Palumbo:1978gx,Clark:1983ne,deAzcarraga:1991fa});
although in some cases the resulting superalgebra is not an extension
of the galilean algebra but its universal central extension, the
Bargmann algebra.
In this paper, we give a fuller answer to the question, in that we do
not require the existence of parity nor time-reversal automorphisms
and hence we depart not from the kinematical Lie algebras in
\cite{MR0238545}, but from those in
\cite{MR857383,Figueroa-OFarrill:2017ycu}. In particular, our list of
Lie superalgebras includes, but substantially extends, the Lie
superalgebras which can be constructed as contractions of $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$.
Our approach is as follows. We will first classify (up to
isomorphism) the $N{=}1$ supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical
Lie algebras (with three-dimensional space isotropy) listed, for
convenience, in Table~\ref{tab:kla}. We work in full generality, but
in the end restrict attention to those superalgebras where the bracket
$[\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1},\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}]$ is nonzero. We solve this problem by
employing a uniform quaternionic formalism for all kinematical Lie
algebras and solving the Jacobi identities. The isomorphism classes
of kinematical Lie superalgebras are listed in Table~\ref{tab:klsa},
which is the first main result in this paper. We then classify the
(effective, geometrically realisable) pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ where $\mathfrak{s}$ is a
kinematical Lie superalgebra and $\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ an
admissible subalgebra. As we will show, the pair $(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h})$ defines a
homogeneous supermanifold which ``superises'' the homogeneous
spacetime described by $(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}, \mathfrak{h})$. The list of homogeneous
superspaces is contained in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, which is the
ultimate goal of this paper and contains our answer to the question of
what are the possible $(4|4)$-dimensional ``super-kinematics''.
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits} illustrates the different limits which
relate these superspaces.
\subsection*{Reader's guide} The paper is organised as follows. In
Section~\ref{sec:formalism}, we define the objects of interest and
state the classification problems that we will solve in this paper.
In Section~\ref{sec:quat-form}, we define kinematical Lie superalgebras
and set up the quaternionic formalism we will employ throughout the
paper. In Section~\ref{sec:lie-super-brack}, we set out the strategy
we shall follow in classifying kinematical superalgebras. In
Section~\ref{sec:some-preliminary-results}, we collect some useful
preliminary results we will use often and in
Section~\ref{sec:automorphisms} we discuss the nature of the
automorphisms of kinematical superalgebras.
In Section~\ref{sec:kinem-lie-super}, we classify the kinematical and
aristotelian Lie superalgebras, arriving at Tables~\ref{tab:klsa} and
\ref{tab:alsa}. In doing so, we had to determine the automorphisms of
the kinematical Lie algebras, which are summarised in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-kla}. Once having classified the kinematical and
aristotelian Lie superalgebras, we determine their (nontrivial)
central extensions in Section~\ref{sec:central-extensions}. For later
use, we need to determine the automorphisms of the Lie superalgebras
(which fix the rotational subalgebra) and this is done in
Section~\ref{sec:autom-kinem-lie}.
In Section~\ref{sec:homog-supersp}, we classify the pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ and
hence the simply-connected homogeneous superspaces, which are listed
in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}. In that table we list, in particular,
the underlying homogeneous kinematical or aristotelian spacetime for
each of our superspaces. In Section~\ref{sec:low-rank-invariants}, we
determine the invariant tensors of low rank in each of the superspaces
in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}. In Section~\ref{sec:limits-betw-supersp},
we explore how the superspaces in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces} are
related via geometric limits, arriving at the picture in
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits}, which is to be contrasted with the
similar picture (see Figure~\ref{fig:sub-limits}) for the homogeneous
spacetimes. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}, we offer some
conclusions and point to possible extensions of this work.
This paper contains the details of two classifications: kinematical
Lie superalgebras and their associated superspaces. As such it is
somewhat lengthy and somewhat technical. Readers who are pressed for
time might benefit from some hints about navigating the paper towards
the main results. In order to arrive at these results we reformulated
the problem in terms of quaternions and this formalism is described in
Section~\ref{sec:quat-form}. The Lie algebraic classifications are
the subject of Section~\ref{sec:kinem-lie-super}, but the main results
are Table~\ref{tab:klsa} for the kinematical superalgebras and
Table~\ref{tab:alsa} for the aristotelian superalgebras. The
(nontrivial) central extensions are tabulated in
Table~\ref{tab:central-ext}. Section~\ref{sec:homog-supersp} contains
the classification of the superspaces, starting with
Section~\ref{sec:homog-superm}, which explains the infinitesimal
description of the superspaces in terms of super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$,
and ending with Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, which lists the
superspaces together with the underlying spacetime and a description
of the corresponding Lie superalgebra.
Section~\ref{sec:limits-betw-supersp} discusses how these superspaces
relate to each other via geometric limits, leading to
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits}. The figures and the tables are
hyperlinked for ease of navigation.
\section{Basic definitions and the statement of the problem}
\label{sec:formalism}
In this section, we set up the classification problems of kinematical
Lie superalgebras and homogeneous kinematical superspaces and
introduce the quaternionic formalism we shall employ in the rest of
the paper.
\subsection{Kinematical Lie algebras}
\label{sec:kinem-lie-algebr}
Let $\k$ be a kinematical Lie algebra (with
three-dimensional spatial isotropy). It is a real 10-dimensional Lie
algebra with a subalgebra $\r \cong \mathfrak{so}(3)$ and such that under the
adjoint action of $\r$, $\k$ decomposes as $\k = \r \oplus 2 V \oplus
\mathbb{R}$, where $V$ is the three-dimensional irreducible vector
representation of $\r$ and $\mathbb{R}$ is the trivial one-dimensional scalar
representation. A real basis for $\k$ is given by $J_i$, $B_i$, $P_i$
and $H$, where $i =1,2,3$, where $J_i$ span $\r$, $B_i$ and $P_i$ span
the two copies of $V$ and $H$ is a scalar generator. The Lie brackets
common to all kinematical Lie algebras are (using summation
convention):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:klb}
[J_i, J_j] = \epsilon_{ijk} J_k \qquad [J_i, B_j] = \epsilon_{ijk}
B_k \qquad [J_i, P_j] = \epsilon_{ijk} P_k \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[J_i, H] = 0.
\end{equation}
Such kinematical Lie algebras were classified up to isomorphism
by Bacry and Nuyts\cite{MR857383} (see also
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2017ycu}) completing the earlier
classification of Bacry and Lévy-Leblond \cite{MR0238545} of
kinematical Lie algebras admitting time-reversal and parity
automorphisms. Table~\ref{tab:kla} summarises the classification by
listing the Lie brackets, in addition to the ones in
equation~\eqref{eq:klb}. We use the by now standard abbreviated
notation, where the vector indices are not explicitly written down, so
that, for instance,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P &\qquad\text{stands for}\qquad [H,B_i] = - P_i \\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \P] = H &\qquad\text{stands for}\qquad [B_i, P_j] = \delta_{ij} H\\
[\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} &\qquad\text{stands for}\qquad [P_i, P_j] = \epsilon_{ijk} J_k,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
et cetera. In this abbreviated notation, the brackets in
equation~\eqref{eq:klb} are written as
\begin{equation}
[\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{J}] = \boldsymbol{J} \qquad [\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} \qquad [\boldsymbol{J}, \P] = \P \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\boldsymbol{J}, H] = 0.
\end{equation}
The one-parameter families $3_\gamma$ and $4_\chi$ of kinematical Lie
algebras extend the lorentzian and euclidean Newton--Hooke Lie
algebras, which correspond to $3_{\gamma=-1}$ and $4_{\chi = 0}$,
respectively.
It should be remarked that the correspondence between kinematical Lie
algebras and their (simply-connected) homogeneous spacetimes is not
bijective: there are kinematical Lie algebras with no associated
homogeneous spacetimes and, conversely, there are kinematical Lie
algebras with which there are associated more than one homogeneous
spacetime. In describing the spacetimes in
Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes}, we have changed basis in the kinematical
Lie algebra $\k$ to ensure that the stabiliser subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ is
always spanned by $J_i$ and $B_i$. This explains any perceived
discrepancy between Tables~\ref{tab:spacetimes} and \ref{tab:kla}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Kinematical Lie algebras}
\label{tab:kla}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|*{5}{>{$}l<{$}}|l}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{K\#} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Nonzero Lie brackets (besides $[\boldsymbol{J},-]$ brackets)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Comment}\\\toprule
\hypertarget{KLA1}{1} & & & & & & static \\
\hypertarget{KLA2}{2} & [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & & & & & galilean \\
\hypertarget{KLA3}{3$_{\gamma\in[-1,1]}$} & [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \gamma \boldsymbol{B} & [H ,\P] = \P & & & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA4}{4$_{\chi\geq0}$} & [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \chi \boldsymbol{B} + \P & [H ,\P] = \chi \P - \boldsymbol{B} & & & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA5}{5} & [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} + \P & [H , \P] = \P & & & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA6}{6} & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & & & Carroll \\
\hypertarget{KLA7}{7} & [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{J} & & euclidean \\
\hypertarget{KLA8}{8}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = - \P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = - \boldsymbol{J} & & Poincaré \\
\hypertarget{KLA9}{9}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & [H ,\P] = -\P & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H - \boldsymbol{J} & & & $\mathfrak{so}(4,1)$ \\
\hypertarget{KLA10}{10}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & [H ,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= \boldsymbol{J} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} & $\mathfrak{so}(5)$ \\
\hypertarget{KLA11}{11}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & [H ,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= -\boldsymbol{J} & [\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J} & $\mathfrak{so}(3,2)$ \\
\hypertarget{KLA12}{12}& & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= \boldsymbol{B} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B}-\boldsymbol{J} & \\
\hypertarget{KLA13}{13}& & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]= \boldsymbol{B} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J}-\boldsymbol{B} & \\
\hypertarget{KLA14}{14}& & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA15}{15}& & & & [\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{B}] = \P & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA16}{16}& & [H ,\P] = \P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA17}{17}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P & & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & & \\
\hypertarget{KLA18}{18}& [H ,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & [H ,\P] = 2\P & & [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \P & & \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Kinematical Lie superalgebras}
\label{sec:quat-form}
We start by defining the objects of interest.
\begin{definition}
An ($N{=}1$) \textbf{kinematical Lie superalgebra} (with
three-dimensional space isotropy) is a real Lie superalgebra
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$, where $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} = \k$ is a
kinematical Lie algebra (with three-dimensional space isotropy) and
$\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} = S$, where $S$ is a representation of $\k$ which
extends the four-dimensional real spinor representation of the
rotational subalgebra $\r$.
\end{definition}
Under the isomorphism $\r \cong \sp(1)$, we may take $S$ to be a copy
of the quaternions and the action of $\r$ on $S$ is essentially given
by left quaternion multiplication. Let us be more precise. We shall
denote the quaternions by $\mathbb{H}$ and the quaternion units by
$\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k}$, where $\mathbb{i}^2 = -1$, $\mathbb{j}^2 = -1$ and
$\mathbb{i}\mathbb{j}= \mathbb{k} = - \mathbb{j}\mathbb{i}$.
Let us define the following injective real linear maps (again using
the summation convention):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:quat-basis-s}
\begin{split}
\mathsf{J} : \Im\mathbb{H} \to \mathfrak{s} &\qquad\text{given by}\qquad \mathsf{J}(\omega) =
\omega_i J_i \qquad\text{for}\qquad \omega = \omega_1 \mathbb{i} +
\omega_2 \mathbb{j} + \omega_3 \mathbb{k} \in \Im\mathbb{H}\\
\mathsf{B} : \Im\mathbb{H} \to \mathfrak{s} &\qquad\text{given by}\qquad \mathsf{B}(\beta) =
\beta_i B_i \qquad\text{for}\qquad \beta = \beta_1 \mathbb{i} +
\beta_2 \mathbb{j} + \beta_3 \mathbb{k} \in \Im\mathbb{H}\\
\mathsf{P} : \Im\mathbb{H} \to \mathfrak{s} &\qquad\text{given by}\qquad \mathsf{P}(\pi) =
\pi_i P_i \qquad\text{for}\qquad \pi = \pi_1 \mathbb{i} +
\pi_2 \mathbb{j} + \pi_3 \mathbb{k} \in \Im\mathbb{H}\\
\mathsf{Q} : \mathbb{H} \to \mathfrak{s} &\qquad\text{given by}\qquad \mathsf{Q}(s) =
s_a Q_a \qquad\text{for}\qquad s = s_1 \mathbb{i} +
s_2 \mathbb{j} + s_3 \mathbb{k} + s_4 \in \mathbb{H},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3,Q_4)$ is a real basis for $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$. The
(nonzero) Lie brackets common to all kinematical Lie superalgebras are
then given in terms of quaternion multiplication as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:klsa-brackets-quat}
\begin{split}
[\mathsf{J}(\omega),\mathsf{J}(\omega')] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{J}([\omega,\omega'])\\
[\mathsf{J}(\omega),\mathsf{B}(\beta)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{B}([\omega,\beta])\\
[\mathsf{J}(\omega),\mathsf{P}(\pi)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{P}([\omega,\pi])\\
[\mathsf{J}(\omega),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\omega s)\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\omega,\omega',\beta,\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in \mathbb{H}$ and where
$\omega s$ is the quaternion product and
$[\omega,\beta] := \omega \beta - \beta \omega$, et cetera, are
quaternion commutators. One can easily check that the Jacobi
identities involving at least two vectors in $\r$ are satisfied by
virtue of the associativity of quaternion multiplication. For each
kinematical Lie algebra $\k$, the additional Lie brackets can also be
written quaternionically. For example,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] = - \P &\qquad\text{becomes}\qquad [H, \mathsf{B}(\beta)] = -\mathsf{P}(\beta)\\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \P] = H &\qquad\text{becomes}\qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{P}(\pi)] =
\Re(\bar\beta\pi) H = - \Re(\beta\pi) H\\
[\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} &\qquad\text{becomes}\qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{P}(\pi')] =
\tfrac12 \mathsf{J}([\pi,\pi']),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
et cetera.
\subsection{Lie superalgebra brackets}
\label{sec:lie-super-brack}
Let $\mathfrak{s}$ be a kinematical Lie superalgebra where $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} = \k$ is
a kinematical Lie algebra from Table~\ref{tab:kla}. To determine $\mathfrak{s}$
we need to specify the additional Lie brackets: $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}]$, $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$,
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$, subject to the Jacobi identity. There are
four components to the Jacobi identity in a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s} =
\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The $(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}, \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0},\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0})$ Jacobi identity simply
says that $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is a Lie algebra, which in our case is one
of the kinematical Lie algebras $\k$ in Table~\ref{tab:kla}.
\item The $(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}, \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0},\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1})$ Jacobi identity says that
$\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is a representation of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ and, by
restriction, also a representation of any Lie subalgebra of
$\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$: for example, $\r$ in our case.
\item The $(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}, \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1},\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1})$ Jacobi identity says that
the component of the Lie bracket $\bigodot^2 \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} \to
\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$-equivariant. In particular, in our
case, it is $\r$-equivariant.
\item The $(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}, \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1},\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1})$ component does not
seem to have any representation-theoretic reformulation and needs to
be checked explicitly.
\end{enumerate}
Our strategy will be the following. We shall first determine the
space of $\r$-equivariant brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}]$, $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$, $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and
$[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$, which will turn out to be a $22$-dimensional real vector
space $\mathscr{V}$. For each kinematical Lie algebra $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}, we then determine the algebraic variety
$\mathscr{J} \subset \mathscr{V}$ cut out by the Jacobi identity. We are eventually
interested in \emph{supersymmetry} algebras and hence we will restrict
attention to Lie superalgebras $\mathfrak{s}$ for which $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$, which
define a sub-variety $\mathscr{S} \subset \mathscr{J}$. The isomorphism classes of
kinematical Lie superalgebras (with $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0)$ are in one-to-one
correspondence with the orbits of $\mathscr{S}$ under the subgroup
$G \subset \operatorname{GL}(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}) \times \operatorname{GL}(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1})$ which acts by
automorphisms of $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$, since we have fixed $\k$ from the
start. The group $G$ contains not just the automorphisms of the
kinematical Lie algebra $\k$ which act trivially on $\r$, but also
automorphisms which are induced by automorphisms of the quaternion
algebra. We shall return to an explicit description of such
automorphisms below.
Let us start by determining the $\r$-equivariant brackets: $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}]$,
$[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$, $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$. The bracket $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ is an
$\r$-equivariant endomorphism of the spinor module $\boldsymbol{Q}$. If we
identify $\r$ with the imaginary quaternions and $\boldsymbol{Q}$ with the
quaternions, the action of $\r$ on $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is via left quaternion
multiplication. The endomorphisms of the representation $S$ which
commute with the action of $\r$ consist of left multiplication by
reals and right multiplication by quaternions, but for real numbers,
left and right multiplications agree, since the reals are central in
the quaternion algebra. Hence the most general $\r$-equivariant
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hq-bracket}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s \mathbb{h}) \qquad\text{for some}\qquad \mathbb{h} = h_1 \mathbb{i} + h_2
\mathbb{j} + h_3 \mathbb{k} + h_4 \in \mathbb{H}.
\end{equation}
The brackets $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ are $\r$-equivariant
homomorphisms $V \otimes S \to S$, where $V$ and $S$ are the vector
and spinor modules of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$. There is an $\r$-equivariant map
$V \otimes S \to S$ given by the ``Clifford action'', which in this
language is left multiplication by $\Im \mathbb{H}$ on $\mathbb{H}$. Its kernel is
the 8-dimensional real representation $W$ of $\r$ with spin
$\frac32$.
Therefore, the space of
$\r$-equivariant homomorphisms $V \otimes S \to S$ is isomorphic to
the space of $\r$-equivariant endomorphisms of $S$, which, as we saw
before, is a copy of the quaternions. In summary, the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ brackets take the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bq-pq-brackets}
\begin{split}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b}) \qquad\text{for some}\qquad \mathbb{b} = b_1 \mathbb{i} + b_2
\mathbb{j} + b_3 \mathbb{k} + b_4 \in \mathbb{H}\\
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p}) \qquad\text{for some}\qquad \mathbb{p} = p_1 \mathbb{i} + p_2
\mathbb{j} + p_3 \mathbb{k} + p_4 \in \mathbb{H},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for all $\beta,\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in \mathbb{H}$.
Finally, we look at the $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket, which is an
$\r$-equivariant linear map $\bigodot^2 S \to \k = \mathbb{R} \oplus 3 V$.
The symmetric square $\bigodot^2S$ is a 10-dimensional representation
of $\r$ which decomposes as $\mathbb{R} \oplus 3 V$. Indeed, on $S$ we have
an $\r$-invariant inner product given by
\begin{equation}
\left<s_1,s_2\right> = \Re (\overline{s}_1 s_2)\qquad\text{where}\qquad
s_1,s_2 \in \mathbb{H}.
\end{equation}
It is clearly invariant under left multiplication by unit quaternions:
$\left<u s_1, u s_2\right> = \left<s_1,s_2\right>$ for all $u \in
\operatorname{Sp}(1)$. We can use this inner product to identify $\bigodot^2 S$ with the
symmetric endomorphisms of $S$: linear maps $\lambda : S \to S$ such
that $\left<\lambda(s_1), s_2\right> = \left<s_1, \lambda
(s_2)\right>$. Letting $L_\mathbb{q}$ and $R_\mathbb{q}$ denote left and
right quaternion multiplication by $\mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}$, the space of symmetric
endomorphisms of $S$ is spanned by the identity endomorphism and
$L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{i}$, $L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{j}$, $L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{k}$, $L_\mathbb{j} R_\mathbb{i}$, $L_\mathbb{j}
R_\mathbb{j}$, $L_\mathbb{j} R_\mathbb{k}$, $L_\mathbb{k} R_\mathbb{i}$, $L_\mathbb{k} R_\mathbb{j}$ and $L_\mathbb{k}
R_\mathbb{k}$. The nine non-identity symmetric endomorphisms transform
under $\r$ according to three copies of $V$. Since $\r$ acts on $S$
via left multiplication, it commutes with the $R_\mathbb{q}$ and hence the
three copies of $V$ are
\begin{equation}
\spn{L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{i}, L_\mathbb{j} R_\mathbb{i}, L_\mathbb{k} R_\mathbb{i}} \oplus \spn{L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{j},
L_\mathbb{j} R_\mathbb{j}, L_\mathbb{k} R_\mathbb{j}} \oplus \spn{L_\mathbb{i} R_\mathbb{k}, L_\mathbb{j} R_\mathbb{k},
L_\mathbb{k} R_\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The space of $\r$-equivariant linear maps $\bigodot^2 S \to 3 V
\oplus \mathbb{R}$ is thus isomorphic to the space of $\r$-equivariant
endomorphisms of $\mathbb{R} \oplus 3 V = \mathbb{R} \oplus (\mathbb{R}^3 \otimes V)$,
which is given by
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{End}_\r\left(\mathbb{R} \oplus (\mathbb{R}^3 \otimes V) \right) \cong \operatorname{End}(\mathbb{R}) \oplus
\left(\operatorname{End}(\mathbb{R}^3) \otimes \mathbb{1}_V\right).
\end{equation}
In summary, the $\r$-equivariant $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket is given by
polarisation from the following
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = c_0 |s|^2 H + \Re(\overline{s} \mathbb{J} s \mathbb{c}_1)
+ \Re(\overline{s} \mathbb{B} s \mathbb{c}_2) + \Re(\overline{s} \mathbb{P} s
\mathbb{c}_3),
\end{equation}
where $c_0 \in \mathbb{R}$,
$\mathbb{c}_1, \mathbb{c}_2, \mathbb{c}_3 \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and
where we have introduced the shorthands
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{J} = J_1 \mathbb{i} + J_2 \mathbb{j} + J_3 \mathbb{k}, \quad \mathbb{B} = B_1 \mathbb{i} + B_2 \mathbb{j} +
B_3 \mathbb{k}, \quad\text{and}\quad \mathbb{P} = P_1 \mathbb{i} + P_2 \mathbb{j} + P_3 \mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
Notice that if $\omega \in \Im\mathbb{H}$, then $\mathsf{J}(\omega) = \Re(\bar\omega
\mathbb{J})$, and similarly $\mathsf{B}(\beta) = \Re(\bar\beta \mathbb{B})$ and $\mathsf{P}(\pi) =
\Re(\bar\pi \mathbb{P})$, for $\beta,\pi \in \Im \mathbb{H}$, so that we can rewrite
the $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QQdiagonal}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =c_0 |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}) - \mathsf{B}(s \mathbb{c}_2
\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}),
\end{equation}
which polarises to give
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QQ}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s')] = c_0 \Re(\overline{s} s') H - \tfrac12 \mathsf{J}(s'
\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s} + s \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}') - \tfrac12
\mathsf{B}(s' \mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s} + s \mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s}') -
\tfrac12 \mathsf{P}(s' \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s} + s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}').
\end{equation}
In summary, we have that the $\r$-equivariant brackets by which we
extend the kinematical Lie algebra $\k$ live in a 22-dimensional real
vector space of parameters $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{H}$, $\mathbb{c}_1,
\mathbb{c}_2, \mathbb{c}_3 \in \Im \mathbb{H}$ and $c_0 \in \mathbb{R}$.
\subsection{Some preliminary results}
\label{sec:some-preliminary-results}
As mentioned above, one of the components of the Jacobi identity for
the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ says that $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is an $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$-module,
where $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}=\k$ is the underlying kinematical Lie algebra. The
Jacobi identity
\begin{equation}
[X,[Y,\mathsf{Q}(s)]] - [Y,[X,\mathsf{Q}(s)]] = [[X,Y],\mathsf{Q}(s)] \qquad\text{for all
$X,Y\in\k$}
\end{equation}
gives relations between the parameters $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{H}$ appearing in
the Lie brackets.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:kmod}
The following relations between $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{H}$ are implied by the
corresponding $\k$-brackets:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \lambda \boldsymbol{B} + \mu \P & \implies [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{h}] = \lambda \mathbb{b} + \mu \mathbb{p}\\
[H,\P] = \lambda \boldsymbol{B} + \mu \P & \implies [\mathbb{p},\mathbb{h}] = \lambda \mathbb{b} + \mu \mathbb{p}\\
[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \lambda \boldsymbol{B} + \mu \P + \nu \boldsymbol{J} & \implies \mathbb{b}^2 = \tfrac12 \lambda \mathbb{b} + \tfrac12 \mu \mathbb{p} + \tfrac14 \nu\\
[\P,\P] = \lambda \boldsymbol{B} + \mu \P + \nu \boldsymbol{J} & \implies \mathbb{p}^2 = \tfrac12 \lambda \mathbb{b} + \tfrac12 \mu \mathbb{p} + \tfrac14 \nu\\
[\boldsymbol{B},\P] = \lambda H & \implies \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p} + \mathbb{p} \mathbb{b} = 0\quad\text{and}\quad [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}] = \lambda \mathbb{h}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The $[\H,\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says for all $\beta \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and
$s \in\mathbb{H}$,
\begin{equation}
[[H,\mathsf{B}(\beta)],\mathsf{Q}(s)] = [H, [\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)]] - [\mathsf{B}(\beta),
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)]],
\end{equation}
which becomes
\begin{equation}
\lambda \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b}) + \mu \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{p}) = \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b} \mathbb{h}) -
\mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{h} \mathbb{b}).
\end{equation}
Since $\mathsf{Q}$ is real linear and injective, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\lambda \beta s \mathbb{b} + \mu \beta s \mathbb{p} = \beta s [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{h}],
\end{equation}
which, since it must hold for all $\beta \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in
\mathbb{H}$, becomes
\begin{equation}
[\mathbb{b},\mathbb{h}] = \lambda \mathbb{b} + \mu \mathbb{p},
\end{equation}
as desired. Similarly, the $[\H,\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity gives the
second equation in the lemma. The third equation follows from the
$[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity, which says that for all
$\beta,\beta'\in\Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s\in\mathbb{H}$,
\begin{equation}
[[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{B}(\beta')],\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),[\mathsf{B}(\beta'),\mathsf{Q}(s)]] - [\mathsf{B}(\beta'),[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)]],
\end{equation}
which becomes
\begin{equation}
\tfrac12 \lambda \mathsf{Q}([\beta,\beta'] s \mathbb{b}) + \tfrac12 \mu
\mathsf{Q}([\beta,\beta'] s \mathbb{p}) + \tfrac14 \nu \mathsf{Q}([\beta,\beta']s) =
\mathsf{Q}(\beta\beta's \mathbb{b}^2) - \mathsf{Q}(\beta'\beta s \mathbb{b}^2).
\end{equation}
Again by linearity and injectivity of $\mathsf{Q}$, this is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\tfrac12 \lambda [\beta,\beta'] s \mathbb{b} + \tfrac12 \mu
[\beta,\beta'] s \mathbb{p} + \tfrac14 \nu [\beta,\beta']s =
[\beta,\beta']s \mathbb{b}^2,
\end{equation}
which, being true for all $\beta,\beta'\in\Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in \mathbb{H}$, gives
\begin{equation}
\tfrac12 \lambda \mathbb{b} + \tfrac12 \mu \mathbb{p} + \tfrac14 \nu = \mathbb{b}^2,
\end{equation}
as desired. The fourth identity in the lemma follows similarly from
the $[\P,\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity. Finally, we consider the
$[\boldsymbol{B},\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity, which says that for all
$\beta,\pi\in\Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in\mathbb{H}$,
\begin{equation}
[[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{P}(\pi)],\mathsf{Q}(s)] = [\mathsf{B}(\beta),[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)]] -
[\mathsf{P}(\pi),[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)]],
\end{equation}
which expands to
\begin{equation}
-\lambda \Re(\beta\pi) \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h}) = \mathsf{Q}(\beta\pi s \mathbb{p} \mathbb{b}) - \mathsf{Q}(\pi\beta s \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p})
\end{equation}
or, equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BPQ-aux}
-\lambda \Re(\beta\pi) s \mathbb{h} = \beta\pi s \mathbb{p} \mathbb{b} - \pi \beta s \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p},
\end{equation}
for all $\beta,\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in \mathbb{H}$. For any two
imaginary quaternions $\beta,\pi$, we have that
\begin{equation}
\beta\pi = \tfrac12 [\beta,\pi] + \Re(\beta\pi),
\end{equation}
which allows us to rewrite equation~\eqref{eq:BPQ-aux} as
\begin{equation}
\Re(\beta\pi) s (\lambda \mathbb{h} - \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p} + \mathbb{p} \mathbb{b}) + \tfrac12 [\beta,\pi] s (
\mathbb{p} \mathbb{b} + \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p}) = 0.
\end{equation}
Taking $\beta = \pi$ and $s=1$ we see that $\lambda \mathbb{h} = [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}]$ and taking
$\beta$ and $\pi$ to be orthogonal and $s=1$, that $\mathbb{p} \mathbb{b} + \mathbb{b} \mathbb{p} = 0$, as
desired.
\end{proof}
The components $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$, $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ and $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ of the
Jacobi identity are best studied on a case-by-case basis, but the
$[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component gives a universal condition.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:qqq}
The $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity implies
\begin{equation}
c_0 \mathbb{h} = \tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} + \mathbb{c}_3 \mathbb{p}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity is totally
symmetric and hence, by polarisation, it is uniquely determined by
its value on the diagonal. In other words, it is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
[[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)], \mathsf{Q}(s)] \stackrel{!}{=} 0 \qquad\text{for all $s \in \mathbb{H}$.}
\end{equation}
Using equation~\eqref{eq:QQdiagonal}, this becomes
\begin{equation}
[c_0 |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}) - \mathsf{B}(s
\mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}), \mathsf{Q}(s)]
\stackrel{!}{=} 0,
\end{equation}
which expands to
\begin{equation}
c_0 |s|^2 \mathsf{Q}(sh) - \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s} s) - \mathsf{Q}(s
\mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s} s \mathbb{b}) - \mathsf{Q}(s
\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s} s \mathbb{p}) \stackrel{!}{=} 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathsf{Q}$ is injective, this becomes
\begin{equation*}
|s|^2 s (c_0 \mathbb{h} - \tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1 - \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} -
\mathbb{c}_3 \mathbb{p}) \stackrel{!}{=} 0.
\end{equation*}
This must hold for all $s \in \mathbb{H}$, so in particular for $s=1$,
proving the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Automorphisms}
\label{sec:automorphisms}
As mentioned above, once we determine the sub-variety $\mathscr{S}$ cut out by
the Jacobi identity, we need to quotient by the action of the subgroup
$G \subset \operatorname{GL}(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}) \times \operatorname{GL}(\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1})$ which acts by
automorphisms of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} = \k$ in order to arrive at the
isomorphism classes of Lie superalgebras. In this section, we describe
the subgroup $G$ in more detail. There are two kinds of elements of
$G$, those which act trivially on the rotational subalgebra $\r$ and
those which do not. The latter consist of inner automorphisms of
$\k$ which are generated infinitesimally by the adjoint action of
$\boldsymbol{J}$, $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\P$. The ones generated by $\boldsymbol{J}$ are particularly easy
to describe in the quaternionic formulation, and we shall do so now in
more detail.
Let $u \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$ be a unit norm quaternion. Conjugation by $u$
defines a homomorphism $\operatorname{Ad} : \operatorname{Sp}(1) \to \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{H})$ whose kernel is
the central subgroup of $\operatorname{Sp}(1)$ consisting of $\pm 1$. It is a
classical result that these are all the automorphisms of $\mathbb{H}$. Hence
$\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{H}) \cong \operatorname{SO}(3)$, acting trivially on the real quaternions and
rotating the imaginary quaternions. The action of $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{H})$ on $\mathfrak{s}$
leaves $H$ invariant and acts on the remaining generators by
pre-composing the linear maps $\mathsf{J}$, $\mathsf{B}$, $\mathsf{P}$ and $\mathsf{Q}$ with
$\operatorname{Ad}_u$. More precisely, let $\widetilde H = H$,
$\widetilde\mathsf{J} = \mathsf{J} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u$, $\widetilde\mathsf{B} = \mathsf{B} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u$,
$\widetilde\mathsf{P} = \mathsf{P} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u$ and $\widetilde\mathsf{Q} = \mathsf{Q} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u$.
Since the Lie brackets of $\k$ are given in terms of quaternion
multiplication, this transformation is an automorphism of $\k$, and we
have a group homomorphism $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{H}) \to \operatorname{Aut}(\k)$. The action on the
remaining brackets (those involving $\boldsymbol{Q}$) is as follows.
The Lie brackets of $\mathfrak{s}$ which involve $\boldsymbol{Q}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(sh)\\
[\mathsf{J}(\omega), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\omega s)\\
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b})\\
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p})\\
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= c_0 |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}) -
\mathsf{B}(s \mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and hence under conjugation by $u \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[\widetilde H, \widetilde \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s\widetilde \mathbb{h})\\
[\widetilde \mathsf{J}(\omega), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(\omega s)\\
[\widetilde \mathsf{B}(\beta), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(\beta s \widetilde \mathbb{b})\\
[\widetilde\mathsf{P}(\pi), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(\pi s \widetilde \mathbb{p})\\
[\widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= c_0 |s|^2 \widetilde H - \widetilde\mathsf{J}(s \widetilde{\mathbb{c}}_1 \overline{s}) -
\widetilde\mathsf{B}(s \widetilde{\mathbb{c}}_2 \overline{s}) - \widetilde\mathsf{P}(s \widetilde{\mathbb{c}}_3 \overline{s}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde \mathbb{h} = \bar u \mathbb{h} u$, $\widetilde \mathbb{b} = \bar u \mathbb{b}
u$, $\widetilde \mathbb{p} = \bar u \mathbb{p} u$, and $\widetilde{\mathbb{c}}_i = \bar u
\mathbb{c}_i u$ for $i=1,2,3$. In other words, the scalar parameters $c_0$,
$\Re \mathbb{h}$, $\Re \mathbb{b}$ and $\Re \mathbb{p}$ remain inert, but the imaginary
quaternion parameters $\Im \mathbb{h}, \Im \mathbb{b}, \Im \mathbb{p}, \mathbb{c}_{1,2,3}$ are
simultaneously rotated. We will use these automorphisms very often in
the sequel.
There are other automorphisms of $\k$ which do transform $\r$: those
are the inner automorphisms generated by $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\P$. Their
description depends on the precise form of $\k$ but they will not play
a rôle in our discussion.
In addition to these, $G$ also consists of automorphisms of $\k$
which leave $\r$ intact. If a linear map $\Phi: \mathfrak{s} \to \mathfrak{s}$ restricts to an
automorphism of $\k$, then it is in particular $\r$-equivariant. The
most general $\r$-equivariant linear map $\Phi : \mathfrak{s} \to \mathfrak{s}$ sends
$(\boldsymbol{J},H,\boldsymbol{B},\P,\boldsymbol{Q}) \mapsto (\boldsymbol{J}, \widetilde H, \widetilde \boldsymbol{B}, \widetilde
\P, \widetilde \boldsymbol{Q})$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\widetilde H &= \mu H\\
\widetilde \mathsf{B}(\beta) &= a\mathsf{B}(\beta) + c\mathsf{P}(\beta) + e \mathsf{J}(\beta)\\
\widetilde \mathsf{B}(\beta) &= b\mathsf{B}(\beta) + d\mathsf{P}(\beta) + f \mathsf{J}(\beta)\\
\widetilde \mathsf{Q}(s) &= \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{q})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu \in \operatorname{GL}(1,\mathbb{R}) = \mathbb{R}^\times$, $\mathbb{q} \in \operatorname{GL}(1,\mathbb{H}) =
\mathbb{H}^\times$ and $\begin{pmatrix} {\color{gris}0} & a & b \\ {\color{gris}0} & c & d \\ 1 &
e & f \end{pmatrix} \in \operatorname{GL}(3,\mathbb{R})$. In
\cite[§§3.1]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} we worked out the
automorphisms (which fix $\r$) of $\k$ a kinematical Lie algebra
isomorphic to one of \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$}-\hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathsf{K11}$}
in Table~\ref{tab:kla}. The
automorphisms of the remaining kinematical Lie algebras in the table
are listed below (see Table~\ref{tab:aut-kla}). In particular, we
find that, although the precise form of the automorphisms depends on $\k$, a
common feature is that the coefficients $e,f$ are always zero, so we
will set them to zero from now on without loss of generality.
Assuming that the pair $(A=\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix}, \mu) \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times$ is an
automorphism of $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$, the brackets involving $\boldsymbol{Q}$ change
as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[\widetilde H, \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s\widetilde\mathbb{h})\\
[\widetilde \mathsf{B}(\beta), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(\beta s \widetilde\mathbb{b})\\
[\widetilde \mathsf{P}(\pi), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(\pi s \widetilde\mathbb{p})\\
[\widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s), \widetilde\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \widetilde c_0 |s|^2
\widetilde H - \widetilde\mathsf{J}(s \widetilde\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}) - \widetilde
\mathsf{B}(s \widetilde \mathbb{c}_2 \overline{s}) - \widetilde \mathsf{P}(s \widetilde
\mathbb{c}_3\overline{s}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde \mathsf{J}(\omega) = \mathsf{J}(\omega)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:autk-on-params}
\begin{aligned}[m]
\widetilde\mathbb{h} &= \mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{h} \mathbb{q}^{-1}\\
\widetilde\mathbb{b} &= \mathbb{q} (a \mathbb{b} + c \mathbb{p}) \mathbb{q}^{-1}\\
\widetilde\mathbb{p} &= \mathbb{q} (b \mathbb{b} + d \mathbb{p}) \mathbb{q}^{-1}\\
\widetilde c_0 &= c_0 \frac{|\mathbb{q}|^2}{\mu}
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
\widetilde \mathbb{c}_1 &= \mathbb{q} \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{\mathbb{q}}\\
\widetilde \mathbb{c}_2 &= \frac{1}{ad - bc} \mathbb{q} (d \mathbb{c}_2 - b \mathbb{c}_3) \overline{\mathbb{q}}\\
\widetilde \mathbb{c}_3 &= \frac{1}{ad - bc} \mathbb{q} (a \mathbb{c}_3 - c \mathbb{c}_2) \overline{\mathbb{q}}.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In summary, the group $G$ by which we must quotient the sub-variety
$\mathscr{S}$ cut out by the Jacobi identity (and $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$) acts as
follows on the generators:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathsf{J} &\mapsto \mathsf{J} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u\\
\mathsf{B} &\mapsto a \mathsf{B} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u + c \mathsf{P} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u\\
\mathsf{P} &\mapsto b \mathsf{B} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u + d \mathsf{P} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u\\
H &\mapsto \mu H\\
\mathsf{Q} &\mapsto \mathsf{Q} \circ \operatorname{Ad}_u \circ R_\mathbb{q}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}$ are nonzero, $u \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$ and
$A:=\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ with
$(A,\mu)$ an automorphism of $\k$.
Let $\operatorname{Aut}_\r(\k)$ denote the subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times$
consisting of such $(A,\mu)$. These subgroups are listed in
\cite[§3.1]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} for the kinematical Lie
algebras \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$}-\hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathsf{K11}$}
in Table~\ref{tab:kla}. We will collect them in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-kla} for convenience and in addition also record
them for the remaining kinematical Lie algebras
\hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$}-\hyperlink{KLA18}{$\mathsf{K18}$} in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Automorphisms of kinematical Lie algebras (acting trivially
on $\r$)}
\label{tab:aut-kla}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{K\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Typical $(A,\mu) \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLA1}{1} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, \mu\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA2}{2} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, \frac{d}{a}\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA3}{3$_{\gamma\in(-1,1)}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} &
d \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA3}{3$_{-1}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} {\color{gris}0} & b \\ c & {\color{gris}0} \end{pmatrix}, -1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA3}{3$_{1}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA4}{4$_{\chi>0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA4}{4$_0$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix}, 1\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & -a \end{pmatrix}, -1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA5}{5} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA6}{6} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, ad-bc\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA7}{7},\hyperlink{KLA8}{8} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, d \right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} -1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, -d\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA9}{9} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & a^{-1} \end{pmatrix}, 1\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} {\color{gris}0} & b \\ b^{-1} & {\color{gris}0} \end{pmatrix}, -1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA10}{10},\hyperlink{KLA11}{11} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix}, 1\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & -a \end{pmatrix}, -1\right),\quad a^2 + b^2 = 1\\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA12}{12},\hyperlink{KLA13}{13} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \mu\right) , \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \mu\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA14}{14} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, \mu\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA15}{15} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA16}{16} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA17}{17} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2 \end{pmatrix}, a\right) \\[10pt]
\hyperlink{KLA18}{18} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & a^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1\right) \\[10pt]
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{The classifications of kinematical and aristotelian Lie superalgebras}
\label{sec:kinem-lie-super}
In this section, we classify the supersymmetric extensions of the
kinematical Lie algebras in Table~\ref{tab:kla}. In addition, we will
also classify aristotelian Lie superalgebras, as some of the
homogeneous supermanifolds we will encounter later on will turn out to
be superisations of the aristotelian homogeneous spacetimes classified
in \cite[App.~A]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}.
\subsection{Classification of kinematical Lie superalgebras}
\label{sec:class-kinem-lie}
We now proceed to analyse each kinematical Lie algebra
$\k$ in Table~\ref{tab:kla} in turn and impose the Jacobi identity for
the corresponding Lie superalgebras extending $\k$. We recall that we
are only interested in those Lie superalgebras where $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$,
so $c_0, \mathbb{c}_1, \mathbb{c}_2, \mathbb{c}_3$ cannot all simultaneously vanish.
\subsubsection{Kinematical Lie algebras without supersymmetric extensions}
\label{sec:kinem-lie-algebr-1}
There are three kinematical Lie algebras which cannot be extended to a
kinematical superalgebra: \hyperlink{KLA9}{$\mathfrak{so}(4,1)$},
\hyperlink{KLA10}{$\mathfrak{so}(5)$} and the euclidean algebra
(\hyperlink{KLA7}{$\mathsf{K7}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}).
\subsubsection*{The euclidean algebra}
\label{sec:euclidean-algebra}
From Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} we find that $\mathbb{p} = \mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{b}^2 =
\frac14$, so in particular $\mathbb{b} \in \mathbb{R}$, and from Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq}
we find that $\mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} + \frac12 \mathbb{c}_1 = 0$. The
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity shows that
$\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$, so that also $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$. The
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity is trivially satisfied,
whereas the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component shows that $\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$
and also that $c_0 = 0$. In summary, there is no kinematical
superalgebra extending the euclidean algebra for which $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq
0$; although there is a kinematical superalgebra where $[\mathsf{B}(\beta),
\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \pm \frac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s)$, where both choices of sign
are related by an automorphism of $\k$: e.g., time reversal
$(\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{B},\P,H) \mapsto (\boldsymbol{J}, -\boldsymbol{B}, \P, -H)$ or parity $(\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{B},\P,H)
\mapsto (\boldsymbol{J}, -\boldsymbol{B}, -\P, H)$.
\subsubsection*{$\mathfrak{so}(4,1)$}
\label{sec:so4-1}
In this case, Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} gives that $\mathbb{p} = \mathbb{b} = 0$, but then
the $[\boldsymbol{B},\P,\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity cannot be satisfied,
showing that the $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ representation on the spinor module $S$
cannot be extended to a representation of $\mathfrak{so}(4,1)$. The result
would be different for $N=2$ extensions, since $\mathfrak{so}(4,1) \cong
\sp(1,1)$ does have an irreducible spinorial representation of
quaternionic dimension $2$.
\subsubsection*{$\mathfrak{so}(5)$}
\label{sec:so5}
From Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} we find from $[H,\boldsymbol{B}]=\P$ that $\mathbb{p} = [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{h}]$
and, in particular, $\mathbb{p} \in \Im \mathbb{H}$. But then $[\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J}$ says
that $\mathbb{p}^2 = \frac14$, so that in particular $\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{R}$ and nonzero,
which is a contradiction. Again this shows that the spinor
representation $S$ of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ does not extend to a representation of
$\mathfrak{so}(5)$ and again the conclusion would be different for $N=2$
extensions, since $\mathfrak{so}(5) \cong \sp(2)$ does admit a quaternionic
representation of quaternionic dimension $2$.
\subsubsection{Lorentzian kinematical superalgebras}
\label{sec:lorentz-kinem-super}
The Poincaré Lie algebra (\hyperlink{KLA8}{$\mathsf{K8}$}) and
\hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathfrak{so}(3,2)$} are lorentzian isometry Lie algebras: of
Minkowski and anti~de~Sitter spacetimes, respectively. It is of
course well known that such spacetimes admit $N{=}1$ superalgebras of
maximal dimension. We treat them in this section for completeness.
\subsubsection*{The Poincaré superalgebra}
\label{sec:poinc-super}
From Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} we see that $\mathbb{p} = \mathbb{h} = 0$ and that $\mathbb{b}^2 =
-\tfrac14$, so that in particular $\mathbb{b} \in \Im \mathbb{H}$. From
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} we see that $\tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} = 0$. The
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity is trivially satisfied,
whereas the $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component forces $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and the
$[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component says $\mathbb{c}_3 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{b}$. Demanding $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]
\neq 0$ requires $c_0 \neq 0$.
Using the quaternion automorphism, we can rotate $\mathbb{b}$ so that $\mathbb{b} =
\frac12 \mathbb{k}$ and via the automorphism of the Poincaré Lie algebra
which rescales $H$ and $P$ by the same amount, we can bring $c_0 =
1$. In summary, we have a unique isomorphism class of kinematical Lie
superalgebras extending the Poincaré Lie algebra and consisting in the
additional Lie brackets
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{k})
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}).
\end{equation}
We will show below in Section~\ref{sec:unpack-quat-notat} that $\mathfrak{s}$ is
isomorphic to the Poincaré superalgebra defined in the Introduction.
\subsubsection*{The AdS superalgebra}
\label{sec:ads-superalgebra}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} and Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} give the following
relations:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{p} = [\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b}],\quad \mathbb{b}=[\mathbb{p},\mathbb{h}],\quad \mathbb{h} = [\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}],\quad \mathbb{b}^2 = -\tfrac14,\quad
\mathbb{p}^2 = -\tfrac14\quad\text{and}\quad c_0 \mathbb{h} = \tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b}
+ \mathbb{c}_3 \mathbb{p},
\end{equation}
and in addition $\mathbb{b} \mathbb{p} + \mathbb{p} \mathbb{b} = 0$, which simply states that $\mathbb{b} \perp
\mathbb{p}$. These relations imply that $\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p},\mathbb{h} \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and that $(2\mathbb{b}, 2\mathbb{p},
2\mathbb{h})$ is an oriented orthonormal basis for $\Im\mathbb{H}$. The remaining
Jacobi identities give
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{c}_2 = - 2 c_0 \mathbb{p}, \quad \mathbb{c}_3 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{b} \implies \mathbb{c}_1 = -2 c_0 \mathbb{h},
\end{equation}
and some other relations which are identically satisfied. If $c_0=0$
then $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]=0$, so we requires $c_0\neq 0$ and hence
$(\frac{\mathbb{c}_1}{c_0}, \frac{\mathbb{c}_2}{c_0}, \frac{\mathbb{c}_3}{c_0})$ defines a
negatively oriented, orthonormal basis for $\Im\mathbb{H}$. The automorphism
group of $\mathbb{H}$ acts transitively on the space of orthonormal oriented
bases, so we can choose $(2\mathbb{b}, 2\mathbb{p}, 2\mathbb{h}) = (\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$ without loss of
generality.
The resulting Lie superalgebra becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k})\\
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s\mathbb{i})\\
[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\pi s\mathbb{j})\\
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= c_0 \left(|s|^2 H + \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\bar
s) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s})\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We may rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ to bring $c_0$ to a sign, but we can then change
the sign via the automorphism of $\k$ which sends $(\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{B},\P,H)
\mapsto (\boldsymbol{J},\P,\boldsymbol{B},-H)$ and the inner automorphism induced by the
automorphism of $\mathbb{H}$ which sends $(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k}) \mapsto
(\mathbb{j},\mathbb{i},-\mathbb{k})$. In summary, there is a unique kinematical Lie
superalgebra with $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$ extending $\k = \mathfrak{so}(3,2)$: namely,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k})\\
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s\mathbb{i})\\
[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\pi s\mathbb{j})\\
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= |s|^2 H + \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) -
\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To show that this Lie superalgebra is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$ we may
argue as follows. We first prove that $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ leaves
invariant a symplectic form on $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$. The most general
rotationally invariant bilinear form on $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) := \Re (s_1 \mathbb{q} \overline{s}_2) \qquad\text{for
some $\mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}$.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, if $u \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$ then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(u \cdot \omega)(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) &= \omega(u^{-1} \cdot
\mathsf{Q}(s_1), u^{-1} \cdot \mathsf{Q}(s_2))\\
&= \omega (\mathsf{Q}(\overline{u} s_1), \mathsf{Q}(\overline{u} s_2))\\
&= \Re(\overline{u} s_1 \mathbb{q} \overline{s}_2 u)\\
&= \Re(s_1 \mathbb{q} \overline{s}_2)\\
&= \omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Demanding that $\omega$ be invariant under the other generators $H,
\boldsymbol{B}, \P$, we find that $\mathbb{q} = \mu \mathbb{k}$ for some $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$.
Acting infinitesimally now,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(H \cdot \omega)(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) &= -\omega([H, \mathsf{Q}(s_1)], \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) - \omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), [H, \mathsf{Q}(s_2)])\\
&= - \tfrac12 \omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1\mathbb{k}), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) - \tfrac12\omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2\mathbb{k}))\\
&= -\tfrac12 \Re(s_1\mathbb{k} \mathbb{q} \overline{s}_2) + \tfrac12 \Re(s_1 \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{s}_2)\\
&= \tfrac12 \Re(s_1 [\mathbb{q},\mathbb{k}] \overline{s}_2),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which must vanish for all $s_1,s_2 \in S$, so that $[\mathbb{q},\mathbb{k}] = 0$ and
hence $\mathbb{q} = \lambda \mathbb{1} + \mu\mathbb{k}$ for some $\lambda,\mu \in \mathbb{R}$. A
similar calculation with $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\P$ shows that $\mathbb{q}$ must
anticommute with $\mathbb{i}$ and $\mathbb{j}$ and thus $\mathbb{q} = \mu \mathbb{k}$. So the
action of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \cong \mathfrak{so}(3,2)$ on $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ defines a Lie
algebra homomorphism $\mathfrak{so}(3,2) \to \sp(4,\mathbb{R})$, which is clearly
nontrivial. Since $\mathfrak{so}(3,2)$ is simple, it is injective and a
dimension count shows that this is an isomorphism. But as
representations of $\mathfrak{so}(3,2)$, $\odot^2\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} \cong \wedge^2V$,
where $V$ is the 5-dimensional vector representation of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$,
and since $\wedge^2 V \cong \mathfrak{so}(V) \cong \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ we have that
there is one-dimensional space of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$-equivariant maps
$\odot^2 \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} \to \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$. Since $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$ the
bracket $\odot^2\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} \to \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is an isomorphism. This
then shows that $\mathfrak{s}$ is, by definition, isomorphic to $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$.
\subsubsection{The Carroll superalgebra}
\label{sec:carroll-superalgebra}
For $\k$ the Carroll Lie algebra (\hyperlink{KLA6}{$\mathsf{K6}$} in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}), Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} implies that
$\mathbb{p} = \mathbb{b} = \mathbb{h} = 0$ and then Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that
$\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi says that $\mathbb{c}_3 =0$ and the
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi says that $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$. The only nonzero bracket
involving $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = c_0 |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
which is nonzero for $c_0 \neq 0$. If so, we can set $c_0 = 1$ via an
automorphism of $\k$ which rescales $H$ and $\P$, say, by $c_0$. In
summary, there is a unique Carroll superalgebra with brackets
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
in addition to those of the Carroll Lie algebra itself.
\subsubsection{The galilean superalgebras}
\label{sec:galil-super}
For $\k$ the galilean Lie algebra (\hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}), Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p} = 0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and $c_0 = 0$. The $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity is now identically satisfied, whereas the $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity gives
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_2 \bar \mathbb{h} = 0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 +
\mathbb{c}_3 \bar \mathbb{h} = 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ cannot both vanish, we see that this is only
possible if $\mathbb{h} \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and hence these equations become $[\mathbb{h},\mathbb{c}_2]
=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2 = [\mathbb{c}_3,\mathbb{h}]$. There are two cases to consider,
depending on whether or not $\mathbb{h}$ vanishes. If $\mathbb{h}=0$, then $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$
and $\mathbb{c}_3$ is arbitrary. If $\mathbb{h}\neq 0$, then on the one hand $\mathbb{c}_2$
is collinear with $\mathbb{h}$, but also $\mathbb{c}_2 = [\mathbb{c}_3,\mathbb{h}]$, which means that
$\mathbb{c}_2=0$ so that $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$ is collinear with $\mathbb{h}$. In either
case, $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$ and $\mathbb{h} = \psi \mathbb{c}_3$, where $\psi \in \mathbb{R}$
can be zero.
This gives rise to the following additional brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \psi \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{c}_3) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),
\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}).
\end{equation}
We may use the automorphisms of $\mathbb{H}$ to bring $\mathbb{c}_3 = \phi \mathbb{k}$, for
some nonzero $\phi \in \mathbb{R}$. We can set $\phi = 1$ by an automorphism
of $\k$ which rescales $\P$ and also $\boldsymbol{B}$ and $\H$ suitably. This
still leaves the freedom to set $\psi = 1$ if $\psi \neq 0$.
In summary, we have two galilean superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
0\\
\mathsf{Q}(s \mathbb{k})
\end{cases}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}).
\end{equation}
The first one (where $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}] = 0$) is a contraction of the Poincaré
superalgebra, whereas the second (where $[H,\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$) is not.
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with the static kinematical Lie algebra}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-1}
This is \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}. In this
case, Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{h} \in \Im \mathbb{H}$ and that $[\mathbb{h},\mathbb{c}_i] = 0$
for $i=1,2,3$. Finally either the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ or $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
identities say that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$, so that $\mathbb{h} c_0 = 0$. This means
that either $\mathbb{h}=0$ or else $c_0 = 0$ (or both).
There are several branches:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $c_0 = 0$ and $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ are collinear
with $\mathbb{h}$, but cannot both be zero. Using automorphisms of the
static kinematical Lie algebra and the ability to rotate vectors, we
can bring $\mathbb{h} = \tfrac12 \mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$, so that
we have a unique Lie superalgebra in this case, with additional
brackets
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $c_0 = 0$ and $\mathbb{h}=0$, $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ are unconstrained,
but not both zero. We distinguish two cases, depending on whether
or not they are linearly independent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If they are linearly dependent, so that they are collinear,
then we can use automorphisms to set $\mathbb{c}_2$, say, to zero and
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. This results in the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If they are linearly independent, we can bring them to $\mathbb{c}_2
= \mathbb{j}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$, resulting in the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item Finally, if $c_0\neq 0$, then $\mathbb{h}=0$ and again $\mathbb{c}_2$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3$ are unconstrained, but can now be zero. Moreover we can
rescale $H$ so that $c_0 = 1$. We have three cases to consider,
depending on whether they span a zero-, one- or two-dimensional real
subspace of $\Im \mathbb{H}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ we have the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
\item If $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ span a line, then we may use the
automorphisms to set $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$, resulting in
the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item Finally, if $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ are linearly independent, we
may use the automorphisms to set $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{j}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$,
resulting in the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-3}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and $c_0 = 0$, whereas the
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity offers no further conditions. Finally,
the $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity gives two conditions
\begin{equation}
\gamma \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_2 \bar \mathbb{h} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_3 \bar \mathbb{h},
\end{equation}
which are equivalent to
\begin{equation}
(\gamma - 2 \Re \mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_2 = [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_2] \qquad\text{and}\qquad
(1 - 2 \Re \mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_3 = [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3].
\end{equation}
We see that we must distinguish two cases: $\gamma = 1$ and $\gamma
\in [-1,1)$.
If $\gamma \neq 1$, then we have two cases, depending on whether $\Re
\mathbb{h} = \frac12$ or $\Re \mathbb{h} = \frac12 \gamma$. In the former case, $\mathbb{c}_2
= 0$ and $\Im \mathbb{h}$ is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$, whereas in the
latter, $\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and $\Im \mathbb{h}$ is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_2 \neq 0$.
If $\gamma = 1$, then $\Re \mathbb{h} = \frac12$ and $\mathbb{c}_2$, $\Im \mathbb{h}$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3$ are all collinear, with at least one of $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$
nonzero. When $\gamma =1$, the automorphisms of $\mathbb{k}$ include the
general linear group $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ acting on the two copies of the
vector representation. Using this we can always assume that $\mathbb{c}_2 =
0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$.
In either case, all nonzero vectors are collinear and we can rotate
them to lie along the $\mathbb{k}$ axis. In the case $\gamma = 1$, we have
a one-parameter family of Lie superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s(1+\lambda \mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}),
\end{equation}
where we have used the freedom to rescale $\P$ in order to set
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. This is also a Lie superalgebra for $\gamma \neq 1$.
If $\gamma \neq 1$, we have an additional one-parameter family of Lie
superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s(\gamma +\lambda \mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k} \overline{s}).
\end{equation}
The parameter $\lambda$ is essential; that is, Lie superalgebras with
different values of $\lambda$ are not isomorphic. One way to test
this is the following. Let $[-,-]_\lambda$ denote the above Lie
bracket. This satisfies the Jacobi identity for all $\lambda \in
\mathbb{R}$. Write it as $[-,-]_\lambda = (1-\lambda) [-,-]_0 + \lambda
[-,-]_1$. The difference $[-,-]_1 - [-,-]_0$ is a cocycle of the Lie
superalgebra with $\lambda = 0$. The parameter would be inessential
if and only if it is a coboundary. One can check that this is not the
case. This same argument shows that the parameters appearing in other
Lie superalgebras are essential as well.
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K4}_\chi$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-4}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$ and Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq}
says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. Then either the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ or
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identities force $\mathbb{c}_1=0$ and $c_0= 0$. The
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity results in the following two equations:
\begin{equation}
\chi \mathbb{c}_2 - \mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_2 \bar \mathbb{h} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\chi \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_3 \bar \mathbb{h},
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
(\chi - 2 \Re \mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_2 - \mathbb{c}_3 = [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_2] \qquad\text{and}\qquad
(\chi - 2 \Re \mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_2 = [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3].
\end{equation}
Taking the inner product of the first equation with $\mathbb{c}_2$ and of the
second equation with $\mathbb{c}_3$ and adding, we find
\begin{equation}
(\chi - 2 \Re \mathbb{h}) (|\mathbb{c}_2|^2 + |\mathbb{c}_3|^2) = 0,
\end{equation}
and since $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ cannot both be zero, we see that $\Re \mathbb{h}
= \frac\chi2$, and hence that
\begin{equation}
[\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_2] = - \mathbb{c}_3 \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3] = \mathbb{c}_2,
\end{equation}
so that $\mathbb{c}_3 \perp \mathbb{c}_2$. This shows that $(\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3, \mathbb{c}_2)$
is an oriented orthogonal (but not necessarily orthonormal) basis. We
can rotate them so that $\Im \mathbb{h} = \phi \mathbb{j}$, $\mathbb{c}_3 = \psi \mathbb{k}$ and
$\mathbb{c}_2 = 2\phi\psi \mathbb{i}$, but then we see that $\phi^2 =
\tfrac14$. Using the automorphism of $\k$ which rescales $\boldsymbol{B}$ and
$\P$ simultaneously by the same amount we can assume that $\mathbb{c}_3 =
\mathbb{k}$ and hence if $\Im \mathbb{h} = \pm \tfrac12 \mathbb{j}$ then $\mathbb{c}_2 = \pm \mathbb{i}$.
But the two signs are related by the automorphism of $\mathbb{H}$ which sends
$(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k}) \mapsto (-\mathbb{i},-\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$. In summary, we have a
unique Lie superalgebra associated with this kinematical Lie algebra:
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s(\chi + \mathbb{j})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K5}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$ and Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq}
says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity forces
$c_0 = \mathbb{c}_1 = 0$, which then makes the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity
be satisfied identically. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity gives two
further equations
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_2 \bar \mathbb{h} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_3
= \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_3 \bar \mathbb{h}.
\end{equation}
The first equation is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
(1 - 2 \Re(\mathbb{h})) \mathbb{c}_2 = [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_2].
\end{equation}
If $\mathbb{c}_2 \neq 0$, then $\Re \mathbb{h} = \frac12$ and $\Im \mathbb{h}$ is collinear
with $\mathbb{c}_2$. But then the second equation says that $\mathbb{c}_2 = [\Im \mathbb{h},
\mathbb{c}_3]$, which is incompatible with $\mathbb{c}_2$ and $\Im \mathbb{h}$ being
collinear. Therefore $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and the second equation then says
that $\Re \mathbb{h} = \frac12$ and $\Im \mathbb{h}$ collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$.
We have the following additional brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s (1 + \lambda \mathbb{c}_3))
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. We may rotate $\mathbb{c}_3$ to $\psi \mathbb{k}$, for some
nonzero $\psi \in \mathbb{R}$. We can then rescale $\P$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$
simultaneously by the same amount to set $\psi = 1$. In summary, we
are left with the following one-parameter family of Lie superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}))
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{k} \overline{s}).
\end{equation}
As in the case of the Lie superalgebras associated with Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$}, the parameter $\lambda$ is essential and Lie
superalgebras with different values of $\lambda$ are not isomorphic.
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K12}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-12}
Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b}^2 = \frac12 \mathbb{b}$, so that
$\mathbb{b}\in \mathbb{R}$, $[\mathbb{h},\mathbb{p}]=0$ and $\mathbb{p}^2= \frac12 (\mathbb{b}-\frac12)$, so
that $\mathbb{p} \in \Im\mathbb{H}$. (In particular, $\mathbb{b}\mathbb{p}= 0$.)
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} does not simplify at this stage. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $c_0 \Re \mathbb{h} = 0$ and that
$\mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_i + \mathbb{c}_i \bar \mathbb{h} = 0$ for $i=1,2,3$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$, $\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_1 = (2\mathbb{b} -1) \mathbb{c}_2$. Finally, the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity
says that $c_0 \mathbb{p} = 0$, among other conditions that will turn out not
to play a rôle.
We have two branches depending on the value of $\mathbb{b}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=0$, $\mathbb{p}^2= -\frac14$, so that $c_0 = 0$. This means $\mathbb{c}_1
+ \mathbb{c}_2 =0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = 2 \mathbb{c}_1 \mathbb{p}$ and none of $\mathbb{c}_{1,2,3}$ can
vanish. This means that $\Re \mathbb{h} = 0$ and that $\mathbb{h}$ and $\mathbb{c}_i$ are
collinear for all $i=1,2,3$. Also $\mathbb{h}$ and $\mathbb{p}$ are collinear and
this is inconsistent, unless $\mathbb{h} = 0$: indeed, if $\mathbb{p}$ and $\mathbb{c}_i$ are
collinear with $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, then $\mathbb{c}_3 = 2\mathbb{c}_1 \mathbb{p}$ cannot be
satisfied, since the LHS is imaginary but the RHS is real and both
are nonzero. Therefore we conclude that $\mathbb{h}=0$. The condition
$\mathbb{c}_3 = 2 \mathbb{c}_1 \mathbb{p}$ says that there exists $\psi > 0$ such that
$(\psi^{-1} \mathbb{c}_1, 2\mathbb{p}, \psi^{-1} \mathbb{c}_3)$ is an oriented
orthonormal basis, which can be rotated to $(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$. In
other words, we can write $\mathbb{c}_1 = \psi \mathbb{i}$, $\mathbb{p} = \frac12\mathbb{j}$
and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \psi \mathbb{k}$, so that $\mathbb{c}_2 = - \psi \mathbb{i}$. We may
rescale $\mathsf{Q}$ to bring $\psi =1$ and we may rotate $(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})
\mapsto (-\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},-\mathbb{k})$ to arrive at the following Lie
superalgebra:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{j}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\bar
s).
\end{equation}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=\frac12$, then $\mathbb{p}=0$ and also $\mathbb{c}_1= \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_2 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$ with $c_0 \neq 0$. We have two sub-branches,
depending on whether or not $\mathbb{h}=0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{h}=0$ we have the following Lie superalgebra, after
rescaling $H$ to set $c_0 = 1$:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
\item On the other hand, if $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, we may rotate it so that
$2h = \psi \mathbb{k}$ for some $\psi$ such that $\psi c_0 > 0$. Then we
may rescale $H$ and $\mathsf{Q}$ in such that a way that we bring
$\psi c_0 =1$, thus arriving at the following Lie superalgebra:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s), \qquad [H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K13}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-13}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b}^2= \frac12 \mathbb{b}$, so that $\mathbb{b} \in
\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{p}^2=-\tfrac12(\mathbb{b}-\frac12) \in \mathbb{R}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} does
not simplify further at this stage. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity
says that $c_0 \Re \mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{h}\mathbb{c}_i + \mathbb{c}_i \bar \mathbb{h} = 0$ for
$i=1,2,3$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_1 =
\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$, whereas $(\mathbb{b}-\frac12)\mathbb{c}_2 = \frac12 \mathbb{c}_1$. Finally, the
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2\mathbb{p} \mathbb{c}_3$, $\mathbb{c}_3 = -2
\mathbb{p} \mathbb{c}_2$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = 2 \mathbb{p} \mathbb{c}_1$.
As usual we have two branches depending on the value of $\mathbb{b}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=0$, then $\mathbb{p}^2= \frac14$. Due to the automorphism of $\k$ which
changes the sign of $\P$, we may assume $\mathbb{p} = \frac12$ without loss
of generality. It follows that $\mathbb{c}_1 = c_0 \mathbb{h}$ and that $\mathbb{c}_2 = -
\mathbb{c}_1 = - c_0 \mathbb{h}$ and that $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{c}_1 = c_0 \mathbb{h}$. If $c_0 = 0$
then $\mathbb{c}_i = 0$ for all $i$, so we must have $c_0 \neq 0$. In that
case, $\mathbb{h} \in \Im \mathbb{H}$ and $\mathbb{h}$ is collinear with all $\mathbb{c}_i$ for
$i=1,2,3$. We distinguish two cases, depending on whether or not
$\mathbb{h}=0$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{h}\neq 0$, we may rotate it so that $\mathbb{h} = \psi \mathbb{k}$ where
$\psi c_0 > 0$. We may rescale $H \mapsto \psi^{-1} H$
(which is an automorphism of $\k$) and rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ to bring
$\psi c_0 = 1$. In summary, we arrive at the following Lie
superalgebra:
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}),\qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12
\mathsf{Q}(\pi s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H -
\mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $\mathbb{h} = 0$, then we have the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12
\mathsf{Q}(\pi s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=\frac12$, then $\mathbb{p}=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ with $\mathbb{c}_2 =
2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$ with $c_0 \neq 0$ and $\mathbb{h} \in \Im\mathbb{H}$. Again we distinguish
between vanishing and nonvanishing $\mathbb{h}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, we may rotate it so that $2h = \psi \mathbb{k}$
with $\psi c_0 > 0$. We apply the $\k$-automorphism $H \mapsto
\psi^{-1} H$ and rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ to bring $\psi c_0 = 1$, thus
resulting in the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}),\qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12
\mathsf{Q}(\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H -
\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $\mathbb{h} = 0$, we arrive at the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12
\mathsf{Q}(\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K14}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-14}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{p}=0$ and $2 \mathbb{b}^2 = \mathbb{b}$, so that $\mathbb{b}
\in \mathbb{R}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $\tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} = c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{c}_1=0$, so that $c_0 \mathbb{h} =
\mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b}$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $(2\mathbb{b}-1) \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_3=0$, whereas the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{h}
\mathbb{c}_i + \mathbb{c}_i \bar \mathbb{h} = 0$ for $i=2,3$.
We have two branches, depending on the value of $\mathbb{b}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=0$ then $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and we have two sub-branches depending
on whether or not $c_0 = 0$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $c_0 = 0$ then $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$, so that $\Re \mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{h}$
is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3$. We may rotate $\mathbb{c}_3$ to lie along
$\mathbb{k}$, say, and then use automorphisms of $\k$ to set $\mathbb{c}_3 =
\mathbb{k}$. If $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, we may also set it equal to $\mathbb{k}$. In
summary, we have two isomorphism classes of Lie superalgebras
here:
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
0 \\
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k})
\end{cases}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $c_0 \neq 0$, then $\mathbb{h}=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ is free: if nonzero we
may rotate it to $\mathbb{k}$ and rescaling $\P$, which is an
automorphism of $\k$, we can bring it to $\mathbb{k}$. Rescaling $H$ we
can bring $c_0 = 1$. This gives two isomorphism classes of Lie
superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{b}=\tfrac12$, then $\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$, and we
have two cases, depending on whether or not $\mathbb{h}=0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbb{h}=0$ then $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$, and then $c_0 \neq 0$. Rescaling
$H$ we can set $c_0=1$ and we arrive at the Lie superalgebra
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
\item If $\mathbb{h}\neq 0$ we can rotate and rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ such that $\mathbb{c}_2 =
2 c_0 \mathbb{h} = \mathbb{k}$ and then we can rescale $H$ so that $c_0 = 1$.
The resulting Lie superalgebra is now
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}),\qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
|s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K15}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-15}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, whereas
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$, and hence the
$[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component is identically satisfied. Finally, the
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_3 \bar \mathbb{h} = 0$,
which expands to
\begin{equation}
2 \Re(\mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_3 + [\Im \mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3] = 0.
\end{equation}
We have two branches of solutions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $c_0 = 0$, then $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$ and hence $\Re \mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{h}$
is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3$. We may rotate $\mathbb{c}_3$ to lie along $\mathbb{k}$
and then rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ so that $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. If $\mathbb{h} \neq 0$, we may
use automorphisms of $\k$ to set $\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{k}$ as well. In summary, we
have two isomorphism classes of Lie superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k})\\
0
\end{cases} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $c_0 \neq 0$, then $\mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ is unconstrained. If
nonzero, we may rotate it to lie along $\mathbb{k}$, rescale $\boldsymbol{Q}$ so that
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$ and then use automorphisms of $\k$ to set $c_0 = 1$.
In summary, we have two isomorphism classes of Lie superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H \qquad\text{or}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K16}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-16}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says that $\mathbb{p}=0$ and $\mathbb{b}(\mathbb{b}-\frac12) =0$, so
that $\mathbb{b} \in \mathbb{R}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} then says that $c_0 \mathbb{h} = \frac12
\mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b}$. Now the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that
$c_0=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_1= 0$, so that $\mathbb{c}_2 \mathbb{b} = 0$. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
identity says that $\mathbb{h}\mathbb{c}_2 + \mathbb{c}_2 \bar \mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{h}\mathbb{c}_3 + \mathbb{c}_3
\bar \mathbb{h} = \mathbb{c}_3$. Finally the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that
$\mathbb{b}\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and $(\mathbb{b}-\frac12)\mathbb{c}_2= 0$.
Notice that if $\mathbb{b}=\frac12$ then $\mathbb{c}_3=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$,
contradicting $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$, so we must have $\mathbb{b}=0$. Now $\mathbb{c}_2=0$
and hence $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$. It then follows that $\Re \mathbb{h} = \frac12$ and
$\Im \mathbb{h}$ is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3$. We can rescale $\P$ (which is an
automorphism of $\k$) and rotate so that $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$, so that $\mathbb{h} =
\frac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k})$ for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. The resulting
one-parameter family of Lie superalgebras is then
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s(1+\lambda \mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
As in the case of the Lie superalgebras associated with Lie algebras
\hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} and \hyperlink{KLA5}{$\mathsf{K5}$}, the
parameter $\lambda$ is essential and Lie superalgebras with different
values of $\lambda$ are not isomorphic.
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K17}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-17}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} simply sets $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
identity sets $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and hence $c_0 \mathbb{h} = 0$. The $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity sets $c_0 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$, whereas the
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi identity says that $\mathbb{h}$ is collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3
\neq 0$. We can rotate $\mathbb{c}_3$ to lie along $\mathbb{k}$ and rescale $\mathsf{Q}$
to effectively set it to $\mathbb{k}$. Then $\mathbb{h} = \frac\psi2 \mathbb{k}$ for some
$\psi$ and rescaling $H$ allows us to set $\psi =1$. In
summary, we have a unique Lie superalgebra associated with this
kinematical Lie algebra: namely,
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with kinematical Lie algebra $\mathsf{K18}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-assoc-18}
Here Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} simply sets $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
identity sets $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and $c_0 = 0$, whereas the $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi identity sets $\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$. Finally, the $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
identity says that $\Re \mathbb{h} = 1$ and $\Im \mathbb{h} = \lambda \mathbb{c}_3$ for some
$\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. We can rotate $\mathbb{c}_3$ to lie along $\mathbb{k}$ and rescale $\mathsf{Q}$
to effectively set it to $\mathbb{k}$. Then $\mathbb{h} = 1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}$. In
summary, we have a one-parameter family of Lie superalgebras
associated with this kinematical Lie algebra: namely,
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s(1+\lambda \mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
As in the case of the Lie superalgebras associated with Lie algebras
\hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$}, \hyperlink{KLA5}{$\mathsf{K5}$} and
\hyperlink{KLA16}{$\mathsf{K16}$}, the parameter $\lambda$ is essential and
Lie superalgebras with different values of $\lambda$ are not
isomorphic.
\subsubsection{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
Table~\ref{tab:klsa} summarises the results. In that table we list
the isomorphism classes of kinematical Lie superalgebras (with
$[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$). Recall that the Lie brackets involving $\boldsymbol{Q}$ are the
$[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket and also
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h}), \qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b}),
\qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s) ] = \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p}),
\end{equation}
for some $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{H}$. In Table~\ref{tab:klsa} we list any nonzero
values of $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}$ and the $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket. The first column is
simply the label for the Lie superalgebra, the second column is the
corresponding kinematical Lie algebra, the next columns are
$\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}$ and $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$. The next four columns are the possible
$\mathfrak{so}(3)$-equivariant $\mathbb{Z}$-gradings (with $\boldsymbol{J}$ of degree $0$)
compatible with the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading; that is, such that the parity is
the reduction modulo $2$ of the degree. This requires, in particular,
that $q$ be an odd integer, which we can take to be $-1$ by
convention, if so desired.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Kinematical Lie superalgebras (with $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$)}
\label{tab:klsa}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l*{4}{|>{$}c<{$}}*{4}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\k$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{h}$}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{b}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{p}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$} & w_ H & w_{\boldsymbol{B}} & w_{\P} & w_{\boldsymbol{Q}}\\
\toprule
\hypertarget{KLSA1}{1} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$}& \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2m & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA2}{2} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})& 2q & 2q & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA3}{3} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2q & 2m & 2 q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA4}{4} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & & & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 2m & 2p & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA5}{5} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & & & & - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2n & 2q & 2 q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA6}{6} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2n & 2m & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA7}{7} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & 2 q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA8}{8} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2n & 2(q-n) & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA9}{9$_{\gamma\in[-1,1],\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2m & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA10}{10$_{\gamma\in[-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \tfrac12 (\gamma + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & 2p & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA11}{11$_{\chi\geq0}$} & \hyperlink{KLA4}{$\mathsf{K4}_\chi$} & \tfrac12 (\chi + \mathbb{j}) & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA12}{12$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA5}{$\mathsf{K5}$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA13}{13} & \hyperlink{KLA6}{$\mathsf{K6}$} & & & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 2m & 2(q-m) & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA14}{14} & \hyperlink{KLA8}{$\mathsf{K8}$} & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2q & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA15}{15} & \hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathsf{K11}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{i} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{j} & |s|^2 H + \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA16}{16} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{j} & \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA17}{17} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & 0 & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA18}{18} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s \mathbb{k} \overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA19}{19} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \mathbb{k} & & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA20}{20} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & & & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & 0 & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA21}{21} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & 0 & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA22}{22} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA23}{23} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \mathbb{k} & & & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA24}{24} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & & & & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2n & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA25}{25} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & & & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & 2p & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA26}{26} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2q & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA27}{27} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & 2p & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA28}{28} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA29}{29} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA30}{30} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA31}{31} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & & & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 2m & 4m & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA32}{32} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & & & & |s|^2 H -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA33}{33$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA16}{$\mathsf{K16}$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{KLSA34}{34} & \hyperlink{KLA17}{$\mathsf{K17}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{KLSA35}{35$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA18}{$\mathsf{K18}$} & 1 + \lambda \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - & - \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption*{The first column is our identifier for $\mathfrak{s}$, whereas the
second column is the kinematical Lie algebra $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}. The next four columns specify the brackets
of $\mathfrak{s}$ not of the form $[\boldsymbol{J},-]$. Supercharges $\mathsf{Q}(s)$ are
parametrised by $s \in \mathbb{H}$, whereas $\mathsf{J}(\omega)$, $\mathsf{B}(\beta)$
and $\mathsf{P}(\pi)$ are parametrised by $\omega,\beta,\pi \in
\Im\mathbb{H}$. The brackets are given by $[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h})$,
$[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)]=\mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b})$ and
$[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p})$, for some
$\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}\in\mathbb{H}$. (This formalism is explained in
Section~\ref{sec:quat-form}.) The final four columns specify
compatible gradings of $\mathfrak{s}$, with $m,n,p,q \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $q$ odd.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Classification of aristotelian Lie superalgebras}
\label{sec:class-arist-lie}
Table~\ref{tab:ALAs} lists the aristotelian Lie algebras (with
three-dimensional space isotropy), classified in
\cite[App.~A]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}. In this section, we classify
the $N=1$ supersymmetric extensions of the aristotelian Lie algebras
(with $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$).
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Aristotelian Lie algebras and their spacetimes}
\label{tab:ALAs}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|*{2}{>{$}l<{$}}|l}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{A\#} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Nonzero Lie brackets}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Spacetime}\\\midrule
\hypertarget{ALA1}{1} & & & static \\
\hypertarget{ALA2}{2} & [H,\P] = \P & & torsional static\\
\hypertarget{ALA3p}{3$_+$} & & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{J} & $\mathbb{R} \times S^3$\\
\hypertarget{ALA3m}{3$_-$} & & [\P,\P] = - \boldsymbol{J} & $\mathbb{R} \times H^3$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with aristotelian Lie
algebra $\mathsf{A1}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-ALA1}
We start with the static aristotelian Lie algebra
\hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$}, whose only nonzero brackets are
$[\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{J}] = \boldsymbol{J}$ and $[\boldsymbol{J},\P] = \P$. Any supersymmetric extension $\mathfrak{g}$
has possible brackets
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h}), \qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p})
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = c_0 |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s \mathbb{c}_1
\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}),
\end{equation}
for some $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{p} \in \mathbb{H}$, $c_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{c}_1, \mathbb{c}_3 \in \Im
\mathbb{H}$, using the same notation as in
Section~\ref{sec:kinem-lie-super}. We can reuse
Lemmas~\ref{lem:kmod} and \ref{lem:qqq}, by setting $\mathbb{b} = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and ignoring $\boldsymbol{B}$. Doing so we find that $\mathbb{p} = 0$ and
that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi
identity gives $c_0 \Re\mathbb{h} = 0$ (which already follows from
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq}), $\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{h}}
+ \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$. The $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity
says that $[s\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}, \pi] = 0$ for all $\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s
\in \mathbb{H}$, which says $\mathbb{c}_1 =0$ and hence $c_0 \mathbb{h} = 0$. This gives
rise to two branches:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $c_0 = 0$, then $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$ and the condition $\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{h}}
+ \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ is equivalent to $[\Im\mathbb{h},\mathbb{c}_3] = - 2 \mathbb{c}_3 \Re\mathbb{h}$,
which says $\Re\mathbb{h} = 0$ and hence that $\mathbb{h}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ are
collinear. We can change basis so that $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$ and $\mathbb{h} =
\mathbb{k}$ if nonzero. This leaves two possible Lie superalgebras
depending on whether or not $\mathbb{h} = 0$:
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k})\\
0
\end{cases}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
- \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item If $c_0 \neq 0$, then $\mathbb{h} = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$ is free. We can set
$c_0 = 1$ and, if nonzero, we can also set $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. This
gives two possible Lie superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
|s|^2 H \\
|s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with aristotelian Lie
algebra $\mathsf{A2}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-ALA2}
Let us now consider the aristotelian Lie algebra
\hyperlink{ALA2}{$\mathsf{A2}$}, with additional bracket
$[H,\P] = \P$. Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} again says $\mathbb{p} = 0$ and
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} again says that $\mathbb{c}_1 = 2 c_0 \mathbb{h}$. The
$[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component of the Jacobi identity implies that
$c_0 \Re\mathbb{h} = 0$ (which, again, is redundant),
$\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_1 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{c}_3$,
whereas the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ component results in
$[s\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s}, \pi] = 2 c_0 |s|^2\pi$ for all $\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ and
$s \in \mathbb{H}$. This can only be the case if $c_0 = 0$ and hence
$\mathbb{c}_1=0$, which then forces $\mathbb{c}_3 \neq 0$. The equation
$\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{c}_3$ results in
$[\Im\mathbb{h}, \mathbb{c}_3] = (1-2\Re\mathbb{h}) \mathbb{c}_3$, which implies
$\Re\mathbb{h} = \tfrac12$ and $\Im\mathbb{h}$ collinear with $\mathbb{c}_3$. We can
change basis so that $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$ and we end up with a one-parameter
family of Lie superalgebras with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k})), \qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),
\mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})
\end{equation}
for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, in addition to $[H,\mathsf{P}(\pi)] = \mathsf{P}(\pi)$.
\subsubsection{Lie superalgebras associated with aristotelian Lie
algebras $\mathsf{A3}_{\pm}$}
\label{sec:lie-super-ALA3}
Finally, we consider the aristotelian Lie algebras \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_\pm$}
with bracket $[\P,\P] = \pm \boldsymbol{J}$. Lemma~\ref{lem:kmod} says
that $[\mathbb{h},\mathbb{p}] =0$ and $\mathbb{p}^2 = \pm \tfrac14$, whereas
Lemma~\ref{lem:qqq} says that $c_0 \mathbb{h} = \tfrac12\mathbb{c}_1 + \mathbb{c}_3 \mathbb{p}$.
The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi says $c_0\Re\mathbb{h} = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_1
= 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{h}} + \mathbb{h} \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$, whereas the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
Jacobi gives the following relations:
\begin{equation}
c_0 \Re(\overline{s}\pi s \mathbb{p}) = 0, \qquad \pi s \mathbb{p} \mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s} - s \mathbb{c}_3
\overline{\mathbb{p}} \overline{s} \pi = \tfrac12 [\pi, s\mathbb{c}_1
\overline{s}]\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\pi s \mathbb{p} \mathbb{c}_1 \overline{s} - s \mathbb{c}_1
\overline{\mathbb{p}} \overline{s} \pi = \pm \tfrac12 [\pi, s\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{s}].
\end{equation}
We must distinguish two cases depending on the choice of signs.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let's take the $+$ sign. Then $\mathbb{p}^2 = \tfrac14 \in \mathbb{R}$.
Without loss of generality we can take $\mathbb{p} = \tfrac12$ by changing
the sign of $\P$ if necessary. Then the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi
equations say that $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3$ and hence $c_0 \mathbb{h} = \mathbb{c}_1$. If
$c_0 = 0$, then $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$, hence we take $c_0 \neq 0$ and
thus $\Re \mathbb{h} = 0$. We can change basis so that $c_0 = 1$ and hence
$\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3$. If nonzero, we can take them all equal to
$\mathbb{k}$. In summary, we have two possible aristotelian Lie
superalgebras extending \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_+$}, with
brackets $[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{P}(\pi')] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{J}([\pi,\pi'])$ and in
addition either
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \pi s), \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s) ] = |s|^2 H
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}), \qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12
\pi s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s) ] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\item Let us now take the $-$ sign. Here $\mathbb{p}^2 = -\frac14$, so that
$\mathbb{p} \in \Im\mathbb{H}$ (and $\mathbb{p} \neq 0$) and hence $\Im\mathbb{h}$ collinear
with $\mathbb{p}$. The $[H,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi equations force $\mathbb{h} = 0$ and
the $[\P,\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$ Jacobi equations force $c_0 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3 \mathbb{p} = -\tfrac12 \mathbb{c}_1$.
This means that $(\mathbb{c}_1, 2\mathbb{p}, \mathbb{c}_3)$ is an oriented orthonormal
frame for $\Im\mathbb{H}$ and hence we can rotate them so that
$(\mathbb{c}_1, 2\mathbb{p}, \mathbb{c}_3) = (-\mathbb{j},\mathbb{i},\mathbb{k})$, for later uniformity. This
results in the aristotelian Lie superalgebra extending
\hyperlink{ALA3m}{$\mathsf{A3}_-$} by the following brackets in
addition to $[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{P}(\pi')] = \tfrac12 \mathsf{J}([\pi,\pi'])$:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \pi s \mathbb{i}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
These results are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:alsa} below, together
with the possible compatible $\mathbb{Z}$-gradings. This table also
classifies the homogeneous aristotelian superspaces.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Aristotelian Lie superalgebras (with $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]\neq 0$)}
\label{tab:alsa}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|l*{3}{|>{$}c<{$}}*{3}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\a$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{h}$}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{p}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$} & w_ H & w_{\P} & w_{\boldsymbol{Q}}\\
\toprule
\hypertarget{ALSA36}{36} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & \mathbb{k} & & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{ALSA37}{37} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2n & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{ALSA38}{38} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & & |s|^2 H & 2q & 2p & q \\
\hypertarget{ALSA39}{39} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 2q & 2q & q \\
\hypertarget{ALSA40}{40$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{ALA2}{$\mathsf{A2}$} & \tfrac12(1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & 0 & 2q & q\\
\hypertarget{ALSA41}{41} & \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_+$} & & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H & 2q & 0 & q \\
\hypertarget{ALSA42}{42} & \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_+$} & \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - \\
\hypertarget{ALSA43}{43} & \hyperlink{ALA3m}{$\mathsf{A3}_-$} & & \tfrac12\mathbb{i} & \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) & - & - & - \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption*{The first column is our identifier for $\mathfrak{s}$, whereas the
second column is the aristotelian Lie algebra $\a = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$
in Table~\ref{tab:ALAs}. The next three columns specify the
brackets of $\mathfrak{s}$ not of the form $[\boldsymbol{J},-]$. Supercharges $\mathsf{Q}(s)$
are parametrised by $s \in \mathbb{H}$, whereas $\mathsf{J}(\omega)$ and
$\mathsf{P}(\pi)$ are parametrised by $\omega,\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$. The
brackets are given by $[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h})$ and
$[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p})$, for some $\mathbb{h},\mathbb{p}\in\mathbb{H}$.
(The formalism is explained in Section~\ref{sec:quat-form}.)
The final three columns are compatible gradings of $\mathfrak{s}$, with
$n,p,q \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $q$ odd.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Unpacking the quaternionic notation}
\label{sec:unpack-quat-notat}
The quaternionic formalism we have employed in the classification of
kinematical and aristotelian Lie superalgebras, which has the virtue of
uniformity and ease in computation, does result in expressions which
are perhaps unfamiliar and which therefore might hinder comparison
with other formulations. In this section, we will go through an
example illustrating how to unpack the notation.
The nonzero brackets of the Poincaré superalgebra
\hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$} are given by
equation~\eqref{eq:klsa-brackets-quat} and
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \beta s \mathbb{k}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{B}(\beta) = \sum_{i=1}^3 \beta_i B_i \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathsf{Q}(s) = \sum_{a=1}^4
s_a Q_a,
\end{equation}
and where
\begin{equation}
\beta = \beta_1 \mathbb{i} + \beta_2 \mathbb{j} + \beta_3 \mathbb{k}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad s = s_1 \mathbb{i} + s_2 \mathbb{j} + s_3 \mathbb{k} + s_4.
\end{equation}
This allows us to simply unpack the brackets into the following
\begin{equation}
[B_i, Q_a] = \tfrac12 \sum_{b=1}^4 Q_b \beta_i{}^b{}_a
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
[Q_a, Q_b] = \sum_{\mu=0}^3 P_\mu \gamma^\mu_{ab},
\end{equation}
where we have introduced $P_0 = H$ and where the matrices
$\boldsymbol{\beta}_i := [\beta_i{}^b{}_a]$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\color{gris}0} & -\mathbb{1} \\
-\mathbb{1} & {\color{gris}0}
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
\boldsymbol{\beta}_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\color{gris}0} & i\sigma_2\\
-i\sigma_2 & {\color{gris}0}
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\boldsymbol{\beta}_3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbb{1} & {\color{gris}0}\\
{\color{gris}0} & -\mathbb{1}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and where the symmetric matrices $\boldsymbol{\gamma}^\mu :=
[\gamma^\mu_{ab}]$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\gamma}^0 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbb{1} & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \mathbb{1}
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
\boldsymbol{\gamma}^1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\color{gris}0} & \mathbb{1} \\ \mathbb{1} & {\color{gris}0}
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
\boldsymbol{\gamma}^2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\color{gris}0} & -i\sigma_2\\ i\sigma_2 & {\color{gris}0}
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\boldsymbol{\gamma}^3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
-\mathbb{1} & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \mathbb{1}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
As shown in Section~\ref{sec:low-rank-invariants}, there is a
two-parameter family of symplectic forms on the
spinor representation $S$ which are invariant under the action of
$B_i$ and $J_i$. They are given by
\begin{equation}
\omega(s_1,s_2) := \Re(s_1 (\alpha \mathbb{i} + \beta \mathbb{j}) \overline{s}_2),
\end{equation}
for $\alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ not both zero. We may normalise $\omega$
such that $\alpha^2 + \beta^2 = 1$, resulting in a circle of
symplectic structures. Relative to the standard real basis
$(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k},1)$ for $\mathbb{H}$, the matrix $\Omega$ of $\omega$ is given
by $\Omega = i \sigma_2 \otimes (-\alpha \sigma_1 + \beta \sigma_3)$,
whose inverse is $\Omega^{-1} = - \Omega$, due to the chosen
normalisation. Let us define endomorphisms $\gamma^\mu$ of $S$ such
that $(\gamma^\mu)^a{}_b = (\Omega^{-1})^{ac} \gamma^\mu_{cb}$.
Explicitly, they are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
\gamma^0 &= i\sigma_2 \otimes (\alpha \sigma_1 - \beta\sigma_3)\\
\gamma^1 &= \sigma_3 \otimes (\alpha \sigma_1 - \beta\sigma_3)
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
\gamma^2 &= -\mathbb{1} \otimes (\alpha \sigma_3 + \beta\sigma_1)\\
\gamma^3 &= \sigma_1 \otimes (\alpha \sigma_1 - \beta\sigma_3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It then follows that these endomorphisms represent the Clifford
algebra $C\ell(1,3)$:
\begin{equation}
\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu + \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu = -2 \eta^{\mu\nu}
\mathbb{1}.
\end{equation}
We thus arrive at the description of the Poincaré superalgebra
described in the appendix.
\subsection{Central extensions}
\label{sec:central-extensions}
In this section, we determine the possible central extensions of the
kinematical and aristotelian Lie superalgebras.
We start with the kinematical Lie superalgebras. Let
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ be one of the Lie superalgebras
in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}. By a \textbf{central extension} of $\mathfrak{s}$, we
mean a short exact sequence of Lie superalgebras \begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \arrow[r] & \mathfrak{z} \arrow[r] & \widehat\mathfrak{s} \arrow[r] & \mathfrak{s} \arrow[r] & 0,
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{z}$ is central in $\widehat\mathfrak{s}$. We may choose a vector space
splitting and view (as a vector space) $\widehat\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s} \oplus \mathfrak{z}$ and
the Lie bracket is given, for $(X,z), (Y,z') \in \mathfrak{s} \oplus \mathfrak{z}$, by
\begin{equation}
[(X,z), (Y,z')]_{\widehat\mathfrak{s}} = \left( [X,Y]_{\mathfrak{s}}, \omega(X,Y) \right),
\end{equation}
where $\omega : \wedge^2\mathfrak{s} \to \mathfrak{z}$ is a cocycle. (Here $\wedge$ is
taken in the super sense, so that it is symmetric on odd elements.)
Central extensions of $\mathfrak{s}$ are classified up to isomorphism by the
Chevalley--Eilenberg cohomology group $H^2(\mathfrak{s})$, which by
Hochschild--Serre, can be computed from the subcomplex relative to the
rotational subalgebra $\r \subset \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$. Indeed, we have the
isomorphism \cite{MR0054581}
\begin{equation}
H^2(\mathfrak{s}) \cong H^2(s,\r).
\end{equation}
Let $W = \spn{H,\boldsymbol{B},\P,\boldsymbol{Q}}$. Then the cochains in $C^2(s,\r)$ are
$\r$-equivariant maps $\wedge^2W \to \mathbb{R}$ or, equivalently,
$\r$-invariant vectors in $\wedge^2 W^*$. This is a two-dimensional
real vector space which, in quaternionic language, is given for $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{equation}
\omega(\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{P}(\pi)) = x \Re(\beta \pi) = - \omega(\mathsf{P}(\pi),
\mathsf{B}(\beta)) \qquad\text{and}\qquad \omega(\mathsf{Q}(s_1), \mathsf{Q}(s_2)) = y
\Re(s_1\overline{s}_2).
\end{equation}
The cocycle conditions (i.e., the Jacobi identities of the central
extension $\widehat\mathfrak{s}$) has several components. Letting $\mathsf{V}$ stand
for either $\mathsf{B}$ or $\mathsf{P}$, the cocycle conditions are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\omega([H,\mathsf{V}(\alpha)], \mathsf{V}(\beta)) + \omega(\mathsf{V}(\alpha), [H,\mathsf{V}(\beta)]) &= 0,\\
\omega([\mathsf{V}(\alpha),\mathsf{V}(\beta)], \mathsf{V}(\gamma)) + \text{cyclic} &= 0,\\
\omega([H,\mathsf{Q}(s)],\mathsf{Q}(s)) &= 0,\\
2 \omega([\mathsf{V}(\alpha),\mathsf{Q}(s)], \mathsf{Q}(s)) + \omega([\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)],\mathsf{V}(\alpha)) &= 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The first two of the above equations only involve the even
generators and hence depend only on the underlying kinematical Lie
algebra, whereas the last two equations do depend on the precise
superalgebra we are dealing with. In the case of aristotelian Lie
superalgebras, there is no $\boldsymbol{B}$ and hence $\mathsf{V} = \mathsf{P}$ in the above
equations and, of course, the cocycle can only modify the $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}]$
bracket and hence the cocycle conditions are simply
\begin{equation}
\omega([H,\mathsf{Q}(s)],\mathsf{Q}(s)) = 0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\omega([\mathsf{P}(\alpha),\mathsf{Q}(s)], \mathsf{Q}(s)) = 0.
\end{equation}
The calculations are routine, and we will not give any details, but
simply collect the results in Table~\ref{tab:central-ext}, where $Z$
is the basis for the one-dimensional central ideal $\mathfrak{z} = \spn{Z}$, and
where we list only the brackets which are liable to change under
central extension.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Central extensions of kinematical and aristotelian Lie superalgebras}
\label{tab:central-ext}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l*{2}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{P}(\pi)]$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$} \\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA1}{1} & & |s|^2 Z - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA4}{4} & -\Re(\beta\pi) Z & |s|^2 H \\
\hyperlink{KLSA5}{5} & & |s|^2 Z - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA6}{6} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA7}{7} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA8}{8} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{10$_{\gamma=0,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA11}{11$_{\chi=0}$} & & |s|^2 Z - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA13}{13} & -\Re(\beta\pi) (H + Z) & |s|^2 H \\
\hyperlink{KLSA23}{23} & & |s|^2 Z - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA24}{24} & & |s|^2 Z - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA29}{29} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA30}{30} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA34}{34} & & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\midrule
\hyperlink{ALSA36}{36} & - & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{ALSA37}{37} & - & |s|^2 Z -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption*{The first column is our identifier for $\mathfrak{s}$, whereas the
other two columns are the possible central terms in the central
extension $\widehat\mathfrak{s}$. Here $\beta,\pi \in\Im\mathbb{H}$ and $s \in
\mathbb{H}$ are (some of) the parameters defining the Lie brackets in the
quaternionic formalism explained in Section~\ref{sec:quat-form}.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Automorphisms of kinematical Lie superalgebras}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie}
In the next section, we will classify the homogeneous superspaces
associated to the kinematical Lie superalgebras. As we will explain
below, the first stage is to classify ``super Lie pairs'' up to
isomorphism. To that end, it behoves us to determine the group of
automorphisms of the Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}, to
which we now turn.
Without loss of generality, we can restrict to automorphisms which are
the identity when restricted to $\r$: we call them $\r$-fixing
automorphisms. Following from our discussion in
Section~\ref{sec:automorphisms}, these are parametrised by triples
\begin{equation}
\left(A := \begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ c & d\end{pmatrix}, \mu,
\mathbb{q}\right) \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times \times \mathbb{H}^\times
\end{equation}
subject to the condition that the associated linear transformations
leave the Lie brackets in $\mathfrak{s}$ unchanged.
It is easy to read off from equation~\eqref{eq:autk-on-params} what
$(A, \mu,\mathbb{q})$ must satisfy for the $\r$-equivariant linear
transformation $\Phi : \mathfrak{s} \to \mathfrak{s}$ defined by them to be an
automorphism of $\mathfrak{s}$, namely:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aut-s}
\begin{aligned}[m]
\mathbb{h}\mathbb{q} &= \mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{h} \\
\mathbb{b}\mathbb{q} &= \mathbb{q} (a \mathbb{b} + c \mathbb{p}) \\
\mathbb{p}\mathbb{q} &= \mathbb{q} (b \mathbb{b} + d \mathbb{p}) \\
\mu c_0 &= |\mathbb{q}|^2 c_0
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{c}_1\overline{\mathbb{q}} &= \mathbb{c}_1 \\
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{c}_2\overline{\mathbb{q}} &= a \mathbb{c}_2 + b \mathbb{c}_3\\
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{c}_3 \overline{\mathbb{q}} &= c \mathbb{c}_2 + d \mathbb{c}_3.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is then a straightforward -- albeit lengthy -- process to go
through each Lie superalgebra in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} and solve
equations \eqref{eq:aut-s} for $(A, \mu,\mathbb{q})$. In particular, $(A,\mu)
\in \operatorname{Aut}_\r(\k)$ and they are given in Table~\ref{tab:aut-kla}. The
results of this section are summarised in Tables~\ref{tab:aut-klsa}
and \ref{tab:aut-klsa-extra}, which list the $\r$-fixing automorphisms
for the Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{KLSA1}{$\mathsf{S1}$}-
\hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$}
and \hyperlink{KLSA16}{$\mathsf{S16}$}-\hyperlink{KLSA35}{$\mathsf{S35}$},
respectively, in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}.
The first six Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} are
supersymmetric extensions of the static kinematical Lie algebra for
which $(A,\mu)$ can be any element in $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times$.
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S1}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-1}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \frac12\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$
and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} give
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}, \qquad b \mathbb{k} = 0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad d \mathbb{k}
= \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}
\end{equation}
The second equation requires $b=0$. The third equation says that the
real linear map $\alpha_\mathbb{q}: \mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{H}$ defined by $\alpha_\mathbb{q} (\mathbb{x})
= \mathbb{q} \mathbb{x} \overline{\mathbb{q}}$ preserves the $\mathbb{k}$-axis in $\Im \mathbb{H}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dk=qkqbar}
Let $\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}} = d \mathbb{q}$ for some $d\in \mathbb{R}$. Then either $d =
|\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} \in \spn{1,\mathbb{k}}$ or $d = - |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} \in
\spn{\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking the quaternion norm of both sides of the equation $\mathbb{q} \mathbb{k}
\overline{\mathbb{q}} = d \mathbb{q}$ and using that $\mathbb{q} \neq 0$, we see that $d =
\pm |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence right multiplying by $\mathbb{q}$, the equation
becomes $\pm \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k}$. If $\mathbb{k} \mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}$,
then $\mathbb{q} \in \spn{1,\mathbb{k}}$ and $d= |\mathbb{q}|^2$, whereas if $-\mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} =
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}$, then $\mathbb{q} \in \spn{\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j}}$ and $d = -|\mathbb{q}|^2$.
\end{proof}
Taking the quaternion norm of the first equation, shows that $\mu =
\pm 1$ and hence that $d = \mu |\mathbb{q}|^2$. In summary, we have that the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu= 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & - |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = - 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S2}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-2}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{j}$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} give
\begin{equation}
\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2, \qquad a \mathbb{j} + b \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{j} \overline{\mathbb{q}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad c \mathbb{j} + d \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
The last two equations say that the real linear map $\alpha_\mathbb{q} : \mathbb{H}
\to \mathbb{H}$ defined earlier preserves the $(\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$-plane in $\Im \mathbb{H}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:conj-plane}
The map $\alpha_\mathbb{q} : \mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{H}$ preserves the $(\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$-plane
in $\Im \mathbb{H}$ if and only if $\mathbb{q} \in \spn{1,\mathbb{i}} \cup
\spn{\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathbb{q} \neq 0$, we can write it as $\mathbb{q} = |\mathbb{q}| \mathbb{u}$, for some
unique $\mathbb{u} \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$ and $\alpha_\mathbb{q} = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \alpha_\mathbb{u}$.
The map $\alpha_\mathbb{q}$ preserves separately the real and imaginary
subspaces of $\mathbb{H}$ and $\alpha_\mathbb{q}$ preserves the $(\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$-plane
if and only if $\alpha_\mathbb{u}$ does. But for $\mathbb{u} \in \operatorname{Sp}(1)$,
$\alpha_\mathbb{u}$ acts on $\Im \mathbb{H}$ by rotations and hence if $\alpha_\mathbb{u}$
preserves $(\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k})$-plane, it also preserves the perpendicular
line: the $\mathbb{i}$-axis in this case and since it must preserve length,
$\alpha_\mathbb{u} (\mathbb{i}) = \pm \mathbb{i}$. It follows that $\alpha_\mathbb{q}(\mathbb{i}) = \pm |\mathbb{q}|^2
\mathbb{i}$, so that $\alpha_\mathbb{q}$ too preserves the $\mathbb{i}$-axis. By an
argument similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar} it follows
that $\mathbb{q}$ belongs either to the complex line in $\mathbb{H}$
generated by $\mathbb{i}$ or to its perpendicular complement.
\end{proof}
From the Lemma we have two cases to consider: $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_1 \mathbb{i}$ or
$\mathbb{q} = q_2 \mathbb{j} + q_3 \mathbb{k}$. In each case we can use the last two
equations to solve for $a,b,c,d$ in terms of the components of $\mathbb{q}$.
Summarising, we have that the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes
one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} q_4^2-q_1^2 & 2 q_1 q_4 \\ -2 q_1 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_1^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu= q_1^2+q_4^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_1 \mathbb{i}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2 q_2 q_3 \\ 2 q_2 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_2^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = q_2^2+q_3^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_2 \mathbb{j}
+ q_3 \mathbb{k}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S3}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-3}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$.
The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} give
\begin{equation}
\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2, \qquad b\mathbb{k} = 0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad d\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
This is very similar to the case of the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA1}{$\mathsf{S1}$} and, in
particular, Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar} applies. The typical
automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu= |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & - |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S4}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-4}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$. The
only condition is $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$. Hence the typical automorphism
$(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S5}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-5}
Here $\mathbb{h}= \mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{j}$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} are as for
Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA2}{$\mathsf{S2}$}, except that $\mu$ is
unconstrained. In other words, the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$
takes one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} q_4^2-q_1^2 & 2 q_1 q_4 \\ -2 q_1 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_1^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_1 \mathbb{i}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2 q_2 q_3 \\ 2 q_2 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_2^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_2 \mathbb{j}
+ q_3 \mathbb{k}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S6}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-6}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0= 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3= \mathbb{k}$.
This is similar to Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA3}{$\mathsf{S3}$}, except
that $\mu$ remains unconstrained. In summary, the typical
automorphisms $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & - |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The next two Lie superalgebras (\hyperlink{KLSA7}{$\mathsf{S7}$} and
\hyperlink{KLSA8}{$\mathsf{S8}$}) are supersymmetric extensions of the
galilean Lie algebra, where $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = \frac{d}{a}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S7}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-7}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3= \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} are
\begin{equation}
d \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = a \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad d\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
Multiplying the second equation on the right by $\mathbb{q}$, using the
first equation and the fact that $\mathbb{q} \neq 0$, results in $a =
d^2/|\mathbb{q}|^2$, so that $a > 0$. Taking the quaternion norm of the
first equation shows that $a = |d|$, so that $a = |\mathbb{q}|^2$. The first
equation now follows from the second, and that is solved by
Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}.
In summary the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes one of two
possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
|\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & - |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu=-1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S8}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-8}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$, $\mathbb{c}_1=\mathbb{c}_2 =0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$.
The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to just $d\mathbb{k} =
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}$, which we solve by Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}. In
summary, the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ is as in the
previous Lie superalgebra, except that $a$ is unconstrained (but
nonzero). It can thus take one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu =\frac{|\mathbb{q}|^2}{a} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & - |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu=-\frac{|\mathbb{q}|^2}{a} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The next two classes of Lie superalgebras are associated with the
one-parameter family of kinematical Lie algebras
\hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$}, whose typical automorphisms
$(A,\mu)$ depend on the value of $\gamma \in [-1,1]$. In the interior
of the interval, it takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = 1
\end{equation}
but at the boundaries this is enhanced: at $\gamma = -1$ one can also
have automorphisms of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\color{gris}0} & b \\ c & {\color{gris}0}
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = -1,
\end{equation}
whereas at $\gamma = 1$, the typical automorphism takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = 1.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S9}$$_{\gamma,\lambda}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-9}
Here $\mathbb{h}= \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k})$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 =
\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to $b=0$ and, in addition,
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) = (1+\lambda \mathbb{k}) \mathbb{q}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad d\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
Taking the norm of the first equation, we find that $\mu = \pm 1$. If
$\mu =1$, then $\lambda[\mathbb{k},\mathbb{q}] =0$ so that either $\lambda\neq 0$,
in which case $\mathbb{q} \in \spn{1,\mathbb{k}}$ or $\lambda = 0$ and $\mathbb{q}$ is not
constrained by this equation. The second equation is dealt with by
Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}, which implies in particular that $d =
\pm |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and since $\mathbb{q} \neq 0$, $d \neq 0$. This precludes the
case $\mu = -1$ by inspecting the possible automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ of
$\k$. In summary, for generic $\gamma$ and $\lambda$, the typical
automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3
\mathbb{k},
\end{equation}
which is enhanced for $\gamma = 1$ (but $\lambda$ still generic) to
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3
\mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
If $\lambda = 0$, then the automorphisms are enhanced by the addition
of $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j},
\end{equation}
for generic $\gamma$ or, for $\gamma = 1$ only, also
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} +
q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S10}$$_{\gamma,\lambda}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-10}
Here $\mathbb{h}= \tfrac12(\gamma + \lambda\mathbb{k})$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$,
$\mathbb{c}_1=\mathbb{c}_3=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} imply that $c=0$ and also
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} (\gamma + \lambda\mathbb{k}) = (\gamma + \lambda\mathbb{k}) \mathbb{q}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad a\mathbb{k} = q\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
It is very similar to the previous Lie superalgebra, except that here
$\gamma \neq 1$. Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar} says now that either $a
= |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ or $a = - |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_1
\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}$. In particular, since $\mathbb{q} \neq 0$, $a\neq 0$. From
the expressions for the automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ of $\k$, we see that
$\mu = 1$. This means that the first equation says $\mathbb{q}$ commutes
with $\gamma + \lambda \mathbb{k}$. If $\lambda = 0$, this condition is
vacuous, but if $\lambda \neq 0$, then it forces $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}$
and hence $a = |\mathbb{q}|^2$.
In summary, for $\lambda \neq 0$ we have that
$(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
|q|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k},
\end{equation}
whereas if $\lambda = 0$ it can also take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
-|q|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra is based on the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA4}{$\mathsf{K4}_\chi$}, whose automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ -b & a
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = 1
\end{equation}
for generic $\chi$, whereas if $\chi = 0$, then they can also be of
the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ b & -a
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = -1.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S11}$$_\chi$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-11}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \tfrac12 (\chi + \mathbb{j})$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = 0$,
$\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{i}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} (\chi + \mathbb{j}) = (\chi + \mathbb{j})\mathbb{q}, \qquad \mathbb{q}\mathbb{i}\overline{\mathbb{q}} = a\mathbb{i} +
b\mathbb{k} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}} = c\mathbb{i} + d\mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
The last two equations are solved via Lemma~\ref{lem:conj-plane}:
either $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_2\mathbb{j}$ or else $\mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_3\mathbb{k}$. This
latter case can only happen when $\chi = 0$. Substituting these
possible expressions for $\mathbb{q}$ in the last two equations, we determine
the entries of the matrix $A$.
In summary, $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
q_4^2 - q_2^2 & - 2 q_2 q_4 \\ 2 q_2 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_2^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_2\mathbb{j},
\end{equation}
and (only) if $\chi = 0$ it can also take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
q_1^2 - q_3^2 & 2 q_1 q_3 \\ 2 q_1 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_1^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = -1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_3\mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra is the supersymmetric extension of the
kinematical Lie algebra \hyperlink{KLA5}{$\mathsf{K5}$}, whose automorphisms
$(A,\mu)$ are of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = 1.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S12}$$_\lambda$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-12}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k})$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0 =0$, $\mathbb{c}_1
= \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{h}\mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad a\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
The second equation is solved via Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}, which
says that either $a = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ or $a =
- |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}$. The first equation is
identically satisfied if $\lambda =0$, but otherwise it forces
$\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ and hence $a= |\mathbb{q}|^2$. In summary, for general
$\lambda$, an automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
|\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k},
\end{equation}
whereas if $\lambda = 0$, it can also take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
-|\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra is the supersymmetric extension of the
Carroll algebra, whose automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = ad - bc.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S13}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-13}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 =1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$.
The invariance conditions \eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to a single
condition: $ad - bc = |\mathbb{q}|^2$. The automorphisms $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ are of
the form
\begin{equation}
A = \begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = ad - bc = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathbb{q} \in\mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra is the Poincaré superalgebra whose
($\r$-fixing) automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ can take one of two possible
forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = d\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = -d.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S14}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-14}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $\mathbb{b}= \tfrac12 \mathbb{k}$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$
and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s}
translate into
\begin{equation}
\pm \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}, \qquad d = \pm |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
d\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}},
\end{equation}
where the signs are correlated and the last equation follows from the first two.
Choosing the plus sign, $\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}$, so that $\mathbb{q} =
q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ and $d = |\mathbb{q}|^2$, whereas choosing the minus sign,
$\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = - \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}$, so that $\mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}$ and $d =
-|\mathbb{q}|^2$.
In summary, automorphisms $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ of the Poincaré superalgebra
take the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad
&A = \begin{pmatrix} -1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra is the AdS superalgebra, whose ($\r$-fixing)
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ are of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\ \mp b & \pm a
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = \pm 1,
\end{equation}
where $a^2 + b^2 = 1$.
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S15}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-15}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\tfrac12\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b}=\tfrac12\mathbb{i}$, $\mathbb{p}=\tfrac12\mathbb{j}$, $c_0 =
1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{j}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3= \mathbb{i}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} include $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$, which forces $\mu
= 1$. Taking this into account, another of the invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} is $\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q}$, which together with
$|\mathbb{q}|=1$, forces $\mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}$. The remaining invariance
conditions are
\begin{equation}
a \mathbb{q} \mathbb{i} - b \mathbb{q} \mathbb{j} = \mathbb{i}\mathbb{q}, \qquad
b \mathbb{q} \mathbb{i} + a \mathbb{q} \mathbb{j} = \mathbb{j}\mathbb{q}, \qquad
a\mathbb{j}\mathbb{q} + b \mathbb{i}\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{j} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
a\mathbb{i}\mathbb{q} - b\mathbb{j}\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{i}.
\end{equation}
Given the expression for $\mathbb{q}$, these are solved by $a = \cos2\theta$
and $b = \sin2\theta$. In summary, the ($\r$-fixing) automorphisms
$(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ of the AdS superalgebra are of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos2\theta & \sin2\theta \\ -\sin2\theta & \cos2\theta
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The next three Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} are
supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the following form:
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S16}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-16}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=0$, $\mathbb{p}= \tfrac12\mathbb{j}$, $c_0= 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = -\mathbb{i}$, $\mathbb{c}_2
= \mathbb{i}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = -\mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s}
reduce to
\begin{equation}
\pm \mathbb{q} \mathbb{j} = \mathbb{j}\mathbb{q}, \qquad \pm \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}\mathbb{i}\overline{\mathbb{q}} = \mathbb{i}.
\end{equation}
It follows from the last equation that $|\mathbb{q}|=1$ and hence that
$\mathbb{q}\mathbb{i} = \mathbb{i}\mathbb{q}$. Depending on the (correlated) signs of the first
two equations, we find that, for the plus sign, $\mathbb{q}$ commutes with
$\mathbb{i}$, $\mathbb{j}$ and $\mathbb{k}$ and hence $\mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{R}$, but since $|\mathbb{q}|=1$,
we must have $\mathbb{q} = \pm 1$. For the minus sign, we find that $\mathbb{q}$
commutes with $\mathbb{i}$ but anticommutes with $\mathbb{j}$ and $\mathbb{k}$, so that
$\mathbb{q} = \pm \mathbb{i}$, after taking into account that $|\mathbb{q}|=1$. In
summary, the automorphisms $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ of this Lie
superalgebra take one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= \pm 1\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -1
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= \pm \mathbb{i}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S17}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-17}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $\mathbb{b} = \tfrac12$, $c_0 =1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 =
\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$. There is only one invariance condition: namely, $\mu
= |\mathbb{q}|^2$, and hence the automorphisms $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S18}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-18}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\tfrac12\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b} = \tfrac12$, $\mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 =
\mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2=\mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{k}
= \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
From the first equation we see that $\mu = \pm 1$, but from the
second it must be positive, so $\mu = 1$, which says implies that
$|\mathbb{q}| = 1$ and hence that $\mathbb{q}$ commutes with $\mathbb{k}$. In summary, the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta \mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The next four Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} are
supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} in
Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose typical $\r$-fixing automorphisms $(A,\mu)$
take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S19}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-19}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b} =0$, $\mathbb{p} = \tfrac12$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3 =
\mathbb{k}$ and $\mathbb{c}_2= -\mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s}
are given by
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad
d\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q}.
\end{equation}
The last equation says that $d=1$, whereas the first says that $\mu =
\pm 1$, but from the second equation it is positive and thus $\mu =
1$. This also means $|\mathbb{q}|=1$ and that $\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}=\mathbb{k}\mathbb{q}$. In summary,
the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ of $\mathfrak{s}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S20}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-20}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b} =0$, $\mathbb{p} = \tfrac12$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3=
0$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} are given by
\begin{equation}
d\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2.
\end{equation}
The first equation simply sets $d= 1$ and, in summary, the typical
automorphism of $\mathfrak{s}$ is takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S21}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-22}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $\mathbb{b}=\tfrac12$, $c_0=1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 =
0$. The only invariance condition is $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$, so that the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S22}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-21}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \tfrac12\mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b}=\tfrac12$, $\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$,
$\mathbb{c}_1=\mathbb{c}_3=0$ and $\mathbb{c}_2=\mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2.
\end{equation}
The first equation says that $\mu = \pm 1$, but the second equation
says it is positive, so that $\mu = 1$ and $|\mathbb{q}|=1$. Furthermore,
$\mathbb{q}$ commutes with $\mathbb{k}$, so that $\mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}$. In summary,
the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The next six Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} are
supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S23}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-23}
Here $\mathbb{h}= \mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3
= \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mu \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad d \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
The first equation says that $\mu = \pm 1$, so that $\pm \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}
\mathbb{q}$. The second equation follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}:
either $d = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ or $d = -|\mathbb{q}|^2$
and hence $\mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}$. In summary, the typical
automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu =1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu = -1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S24}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-24}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$.
Hence the only invariance condition is $d\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar} says that either $d = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence
$\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}$ or else $d = - |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence $\mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}$. In summary, the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes
one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \in\mathbb{R}^\times \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu \in\mathbb{R}^\times \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S25}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-25}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$, so that
the only invariance condition is $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$. In summary, the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S26}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-26}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$,
so that there are two conditions in \eqref{eq:aut-s}:
\begin{equation}
\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad d \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
The second equation can be solved via Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar}:
either $d = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}$ or $d= - |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and
$\mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}$. In summary, the automorphisms
$(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ take one of two possible forms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu =|\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\\
\text{or}\qquad &A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mu =|\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1 \mathbb{i}
+ q_2 \mathbb{j}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S27}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-27}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $\mathbb{b}=\frac12$, $c_0= 1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 =
0$, so that the only invariance condition is $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$.
Therefore the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S28}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-28}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\frac12$, $\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
the following:
\begin{equation}
\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2, \qquad \mu \mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}
\mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
From the second equation we see that $\mu = 1$, so that from the first
$|\mathbb{q}| = 1$ and hence $\mathbb{k} \mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k}$, so that $\mathbb{q} =
e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}$. In summary, the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{p})$
takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The next four Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} are
supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S29}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-29}
Here $\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $\mathbb{h}= \mathbb{k}$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and
$\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} result in
\begin{equation}
\mu\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad a^2 \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
Taking the norm of the first equation, we see that $\mu = \pm 1$, and
of the second equation, $a^2=|\mathbb{q}|^2$. This then says that $\mathbb{q}$
commutes with $\mathbb{k}$, so that $\mu = 1$ and $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}$. In
summary, the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\pm |\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 +
q_3\mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S30}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-30}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p} =0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 =
\mathbb{k}$. The only invariance condition is $a^2\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}$.
Taking the norm, $a^2 = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence $\mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}$ and thus
$\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$. Hence the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$
takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\pm |\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu \in \mathbb{R}^\times \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q}
= q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S31}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-31}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$ and $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = \mathbb{c}_3 = 0$, so that
the only invariance condition is $\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2$. In summary, the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} \in \mathbb{H}^\times.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S32}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-32}
Here $\mathbb{h}=\mathbb{b}=\mathbb{p}=0$, $c_0=1$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$,
so that there are two invariance conditions:
\begin{equation}
\mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad a^2 \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
The second shows that $a^2 = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence $\mathbb{q}$ commutes with
$\mathbb{k}$, so that $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$. In summary, the
typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\pm |\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = |\mathbb{q}|^2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4
+ q_3 \mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} is a one-parameter
family of supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA16}{$\mathsf{K16}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu =1.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S33}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-33}
Here $\mathbb{h}= \frac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k})$, $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 = 0$,
$\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. There are two invariance
conditions:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{q} (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) = (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
d \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
For the second equation we use Lemma~\ref{lem:dk=qkqbar} and for the
first equation we must distinguish between $\lambda =0$ and $\lambda
\neq 0$. In the latter case, we have that $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$ so
that only the $d = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ of the lemma survives. If $\lambda = 0$,
both branches survive. In summary, for $\lambda \neq 0$, the typical
automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k},
\end{equation}
whereas if $\lambda = 0$ we have additional automorphisms of the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}.
\end{equation}
The next Lie superalgebra in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} is the
supersymmetric extension of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA17}{$\mathsf{K17}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu =a.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S34}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-34}
Here $\mathbb{h} = \frac12 \mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 = \mathbb{c}_2 =
0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance conditions are
\begin{equation}
a \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k}\mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad a^2\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} \overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
Taking norms of the first equation gives $a = \pm 1$ and hence $\pm
\mathbb{q}\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q}$ and of the second equation $a^2 = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ and hence
$\mathbb{q} \mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q}$. This shows that $a = 1$ and hence $|\mathbb{q}| = 1$,
so that $\mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}$. In summary, the typical automorphism
$(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}.
\end{equation}
The last Lie superalgebra in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} is a one-parameter
family of supersymmetric extensions of the kinematical Lie algebra
\hyperlink{KLA18}{$\mathsf{K18}$} in Table~\ref{tab:kla}, whose $\r$-fixing
automorphisms $(A,\mu)$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & a^2
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mu =1.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Automorphisms of Lie superalgebra $\mathsf{S35}$}
\label{sec:autom-kinem-lie-35}
Here $\mathbb{h} = 1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}$, $\mathbb{b} = \mathbb{p} = 0$, $c_0 = 0$, $\mathbb{c}_1 =
\mathbb{c}_2 = 0$ and $\mathbb{c}_3 = \mathbb{k}$. The invariance
conditions~\eqref{eq:aut-s} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{q} (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) = (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) \mathbb{q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
a^2\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{q}\mathbb{k}\overline{\mathbb{q}}.
\end{equation}
Taking the norm of the second equation, $a^2 = |\mathbb{q}|^2$ so that $\mathbb{q}
\mathbb{k} = \mathbb{k} \mathbb{q}$ and hence $\mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}$. This also solves the
first equation, independently of the value of $\lambda$. In summary,
the typical automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\pm |\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \mu = 1 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathbb{q} = q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Summary}
\label{sec:summary-1}
Tables~\ref{tab:aut-klsa} and \ref{tab:aut-klsa-extra} summarise the above discussion and lists the
typical automorphisms of each of the Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Automorphisms of kinematical Lie superalgebras}
\label{tab:aut-klsa}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Typical $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q}) \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times \times \mathbb{H}^\times$}\\
\toprule
\hypertarget{SAut1}{1} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, -1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut2}{2} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} q_4^2-q_1^2 & 2 q_1 q_4 \\ -2 q_1 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_1^2
\end{pmatrix}, q_1^2+q_4^2, q_4 + q_1 \mathbb{i}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix}
q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2 q_2 q_3 \\ 2 q_2 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_2^2
\end{pmatrix}, q_2^2+q_3^2, q_2 \mathbb{j} + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut3}{3} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut4}{4} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut5}{5} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} q_4^2-q_1^2 & 2 q_1 q_4 \\ -2 q_1 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_1^2
\end{pmatrix}, \mu, q_4 + q_1 \mathbb{i}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix}
q_2^2-q_3^2 & 2 q_2 q_3 \\ 2 q_2 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_2^2
\end{pmatrix}, \mu, q_2 \mathbb{j} + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut6}{6} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu , q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu , q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut7}{7} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, -1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut8}{8} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \frac{|\mathbb{q}|^2}{a}, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, -\frac{|\mathbb{q}|^2}{a}, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut9a}{9$_{\gamma\neq 1, \lambda \neq 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut9b}{9$_{\gamma= 1, \lambda \neq 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut9c}{9$_{\gamma\neq 1, \lambda= 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut9d}{9$_{\gamma= 1, \lambda = 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut10a}{10$_{\gamma,\lambda\neq0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut10b}{10$_{\gamma,\lambda=0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3 \mathbb{k}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} -|\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2 \mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut11a}{11$_{\chi> 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} q_4^2 - q_2^2 & - 2 q_2 q_4 \\ 2 q_2 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_2^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut11b}{11$_{\chi= 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} q_4^2 - q_2^2 & - 2 q_2 q_4 \\ 2 q_2 q_4 & q_4^2 - q_2^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_2\mathbb{j}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} q_1^2 - q_3^2 & 2 q_1 q_3 \\ 2 q_1 q_3 & q_3^2 - q_1^2 \end{pmatrix}, -1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut12a}{12$_{\lambda\neq 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut12b}{12$_{\lambda= 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} |\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} -|\mathbb{q}|^2 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut13}{13} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}, ad-bc = |\mathbb{q}|^2, \mathbb{q}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut14}{14} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right), \left(\begin{pmatrix} -1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut15}{15} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} \cos2\theta & -\sin2\theta \\ \sin2\theta & \cos2\theta \end{pmatrix}, 1, e^{\theta \mathbb{k}}\right)\\[10pt]
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Automorphisms of kinematical Lie superalgebras (continued)}
\label{tab:aut-klsa-extra}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Typical $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q}) \in \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) \times \mathbb{R}^\times \times \mathbb{H}^\times$}\\
\toprule
\hypertarget{SAut16}{16} &\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1 \end{pmatrix},\mu, \pm 1 \right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \mu, \pm\mathbb{i} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut17}{17} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut18}{18} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix}, 1, e^{\theta\mathbb{k}} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut19}{19} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1 \end{pmatrix}, 1, e^{\theta\mathbb{k}} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut20}{20} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & 1 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut21}{21} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2, \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut22}{22} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & \pm 1 \end{pmatrix}, 1, e^{\theta\mathbb{k}} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut23}{23} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1, q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, -1, q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut24}{24} &\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu , q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut25}{25} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut26}{26} &\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut27}{27} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , \mathbb{q} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut28}{28} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d \end{pmatrix}, 1 , e^{\theta\mathbb{k}}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut29}{29} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} \pm|\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut30}{30} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} \pm|\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, \mu , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut31}{31} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & a^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , \mathbb{q}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut32}{32} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} \pm|\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, |\mathbb{q}|^2 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut33a}{33$_{\lambda \neq 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut33b}{33$_{\lambda = 0}$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right),
\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & -|\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1 , q_1\mathbb{i} + q_2\mathbb{j}\right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut34}{34} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & 1 \end{pmatrix}, 1, e^{\theta\mathbb{k}} \right)\\[10pt]
\hypertarget{SAut35}{35$_\lambda$} & \left(\begin{pmatrix} \pm|\mathbb{q}| & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & |\mathbb{q}|^2 \end{pmatrix}, 1 , q_4 + q_3\mathbb{k}\right)\\[10pt]
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Homogeneous superspaces}
\label{sec:homog-supersp}
In this section, we classify the simply-connected $(4|4)$-dimensional
homogeneous kinematical and aristotelian superspaces. We start by
classifying the super Lie pairs associated with the kinematical Lie
superalgebras. After determining the super Lie pairs, we select those
super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h})$ which are effective in a basis where $\mathfrak{h}$
is always the span of $\boldsymbol{J}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$. In this way, the super Lie pair
is uniquely characterised by writing the Lie brackets of $\mathfrak{s}$ in that
basis.
Before starting with the classification of super Lie pairs, we first
explain the relationship between super Lie pairs and homogeneous
supermanifolds. We shall be brief and refer the reader to
\cite{MR2640006}, particularly Section~5, for the details. Although
the treatment in that paper is phrased in the context of spin
manifolds, the results are more general and apply to the homogeneous
spacetimes under consideration, even in the absence of an invariant
pseudo-riemannian structure.
\subsection{Homogeneous supermanifolds}
\label{sec:homog-superm}
In this paper, we shall adopt the following definition for
supermanifolds (see, e.g., \cite{MR0580292}).
\begin{definition}
A smooth \textbf{supermanifold} of dimension $(m|n)$ is a pair $(M,\mathcal{O})$,
where the \textbf{body} $M$ is a smooth $m$-dimensional manifold and
the \textbf{structure sheaf} $\mathcal{O}$ is a sheaf of supercommutative
superalgebras extending the sheaf $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ of smooth function of $M$ by
the subalgebra of nilpotent elements $\mathcal{N}$; that is, we have an
exact sequence of sheaves of supercommutative superalgebras:
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \arrow[r] & \mathcal{N} \arrow[r] & \mathcal{O} \arrow[r] & \mathcal{C}^\infty \arrow[r] & 0,
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
where for every $p \in M$, there is a neighbourhood $p \in U \subset
M$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}(U) \cong \mathcal{C}^\infty(U) \otimes \wedge[\theta^1,\dots,\theta^n].
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
All the homogeneous supermanifolds in this paper are \textbf{split}:
$\mathcal{O}$ is isomorphic to the sheaf of sections of the exterior
algebra bundle of a homogeneous vector bundle $E \to M$; that is,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}(U) = \Gamma\left(U, \oplus_{p\geq 0}\wedge^p E\right)
\qquad\text{with}\qquad \mathcal{N}(U) = \Gamma\left(U,
\oplus_{p\geq 1}\wedge^p E\right).
\end{equation}
A celebrated theorem of Batchelor's states that any smooth supermanifold
always admits a splitting; although the splitting is not canonical
\cite{MR536951}.
Lie supergroups can be described as group objects in the category of
supermanifolds, but there is an equivalent description in terms of
Harish-Chandra pairs. Indeed, there is an equivalence of categories
between Lie supergroups and \textbf{Harish-Chandra pairs}
\cite{MR0580292, MR760837} $(\mathcal{K},\mathfrak{s})$ consisting of a Lie group
$\mathcal{K}$ and a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$
where the Lie algebra of $\mathcal{K}$ is (isomorphic to) $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ and
where the adjoint action of $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ on $\mathfrak{s}$ lifts to an action
of $\mathcal{K}$ on $\mathfrak{s}$ by automorphisms. By a result of Koszul
\cite{MR760837} (see also \cite[Thm.~2.2]{MR2640006}) the structure
sheaf of the Lie supergroup corresponding to a Harish-Chandra pair
$(\mathcal{K},\mathfrak{s})$ is the sheaf of smooth functions
$\mathcal{K} \to \wedge^\bullet \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$, which can be interpreted as
the sheaf of smooth sections of the trivial vector bundle $\mathcal{K} \times
\wedge^\bullet \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ over $\mathcal{K}$.
Now suppose that $M$ is a simply-connected homogeneous manifold
realising a pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$. Recall that this means that
$M = \mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is a connected and simply-connected Lie
group with Lie algebra $\k$ and $\mathcal{H}$ is the connected Lie
subgroup of $\mathcal{K}$ generated by $\mathfrak{h}$, assumed closed. Suppose that
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is a Lie superalgebra with
$\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0} = \k$. Then $S := \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ is a representation of
$\k$ and, since $\mathcal{K}$ is simply-connected, it is also a
representation of $\mathcal{K}$ and, by restriction, also a representation of
$\mathcal{H}$. Let $E := \mathcal{K} \times_{\mathcal{H}} S$ denote the
homogeneous vector bundle over $M$ associated with the representation
$S$ of $\mathcal{H}$. We define a supermanifold $(M,\mathcal{O})$ where $\mathcal{O}$ is the
sheaf of sections of the exterior bundle $\wedge^\bullet E$. This
supermanifold is called the \textbf{superisation} of $M$ defined by
the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ (\emph{cf.} \cite[Thm.~5.6]{MR2640006}).
Conversely, any homogeneous supermanifold is of this form. Although
the result is more general, we need only the special case where $\mathcal{H}
\subset \mathcal{K}$ is a closed Lie subgroup. Then the homogeneous
superisation of $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$ has as structure sheaf the
$\mathcal{H}$-equivariant smooth functions $\mathcal{K} \to \wedge^\bullet \mathfrak{s}_{\bar
1}$ (\emph{cf.} \cite[§3.3]{MR2640006}), but these are precisely the
smooth sections of the homogeneous vector bundle over $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$
associated to the representation $\wedge^\bullet \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ of
$\mathcal{H}$.
Therefore to every homogeneous superisation of $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$ we
may associate a pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ and, conversely, every pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$
defines a homogeneous superisation of $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$. Let us formally
define these pairs in our present context.
\begin{definition}
A \textbf{super Lie pair} consists of a pair $(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h})$ where $\mathfrak{s}$
is one of the kinematical Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}
and $\mathfrak{h}$ is a Lie subalgebra containing $\r$ and decomposing as
$\mathfrak{h} = \r \oplus V$ under the adjoint action of $\r$, where
$V \subset \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is a copy of the vector representation.
Just as in the non-super case discussed in
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2017ycu}, we shall refer to such Lie
subalgebras as \textbf{admissible}. Two super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h})$
and $(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h}')$ are \textbf{isomorphic} if there is an automorphism
of $\mathfrak{s}$ under which $\mathfrak{h}$ goes to $\mathfrak{h}'$. We shall say that a super
Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is \textbf{geometrically realisable} if and only
if so is the Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$, where $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$. We say
that a super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is \textbf{effective} if $\mathfrak{h}$ does
not contain an ideal of $\mathfrak{s}$.
\end{definition}
We observe that the condition of being geometrically realisable has
nothing to do with supersymmetry, whereas the condition of being
effective does take into account the whole superalgebra. It is thus
possible, and indeed we will see examples below, that a geometrically
realisable super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is effective, but the underlying pair
$(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not. In that case, the vectorial generators in $\mathfrak{h}$ act
trivially on the body of the superspace, but nontrivially on the
fermionic coordinates; that is, they generate R-symmetries.
As in the classical theory, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between (isomorphism classes of) effective, geometrically realisable
super Lie pairs and (isomorphism classes of) homogeneous superisations
of homogeneous manifolds. To the best of our knowledge, this result
is part of the mathematical folklore and we are not aware of any
reference where this result is proved or even stated as such.
\subsection{Admissible super Lie pairs}
\label{sec:slie-pairs}
We are now ready to classify admissible super Lie pairs up to
isomorphism. We recall these are pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, where $\mathfrak{s}$ is one
of the kinematical Lie superalgebras in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} and $\mathfrak{h}$
is a Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{h} \subset \k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ which is admissible
in the sense of \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}; that is, it contains
the rotational subalgebra $\r$ and, as a representation of $\r$,
$\mathfrak{h} = \r \oplus V$ where $V \subset \k$ is a copy of the vector
representation. Two super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ and $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h}')$ are
isomorphic if there is an automorphism of $\mathfrak{s}$ which maps $\mathfrak{h}$
(isomorphically) to $\mathfrak{h}'$. As in
\cite[§3]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}, our strategy in classifying
admissible super Lie pairs up to isomorphism will be to take each
kinematical Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} in turn,
determine the admissible subalgebras $\mathfrak{h}$ and study the action of the
automorphisms in Tables~\ref{tab:aut-klsa} and
\ref{tab:aut-klsa-extra} on the space of admissible subalgebras in
order to select one representative from each orbit. In particular,
every admissible super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ defines a unique admissible
Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ which, if effective and geometrically realisable,
is associated with a unique simply-connected kinematical homogeneous
spacetime $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$. That being the case, we may think of the super
Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ as a homogeneous kinematical superspacetime which
superises $\mathcal{K}/\mathcal{H}$.
Without loss of generality -- since an admissible subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$
contains $\r$ -- the vectorial complement $V$ can be taken to be the
span of $\alpha B_i + \beta P_i$, $i=1,2,3$, for some
$\alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ not both zero, since the spans of
$\{J_i, \alpha B_i + \beta P_i\}$ and of
$\{J_i, \alpha B_i + \beta P_i + \gamma J_i\}$ coincide for all
$\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$. We will often use the shorthand
$V = \alpha \boldsymbol{B} + \beta \P$. The determination of the possible
admissible subalgebras can be found in
\cite[§§3.1-2]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}, but we cannot simply import
the results of that paper wholesale because here we are only allowed
to act with automorphisms of $\mathfrak{s}$ and not just of $\k$.
As in that paper, we will eventually change basis in the Lie
superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ so that the admissible subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ is spanned by
$\boldsymbol{J}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$. Hence in determining the possible super Lie pairs, we
will keep track of the required change of basis, ensuring, where
possible, that $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is reductive; that is, such that $H, P_i,
Q_a$ (defined by equation~\eqref{eq:quat-basis-s}) span a subspace $\mathfrak{m}
\subset \mathfrak{s}$ complementary to $\mathfrak{h}$ and such that $[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{m}]\subset \mathfrak{m}$.
This is equivalent to requiring that the span $\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0}$ of $H,
P_i$ satisfies $[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0}] \subset \mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0}$, since the $Q_i$
span $\mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ and $[\mathfrak{h}, \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} ] \subset \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$ by
virtue of $\mathfrak{s}$ being a Lie superalgebra.
It follows by inspection of
\cite[§§3.1-2]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} that the Lie superalgebras
$\mathfrak{s}$ whose automorphisms are listed in Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa} are
extensions of kinematical Lie algebras $\k$ for which \emph{any}
vectorial subspace $V = \alpha \boldsymbol{B} + \beta \P$ defines an admissible
subalgebra $\mathfrak{h} = \r \oplus V \subset \k$. It is then a simple matter
to determine the orbits of the action of the automorphisms listed in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa} on the space of vectorial subspaces and hence
to arrive at a list of possible inequivalent super Lie pairs
$(\mathfrak{s}, \mathfrak{h})$ for such $\mathfrak{s}$.
It also follows by inspection of
\cite[§§3.1-2]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} that, of the remaining Lie
superalgebras (i.e., those whose automorphisms are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa-extra}), most are extensions of kinematical Lie
algebras possessing a unique vectorial subspace $V$ for which
$\mathfrak{h} = \r \oplus V$ is an admissible subalgebra. The exceptions are
those Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{KLSA23}{$\mathsf{S23}$}--\hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$}
and \hyperlink{KLSA33}{$\mathsf{S33}_\lambda$}, which are extensions
of the kinematical Lie algebras \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} and
\hyperlink{KLA16}{$\mathsf{K16}$}, respectively, for which there are
precisely two vectorial subspaces leading to admissible subalgebras.
Let us concentrate first on the Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{KLSA1}{$\mathsf{S1}$}--\hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$},
whose automorphisms are listed in Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa}. As
mentioned above, for $V$ any vectorial subspace, $\mathfrak{h} = \r
\oplus V$ is an admissible subalgebra. We need to determine the
orbits of the action of the automorphisms in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa}. Since $V = \alpha \boldsymbol{B} + \beta \P$, this is
equivalent to studying the action of the matrix part $A$ of the
automorphism $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q})$ on nonzero
vectors $(\alpha,\beta) \in \mathbb{R}^2$. In fact, since $(\alpha,\beta)$
and $(\lambda\alpha,\lambda\beta)$ for $0 \neq \lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ denote
the same vectorial subspace, we must study the action of the subgroup
of $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ defined by the matrices $A$ in the automorphism group
on the projective space $\mathbb{RP}^1$. The map $(A,\mu,\mathbb{q}) \mapsto A$
defines a group homomorphism from the automorphism group of a Lie
superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ to $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$. We will let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the
image of this homomorphism: it is a subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and it is
the action of $\mathcal{A}$ on $\mathbb{RP}^1$ that we need to investigate. Of
course, $\mathcal{A}$ depends on $\mathfrak{s}$, even though we choose not to overload
the notation by making this dependence explicit.
It follows by inspection of Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa}, that for $\mathfrak{s}$
any of the Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{SAut2}{$\mathsf{S2}$},
\hyperlink{SAut4}{$\mathsf{S4}$}, \hyperlink{SAut5}{$\mathsf{S5}$},
\hyperlink{SAut11a}{$\mathsf{S11}_{\chi\geq 0}$},
\hyperlink{SAut13}{$\mathsf{S13}$} and
\hyperlink{SAut15}{$\mathsf{S15}$}, the subgroup
$\mathcal{A} \subset \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ acts transitively on $\mathbb{RP}^1$ and hence for
such Lie superalgebras there is a unique admissible subalgebra spanned
by $\boldsymbol{J}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$.
In contrast, if $\mathfrak{s}$ is any of the Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{SAut1}{$\mathsf{S1}$}, \hyperlink{SAut3}{$\mathsf{S3}$},
\hyperlink{SAut6}{$\mathsf{S6}$}, \hyperlink{SAut7}{$\mathsf{S7}$},
\hyperlink{SAut8}{$\mathsf{S8}$},
\hyperlink{SAut9b}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma=1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$},
\hyperlink{SAut12a}{$\mathsf{S12}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} and
\hyperlink{SAut14}{$\mathsf{S14}$}, the subgroup $\mathcal{A} \subset
\operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ acts with two orbits on $\mathbb{RP}^1$. For example, consider
the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{SAut1}{$\mathsf{S1}$}, for which any $A
\in \mathcal{A}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \qquad\text{for some $a,c,d \in \mathbb{R}$ with $a,d\neq 0$,}
\end{equation}
and act as
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ \beta
\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ c & d
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ \beta
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
a \alpha \\ d \beta + c \alpha
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
If $\alpha \neq 0$, we can choose $c = -d\beta/\alpha$ to bring
$(\alpha,\beta)$ to $(a\alpha, 0)$ which is projectively equivalent to
$(1,0)$. On the other hand, if $\alpha = 0$, then we cannot change
that via automorphisms and hence we have $(0,\beta)$, which is
projectively equivalent to $(0,1)$. In summary, we have two
inequivalent admissible subalgebras with vectorial subspaces $V=\boldsymbol{B}$
and $V=\P$. The same result holds for the other Lie superalgebras in
this list.
For the cases where $V=\P$ we change basis in the Lie superalgebra
$\mathfrak{s}$ so that the admissible subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ is spanned by $\boldsymbol{J}$ and
$\boldsymbol{B}$. This results in different brackets, which we now proceed to
list.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Super Lie pairs (with $V=\P$)}
\label{tab:slp-vp-1}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|*{3}{>{$}l<{$}}*{3}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\k$ brackets} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{h}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{p}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA1}{1} & & & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA3}{3} & & & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA6}{6} & & & & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA7}{7} & [H,\P]=-\boldsymbol{B} & & & \mathbb{k} & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA8}{8} & [H,\P]=-\boldsymbol{B} & & & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{9$_{\gamma=1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}]=\boldsymbol{B} & [H,\P]=\P & & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA12}{12$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}]=\boldsymbol{B} & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} + \P & & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA14}{14} & [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H & [\P,\P] = - \boldsymbol{J} & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & |s|^2 H + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Finally, if $\mathfrak{s}$ is any of the Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{SAut9a}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma\neq 1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} and
\hyperlink{SAut10a}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$}, the
subgroup $\mathcal{A} \subset \operatorname{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ acts with three orbits. Indeed,
the matrices $A \in \mathcal{A}$ are now diagonal and of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
a & {\color{gris}0} \\ {\color{gris}0} & d
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where at least one of $a,d$ can take \emph{any} nonzero value. If
$(\alpha,\beta)$ is such that $\alpha = 0$ or $\beta = 0$, we cannot
alter this via automorphisms and hence projectively we have either
$(1,0)$ or $(0,1)$. If $\alpha\beta \neq 0$, then we can always bring
it to $(1,1)$ or $(-1,-1)$ via an automorphism, but these are
projectively equivalent. In summary, we have three orbits,
corresponding to $V=\boldsymbol{B}$, $V = \P$ and $V = \boldsymbol{B} + \P$.
When $V = \P$, the Lie brackets of
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma\neq 1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} in the
new basis are given by
\begin{equation}
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}, \quad [H,\P]=\gamma\P,\quad [H,\mathsf{Q}(s)]=\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s
(1 + \lambda\mathbb{k})) \quad\text{and}\quad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
-\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{equation}
and those of \hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$}
by
\begin{equation}
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}, \quad [H,\P]=\gamma\P,\quad [H,\mathsf{Q}(s)]=\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s
(\gamma + \lambda\mathbb{k})) \quad\text{and}\quad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] =
-\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, when $V = \boldsymbol{B} + \P$, the Lie brackets of
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma\neq 1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} in the
new basis are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] &= -\P\\
[H,\P] &= \gamma\boldsymbol{B} + (1+\gamma)\P\\
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (1 + \lambda\mathbb{k}))\\
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{1-\gamma}(\gamma \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and those of \hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$}
by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] &= -\P\\
[H,\P] &= \gamma\boldsymbol{B} + (1+\gamma)\P\\
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (\gamma + \lambda\mathbb{k}))\\
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{\gamma-1}(\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now we turn to the Lie superalgebras whose automorphisms are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:aut-klsa-extra}. If $\mathfrak{s}$ is one such Lie superalgebra,
not every vectorial subspace leads to an admissible subalgebra. From
the results in \cite[§§3.1-2]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} we have that
Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{SAut16}{$\mathsf{S16}$}--\hyperlink{SAut22}{$\mathsf{S22}$}
admit a unique admissible subalgebra with $V = \boldsymbol{B}$, whereas for the
Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{SAut29}{$\mathsf{S29}$}--\hyperlink{SAut32}{$\mathsf{S32}$},
\hyperlink{SAut34}{$\mathsf{S34}$} and
\hyperlink{SAut35}{$\mathsf{S35}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} also admit a unique
admissible subalgebra with $V = \P$. Finally, the Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{SAut23}{$\mathsf{S23}$}--\hyperlink{SAut28}{$\mathsf{S28}$}
and \hyperlink{SAut33a}{$\mathsf{S33}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} admit precisely
two admissible subalgebras with $V= \boldsymbol{B}$ and $V= \P$, which cannot be
related by automorphisms.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{More super Lie pairs (with $V=\P$)}
\label{tab:slp-vp-2}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|*{3}{>{$}l<{$}}*{3}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{S\#} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\k$ brackets} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{h}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{p}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA23}{23} & [\P,\P] = \P & & & \mathbb{k} & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA24}{24} & [\P,\P] = \P & & & & & - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA25}{25} & [\P,\P] = \P & & & & & |s|^2 H \\
\hyperlink{KLSA26}{26} & [\P,\P] = \P & & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA27}{27} & [\P,\P]= \P & & & & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H \\
\hyperlink{KLSA28}{28} & [\P,\P]= \P & & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA29}{29} & [\P,\P]= \boldsymbol{B} & & & \mathbb{k} & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA30}{30} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA31}{31} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & & & & |s|^2 H \\
\hyperlink{KLSA32}{32} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & & & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA33}{33$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B} & [\P,\P] = \P & & \tfrac12 (1+\lambda \mathbb{k}) & & - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA34}{34} & [H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hyperlink{KLSA35}{35$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & [H,\P] = \P & [H,\boldsymbol{B}] =2\boldsymbol{B} & [\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} & 1+\lambda \mathbb{k} & & - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:super-lie-pairs} summarises the above results. For
each Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{s}$ in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} it lists the
admissible subalgebras $\mathfrak{h}$ and hence the possible super Lie pairs
$(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$. The notation for $\mathfrak{h}$ is simply the generators of the
vectorial subspace $V \subset \mathfrak{h}$, where the span of
$\alpha B_a + \beta P_a$ is abbreviated as $\alpha \boldsymbol{B} + \beta \P$.
The blue entries correspond to effective super Lie pairs, whereas the
green and greyed out correspond to non-effective super Lie pairs: the
green ones giving rise to aristotelian superspaces upon quotienting by
ideal. In Section~\ref{sec:class-arist-lie}, we classified
aristotelian Lie superspaces by classifying their corresponding
aristotelian Lie superalgebras (see Table~\ref{tab:alsa}) and in
Section~\ref{sec:arist-super-lie} we exhibit the precise
correspondence between the aristotelian non-effective super Lie pairs
and the aristotelian superspaces (see
Table~\ref{tab:aristo-correspondence}).
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Summary of super Lie pairs}
\label{tab:super-lie-pairs}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{l|l*{3}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\k$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$V \subset \mathfrak{h}$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA1}{$\mathsf{S1}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA2}{$\mathsf{S2}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA3}{$\mathsf{S3}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA4}{$\mathsf{S4}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA5}{$\mathsf{S5}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA6}{$\mathsf{S6}$} & \hyperlink{KLA1}{$\mathsf{K1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA7}{$\mathsf{S7}$} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA8}{$\mathsf{S8}$} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma\in[-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B} + \P}\\
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma=1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_{\gamma=1}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} &\\
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma\in[-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \non{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B} + \P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA11}{$\mathsf{S11}_{\chi\geq0}$} & \hyperlink{KLA4}{$\mathsf{K4}_\chi$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{l|l*{2}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\k$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V \subset \mathfrak{h}$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA12}{$\mathsf{S12}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA5}{$\mathsf{K5}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA13}{$\mathsf{S13}$} & \hyperlink{KLA6}{$\mathsf{K6}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$} & \hyperlink{KLA8}{$\mathsf{K8}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \eff{\P } \\
\hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$} & \hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathsf{K11}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA16}{$\mathsf{S16}$} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA17}{$\mathsf{S17}$} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA18}{$\mathsf{S18}$} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA19}{$\mathsf{S19}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA20}{$\mathsf{S20}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA21}{$\mathsf{S21}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA22}{$\mathsf{S22}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA23}{$\mathsf{S23}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{l|l*{2}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\k$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V \subset \mathfrak{h}$}\\
\toprule
\hyperlink{KLSA24}{$\mathsf{S24}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA25}{$\mathsf{S25}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA26}{$\mathsf{S26}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA27}{$\mathsf{S27}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \eff{\boldsymbol{B}} & \ari{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA29}{$\mathsf{S29}$} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA30}{$\mathsf{S30}$} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA31}{$\mathsf{S31}$} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & \ari{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA32}{$\mathsf{S32}$} & \hyperlink{KLA15}{$\mathsf{K15}$} & \ari{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA33}{$\mathsf{S33}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA16}{$\mathsf{K16}$} & \ari{\boldsymbol{B}} & \non{\P} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA34}{$\mathsf{S34}$} & \hyperlink{KLA17}{$\mathsf{K17}$} & \non{\P} & \\
\hyperlink{KLSA35}{$\mathsf{S35}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{KLA18}{$\mathsf{K18}$} & \non{\P} &\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption*{The blue pairs (e.g., \eff{\scriptsize\boldsymbol{B}}) are effective; the
green pairs (e.g., \ari{\scriptsize\boldsymbol{B}}) though not effective, give rise to
aristotelian superspaces; whereas the greyed out pairs (e.g.,
\non{\scriptsize\boldsymbol{B}}) are not effective and will not be considered further.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Effective super Lie pairs}
\label{sec:effective-super-lie}
Recall that a super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is said to be
\emph{effective} if $\mathfrak{h}$ does not contain an ideal of $\mathfrak{s}$. Since
$\mathfrak{h} \subset \k$ and contains the rotational subalgebra, which has
nonvanishing brackets with $\boldsymbol{Q}$, the only possible ideal of $\mathfrak{s}$
contained in $\mathfrak{h}$ would be the vectorial subspace $V \subset \mathfrak{h}$. It
is then a simple matter to inspect the super Lie pairs determined in
the previous section and select those for which $V$ is not an ideal of
$\mathfrak{s}$. Those super Lie pairs have been highlighted in blue in
Table~\ref{tab:super-lie-pairs}. We now take each such super Lie pair
in turn, change basis if needed so that $V$ is spanned by $\boldsymbol{B}$, and
then list the resulting brackets in that basis. Every such super Lie
pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ determines a Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$. If the Lie pair
$(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is effective (and geometrically realisable), then $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$
describes a homogeneous superisation of one of the spatially-isotropic
homogeneous spacetimes in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}. We remark
that there are effective super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ for which the
underlying Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not effective. In those cases, there
are no boosts on the body of the superspacetime, but instead there
are R-symmetries in the odd coordinates.
As usual, in writing the Lie brackets of $\mathfrak{s}$ below we do not include
any bracket involving $\boldsymbol{J}$, which are given in
equation~\eqref{eq:klsa-brackets-quat} and instead give any non-zero
additional brackets.
\subsubsection{Galilean superspaces}
\label{sec:super-g}
Galilean spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where $\k$ has the
additional bracket $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = - \P$. There are two possible
superisations $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\begin{cases}
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}) \\ 0
\end{cases} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
These are associated with Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{KLSA7}{$\mathsf{S7}$}
and \hyperlink{KLSA8}{$\mathsf{S8}$} in Table~\ref{tab:klsa}.
\subsubsection{Galilean de Sitter superspace}
\label{sec:super-dsg}
Galilean de Sitter spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where $\k$ has the
additional brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = - \P$ and $[H,\P] = -\boldsymbol{B}$. There are two
one-parameter family of superisations $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (\pm 1+\lambda\mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \tfrac12 (\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \mp \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}))
\end{equation}
for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. They are associated with Lie superalgebras
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}$$_{\gamma=-1,\lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}$$_{\gamma=-1,\lambda}$}, respectively.
\subsubsection{Torsional galilean de Sitter superspaces}
\label{sec:super-tdsg}
Torsional galilean de Sitter spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where
$\k$ has the additional brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = - \P$ and
$[H,\P] = \gamma \boldsymbol{B} + (1+ \gamma) \P$, where $\gamma\in(-1,1)$. There
are two one-parameter family of superisations $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (1+\lambda\mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac1{1-\gamma} (\gamma \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}))
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (\gamma+\lambda\mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \tfrac1{\gamma-1} (\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}))
\end{equation}
for $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. The associated Lie superalgebras are
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}$$_{\gamma,\lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}$$_{\gamma,\lambda}$}, respectively.
For $\gamma=1$, with additional brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P$ and $[H,\P] =
\boldsymbol{B} + 2 \P$, there is a one-parameter family of superisations, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (1+\lambda\mathbb{k})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
The associated Lie superalgebras are \hyperlink{KLSA12}{$\mathsf{S12}_{\lambda}$}.
\subsubsection{Galilean anti de Sitter superspace}
\label{sec:super-adsg}
Galilean anti de Sitter spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where $\k$ has the
additional brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P$ and $[H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B}$. It admits a
superisation $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s \mathbb{j}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA11}{$\mathsf{S11}_{\chi = 0}$}, after changing basis the sign of $\P$.
\subsubsection{Torsional galilean anti de Sitter superspace}
\label{sec:super-tadsg}
Torsional galilean anti de Sitter spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where $\k$ has the
additional brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = \chi \boldsymbol{B} + \P$ and $[H,\P] = \chi \P -
\boldsymbol{B}$, where $\chi > 0$. There is a unique superisation $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (\chi + \mathbb{j})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
For uniformity, we change basis so that $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P$ as for all
galilean spacetimes. Then the resulting super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is
determined by the brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P$, $[H,\P] = (1+\chi^2)\boldsymbol{B} +
2\chi \P$ and, in addition,
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] =\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s (\chi + \mathbb{j})) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}(\chi + \mathbb{j})\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{equation}
corresponding to the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA11}{$\mathsf{S11}$$_\chi$}.
\subsubsection{Carrollian superspace}
\label{sec:super-c}
Carrollian spacetime is described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where $\k$ has the
additional brackets $[\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H$. It admits a superisation
$(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with brackets
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA13}{$\mathsf{S13}$}.
\subsubsection{Minkowski superspace}
\label{sec:super-m}
Minkowski superspace arises as a superisation of Minkowski
spacetime, described by $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ with brackets $[H,\boldsymbol{B}] = -\P$,
$[\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H$ and $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = -\boldsymbol{J}$ and in addition
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s \mathbb{k})
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
This is, of course, the Poincaré superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$}.
\subsubsection{Carrollian anti de Sitter superspace}
\label{sec:super-adsc}
Carrollian anti de Sitter spacetime is described as $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ where
the $\k$ brackets are given by $[H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B}$, $[\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H$ and
$[\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J}$. It admits a unique superisation $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ with
brackets (we have rotated $\mathbb{k}$ to $\mathbb{i}$)
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{P}(\pi), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \pi s\mathbb{i}) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
We remark that just as with carrollian anti de Sitter and Minkowski
spacetimes, which are both homogeneous spacetimes of the Poincaré
group, their superisations have isomorphic supersymmetry algebras:
namely, the Poincaré superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$}.
\subsubsection{Anti de Sitter superspace}
\label{sec:super-ads}
Anti de Sitter spacetime is described kinematically as $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ with
brackets
\begin{equation}
[H,\boldsymbol{B}] =-\P, \qquad [H,\P] = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad [\boldsymbol{B},\P] = H, \qquad [\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}]
= -\boldsymbol{J} \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\P,\P] = -\boldsymbol{J}.
\end{equation}
It admits a unique superisation $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, with additional brackets
(where we have rotated $(\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j},\mathbb{k}) \mapsto (\mathbb{k},\mathbb{i},\mathbb{j})$ for uniformity)
\begin{gather}
[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s \mathbb{j}), \qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \beta s \mathbb{k}), \qquad [\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12
\pi s\mathbb{i}) \nonumber \\
\qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H +
\mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{gather}
The associated Lie superalgebra is \hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$}, which
is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$.
\subsubsection{Super-spacetimes extending $\mathbb{R} \times S^3$}
\label{sec:super-rxS3}
These correspond to the effective super Lie pairs associated with the
Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{KLSA21}{$\mathsf{S21}$} and
\hyperlink{KLSA22}{$\mathsf{S22}$}. The super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ are
effective, but the underlying Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not. Indeed, the
brackets of $\k$ are now $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$ and $[\P,\P]= \boldsymbol{J} - \boldsymbol{B}$, from
where we see that $\boldsymbol{B}$ spans an ideal of $\k$; although not one of
$\mathfrak{s}$, due to the brackets
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
for $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA21}{$\mathsf{S21}$} or
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s \mathbb{k}), \qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2
H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{equation}
for $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA22}{$\mathsf{S22}$}. In both
superspaces, $\boldsymbol{B}$ do not generate boosts but R-symmetries. The
underlying spacetime in both cases is the Einstein static universe
$\mathbb{R} \times S^3$.
\subsubsection{Super-spacetimes extending $\mathbb{R} \times H^3$}
\label{sec:super-rxH3}
These correspond to the effective super Lie pairs associated with the
Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{KLSA17}{$\mathsf{S17}$} and
\hyperlink{KLSA18}{$\mathsf{S18}$}. The super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ are
effective, but the underlying Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not. Indeed, the
brackets of $\k$ are $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$ and $[\P,\P] = \boldsymbol{B} - \boldsymbol{J}$, so that
$\boldsymbol{B}$ span an ideal $\v\subset \k$. The resulting aristotelian
spacetime $(\k/\v,\r)$ is the hyperbolic version of the Einstein
static universe \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R} \times H^3$}.
For $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA17}{$\mathsf{S17}$}, the brackets are
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
so that $\boldsymbol{B}$ does not span an ideal of $\mathfrak{s}$. In other words, $\boldsymbol{B}$ do
not generate boosts in the underlying homogeneous spacetime, but
rather R-symmetries.
A similar story holds for $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra
\hyperlink{KLSA18}{$\mathsf{S18}$}, with the additional brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s \mathbb{k}), \qquad [\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] =
\mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2
H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Again, $\boldsymbol{B}$ are to be interpreted as R-symmetries.
\subsubsection{Super-spacetimes extending the static aristotelian spacetime}
\label{sec:super-S}
This corresponds to the Lie superalgebras \hyperlink{KLSA27}{$\mathsf{S27}$}
and \hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$}. In either case the resulting super
Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ is effective, but the underlying Lie pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$
is not since $[\boldsymbol{B},\boldsymbol{B}] = \boldsymbol{B}$ spans an ideal of $\k$. The homogeneous
spacetime associated with the non-effective $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is the
aristotelian static spacetime \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$}.
As in the previous cases, the generators $\boldsymbol{B}$ do not act as boosts but
rather as R-symmetries, as evinced by the brackets:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H.
\end{equation}
for $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA27}{$\mathsf{S27}$}, or
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 s\mathbb{k}), \qquad
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12\beta s) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
for $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie superalgebra \hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$}.
\subsection{Aristotelian homogeneous superspaces}
\label{sec:arist-super-lie}
The super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ in green in
Table~\ref{tab:super-lie-pairs} are such that the vectorial subspace
$V \subset \mathfrak{h}$ is an ideal $\v$ of $\mathfrak{s}$. Quotienting $\mathfrak{s}$ by this
ideal yields a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{sa} \cong \mathfrak{s}/\v$ with
$\a = \mathfrak{sa}_{\bar 0}$ an aristotelian Lie algebra
(see~\cite[App.~A]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} for a classification).
The resulting aristotelian super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{sa},\r)$ is effective by
construction and geometrically realisable. It is then a simple matter
to identify the aristotelian Lie superalgebra to which each of those
non-effective super Lie pairs in Table~\ref{tab:super-lie-pairs}
leads. We summarise this in Table~\ref{tab:aristo-correspondence},
which exhibits the correspondence between aristotelian super Lie pairs
in Table~\ref{tab:super-lie-pairs} and aristotelian Lie superalgebras
in Table~\ref{tab:alsa}. We identify the super Lie pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ by
the label for $\mathfrak{s}$ as in Table~\ref{tab:klsa} and the ideal
$\v \subset \mathfrak{h}$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Correspondence between non-effective super Lie pairs and
aristotelian superalgebras}
\label{tab:aristo-correspondence}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}|l}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\v$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mathfrak{sa}$}\\\midrule
\hyperlink{KLSA1}{$\mathsf{S1}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA36}{$\mathsf{S36}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA2}{$\mathsf{S2}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA39}{$\mathsf{S39}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA3}{$\mathsf{S3}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA39}{$\mathsf{S39}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA3}{$\mathsf{S3}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA4}{$\mathsf{S4}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA5}{$\mathsf{S5}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA37}{$\mathsf{S37}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA6}{$\mathsf{S6}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA37}{$\mathsf{S37}$}\\
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma\in[-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA40}{$\mathsf{S40}_\lambda$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma=1,\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA40}{$\mathsf{S40}_\lambda$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}|l} \toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\v$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mathfrak{sa}$}\\\midrule
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma\in[-1,0)\cup(0,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA40}{$\mathsf{S40}_\lambda$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma=0,\lambda\neq 0}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA36}{$\mathsf{S36}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma=0,\lambda= 0}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA37}{$\mathsf{S37}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA16}{$\mathsf{S16}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA43}{$\mathsf{S43}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA19}{$\mathsf{S19}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA42}{$\mathsf{S42}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA20}{$\mathsf{S20}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA41}{$\mathsf{S41}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA23}{$\mathsf{S23}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA36}{$\mathsf{S36}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA24}{$\mathsf{S24}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA37}{$\mathsf{S37}$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tabular}{l|>{$}l<{$}|l} \toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\v$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mathfrak{sa}$}\\\midrule
\hyperlink{KLSA25}{$\mathsf{S25}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA25}{$\mathsf{S25}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA26}{$\mathsf{S26}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA39}{$\mathsf{S39}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA26}{$\mathsf{S26}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA27}{$\mathsf{S27}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA41}{$\mathsf{S41}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA42}{$\mathsf{S42}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA31}{$\mathsf{S31}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA32}{$\mathsf{S32}$} & \P & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} \\
\hyperlink{KLSA33}{$\mathsf{S33}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \boldsymbol{B} & \hyperlink{ALSA40}{$\mathsf{S40}_\lambda$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Summary}
\label{sec:summary-3}
Table~\ref{tab:superspaces} lists the homogeneous superspaces we have
classified in this paper. Each superspacetime is a superisation of an
underlying spatially-isotropic, homogeneous (kinematical or
aristotelian) spacetime, which we list in Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes},
which is borrowed from \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} (see also
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2019sex}), to which we refer the reader for a
detailed discussion of these spacetimes. Let us recall that
Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes} is divided into five sections,
corresponding to the different invariant structures which the
homogeneous spacetimes admit, as recalled in the introduction. We
have a similar division of Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}: with the
superisations of spacetimes admitting a lorentzian, galilean,
carrollian, aristotelian (with R-symmetries) and aristotelian (without
R-symmetries) structures, respectively. All spacetimes admit
superisations with the exception of the riemannian spaces, de Sitter
spacetime ($\hyperlink{S2}{\mathsf{dS}}_4$) and two of the carrollian
spacetimes: carrollian de sitter ($\hyperlink{S14}{\mathsf{dSC}}$) and the
carrollian light-cone ($\hyperlink{S16}{\mathsf{LC}}$).
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Simply-connected spatially-isotropic homogeneous superspaces}
\label{tab:superspaces}
\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\rowcolors{2}{blue!10}{white}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l*{4}{|>{$}c<{$}}}\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{SM\#} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{M} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathfrak{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\k$ (or $\a$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{h}$}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{b}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\mathbb{p}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$[\mathsf{Q}(s),\mathsf{Q}(s)]$} \\
\toprule
\hypertarget{SM1}{1} & \hyperlink{S1}{$\mathbb{M}^4$} & \hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$} & \hyperlink{KLA8}{$\mathsf{K8}$} & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM2}{2} & \hyperlink{S3}{$\mathsf{AdS}_4$} & \hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$} & \hyperlink{KLA11}{$\mathsf{K11}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{j} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{i} & |s|^2 H + \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\midrule
\hypertarget{SM3}{3} & \hyperlink{S7}{$\mathsf{G}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA7}{$\mathsf{S7}$} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & \mathbb{k} & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM4}{4} & \hyperlink{S7}{$\mathsf{G}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA8}{$\mathsf{S8}$} & \hyperlink{KLA2}{$\mathsf{K2}$} & & & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM5}{5$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{S8}{$\mathsf{dSG}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{-1,\lambda}$}& \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_{-1}$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\tfrac12 (\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})) \\
\hypertarget{SM6}{6$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{S8}{$\mathsf{dSG}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{-1,\lambda}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_{-1}$} & \tfrac12 (-1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & -\tfrac12 (\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})) \\
\hypertarget{SM7}{7$_{\gamma\in(-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{S9}{$\mathsf{dSG}_\gamma$} & \hyperlink{KLSA9}{$\mathsf{S9}_{\gamma,\lambda}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & \tfrac{1}{1-\gamma}(\gamma\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})) \\
\hypertarget{SM8}{8$_{\gamma\in(-1,1),\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{S9}{$\mathsf{dSG}_\gamma$} & \hyperlink{KLSA10}{$\mathsf{S10}_{\gamma,\lambda}$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_\gamma$} & \tfrac12 (\gamma + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & \tfrac1{\gamma-1}(\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})) \\
\hypertarget{SM9}{9$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{S9}{$\mathsf{dSG}_{\gamma=1}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA12}{$\mathsf{S12}_\lambda$} & \hyperlink{KLA3}{$\mathsf{K3}_1$} & \tfrac12 (1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & & & \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM10}{10} & \hyperlink{S10}{$\mathsf{AdSG}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA11}{$\mathsf{S11}_0$} & \hyperlink{KLA4}{$\mathsf{K4}_0$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{j} & & & -\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM11}{11$_{\chi>0}$} & \hyperlink{S11}{$\mathsf{AdSG}_\chi$} & \hyperlink{KLSA11}{$\mathsf{S11}_\chi$} & \hyperlink{KLA4}{$\mathsf{K4}_\chi$} & \tfrac12 (\chi + \mathbb{j}) & & & \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}(\chi + \mathbb{j})\overline{s}) + \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\midrule
\hypertarget{SM12}{12} & \hyperlink{S13}{$\mathsf{C}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA13}{$\mathsf{S13}$} & \hyperlink{KLA6}{$\mathsf{K6}$} & & & & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM13}{13} & \hyperlink{S15}{$\mathsf{AdSC}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$} & \hyperlink{KLA8}{$\mathsf{K8}$} & & & \tfrac12 \mathbb{i} & |s|^2 H + \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) \\
\midrule
\hypertarget{SM14}{14} & \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R} \times H^3$} & \hyperlink{KLSA17}{$\mathsf{S17}$} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM15}{15} & \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R} \times H^3$} & \hyperlink{KLSA18}{$\mathsf{S18}$} & \hyperlink{KLA12}{$\mathsf{K12}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s \mathbb{k} \overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM16}{16} & \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R} \times S^3$} & \hyperlink{KLSA21}{$\mathsf{S21}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM17}{17} & \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R} \times S^3$} & \hyperlink{KLSA22}{$\mathsf{S22}$} & \hyperlink{KLA13}{$\mathsf{K13}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM18}{18} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA27}{$\mathsf{S27}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM19}{19} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{KLSA28}{$\mathsf{S28}$} & \hyperlink{KLA14}{$\mathsf{K14}$} & \tfrac12 \mathbb{k} & \tfrac12 & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\midrule
\hypertarget{SM20}{20} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{ALSA36}{$\mathsf{S36}$} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & \mathbb{k} & - & & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM21}{21} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{ALSA37}{$\mathsf{S37}$} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & -& & - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM22}{22} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{ALSA38}{$\mathsf{S38}$} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & - & & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM23}{23} & \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} & \hyperlink{ALSA39}{$\mathsf{S39}$} & \hyperlink{ALA1}{$\mathsf{A1}$} & & - & & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM24}{24$_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$} & \hyperlink{A22}{$\mathsf{TS}$} & \hyperlink{ALSA40}{$\mathsf{S40}_\lambda$} & \hyperlink{ALA2}{$\mathsf{A2}$} & \tfrac12(1 + \lambda \mathbb{k}) & - & & -\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM25}{25} & \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$} & \hyperlink{ALSA41}{$\mathsf{S41}$} & \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_+$} & & - & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H \\
\hypertarget{SM26}{26} & \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$} & \hyperlink{ALSA42}{$\mathsf{S42}$} & \hyperlink{ALA3p}{$\mathsf{A3}_+$} &\mathbb{k} & - & \tfrac12 & |s|^2 H - \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\hypertarget{SM27}{27} & \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R}\times H^3$} & \hyperlink{ALSA43}{$\mathsf{S43}$} & \hyperlink{ALA3m}{$\mathsf{A3}_-$} & & - & \tfrac12\mathbb{i} & \mathsf{J}(s\mathbb{j}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption*{The first column is our identifier for the superspace,
whereas the second column is the underlying homogeneous spacetime
it superises. The next two columns are the isomorphism classes of
kinematical Lie superalgebra and kinematical Lie algebra,
respectively. The next columns specify the brackets
of $\mathfrak{s}$ not of the form $[\boldsymbol{J},-]$ in a basis where $\mathfrak{h}$ is spanned
by $\boldsymbol{J}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$. As explained in Section~\ref{sec:quat-form},
supercharges $\mathsf{Q}(s)$ are parametrised by $s \in \mathbb{H}$, whereas
$\mathsf{J}(\omega)$, $\mathsf{B}(\beta)$ and $\mathsf{P}(\pi)$ are parametrised by
$\omega,\beta,\pi \in \Im\mathbb{H}$. The brackets are given by
$[H,\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{h})$, $[\mathsf{B}(\beta),\mathsf{Q}(s)]=\mathsf{Q}(\beta s \mathbb{b})$
and $[\mathsf{P}(\pi),\mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\pi s \mathbb{p})$, for some
$\mathbb{h},\mathbb{b},\mathbb{p}\in\mathbb{H}$. The table is divided into five sections from
top to bottom: lorentzian, galilean, carrollian, aristotelian with
R-symmetries and aristotelian.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Low-rank invariants}
\label{sec:low-rank-invariants}
In this section, we exhibit the low-rank invariants of the homogeneous
superspaces in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, all of which are
reductive. Indeed, a homogeneous supermanifold with super Lie pair
$(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, where $\mathfrak{h} \subset \k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$, is reductive if and
only if so is the underlying homogeneous manifold $(\k, \mathfrak{h})$. This is
because if $\k = \mathfrak{h} \oplus \mathfrak{m}$ is a reductive split, then so is
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{h} \oplus (\mathfrak{m} \oplus S)$, with $S = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$: the bracket
$[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{m}] \subset \mathfrak{m}$ because $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is reductive and the bracket
$[\mathfrak{h}, S] \subset S$ because $\mathfrak{h} \in \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ and
$S = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1}$. In \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} it is shown
that all the homogeneous spacetimes in Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes} are
reductive with the exception of the carrollian light-cone $\mathsf{LC}$,
which in any case does not admit any $(4|4)$-dimensional
superisation. Hence all the superspaces in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}
are reductive.
Let $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ be the super Lie pair associated with one of the
homogeneous superspaces in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}. We will write
$\mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{h} \oplus \mathfrak{m}$, where we have promoted $\mathfrak{m}$ to a vector
superspace $\mathfrak{m} = \mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0} \oplus \mathfrak{m}_{\bar 1}$, with $\k = \mathfrak{h}
\oplus \mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0}$ a reductive split and $\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 1} = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 1} =
S$.
Invariant tensors on the simply-connected superspace with super Lie
pair $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $\mathfrak{h}$-invariant
tensors on $\mathfrak{m}$. Since $\mathfrak{h}$ contains the rotational subalgebra $\r
\cong \mathfrak{so}(3)$, $\mathfrak{h}$-invariant tensors are in particular also
rotationally invariant. It is not difficult to write down the
rotationally invariant tensors of low order.
As an $\r$-module, $\mathfrak{m} = \mathbb{R} \oplus V \oplus S$, where $\mathbb{R}$ is the
trivial one-dimensional representation, $V$ is the vector
three-dimensional representation and $S$ is the spinor
four-dimensional representation. Under the isomorphism $\r = \sp(1) =
\Im \mathbb{H}$, $\mathfrak{m} = \mathbb{R} \oplus \Im \mathbb{H} \oplus
\mathbb{H}$, where the integrated action of a unit-norm quaternion $u \in
\operatorname{Sp}(1)$ on $(h, p, s) \in \mathfrak{m}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
u \cdot (h, p, s) = (h, u p \bar u, u s).
\end{equation}
Let $H, P_i, Q_a$ denote a basis for $\mathfrak{m}$, where $P_i$ and $Q_a$ have
been defined in equation \eqref{eq:quat-basis-s}. We let $\eta,
\pi^i, \theta^a$ denote the canonically dual basis for $\mathfrak{m}^*$.
There is a rotationally invariant line in $\mathfrak{m}$: namely, the span of
$H$, which lives in $\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 0}$. Dually, there is a rotationally invariant
line in $\mathfrak{m}^*$, which is the span of $\eta$. These are all the
rotationally invariant tensors of rank $1$.
Let us now consider rank $2$. As a representation of $\operatorname{Sp}(1)$, $\mathfrak{m}
\otimes \mathfrak{m}$ has the following invariants. First of all, we have
$H^2$, which is the only invariant featuring $H$. Another invariant
is $P^2 := \sum_i P_i \otimes P_i$, which corresponds to the
$\operatorname{Sp}(1)$-invariant inner product $\left<-,-\right> : \Im\mathbb{H} \times
\Im\mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $\left<\alpha,\beta\right> =
\Re(\alpha \bar\beta) = - \Re(\alpha\beta)$. If $q \in \mathbb{H}$ is any
quaternion, the real bilinear form
\begin{equation}
\omega_q : \mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{R} \qquad\text{defined by}\qquad
\omega_q(s_1,s_2) = \Re(s_1 q \overline{s}_2)
\end{equation}
is $\operatorname{Sp}(1)$-invariant: symmetric if $q$ is real and symplectic if $q$
is imaginary (and nonzero). This gives rise to four
$\operatorname{Sp}(1)$-invariants quadratic in $\boldsymbol{Q}$: $\sum_a Q_a \otimes Q_a$ and
the triplet $\sum_{a,b} I_{ab} Q_a \otimes Q_b$,
$\sum_{a,b} J_{ab} Q_a \otimes Q_b$ and
$\sum_{a,b} K_{ab} Q_a \otimes Q_b$, where $I,J,K$ are the matrices
representing right-multiplication by the quaternions $\mathbb{i}$, $\mathbb{j}$,
$\mathbb{k}$; that is,
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{i}) = \sum_{a,b=1}^4 Q_a I_{ab} s_b, \qquad \mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{j}) =
\sum_{a,b=1}^4 Q_a J_{ab} s_b \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathsf{Q}(s\mathbb{k}) = \sum_{a,b=1}^4 Q_a K_{ab} s_b.
\end{equation}
Similarly there are several rotational invariants in
$\mathfrak{m}^* \otimes \mathfrak{m}^*$: $\eta^2$ and, in addition, the symmetric tensors
$\pi^2$ and $\theta^2$, and the triplet of symplectic forms
$\omega_I$, $\omega_J$ and $\omega_K$, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\pi^2(\mathsf{P}(\alpha'),\mathsf{P}(\alpha)) &= \Re(\alpha' \bar\alpha) = - \Re(\alpha'\alpha)\\
\theta^2(\mathsf{Q}(s'), \mathsf{Q}(s)) &= \Re(s'\overline{s})\\
\omega_I(\mathsf{Q}(s'), \mathsf{Q}(s)) &= \Re(s'\mathbb{i}\overline{s})\\
\omega_J(\mathsf{Q}(s'), \mathsf{Q}(s)) &= \Re(s'\mathbb{j}\overline{s})\\
\omega_K(\mathsf{Q}(s'), \mathsf{Q}(s)) &= \Re(s'\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To investigate the invariant tensors on $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ we need to
investigate the action of $\boldsymbol{B}$ on the tensors. For the classical
invariants (i.e., those not involving $Q_a$ or $\theta^a$), we may
consult \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}: the lorentzian metric (and
the corresponding cometric) are invariant for the lorentzian
spacetimes, the clock one-form and spatial cometric for the galilean
spacetimes, the carrollian vector and the spatial metric for the
carrollian spacetimes. The generators $\boldsymbol{B}$ act trivially on
aristotelian spacetimes, so the rotationally invariant tensors are the
invariant tensors. For the invariants involving $Q_a$ or $\theta^a$,
we need to examine how $\boldsymbol{B}$ acts on $S$.
As can be gleaned from Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, $\boldsymbol{B}$ acts
trivially on $\boldsymbol{Q}$ in most cases. The exceptions are Minkowski and AdS
superspaces and the aristotelian superspaces where $\boldsymbol{B}$ acts via
R-symmetries. Hence in all other superspaces, the four rotational
invariants in $\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 1} \otimes \mathfrak{m}_{\bar 1}$ defined above and
$\theta^2$, $\omega_I$, $\omega_J$ and $\omega_K$ in
$\mathfrak{m}^*_{\bar 1} \otimes \mathfrak{m}^*_{\bar 1}$ are $\mathfrak{h}$-invariant. This
situation continues to hold for the aristotelian superspaces with
R-symmetry, namely
\hyperlink{SM14}{$\mathsf{SM14}$}--\hyperlink{SM19}{$\mathsf{SM19}$}.
Indeed, one can show that all the rotational invariants which are
quadratic in $\boldsymbol{Q}$ or in the $\theta^a$ are also R-symmetry invariant.
Indeed, the R-symmetry generator $B_i$ acts on $\mathfrak{m}_{\bar 1}$ in the
same way as the infinitesimal rotation generator $J_i$.
Hence it is only for \hyperlink{SM1}{Minkowski} and
\hyperlink{SM2}{$\mathsf{AdS}$} superspaces that the $\mathfrak{h}$-invariants do not agree
with the $\r$-invariants. For both of these superspaces, $\mathfrak{h} \cong
\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$, acting in the same way on the spinors:
\begin{equation}
[\mathsf{B}(\beta), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = \mathsf{Q}(\tfrac12 \beta s \mathbb{k}).
\end{equation}
It is a simple calculation to see that the following are
$\mathfrak{h}$-invariant:
$\sum_{a,b} I_{ab} Q_a \otimes Q_b$,
$\sum_{a,b} J_{ab} Q_a \otimes Q_b$, $\omega_I$ and $\omega_J$.
Since $\mathfrak{h}$ is isomorphic to the Lorentz subalgebra,
we recover the well-known fact that there are two independent
Lorentz-invariant symplectic structures on the Majorana spinors. This
does not contradict the fact that the Majorana spinor representation
$S$ of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ is irreducible as a \emph{real} representation,
since its complexification (the Dirac spinor representation)
decomposes as a direct sum of the two Weyl spinor representations,
each one having a Lorentz-invariant symplectic structure.
\section{Limits between superspaces}
\label{sec:limits-betw-supersp}
In this section, we exhibit some limits between the superspaces in
Table~\ref{tab:superspaces} and interpret them in terms of
contractions of the underlying Lie superalgebras.
As we will show, a limit between two superspaces induces a limit of
the underlying homogeneous spacetimes. These were determined in
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}. Our discussion will closely follow
that in \cite[§5]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}. There contractions of a
Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g} = (V, \phi)$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional real
vector space and $\phi: \wedge^2 V \to V$ is a linear map satisfying
the Jacobi identity, were defined as limits of curves in the space of
Lie brackets. If $g: (0, 1] \to GL(V)$, mapping $t \mapsto g_t$, is a
continuous curve with $g_1 = \mathbb{1}_V$, we can define a curve of
isomorphic Lie algebras $(V,\phi_t)$, where
\begin{equation}
\phi_t(X,Y) := \left(g^{-1}_t\cdot\phi \right)(X,Y) = g^{-1}_t \left(\phi(g_t X,
g_t Y)\right).
\end{equation}
If the limit $\phi_0 = \lim_{t\to 0} \phi$ exists, it defines a Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g}_0 = (V, \phi_0)$ which is then a contraction of $\mathfrak{g}=(V,\phi_1)$.
In the current case, we will contract Lie superalgebras $\mathfrak{s} = (V,
\phi)$, where $V$ is now a real finite-dimensional super vector space
and $\phi: \wedge^2 V \to V$ is a linear map, where
$\wedge^2$ is defined in the super sense, satisfying the super-Jacobi
identity. We will define contractions of $\mathfrak{s}$ in a completely
analogous manner.
\subsection{Contractions of the AdS superalgebra}
\label{sec:ads-limits}
We begin with the superalgebra for the AdS superspace
\hyperlink{SM2}{$\mathsf{SM2}$}, whose generators $\boldsymbol{J}$, $\boldsymbol{B}$, $\P$,
$H$ and $\boldsymbol{Q}$ satisfy the following brackets (in shorthand notation):
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{J}] &= \boldsymbol{J} \\
[\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{B}] &= \boldsymbol{B} \\
[\boldsymbol{J}, \P] &= \P \\
[\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \boldsymbol{Q}
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] &= -\P \\
[H, \P] &= \boldsymbol{B} \\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \P] &= H \\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{B}] &= -\boldsymbol{J} \\
[\P, \P] &= -\boldsymbol{J}
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \boldsymbol{Q} \\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \boldsymbol{Q} \\
[\P, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \boldsymbol{Q} \\
[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= H + \boldsymbol{J} + \boldsymbol{B} - \P.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Consider the following three-parameter family of
linear transformations $g_{\kappa, c, \tau}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
g_{\kappa, c, \tau}\cdot \boldsymbol{J} = \boldsymbol{J}, \qquad g_{\kappa, c, \tau}
\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = \tfrac{\tau}{c} \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_{\kappa, c, \tau}\cdot
\P = \tfrac{\kappa}{c} \P, \qquad g_{\kappa, c, \tau}\cdot H =
\tau\kappa H, \qquad g_{\kappa, c, \tau}\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \tfrac{\kappa\tau}{c}\boldsymbol{Q}.
\end{equation}
The action on the even generators is as in
\cite[§5]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} and the action on $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is chosen to ensure that the
bracket $[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}]$ has well-defined limits as $\kappa \to 0$, $c \to
\infty$ or $\tau\to 0$.
The brackets involving $\boldsymbol{J}$ remain unchanged for
the above transformations and the remaining brackets
become
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] &= -\tau^2 \P \\
[H, \P] &= \kappa^2 \boldsymbol{B} \\
[\boldsymbol{B}, \P] &= \tfrac{1}{c^2} H
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{B}] &= -\tfrac{\tau^2}{c^2}\boldsymbol{J} \\
[\P, \P] &= -\tfrac{\kappa^2}{c^2}\boldsymbol{J}\\
[H, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \kappa\tau\boldsymbol{Q}
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \tfrac{\tau}{c}\boldsymbol{Q} \\
[\P, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \tfrac{\kappa}{c}\boldsymbol{Q} \\
[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] &= \tfrac{1}{c} H + \tfrac{\kappa\tau}{c}\boldsymbol{J} + \kappa\boldsymbol{B} - \tau\P.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We now want to take the limits $\kappa \to 0$,
$c \to \infty$, and $\tau \to 0$ in turn,
corresponding to the flat, non-relativistic, and ultra-relativistic
limits, respectively. Notice that the limits of the brackets between
the even generators will produce the same Lie algebra contractions as
in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}. Thus we cannot have a limit from
one superspace to another unless there exists a limit between their
underlying homogeneous spacetimes.
Taking the flat limit $\kappa \to 0$, we are left with
\begin{equation}
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] = -\tau^2 \P, \quad [\boldsymbol{B}, \P] = \tfrac{1}{c^2} H,
\quad [\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{B}] = -\tfrac{\tau^2}{c^2}\boldsymbol{J}, \quad
[\boldsymbol{B}, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \tfrac{\tau}{c}\boldsymbol{Q} \quad \text{and} \quad
[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \tfrac{1}{c} H - \tau\P.
\end{equation}
For $\tfrac{\tau}{c}\neq 0$, this is the Poincaré superalgebra
(\hyperlink{KLSA14}{$\mathsf{S14}$}). Thus, we obtain the limit
$\hyperlink{SM2}{\mathsf{SM2}} \to \hyperlink{SM1}{\mathsf{SM1}}$.
Subsequently taking the non-relativistic limit $c \to \infty$,
the brackets reduce to
\begin{equation}
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] = -\tau^2 \P \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] = - \tau\P.
\end{equation}
For $\tau \neq 0$, this shows us that we have the limit
$\hyperlink{SM1}{\mathsf{SM1}} \to
\hyperlink{SM4}{\mathsf{SM4}}$.
Alternatively, we could have taken the ultra-relativistic limit
$\tau \to 0$, which, for $c \neq 0$, gives us the
Carroll superalgebra (\hyperlink{KLSA13}{$\mathsf{S13}$}):
\begin{equation}
[\boldsymbol{B}, \P] = \tfrac{1}{c^2} H \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] =
\tfrac{1}{c} H.
\end{equation}
Thus, we have $\hyperlink{SM1}{\mathsf{SM1}}\to
\hyperlink{SM12}{\mathsf{SM12}}$.
Returning to the $\mathsf{AdS}$ superalgebra
(\hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$}) and taking the non-relativistic
limit $c \to \infty$, we find
\begin{equation}
[H, \boldsymbol{B}] = -\tau^2 \P, \qquad [H, \P] = \kappa^2 \boldsymbol{B},
\qquad [H, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \kappa\tau\boldsymbol{Q} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \kappa\boldsymbol{B} - \tau\P.
\end{equation}
For $\tau\kappa \neq 0$, this is $\hyperlink{KLSA11}{\mathsf{S11}_0}$
(under a suitable basis change). Therefore, we have
$\hyperlink{SM2}{\mathsf{SM2}} \to \hyperlink{SM10}{\mathsf{SM10}}$.
Because these limits commute, we may now take
the flat limit to arrive at \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}.
Finally, we may take the ultra-relativistic limit of
$\mathsf{AdS}$ (\hyperlink{KLSA15}{$\mathsf{S15}$}). This limit leaves the
brackets
\begin{equation}
[H, \P] = \kappa^2 \boldsymbol{B}, \quad [\boldsymbol{B}, \P] = \tfrac{1}{c^2} H,
\quad [\P, \P] = -\tfrac{\kappa^2}{c^2}\boldsymbol{J}, \quad
[\P, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \tfrac{\kappa}{c}\boldsymbol{Q} \quad\text{and}\quad
[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] = \tfrac{1}{c} H + \kappa\boldsymbol{B},
\end{equation}
for $\tfrac{\kappa}{c} \neq 0$. Thus, we arrive at
\hyperlink{SM13}{$\mathsf{SM13}$}. Subsequently taking the flat limit,
we find \hyperlink{SM12}{$\mathsf{SM12}$}, as expected.
We can also take limits from the superspaces discussed above to
non-effective super Lie pairs, which will have associated
aristotelian superspaces. Since all of the above superspaces
have either \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$} or \hyperlink{SM12}{$\mathsf{SM12}$}
as a limit, we will only show the limits to aristotelian
superspaces coming form these two cases. Beginning
with \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}, we can use the
transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = t\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = \P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \boldsymbol{Q}
\end{equation}
and the limit $t\to 0$ to obtain \hyperlink{SM21}{$\mathsf{SM21}$}.
Using the same transformation and limit, we can also start with
\hyperlink{SM12}{$\mathsf{SM12}$} and find \hyperlink{SM22}{$\mathsf{SM22}$}.
\subsection{Remaining galilean superspaces}
\label{sec:lim-galilean}
We have shown that we obtain the other lorentzian and
two carrollian superspaces as limits of the $\mathsf{AdS}$ superspace
\hyperlink{SM2}{$\mathsf{SM2}$}: namely, Minkowski
(\hyperlink{SM1}{$\mathsf{SM1}$}), Carroll
(\hyperlink{SM12}{$\mathsf{SM12}$}) and carrollian anti de Sitter
(\hyperlink{SM13}{$\mathsf{SM13}$}) superspaces. In addition, we also
obtain two superisations of galilean spacetimes: a superisation
\hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$} of the flat galilean spacetime and the
superisation \hyperlink{SM10}{$\mathsf{SM10}$} of galilean anti de
Sitter spacetime. But what about the superisations of other galilean
spacetimes?
\subsubsection{Flat galilean superspaces}
\label{sec:lim-g}
From \hyperlink{SM2}{$\mathsf{SM2}$} we obtained the galilean
superspace \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}. There is a second
superisation \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$} of the flat galilean
homogeneous spacetime, from which we can also reach
\hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}. Indeed, using the transformations
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = t\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = t H,
\qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P \qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} =
\sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
on the Lie superalgebra for \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}, and taking the
limit $t\to 0$, we find the Lie superalgebra for
\hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}. Thus, we have $\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{SM3}}
\to \hyperlink{SM4}{\mathsf{SM4}}$.
Beginning with \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}, we may also
consider the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = t\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
and the limit $t\to 0$. This procedure will give us a non-effective
super Lie pair corresponding to \hyperlink{SM20}{$\mathsf{SM20}$}.
\subsubsection{Galilean de Sitter superspaces}
\label{sec:lim-dsg}
The superspaces \hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$} and
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$} arise as the $\gamma \to -1$
limit of \hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$}, respectively. This
fact has already been noted in Section~\ref{sec:super-dsg}.
Section~\ref{sec:super-tdsg} demonstrated that
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} is the $\gamma \to 1$ limit of
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$}.
The superalgebras associated with these five superspaces take the
general form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:galilean-de-sitter-brackets}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \mathsf{B}(\beta)] &= - \mathsf{P}(\beta) \\
[H, \mathsf{P}(\pi)] &= \gamma \mathsf{B}(\pi) + (1+\gamma) \mathsf{P}(\pi)
\end{aligned} \qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{2} \mathsf{Q}(s(\eta + \lambda\mathbb{k})) \\
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \rho \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \sigma \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some $\eta, \rho, \sigma \in \mathbb{R}$, where $\gamma \in
[-1,1]$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ are the parameters of the Lie
superalgebras. Using the transformations
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = t \P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{\omega t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
where $\omega \in \mathbb{R}$, and taking the limit $t \to 0$,
the above brackets become
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{B}(\beta)] = -\mathsf{P}(\beta) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)]
= \omega\sigma \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Therefore, by choosing $\omega = -\sigma^{-1}$, we can always
recover \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$}.
There is a second superisation of the flat galilean homogeneous
spacetime, namely \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}. There does not
seem to be any Lie-superalgebra contraction that gives
\hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}, but as we will see below, there are
non-contracting limits (involving taking $\lambda \to \pm \infty$)
which take the superspaces \hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} to
\hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}.
\subsubsection{Galilean anti de Sitter superspaces}
The superspace \hyperlink{SM10}{$\mathsf{SM10}$} is, by definition,
the $\chi \to 0$ limit of \hyperlink{SM11}{$\mathsf{SM11}_\chi$}.
These algebras take the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \mathsf{B}(\beta)] &= - \mathsf{P}(\beta) \\
[H, \mathsf{P}(\pi)] &= (1+\chi^2) \mathsf{B}(\pi) + \chi \mathsf{P}(\pi)
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H, \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{2} \mathsf{Q}(s(\chi + \mathbb{j})) \\
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] &= - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) - \mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\chi \geq 0$ is the parameter of the Lie superalgebra. Using
the same transformations as in the galilean de Sitter case, but with
$\omega = 1$, we find
\begin{equation}
[H, \mathsf{B}(\beta)] = \mathsf{P}(\beta) \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = -
\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Thus, we find \hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$} as a limit of both
\hyperlink{SM10}{$\mathsf{SM10}$} and \hyperlink{SM11}{$\mathsf{SM11}_\chi$}.
We cannot obtain \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$} as a limit
of these superspaces as \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$} has collinear
$\mathbb{h}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$, whereas \hyperlink{SM10}{$\mathsf{SM10}$} and
\hyperlink{SM11}{$\mathsf{SM11}_\chi$} have orthogonal $\mathbb{h}$ and $\mathbb{c}_3$.
\subsubsection{Non-contracting limits}
\label{sec:gal-non-contracting-lim}
In \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} it was shown that
$\lim_{\chi\to\infty} \hyperlink{S11}{\mathsf{AdSG}_\chi} =
\hyperlink{S9}{\mathsf{dSG}_1}$, but this limit is not induced by a Lie algebra
contraction since the Lie algebras are non-isomorphic for different
values of $\chi$. Does this limit extend to the superspaces?
Beginning with \hyperlink{SM11}{$\mathsf{SM11}_\chi$}, change basis such
that
\begin{equation}
H' = \chi^{-1} H, \qquad \boldsymbol{B}' = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad \P' = \chi^{-1} \P \qquad
\text{and} \qquad
\boldsymbol{Q}' = \chi^{-1/2} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
under which the brackets become
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{B}'(\beta)] &= -\mathsf{P}'(\beta) \\
[H', \mathsf{P}'(\pi)] &= 2 \mathsf{P}'(\pi) + (1+\chi^{-2})\mathsf{B}'(\pi)
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{2\chi} \mathsf{Q}'(s(\chi + \mathbb{j})) \\
[\mathsf{Q}'(s), \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= - \chi^{-1} \mathsf{B}'(s\mathbb{i}\overline{s}) + \mathsf{B}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) +
\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Taking the limit $\chi\to\infty$, we find
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{B}'(\beta)] &= -\mathsf{P}'(\beta) \\
[H', \mathsf{P}'(\pi)] &= 2 \mathsf{P}'(\pi) + \mathsf{B}'(\pi)
\end{aligned} \qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= \tfrac{1}{2} \mathsf{Q}'(s) \\
[\mathsf{Q}'(s), \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= - \mathsf{B}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) +
\mathsf{P}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This Lie superalgebra is precisely that for \hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9_0}$}.
Thus, we inherit this limit from the underlying homogeneous
spacetimes.
The superspaces \hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} all have an additional
parameter $\lambda$ and we can ask what happens if we take the limit
$\lambda \to \pm \infty$ in these cases. This is again a
non-contracting limit, since the Lie superalgebras with different
values of $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ are not isomorphic.
Using the general form of the brackets stated
in~\eqref{eq:galilean-de-sitter-brackets} above, consider a change of
basis
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{B}'=\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad H' = 2 \lambda^{-1} H, \qquad \P' = 2 \lambda^{-1}
\P \qquad\text{and}\qquad \boldsymbol{Q}' = \lambda^{-\tfrac{1}{2}} \boldsymbol{Q}.
\end{equation}
In our new basis, the brackets become
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{B}'(\beta)] &= - \mathsf{P}'(\beta) \\
[H', \mathsf{P}'(\pi)] &= 4\lambda^{-2}\gamma\mathsf{B}'(\pi) + 2\lambda^{-1} (1+\gamma) \mathsf{P}'(\pi)
\end{aligned} \qquad
\begin{aligned}[m]
[H', \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= \mathsf{Q}'(s(\lambda^{-1}\eta + \mathbb{k})) \\
[\mathsf{Q}'(s), \mathsf{Q}'(s)] &= \lambda^{-1} \rho \mathsf{B}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}) + \tfrac{\sigma}{2} \mathsf{P}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Taking either $\lambda \to \infty$ or $\lambda \to -\infty$, we find
\begin{equation}
[H', \mathsf{B}'(\beta)] = - \mathsf{P}'(\beta), \qquad [H', \mathsf{Q}'(s)] = \mathsf{Q}'(s\mathbb{k}),
\qquad [\mathsf{Q}'(s), \mathsf{Q}'(s)] = \tfrac{\sigma}{2} \mathsf{P}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Rescaling both $\boldsymbol{B}'$ and $\P'$ by $\tfrac{\sigma}{2}$, we recover the Lie
superalgebra for \hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$}.
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits} below illustrates the different
superspaces and the limits between them. The families
\hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} fit together into a
two-dimensional space which also includes
\hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{SM3}$} as their common limits
$\lambda \to \pm \infty$ and which can be described as follows. If we
fix $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\gamma\to 1} \hyperlink{SM7}{\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}}
=\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda} \qquad\text{whereas}\qquad
\lim_{\gamma \to -1} \hyperlink{SM7}{\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma,
\lambda}} = \hyperlink{SM5}{\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, again fixing $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\gamma\to 1} \hyperlink{SM8}{\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}}
=\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda} \qquad\text{whereas}\qquad
\lim_{\gamma \to -1} \hyperlink{SM8}{\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma,
\lambda}} = \hyperlink{SM6}{\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda}.
\end{equation}
This gives rise to the following two-dimensional parameter spaces:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=latex, x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm,scale=0.7]
%
%
\coordinate (bl1) at (-2,0);
\coordinate (br1) at (2,0);
\coordinate (tl1) at (-2,4);
\coordinate (tr1) at (2,4);
\coordinate (bl2) at (4,0);
\coordinate (br2) at (8,0);
\coordinate (tl2) at (4,4);
\coordinate (tr2) at (8,4);
%
%
\fill [color=green!30!white] (bl1) -- (tl1) -- (tr1) -- (br1) -- (bl1);
\fill [color=green!30!white] (bl2) -- (tl2) -- (tr2) -- (br2) -- (bl2);
%
%
\node at (0,2) {$\hyperlink{SM7}{\mathsf{7}_{\gamma,\lambda}}$};
\node at (6,2) {$\hyperlink{SM8}{\mathsf{8}_{\gamma,\lambda}}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (bl1) -- (tl1) node [midway,left] {$\hyperlink{SM5}{\mathsf{5}_\lambda}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (br1) -- (tr1) node [midway,right] {$\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{9}_\lambda}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (bl2) -- (tl2) node [midway,left] {$\hyperlink{SM6}{\mathsf{5}_\lambda}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt, color=green!70!black] (br2) -- (tr2) node [midway,right] {$\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{9}_\lambda}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (bl1) -- (br1) node [midway,below] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (bl2) -- (br2) node [midway,below] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (tl1) -- (tr1) node [midway,above] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (tl2) -- (tr2) node [midway,above] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We then flip the square on the right horizontally and glue the two
squares along their common $\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{9}_\lambda}$ edge
to obtain the following picture
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=latex, x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm,scale=0.7]
%
%
\coordinate (bl) at (-2,0);
\coordinate (br) at (6,0);
\coordinate (bm) at (2,0);
\coordinate (tl) at (-2,4);
\coordinate (tr) at (6,4);
\coordinate (tm) at (2,4);
%
%
\fill [color=green!30!white] (bl) -- (tl) -- (tr) -- (br) -- (bl);
%
%
\node at (0,2) {$\hyperlink{SM7}{\mathsf{7}_{\gamma,\lambda}}$};
\node at (4,2) {$\hyperlink{SM8}{\mathsf{8}_{-\gamma,\lambda}}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (bl) -- (tl) node [midway,left] {$\hyperlink{SM5}{\mathsf{5}_\lambda}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (br) -- (tr) node [midway,right] {$\hyperlink{SM6}{\mathsf{6}_\lambda}$};
\draw [<->,line width=1.5pt,color=green!70!black] (bm) -- (tm) node [midway,left] {$\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{9}_\lambda}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (bl) -- (br) node [midway,below] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\draw [-, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black] (tl) -- (tr) node [midway,above] {$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{3}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We now glue the top and bottom edges to arrive at the following
cylinder:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=stealth, aspect=1.5,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm,scale=0.7,color=green!70!black,line width=1.5pt]
%
%
%
%
\node [name=cyl1, draw, cylinder, cylinder uses custom fill,
cylinder body fill=green!30!white, minimum height=3cm, minimum
width=2cm,opacity=0.5] {};
\node [name=cyl2, draw, cylinder, cylinder uses custom fill, cylinder end fill=green!50!white,
cylinder body fill=green!30!white, minimum height=3cm, minimum width=2cm,above=0pt of cyl1.before top, anchor=after bottom,opacity=0.5] {};
%
%
\draw [color=blue!50!black, line width=1.5pt] (cyl1.before bottom)
-- (cyl2.after top) node [midway, below]{\hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{3}$}};
%
%
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{5}_\lambda$}}] (5) at (cyl1.bottom);
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{6}_\lambda$}}] (6) at (cyl2.top);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{9}_0$}}] (90) at (cyl1.before top);
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{9}_\lambda$}}] (9) at (cyl2.bottom);
\coordinate [label=:{$\hyperlink{SM7}{\mathsf{7}_{\gamma,\lambda}}$}] (7) at (cyl1.center);
\coordinate [label=:{$\hyperlink{SM8}{\mathsf{8}_{-\gamma,\lambda}}$}] (8) at (cyl2.center);
%
%
\foreach \point in {90}
\filldraw [color=green!70!black,fill=green!70!black] (\point) circle (1.5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Finally, we collapse the ``edge'' labelled
\hyperlink{SM3}{$\mathsf{3}$} to a point, arriving at the object in
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits}.
\subsection{Aristotelian limits}
\label{sec:aristo-lim}
There are two kinds of superisations of aristotelian spacetimes: the
ones where $\boldsymbol{B}$ acts as R-symmetries and the ones where $\boldsymbol{B}$ acts
trivially. We treat them in turn.
\subsubsection{Aristotelian superspaces with R-symmetry}
\label{sec:r-sym-lim}
The homogeneous spacetimes \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R}\times H^3$} and \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$}
underlying the homogeneous superspaces \hyperlink{SM14}{$\mathsf{SM14}$}
- \hyperlink{SM17}{$\mathsf{SM17}$} have \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} as their limit.
Therefore, we could expect \hyperlink{SM14}{$\mathsf{SM14}$} -
\hyperlink{SM17}{$\mathsf{SM17}$} to have either \hyperlink{SM18}{$\mathsf{SM18}$} or
\hyperlink{SM19}{$\mathsf{SM19}$} as limits. The relevant contraction uses
the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H \qquad\text{and} \qquad
g_t\cdot\P = t\P.
\end{equation}
Taking the limit $t \to 0$, the $[\P, \P]$ bracket vanishes
leaving all other brackets unchanged. Thus, we find
$\hyperlink{SM14}{\mathsf{SM14}}
\to\hyperlink{SM18}{\mathsf{SM18}}$,
$\hyperlink{SM16}{\mathsf{SM16}} \to
\hyperlink{SM18}{\mathsf{SM18}}$, $\hyperlink{SM15}{\mathsf{SM15}}
\to \hyperlink{SM19}{\mathsf{SM19}}$ and
$\hyperlink{SM17}{\mathsf{SM17}} \to \hyperlink{SM19}{\mathsf{SM19}}$.
Taking into account the form of $\mathbb{h}$, and the $[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}]$ bracket
for each of these superspaces, we notice that each homogeneous
spacetime has two superspaces associated with it. One for which
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{b} = \tfrac{1}{2} \qquad\text{and}\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H,
\end{equation}
and one for which
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{b} = \tfrac{1}{2}, \qquad \mathbb{h} = \tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{k} \qquad\text{and}\qquad
[\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - \mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Using transformations which act as
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t}\boldsymbol{Q}
\end{equation}
and trivially on $\boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{B},$ and $\P$, we find the brackets of the
latter superspaces described by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{b} = \tfrac{1}{2}, \qquad \mathbb{h} = \tfrac{t}{2} \mathbb{k}, \qquad \text{and}
\qquad [\mathsf{Q}(s), \mathsf{Q}(s)] = |s|^2 H - t\mathsf{B}(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Therefore, taking the limit $t\to 0$, we find the former
superspaces. Thus, we get the limits $\hyperlink{SM15}{\mathsf{SM15}}
\to \hyperlink{SM14}{\mathsf{SM14}}$, $\hyperlink{SM17}{\mathsf{SM17}}
\to\hyperlink{SM16}{\mathsf{SM16}}$ and $\hyperlink{SM19}{\mathsf{SM19}}
\to\hyperlink{SM18}{\mathsf{SM18}}$.
All of the above superspaces have \hyperlink{SM18}{$\mathsf{SM18}$}
as a limit. Therefore, we will only consider the limits of this
superspace to those aristotelian superspaces without R-symmetry.
Letting
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{B} = t\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H, \qquad g_t\cdot\P = \P,
\qquad g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
and taking the limit $t\to 0$, we arrive at a non-effective super
Lie pair corresponding to \hyperlink{SM22}{$\mathsf{SM22}$}.
\subsubsection{Aristotelian superspaces without R-symmetry}
\label{sec:w-o-r-sym-lim}
The aristotelian homogeneous spacetimes \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$},
\hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R}\times H^3$}, and \hyperlink{A22}{$\mathsf{TS}$} have \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$}
as their limit; therefore, we would expect their superisations to have
have one or more of \hyperlink{SM20}{$\mathsf{SM20}$}-\hyperlink{SM23}{$\mathsf{SM23}$}
as limits. For \hyperlink{A22}{$\mathsf{TS}$} to have \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} as its
limit, we require the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH \qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \P = \P.
\end{equation}
Wanting to ensure $[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$, and that the limit $t\to 0$
is well-defined, we need $g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q}$. Taking this limit,
we find $\hyperlink{SM24}{\mathsf{SM24}_\lambda}\to\hyperlink{SM21}{\mathsf{SM21}}$.
To get \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} from \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$},
we need the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H \qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P.
\end{equation}
Using this transformation and taking the limit $t\to 0$, we
find $\hyperlink{SM25}{\mathsf{SM25}}\to\hyperlink{SM22}{\mathsf{SM22}}$.
However, the limit is not well-defined for \hyperlink{SM26}{$\mathsf{SM26}$}
due to $\P$ in the expression for $[\boldsymbol{Q}, \boldsymbol{Q}]$. In this case, we additionally
require $g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q}$. Then $\hyperlink{SM26}{\mathsf{SM26}}
\to \hyperlink{SM20}{\mathsf{SM20}}$. Another choice of
transformation,
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t}\boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
for \hyperlink{SM26}{$\mathsf{SM26}$}, gives \hyperlink{SM23}{$\mathsf{SM23}$} in the
limit $t\to 0$. Thus, we also have $\hyperlink{SM26}{\mathsf{SM26}}
\to\hyperlink{SM23}{\mathsf{SM23}}$.
Finally, to get \hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} from \hyperlink{A23m}{$\mathbb{R}\times H^3$},
we use the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P.
\end{equation}
To ensure the limit $t\to 0$ is well-defined, we subsequently need
$g_t\cdot\boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q}$. This transformation with the limit gives
$\hyperlink{SM27}{\mathsf{SM27}}\to\hyperlink{SM21}{\mathsf{SM21}}$.
There are only two underlying aristotelian homogeneous spacetimes
which have more than one superisation. These are
\hyperlink{A21}{$\mathsf{S}$} and \hyperlink{A23p}{$\mathbb{R}\times S^3$}.
In the latter case, we find the superisation
\hyperlink{SM25}{$\mathsf{SM25}$} as the limit of \hyperlink{SM26}{$\mathsf{SM26}$}
using the transformation
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = \P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
and taking $t \to 0$. In the former case, the superisations
\hyperlink{SM22}{$\mathsf{SM22}$} and \hyperlink{SM21}{$\mathsf{SM21}$} can be
found as limits of \hyperlink{SM23}{$\mathsf{SM23}$} using the
transformations
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = \P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = H, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = t\P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \sqrt{t} \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
respectively. We also have
\begin{equation}
g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{B} = \boldsymbol{B}, \qquad g_t\cdot H = tH, \qquad g_t\cdot \P = \P
\qquad\text{and}\qquad g_t\cdot \boldsymbol{Q} = \boldsymbol{Q},
\end{equation}
giving the limit $\hyperlink{SM20}{\mathsf{SM20}}\to\hyperlink{SM21}{\mathsf{SM21}}$.
\subsubsection{A non-contracting limit}
\label{sec:aristo-non-contracting-lim}
Use the following change of basis on the Lie superalgebra for
\hyperlink{SM24}{$\mathsf{SM24}_\lambda$},
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{B}'=\boldsymbol{B}, \qquad H' = 2 \lambda^{-1} H, \qquad \P' = \P,
\qquad \boldsymbol{Q}' = \boldsymbol{Q}.
\end{equation}
The brackets then become
\begin{equation}
[H', \mathsf{P}(\pi)'] = 2 \lambda^{-1} \mathsf{P}(\pi)', \qquad
[H', \mathsf{Q}'(s)] = \mathsf{Q}'(s(\lambda^{-1} + \mathbb{k})), \qquad
[\mathsf{Q}'(s), \mathsf{Q}'(s)] = -\mathsf{P}'(s\mathbb{k}\overline{s}).
\end{equation}
Taking the limits $\lambda \to \pm \infty$, we find the superspace
\hyperlink{SM20}{$\mathsf{SM20}$}. Therefore, the line of superspaces
\hyperlink{SM24}{$\mathsf{SM24}_\lambda$} compactifies to a circle
with \hyperlink{SM20}{$\mathsf{SM20}$} as the point at infinity.
\subsection{Summary}
\label{sec:limit-summary}
The picture resulting from the above discussion is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:super-limits}. Except for
$\hyperlink{SM4}{\mathsf{SM3}} \to \hyperlink{SM4}{\mathsf{SM4}}$, the
limits from the families \hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$},
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} and
\hyperlink{SM11}{$\mathsf{SM11}_\chi$} to
\hyperlink{SM4}{$\mathsf{SM4}$} are not shown explicitly in order to
improve readability. Neither is the limit between
\hyperlink{SM24}{$\mathsf{SM24}_\lambda$} and
\hyperlink{SM21}{$\mathsf{SM21}$} shown.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.75,>=latex, shorten >=3pt, shorten <=3pt, x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
%
%
%
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{SM1}{\tiny $\mathsf{1}$}}] (1) at (6.75, 0.75);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM2}{\tiny $\mathsf{2}$}}] (2) at (7.5, 1.5);
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{SM4}{\tiny $\mathsf{4}$}}] (4) at (6.75, -0.25);
\coordinate [label=above right:{\hyperlink{SM10}{\tiny $\mathsf{10}$}}] (10) at (7.5, 0.5);
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{SM12}{\tiny $\mathsf{12}$}}] (12) at (5.75,0.75);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM13}{\tiny $\mathsf{13}$}}] (13) at (6.5,1.5);
%
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM3}{\tiny $\mathsf{3}$}}] (3) at (7.15, -1.25);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM5}{\tiny $\mathsf{5}_{\lambda}$}}] (5) at (7.15, -.65);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM6}{\tiny $\mathsf{6}_{\lambda}$}}] (6) at (7.15, -1.85);
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{SM9}{\tiny $\mathsf{9}_{0}$}}] (9) at (8.25, -1.175);
%
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM14}{\tiny $\mathsf{14}$}}] (14) at (3.5,0.75);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM15}{\tiny $\mathsf{15}$}}] (15) at (2.75,0.75);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM16}{\tiny $\mathsf{16}$}}] (16) at (3.5,-0.25);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM17}{\tiny $\mathsf{17}$}}] (17) at (2.75,-0.25);
\coordinate [label=above right:{\hyperlink{SM18}{\tiny $\mathsf{18}$}}] (18) at (3.75,.25);
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{SM19}{\tiny $\mathsf{19}$}}] (19) at (2.5,.25);
%
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{SM20}{\tiny $\mathsf{20}$}}] (20) at (5.25, -1.5);
\coordinate [label=below right:{\hyperlink{SM21}{\tiny $\mathsf{21}$}}] (21) at (5.5, -1);
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{SM22}{\tiny $\mathsf{22}$}}] (22) at (4.5, -.5);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM23}{\tiny $\mathsf{23}$}}] (23) at (5.25, -.5);
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{SM25}{\tiny $\mathsf{25}$}}] (25) at (4.25, -1);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM26}{\tiny $\mathsf{26}$}}] (26) at (4.5, -1.5);
%
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{SM24}{\tiny $\mathsf{24}_{\lambda}$}}] (24) at (5.55,-2);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM27}{\tiny $\mathsf{27}$}}] (27) at (5.75, -0.25);
%
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM11}{\tiny $\mathsf{11}_\chi$}}] (11) at (8.3, 0);
%
%
\path [fill=green!70!black,opacity=0.2, line width=.1mm] (9) to [in=0,out=90] (5) arc (90:270:0.3) to [opacity=0,in=165, out=15] (9);
\path [fill=green!70!black,opacity=0.2, line width=.1mm] (9) to [in=0,out=270] (6) arc (270:90:0.3) to [opacity=0,in=165, out=15] (9);
\draw[>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, color=green!70!black, fill=green!70!black,fill opacity=.2] (3) arc (90:450:0.3);
\draw[>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, color=green!70!black, fill=green!70!black,fill opacity=.2] (3) arc (-90:270:0.3);
\draw [>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, color=green!70!black] (10) to [in=90,out=0] (9);
\draw [>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, color=green!70!black] (9) to [in=15,out=165] (3);
\draw [>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, dashed, opacity = 0.2, color=green!70!black] (9) to [in=350,out=195] (3);
\draw[>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=1pt, color=gray,rotate=-30] (20) arc (-225:135:0.3);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (18) -- (22);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (12) -- (22);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (4) -- (21);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (3) to [in=30, out=180] (20);
%
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (2) -- (13);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (2) -- (1);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (2) -- (10);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (13) -- (12);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (1) -- (12);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (1) -- (4);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (10) -- (4);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (3) to [in=-120,out=175] (4);
%
%
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (15) to (19);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (17) to (19);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (14) to (18);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (16) to (18);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (15) to (14);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (19) to (18);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (17) to (16);
%
%
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (27) to (21);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (20) to (21);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (26) to (20);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (26) to (25);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (25) to (22);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (23) to (22);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (23) to (21);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (26) to (23);
%
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM7}{\tiny $\mathsf{7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$}}] (7) at (7.8, -0.7);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{SM8}{\tiny $\mathsf{8}_{-\gamma, \lambda}$}}] (8) at (7.85,-1.4);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{SM9}{\tiny $\mathsf{9}_{\lambda}$}}] (9_2) at (7.7,-1.17);
%
%
\foreach \point in {3, 4, 9, 10}
\filldraw [color=green!70!black,fill=green!70!black] (\point) circle (1pt);
\foreach \point in {1, 2}
\node[lorentzian] at (\point) {};
\foreach \point in {12,13}
\node[carrollian] at (\point) {};
\foreach \point in {14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19}
\draw [color=gray!90!black] (\point) circle (1pt);
\foreach \point in {20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27}
\draw [color=gray!90!black,fill=gray!90!black] (\point) circle (1pt);
%
%
\begin{scope}[xshift=-1.5cm]
\draw [line width=1pt,color=gray!50!black] (10.75,-1) rectangle (12.5,1.5);
\node[lorentzian] at (11,1.25) {};
\draw (11,1.25) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small lorentzian};
\filldraw [color=green!70!black,fill=green!70!black] (11,0.75) circle (1pt) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small galilean};
\node[carrollian] at (11,0.25) {};
\draw (11,0.25) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small carrollian};
\draw [color=gray!90!black,fill=gray!90!black] (11,-0.25) circle (1pt) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small aristotelian};
\draw [color=gray!90!black] (11, -0.75) circle (1pt) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small aristotelian+R};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Homogeneous superspaces and their limits.\\
(Numbers are hyperlinked to the corresponding superspaces in
Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}.)}
\label{fig:super-limits}
\end{figure}
For comparison, we extract from
\cite[Fig.3]{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb} the subgraph corresponding to
spacetimes which admit superisations and show it in
Figure~\ref{fig:sub-limits}. There are arrows between these two
pictures: taking a superspace to its corresponding spacetime, but
making this explicit seems beyond our combined artistic abilities.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,>=latex, shorten >=3pt, shorten <=3pt, x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
%
%
\coordinate [label=left:{\hyperlink{S8}{\tiny $\mathsf{dSG}$}}] (dsg) at (5.688048519056286, -2.5838170592960186);
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{S9}{\tiny $\mathsf{dSG}_1 =\mathsf{AdSG}_\infty$}}] (dsgone) at (9, -2.5838170592960186);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{S13}{\tiny $\mathsf{C}$}}] (c) at (5.344024259528143, 0.7080914703519907);
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{S1}{\tiny $\mathbb{M}^4$}}] (m) at (7.344024259528143,0.7080914703519907);
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{S7}{\tiny $\mathsf{G}$}}] (g) at (7.344024259528143, -1.2919085296480093);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{S3}{\tiny $\mathsf{AdS}_4$}}] (ads) at (9,2);
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{S10}{\tiny $\mathsf{AdSG} =\mathsf{AdSG}_0$}}] (adsg) at (9,0);
\coordinate [label=above:{\hyperlink{S15}{\tiny $\mathsf{AdSC}$}}] (adsc) at (7,2);
\coordinate [label=above left:{\hyperlink{A21}{\tiny $\mathsf{S}$}}] (s) at (4, -2);
\coordinate [label=below left:{\hyperlink{A22}{\tiny $\mathsf{TS}$}}] (ts) at (3, -2);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{A23p}{\tiny $\mathbb{R}\times S^3$}}] (esu) at (3, -3.5);
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{A23m}{\tiny $\mathbb{R}\times H^3$}}] (hesu) at (5, -3.5);
%
\coordinate [label=below:{\hyperlink{S9}{\tiny $\mathsf{dSG}_{\gamma\in[-1,1]}$}}] (tdsg) at (7.344024259528143, -2.5838170592960186);
\coordinate [label=right:{\hyperlink{S11}{\tiny $\mathsf{AdSG}_{\chi\geq0}$}}] (tadsg) at (9, -1.2919085296480093);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (c) -- (s);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,dotted,color=gray] (g) -- (s);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (adsc) -- (c);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (ads) -- (m);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (adsg) -- (g);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (dsg) -- (g);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (m) -- (c);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (m) -- (g);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (ads) -- (adsc);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=blue] (ads) -- (adsg);
%
%
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (ts) to (s);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (esu) to (s);
\draw [->,line width=0.5pt,color=gray] (hesu) to (s);
%
%
\begin{scope}[>=latex, shorten >=0pt, shorten <=0pt, line width=2pt, color=green!70!black]
\draw (adsg) --(dsgone);
\draw (dsg) -- (dsgone);
\end{scope}
\foreach \point in {g,adsg,dsg,dsgone}
\filldraw [color=green!70!black,fill=green!70!black] (\point) circle (1.5pt);
\foreach \point in {ads,m}
\filldraw [color=red!70!black,fill=red!70!black] (\point) ++(-1.5pt,-1.5pt) rectangle ++(3pt,3pt);
\foreach \point in {adsc,c}
\filldraw [color=DarkOrange,fill=DarkOrange] (\point) ++(-1pt,-1pt) -- ++(3pt,0pt) -- ++(-1.5pt,2.6pt) -- cycle;
\foreach \point in {s,ts,esu,hesu}
\filldraw [color=gray!90!black] (\point) circle (1.5pt);
%
%
\begin{scope}[xshift=0.5cm]
\draw [line width=1pt,color=gray!50!black] (10.75,-0.5) rectangle (13,1.5);
\filldraw [color=red!70!black,fill=red!70!black] (11,1.25) ++(-1.5pt,-1.5pt) rectangle ++(3pt,3pt) ;
\draw (11,1.25) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small lorentzian};
\filldraw [color=green!70!black,fill=green!70!black] (11,0.75) circle (1.5pt) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small galilean};
\filldraw [color=DarkOrange,fill=DarkOrange] (11,0.25) ++(-1.5pt,-1pt) -- ++(3pt,0pt) -- ++(-1.5pt,2.6pt) -- cycle;
\draw (11,0.25) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small carrollian};
\filldraw [color=gray!90!black] (11,-0.25) circle (1.5pt) node[color=black,anchor=west] {\small aristotelian};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Limits between superisable spacetimes}
\label{fig:sub-limits}
\end{figure}
Nevertheless, interpreting Figures~\ref{fig:super-limits} and
\ref{fig:sub-limits} as posets, with arrows defining the partial
order, the map taking a superspace to its underlying spacetime is
surjective by construction (we consider only superisable spacetimes)
and order preserving, as shown at the start of this section. As can
be gleaned from Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, the fibres of this map
are often quite involved, clearly showing the additional ``internal''
structure in the superspace which allows for more than one possible
superisation of a spacetime.
We should mention that despite appearances, superspaces
$\hyperlink{SM3}{\mathsf{SM3}}$ and $\hyperlink{SM4}{\mathsf{SM4}}$
share the same underlying spacetime: namely, the galilean spacetime
$\hyperlink{S7}{\mathsf{G}}$. Notice that superspaces
$\hyperlink{SM21}{\mathsf{SM21}}$ and
$\hyperlink{SM22}{\mathsf{SM22}}$, which are ``terminal'' in the
partial order, correspond to the static aristotelian spacetime
$\hyperlink{A21}{\mathsf{\mathsf{S}}}$. With the exception of
$\lim_{\chi\to \infty} \hyperlink{SM11}{\mathsf{SM11}_\chi} =
\hyperlink{SM9}{\mathsf{SM9}_0}$, all other non-contracting limits
between superspaces induce limits between the underlying spacetimes
which arise from contractions of the kinematical Lie algebras: the
limits $|\lambda|\to \infty$ of
\hyperlink{SM5}{$\mathsf{SM5}_\lambda$} and
\hyperlink{SM6}{$\mathsf{SM6}_\lambda$} induce the contraction
$\hyperlink{S8}{\mathsf{dSG}} \to \hyperlink{S7}{\mathsf{G}}$, whereas the limits
$|\lambda|\to \infty$ of
\hyperlink{SM7}{$\mathsf{SM7}_{\gamma, \lambda}$},
\hyperlink{SM8}{$\mathsf{SM8}_{\gamma, \lambda}$} and
\hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$} induce the contractions
$\hyperlink{S9}{\mathsf{dSG}_\gamma} \to \hyperlink{S7}{\mathsf{G}}$, where
$\gamma = 1$ for \hyperlink{SM9}{$\mathsf{SM9}_\lambda$}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we have answered the question: \emph{What are
the possible super-kinematics?} by classifying ($N{=}1$ $d{=}4$)
kinematical Lie superalgebras and their corresponding superspaces.
The Lie superalgebras were classified by solving the Jacobi identities
in a quaternionic reformulation, which made the computations no harder
than multiplying quaternions and paying close attention to the action
of automorphisms in order to ensure that there is no repetition in our
list. Since we are interested in supersymmetry, we focussed on Lie
superalgebras where the supercharges were not abelian: i.e., we demand
that $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$ and, subject to that condition, we classified
Lie superalgebras which extend either kinematical or aristotelian Lie
algebras. The results are contained in Tables~\ref{tab:klsa} and
\ref{tab:alsa}, respectively.
There are two salient features of these classifications. Firstly, not
every kinematical Lie algebra admits a supersymmetric extension: in
some cases because of our requirement that $[\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{Q}] \neq 0$, but in
other cases (e.g., $\mathfrak{so}(5)$, $\mathfrak{so}(4,1)$,...) because the
four-dimensional spinor representation of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ does not extend to
a representation of these Lie algebras.
Secondly, some kinematical Lie algebras admit more than one
non-isomorphic supersymmetric extension. For example, the galilean Lie
algebra admits two supersymmetric extensions, but only one of them
($\hyperlink{KLSA8}{\mathsf{S8}}$) can be obtained as a contraction
of $\mathfrak{osp}(1|4)$. By far most of the Lie superalgebras in our
classification cannot be so obtained and hence are not listed in
previous classifications. Nevertheless, our ``moduli space'' of Lie
superalgebras is connected, if not always by contractions. For
example, the other supersymmetric extension of the galilean algebra
($\hyperlink{KLSA7}{\mathsf{S7}}$) can be obtained as a
non-contracting limit of some of the multi-parametric families of Lie
superalgebras in the limit as one of the parameters goes to
$\pm \infty$, in effect compactifying one of the directions in the
parameter space into a circle.
We classified the corresponding superspaces via their super Lie pairs
$(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$, where $\mathfrak{s}$ is a kinematical Lie superalgebra and $\mathfrak{h}$ an
admissible subalgebra. Every such pair ``superises'' a pair
$(\k,\mathfrak{h})$, where $\k = \mathfrak{s}_{\bar 0}$ is a kinematical Lie algebra. As
shown in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ilb}, effective and geometrically
realisable pairs $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ are in bijective correspondence with
simply-connected homogeneous spacetimes, and hence the super Lie pairs
$(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ are in bijective correspondence with superisations of such
spacetimes. These are listed in Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}.
There are several salient features of that table. Firstly, many
spacetimes admit more than one inequivalent superisation. Whereas
Minkowski and AdS spacetimes admit a unique ($N{=}1$) superisation,
and so too do the (superisable) carrollian spacetimes, many of the
galilean spacetimes admit more than one and in some cases even a
circle of superisations.
Secondly, there are effective super Lie pairs $(\mathfrak{s},\mathfrak{h})$ for which the
underlying pair $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not effective. This means that the
``boosts'' act trivially on the underlying spacetime, but nontrivially
in the superspace: in other words, the ``boosts'' are actually
R-symmetries. Since $(\k,\mathfrak{h})$ is not effective, this means that it
describes an aristotelian spacetime and this gives rise to the class
of aristotelian superspaces with R-symmetry.
Thirdly, there are three superspaces in our list which also appear in
\cite{deMedeiros:2016srz}: namely, Minkowski
($\hyperlink{SM1}{\mathsf{SM1}}$) and AdS
($\hyperlink{SM2}{\mathsf{SM2}}$) superspaces, but also the
aristotelian superspace $\hyperlink{SM26}{\mathsf{SM26}}$, whose
underlying manifold appears in \cite{deMedeiros:2016srz} as the
lorentzian Lie group $\mathbb{R} \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ with a bi-invariant
metric.
Lastly, just like Minkowski ($\hyperlink{S1}{\mathbb{M}^4}$) and carrollian
AdS ($\hyperlink{S15}{\mathsf{AdSC}}$) spacetimes are homogeneous under the
Poincaré group, their (unique) superisations
($\hyperlink{SM1}{\mathsf{SM1}}$ and
$\hyperlink{SM13}{\mathsf{SM13}}$, respectively) are homogeneous under
the Poincaré supergroup. This suggests a sort of correspondence or
duality, which we hope to explore in future work.
There are a number of natural extensions to the results in this paper,
which we list in no particular order. It would be interesting to
classify extended $N{>}1$ superalgebras and superspaces in four
dimensions and also kinematical/aristotelian superalgebras and
superspaces in other dimensions: particularly in three-dimensions due
to their use in Chern--Simons theories (see, e.g.,
\cite{Matulich:2019cdo}). In the three-dimensional case, it
would be important to determine the possible central charges and also
the existence of invariant inner products. It would also be
interesting to classify superconformal algebras along the lines of
\cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2018ygf}, which at least in four dimensions
would be amenable to the quaternionic formalism employed in this
paper. There has been a great deal of work on Schrödinger
superalgebras, departing from the pioneering work in
\cite{Duval:1993hs}.
As shown in Tables \ref{tab:klsa} and \ref{tab:alsa}, many of these
Lie superalgebras are graded and hence can serve as the starting
ingredient to explore its filtered deformations, as advocated in
\cite{deMedeiros:2016srz,deMedeiros:2018ooy}; perhaps allowing
us to go from the homogeneous models classified in this paper to more
general superspaces.
The underlying spacetimes of the superspaces in
Table~\ref{tab:superspaces} are reductive and hence possess a
canonical invariant connection. It is a natural question to ask
whether the kinematical superalgebras admit an interpretation as
Killing superalgebras in the spacetimes; that is, whether they are
generated by ``spinor'' fields relative to some connection modifying
the canonical invariant connection. In fact, as proved in
\cite[§5]{MR2640006} in the context of spin manifolds, this is indeed
the case (see Definition~5.3 in \cite{MR2640006} for the notion of a
generalised Killing spinor).
Finally, along the lines of \cite[§4]{MR2640006}, we could investigate
the invariant connections in the superspaces in
Table~\ref{tab:superspaces}, by determining the space of Nomizu
maps, as was done in \cite{Figueroa-OFarrill:2019sex} for the
homogeneous spacetimes.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are very grateful to Andrea Santi for answering many of our
questions about homogeneous supermanifolds and Stefan Prohazka for
comments on a previous version of this paper and which we hope to have
incorporated in a way that has hopefully improved the exposition. We
are also grateful to an anonymous referee for pointing out that we had
missed some explanation concerning Table~\ref{tab:spacetimes}. JMF
was visiting the University of Stavanger during the final stages of
writing this paper and he's grateful to Paul de Medeiros for lending
his ear. He's also grateful to Paul and Sigbjørn Hervik for the
invitation to visit and the hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
White dwarf stars are one of the three end fates of a star. These stars possess a theoretical upper bound on their masses. This fact has been proven repeatedly by numerous observations over the years since its uncovering. The mass-limit of white dwarfs plays an important role
in establishing the type Ia supernovae (SNeIa) to be standard candle, while an SNeIa is expected to be triggered
once a white dwarf approaches its limiting mass, which is $1.4M_\odot$ called the Chandrasekhar
mass-limit \cite{chandra}. Based on the idea of this standard candle, the accelerated expansion
of universe was established \cite{perlmutter,riess}. However, in last one decade or so,
there are some peculiar, over-luminous SNeIa observed, starting from 2006, whose
high luminosity, given their observed low ejecta velocity, argues their
progenitor mass to be as high as $2.8M_\odot$, double the Chandrasekhar mass-limit!
Examples of such peculiar over-luminous SNeIa are SN 2003fg, SN 2006gz, SN 200 7if, SN 2009dc
\cite{howell,scal} and so far at least a dozen of them have been observed. How to explain such a
significant violation of Chandrasekhar-limit? Earlier, proposals were put forth considering enormous efficiency of magnetic fields and it was argued that those highly super-Chandrasekhar
progenitors of SNeIa are plausibly highly magnetized white dwarfs \cite{prl,sub}.
However, these proposals suffer from the problem of a lack of prior knowledge of field profile within stars and also
there arises stability questions for such highly
magnetized white dwarfs\cite{proceed, bera}.
At this circumstance, here we take a stoke of plausible existence of noncommutativity
of fundamental momentum variables and investigate whether that leads to super-Chandrasekhar
white dwarf with an enhanced limiting mass. The plan is to consider noncommutativity
at the high density regime of non-magnetized white dwarfs.
The said noncommutativity,
apart from introducing uncertainty in simultaneous measurements of components of momentum variables,
mainly affects the underlying statistical mechanics of electron degenerate matter.
Note that white dwarf matter is essentially a degenerate electron gas and the pressure
opposing gravity is mainly the degenerate electron gas pressure throughout. Therefore,
our plan is to explore the effect of momenta noncommutativity in the equation of state (EoS) and
subsequently the effect of modified EoS to the white dwarf mass.
There are proposals \cite{dop,Born,sny} that at a very high energy regime,
e.g. in early universe, the usual space-space and momentum-momentum
commutativities break down, so that one postulates a NC algebra between the coordinates which are now elevated to the level of operators,
and similarly among momentum operators.
Indeed strong plausibility arguments were put forward by Doplicher et. al. \cite{dop} suggesting that a quantum structure of space-time is indispensable at the smallest scales, viz Planck scale. Actually the idea of NC space-times dating back to roughly 1940's \cite{Born, sny} grew as a possible way of removing the infinities which were occurring in quantum electrodynamics at that time. Soon the renormalization program came and the idea of noncommutativity was washed out. However, it is worth mentioning here that almost all candidate theories of quantum gravity currently indicate at this quantum structure of space-time at the fundamental scales \cite{Witten,loop}.
Actually, the point that all candidate theories of quantum gravity indicating the existence of a quantum structure of space-time is to be now stressed
in the present work.
In \cite{Born}, Max Born, in his quest for unifying quantum theory and gravity suggested that both the coordinate space and momentum space should be subjected to similar geometrical laws, as such a Riemannian structure. This is the famous ``principle of reciprocity".
Now, it is a matter of fact that curvature in position space leads to a noncommutativity in the momentum variables. Analogously this implies, curved momentum spaces can lead to noncommutativity among the position variables and all these concepts were beautifully stitched out in a seminal work \cite{Shahn} by S. Majid to understand the nature of quantum gravity using Born's ``principle of reciprocity". It was summed up there, and subsequently more transparently in \cite{Shahn2}, that quantum phase space should contain quantum spacetime and there should be noncommutativity both in the configuration space variables as well as in momentum variables in order to describe quantum gravity.
White dwarfs have typical densities in the range of $10^6-10^{10} g/cc$ and hence the associated length scales are very far from that of the quantum gravity scale. Therefore one can ignore spatial noncommutativities in the present formulation and we are motivated to figure out the consequences of momentum-momentum noncommutativity arising from curved position space in the
matter of white dwarf stars, even if not being in the quantum gravity regime. We shall also ignore the inter-particle Coulomb interaction in a white dwarf star following the arguments in \cite{Landau} for simplicity of our present treatment.
\section{Formalism}
We consider relativistic electrons of mass $m_e$ moving in a three-dimensional space where the momentum coordinates $\hat{q}_1$, $\hat{q}_2$ and $\hat{q}_3$ do not commute but the position coordinates $y_i$ commute such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{NCHA0}
\left[\hat{q}_{i},\hat{q}_{j}\right]=i\eta_{ij}~,~\left[\hat{y}_{i},\hat{y}_{j}\right]=0~,~\left[\hat{y}_{i},\hat{q}_{j}\right]=i\hbar \delta_{ij}~;~ i,j=1,2,3. \nonumber ~~
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_{ij}$ is a $3 \times 3$ anti-symmetric matrix.
Now we know that any odd antisymmetric matrix can be brought to a block diagonal form wherein
the bottom right block will be a null matrix. This will render the third momentum coordinate to commute with the other two \cite{spa}. Therefore now we have the NC Heisenberg algebra (NCHA) to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{NCHA}
&&\left[\hat{x}_j,\hat{x}_k\right]=0,~\left[\hat{x}_{j},\hat{p}_{k}\right] = i\hbar\delta_{jk} \nonumber \\ &&
\left[\hat{p}_{a},\hat{p}_{b}\right]=i\eta \epsilon_{ab}, ~~
\left[\hat{p}_a,\hat{p}_z\right]=0,{\rm for}~ a,b=1,2.
\end{eqnarray}
where subscripts $1$ and $2$ respectively imply $x-$ and $y-$components of respective variables. Here $\eta$ is the momentum NC parameter.
It will turn out to be transparent below that the spectrum will be unaffected
by such a transformation of the operators, as the spectrum depends on the
eigenvalues of the $\eta$ matrix and such a kind of rotation does not change
the eigenvalues of the $\eta$ matrix.
The NC algebra (\ref{NCHA}) we are dealing here is rather based on a physical picture and the origin of noncommutativity in momentum space can be argued heuristically in the following way. Basically, this stems from the
fact that here we are considering the motion of a typical ultra-relativistic electron in the background of the gravitational field produced by the stellar
material, rather than ignoring it, unlike what was done by Chandrasekhar who considered the electrons to be essentially free. But like his analysis, we too are assuming that the potential to be infinitely large outside the star so that the electrons are essentially trapped inside. Let us consider the gravitational interaction on an electron due to the stellar matter which has the effect of creating a curvature in a small region of the ambient space. Now we model a test electron propagating under this gravitational background, i.e. propagating on the associated curved space \cite{Feynman}.
In our analysis we will be primarily interested in the dynamics of ultra-relativistic electrons, which corresponds to the existence of limiting mass of white dwarfs in the usual case, and for such ultra-relativistic electrons gravity effects are encoded in spatial curvature \cite{Schutz},\cite{dad}.
Generically speaking, the situation can also be conceived of as the stable circular motion of a test electron under the influence of gravity of the surrounding matter and such a motion can always be mapped to the motion of a free electron on the sphere as geodesic flows on the sphere is equivalent to the Kepler problem \cite{Moser}. This is precisely the case we consider here. Our approach closely tallies with the well-known observations made in \cite{Town} in which the author inferred that there must be strong curvature at short length scales, which, averages to zero at large scales. Bound stable circular orbits for photons under general relativistic gravitational field have been demonstrated in \cite{Dad2}.
All of these facts motivate us to consider effective motion of electrons on the surface of sphere resulting in consideration of noncommutativity of momentum components in the two directions and a commutative momentum for the third direction which is outlined below:
The commutator of the covariant derivatives acting on a fermion (a typical spinor) written in the local orthonormal basis reads as \cite{Car, hehl} -
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\left[\nabla_a, \nabla_b \right]\psi= \frac{1}{4}R_{abcd} \gamma^c \gamma^d ~\psi,
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the fermion wave function, $\gamma^{c,d}$ are
Dirac $\gamma$-matrices and $R_{abcd}$ is the Riemann tensor in the local coordinate.
For a space with constant scalar curvature $R$ ($\frac{2}{r^2}$ for a sphere $S^2$), $R_{abcd}$ is actually a constant and $\gamma$'s are constant matrices.
If we now define $p_a=-i\hbar\nabla_a$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{cur}
\left[p_a, p_b \right]\psi=i\frac{\hbar^2}{4 r^2} S_{ab} ~\psi
\end{equation}
where $S_{ab}=i[\gamma_a, \gamma_b]$.
This is an example of canonical type of commutation relation and this kind of noncommutativity can be said to be spin dependent noncommutativity. Such NC structures have been already encountered in the literature \cite{A. Deri}, \cite{Pop}.
Comparing equations (\ref{NCHA}) and (\ref{cur}), we see that the momentum noncommutativity parameter $\eta$ is mimicking like $\frac{\hbar^2}{4r^2}$.\\
Also recently, similar NC structures among the phase space variables were derived as an effective description from Berry curvature in condensed matter systems like in semiclassical dynamics of Bloch electrons, quantum Hall systems, Fermi liquids, ferromagnetic metals \cite{xiao,hiroaki,son, maslanka}. Further the postulation of noncommutativity in momentum space, which clearly has to stem from the system inhabiting it, has also been addressed along quite similar lines in \cite{thak}.
Since this is noncommutativity in the momentum space, we have called it as dynamical noncommutativity.
Particularly, the momentum space NC operation generally arises in the presence of a background magnetic field.
\section{Energy spectrum}
Given that we have argued that the momentum NC is
essentially the curvature effect of the background space
along the lines of \cite{Shahn, Shahn2, Town}, we can study the motion of an ultra-
relativistic electron in such a background with only two
components of the momentum being NC in nature.
From here on, we just focus on solving the spectrum of an
ultra-relativistic electron satisfying the algebra (\ref{NCHA}). The standard approach in the literature to deal with such NC quantum mechanical problems is to form an equivalent commutative
description of the NC theory by employing some non-canonical transformation, the so-called Bopp shift, which relates the NC operators $\hat{x}_{j}$, $\hat{p}_{j}$ following equation (\ref{NCHA}) to ordinary commutative operators $x_{j}$, $p_{j}$,
satisfying the usual Heisenberg algebra
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[x_{j}, p_{k}\right]=i\hbar \delta_{jk}~,~~~ \left[p_{1},p_{2}\right]=0.
\label{HA}
\end{eqnarray}
From here onwards, we denote NC operators
with the hat notation and commutative operators without hat.
We shall use the following well-known generalised Bopp-shift transformations \cite{Moyal} given as
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
&&\hat{p}_{j} = p_{j}+\frac{\eta}{2\hbar}\epsilon_{jk}x_{k}.\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
If the total Hamiltonian of the system is $\hat{H}$,
the Dirac equation for an electron moving in the NC plane satisfying the NCHA reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{H} \psi =i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = E \psi,
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is a two-component spinor
of components $\phi$ and $\chi$,
and the Dirac Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}=\vec{\alpha}.\vec{p}c+ \beta m_e c^2,
\end{equation}
where $c$ is speed of light.
The above gives a pair of equations
\begin{eqnarray}
(E-m_ec^2)\phi=\vec{\sigma}.\vec{p}c~ \chi \,\,
{\rm and}\,\,
(E+m_ec^2)\chi=\vec{\sigma}.\vec{p}c~ \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
On combining them, we obtain the energy given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{energy}
&& (E^2-m_e^2c^4) = (\vec{\sigma}.\vec{p})^2c^2
= \hat{p}^2c^2 + i \vec{\sigma}.(\hat{p}\times\hat{p})c^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \left[(p_x^2 + p_y^2)+ B(x^2+y^2) + \frac{\eta}{\hbar}(y p_x -x p_y) + p_z^2 -\sigma_z \eta\right]c^2 \nonumber \\
\label{eigen}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{cons}
B=\frac{\eta^2}{4\hbar^2} \nonumber .
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we obtain an equivalent commutative Hamiltonian in terms of the commutative variables
(quantum mechanical operators) which describes the original system defined over the NC plane.
Now to compute the spectrum of a charged particle in such a NC spacetime, first of all we need
to construct the ladder operators which will diagonalize the following part
of right hand side of equation (\ref{eigen}),
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}^{\prime}&=& \left[(p_x^2 + p_y^2)+ B(x^2+y^2)
+ \frac{\eta}{\hbar}(y p_x -x p_y) \right]c^2.\nonumber \\
\label{diag}
\end{eqnarray}
The ladder operators involving the commutative phase-space variables (operators)
$x, y, p_{x}, p_{y}$, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e30a}
a_{j}=\left(\frac{1}{2\hbar\sqrt{B}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \Bigg(p_j-i\sqrt{B}x_j\Bigg), \nonumber \\ a_{j}^{\dagger}=\left(\frac{1}{2\hbar\sqrt{B}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \Bigg(p_j+i\sqrt{B}x_j\Bigg),\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e30}
[a_{x},a_{x}^{\dagger}]=1=[a_{y},a_{y}^{\dagger}].
\end{eqnarray}
Further defining a pair of operators
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lad}
\hat{a}_{1}=\frac{a_{x}+ia_{y}}{\sqrt{2}},\quad \hat{a}_{2}=\frac{a_{x}-ia_{y}}{\sqrt{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
which satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e32a}
[\hat{a}_{1},\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}]=1=[\hat{a}_{2},\hat{a}_{2}^{\dagger}],
\end{eqnarray}
the Hamiltonian given by equation (\ref{diag}) can be recast in the diagonal form as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{diagfinal}
\hat{H}^{\prime}=\eta (2\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{1} +1)c^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, on using equations (\ref{energy}) and (\ref{diagfinal}), the total energy of the system is given by
\begin{equation}
E^2(m)=p_{z}^2(m) c^2 + m_e^2c^4 +2 m \eta c^2,
\label{spectras}
\end{equation}
\footnote{One should be careful in implementing commutative limit $\eta \rightarrow 0$; a naive implementation will yield an absurd result, like the limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$ in the problem of 1D harmonic oscillator having energy spectrum $E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\hbar \omega$. The classical continuous spectrum in the limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$ can be obtained provided we simultaneously take the limit $n \rightarrow \infty$ holding the product $n\hbar$ fixed. Likewise here too, we should take the simultaneous limit $m \rightarrow \infty$ with $\eta \rightarrow 0$ holding their product $m\eta$ to be fixed. This will ensure that we end up with continuous spectrum of a free electron in 3D. Note that here $\eta, m$ play the role of $\hbar$ and $n$ in 1D harmonic oscillator respectively.}
where for spin-up ($s=\frac{1}{2}$), $m=n_1$ and for spin-down ($s=-\frac{1}{2}$), $m=n_1+1$, when
$n_1$ is the eigenvalue of the number operator $\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{1}$.
\section{Degenerate equation of state}
Above description argues for the modification to the available density of states for the
electrons in the presence of noncommutativity. The Fermi energy $E_F$ of electrons for the $m$th
level is given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_F^2=x_F^2(m) + 1+2m \eta_D,
\end{equation}
where $~\eta_D=\frac{\eta}{m_e^2c^2},~~
\epsilon_F=\frac{E_F}{m_e c^2},~~x_F(m)=\frac{p_F(m)}{m_e c}$.
Due to quantization in the energy levels in the $x-y$ plane, the modified density of state becomes
$\frac{4\pi \eta}{h^3}dp_z$. This can be understood easily from
equation (\ref{spectras}), by noting that the allowed values of 3-momenta $\vec{p}$ now lie within a cylinder of radius $\sqrt{2m\eta}$, whose axis is along $p_z$ in momentum space.
Hence the electron number density and electron energy density at zero temperature are given by
\begin{equation}\label{densi}
n_e=\sum_{m=0}^{m_{max}} \frac{4\pi m_e^3 c^3 \eta_D}{h^3}g_m x_F(m),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{densiu}
u=\frac{4\pi m_e^3 c^3 \eta_D}{h^3}\sum_{m=0}^{m_{max}} g_m \int_{0}^{x_F} E(m) dx(m),
\end{equation}
where $g_m$ is the degeneracy such that $g_m=1$ for $m=0$ and $g_m=2$ for $m\ge 1$,
$m < m_{1}= (\epsilon_F^2-1)/2\eta_D$ and actually in equations
(\ref{densi}) and (\ref{densiu}), $m$ is taken
to be the nearest lowest integer of $(\epsilon_F^2-1)/2\eta_D$ for
every $\epsilon_F$ and $\eta_D$.
Therefore the pressure of the Fermi gas is \cite{pathria,shapiro} :
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
P&=&n_e E_{F}- u\\ \nonumber
&=&\sum_{m=0}^{m_{max}} \frac{2\pi m_e^4 c^5 \eta_D }{h^3}g_m \Bigg[ \epsilon_{F} x_F(m)\\
&-& (1+2m\eta_D) \log \left(\frac{\epsilon_{F}+ x_F(m)}{\sqrt{1+2m\eta_D}}\right)\bigg]. \label{densir}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the mass density is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho=\mu_e m_n n_e,
\label{rho0}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_e$ is the mean molecular weight per electron and $m_n$ is the mass of a neutron.
Now we assume that all the electrons are filled in the lowest Landau level,
hence $m=0$. The validity and condition of this assumption is given at the end of this section, in the subsection ``Discussion".
Now for $m=0$, on using (\ref{densi}) and (\ref{rho0}), we can write the mass density as:
\begin{equation}
\rho =Qx_F(0),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{where},~~~ Q=\frac{4\pi\mu_e m_nm_e^3c^3}{h^3}\eta_D.
\end{equation}
and EoS reduces to
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{h^3}{8\pi \mu_e^2 m_n^2 m_e^2 c \eta_D } \Bigg[ \rho \sqrt{\rho^2+ Q^2} -Q^2 \log \frac{\rho+ \sqrt{\rho^2+ Q^2}}{Q} \bigg], \nonumber
\end{equation}
In the case of $x_F(0)>>1$, which corresponds to $\rho^2 >> Q^2$,
EoS further reduces to a simpler polytropic form as
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{h^3}{8\pi \mu_e^2 m_n^2 m_e^2 c \eta_D }\rho^2
\label{aeos}
\end{equation}
where the polytropic index is $n=1$.
However, for the present case, also $x_F^2=\epsilon_F^2-1>2m\eta_D$ which implies
$\epsilon_F^2=2m_1\eta_D+1$ where $0\lesssim m_1<1$, particularly at
the center and for ground level (analog of the lowest Landau level
for the magnetic case) $\sqrt{\epsilon_F^2(0)-1}= x_F(0)=\sqrt{2m_1\eta_D}$ . Therefore,
at center
\begin{equation}
\rho=\rho_c=\frac{4\pi\mu_e m_n m_e^3 c^3}{h^3}\eta_D^{3/2}\sqrt{2m_1},
\label{rho2}
\end{equation}
when $m_1$ can have any value below unity for all electrons to be in the ground level.
On eliminating $\eta_D$ from equations
(\ref{aeos}) and (\ref{rho2}), one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
P=K_{nc}\rho^{4/3},\,\,\,{\rm with}\,\,\,K_{nc}=\frac{hc}{2}\left(\frac{m_1}{2\pi\mu_e^4m_n^4}\right)^{1/3}\nonumber \\=1.1\times 10^{15}m_1^{1/3}.
\label{eos}
\end{eqnarray}
It is to be noted here that the equation of state looks very similar to that of Chandrasekhar except for the fact that the constant of proportionality $K_{nc}$ is not the same. Here it is augmented as compared to the usual case. This will have a bearing on our subsequent results.
\subsection{Fixing noncommutativity parameter}
From equation (\ref{rho2}) with $\rho_c=2\times 10^{10}/V$ g/cc, where
$V$ is a parameter allowing to change the central density, we can set
$\eta_D$ at the center of the star given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_D=\left(\frac{2\times 10^{10}h^3}{4\pi\mu_e m_n m_e^3 c^3\sqrt{2m_1}V}\right)^{2/3}\approx\frac{456}{(V\mu_e)^{2/3}m_1^{1/3}}.\nonumber \\
\label{eta}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, for $\mu_e=2$ (carbon-oxygen white dwarfs) and $V=1$, $\eta_D>287.3$ from equation (\ref{eta}) at center. If $r$ in equation (\ref{cur}) is the
average separation of any two electrons, at the center with
$\rho_c\sim 10^{10}$ gm/cc, we obtain $\hbar^2/(m_e c r)^2\sim \eta_D$. This
justifies the noncommutativity under consideration to be spin-dependent curvature induced
noncommutativity, as argued below equation (\ref{cur}). This further clearly
confirms that as density decreases, $r$ increases and, hence, momentum space
tends to become commutative.
\subsection{Discussion}
The origin of $\eta$ can be traced back from curvature arising in the gravitational interaction between the electrons.
In fact in \cite{Town}, the author has given a similar basic interpretation of momentum NC. The crux of the matter is that whenever momenta do not commute, there has to exist a fundamental length scale, or in other words the commutator determines a scale. This length scale is provided by the inter-electron separation in the given problem which in turn determines the momentum NC parameter $\eta$ through equation (\ref{cur}).
In case of white dwarf stars, we have $k_B T << E_F$.
This also implies $k_B T << 2 \eta c^2$ because in sufficiently strong values of $\eta$, which is the case here, the energy spacing becomes comparable/greater than electron rest mass energy and the electrons become relativistic i.e., $2\eta c^2 \geq m_e^2 c^4 $.
Here we have,
\begin{equation}\label{dimeta}
\eta_D=\frac{\eta}{ \ m_e^2 c^2} \approx 287
\end{equation}
which is quite large as compared to unity.
So, the electrons are ultra-relativistic in our case and this is of utmost interest, for it is this case which is responsible for the existence of mass-limit of white dwarfs even in Chandrasekhar's analysis. Almost all the contribution towards the Fermi energy comes from $\eta$ and so the factor [$(\epsilon_F^2-1)/2\eta_D=m_{max}$] becomes of order unity as evident from (\ref{dimeta}). Now, note that each level specified by $m$ and with a definite Fermi momentum $p_F$ has a large degeneracy (spectrum is dependent on only one mode $n_1$) making the system to be a highly degenerate Fermi system. The case we have here is exactly analogous to that of low temperatures and strong magnetic fields being applied on a material sample; all the electrons are contained within the first few Landau levels. This is exactly in this regime that one encounters the much celebrated quantum Hall effect.
\section{Limiting mass}
Equation (\ref{eos}) is re-written as
\begin{equation}
P=K_{nc}\rho^{(1+\frac{1}{n})} \label{reos}
\end{equation}
where $n=3$ is the polytropic index.
Following the Lane-Emden formalism, the mass of white dwarfs for
EoS given by the above equation (\ref{reos}) can be computed \cite{prl} as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mass}
M&=&\int_0^R 4\pi r^2\rho dr=4\pi a^3 \rho_c I_n,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho=\rho_c\theta^n$, $r=a\xi$ are expressed in terms of dimensionless variables $\theta$ and $\xi$ respectively. Here note that $\rho_c$ is the central density of the white dwarf, and $a$ is given by $a=\sqrt{\frac{(n+1) K_{nc} \rho_c^{(1-n)/n}}{4\pi G}}$.
The radius $R$ of the star is defined as $R=a\xi_1$ when at $\xi=\xi_1$,
$\theta=0$. Note $I_n=\int_0^{\xi_1}\theta^n\xi^2d\xi$.
For $n=3$, $I_n=2.02$ and substituting the value of $K_{nc}$ from (\ref{eos}) in (\ref{mass}) , we get
\begin{eqnarray}
M&=&\left(\frac{h c}{G}\right)^\frac{3}{2} \frac{m_1^{1/2}}{\pi \mu_e^2 m_n^2}I_n= 4.68 M_\odot=M_{max}
\label{mr}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence the mass-limit, when the mass becomes independent of $\rho_c$, turns out to be significantly super-Chandrasekhar for most values of $m_1$ ($0\lesssim m_1<1$), specifically for any $m_1\gtrsim 0.1$ . Here we have taken $\mu_e=2$ which is typically the case for white dwarfs.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have tried to provide a plausible scenario to explain the recent observations indicating super Chandrasekhar limiting mass. Here we show, albeit heuristically that the gravitational field produced by the stellar material should naturally introduce an effective noncommutativity in momentum space. This noncommutativity can be regarded as a trade of with the curvature effect arising from background gravity in the spirit of \cite{Shahn2}. We then show that this NC in momentum space has some remarkable effect on the EoS and finally on the limiting mass of white dwarf stars, when ultra-relativistic electrons are considered. This can therefore be regarded as a viable proposal to explain this over-luminous peculiar supernova SNeIa. In this context, we would like to mention that it is not
possible to recover the usual Chandrasekhar mass limit
trivially by setting the noncommutativity parameter $\eta$
to be zero. This is because there is a quantization in
the energy levels of an electron stemming from noncom-
mutativity in our analysis, as discussed previously in footnote 1 in page 3, whereas in Chandrasekhar's original anal-
ysis the energy levels are that of a free electron. Further
all of our calculations are based on lowest Landau level
(m=0) which is the extreme quantum case. In order to
get the usual mass limit, one needs to work in the large
m (large quantum number) limit which will then yield
the classical results.
Summing up, the lowest Landau level only filled up case provides the strongest NC contribution in the evaluation of the modified white dwarf mass. Additionally, this case is exactly analytically solved without resorting to numerical computation, which presents the general qualitative features one can have in the present scenario of momentum noncommutativity considered in the paper. To emphasize, note that here the electrons are no more free unlike in Chandrasekhar's work; they are subjected to gravity and this affects the quantum mechanical statistical properties of the electrons. Recently in \cite{psm}, background gravity corrections on the otherwise free electron dynamics inside a white dwarf were studied from a perturbation perspective. Also, it is to be noted that the equation of state (\ref{eos}) looks very similar to that of Chandrasekhar except for the fact that the constant of proportionality is not the same, it has been enhanced. Physically, there is an increase in the degeneracy pressure of the electrons due to the presence of noncommutativity which is responsible for withstanding a greater mass inside the star. Secondly, this is by no means a fully general relativistic treatment of white dwarfs at all. This is because we have ignored the effects of GR when we considered the hydrostatic balance equation for the stellar structure giving rise to the Lane-Emden equations (\ref{mass}). However, Chandrasekhar himself and also others did the full GR computation of the white dwarf mass and there is not much departure from the standard limiting mass without GR \cite{chandras}. In contrast here we find that the momentum scale ($\sqrt{\eta}$), which is ``internally" generated effectively to encapsulate the background gravity on the electrons, is responsible for the considerable modification in the limiting mass of white dwarfs.
This scenario allows for an accessible mass range from Chandrasekhar mass limit all the way upto $4.68 M_\odot$. It is worthwhile to mention here that Chandrasekhar mass limit is an idealization when the radius virtually goes to zero and the density is infinite. All we argue here is that this idealized limit might be enhanced if we have noncommutativity in the momentum components thus providing a plausible theoretical explanation of the recent observations of over-luminous peculiar supernova SNeIa.
Finally recall that the mechanical momentum components in the Landau problem satisfy a NC algebra where the corresponding NC parameter is proportional to the strength of the external magnetic field \cite{rb,lll}. There, the characteristic frequency is the classical cyclotron frequency given by $\omega_c=eB/m_e c$, where $B$ is the magnetic field strength and
$e$ is the electron charge. In contrast, here we have the corresponding frequency, $\omega_q=\eta/2m_e\hbar$, as can be computed from (\ref{diagfinal}) and has a purely quantum mechanical origin. Therefore, our analysis may possibly provide a hint at the quantum origin of primordial magnetic field-like effects \cite{game}. It will be interesting to study the joint effects of momentum space noncommutativity arising from curved space along with a background magnetic field on the fate of Chandrasekhar limit.
\\ \\
\section{acknowledgments}
S.K.P. thanks S. Majid for a useful discussion, constructive criticism and insightful suggestions on the work. S.K.P. thanks Biswajit Chakraborty and Banibrata Mukhopadhyay for suggesting us to look into this avenue and for various advices during the initial stages. P.N. would also like to thank A.A. Deriglazov and Debasish Chatterjee for useful correspondence. The authors would also like to extend their gratefulness to Dept. of Physics, IISC Bangalore for providing hospitality where the work was initiated. We thank the referee for his comments which helped us to improve the manuscript. One of the authors, S.K.P., would like to thank UGC-India for providing financial support in the form of fellowship during
the course of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Human action recognition plays an important role in describing human gesture and predicting human behavior. Recently, researches about human action recognition have achieved wonderful results, which have been applied to computer vision, such as Intelligent monitoring, Abnormal Behavior Detection and so on \cite{Lee2017Ensemble, Tang_2018_CVPR}. Given the fast development of lowcost devices to capture 3-dimensional (3D) data (e.g. camera arrays and Kinect), increasingly more researches are actively conducted over 3D action recognition \cite{Ke2017,8026285,Si2018,Zhang2018,Zhu2016}. 3D skeleton not only provides more spatial information, but also is robust to variations of viewpoints, human body scales, and movement speed \cite{HAN201785}, so the 3D skeleton has attracted more and more attention in recent years \cite{Tang_2018_CVPR,Pei2016,8099538,6239233}. In this paper, we mainly focus on recognizing actions based on 3D skeleton.
Recently, deep structures, such as Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) \cite{Graves2012,6638947}, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)\cite{7178838,Vivek2015}, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) et al.\cite{7742919,Ke2017,8026285}, have been widely used to recognize actions via 3-dimensional (3D) skeleton. However, RNN is difficult to capture the long-term temporal information \cite{7486569,article}. And it is difficult for CNN to model the global spatial features\cite{Ke2017,IJCAI2018}. To mine co-occurrences from all joints efficiently, Li et al. \cite{IJCAI2018} designed the Hierarchical Co-occurrence Network (HCN) that is able to aggregate different levels of contextual information. The deep structure has the ability to extract multi-scale local spatial-temporal features and superior approximation ability due to its local connection, shared weights and the use of multi-layer. However, with the depth increasing, it is possible for deep structure to lose some information and spend more time to solve the optimal solution.
Broad learning system (BLS) proposed by Chen and Liu \cite{7987745} is a kind of flat fully connected network. In BLS, matrix multiplication is the main operation. There is an activation function during generating enhancement nodes. The approximation ability of the model can be improved by adjusting the number of non-linear enhancement nodes. And feature nodes and enhancement nodes are connected to the output, which makes it easy to accumulate features.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{imgs/BLS_CV3_3.eps}
\caption{The overall pipeline of deep-wide network. Firstly, the coordinates of skeleton are processed into images with the size of $T \times k \times 3$, where the $T$ is the number of frames representing the height of the image, $k$ is the number of joints representing the width of the image, and 3 is the dimension of the coordinate representing the number of channels of the image. Then the pruned HCN (PruHCN) is used to extract spatial-temporal features and co-occurrence features of joints. Next the features learned by PruHCN are enhanced by enhancement nodes generated through random mapping. Finally, features extracted by PruHCN and enhancement nodes are connected to the output layer to recognize the action.}
\label{BLS_CV_a}
\end{figure}
The desired weights connected to the output are determined by a fast ridge regression of the pseudo-inverse of the system equation \cite{JIN2018}. The BLS is mainly aimed to approximate the training labels, and the underlying geometrical structure of data is not fully considered \cite{JIN2018}. Although the BLS is effective on benchmark datasets like MNIST and NORB \cite{8091501}, it is rarely used for recognizing actions.
Considering that the HCN can extract effective spatial-temporal co-occurrence features from skeletal data, the BLS is efficient to aggregate features, we propose a new model named deep-wide network (DWnet) by combining these two structures, as it is shown in Fig. \ref{BLS_CV_a}. The deep structure adopts pruned HCN (PruHCN) that is produced by pruning layers of the HCN to extract skeletal features. And then the PruHCN is used as the mapping function to generate the feature nodes of the BLS. Next, the feature nodes are expanded to the enhancement nodes to reinforce the model. Finally, all the feature nodes and enhancement nodes are connected to the output to recognize actions. The proposed model can keep the approximation ability utilizing non-linear enhancement nodes provided by BLS. Furthermore, the DWnet is more time-saving than the deep structure.Contributions in this paper are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a new structure, DWnet, which combines deep structures with broad learning system to recognize actions based on 3D skeletal data.
\item The presented model greatly saves testing time and achieved comparable results on SBU Kinect dataset and NTU RGB+D dataset.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we will review the related work from two aspects: one is action recognition based on deep learning and 3D skeleton, the other is the application of broad learning system (BLS) in image processing.
\subsection{Action Recognition Based on deep learning Using 3D Skeleton}
There have been lots of deep learning researches based on 3D skeleton data, which can be roughly divided into two categories: one is to utilize recurrent neural network for action recognition and the other is to apply convolutional neural network for action recognition.
For example, Shahroudy and Liu et al. \cite{NTU_RGB} designed a new recurrent neural network to capture the long-term temporal features on RGB+D dataset, and obtained satisfied results. Liu and Shahroudy et al. \cite{Liu2016} extended RNN to spatial-temporal domains to catch static features and motion features respectively, in addition, associating gating mechanism with Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs) has promoted the robustness to noise and occlusion on skeleton data. The fully connected deep LSTM with a novel regularization scheme was introduced to learn co-occurrence feature of different joints in \cite{IJCAI2018}.
Recurrent neural networks can extract temporal features, but it is difficult to model high-level spatial features. In the past few years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are widely applied to recognize actions based 3D skeleton data. Hou and Li et al. \cite{7742919} encoded the skeletal sequence into color texture images, and then employed CNN to catch the discriminative features for action recognition. In \cite{LIU201693}, Liu and Zhang et al. constructed a 3D-based deep convolutional neural network to gain spatial-temporal features from the original sequence, and then calculated joint vector as the input of support vector machine for action recognition. Recently, Ke and Bennamoun et al. \cite{Ke2017} transformed raw skeleton sequence to three clips that are fed to a deep CNN to extract long-term features. Nevertheless, splitting sequence into several clips will drop some global information. In \cite{8026285}, Li and Zhong et al. designed a novel 7-layer CNN for action recognition and detection. And then Li and Zhong et al. \cite{IJCAI2018} proposed Hierarchical Co-occurrence Network (HCN) to learn the co-occurrence features that is contextual information in different levels. At present, HCN has outperformed others among the methods mentioned above. And the HCN has reached the state-of-the-art results on both action recognition and detection.
\subsection{Applications of BLS in Image Processing}
Chen and Liu \cite{7987745} proposed an efficient and effective discriminative learning method called Broad Learning System (BLS). BLS was designed inspired by random vector functional-link neural network (RVFLNN) \cite{RVFLNN}. And it has shown superior performance on MNIST and NORB dataset, indicating that BLS has fantastic approximation ability. Furthermore, in \cite{8457525}, Chen and Liu et al. proposed several variants of broad learning system, that makes it flexible to apply BLS to many fields, especially, the BLS has been widely used to image processing in the past few years. Liu and Zhou et al. \cite{8091501} employed a novel broad learning structure based on the K-means to cluster images in CIFAR-10 dataset. Dang and Wang et al. \cite{8616713} applied broad learning system to estimate cement compressive strength from microstructure images of cement. In \cite{8520880}, BLS was utilized for estimating sun visibility from given outdoor images, and then incremental broad learning system, the improvement of broad learning system proposed in \cite{7987745}, was applied to classify the sun visibility into more categories. Considering BLS is able to model the large-scale data, Shi and Wei et al. \cite{Shi2019} designed fisher broad learning system (FBLS), and adopted Local Log-Euclidean Multivariate Gaussian (L2EMG) \cite{7463054} for student gesture recognition task. A novel variant graph regularized broad learning system (GBLS) was introduced by Jin and Liu et al. \cite{JIN2018} for face recognition, in which the manifold technology is incorporated into the optimization process of BLS.
The HCN has the ability to extract invariant, complex co-occurrence features. And the HCN improves the approximation ability by increasing layers. The BLS is able to keep the approximation ability of the model by increasing the number of enhancement nodes. Furthermore, the BLS is more efficient than the deep structure. Thus, we take pruned HCN (PruHCN) as the mapping function of the BLS to combine the deep structure with the width structure in this paper. And details of the presented method will be discussed in next section.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{imgs/HCN2.eps}
\caption{The structure of HCN and PruHCN. The structure in the blue box is the PruHCN. Compared with the HCN, PruHCN prune the Dropout layer and the ``Fc7'' layer which in the red box. The ``/2'' represents the MaxPooling layer with stride 2.}
\label{BLS_CV_b}
\end{figure}
\section{Methodology}
The PruHCN is used as the feature mapping function to extract features of the preprocessed skeleton in the proposed model. And then features learned by PruHCN are enhanced to enhancement nodes. All the feature nodes and enhancement nodes are connected to the output to recognize the action.
In this section, we first describe the data preprocessing, and then introduce the structure of pruned hierarchical co-occurrence network. Finally, the implementation of our model is described in detail.
\subsection{Data Preprocessing}
The structure of the skeletal data is irregualr, while the CNN can only effectively deal with the regular Euclidean data like the image and the text \cite{Zhou2018Graph}. Before entering the model, the skeletal data is encoded into the image. Firstly, the skeletal points of each frame are stretched into a vector. Secondly, the image is obtained by concatenating $T$ frames into one matrix. The size of the encoded image is fixed to $T \times K \times c$, where $T$ represents the number of frames in one image, $K$ is the number of joints, and $c$ is the dimension of the coordinates. The high, width and channels of the image are represented by the $T, K$ and $c$ respectively. In this way, the spatial coordinates are converted to the information of channels of images \cite{IJCAI2018}.
As for the temporal feature, the motion information is represented by the positional change of the corresponding skeletal point between adjacent frames. We use $M^{i}$ to describe the motion information at the $i$th moment. And the motion information is described as the temporal difference of each joint between contiguous frames \cite{IJCAI2018}, and it can be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
M^{i} &= {S^{i + 1}} - {S^{i}} \\
&= \left\{{J_{1}^{i + 1} - J_{1}^{i},J_{2}^{i + 1} - J_{2}^{i},..., J_{K}^{i + 1} - J_{K}^{i}}\right\}
\end{split}
\label{eq:motion}
\end{equation}
where $S_{i} = {J_{1}^{i}, J_{2}^{i},\cdots, J_{K}^{i}}$, in which $i$ represents the frame at the $i$th moment, $K$ is the number of joint, and $J_{K}^{i}=\left(x, y, z\right)$ is the spatial coordinate of the joint \cite{IJCAI2018}.
\subsection{Pruned hierarchical co-occurrence network}
As shown in Fig. \ref{BLS_CV_b}, in original HCN model, there are seven layers including five convolutional layers and two fully connected layers. And the softmax function is used as the classifier in the last fully connected layer. The symbol ``/2'' denotes the pooling with step size 2. And the ReLU function is used as the activation function.
There are many ways to prune layers of the HCN. Regulations of pruning are that firstly the pruned model has the ability to extract effective co-occurrence features; secondly, the complexity of the features learned by the model should be kept as low as possible.
The pruned layers of the HCN include a Dropout layer and a fully connected layer. Since the convolutional operation has the characteristics of local connection and shared weights, each feature map obtained by convolutional operation contains local spatial-temporal information. Convolutional layers are retained in the PruHCN. The layers (``Conv1'', ``Conv2'') are used to extract the features of single joint. The convolutional layer (``Conv3'') is able to model the relationship between adjacent joints. The co-occurrence features are captured by the convolutional layer 4 and 5. The co-occurrence features extracted by the convolutional layer ``Conv5'' include sufficient local sapatial-temporal information.
In order to integrate local features and reduce the dimension of features, the layer ``Fc6'' is used to aggregate local information contained in each feature map. The features processed by fully connected layer contain both local spatial-temporal features and global co-occurrence features of joints. Furthermore, after the layer ``Fc6'' processing, the dimension of the feature matrix is reduced, which simplifies the problem.
\subsection{Deep-Wide Network}
The PruHCN inherits the advantages of HCN and can learn the co-occurrence characteristics of skeletal sequences. Although the PruHCN is two layers less than the HCN, the BLS can restore the approximation ability of the model in width. There are many ways to connect the PruHCN and the BLS, such as several PruHCNs are connected in parallel or series. The parallel method will cause the redundancy of extracted features and increase of noise, which will lead to the degradation of the performance to recognize the action. By connecting a trained PruHCN to the BLS in series, not only effective co-occurrence features can be extracted, but also the approximation ability of the model can be guaranteed by BLS.
Therefore, the trained PruHCN is used as the feature mapping function to extract local and global spatial-temporal features. And then, the feature nodes are expanded to enhancement nodes to reinforce the model. Finally, all the feature nodes and enhancement nodes are connected to the output to recognize the action. Next, the model proposed in this paper is described in detail in terms of feature mapping and computational complexity.
\textbf{Feature Mapping}\quad As illustrated in Fig. \ref{BLS_CV_a}, the number of feature nodes is set to one. Input data is transformed to feature nodes by PruHCN at first. And the feature mapping function $\Phi\left(\cdot\right)$ can be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{Z_{i}} &= \phi \left( {X;\left\{ {{W_{ei}},{\beta _{ei}}} \right\}} \right) \\
&= \theta \left({P\left({\rm ReLU}\left({X \otimes {W_{ei}} + {\beta _{ei}}}\right) \right)} \right), \\
& i = 1,2,...,n
\end{split}
\label{eq:conv}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi\left(\cdot\right)$ is the mapping function, $X$ is the input data, $W_{ei}$ and $\beta_{ei}$ are weights and biases learned through training, $\otimes$ is the convolutional function for the given matrices, function $P\left(\cdot\right)$ is the pooling operation and $\theta\left(\cdot\right)$ is the selected activation function. In DWnet, we set $i=1$, i.e. we apply one trained PruHCN module to extract the spatial-temporal characteristics of the skeleton.
Compared with the original HCN, due to cutting off the last two layers, the approximation ability of the PruHCN is not as good as that of HCN. The BLS can improve the approximation ability of the model by increasing the number of enhancement nodes. In order to keep the approximation ability of the model and obtain discriminative features, the feature node is expanded to enhancement nodes. The mapping function $\xi\left(\cdot\right)$ can be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{H_{j}} = \xi \left( {Z{W_{hj}} + {\beta _{hj}}} \right),j = 1,2,...,m
\end{split}
\label{eq:enhance}
\end{equation}
where $Z$ is the feature node produced by PruHCN, $W_{hj}$ and $\beta_{hj}$ are the weights and biases generated randomly and $m$ is the number of enhancement nodes. The features extracted by PruHCN are expanded to higher dimension through converting into enhancement nodes, which is beneficial to recognize the action. Finally, the feature node and enhancement nodes are connected to the output. The flat fully connected structure makes it easy for DWnet to aggregate the global information.
\textbf{Analysis of Computational Complexity}\quad In the DWnet, pruned layers include a Dropout layer and a Dense layer. In the Dropout layer, operations involve generating the vector that obeys Bernoulli distributions, linear operations on matrix and rescaling the result, with approximate computational complexity of $O\left(n\right)$, $O\left(n^{3}\right)$ and $O\left(n\right)$, respectively. The Dense layer contains linear operations on matrix, normalizing data, e-based exponential operation and classifying, with approximate computational complexity of $O\left(n^{3}\right)$, $O\left(n\right)$, $O\left(2^{n}\right)$ and $O\left(n\right)$. However, the BLS only includes $tansig$ activation function and linear operations on matrix, with approximate computational complexity of $O\left(2^{n}\right)$ and $O\left(n^{3}\right)$ ,respectively. The computational complexity of the BLS is lower than that of pruned layer of HCN. Therefore, replacing layers removed from the HCN with BLS can improve the efficiency of the model.
DWnet can not only extract local spatial-temporal features effectively, but also be able to aggregate co-occurrence features over local aggregation efficiently. Compared with the HCN, although the DWnet prunes the Dropout layer and the ``Fc7'' layer, the BLS keeps the approximation ability of DWnet by increasing the number of non-linear enhancement nodes. Compared with the broad learning system, there is less randomness in DWnet during generating feature nodes, which ensures that the features learned by the DWnet are discriminative and representative.
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate the proposed framework on SBU Kinect Interaction \cite{6239234} dataset and NTU RGB+D dataset \cite{NTU_RGB}. In this section, we simply introduce datasets used in this paper. Next, baselines used in this paper are introduced briefly. And then we demonstrate the performance of the model proposed this paper from accuracy and efficiency of testing separately. Finally, we analyze the impact of the number of enhancement nodes on the model.
\subsection{Dataset and Experimental Settings}
\textbf{SBU Kinect Interaction Dataset}\quad SBU Kinect Interaction Dataset is the dataset created by Yun and Honorio et al. \cite{6239234} using Microsoft Kinect for two-person interactions. There are eight categories including seven participants and 21 groups of interactive actions. In addition, it contains 282 skeletal sequences and 6822 frames. And each frame includes 15 joints. We divide the data into five groups according to the method in \cite{6239234}, and evaluate proposed model by 5-fold cross validation.
\textbf{NTU RGB$+$D Dataset} \quad NTU RGB$+$D dataset is a large scale dataset for human 3D human activity analysis \cite{NTURGBD}. It contains 56880 samples including 60 classes. In NTU RGB$+$D, there are 25 skeletal points extracted from one subject. According to \cite{NTURGBD}, there are two recommended approached to evaluate the model, i.e. Cross-Subject (CS) and Cross-View (CV) \cite{IJCAI2018}. In the cross-subject setting, there are 40 participants which are divided into two groups on average to train and validate the model respectively. In the cross-view setting, samples are divided into 3 groups according to camera views. And there are 2 groups used to train and another group is used to test.
\textbf{Experimental Settings}\quad In this paper, experiments are tested on a Linux server that equips with Intel-i7 3.5GHz CPU, two Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080Ti graphic cards and 32 GB memory. Under the same experimental conditions, we carry out a series of comparative experiments.
On SBU Kinect dataset, we encode skeletal sequences into the image with a size of $16\times15\times3$ and divide the data into five groups according to the method in \cite{6239234}, and evaluate proposed model by 5-fold cross validation. There are 6 layers including 4 convolutional layers and 2 fully connected layers in the PruHCN. The dimension of features and the size of kernels are shown in Fig. \ref{BLS_CV_b}. The $\rm ReLU$ activation function is appended after $Conv1, Conv4, Conv5$ and $Fc6$ to introduce non-linearity \cite{IJCAI2018}. And the dimension of the feature processed by trained PruHCN is 64. The $tansig$ function is used as the activation function of enhancement nodes to introduce non-linearity.
On NTU RGB$+$D dataset, firstly, the sub-sequence of skeleton is cropped randomly with the ratio of 0.9. And then, the skeletal data is processed into the image with the size of $32\times25\times3$, i.e. the skeletal sequence is fix to 32 frames per image. And parameters of the PruHCN are kept the same settings in \cite{IJCAI2018}. The dimension of the feature processed by trained PruHCN is 256. The performance of proposed model is evaluated on cross-subject and cross-view respectively. The $tansig$ is chosen as activation function to introduce non-linearity during generating enhancement nodes.
\subsection{Introduction of Baseline}
\textbf{Hierarchical Co-occurrence Network}\quad The original hierarchical co-occurrence network (HCN) proposed by Li and Zhong et al. \cite{IJCAI2018} is used as the baseline in our experiment. For the sake of fairness, the structure and parameters of the HCN adopted in this paper are consistent with those of the original HCN in \cite{IJCAI2018} on the SBU Kinect dataset and the NTU RGB+D dataset, respectively.
\textbf{Broad Learning System}\quad The general broad learning system (BLS) is used as baseline to recognize actions. On SBU Kinect dataset, the encoded image with the size of $16 \times 15 \times 3$ is expanded to an vector with the size of $1 \times 720$ containing one person, and the corresponding motion information is also processed into a vector with the size of $1 \times 720$. The size of final input is $N \times 2880$ including the spatial characteristics and motion information of two people, where $N$ is the number of samples. The number of feature nodes is 100, and the number of enhancement nodes is set to 8000. The $tansig$ activation function is used to introduce non-linearity.
\textbf{BLS with HCN}\quad In this paper, we aim to explore the method of combining the deep structure with the wide structure. And as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:HCNBLS}, it is the other structure that we explored which incorporates the deep structure and the wide structure, and we name it as HCNBLS. The HCNBLS and DWnet are two different structures we proposed to combine deep and wide structures. The HCNBLS uses untrained PruHCN. And weights and biases are generated randomly in HCNBLS. The training algorithm adopts the training strategy described in BLS \cite{7987745}. However, the features extracted from only one untrained PruHCN may not be the most representative features. It is arduous to find out the optimal solution. Therefore, the recognizing accuracy is low if only one untrained PruHCN is used. To improve the representativeness of mapping features, 15 PruHCN models with separate inputs are used. The dimension of input of each PruHCN model is the same as the HCN. And the number of enhancement nodes is set to 550.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imgs/HCNBLS.eps}
\caption{The structure of HCNBLS. It is the other structure that we explored which incorporates the deep structure and the wide structure}
\label{fig:HCNBLS}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evaluation on SBU Kinect Interaction dataset}
\textbf{Evaluation on Accuracy}\quad We compare the performance of the DWnet to the previous HCN, BLS and HCNBLS. TABLE \ref{tab:table1} has shown the recognizing accuracy of each model on SBU Kinect Interaction dataset. Compared with the HCN, the average accuracy of the DWnet is improved by 2.56\%, which means that combining the deep structure with the BLS can keep and even improve the approximation ability of the raw deep model. In addition, compared with the DWnet, the performance of HCNBLS degrades about 10 percent. At the same time, the performance of the BLS degrades a lot. These results show that it is difficult for the BLS to extract discriminative features directly from the irregular skeletal data, even if the skeletal data is encoded into images. Thus, the results of the BLS and the HCNBLS are greatly worse than that of the DWnet.
Compared with the BLS, the performance of HCNBLS increases about 20 percent. The reason is that the convolutional operation is chosen as the feature mapping function, which is more beneficial to extract effective features. However, the recognizing accuracy of HCNBLS is about 7 percent and 10 percent lower than that of HCN and DWnet, respectively. The possible reason for the decline is that the HCNBLS adopts the training strategy introduced in \cite{7987745}, and it is difficult for this training strategy to obtain the optimal solution at a deep level. But, the PruHCN of DWnet and the HCN are trained by using the stochastic gradient descent algorithm to find an optimal solution. Therefore, DWnet and HCN perform better.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\caption{Testing accuracy on the SBU Kinect dataset.}
\label{tab:table1}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\toprule
Data & HCN & BLS & HCNBLS & DWnet \\
\midrule
$Test_1$ & 94.02\% & 62.69\% & 94.03\% & \textbf{97.02\%} \\
$Test_2$ & 94.23\% & 73.08\% & \textbf{96.15\%} & 94.23\% \\
$Test_3$ & 94.12\% & 64.71\% & 89.71\% & \textbf{98.53\%} \\
$Test_4$ & 96.97\% & 66.67\% & 81.82\% & \textbf{98.49\%} \\
$Test_5$ & 94.81\% & 72.73\% & 87.01\% & \textbf{98.70\%} \\
$Ave$ & 94.83\% & 67.98\% & 87.944\% & \textbf{97.39\%} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{imgs/confusion.eps}
\caption{The average confusion matrix. The horizontal axis represents the predicted results of DWnet, and the vertical axis represents the actual label of actions. Diagonal elements indicate the accuracy of each type of action being recognized. }
\label{fig:confusion}
\end{figure}
In addition, the confusion matrix of the DWnet is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:confusion}. The horizontal axis represents the predicted results of DWnet, and the vertical axis represents the actual label of actions. Therefore, diagonal elements indicate the accuracy of each type of action being recognized. It can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig:confusion} that our approach works very well for most of the actions. But there are 4 kinds of actions are easily confused. The ``push'' is recognized as ``shake hands''. The ``kick'' is classified as ``hug''. The ``exchange object'' and ``shake hands'' are recognized ``kick''. It is worth noticing that there is a similarity between actions , such as ``shake hands'' and ``push'', or the skeleton tracker fails frequently, such as the action ``kick'' and ``exchange object'', which makes it possible for DWnet to recognize the ``exchange object'' as other categories.
\textbf{Evaluation on Efficiency}\quad We compare the efficiency of each model under the same experimental environment. To be fair, we record the average testing time for each sample on the dataset. TABLE \ref{tab:timetable1} shows the testing time of each model. It can be seen from the TABLE \ref{tab:timetable1} that the efficiency of DWnet is about 100 times higher than that of HCN. As we discussed in section 3.3, compared with the HCN, the DWnet takes place the last two fully connected layers with the BLS. The computational complexity of the BLS is lower than that of the last two layers of HCN, so the DWnet is more efficient than the HCN. In addition, the HCNBLS consumes the most time to test. Compared with the HCNBLS, the DWnet only uses one PruHCN module to extract features, while the HCNBLS needs 15 even more PruHCN modules to capture sufficient features, so the dimension of the features extracted by the DWnet is much lower than that extracted by the HCNBLS. The higher dimensional feature matrix makes HCNBLS need more time to calculate the optimal solution. Therefore, compared with the DWnet and the HCN, HCNBLS takes more time to test. And TABLE \ref{tab:timetable1} demonstrates that the DWnet is efficient during the testing stage and can almost achieve real-time testing on SBU Kinect Interaction dataset.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\caption{Testing Time on the SBU Kinect dataset. The unit of time is seconds/one sample.}
\label{tab:timetable1}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\toprule
Data & HCN & BLS & HCNBLS & DWnet \\
\midrule
$Test_1$ & 4.30e-2 & 8.96e-5 & 2.41 & 2.09e-4 \\
$Test_2$ & 4.99e-2 & 1.15e-4 & 3.07 & 2.31e-4 \\
$Test_3$ & 3.86e-2 & 5.88e-5 & 2.38 & 2.21e-4 \\
$Test_4$ & 3.98e-2 & 6.06e-5 & 2.44 & 2.42e-4 \\
$Test_5$ & 3.46e-2 & 9.09e-5 & 2.10 & 1.82e-4 \\
$Ave$ & 4.12e-2 & 8.30e-5 & 2.48 & 2.17e-4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textbf{Evaluation on The Number of Enhancement Nodes}\quad In DWnet, the number of enhancement nodes is a significant parameter which affects the accuracy of classifying. To make sure that our model can be reached the best performance, the relationship between testing accuracy and the number of enhancement nodes is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:nodes}. We initialize the number of enhancement nodes to 50 and add a multiple of 50 for each iteration. When the number of enhancement nodes is between 0 and 550, the overall trend of the curve first decreases and then increases. It tends to be stable until the number of enhancement nodes reaches around 500. And the peak appears when the number of enhancement nodes is around 550. As can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig:nodes}, when the number of enhancement nodes is 550, the average testing accuracy is the highest. The testing accuracy is improved from 200 to 550. And as the number of enhancement nodes increases, the testing accuracy is unstable. Furthermore, the more enhancement nodes DWnet has, the more time it takes to compute. Therefore, we set the number of enhanced nodes to 550 in DWnet.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imgs/SBU_enhance.eps}
\caption{The effect of the number of enhancement nodes on the testing accuracy.}
\label{fig:nodes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evaluation on NTU RGB$+$D dataset}
\textbf{Evaluation on The NTU RGB$+$D Dataset}\quad To verify the generality of the proposed model, we evaluate the DWnet on the NTU RGB$+$D dataset that is a large scale dataset for human 3D human activity analysis \cite{NTU_RGB}. Due to the recognizing accuracy of BLS and HCNBLS on SBU Kinect dataset is much more dissatisfied than that of the HCN. We only compare the DWnet with the HCN on NTU RGB$+$D dataset, and the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:NTU}. In the CV and CS, the recognizing accuracy of DWnet is only 0.06\%, 0.23\% lower than that of the HCN, respectively. It is very close to the state-of-the-art performance. There are 60 kinds of actions in the NTU RGB$+$D dataset. Compared with the SBU Kinect dataset, actions in the NTU RGB$+$D dataset are more complicated. The dimension of the feature extracted by the PruHCN is higher than that of the SBU Kinect dataset. So it is a little labored for BLS to process the intricate features. Although the accuracy of recognition has a little decline, it can be seen from TABLE \ref{tab:timetable1} that the testing speed of DWnet is almost 100 times faster than that of HCN.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\caption{Testing accuracy and testing time on the NTU RGB+D dataset. The unit of time is seconds/one sample.}
\label{tab:NTU}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Method & CV & \tabincell{c}{Testing \\ Time} & CS & \tabincell{c}{Testing \\ Time}\\
\midrule
HCN & 89.90\% & 1.1e-2 & 84.30 \% & 1.2e-2 \\
DWnet & 89.84\% & 2.26e-4 & 84.07 \% & 1.66e-4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imgs/NTU_CS_enhance.eps}
\caption{The effect of the number of enhancement nodes on the testing accuracy in the cross-subjects (CS).}
\label{fig:CS_NTU}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Evaluation on The Number of Enhancement Nodes}\quad We have studied the relationship between the number of enhancement nodes and testing accuracy in CS, CV on the NTU RGB$+$D, separately, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CS_NTU} and Fig. \ref{fig:CV_NTU}. Due to the complexity of features is high, the number of enhancement nodes is initialized to 5000 to keep the approximation ability of the model. In CS and CV, the number of enhanced nodes increases from 5000 to 10000 and 14000 respectively, each time increasing by 50. The overall trend of the curves in Fig. \ref{fig:CS_NTU} and Fig. \ref{fig:CV_NTU} increases first and then decreases. In CS, the best result is obtained when the number of enhancement nodes is 7500. And in CV, the highest recognizing accuracy is reached when the number of enhancement nodes is 12500.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imgs/NTU_CV_enhance.eps}
\caption{The effect of the number of enhancement nodes on the testing accuracy in the cross-views (CV).}
\label{fig:CV_NTU}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have proposed a novel framework which combines deep learning structure with the broad learning system and introduced this model to recognize actions using 3D skeletal data. The DWnet combines the advantage of deep learning and broad learning. On one hand, DWnet can capture effective local and global spatial-temporal co-occurrence features by the deep structure. On the other hand, using broad learning system can expand features extracted by deep structure to higher dimensions so that sufficient local and global information can be obtained. In general, compared with the deep structure, DWnet saves lots of testing time and almost achieves real-time testing. Furthermore, the DWnet reduces the randomness during feature mapping and can capture better features than broad learning system can. Experimental results show that proposed DWnet model can achieve the state-of-the-art performance on the dataset. However, the DWnet is non-end-to-end model, so we will try to explore an end-to-end structure to recognize the action in future.
\appendices
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported partly by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 61673192, No. U1613212, No. 61573219, the Fund for Outstanding Youth of Shandong Provincial High School ZR2016JL023, Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Plan 2017CXGC1504, Dominant Discipline and Talent Team of Shandong Province Higher Education Institutions and the Basic Scientific Research Project of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications 2018RC31.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Tracking 3D face pose is an important issue and has received much attention in the last decades because of \textit{multiple applications} involved such as: video surveillance, human computer interface, biometrics, \textit{etc}. And it is much more challenging if the face animation or expression needs to be recognized in the meantime in variety of applications. Difficulties come from a number of factors such as projection, multi-source lighting biological appearance variations, facial expressions as well as occlusions with accessories, \textit{e.g.,} glasses, hats... In this paper, we present a method using the model of landmarks to track pose efficiently as well as model facial animation. Note that the face is controlled by shape and animation which could be validated as landmark tracking problem.
Since the pioneer work of \cite{cootes-bmvc-1992,cootes-ieeepami-2000}, it is well-known that the Active Shape Model (ASM) and Active Appearance Model (AAM) provide an efficient approach for face pose estimation and tracking landmarks of frontal or near-frontal faces. Some extensions \cite{xiao-cvpr-2004,gross_ivc_2006} have been developed to improve the method in terms of accurate landmarks or profile-view fitting. Recently, Saragih \textit{et al.} \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} via exhaustive local search around landmarks constrained by a 3D shape model, can track single face of large Pan angle in well-controlled environment. However, it needs a lot of annotated data, which is costly in unconstrained environments, to learn 3D shape and local appearance distributions. One another approach tracks faces and estimate pose uses 3D rigid models such as semi-spherical or cylinder \cite{cascia-ieeepami-2000,xiao-ijist-2003}, ellipsoid \cite{morency-fg-2008} or mesh \cite{vacchetti-ieeepami-2004}. These methods can estimate three rotations well even profile-view; however, non-rigid transformation can not be applied for animation problem.
For those who using synthesized databases or online tracking technique with 3D face. An early proposal \cite{decarlo-ijcv-2000} concerns optical flow and does adaptable changes. Optical flow can be very accurate but not robust on fast movements. Moreover, this approach accumulates errors to drift away and is not easy to recover in long video sequences. With the help of local features, which provides invariant descriptors to non-rigid motions, Chen and Davoine \cite{chen-bmvc-2006} took advantages of local features constrained by a 3d-face paramerized model, called Candide-3, to capture both rigid and non-rigid head motions. But this methods does not work well in profile-view due to the large variation of landmarks. Ybanez \textit{et al.} \cite{alonso-icip-2007} found linear correlation between 3D model parameters and global appearance of stabilized face images. This method is robust for face and landmark tracking but limited just around frontal faces. Lefevre \textit{et al.} \cite{lefevre-icme-2009} extended Candide by collecting more appearance information at profile-views and chose more random points to represent facial appearance. Their error function consists of structure and appearance features combined with dynamic modeling, is high dimension and is easy to fall into local minimum. Tran \textit{et al.} \cite{tran-visapp-2013} uses the sparse representation to formalize the objective for 3d face tracking. The codebook of patches is constructed from the synthesized dataset. Recently, faceAPI \cite{faceapi} showed impressive results in pose and face animation tracking; however, this is a commercial product that unable to be accessed to investigate and compare with other methods.
In this paper, we propose an Bayesian method using a 3D face model to build the face pose and animation tracking framework. Our contribution is that in our framework, the SIFT \cite{lowe-ijcv-2004} is supposed to be local descriptor to track landmarks which are constrained by the 3D shape. And eigen decomposition is proprosed to use through Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to update the tracking model robustly and balance between what we learned in training and what we are seeing at the moment. This approach is different what previous methods of face tracking did. We also take advantages of a synthesized database \cite{chen-bmvc-2006,alonso-icip-2007,lefevre-icme-2009} without the need of big annotated data and propose the use of robust features to rigid and non-rigid changes. During tracking, candidate of new pose and animation is estimated via the posterior probability and the appearance model are then adjusted from new observations to environmental changes. This technique can make the system robust to changes of facial expression, pose and as well as environmental factors. The results on two public datasets show that our approach, compared to six other published algorithms, provides a very good compromise in terms of pose estimation and landmark localization.
The remaining of this paper are organized as follow: Section 2 gives some background face representation. Section 3 shows the proposed framework for tracking. Experimental results and analysis are presented in Section 4. Finally, we draw conclusions in Section 5.
\section{Face Representation}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{img/fig1_candide.pdf}
\caption{Candide-3 and some sample synthesized images.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
Candide-3 \cite{ahlberg-tech-2001} is a very commonly used face shape model. It consists of 113 vertices and 168 surfaces. Fig. 1 represents the frontal view of the model. It is controlled both in translation, rotation, shape and animation:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{g}(\sigma,\alpha)=\textrm{R}s\left(\overline{\textrm{g}}+\textrm{S}\sigma+\textrm{A}\alpha\right)+\textrm{t}\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\overline{\textrm{g}}$ is 3N-dimensional mean shape (N = 113 is
the number of vertices) containing the 3D coordinates of the
vertices. The matrices S and A control respectively shape and animation
through $\sigma$ and $\alpha$ parameters. $\textrm{R}$ is a rotation matrix, s is the scale, and $\textrm{t}$ is the translation
vector. The model makes an perspective projection assumption to project 3D face onto 2D image. Like \cite{chen-bmvc-2006,lefevre-icme-2009,alonso-icip-2007}, only 6 dimensions $r_{a}$ of the animation parameter are used to track eyebrows,
eyes and lips. Therefore, the full model parameter b of our framework has 12 dimensions: of 3 dimensions for rotation $(r_{x},r_{y},r_{z})$, 3 dimensions for translation $(t_{x},t_{y},t_{z})$ and 6 dimensions for animation $r_{a}$:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{b}=[r_{x},r_{y},r_{z},t_{x},t_{y},t_{z},r_{a}]\label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Texture model:} In the Candide model, appearance or texture parameters are not
available. Usually, we warp and map the image texture onto the triangles
of the 3d mesh by the image projection.
\section{Proposed Method}
\label{sect:figures}
Our framework consists of two steps: training and tracking. The framework benefits a database of synthesized faces to train tracking model and applies new way of tracking face pose and animation. In this section, we describe our method in detail.
\subsection{Training}
In the work of \cite{chen-bmvc-2006}, the authors align manually the Candide model on the first video frame and warp and map the texture from the image to the model. In our work, landmarks are annotated manually on the first video frame, then the POSIT algorithm \cite{dementhon-ijcv-1995} is used to fit and estimate the pose automatically from these landmarks to get the initial model parameters $b_{0}$.
The acquisition of ground-truth is very costly and time consuming. In order to circumvent this drawback, synthetic database \cite{chen-bmvc-2006,alonso-icip-2007,lefevre-icme-2009} using the Candide model is a good alternative. In order to collect training data, we do three following steps to obtain images using Candide and build appearance model for the next tracking step:
\subsubsection{Data Generation}
After initialization, the texture is warped and mapped from the first video frame to the
Candide model. Our database is built by rendering different views around the frontal image. Note that the full dimension of
the parameters to track is 12, consists of pose and animation, that makes difficult to explore finely. However, the translation parameters $t_{x}$ and $t_{y}$
will not affect the face appearances as well as facial animation will not be significant
influence because the use of local features in tracking. Hence, only rotations are gridded
for building the training database. Specifically, 7 values of Pan and Tilt and Roll
from -30 to +30 by step of 10 are taken to create $7^{3}=343$ pose views as some examples in Fig.
1.
\subsubsection{Learning Appearance Model}
The framework adopts local descriptors which are robust to rigid and non-rigid motion. In this paper, we also use SIFT descriptor \cite{lowe-ijcv-2004} to extract local features around 26 given landmarks in Fig. 1 as observed appearance. SIFT is invariant to affine transformation and helpful to localize accurate landmarks. In order to get the appearance model, we compute mean and covariance matrices of landmark descriptors on 343 images of the synthesized database which is generated from the first image. Each pair of mean and covariance matrix $(\mu^{i},\Sigma^{i})$ plays the role of learning data for ith landmark which are $128\times1$ and $128\times128$ matrices respectively. And these matrices will be adjusted during tracking.
\subsection{Tracking}
Here we propose a Bayesian approach approximated from posteriori distribution:
\begin{equation}
p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t})=\frac{p(Y_{t}|b_{t},Y_{1:t-1})p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t-1})}{p(Y_{t}|Y_{1:t-1})}\propto p(Y_{t}|b_{t},Y_{1:t-1})p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t-1}) \label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
Equation (3) is normally controlled by the observation model $p(Y_{t}|b_{t},Y_{1:t-1})$, and the evolution $p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t-1})$ as the prior. Because Eq. \ref{eq:3} is still complicated to solve, we provide some assumptions to make it simpler.
\subsubsection{Evolution Model}
The model $p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t-1})$ of state $b_{t}$ is dependent on only previous observation $Y_{1:t-1}$. We know $\hat{b}_{t-1}$ was able to estimated from $Y_{1:t-1}$. So, we assume that $p(b_{t}|Y_{1:t-1}) \propto p(b_{t}|\hat{b}_{t-1})$ which means $b_t$ is modeled independently by a Gaussian distribution around its previous estimated state $\hat{b}_{t-1}$, where $b_t=(r_{x},r_{y},r_{z},t_{x},t_{y},t_{z},r_{a})_t$ is the 12-dimensional vector in our context expressed as:
\begin{equation}
p(b_{t}|\hat{b}_{t-1})=\mathcal{N}(b_{t};\hat{b}_{t-1},\Psi) \label{eq:4}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Psi$ is a diagonal covariance matrix whose elements are the corresponding variances
of parameters of the state vector $\sigma^{i},i=1,..,12$. This model can be considered as the prior information during tracking.
\subsubsection{Observation Model}
The tracking system starts from the frontal face where Candide is fitted onto, and then it finds the candidate
of face in the next frame $t+1$ from the state vector at time $t$, with $t=0$ at the first frame.
In order to obtain the observation $Y_{t}$, the 3d Candide model is projected onto the next 2D frame at $t$ to localize 2D landmark positions. The appearance $Y_{t}$ is a vector of local textures $(y^{1}_{t}, y^{2}_t, ...,y^{n}_{t})$ around these landmarks as the observation. These observations can then be used to establish the observation model for tracking and the crucial point is to find an efficient observation model.
We make the assumption that the local appearances around landmarks are independent. The observation model is defined as a joint probability of Gaussian distributions, and the tracking problem can be solved as a maximum likelihood problem of a non-linear function.
\begin{equation}
p(Y_{t}|b_{t},Y_{1:t-1}) = {\prod}_{i=1}^{n} p(y^i_{t}|b_{t},y^i_{1:t-1}) \label{eq:5}
\end{equation}
It means that the observation $Y_{t}$ is dependent on the state variable $b_{t}$ as well as previous observations $Y_{t-1}$. Since the database of synthesized faces is generated in the range limit of $(-30;30)$ of three rotations that make the system limited in profile tracking. We can generate more data, however, it makes the framework less robust because of the variation for patches as well as occlusion problem at profile-view. Additionally, there are many factors such as illumination, poses and facial expression that may affect to tracking. So, the learning model needs to be adaptive to changes of environment that brings us the idea of maximum likelihood problem (\ref{eq:5}) can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
p(Y_{t}|b_{t},Y_{1:t-1})={\prod}_{i=1}^{n}\mathcal{N}(y^{i}_{t}|\mu^{i}_{t},\Sigma^{i}_{t})\label{eq:6}
\end{equation}
\noindent where n is the number of landmarks, $\mathcal{N}(y^{i}_{t}|\mu^{i}_t,\Sigma^{i}_t)$ denotes multivariate Gaussian distribution
of function value at observation around the ith landmark $y^{i}_{t}$, and $\mu^{i}_{t}$ and $\Sigma^{i}_{t}$ are mean and covariance matrices updated at time $t$ during tracking. Note that $\mu^{i}_{0}$ and $\Sigma^{i}_{0}$ are pre-learned mean and covariance in training step at first frame. The likelihood in Eq. \ref{eq:6} is controlled by two terms: $\mu^{i}_{t}$ and $\Sigma^{i}_{t}$ which model how confidence the new landmark observation is. Since trained at first frame, these terms should be adjusted to fit changes of factors, but still "remember" what it learned before. The proposed way how to update can be described as follows for mean vectors:
\begin{equation}
\mu^{i}_{t} = (1-\alpha)\mu^{i}_{t-1} + \alpha y^{i}_{t-1}\label{eq:7}
\end{equation}
\noindent where forgetting factor $\alpha \in (0,1)$ is a constant. This equation is a way to correct the error between the observation and the mean vector of appearance model. In order to update covariance matrices, Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) \cite{golub-siam-1965} is used to factorize the previous covariance matrix at time $t-1$ into unitary matrices and singular matrix of eigen values: $svd(\Sigma^{i}_{t-1})=[U^{i}_{t-1},S^{i}_{t-1},(U^{i}_{t-1})^T]$. Note that covariance matrix is positive definite, so unitary matrices are the same. Then, updating the singular matrix before composing all of them back to obtain a new covariance matrix at time $t$.
\begin{equation}
S^{i}_{t}=(1-\alpha)S_{t-1}^{i}+\alpha \left\Vert y^{i}_{t-1}-\mu^{i}_{t-1} \right\Vert ^{2}_2I
\quad \texttt{and} \quad
\Sigma^{i}_{t} = U^{i}_{t-1}S_{t}^{i}(U^{i}_{t-1})^{T}
\label{eq:8}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $I$ is identity matrix, $\left\Vert.\right\Vert_{2}$ is norm-2. The equations denote how to do adaptive observation model, while keeping principal components of what is seen before. In order to do this, we use Eq. \ref{eq:7} for the eccentricity and the direction is changed when the new covariance matrix is decomposed to update in next step as Eq. \ref{eq:8}. The updated mean and covariance matrices are used to model the observation as Eq. \ref{eq:6}. To sum up, replacing the observation and evolution models respectively of equations (\ref{eq:4}) and (\ref{eq:6}) into (\ref{eq:3}) and taking the log of likelihood, we finally attempt to minimize the error function approximated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hat{b}_{t}=\arg\min_{b_{t}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\Vert y^{i}_{t}-\mu^{i}_{t}\right\Vert^{2}_{(\Sigma^{i}_{t})^{-1}} + \left\Vert b_{t} - \hat{b}_{t-1} \right\Vert_{\Psi^{-1}}^{2}\label{eq:9}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\hat{b}_{t-1}$ is the model parameter estimated from previous frame. In our optimization context, the error function in (\ref{eq:9}) is a multi-dimensional function of the model parameter $b_{t}$ that we wish to minimize. It is not easy
to solve analytically, so a derivative-free optimizer such as down-hill
simplex \cite{nelder-cj-1965} is preferred. Like \cite{chen-bmvc-2006},
thirteen initial points are chosen randomly around the current state (12-dimensional
space) to form the simplex and the solution that subjects to local minimum can be found by deformations
and contracts during optimization.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sect:TeX}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{img/fig2_an_example.pdf}
\caption{An sample result of our method on one BUFT video.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
We adopted the Boston
University Face Tracking (BUFT) database \cite{cascia-ieeepami-2000} and Talking Face video\footnote{http://www-prima.inrialpes.fr/FGnet/data/01-TalkingFace/talking\_face.html} to evaluate the performances of face pose estimation and its animation by landmark tracking respectively.
\textbf{BUFT:} The pose ground-truth is captured by magnetic sensors {}``\textit{Flock
and Birds}'' with an accuracy of less than $1^{o}$. The uniform-light set which is used to evaluate, has a total
of 45 video sequences (320$\times$240 resolution) for 5 subjects
(9 videos per subject) with available ground-truth which is formatted as
(\textit{X\_pos, Y\_pos, depth, roll, yaw (or pan), pitch (or tilt)}).
For each frame of one video sequence, we use the estimation of the rotation error $e_{i}=[\theta_{i} -\hat{\theta}_{i}]^{T}[\theta_{i} -\hat{\theta}_{i}]$ like \cite{lefevre-icme-2009} to evaluate the accuracy and robustness, where $\theta_{i}$ and $\hat{\theta}_{i}$ are $(pan, tilt, roll)$ of the ground-truth and estimated pose at frame $i$ respectively. A frame is lost when $e_{i}$ exceeds the threshold. The robustness is the number $N_{s}$ of frames tracked successfully and $P_{s}$ is the percentage of frames tracked over all videos. The precision measures include Pan, Tilt, Roll and average rotation errors which are computed by Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as the measure of tracker accuracy over tracked frames:
$E_{pan},E_{tilt},E_{roll}$ and $E_{m}=\frac{1}{3}\left(E_{pan}+E_{tilt}+E_{roll}\right)$ where $E_{pan}=\frac{1}{N_{s}}\sum_{i\in S_{s}}|\theta_{pan}^{i}-\hat{\theta}_{pan}^{i}|$ (similarly for the tilt and roll) and $S_{s}$ is set of tracked frames.
\textbf{The Talking Face Video:} is a freely 5000-frames video sequence of a talking person with face animations. The ground-truth is available with 68 facial points annotated manually on the whole video. Basing on movements of landmarks, we can estimate the face animation. On that account, we instead evaluate the precision of landmark tracking as the accurate animation. The Root-Mean-Squared (RMS) error is normally used to evaluate the landmark tracking performance on this database. Despite that the number of landmarks of our system and other methods is different, the same evaluation scheme could be still applied on same number of landmarks with our work as well as other comparative methods.
\begin{table*}
\begin{centering}
\caption{The comparison of robustness ($P_{s}$) and accuracy ($E_{pan}$, $E_{tilt}$, $E_{roll}$ and $E_{avg}$) between our method and state-of-the-art on uniform-light set of BUFT dataset.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline
Approach & $P_{s} $ & $E_{pan}$ & $E_{tilt}$ & $E_{roll}$ & $E_{avg}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
(La Casicia \textit{et al.}, 2000) \cite{cascia-ieeepami-2000} & 75\% & 5.3 & 5.6 & 3.8 & 3.9 \tabularnewline
\hline
(Xiao \textit{et al.}, 2003) \cite{xiao-ijist-2003} & 100\% & 3.8 & 3.2 & 1.4 & 2.8 \tabularnewline
\hline
(Lefevre \textit{et al.}, 2009) \cite{lefevre-icme-2009} & 100\% & 4.4 & 3.3 & 2.0 & 3.2 \tabularnewline
\hline
(Morency \textit{et al.}, 2008) \cite{morency-fg-2008} & 100\% & 5.0 & 3.7 & 2.9 & 3.9 \tabularnewline
\hline
(Saragih \textit{et al.}, 2011) \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} & 100\% & 4.3 $\pm$ 2.2 & 4.8 $\pm$ 3.3 & 2.6 $\pm$ 1.4 & 3.9 \tabularnewline
\hline
(Chen \textit{et al.}, 2006) \cite{chen-bmvc-2006} & 91\% & 5.5 $\pm$ 1.7 & 4.2 $\pm$ 1.5 & 2.1 $\pm$ 1.0 & 3.9 \tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{Our method} & \textbf{100\%} & \textbf{5.4} $\pm$ \textbf{2.2} & \textbf{3.9} $\pm$ \textbf{1.7} & \textbf{2.4} $\pm$ \textbf{1.4} & 3.9 \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table*}
The performance of pose estimation in Table 1 shows the comparable results between our work and state-of-the-art methods in 3d pose tracking. Our performance is $100\%$ robustness and the accuracy $E_{m}$ is 3.9, which outperforms \cite{chen-bmvc-2006} and \cite{cascia-ieeepami-2000} both in terms of robustness and accuracy. And it gets the same result of mean error $E_{m}$ as \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011,morency-fg-2008}, but the variance of error of \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} is higher than our work especially in Tilt. However, we are worse than \cite{xiao-ijist-2003,lefevre-icme-2009} at the accuracy. In spite of the fact that our result is quite encouraging, the Pan precision is still low compared to others. The reason why Pan rotation is bad-estimated, could probably comes from occlusion problem. When Pan is bigger than, for instance, $30^{o}$, some landmarks are occluded that make local descriptors is inefficient that make the likelihood discontinued. For \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011}, the authors trained their landmarks classifiers only with variation of Pan angles that make their estimation of Tilt and Roll inefficient. Fig. 2 is an example of our method on one video of BUFT dataset.
In order to evaluate the landmark precision, we compare our method and FaceTracker\footnote{http://web.mac.com/jsaragih/FaceTracker/FaceTracker.html} proposed by \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011}. Because the landmarks of our method, \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} and ground-truth are not the same, 12 landmarks around eyes, nose and mouth as in Fig. 3 are chosen to evaluate RMS error. The Fig. 4 shows the (Root Mean Square) RMS error which is computed using our method (red curve) and FaceTracker (blue curve) on the Talking Face video. The vertical axis is RMS error (in pixel) and the horizontal axis is the frame number. The model of \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} sometimes drift away the ground-truth, but recovers quickly to good location by benefiting face and landmark detectors. The Fig. 4 shows that even though our method just learned from the synthesized database, what we obtain is the same the state-of-the-art method as well and is even more robust.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{img/fig3_facialpoints.pdf}
\caption{The 12 landmarks is used to compute RMS error where red ($+$), blue ($*$) and green ($o$) markers are ground-truth, of Saragih \textit{et al.} \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} and our method respectively on frames 110, 2500 and 4657 of Talking Face video.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
The performance of our method for pose estimation could be improved if the Pan was estimated more accurately. One possible solution is assigning weights to landmarks corresponds to the Pan value. Or projecting landmarks on tangent plane at each landmark that compute mean and covariance matrices as a function of face pose to deal with occlusion. In general, how to deal with occluded landmarks is one of critical points to improve our performance. Although real-time computation is unreachable (about 5s/frame on Laptop Core 2 Duo 2.00GHz, 2G RAM) due to using down-hill simplex algorithm to optimize the energy function, it can be improved by using Gradient Descent in future work.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{img/fig4_rms.pdf}
\caption{The RMS error of 12 selected points for tracking in our framework (below red curve) and Saragih \textit{et al.} \cite{saragih-ijcv-2011} (above blue curve). The vertical axis is RMS error (in pixel) and the horizontal axis is the frame number.}.
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sect:Word}
In this paper, we propose a Bayesian method to deal with the problem of face tracking using one adaptive model through eigen decomposition. The synthesized database within local features are around landmarks to learn appearance model as mean and covariance matrices. For tracking, an energy function which is approximated from posterior probability is minimized as difference between the observations and the appearance model. In order to adjust the model to changes of environments, the eigen decompostion is deployed. The results showed that the use of our model is comparable to some state-of-the-art methods of pose estimation and much more robust than state-of-the-art at landmark tracking or animation tracking. It demonstrated what we proposed is useful to both tasks of pose estimation and landmark tracking. Moreover, it is easy to build the learning database of synthesized images to learn without the need of real annotated data. With our current encouraging results, some other evolutions could be done to improve the performance. For examples, taking into account the weights of contribution to energy function which is dependent on the confidence of landmark observations at each time, computing appearance model as function of the pose to make the objective function continuous. In general, the way how to improve Pan precision by dealing with occluded landmarks is a crucial point to think as future work. Finally, the speed can be improved to real-time application by using Gradient Descent like methods instead of down-hill simplex algorithm.
\bibliographystyle{splncs}
|
\section{Introduction}
Partial linear spaces are a class of incidence structures that generalise both graphs and linear spaces. Examples include polar spaces and generalised quadrangles. Specifically, a \textit{partial linear space} $\mathcal{S}$ is a pair $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is a non-empty set of \textit{points} and $\mathcal{L}$ is a collection of subsets of $\mathcal{P}$ called \textit{lines} such that any two distinct points are contained in at most one line, and every line contains at least two points. \emph{In this paper, the set $\mathcal{P}$ will always be finite.} A partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$ is a \textit{linear space} when any two distinct points are contained in exactly one line, and a \textit{graph} when every line contains exactly two points. A partial linear space is \textit{proper} when it is neither a linear space nor a graph; in particular, every proper partial linear space contains at least one line. If every line of $\mathcal{S}$ contains exactly $k$ points, then we say that $\mathcal{S}$ has \textit{line-size} $k$; dually, if every point of $\mathcal{S}$ lies on exactly $\ell$ lines, then we say that $\mathcal{S}$ has \textit{point-size} $\ell$. The \textit{automorphism group} $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ of $\mathcal{S}$ consists of those permutations of $\mathcal{P}$ that preserve $\mathcal{L}$.
Highly symmetric linear spaces have been studied extensively. For example, Kantor~\cite{Kan1985} classified the $2$-transitive linear spaces, in which some automorphism group acts transitively on ordered pairs of distinct points; these include the projective space $\PG_n(q)$ and the affine space $\AG_n(q)$. More generally, the flag-transitive linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$---in which some automorphism group $G$ acts transitively on point-line incident pairs---have also been classified~\cite{BueDelDoyKleLieSax1990}, except for the case where $\mathcal{S}$ has $q$ points and $G\leq \AGammaL_1(q)$ for some prime power $q$.
The most natural way to generalise the concept of $2$-transitivity to arbitrary partial linear spaces is to consider those partial linear spaces for which some automorphism group acts transitively on ordered pairs of distinct collinear points, as well as ordered pairs of distinct non-collinear points. Such partial linear spaces are flag-transitive, and when they have non-empty line sets and are not linear spaces, they are precisely the partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ for which $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is transitive of rank~$3$ on points (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:rank3} and Remark~\ref{remark:PLSrank3}).
A permutation group $G$ acting on a finite set $\Omega$ has \textit{rank} $r$ when $G$ is transitive on $\Omega$ and has $r$ orbits on $\Omega\times \Omega$; we also say that $G$ is
\textit{primitive} if it is transitive on $\Omega$ and there are no non-trivial $G$-invariant equivalence relations on $\Omega$. Using the classification of the finite simple groups (CFSG), the primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$ have been classified (see~\cite{LieSax1986} for references), and as an immediate consequence of this classification, the graphs with a transitive automorphism group of rank~$3$ are known. However, we cannot make such a deduction for proper partial linear spaces, for the lines of such geometries are not necessarily determined by their collinearity relations. We therefore wish to classify the proper partial linear spaces with a rank~$3$ automorphism group $G$, and we will focus on the case where $G$ is primitive (see Remark~\ref{remark:imprim} for some comments on the imprimitive case). The primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$ are of almost simple, grid or affine type (see Proposition~\ref{prop:primrank3}), and Devillers has classified the partial linear spaces with a rank~$3$ primitive automorphism group of almost simple~\cite{Dev2005} or grid type~\cite{Dev2008}, so it remains to consider those of affine type.
A primitive permutation group $G$ is \textit{affine} when the socle of $G$ is (the additive group of) a vector space $V:=V_d(p)$ for some $d\geq 1$ and prime $p$, in which case we may view $G$ as a subgroup of $\AGL_d(p)$ acting on $V$. Moreover, we may view $V$ as the translation group of $\AGL_d(p)$, in which case $G=V{:}G_0$, where $G_0$ denotes the stabiliser of the zero vector in $V$, and $G_0$ is an irreducible subgroup of $\GL_d(p)$. Note that if $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ where $r^a=p^d$, then we may view $V$ as a vector space $V_a(r)$. The affine primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$ were classified by Foulser~\cite{Fou1969} in the soluble case and Liebeck~\cite{Lie1987} in general, and we provide a more detailed version of this classification in this paper (see Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}).
If $G$ is such a permutation group, then $G_0$ has two orbits on $V^*:=V\setminus \{0\}$, and if $\mathcal{S}$ is a partial linear space with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$, then we may identify the points of $\mathcal{S}$ with $V$, in which case the set of vectors in $V$ that are collinear with $0$, denoted by $\mathcal{S}(0)$, is one of the two orbits of $G_0$ on $V^* $.
Before we state the main theorem of this paper, we first describe some infinite families of examples that arise. Throughout these examples, $p$ is a prime and $d$ is a positive integer. See \S\ref{s:prelim} for any unexplained terminology. We will see that most of the proper partial linear spaces admitting rank~$3$ affine primitive automorphism groups have the form of Example~\ref{example:AG}.
\begin{example}
\label{example:AG}
Let $(G,a,r)$ satisfy the following properties: $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ such that $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$, where $r^a=p^d$, $a\geq 2$ and $r>2$. Let $\mathcal{L}_i:=\{\langle u\rangle + v: \langle u\rangle\in \Delta_i, v\in V\}$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Then $\mathcal{S}_i:=(V,\mathcal{L}_i)$ is a proper partial linear space such that $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_i)$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Note that $(V,\mathcal{L}_1\cup \mathcal{L}_2)$ is the linear space $\AG_a(r)$, and $G$ has orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of $\AG_a(r)$.
Geometrically, if we embed $\PG_{a-1}(r)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_{a}(r)$ and view $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_a(r)$ (i.e., the set of points in $\PG_a(r)$ that are not in $\Pi$), then $\mathcal{L}_i$ is the set of affine lines of $\AG_a(r)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in a point of $\Delta_i$.
For most rank~$3$ affine primitive permutation groups $G$, there are various pairs $(a,r)$ such that $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on $\PG_{a-1}(r)$; see Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups} and Corollary~\ref{cor:AGgroups} (and
Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}).
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:tensor}
Let $U:=V_2(q)$ and $W:=V_m(q)$ where $q^{2m}=p^d$ and $m\geq 2$.
Let $V:=U\otimes W$. Let $\Sigma_U:=\{U\otimes w:w\in W^*\}$ and $\Sigma_W:=\{u\otimes W : u\in U^*\}$.
For $X\in \{U,W\}$, let $\mathcal{L}_X:=\{Y+v : Y\in \Sigma_X,v\in V\}$.
Then $\mathcal{S}_X:=(V,\mathcal{L}_X)$ is a proper partial linear space,
and $\mathcal{S}_U\simeq \mathcal{S}_W$ when $m=2$. Geometrically,
if we embed $\PG_{2m-1}(q)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_{2m}(q)$ and view $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_{2m}(q)$ (i.e., the set of points in $\PG_{2m}(q)$ that are not in $\Pi$), then for $(X,n)\in \{(U,2),(W,m)\}$, we may view
$\Sigma_X$ as a set of projective $(n-1)$-subspaces of $\Pi$, whence $\mathcal{L}_X$ is the set of affine $n$-subspaces of $\AG_{2m}(q)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in an element of $\Sigma_X$.
For $\mathcal{S}_U$, the line-size is $q^2$ and the point-size is $(q^m-1)/(q-1)$, while for $\mathcal{S}_W$, the line-size is $q^m$ and the point-size is $q+1$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:tensoraut}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_U)=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ \GL_m(q)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$, a rank~$3$ affine primitive group. See \S\ref{s:(T)} for more details.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:grid}
Let $d=2n$ where $p^n\neq 2$. The $p^n\times p^n$ grid is a proper partial linear space with point set $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ whose line set is the union of $\{\{(v,w) : v \in V_n(p)\} : w \in V_n(p)\}$ and $\{\{(w,v) : v \in V_n(p)\} : w \in V_n(p)\}$. The $p^n\times p^n$ grid has line-size $p^n$ and point-size $2$,
and its full automorphism group is $S_{p^n}\wr S_2$, which contains the rank~$3$ affine primitive group $V{:}(\GL_n(p)\wr S_2)$. See \S\ref{s:(I)} for more details.
\end{example}
Now we state the main result of this paper.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a finite proper partial linear space, and let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Then one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space from Example~\emph{\ref{example:AG}} with respect to a triple $(H,a,r)$ satisfying Hypothesis~\emph{\ref{hyp:AGgroups}} such that $H$ is primitive with socle $V$ and $r^a=p^d$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Examples~\emph{\ref{example:tensor}} or~\emph{\ref{example:grid}}.
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Table~\emph{\ref{tab:main}} where $k$ and $\ell$ are the line- and point-size of $\mathcal{S}$, respectively, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=p^d{:}\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$.
\item[(iv)] One of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$.
\item[(b)] $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^n)\wr S_2$ where $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$.
\item[(c)] $V=V_2(q^3)$ and $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(q^3)$ where
$|\mathcal{S}(0)|=q(q^3-1)(q^2-1)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c }
\hline
$p^d$ & $k$ & $\ell$ & $|\mathcal{S}(0)|$ & $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$ & No. & Ref. & Notes \\
\hline
$2^8$ & $16$ & $9$ & $135$ & $A_9$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(AS)A9} &
\multirowcell{7}{$\bigg\uparrow$\\ not obtained\\ from any rank~$3$\\ $2$-$(p^d,k,1)$ design\\ $\bigg\downarrow$}
\\
$3^4$ & $6$ & $12$ & $60$ & $M_{10}$ & $1$&\ref{example:(R2)} & \\
$3^5$ & $12$ & $12$ & $132$ & $M_{11}$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(AS)M11} & \\
$3^8$ & $9$ & $180$ & $1440$ & $(Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8){}^{\displaystyle .} \SO_6^-(2)$ &$1$& \ref{example:(E)nonplane} & \\
$3^{12}$ & $27$ & $56$ & $1456$ & $\SL_2(13)\wr S_2 $ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)goodHering} & \\
& $9$ & $8190$ & $65520$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4).2^-$ &$1$& \ref{example:(AS)G24} & \\
$5^6$ & $25$ & $315$ & $7560$ & $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2\circ 4){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(AS)J2} & \\
\hline
$3^4$ & $9$ & $5$ & $40$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+$ & $1$&\ref{example:(AS)nearfield} & \multirowcell{2}{from the nearfield \\ plane of order $9$} \\
& $9$ & $8$ & $64$ & $(Q_8\wr S_2){:}S_3$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)reg} & \\
\hline
$5^4$ & $25$ & $24$ & $24^2$ & $(\SL_2(3)\wr S_2){:}4$ & $1$&\ref{example:(I)reg} &\multirowcell{7}{$\bigg\uparrow$\\ from an irregular \\ nearfield plane \\ of order $p^2$\\ $\bigg\downarrow$} \\
$7^4$ & $49$ & $48$ & $48^2$ & $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\wr S_2){:}3$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)reg} & \\
$11^4$ & $121$ & $120$ & $120^2$ & $((\SL_2(3)\times 5)\wr S_2){:}2$ & $1$&\ref{example:(I)reg} & \\
$23^4$ & $23^2$ & $528$ & $528^2$ & $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\times 11)\wr S_2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)reg} & \\
$11^4$ & $121$ & $120$ & $120^2$ & $(\SL_2(5)\wr S_2){:}5$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)reg} & \\
$29^4$ & $29^2$ & $840$ & $840^2$ & $((\SL_2(5)\times 7)\wr S_2){:}2$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(I)reg} &\\
$59^4$ & $59^2$ & $3480$ & $3480^2$ & $(\SL_2(5)\times 29)\wr S_2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)reg} &\\
\hline
$5^4$ & $25$ & $10$ & $240$ & $(\SL_2(5)\circ D_8\circ Q_8\circ 4){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$ & $1$ &\ref{example:(E)walker} &\multirowcell{8}{$\Bigg\uparrow$\\ from a rank~$3$ \\ affine plane\\ of order $p^2$\\ $\Bigg\downarrow$} \\
& $25$ & $16$ & $384$ & $(\SL_2(5)\circ D_8\circ Q_8\circ 4){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(E)walker} & \\
& $25$ & $6$ & $144$ & $ (2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6\circ 4){}^{\displaystyle .} 2 $ & $1$&\ref{example:(AS)walker} & \\
& $25$ & $20$ & $480$ & $ (2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6\circ 4){}^{\displaystyle .} 2 $ & $1$&\ref{example:(AS)walker} & \\
$7^4$ & $49$ & $48$ & $48^2$ & $((\SL_2(3)\times \SL_2(3)){}^{\displaystyle .} 4){:}3$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)spor} &\\
& $49$ & $10$ & $480$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+\circ D_8\circ Q_8\circ 6$ & $1$&\ref{example:(E)mason-ostrom} & \\
& $49$ & $40$ & $1920$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+\circ D_8\circ Q_8\circ 6$ &$1$ &\ref{example:(E)mason-ostrom} &\\
& $49$ & $20$ & $960$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-\circ 24$ &$1$& \ref{example:(AS)korch} &\\
\hline
$3^8$ & $9$ & $20$ & $160$ & $(D_8\circ Q_8\circ 2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-)\wr S_2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)goodnearfield} & \multirowcell{7}{$\Bigg\uparrow$\\ from a rank~$3$ \\ $2$-$(p^d,k,1)$ design\\ $\Bigg\downarrow$} \\
& $9$ & $800$ & $6400$ & $(((D_8\circ Q_8).D_{10})\wr S_2){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)E} & \\
& $9$ & $800$ & $6400$ & $((D_8\circ Q_8).D_{10})\wr S_2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)E} & \\
& $9$ & $800$ & $6400$ & $((2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-{:}2)\wr S_2){:}2$ &$1$& \ref{example:(I)sl25} & \\
& $9$ & $800$ & $6400$ & $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-{:}2)\wr S_2$ & $1$&\ref{example:(I)sl25} & \\
$3^{12}$ & $9$ & $182$ & $1456$ & $\SL_2(13)\wr S_2 $ & $2$ & \ref{example:(I)goodHering} & \\
& $9$ & $66248$ & $529984$ & $\SL_2(13)\wr S_2 $ & $4$ & \ref{example:(I)sl213} &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The exceptional partial linear spaces}
\label{tab:main}
\end{table}
For each exceptional partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$ in Table~\ref{tab:main}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine primitive group and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$, the stabiliser in $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ of the $0$ vector, is an irreducible subgroup of $\GL_d(p)$. We also list the following in Table~\ref{tab:main}: the number (No.)\ of partial linear spaces that satisfy the given parameters up to isomorphism; a reference (Ref.)\ for the definition of the partial linear space and its automorphism group; and some additional notes that will be explained in Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear}. Observe that $\mathcal{S}$ has $p^d\ell/k$ lines and that $|\mathcal{S}(0)|=\ell(k-1)$
(see Lemma~\ref{lemma:lines}).
We caution the reader that there are affine primitive permutation groups $G$ of rank~$3$ and partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $\mathcal{S}$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(i) with respect to some triple $(H,a,r)$ but
not $(G,a,r)$ (see Remark~\ref{remark:Hexample}).
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:PLSfromLinear}
One way of constructing a partial linear space is to remove lines from a linear space, as we did in Example~\ref{example:AG} with the linear space $\AG_a(r)$.
In particular, for a rank~$3$ permutation group $G$ on $\mathcal{P}$, if $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ is a linear space with at least three points on every line such that $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ and $G$ has exactly two orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on $\mathcal{L}$, then $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_2)$ are proper partial linear spaces that admit $G$ and have disjoint collinearity relations; in fact, the converse of this statement also holds (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}).
Observe that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design---that is, a linear space with $v$ points and line-size $k$---precisely when $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_2)$ both have line-size $k$.
Those $2$-$(v,k,1)$ designs admitting a rank~$3$ automorphism group $G$ with two orbits on lines have been studied in the special case of affine planes (e.g.,~\cite{BilJoh2001}) and in general when $G$ is an affine primitive group~\cite{BilMonFra2015,Mon2015}. For each partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$ in Table~\ref{tab:main}, we state whether $\mathcal{S}$ can be obtained from a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using a rank~$3$ group as above; when this design is an affine plane (i.e., when $v=k^2$), we state this instead, and when this affine plane is well known, we give its name. More details may be found at the given reference or in~\S\ref{s:proof}.
\end{remark}
It therefore follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:main} that there are proper partial linear spaces with rank~$3$ affine primitive automorphism groups that cannot be obtained from any $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using a rank~$3$ group as described in Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear}. In fact, there are infinitely many such structures: we prove that the partial linear space $\mathcal{S}_W$ from Example~\ref{example:tensor} cannot be obtained from a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using any rank~$3$ group for $m\geq 4$ and $(m,q)\neq (5,2)$; see Proposition~\ref{prop:tensornodesign}.
However, if $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathcal{S}_U$ from Example~\ref{example:tensor} for $m\geq 2$ (respectively, $\mathcal{S}_W$ for $m=3$), then $\mathcal{S}$ can be obtained from $\AG_m(q^2)$ (respectively, $\AG_2(q^3)$) using a rank~$3$ affine primitive subgroup $G$ of $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ (see~\S\ref{s:extra}); in other words, $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the triple $(G,m,q^2)$ (respectively, $(G,2,q^3)$), but we choose not to omit $\mathcal{S}$ from Example~\ref{example:tensor} because $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is itself a rank~$3$ affine primitive group. Similarly, if $\mathcal{S}$ is the $p^n\times p^n$ grid of Example~\ref{example:grid}, then $\mathcal{S}$ can be obtained from the affine plane $\AG_2(p^n)$ using the rank~$3$ affine primitive group $V{:}(\GL_1(p^n)\wr S_2)$, but this group is considerably smaller than $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$.
\begin{remark}
We are unable to classify the partial linear spaces that satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv). In fact, the groups of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(a) were also omitted from the classification of the flag-transitive linear spaces~\cite{BueDelDoyKleLieSax1990}.
There are partial linear spaces from Example~\ref{example:AG} for which $G$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(a); see Example~\ref{example:R0} for more details.
There are also partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ for which $G$ and $\mathcal{S}(0)$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(b); see Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep} and \ref{example:(I)reg}.
We completely classify the proper partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ for which $G$ and $\mathcal{S}(0)$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(c) under the extra assumption that $\GL_2(q)\circ Z(\GL_2(q^3))\leq G_0$ (see Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}); several infinite families arise, including some from Example~\ref{example:AG}.
However, we believe that the situation is much more complicated in general. We illustrate this by providing a complete classification of the partial linear spaces that arise when $q=4$ (see Example~\ref{example:hardS0}).
\end{remark}
All of the partial linear spaces of Examples~\ref{example:AG},~\ref{example:tensor} and~\ref{example:grid} have the property that their lines are affine subspaces of $V_d(p)$. Moreover, this turns out to be true for all of the partial linear spaces in Table~\ref{tab:main} except when $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=3^4{:}M_{10}$ or $3^5{:}M_{11}$, in which case neither partial linear space has this property since the line-size is not a power of $p$. We suspect
that these are the only two such partial linear spaces, and we prove that any other such partial linear space must satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(b) as well as the constraints in (iii) below.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:affinesub}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a finite proper partial linear space, and let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. If the lines of $\mathcal{S}$ are not affine subspaces of $V_d(p)$, then one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $p^d=3^4$, $\mathcal{S}$ has line-size $6$ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=3^4{:}M_{10}$.
\item[(ii)] $p^d=3^5$, $\mathcal{S}$ has line-size $12$ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=3^5{:}M_{11}$.
\item[(iii)] $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^n)\wr S_2$ where $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$ and $n\geq 2$. Further, all of the following hold for any line $L$ of $\mathcal{S}$ such that $0\in L$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The prime $p$ is odd, and $-1\notin G_0$. In particular, $|G_0\cap Z(\GL_{d}(p))|$ is odd.
\item If $k$ is the line-size of $\mathcal{S}$, then $k(k-1)$ divides $(p^n-1)^2$, so $k$ is coprime to $p$.
\item $L\cap \{\lambda u :\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_p\}=\{0,u\}$ for all $u\in L^*$.
\item $L=\{(v,v^\alpha):v\in M\}$ for some $M\subseteq V_n(p)$ and injective map $\alpha:M\to V_n(p)$.
\item For $g\in G_0$, there exists $v\in L$ such that $v^g\neq -v$.
\item There exist $g_1,g_2\in \GammaL_1(p^n)$ such that $(g_1,-1)\in G_0$ and $(-1,g_2)\in G_0$.
\item If $H\times K\leq G_0$ for some $H,K\leq \GammaL_1(p^n)$, then $H$ or $K$ is not transitive on $V_n(p)^*$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
We saw in Example~\ref{example:grid} that the $p^n\times p^n$ grid is a proper partial linear space with a rank~$3$ affine primitive group of automorphisms whose full automorphism group is not affine. Using~\cite{Pra1990}, we prove that this is the only such example.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:primrank3plus}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a finite proper partial linear space, and let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime.
Then one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to the $p^n\times p^n$ grid and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=S_{p^n}\wr S_2$, where $d=2n$ and $n\geq 1$.
\item[(ii)] $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
This paper is organised as follows. In \S\ref{s:prelim}, we give some preliminaries and prove Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}. In \S\ref{s:rank3}, we state and prove a modified version of Liebeck's classification~\cite{Lie1987} of the affine primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}); in particular, we provide more detailed information about the possible rank~$3$ groups $G$ when $G_0$ is imprimitive or stabilises a tensor product decomposition. We then use Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3} to state Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}.
The partial linear spaces of Example~\ref{example:AG} have a property that we term \textit{dependence} (see \S\ref{s:dep}), and we prove in \S\ref{s:dep} that, under very general assumptions, the dependent partial linear spaces all have the form of Example~\ref{example:AG}; we also provide more details about our strategy for proving Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
In \S\ref{s:(R1)}--\ref{s:(S0)}, we classify the independent proper partial linear spaces for various classes of rank~$3$ affine primitive groups, as defined by Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}, and in \S\ref{s:(I)}--\ref{s:(AS)}, we consider the remaining rank~$3$ groups. In \S\ref{s:proof}, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, and in \S\ref{s:affinesub}, we prove Corollary~\ref{cor:affinesub}. In \S\ref{s:extra}, we consider when a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:tensor} can be obtained from a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using a rank~$3$ group.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{s:prelim}
All groups and incidence structures in this paper are finite, and all group actions are written on the right. Basic terminology and results in permutation group theory or representation theory may be found in~\cite{DixMor1996} or~\cite{Isa1994}, respectively.
The notation used to denote the
finite simple groups (and their automorphism groups) is consistent with~\cite{KleLie1990}. We use the algebra software {\sc Magma}~\cite{Magma} and {\sf GAP}~\cite{GAP4} for a variety of computations. In particular, we use the {\sf GAP} package FinInG~\cite{FinInG}, as well as
nauty and Traces \cite{NautyTraces} underneath the {\sf GAP} package Grape~\cite{Grape}.
This section is organised as follows. In \S\ref{ss:basicsactions}--\ref{ss:affine}, we review some general notation, definitions and basic results. In \S\ref{ss:pls}, we consider some elementary properties of partial linear spaces. In \S\ref{ss:plsnew}, we describe several ways of constructing new partial linear spaces from given ones. In \S\ref{ss:affinePLS}, we investigate some properties of partial linear spaces admitting affine automorphism groups. In \S\ref{ss:nearfield}, we describe a family of affine planes called nearfield planes.
In \S\ref{ss:2trans}, we state the classifications of the $2$-transitive affine groups~\cite{Her1985trans,Hup1957} and the linear spaces admitting $2$-transitive affine automorphism groups~\cite{Kan1985}. In \S\ref{ss:primrank3plus}, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}.
\subsection{Group actions}
\label{ss:basicsactions}
Let $G$ be a group acting on a (finite) set $\Omega$. We denote the orbit of $x\in \Omega$ by $x^G$ and the pointwise stabiliser in $G$ of $x\in \Omega$ by $G_x$. We denote the setwise and pointwise stabilisers of $X=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}\subseteq \Omega$ in $G$ by $G_X$ and $G_{(X)}=G_{x_1,\ldots,x_n}$, respectively. We denote the permutation group induced by $G_X$ on $X$ by $G^X_X=G_X/G_{(X)}$, and the symmetric group on $\Omega$ by $\Sym(\Omega)$. The \textit{degree} of $G$ is $|\Omega|$.
A \textit{block} of $G$ is a non-empty subset $B$ of $\Omega$ such that for each $g\in G$, either $B^g=B$ or $B^g\cap B=\varnothing$. If $G$ is transitive on $\Omega$, then a block $B$ is \textit{non-trivial} if it is neither a singleton nor $\Omega$, in which case $\{B^g: g\in G\}$ is a \textit{system of imprimitivity} for $G$ on $\Omega$, and $G$ is \textit{imprimitive}; recall from the introduction that $G$ is primitive if no such system of imprimitivity exists. We will use the following observation throughout this paper (see \cite[Theorem 1.5A]{DixMor1996}): if $G$ is transitive on $\Omega$ and $x\in \Omega$, then the set of blocks of $G$ containing $x$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of subgroups of $G$ containing $G_x$; under this correspondence, a block $B$ containing $x$ is mapped to $G_B$, and a subgroup $H$ containing $G_x$ is mapped to $x^{H}$.
\subsection{Notation and definitions for groups}
\label{ss:basicsgroups}
For groups $G$ and $H$, we denote a split extension of $G$ by $H$ by $G{:}H$; a non-split extension by $G{}^{\displaystyle .} H$, an arbitrary extension by $G.H$, and the central product of $G$ and $H$ (with respect to some common central subgroup) by $G\circ H$. For $S\leq S_n$, we denote the wreath product $G^n{:}S$ by $G\wr S$. We denote the cyclic group of order $n$ by $C_n$ or just $n$, the elementary abelian group $C_p^n$ by $p^n$, the dihedral group of order $n$ by $D_n$, and the quaternion group by $Q_8$. For $H\leq G$ and $K\leq G$, we denote the centraliser and normaliser of $H$ in $K$ by $C_K(H)$ and $N_K(H)$, respectively. We denote the centre of $G$ by $Z(G)$ and the derived subgroup of $G$ by $G'$.
The \textit{socle} of a group $G$ is the subgroup generated by the minimal normal subgroups of $G$. The group $G$ is \textit{almost simple} if its socle is a non-abelian simple group $T$; equivalently, $G$ is almost simple if $T\leq G\leq \Aut(T)$. The group $G$ is \textit{quasisimple} if $G$ is perfect (i.e., $G=G'$) and $G/Z(G)$ is a simple group. A \textit{covering group} of $G$ is a group $L$ such that $L/Z(L)\simeq G$ and $Z(L)\leq L'$. The symmetric group $S_n$ has two covering groups $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_n^+$ and $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_n^-$ for $n\geq 4$, both of which contain the covering group $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_n$ of $A_n$; in $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_n^+$, transpositions lift to involutions, whereas in $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_n^-$, transpositions lift to elements of order $4$. The almost simple group $G_2(4).2$ also has two covering groups $2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4).2^+$ and $2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4).2^-$, where $2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4).2^+$ is the group whose character table is given in \cite[p.99]{Atlas}. Note that $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^+\simeq \GL_2(3)$, $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_4\simeq \SL_2(3)$ and $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5\simeq \SL_2(5)$.
\subsection{Fields, vector spaces and representation theory}
\label{ss:basicsvs}
Let $q$ be a power of a prime $p$. We denote the finite field of order $q$ by $\mathbb{F}_q$ and an $n$-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{F}_q$ by $V_n(q)$. If $W\subseteq V_n(q)$, then we define $W^*:=W\setminus \{0\}$. For a subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$, we write $\langle x_1,\ldots,x_m\rangle_F$ for the $F$-span of the vectors $x_1,\ldots,x_m\in V_n(q)$; when $F=\mathbb{F}_q$ and the context permits, we omit $F$ from this notation. We write $\sigma_q$ for the Frobenius automorphism $x\mapsto x^p$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$, so that $\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)=\langle\sigma_q\rangle$, and we adopt the following convention: whenever we write $\GammaL_n(q)=\GL_n(q){:}\langle \sigma\rangle$, we mean that $\langle\sigma\rangle\simeq \langle \sigma_q\rangle$ and $\GammaL_n(q)$ acts on $V_n(q)$ with respect to some basis $\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}$ such that $(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i v_i)^{\sigma}=\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i^{\sigma} v_i$ for all $\lambda_i\in\mathbb{F}_q$. Any subgroup of $\GammaL_n(q)$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$\textit{-semilinear}, and $g\in \GammaL_n(q)$ is $\sigma$\textit{-semilinear} when $\sigma\in\langle\sigma_q\rangle$ and $(\lambda v)^g=\lambda^\sigma v^g$ for all $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q$ and $v\in V_n(q)$. We write $\diag(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$ for the diagonal $n\times n$ matrix with diagonal entries $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$. Now $Z(\GL_n(q))=\{\diag(\lambda,\ldots,\lambda):\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*\}$, and with a slight abuse of notation, we write $\lambda$ for $\diag(\lambda,\ldots,\lambda)$ and $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ for $Z(\GL_n(q))$. We also write $\zeta_q$ for a generator of the multiplicative group of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Note that $-1$ denotes the central involution of $\GL_n(q)$ when $p$ is odd, but $-1=1$ when $p$ is even.
For a field $F$ and group $G$, we denote the group algebra of $G$ over $F$ by $FG$. Note that an $F$-vector space $V$ is a faithful $FG$-module if and only if $G\leq \GL(V)$. To emphasise that $V$ is a vector space over $F$, we write $\GL(V,F)$. An $FG$-module $V$ or a subgroup $G$ of $\GL(V,F)$ is \textit{irreducible} if there are no proper $FG$-submodules of $V$.
An irreducible subgroup $G$ of $\GL(V,F)$ is \textit{absolutely irreducible} if $G$ is irreducible when viewed as a subgroup of $\GL(V,E)$ for all field extensions $E$ of $F$. An irreducible subgroup $G$ of $\GL(V,F)$ is absolutely irreducible if and only if $C_{\GL(V,F)}(G)=F^*$ by \cite[2.10.1]{KleLie1990}. We will use the following observation throughout this paper: if $G$ is an irreducible subgroup of $\GL(V)$ and $Z(G)$ contains an involution $z$, then $z=-1$.
Let $U$ and $W$ be vector spaces over the field $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $V$ be the tensor product $U\otimes W$. For $g\in \GL(U)$ and $h\in \GL(W)$, let $(u\otimes w)^{g\otimes h}:=u^g\otimes w^h$ for all $u\in U$ and $w\in W$. Now $g\otimes h$ extends to a linear map of $V$. For $S\leq \GL(U)$ and $T\leq \GL(W)$, define $S\otimes T:=\{g\otimes h : g\in S,h\in T\}$. Then $S\otimes T\leq \GL(V)$ and $S\otimes T\simeq S\circ T$. There are natural actions of $\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ on $V$, $U$ and $W$ for which $(u\otimes w)^\sigma = u^\sigma \otimes w^\sigma$ for all $u\in U$, $w\in W$ and $\sigma\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$, so that $(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ stabilises the tensor decomposition of $V$.
\subsection{Affine and projective planes and spaces}
\label{ss:basicsplane}
Recall from the introduction that a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ \textit{design} is a linear space with $v$ points and line-size $k$.
For $n\geq 2$, a (finite) \textit{affine plane of order} $n$ is a $2$-$(n^2,n,1)$ design, and a (finite) \textit{projective plane of order} $n$ is a $2$-$(n^2+n+1,n+1,1)$ design. Given a projective plane of order $n$, we obtain an affine plane of order $n$ by removing one line and all of its points. Conversely, given an affine plane $\mathcal{A}$ of order $n$, we obtain a projective plane of order $n$, called the \textit{completion} of $\mathcal{A}$, by adding a \textit{point at infinity} for every parallel class of lines,
and defining the union of these new points to be the \textit{line at infinity}, denoted by $\ell_\infty$.
For $m\geq 0$ and a prime power $q$, the \textit{affine space} $\AG_m(q)$
is a linear space with points $V_m(q)$ and lines $\{\langle u\rangle +v : u\in V_m(q)^*,v\in V_m(q)\}$, while the \textit{projective space} $\PG_m(q)$ or $\PG(V_{m+1}(q))$ is a linear space whose points and lines are, respectively, the one- and two-dimensional subspaces of $V_{m+1}(q)$. An \textit{affine} ($k$-)\textit{subspace} of $\AG_m(q)$ is a translation of a $k$-dimensional subspace of $V_m(q)$, and a \textit{projective} ($k$-)\textit{subspace} of $\PG_m(q)$ is a $(k+1)$-dimensional subspace of $V_{m+1}(q)$; in particular,
affine $2$-subspaces are called \textit{planes}, and
projective $(m-1)$-subspaces are called \textit{hyperplanes}. The affine space $\AG_m(q)$ may be obtained from $\PG_m(q)$ by removing a hyperplane $\mathcal{H}$ and its points and lines. With this viewpoint of $\AG_m(q)$, for $1\leq k\leq m$, any affine $k$-subspace $W$ of $\AG_m(q)$ is the intersection of a projective $k$-subspace of $\PG_m(q)$---the \textit{completion} of $W$---with the complement of $\mathcal{H}$; further, the completion of $W$ meets $\mathcal{H}$ in a projective $(k-1)$-subspace. Note that $\AG_2(q)$ is the \textit{Desarguesian} affine plane of order $q$, and $\PG_2(q)$ is the \textit{Desarguesian} projective plane of order $q$.
\subsection{Affine permutation groups}
\label{ss:affine}
In the introduction, we defined an affine primitive permutation group to be a primitive group whose socle is a vector space over a field of prime order. In this section, for convenience, we expand this definition to include (certain) transitive groups.
First we require some notation. Let $q$ be a power of a prime $p$, and let $n$ be a positive integer. We denote the affine general linear group and affine semilinear group by $\AGL_n(q)$ and $\AGammaL_n(q)$, respectively. For $v\in V:=V_n(q)$, define $\tau_v:V\to V$ to be the translation $x\mapsto x+v$ for all $x\in V$. With some abuse of notation, we denote the group of translations of $V$ by $V$, so that $\AGL_n(q)=V{:}\GL_n(q)$ and $\AGammaL_n(q)=V{:}\GammaL_n(q)$.
A group $G$ is an \textit{affine permutation group on} $V:=V_n(q)$ whenever $V\leq G\leq \AGammaL_n(q)$. If $G$ is such a group, then
$G=V{:}G_0$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$, where $G_0$ is the stabiliser of the zero vector. Note that if $q^n=p^d$, then $\GammaL_n(q)\leq \GL_d(p)$ and
we may view $V$ as $V_d(p)$, so that $\AGammaL_n(q)\leq \AGL_d(p)$. The proof of the following is routine; see \cite[Proposition 6.1.1]{FawPhD}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:primitiveirreducible}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group on $V:=V_d(p)$, where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G$ is primitive on $V$.
\item[(ii)] $V$ is an irreducible $\mathbb{F}_pG_0$-module.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Note that if an affine permutation group $G$ on $V$ is primitive, then $V$ is the socle of $G$ by~\cite[Theorem~4.3B]{DixMor1996}. Thus the definition from the introduction of an affine primitive permutation group coincides with the definition in this section of an affine permutation group that is primitive.
If $G$ is an affine permutation group on $V$, then $G$ has rank~$3$ if and only if $G_0$ has two orbits on $V^*=V\setminus \{0\}$. This observation leads us to the following useful version of Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:primitive}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_d(p)$, where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Let $X$ and $Y$ be the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G$ is primitive on $V$.
\item[(ii)] Neither $X\cup \{0\}$ nor $Y\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $X\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, then $X\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_pG_0$-submodule of $V$, so $G$ is imprimitive on $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible}. Conversely, if $G$ is imprimitive on $V$, then $V$ has a proper non-zero $\mathbb{F}_pG_0$-submodule $W$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible}, but $W^*$ is preserved by $G_0$, so $W^*=X$ or $Y$.
\end{proof}
Thus if $G$ and $H$ are affine permutation groups of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_d(p)$ where $G$ and $H$ have the same orbits on $V^*$, then $G$ is primitive on $V$ if and only if $H$ is primitive on $V$.
We conclude this section with an observation that we will use frequently to prove that some $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ is a line of a partial linear space (cf.~Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:transitive}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group on $V:=V_d(p)$, where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. If $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, then $G_L$ is transitive on $L$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in L^*$. Then $0^{\tau_x}=x$ and $\tau_x\in G$, so it suffices to show that $L^{\tau_x}\subseteq L$. If $y\in L$, then $y^{\tau_x}=y+x\in L$, so $L^{\tau_x}\subseteq L$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Partial linear spaces}
\label{ss:pls}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space. Distinct points $x,y\in\mathcal{P}$ are \textit{collinear} if there exists a line $L\in \mathcal{L}$ containing $x$ and $y$; we also say that $x$ and $y$ lie on the line $L$, and so on.
For $x\in\mathcal{P}$, let $\mathcal{L}_x$ denote the set of lines in $\mathcal{L}$ that contain the point $x$, and let $\mathcal{S}(x)$ denote the set of points in $\mathcal{P}$ that are collinear with $x$. The \textit{collinearity} relation of $\mathcal{S}$ is the set of $(x,y)\in \mathcal{P}\times \mathcal{P}$ such that $x$ and $y$ are collinear, and the \textit{non-collinearity} relation of $\mathcal{S}$ is the set of $(x,y)\in \mathcal{P}\times \mathcal{P}$ such that $x$ and $y$ are distinct and not collinear. The \textit{collinearity graph} of $\mathcal{S}$ is the graph $(\mathcal{P},\{\{x,y\} : (x,y)\in \mathcal{R}\})$ where $\mathcal{R}$ is the collinearity relation of $\mathcal{S}$.
An \textit{isomorphism} $\varphi:\mathcal{S}\to\mathcal{S}'$ between $\mathcal{S}$ and a partial linear space $\mathcal{S}':=(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{L}')$ is a bijection $\varphi:\mathcal{P}\to \mathcal{P}'$ such that $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{L}^\varphi$, where $\mathcal{L}^\varphi:=\{L^\varphi:L\in\mathcal{L}\}$ and $L^\varphi:=\{x^\varphi : x\in L\}$ for $L\in\mathcal{L}$.
When such an isomorphism exists, we say that $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}'$ are \textit{isomorphic}.
The \textit{automorphism group} $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ of $\mathcal{S}$ is $\{g\in \Sym(\mathcal{P}) : \mathcal{L}^g=\mathcal{L}\}$.
For $g\in \Sym(\mathcal{P})$, the pair $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}^g)$ is a partial linear space, which we denote by $\mathcal{S}^g$. Observe that $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}^g$ are isomorphic, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S}^g)=\Aut(\mathcal{S})^g$ for all $g\in \Sym(\mathcal{P})$.
A \textit{flag} of $\mathcal{S}$ is a pair $(x,L)$ where $x$ is a point on a line $L$, and $\mathcal{S}$ is \textit{flag-transitive} if $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ acts transitively on the flags of $\mathcal{S}$. Similarly, $\mathcal{S}$ is \textit{point-} or \textit{line-transitive} if $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ acts transitively on $\mathcal{P}$ or $\mathcal{L}$, respectively. Observe that if $\mathcal{S}$ is point- or line-transitive, then the point- or line-size of $\mathcal{S}$ is defined, respectively. Further, a flag-transitive partial linear space (with no isolated points) is point- and line-transitive. Lastly, if $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ acts transitively on its collinearity relation, then $\mathcal{S}$ is flag-transitive.
We will use the following fundamental result throughout this paper; its proof is routine.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:rank3}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space with collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_1$ and non-collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_2$ where $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are non-empty. Let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G$ is transitive of rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$.
\item[(ii)] The orbits of $G$ on $\mathcal{P}\times \mathcal{P}$ are $\{(u,u): u\in\mathcal{P}\}$, $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$.
\item[(iii)] $G$ is transitive on $\mathcal{P}$ and for $u\in \mathcal{P}$, the orbits of $G_u$ on $\mathcal{P}$ are $\{u\}$, $\mathcal{S}(u)=\{v\in \mathcal{P} : (u,v)\in \mathcal{R}_1\}$ and $\{v \in\mathcal{P} :(u,v)\in \mathcal{R}_2\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:PLSrank3}
If $\mathcal{S}$ is a proper partial linear space with collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_1$ and non-collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_2$, then $\mathcal{R}_2$ is non-empty (or else $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear space) and $\mathcal{R}_1$ is non-empty (or else $\mathcal{S}$ is a graph with no edges). In particular, for a proper partial linear space $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $G$ has rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:rank3} implies that $\mathcal{S}$ is flag-transitive. Moreover, the orbitals of $G$ are self-paired, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ has rank $3$ on~$\mathcal{P}$.
\end{remark}
The following is a collection of necessary conditions for the existence of a partial linear space whose automorphism group is transitive on points and pairs of collinear points.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:necessary}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space with collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}$. Let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$
where $G$ is transitive on $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{R}$. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}$ and $u\in L$. Let $B:=L\setminus \{u\}$. Then the following hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $B$ is a block of $G_u$ on $\mathcal{S}(u)$.
\item[(ii)] $G_L$ is $2$-transitive on $L$.
\item[(iii)] If $\mathcal{S}$ is proper and $G$ is primitive on $\mathcal{P}$, then $B$ is a non-trivial block of $G_u$ on $\mathcal{S}(u)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) Suppose that $v\in B\cap B^g$ for some $g\in G_u$. Now $u$ and $v$ are distinct points on the lines $L$ and $L^g$, so $L=L^g$, in which case $B=B^g$.
(ii) Let $x,y,v,w\in L$ where $x\neq y$ and $v\neq w$. Now $(x,y),(v,w)\in \mathcal{R}$, so there exists $g\in G$ such that $x^g=v$ and $y^g=w$. In particular, $v,w\in L\cap L^g$, so $L=L^g$.
(iii) Suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is proper. Then $|B|\geq 2$ and $|\mathcal{L}|\geq 2$. If $B=\mathcal{S}(u)$, then there is a unique line on $u$, so there is a unique line on every point of $\mathcal{S}$, but then $\mathcal{L}$ is a system of imprimitivity for $G$ on $\mathcal{P}$, so $G$ is imprimitive on $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{proof}
Next we provide some sufficient conditions for the existence of a point-transitive partial linear space.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:sufficient}
Let $G$ be a transitive permutation group on $\mathcal{P}$. Let $u\in \mathcal{P}$, and let $B$ be a block of $G_u$ on $X$, where $X$ is an orbit of $G_u$ on $\mathcal{P}\setminus \{u\}$. Let $L:=B\cup\{u\}$, $\mathcal{L}:=L^G$ and $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$, and suppose that $G_L$ is transitive on $L$. Then the following hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is a partial linear space with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ and $\mathcal{S}(u)=X$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear space if and only if $G$ is $2$-transitive on $\mathcal{P}$.
\item[(iii)] If $B$ is a non-trivial block, then $\mathcal{S}$ has line-size at least $3$ and point-size at least $2$.
\item[(iv)] If $B$ is a non-trivial block and $G$ has rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$, then $\mathcal{S}$ is proper.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) The proof that $\mathcal{S}$ is a partial linear space is routine (see~\cite[Theorem 2.3]{Dev2005} for details). Clearly $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$. If $v\in\mathcal{S}(u)$, then $v\in M$ for some $M\in \mathcal{L}_u$, and there exists $g\in G_u$ such that $M=L^g$ since $G_L$ is transitive on $L$, so $v\in B^g\subseteq X^g=X$. Conversely, if $v\in X$, then $v\in B^g$ for some $g\in G_u$, so $v\in\mathcal{S}(u)$.
(ii) $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear space if and only if $\mathcal{S}(u)=\mathcal{P}\setminus \{u\}$, so (ii) follows from (i).
(iii) Note that $\mathcal{S}$ is point- and line-transitive. If $B$ is non-trivial, then $|L|\geq 3$ and there are at least two lines on $u$, so (iii) holds.
(iv) This follows from (ii) and (iii).
\end{proof}
In particular, if $G$ is a primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$, then $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ is a proper partial linear space with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ if and only if $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ for some $L\subseteq \mathcal{P}$ such that $G_L$ is transitive on $L$ and $L\setminus \{u\}$ is a non-trivial block of $G_u$ on $v^{G_u}$ for some distinct $u,v\in L$.
The following result is standard and can be proved by counting flags.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:lines}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space with line-size $k$ and point-size~$\ell$. Then $|\mathcal{L}|k=|\mathcal{P}|\ell$ and $|\mathcal{S}(u)|=\ell(k-1)$ for all $u\in \mathcal{P}$.
\end{lemma}
In general, the automorphism group of a proper partial linear space can be primitive of rank~$3$ and have imprimitive subgroups. However, we now see that all rank~$3$ subgroups are primitive.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:primrank3}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space with collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_1$ and non-collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_2$ where $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are non-empty. Let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ where $G$ is transitive of rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$. Then $G$ is primitive on $\mathcal{P}$ if and only if $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is primitive on $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $G$ is imprimitive on $\mathcal{P}$. Then there is a $G$-invariant equivalence relation $\mathcal{R}$ on $\mathcal{P}$ for which $\{(u,u):u\in \mathcal{P}\}\subsetneq \mathcal{R}\subsetneq\mathcal{P}\times \mathcal{P}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:rank3},
$\mathcal{R}\setminus \{(u,u):u\in \mathcal{P}\}$ is $\mathcal{R}_1$ or $\mathcal{R}_2$. Since $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$-invariant, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is imprimitive. The converse is routine.
\end{proof}
To finish this section, we make some brief observations about classifying
partial linear spaces whose automorphism groups are imprimitive of rank $3$.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:imprim}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a partial linear space with collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_1$ and non-collinearity relation $\mathcal{R}_2$ where $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are non-empty.
Let $\Gamma$ be the collinearity graph of~$\mathcal{S}$. Then
$\Gamma$ has the same collinearity and non-collinearity relations as~$\mathcal{S}$. Let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ where $G$ is imprimitive of rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$. By the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:primrank3}, $\mathcal{R}_i\cup \{(u,u):u\in \mathcal{P}\}$ is an equivalence relation with $m$ classes of size $n$ for some $i\in \{1,2\}$ and $m,n\geq 2$.
If $i=1$, then $\Gamma$ is a disjoint union of $m$ complete graphs of size $n$, so $\mathcal{S}$ is a disjoint union of isomorphic $2$-transitive linear spaces (and such linear spaces were classified in~\cite{Kan1985}). Otherwise, $i=2$ and $\Gamma$ is a complete multipartite graph $K_{m[n]}$ with $m$ parts of size $n$. Thus, in order to classify the proper partial linear spaces admitting rank~$3$ imprimitive automorphism groups, it suffices to consider those with collinearity graph $K_{m[n]}$.
This difficult problem has been studied in certain cases (see~\cite{DevHal2006,PeaPra2013}) but remains open in general.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Constructing new partial linear spaces from given ones}
\label{ss:plsnew}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ be a linear space with at least three points on every line, let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ such that $G$ has rank~$3$ on $\mathcal{P}$, and let $u\in \mathcal{P}$. Now $G_u$ has two orbits $X$ and $Y$ on $\mathcal{P}\setminus \{u\}$. If there exists $L\in\mathcal{L}_u$ such that $X\cap L$ and $Y\cap L$ are non-empty, then it is not hard to see that
$\mathcal{S}$ is flag-transitive. Otherwise, $G$ has exactly two orbits on $\mathcal{L}$, and, as we discussed in Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear}, we can use these orbits to construct partial linear spaces that admit $G$. We consider this construction in more detail now.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linearspace}
Let $G$ be a rank~$3$ permutation group on $\mathcal{P}$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_1\cup\mathcal{L}_2)$ is a linear space with at least three points on every line such that $G\leq\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ and $G$ has distinct orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on $\mathcal{L}_1\cup\mathcal{L}_2$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{S}_1:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_2)$ are proper partial linear spaces with $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)$ and $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)$ such that the collinearity relations of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are disjoint.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First suppose that (i) holds. Clearly $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are proper partial linear spaces such that $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)$ and $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)$. If there exist $u,v\in \mathcal{P}$ such that $u$ and $v$ are collinear in both $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$, then there exist $L_1\in \mathcal{L}_1$ and $L_2\in\mathcal{L}_2$ such that $u,v\in L_1\cap L_2$, but then $L_1=L_2$, so $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ are not disjoint, a contradiction. Thus (ii) holds.
Conversely, suppose that (ii) holds, and let $\mathcal{R}_i$ be the collinearity relation of $\mathcal{S}_i$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Since $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are disjoint, $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ are disjoint, and $\mathcal{S}$ is a partial linear space. Observe that $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ are both non-empty since $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are not graphs. Now $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ are both non-empty, so the orbits of $G$ on $\mathcal{P}\times\mathcal{P}$ are $\{(u,u):u\in\mathcal{P}\}$, $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$. If $u$ and $v$ are distinct elements of $\mathcal{P}$, then $(u,v)\in \mathcal{R}_i$ for some $i$, so there exists $L\in\mathcal{L}_i$ such that $u,v\in L$. Thus $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear space. Clearly $G\leq\Aut(\mathcal{S})$, and $G$ is transitive on $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$, so (i) holds.
\end{proof}
Note that the partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace} have the same line-size if and only if $\mathcal{S}$ is a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design for some $v$ and $k$.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:lineartopls}
Observe that if $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ and $\mathcal{S}':=(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{L}')$ are isomorphic linear spaces that satisfy the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}(i), then any isomorphism $\varphi:\mathcal{S}\to \mathcal{S}'$ naturally determines isomorphisms between the corresponding partial linear spaces: indeed, if $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ are the orbits of the rank~$3$ group $G$ on $\mathcal{L}$, then $\mathcal{L}_1':=\mathcal{L}_1^\varphi$ and $\mathcal{L}_2':=\mathcal{L}_2^\varphi$ are the orbits of $G^\varphi$ on $\mathcal{L}'$, so $\varphi$ is an isomorphism between the partial linear spaces $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{L}_1')$, as well as $(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L}_2)$ and $(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{L}_2')$. However, the converse is not true in general: see Remark~\ref{remark:linearspace}.
\end{remark}
Next we define the intersection of two partial linear spaces. Let $\mathcal{S}_1:=(\mathcal{P}_1,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(\mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L}_2)$ be partial linear spaces. Define $\mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{S}_2$ to be the pair $(\mathcal{P}_1\cap \mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L})$ where $\mathcal{L}:=\{L_1\cap L_2: L_1\in\mathcal{L}_1,L_2\in\mathcal{L}_2,|L_1\cap L_2|\geq 2\}$. Further, if $\mathcal{P}\subseteq \mathcal{P}_1$ such that $|\mathcal{P}|>1$, then $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\{\mathcal{P}\})$ is a linear space, and we write $\mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{P}$ for $\mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{S}$. The proof of the following is routine.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:intersect}
Let $\mathcal{S}_1:=(\mathcal{P}_1,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(\mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L}_2)$ be partial linear spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $\mathcal{P}_1\cap \mathcal{P}_2\neq \varnothing$, then $\mathcal{S}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_2$ is a partial linear space.
\item[(ii)] If $\mathcal{P}\subseteq \mathcal{P}_1$ such that $|\mathcal{P}|>1$ and $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)$, then $G_{\mathcal{P}}^\mathcal{P}\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_1\cap \mathcal{P})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Our final construction of this section is a natural generalisation of the cartesian product of graphs.
Let $\mathcal{S}_1:=(\mathcal{P}_1,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(\mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L}_2)$ be partial linear spaces. Define the \textit{cartesian product} $\mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_2$ of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ to be $(\mathcal{P}_1\times \mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L}_1\cprod\mathcal{L}_2)$ where $\mathcal{L}_1\cprod\mathcal{L}_2$
is the union of $\{\{(x_1,x_2):x_1\in L\}:x_2\in\mathcal{P}_2,L\in\mathcal{L}_1\}$ and $\{\{(x_1,x_2):x_2\in L\}:x_1\in\mathcal{P}_1,L\in\mathcal{L}_2\}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:cartesian}
Let $\mathcal{S}_1:=(\mathcal{P}_1,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(\mathcal{P}_2,\mathcal{L}_2)$ be partial linear spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_2$ is a partial linear space, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)\times\Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)\leq\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_2)$.
\item[(ii)] $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)\wr \langle \tau\rangle\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_1)$ where $(x_1,x_2)^\tau:=(x_2,x_1)$ for all $x_1,x_2\in\mathcal{P}_1$.
\item[(iii)] If $|\mathcal{P}_1|> 1$, then $ \mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_1$ is not a linear space.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that there exist distinct $(x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)\in L\cap M$ for some $L,M\in \mathcal{L}_1\cprod\mathcal{L}_2$. We may assume that $x_1\neq y_1$. Then $x_2=y_2$, so $L=\{(u,x_2): u\in L'\}$ and $M=\{(v,x_2):v\in M'\}$ for some $L',M'\in\mathcal{L}_1$ such that $x_1,y_1\in L'\cap M'$. Now $L'=M'$, so $L=M$. Thus
$\mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_2$ is a partial linear space. The remaining claims of (i) and (ii) are straightforward. If there exist distinct $x_1,x_2\in\mathcal{P}_1$, then $(x_1,x_2)$ and $(x_2,x_1)$ are not collinear in $ \mathcal{S}_1\cprod\mathcal{S}_1$, so (iii) holds.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Affine partial linear spaces}
\label{ss:affinePLS}
A partial linear space $S:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ is \textit{$G$-affine} if $G\leq\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ and $G$ is an affine permutation group on $V:=V_d(p)=\mathcal{P}$ (see~\S\ref{ss:affine}) for some prime $p$ and $d\geq 1$. We also say that $\mathcal{S}$ is \textit{affine} if it is $G$-affine for some $G$.
Recall that for $x\in V$, we write $\mathcal{L}_x$ for the set of lines of $\mathcal{S}$ that contain $x$, and $\mathcal{S}(x)$ for the set of points of $\mathcal{S}$ that are collinear with $x$.
In particular, $\mathcal{L}_0$ denotes the set of lines on the vector $0$, and $\mathcal{S}(0)$ denotes the set of vectors that are collinear with $0$. Recall also that if $L\subseteq V$, then $L^*:=L\setminus \{0\}$.
The first result of this section consists of two elementary observations that are the key tools for determining---or rather limiting---the structure of a $G$-affine proper partial linear space. In particular, there is a useful tension between Lemmas~\ref{lemma:basic}(i) and~\ref{lemma:primitive}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:basic}
Let $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime, and let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space where $G$ has rank~$3$ on $V$. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $x,y\in L^*$ and $x\neq y$, then $y-x\in x^{G_0}$.
\item[(ii)] If $x,y\in L^*$ and $x\neq y$, then $y^{G_{0,x}}\subseteq L^*$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) By assumption, $V\leq G$, and $x$ and $y$ are collinear, so $x^{\tau_{-x}}$ and $y^{\tau_{-x}}$ are also collinear. Thus $y-x\in \mathcal{S}(0)$, and $\mathcal{S}(0)=x^{G_0}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:rank3} since $x\in \mathcal{S}(0)$ and $G$ has rank~$3$ on $V$.
(ii) If $z=y^g$ for some $g\in G_{0,x}$, then $L^g=L$, so $z\in (L^*)^g=L^*$.
\end{proof}
A subset $L$ of a vector space $V$ is an \textit{affine subspace} of $V$ if $L=W+v$ for some subspace $W$ of $V$ and $v\in V$. In the following, we generalise~\cite[Lemma 2.3]{Lie1998} and the proof of~\cite[Lemma~2.2]{Lie1998}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:affine}
Let $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine partial linear space where $G$ is transitive on $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ has line-size at least $3$. Suppose that one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] There exists $g\in G_0$ and $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ such that $v^g=-v$ for all $v\in L$.
\item[(ii)] The prime $p=2$.
\item[(iii)] There exists $x\in V^*$ and $L\in \mathcal{L}$ such that $L^{\tau_x}=L$.
\end{itemize}
Then every line of $\mathcal{S}$ is an affine subspace of $V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, $V\leq G$. Suppose that (i) holds. Let $ y,z\in L^*$ be distinct.
Applying $g$ to $0$, $y$ and $z$, we see that $0$, $-y$ and $-z$ lie on a line, and we may translate by $y$, so $y$, $0$ and $y-z$ lie on a line.
Now $L$ is the unique line on $0$ and $y$, so $y-z\in L^*$. Similarly, $z-y\in L^*$. Since $z-y\neq z$, we also have $-y=(z-y)-z\in L^*$. It follows that $u-v\in L$ for all $u,v\in L$, and since $V$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-vector space, $L$ is a subspace of $V$. Hence every line of $\mathcal{S}$ is an affine subspace of $V$, for if $M\in \mathcal{L}$, then $M=L^h+v$ for some $h\in G_0$ and $v\in V$.
If the condition of (ii) holds, then the condition of (i) is satisfied with $g=1$ for any line $L$, so every line is an affine subspace of $V$.
Suppose that the condition of (iii) holds. First we claim that $L^{\tau_{v-u}}=L$ for all $u,v\in L$. Let $u,v\in L$. Now $u+\langle x\rangle$ and $v+\langle x\rangle$ are subsets of $L$, and $(u+\langle x\rangle)^{\tau_{v-u}}=v+\langle x\rangle$. Since $x\neq 0$, it follows that $|L^{\tau_{v-u}}\cap L|\geq 2$, so $L^{\tau_{v-u}}=L$, and the claim holds. Choose $y\in L$, and let $W:=\{u-y: u\in L\}$. Now $L=W+y$, and $W$ is a subspace of $V$ by the claim, so $L$ is an affine subspace of $V$. It follows that every line of $\mathcal{S}$ is an affine subspace of $V$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:notaffine}
Let $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime, and let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space where $G$ has rank~$3$ on $V$.
Then one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Every line of $\mathcal{S}$ is an affine subspace of $V$.
\item[(ii)] The translation group $V$ acts semiregularly on $\mathcal{L}$ and $k(k-1)$ divides $|x^{G_0}|$, where $k$ is the line-size of $\mathcal{S}$ and $x\in \mathcal{S}(0)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that (i) does not hold. Now the translation group $V$ acts semiregularly on $\mathcal{L}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. Hence $|V|$ divides $ |\mathcal{L}|$, so (ii) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lines} since $\mathcal{S}(0)=x^{G_0}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Nearfield planes}
\label{ss:nearfield}
In Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear}, we described how some of the partial linear spaces in Table~\ref{tab:main} can be obtained from affine planes using rank~$3$ groups. In this section, we construct a particular family of these affine planes: the nearfield planes.
A \textit{nearfield} $(Q,+,\circ)$ is a set $Q$ with binary operations $+$ and $\circ$ such that the following four axioms hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(N1)] $(Q,+)$ is an abelian group.
\item[(N2)] $(a+b)\circ c=a\circ c + b\circ c$ for all $a,b,c\in Q$.
\item[(N3)] $(Q\setminus \{0\},\circ)$ is a group.
\item[(N4)] $a\circ 0=0$ for all $a\in Q$.
\end{itemize}
By (N2), $0\circ b=0$ for all $b\in Q$. It then follows from (N2) that $(-a)\circ b=-(a\circ b)$ for all $a,b\in Q$.
A nearfield plane is constructed using a nearfield $(Q,+,\circ)$ as follows. For $w\in Q$, let $L(w):=\{(v,v\circ w): v\in Q\}$, and let $L(\infty):=\{(0,v) : v \in Q\}$.
The \textit{nearfield plane} on $Q$ has point set $Q\times Q$ and line set
$\{L(w)+x : w\in Q\cup \{\infty\},x\in Q\times Q\}$. Note that $(L(w),+)\simeq (Q,+)$ for $w\in Q\cup \{\infty\}$. Further, for each $(a,b)\in (Q\times Q)\setminus \{(0,0)\}$, there is a unique $w\in Q\cup \{\infty\}$ such that $(a,b)\in L(w)$ by (N3). Thus the nearfield plane on $Q$ is an affine plane of order $|Q|$.
Next we describe how to construct a nearfield using a sharply $2$-transitive group. Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $q$ is a power of a prime $p$. Let $R$ be a subgroup of $\GammaL_n(q)$ that is regular on $V^*=V\setminus \{0\}$, so $V{:}R$ acts sharply $2$-transitively on $V$. Let $x\in V^*$. For $w\in V^*$, let $r_w$ denote the unique element of $R$ for which $w=x^{r_w}$, and for $v\in V$, let $v\circ w:=v^{r_w}$ and $v\circ 0:=0$. If $a,b\in V$ and $c\in V^*$, then $a\circ c+b\circ c = a^{r_c}+b^{r_c}=(a+b)^{r_c}=(a+b)\circ c$.
Further, $r_vr_w=r_{v\circ w}$ for all $v,w\in V^*$, so $(V^*,\circ)$ is a group (and isomorphic to $R$). Thus $(V,+,\circ)$ is a nearfield.
The possibilities for $R$ are given by Zassenhaus's classification~\cite{Zas1936}
of the sharply $2$-transitive groups (see~\cite[\S 7.6]{DixMor1996}):
either $n=1$, or $n=2$ and $q=p\in\{5,7,11,23,29,59\}$, in which case there are seven possibilities for $R$ (two of which occur for $p=11$), and the corresponding nearfield plane is an \textit{irregular nearfield plane of order $p^2$}. See~\cite[\S 7]{Lun1980} for more details.
Note that $\AG_2(q)$ is the nearfield plane that arises by taking $R=\GL_1(q)$. The (non-Desarguesian) nearfield plane of order $9$ arises by taking $R= Q_8\leq \GammaL_1(9)$; see~\cite[\S 8]{Lun1980} for more details.
\subsection{Affine $2$-transitive groups and linear spaces}
\label{ss:2trans}
The classification of the $2$-transitive affine permutation groups was obtained by Huppert~\cite{Hup1957} in the soluble case (see also~\cite{Fou1969}), and by Hering~\cite{Her1985trans} in general. Liebeck provides another proof of Hering's result in~\cite[Appendix~1]{Lie1987}. The statement we give is similar to~\cite{Lie1987}, except that we add a description of the affine $2$-transitive subgroups of $\AGammaL_2(q)$ and $\AGammaL_3(q)$ for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups}.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Her1985trans,Lie1987}]
\label{thm:2trans}
Let $G$ be a $2$-transitive affine permutation group with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Then the stabiliser $G_0$ belongs to one of the following classes.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(H0)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(q)$ where $q=p^d$.
\item[(H1)] $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^n=p^d$, $n\geq 2$ and $(n,q)\neq (2,2)$ or $(2,3)$.
\item[(H2)] $\Sp_{2n}(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{2n}=p^d$ and $n\geq 2$.
\item[(H3)] $G_2(q)'\unlhd G_0$ where $q^6=p^d$ and $q$ is even.
\item[(H4)] $\SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(q)$ where $q^2=p^d$ and $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$.
\item[(H5)] $G_0=A_6$ or $A_7$ and $p^d=2^4$.
\item[(H6)] $G_0=\SL_2(13)$ and $p^d=3^6$.
\item[(H7)] $\SL_2(3)\unlhd G_0$ where $d=2$ and $p\in \{3,5,7,11,23\}$. Here $\SL_2(3)$ is irreducible on $V$.
\item[(H8)] $D_8\circ Q_8\unlhd G_0$ where $p^d=3^4$. Here $D_8\circ Q_8$ is irreducible on $V$.
\end{itemize}
Further, if $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(r)$ where $r^m=p^d$ and $m=2$ or $3$, then one of the following holds: $G_0$ belongs to \emph{(H0)}; $G_0$ belongs to \emph{(H1)} with $n=m$; or $m=2$ and $G_0$ belongs to \emph{(H4)} or \emph{(H7)}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $a$ be the minimal divisor of $d$ for which $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(p^{d/a})$. Let $s:=p^{d/a}$. If $a=1$, then (H0) holds, so we assume that $a\geq 2$. In particular, $(a,s)\neq (2,2)$ since $\GL_2(2)=\GammaL_1(4)$.
By~\cite[Appendix~1]{Lie1987}, one of the following holds: \textbf{(i)} $\SL_a(s)\unlhd G_0$;
\textbf{(ii)} $\Sp_a(s)\unlhd G_0$;
\textbf{(iii)} $G_2(s)'\unlhd G_0$ and $(a,p)=(6,2)$;
\textbf{(iv)} $\SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0$, $a=2$ and $s\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$;
\textbf{(v)} $G_0=A_6$ or $A_7$ and $(a,s)=(4,2)$;
\textbf{(vi)} $G_0=\SL_2(13)$ and $(a,s)=(6,3)$; \textbf{(vii)} $G_0$ normalises $E$ where $E\leq \GL_d(p)$ and either $E=Q_8$ and $p^d\in \{5^2,7^2,11^2,23^2\}$, or $E=D_8\circ Q_8$ and $p^d=3^4$. If (i) holds, then either (H1) holds with $n=a$, or (H7) holds with $(a,s)=(2,3)$. If (ii) holds, then (H2) holds with $a=2n$ where $n\geq 2$ since $\Sp_2(q)=\SL_2(q)$. If
one of (iii), (iv), (v) or (vi) holds, then (H3), (H4), (H5) or (H6) holds, respectively. If (vii) holds with $E=Q_8$, then $a=2$, and (H7) holds by a computation in {\sc Magma}. Lastly, if (vii) holds and $E=D_8\circ Q_8$, then by a computation in {\sc Magma}, either $a=2$ and (H4) holds, or $a=4$ and (H8) holds (cf. Remark~\ref{remark:2trans}).
Suppose that $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(r)$ where $r^m=p^d$ and $m=2$ or $3$. Then $a\leq m$. If $a=1$ or $m$, then we are done by the observations above. Otherwise, $a=2$ and $m=3$.
Now $s^2=r^3$, so $s=t^3$ and $r=t^2$ where $t^6=p^d$.
Further, (H1) holds and $S:=\SL_2(t^3)\unlhd G_0$. Since $S$ is perfect, $S\leq \GL_3(t^2)$, so
$C:=C_{\GL_6(t)}(S)$ contains both $Z:=Z(\GL_2(t^3))$ and $Z(\GL_3(t^2))$.
However, $S$ is irreducible on $V=V_6(t)$, so by Schur's lemma (see~\cite[Lemma 1.5]{Isa1994}), $k:=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbb{F}_tS}(V,V)=C_{\End(V)}(S)$ is a division ring. Thus $k$ is a field by Wedderburn's theorem. Since $V$ is naturally a faithful $kS$-module, $t^6=|V|=|k|^i$ where $i\geq 2$, but $\mathbb{F}_{t^3}\subseteq k$, so $k=\mathbb{F}_{t^3}$ and $C=Z$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Throughout this paper, we say that an affine $2$-transitive permutation group $G$ or its stabiliser $G_0$ belongs to (or lies in, is contained in, etc.) one of the classes (H0)--(H8) whenever $G_0$ satisfies the given description. Note that the groups in class (H7) are all soluble.
Next we state Kantor's classification~\cite{Kan1985} of the $2$-transitive affine linear spaces.
Four exceptional linear spaces arise: the nearfield plane of order $9$ (see~\S\ref{ss:nearfield} or~\cite[\S8]{Lun1980}), the Hering plane of order $27$ (see~\cite[p.236]{Dem1997}) and two Hering spaces on $3^6$ points with line-size $9$~\cite{Her1985}.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Kan1985}]
\label{thm:Kantor}
Let $G$ be a $2$-transitive affine permutation group with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine linear space with line-size at least $3$ if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ has line set $\{V\}$ and $p^d\neq 2$.
\item[(ii)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^d$ and $\mathcal{S}$ has line set $\{\langle u\rangle_F +v: u\in V^*,v\in V\}$, where $F$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ and $|F|\neq 2$.
\item[(iii)] $G_0\leq N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$ where $p^d=3^4$ and one of the following holds, where $\mathcal{N}$ is the nearfield plane of order $9$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $D_8\circ Q_8\unlhd G_0$ and $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{N}$.
\item[(b)] $G_0=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle\leq \GammaL_2(9)$ and $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{N}$ or $\mathcal{N}^{z}$ where $z:=\zeta_9^2$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(iv)] $G_0=\SL_2(13)$ where $p^d=3^6$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is the Hering plane of order $27$ or either of the two Hering spaces with line-size $9$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, if $G_0$ lies in~\emph{(H0)}--\emph{(H3)}, then (i) or (ii) holds, and if $G_0$ lies in~\emph{(H5)}, then (i) holds.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from~\cite[\S 4]{Kan1985} and, in cases (iii) and (iv), a computation in {\sc Magma} using Lemmas~\ref{lemma:necessary} and~\ref{lemma:affine}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:2trans}
The automorphism group of the nearfield plane of order $9$ is $V_4(3){:}N_0$ where $N_0:=N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)=(D_8\circ Q_8).S_5=D_8\circ Q_8\circ (\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle)$ with $\SL_2(5)\leq \SL_2(9)$. Further, if $G_0\leq N_0$ such that $G_0$ is transitive on $V_4(3)^*$, then either $D_8\circ Q_8\unlhd G_0$, or $G_0=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle$. Note that $\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle\simeq 2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-$ (see \S\ref{ss:basicsgroups} for the definition of $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-$).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}}
\label{ss:primrank3plus}
First we state the well-known structure theorem for primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$, which follows from the O'Nan-Scott Theorem (see~\cite{LiePraSax1988,Lie1987}). The groups in (ii) are said to be of \textit{grid type}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:primrank3}
For a primitive permutation group $G$ of rank~$3$ with degree $n$, one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G$ is almost simple.
\item[(ii)] $T\times T\unlhd G\leq K\wr S_2$ and $n=m^2$, where $K$ is a $2$-transitive group of degree $m$ that is almost simple with socle $T$, and $G$ has subdegrees $1$, $2(m-1)$ and $(m-1)^2$.
\item[(iii)] $G$ is affine.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
We will use Proposition~\ref{prop:primrank3} to determine the automorphism groups of certain affine proper partial linear spaces, together with the following result.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Gur1983}]
\label{thm:Guralnick}
Let $T$ be a non-abelian simple group that is transitive of degree $p^d$ for some prime $p$ and positive integer $d$. Then either $T$ is $2$-transitive, or $T\simeq \PSU_4(2)$ and
$p^d=27$, in which case $T$ is primitive of rank $3$ with subdegrees $1$, $10$ and $16$.
\end{thm}
Any non-trivial normal subgroup of a primitive group is transitive, so if $G$ is an almost simple primitive group whose degree is a prime power not equal to $27$, then $G$ is $2$-transitive by Theorem~\ref{thm:Guralnick}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\emph{\ref{thm:primrank3plus}}]
Let $H:=\Aut(\mathcal{S})$.
Since $\mathcal{S}$ is proper and $G$ is a primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, Remark~\ref{remark:PLSrank3} implies that $H$ is a primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$. Note that $H$ has degree $p^d$. If $H$ is almost simple with socle $T$, then $T$ is transitive of degree $p^d$. Since $H$ is not $2$-transitive, $T\simeq \PSU_4(2)$ and $p^d=27$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:Guralnick}, but then $H$ has no affine primitive subgroups by a computation in~{\sc Magma}. (This also
follows from \cite[Proposition~5.1]{Pra1990}, except that
the one possibility described for $G$ in \cite[Table 2]{Pra1990} is not primitive as claimed, and this is corrected in~\cite[Proposition~2.1]{PraSax1992}.)
If $H$ is affine, then by~\cite[Proposition~5.1]{Pra1990}, the socle of $G$ is equal to the socle of $H$, so (ii) holds. Otherwise, by Proposition~\ref{prop:primrank3}, $T\times T\unlhd H\leq K\wr S_2$ and $d=2n$, where $K$ is a $2$-transitive group of degree $p^n$ that is almost simple with socle $T$. If $T=A_{p^n}$, then it is routine to verify that
(i) holds (see~\cite{Dev2008} for details). If $T=\PSU_4(2)$ and $p^n=27$, then the order of $K$ is not divisible by $p^n-1$, so $K$ is not $2$-transitive, a contradiction. Thus, by~\cite[Proposition~5.1]{Pra1990}, $K$ has degree $p$ and is listed in~\cite[Table 2]{Pra1990}.
Since $G$ is an affine primitive subgroup of $K\wr S_2$ with rank $3$, the subgroup $G\cap (K\times K)$ has index $2$ in $G$, and the projection $G^1$ of $G\cap (K\times K)$ onto the first coordinate of $K\times K$ is an affine $2$-transitive subgroup of $K$. Since $G^1$ has degree $p$, it is therefore isomorphic to $\AGL_1(p)$. In particular, $G^1$ has order $p(p-1)$.
By~\cite[Table 2]{Pra1990}, no such subgroup of $K$ exists when $(K,p)$ is one of $(\PSL_2(11),11)$, $(M_{11},11)$ or $(M_{23},23)$, so $T=\PSL_m(q)$ and $K\leq \PGammaL_m(q)$ for some prime power $q$ and $m\geq 2$ such that $p=(q^m-1)/(q-1)$, and $G^1$ is a subgroup of the normaliser of a Singer cycle. Now $q=r^f$ for some prime $r$, and it follows from~\cite[p.187]{Hup1967} that the normaliser of a Singer cycle in $\PGammaL_m(q)$ has order $(q^m-1)/(q-1)fm=pfm$. Since $G^1$ has order $p(p-1)$, we conclude that $p-1$ divides $fm$. In particular,
$$fm\geq p-1=(q^m-1)/(q-1)-1\geq q^{m-1}\geq 2^{f(m-1)}\geq 2f(m-1).$$
Thus $m=2$, and all of the inequalities above are equalities. Since $q\neq 2$ (or else $T$ is soluble), we conclude that $q=4$. Hence $T\simeq A_5$ and $p=5$, and as we saw above, (i) holds. \end{proof}
\section{The affine primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$}
\label{s:rank3}
In this section, we state and prove a modified version of Liebeck's classification~\cite{Lie1987} of the affine primitive permutation groups of rank~$3$. In particular, we provide more details about the rank~$3$ groups $G$ when $G_0$ is imprimitive or stabilises a tensor product decomposition. Throughout this section, recall the definition of $\zeta_q$ and $\sigma_q$ from~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Lie1987}]
\label{thm:rank3}
Let $G$ be a finite affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. Then $G_0$ belongs to one of the following classes.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(T)] The tensor product classes. Here $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(q)\otimes V_m(q)$ where $q^{2m}=p^d$ and $m\geq 2$, and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\SL_2(q)\otimes \SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q\geq 4$ or $(m,q)=(2,3)$.
\item[(2)] $\SL_2(5) \otimes \SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$.
\item[(3)] $1\otimes \SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0\leq N_{\GL_2(q)}(\SL_2(3))\otimes \GL_m(q)$ where $q\in \{3,5,7,11,23\}$ but $G_0\nleq \GammaL_1(q^2)\otimes \GL_m(q)$. Further, $-1\otimes g\in G_0$ for some $g\in \GL_m(q)$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(S)] The subfield classes. Here $q^{2n}=p^d$ and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(0)] $V=V_2(q^n)$ and $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(q^n)$ where $n=3$.
\item[(1)] $V=V_n(q^2)$ and $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q^2)$ where $n\geq 2$.
\item[(2)] $V=V_n(q^2)$ and $A_7\unlhd G_0 \leq \GammaL_n(q^2)$ where $A_7\leq \SL_4(2)\simeq A_8$ and $(n,q)=(4,2)$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(I)] The imprimitive classes. Here $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $2n=d$.
Further,
$G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)\wr S_2$ where $q^m=p^n$ and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(0)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(q)\wr S_2$ and $m=1$.
\item[(1)] $\SL_m(q)\times \SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $m\geq 2$ and $(m,q)\neq (2,2),(2,3)$.
\item[(2)] $\Sp_m(q) \times \Sp_m(q) \unlhd G_0$ where $m$ is even and $m\geq 4$.
\item[(3)] $G_2(q)'\times G_2(q)' \unlhd G_0$ where $m=6$ and $q$ is even.
\item[(4)] $S\times S\unlhd G_0 \leq N_{\GammaL_m(q)}(S)\wr S_2$ where $S=\SL_2(5)$, $m=2$ and $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$.
\item[(5)] $G_0=A_6\wr S_2$ or $A_7\wr S_2$ where $m=4$ and $q=2$.
\item[(6)] $G_0=\SL_2(13)\wr S_2$ where $m=6$ and $q=3$.
\item[(7)] $G_0\leq N_{\GL_m(q)}(\SL_2(3))\wr S_2$ where $m=2$ and $q\in \{3,5,7,11,23\}$.
\item[(8)] $E\times E\unlhd G_0\leq N_{\GL_m(q)}(E)\wr S_2$ where $E=D_8\circ Q_8$, $m=4$ and $q=3$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(R)] The remaining infinite classes.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(0)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$.
\item[(1)] $\SU_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{2n}=p^d$ and $n\geq 3$.
\item[(2)] $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{2m}=p^d$ and either $m\geq 3$ and $\varepsilon=\pm$, or $m=2$ and $\varepsilon=-$.
\item[(3)] $V=\bigwedge^2(V_5(q))$ and $\SL_5(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{10}=p^d$.
\item[(4)] $\Sz(q)={}^2B_2(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^4=p^d$ and $q=2^{2n+1}$ where $n\geq 1$.
\item[(5)] $V=V_n(q)$ is a spin module and $\spin_m^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$
where $q^n=p^d$ and $(m,n,\varepsilon)$ is one of $(7,8,\circ)$ or $(10,16,+)$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(E)] The extraspecial class. Here $E\unlhd G_0$ and $E$ is irreducible on $V_d(p)$ where $(E,p^d,G)$ is given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:E}}.
\item[(AS)] The almost simple class. Here $S\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$ and $S$ is irreducible on $V_d(p)$ where $(S,p^d,G)$ is given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:AS}}, $q^n=p^d$, and $q$ is given by the embedding of $S$ in $\SL_n(q)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
\hline
$E$ & $p^d$ & Subdegrees of $G$ & Conditions \\
\hline
&$7^2$ & $24,24$ & $G_0\nleq \GammaL_1(7^2)$\\
&$13^2$ & $72,96$ & \\
&$17^2$ & $96,192$ & \\
$Q_8$ &$19^2$ & $144,216$ &\\
&$23^2$ & $264,264$ &\\
&$29^2$ & $168,672$ &\\
&$31^2$ & $240,720$ &\\
&$47^2$ & $1104,1104$ &\\
\hline
$3^{1+2}$ & $2^6$ & $27,36$ & $\SU_3(2)\not\leq G_0\leq \GammaU_3(2)$ \\
$D_8\circ Q_8$ & $5^4$ & $240,384$ & \\
$D_8\circ Q_8\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle$ & $5^4$ & $240,384$ & $G_0\nleq N_{\GL_4(5)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$ \\
$D_8\circ Q_8$ & $7^4$ & $480,1920$ & \\
$Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8$ & $3^8$ & $1440,5120$ & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Extraspecial class (E)}
\label{tab:E}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
\hline
$S$ & $p^d$ & Embedding of $S$ & Subdegrees of $G$ \\
\hline
& $3^4$ & & $40,40$ \\
& $31^2$ & & $360,600 $ \\
& $41^2$ & & $480,1200 $ \\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5$ & $7^4$ & $S< \SL_2(p^{d/2})$ & $960,1440 $ \\
& $71^2$ & & $840,4200 $ \\
& $79^2$ & & $1560,4680 $ \\
& $89^2$ & & $2640,5280 $ \\
\hline
$3{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6$ & $2^6$ & $S< \SL_3(4)$ & $18,45$ \\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6$ & $5^4$ & $S< \Sp_4(5)$ & $144,480$\\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_7$ & $7^4$ & $S< \Sp_4(7)$ & $720,1680$\\
$A_9$ & $2^8$ & $S< \Omega_8^+(2)$& $120,135$\\
$A_{10}$ & $2^8$ & $S< \Sp_8(2)$& $45,210$\\
$\PSL_2(17)$ & $2^8$ & $S< \Sp_8(2)$& $102,153$\\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .}\PSL_3(4)$ & $3^6$ & $S< \Omega_6^-(3)$& $224,504$ \\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .}\PSU_4(2)$ & $7^4$ & $S< \SL_4(7)$& $240,2160$ \\
$M_{11}$ & $3^5$ & $S< \SL_5(3)$ & $22,220$ \\
&&& $110,132$\\
$M_{24}$ & $2^{11}$ & $S< \SL_{11}(2)$ & $276,1771$ \\
&&& $759,1288$ \\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .}\Suz$ & $3^{12}$ & $S< \Sp_{12}(3)$ & $65520,465920$ \\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4)$ & $3^{12}$ & $S< 2{}^{\displaystyle .}\Suz< \Sp_{12}(3)$ & $65520,465920$ \\
$J_2$ & $2^{12}$ & $S< G_2(4)< \Sp_6(4)$ & $1575,2520$\\
$2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2$ & $5^6$ & $S<\Sp_6(5)$& $7560,8064$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Almost simple class (AS)}
\label{tab:AS}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l l l }
\hline
Class of $G$ & $p^d$ & Subdegrees of $G$ \\
\hline
(T): tensor product & $q^{2m}$ & $(q+1)(q^m-1),q(q^m-1)(q^{m-1}-1)$\\
(S): subfield & $q^{2n}$ & $(q+1)(q^n-1),q(q^n-1)(q^{n-1}-1)$\\
(I): $G_0$ imprimitive & $p^{2n}$ & $2(p^n-1),(p^n-1)^2$\\
(R0): $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$ & $p^d$ & given in~\cite[\S 3]{FouKal1978} \\
(R1): $\SU_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ & $q^{2n}$ & $(q^n-1)(q^{n-1}+1),q^{n-1}(q-1)(q^n-1)$, $n$ even\\
& & $(q^n+1)(q^{n-1}-1),q^{n-1}(q-1)(q^n+1)$, $n$ odd \\
(R2): $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$ & $q^{2m}$ & $(q^m-1)(q^{m-1}+1),q^{m-1}(q-1)(q^m-1)$, $\varepsilon=+$ \\
& & $(q^m+1)(q^{m-1}-1),q^{m-1}(q-1)(q^m+1)$, $\varepsilon=-$ \\
(R3): $\SL_5(q)\unlhd G_0$ & $q^{10}$ & $(q^5-1)(q^2+1),q^2(q^5-1)(q^3-1)$\\
(R4): $\Sz(q)\unlhd G_0$ & $q^4$ & $(q^2+1)(q-1),q(q^2+1)(q-1)$\\
(R5): $\spin_{m}^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$ & $q^8$ & $(q^4-1)(q^3+1),q^3(q^4-1)(q-1)$, $(m,\varepsilon)=(7,\circ)$ \\
& $q^{16}$ & $(q^8-1)(q^3+1),q^3(q^8-1)(q^5-1)$, $(m,\varepsilon)=(10,+)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Classes (T), (S), (I) and (R)}
\label{tab:subdegree}
\end{table}
Throughout this paper, we say that an affine permutation group $G$ or its stabiliser $G_0$ belongs to (or lies in, is contained in, etc.) one of the classes (T1)--(T3), (S0)--(S2), (I0)--(I8), (R0)--(R5), (E) or (AS) if $G$ has rank~$3$ and $G_0$ satisfies the given description. We also say that $G$ or $G_0$ belongs to class (T), (S), (I) or (R), respectively. We remark that if $G$ belongs to one of the classes (T1)--(T3), (S0)--(S2), (I0)--(I8) with $p^n>2$, (R1)--(R5), (E) or (AS), then $G$ is primitive: this holds for classes (E) and (AS) by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible} and can otherwise be verified using
Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive} and the descriptions of the orbits of $G_0$ that are given in subsequent sections.
In Table~\ref{tab:subdegree}, we list the subdegrees of the groups in classes (T), (S), (I) and (R), as given by~\cite[Table 12]{Lie1987}. Note that the groups in the classes (S0), (I0) and (R0) are precisely those that are listed in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv). We caution the reader that the groups in class (I) are not necessarily subgroups of $\GammaL_{2m}(q)$. For example, if $q$ is not prime, then
$\GammaL_m(q)\wr S_2$ lies in class (I0) or (I1) but is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_{2m}(q)$ (see \S\ref{s:(I)} for more details). We also caution the reader that (R5) includes the case where $m=7$ and $q$ is even, in which case $\spin_7(q)\simeq \Sp_6(q)$.
In order to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}, we first
consider the case where $G_0$ stabilises a tensor product decomposition. In the following, recall the definition of $\sigma_q$ from~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:tensorgroups}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(q)\otimes V_m(q)$ for some $m\geq 2$ and prime power $q$. Then either $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes~\emph{(R0)},~\emph{(I0)},~\emph{(T1)},~\emph{(T2)} or~\emph{(T3)}, or
one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(T4)] $1\otimes A_7\unlhd G_0$ where $(m,q)=(4,2)$.
\item[(T5)] $1\otimes \SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0\leq (\GL_1(q^2)\otimes \GL_m(q)){:}\langle (t\otimes 1)\sigma_q \rangle$ for some $t\in \GL_2(q)$ where $\GammaL_1(q^2)=\GL_1(q^2){:}\langle t\sigma_q\rangle$.
\item[(T6)] $\SL_2(q)\otimes 1\unlhd G_0\leq (\GL_2(q)\otimes \GL_1(q^3)){:}\langle (1\otimes t)\sigma_q \rangle$ for some $t\in \GL_m(q)$ where $m=3$ and $\GammaL_1(q^3)=\GL_1(q^3){:}\langle t\sigma_q\rangle$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
We will see in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3} that if $G_0$ satisfies (T4), (T5) or (T6), then $G_0$ lies in class (S2), (S1) or (S0), respectively, and we will see in~\S\ref{s:(S1)}, \S\ref{s:(S0)} and~\S\ref{s:extra} that these two different viewpoints of $G_0$ are important. Throughout this paper, we say that an affine permutation group $G$ or its stabiliser $G_0$ belongs to (or lies in, is contained in, etc.) one of the classes (T4)--(T6) if $G$ has rank~$3$ and $G_0$ satisfies the given description. We also enlarge the class (T) so that it contains the groups in classes (T4)--(T6). Note that the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups} is similar to that of~\cite[Lemma~55]{BilMonFra2015}, but~\cite[Lemma~55]{BilMonFra2015} is proved as part of an analysis of $2$-$(v,k,1)$ designs admitting rank~$3$ automorphism groups.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\emph{\ref{thm:tensorgroups}}]
Let $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$ and $A:= (\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}). We write elements of $A$ as $g\otimes h$ for $g\in \GammaL(U)$ and $h\in \GammaL(W)$ where $g$ and $h$ are $\sigma$-semilinear for some $\sigma\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Let $H_0:=A\cap G_0$. Either $H_0= G_0$, or $m=2$ and $G_0=H_0\langle (g_0\otimes h_0) \tau\rangle$ for some $g_0,h_0\in \GammaL(U)$ where $\tau\in \GL(V)$ is defined by $u\otimes w\mapsto w\otimes u$ for all $u,w\in U=W$; let $\alpha:=(g_0\otimes h_0) \tau$. The orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ are the simple tensors $\{u\otimes w: u\in U^*, w\in W^*\}$ and the non-simple tensors $\{u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_2 : w_1,w_2\in W, \ \dim\langle w_1,w_2\rangle =2\}$ for any choice of basis $\{u_1,u_2\}$ of $U$. Let $p$ and $d$ be such that $q^{2m}=p^d$ where $p$ is prime.
Let $Z_U:=Z(\GL(U))$, $Z_W:=Z(\GL(W))$, $Z_V:=Z(\GL(V))$ and $Z_0:=Z_V\cap G_0=Z_V\cap H_0$.
Define $G_0^U$ to be the set of $g\in \GammaL(U)$ for which there exists $h\in\GammaL(W)$ such that $g$ and $h$ are both $\sigma$-semilinear for some $\sigma\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $ g\otimes h\in H_0$. Define $G_0^W$ similarly. Then $G_0^U\leq \GammaL(U)$ and $G_0^W\leq \GammaL(W)$. Define $\varphi_U:A\to \PGammaL(U) $ by $g\otimes h \mapsto Z_Ug$. Define $\varphi_W$ similarly. Then $\varphi_U$ and $\varphi_W$ are homomorphisms with kernels $1\otimes \GL(W)$ and $\GL(U)\otimes 1$, respectively. Let $K_U:=\ker(\varphi_U)\cap H_0$ and $K_W:=\ker(\varphi_W)\cap H_0$. Note that $G_0^UZ_U/Z_U=H_0\varphi_U\simeq H_0/K_U$ and $G_0^WZ_W/Z_W=H_0\varphi_W\simeq H_0/K_W$. Now $K_U=1\otimes H_W$ for some $H_W\leq \GL(W)$ and $K_W=H_U\otimes 1$ for some $H_U\leq \GL(U)$. Note that $H_U\unlhd G_0^U$ and $H_W\unlhd G_0^W$.
First we claim that if $H_0\neq G_0$, then $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are conjugate in $\GammaL(U)$. If $g\in G_0^U$, then $g\otimes h\in H_0$ for some $h\in \GammaL(U)$, and $h^{h_0}\otimes g^{g_0}=(g\otimes h)^\alpha\in H_0$, so $(G_0^U)^{g_0}\leq G_0^W$. Similarly, $(G_0^W)^{h_0}\leq G_0^U$. By comparing orders, it follows that $(G_0^U)^{g_0}=G_0^W$.
Next we claim that $G_0^U$ is transitive on $\PG(U)$ and $G_0^W$ is transitive on $\PG(W)$. Since $G_0$ is transitive on the set of simple tensors of $V$, the claim holds when $G_0=H_0$. Suppose then that $G_0\neq H_0$.
Now $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ have the same number of orbits, say $r$, on $\PG(U)$ since they are conjugate, so $H_0$ has at least $r^2$ orbits on the set of simple tensors of $V$. On the other hand, $G_0$ is transitive on the set of simple tensors and $[G_0:H_0]=2$, so $H_0$ has at most $2$ orbits on the set of simple tensors. Thus $r=1$, as desired.
\textbf{Case 1: $G_0$ is soluble.}
We may assume that $G_0$ does not belong to class (I0) or (R0). Then $(m,q)\neq (2,2)$, or else $G_0\leq \GL_2(2)\wr S_2=\GammaL_1(4)\wr S_2$. If $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_\ell(p)\oplus V_\ell(p)$ where $2\ell=d$, then $q^{2m}=p^{2\ell}$ and $G_0$ has orbit sizes $2(p^\ell-1)$ and $(p^\ell-1)^2$ on $V^*$, but $G_0$ also has orbit sizes $(q+1)(q^m-1)$ and $q(q^m-1)(q^{m-1}-1)$, so $(m,q)=(2,2)$, a contradiction.
By~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{Fou1969} and a consideration of the suborbit lengths of $G$, we conclude that $(m,q)=(2,3)$ or $(3,3)$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that if $(m,q)=(2,3)$, then $G_0$ belongs to class (T1) or (T5), and if $(m,q)=(3,3)$, then either $\GL(U)\otimes \GL_1(q^3)\unlhd G_0\leq \GL(U)\otimes \GammaL_1(q^3)$, in which case $G_0$ belongs to (T6), or $G_0=\GammaL_1(q^2)\otimes \GammaL_1(q^3)\leq \GammaL_1(q^6)$, a contradiction.
\textbf{Case 2: $G_0$ is insoluble.} Now $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are not both soluble, for $K_U/Z_0=K_U/(K_U\cap K_W)\simeq K_UK_W/K_W\unlhd H_0/K_W\simeq G_0^WZ_W/Z_W$, and similarly $K_W/Z_0$ is isomorphic to a normal subgroup of $H_0/K_U\simeq G_0^UZ_U/Z_U$, so if $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are both soluble, then $K_W$ and $K_U$ are both soluble, but then $H_0$ is soluble, so $G_0$ is soluble, a contradiction.
If $m\geq 4$, then $G_0^W$ is transitive on the lines of $\PG(W)$ since $G_0$ is transitive on the set of non-simple tensors of $V$, so either $G_0^W$ is $2$-transitive on $\PG(W)$, or $G_0^W=\GammaL_1(2^5)$ with $m=5$ and $q=2$~\cite{Kan1973}. In this latter case, both $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are soluble, a contradiction. Hence $G_0^W$ is $2$-transitive on $\PG(W)$, so either $\SL(W)\unlhd G_0^W$, or $G_0^W=A_7$ with $m=4$ and $q=2$~\cite{CamKan1979}. If instead $m\leq 3$ and $G_0^W$ is insoluble, then since $G_0^WZ_W$ is transitive on $W^*$, either $\SL(W)\unlhd G_0^W$, or $\SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0^W$ with $m=2$ and $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:2trans}. Thus one of the following holds: \textbf{(a)} $\SL(W)\unlhd G_0^W$ where $m\geq 2$ and $(m,q)\neq (2,2)$ or $(2,3)$; \textbf{(b)} $\SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0^W$ where $m=2$ and $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$; \textbf{(c)} $G_0^W$ is soluble where $m=2$ or $3$; \textbf{(d)} $G_0^W=A_7$ where $m=4$ and $q=2$. Further, since $G_0^UZ_U$ is transitive on $U^*$, either $\SL(U)\unlhd G_0^U$, or $\SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0^U$ where $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$, or $G_0^U$ is soluble.
Suppose for a contradiction that $H_W\leq Z_W$. Then $K_U=Z_0$, so $H_0/Z_0\simeq G_0^UZ_U/Z_U\leq \PGammaL(U)$. First suppose that $G_0= H_0$. Now $(q+1)(q^m-1)$ divides $|G_0|$, so $(q+1)(q^m-1)$ divides $q(q-1)(q^2-1)e$ where $q=p^e$. Then $q^{m-1}+\cdots +q+1$ divides $q(q-1)e$ and therefore $(q-1)e$. But $q\geq e$, so $q^{m-1}+\cdots +q+1>(q-1)e$ for $m\geq 3$, a contradiction. Thus $m=2$. Since $(q+1,q-1)=1$ or $2$, it follows that $q+1$ divides $2e$, a contradiction. Now suppose that $G_0\neq H_0$. Then $(q+1)(q^2-1)$ divides $|G_0|=2|H_0|$, so $q+1$ divides $2(q-1)e$. If $q$ is even, then $q+1$ divides $e$, a contradiction. Thus $q$ is odd, and $q+1$ divides $4e$, so $q=3$, but then $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are soluble, a contradiction.
Thus $H_W$ is a non-central normal subgroup of $G_0^W$. If (d) holds, then $H_W=A_7$, so $G_0$ lies in class (T4). Hence we may assume that one of (a), (b) or (c) holds. Since $G_0^WZ_W/Z_W$ is almost simple when (a) or (b) holds, $\SL(W)\unlhd H_W$ when (a) holds and $\SL_2(5)\unlhd H_W$ when (b) holds.
If $H_U\leq Z_U$, then $K_W=Z_0$, so $ G_0^WZ_W/Z_W \simeq H_0/Z_0 \unrhd K_U/Z_0 \simeq H_WZ_W/Z_W$, and since the quotient of $G_0^WZ_W/Z_W$ by $H_WZ_W/Z_W$ is soluble, it follows that $H_0/K_U$ is soluble and therefore that $G_0^U$ is soluble. Hence when $G_0^U$ is insoluble, either $\SL(U)\unlhd H_U$ and $q\geq 4$, or $\SL_2(5)\unlhd H_U$ where $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$.
If $G_0\neq H_0$, then since $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ are conjugate, we may assume that $S\otimes S\unlhd H_0$ where either $S=\SL(U)$, or $S=\SL_2(5)$ and $q\in \{9,11,19,29,59\}$. Now $S$ is the unique subgroup of $G_0^U$ and $G_0^W$ that is isomorphic to $S$, so
$(S\otimes S)^\alpha=S^{h_0}\otimes S^{g_0}=S\otimes S$. Thus $S\otimes S\unlhd G_0$.
We conclude that one of the following holds: \textbf{(i)} $\SL(U)\otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0$ where $q\geq 4$; \textbf{(ii)} $\SL_2(5) \otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0=H_0$ where $q\in\{9,11,19,29,59\}$; \textbf{(iii)} $1\otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0=H_0$ and $G_0^U$ is soluble; \textbf{(iv)} $\SL(U)\otimes \SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0=H_0$ where $m=2$ and $q\in\{9,11,19,29,59\}$; \textbf{(v)} $\SL_2(5)\otimes \SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0$ where $m=2$ and $q\in\{9,11,19,29,59\}$; \textbf{(vi)} $1\otimes \SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0=H_0$ and $G_0^U$ is soluble where $m=2$ and $q\in\{9,11,19,29,59\}$; \textbf{(vii)} $\SL(U)\otimes 1\unlhd G_0=H_0$ and $G_0^W$ is soluble where $m=2$ or $3$; \textbf{(viii)} $\SL_2(5)\otimes 1\unlhd G_0=H_0$ and $G_0^W$ is soluble where $m=2$ or $3$ and $q\in\{9,11,19,29,59\}$. Moreover, if $m\leq 3$ and $G_0^W$ is soluble, then since $G_0^WZ_W$ is transitive on $W^*$, either $G_0^W\leq \GammaL_1(q^m)$, or $\SL_2(3)\unlhd G_0^WZ_W$ where $m=2$ and $q\in \{3,5,7,11,23\}$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:2trans}. A similar result applies to $G_0^U$.
\textbf{Cases (i), (ii), (iv) and (v).}
If (i) or (ii) holds, then $G_0$ lies in class (T1) or (T2), respectively. If (iv) holds, then $G_0$ lies in class (T2) by interchanging $U$ and $W$. Suppose that (v) holds. If $q\neq 9$, then $G_0\leq (\SL_2(5)\otimes \SL_2(5) Z_V).2$, but $q$ divides $|G_0|$, a contradiction. Thus $q=9$, so $G_0\leq (\SL_2(5)\otimes \SL_2(5) Z_V).2^2$, but, using {\sc Magma}, we determine that this group is not transitive on the set of non-simple tensors of $V$, a contradiction.
\textbf{Case (vi).} Either $G_0^U\leq \GammaL_1(q^2)$, or $\SL_2(3)\unlhd G_0^UZ_U$ and $q=11$, in which case $G_0^U\leq \GL_2(3)Z_U$. In particular, the order of $G_0^U$ divides $(q^2-1)2e$, or $240$, respectively. Further, $\SL_2(5)\unlhd H_W\leq \GL(W)$, so $H_W\leq \SL_2(5)\circ Z_W$. In particular, $1\otimes H_W=K_U$ has order dividing $60(q-1)$. Recall that $G_0^UZ_U/Z_U\simeq G_0/K_U$, and $q$ divides $|G_0|$. If $q\neq 9$, then $q$ divides $|G_0^U|$, a contradiction. Similarly, if $q=9$, then $3$ divides $|G_0^U|$, a contradiction.
\textbf{Case (viii).} We have just proved that $m\neq 2$, so $m=3$ and $G_0^WZ_W\leq \GammaL_1(q^3)$. In particular, the order of $G_0^WZ_W$ divides $(q^3-1)3e$. Further, $\SL_2(5)\unlhd H_U\leq \GL(U)$, so $H_U\otimes 1=K_W$ has order dividing $60(q-1)$. Recall that $G_0^WZ_W/Z_W\simeq G_0/K_W$, and $q$ divides $|G_0|$.
If $q\neq 9$, then $q$ divides $|G_0^W|$, a contradiction. Thus $q=9$. Now $q(q^2-1)(q^3-1)(q-1)$ divides $|G_0||Z_W|$, which divides $(q^3-1)3e\cdot 60(q-1)$, a contradiction.
\textbf{Case (iii).} Either $\SL_2(3)\unlhd G_0^UZ_U$ where $q\in \{3,5,7,11,23\}$ and $G_0^U\nleq \GammaL_1(q^2)$, or $G_0^U\leq \GammaL_1(q^2)\leq \GammaL(U)$. If the former holds, then $G_0\leq (N_{\GL(U)}(\SL_2(3)))\otimes \GL(W)$, and $-1\in G_0^U$ since $Q_8=\SL_2(3)'\leq G_0^U$ and $Q_8$ is irreducible on $U$. Thus $-1\otimes g\in G_0$ for some $g\in \GL(W)$ and $G_0$ lies in class (T3).
Otherwise, since $\GammaL_1(q^2)=\GL_1(q^2){:}\langle t\sigma_q\rangle$ for some $t\in \GL(U)$, it follows that $G_0$ lies in class (T5).
\textbf{Case (vii).} If $m=2$, then $G_0$ lies in class (T5) by interchanging $U$ and $W$, so we may assume that $m=3$. Now $G_0^W\leq \GammaL_1(q^3)\leq \GammaL(W)$, so $G_0$ lies in class (T6).
\end{proof}
Next we consider the case where $G_0$ is imprimitive.
Note that our result in this case is similar to~\cite[Proposition~39]{BilMonFra2015}, but ~\cite[Proposition~39]{BilMonFra2015} is proved as part of an analysis of $2$-$(v,k,1)$ designs admitting rank~$3$ automorphism groups and omits the cases where $G_0$ is soluble or $(n,p)=(6,2)$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:A2groups}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ for some $n\geq 1$ and prime $p$. Then $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes~\emph{(I0)}--\emph{(I8)}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The group $G_0$ is a subgroup of $\GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle $ where $\tau$ is the involution in $\GL_{2n}(p)$ defined by $(u_1,u_2)^\tau =(u_2,u_1)$ for all $u_1,u_2\in V_n(p)$. Let $V_1:=\{(u,0): u \in V_n(p)\}$ and $V_2:=\{(0,u):u\in V_n(p)\}$. For each $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $\pi_i$ denote the projection of $G_{0,V_1}=G_0\cap (\GL_n(p)\times \GL_n(p))$ onto the $i$-th factor of $\GL_n(p)\times \GL_n(p)$, and let $K_i$ and $G_0^i$ denote the kernel and image of $\pi_i$, respectively. The orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ are $V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ and $V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. In particular, $G_0^i$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$ for both $i$, and $G_{0,V_1}$ is an index $2$ subgroup of $G_0$. Now $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,s)\tau\rangle$ for some $t,s\in\GL_n(p)$. Conjugating $G_0$ by $(s^{-1},1)$ if necessary, we may assume that $s=1$, in which case $G_0^1=G_0^2$ and $t\in G_0^1$ since $((t,1)\tau)^2=(t,t)$. Now $G_0\leq G_0^1\wr \langle\tau\rangle$, and there exists $H\unlhd G_0^1$ such that $K_1=1\times H$ and $K_2=H\times 1$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:2trans}, $G_0^1$ belongs to one of the classes (H0)--(H8). In particular, $G_0^1\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^n$, and either $G_0^1$ belongs to (H5)--(H8) and $q=p$, or $G_0^1$ belongs to (H0)--(H4) and $q$ is specified by Theorem~\ref{thm:2trans}. Now $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)\wr \langle \tau\rangle$. Write $q=p^e$ and let $Z:=Z(\GL_m(q))$.
If $G_0^1$ lies in class (H0) (i.e., if $m=1$), then $G_0$ lies in class (I0), so we assume that $m\geq 2$. If $G_0^1$ lies in (H7), then $G_0$ lies in (I7), and if $G_0^1$ lies in (H8), then $G_0$ lies in class (I8) by a computation in {\sc Magma}, so we may assume that $G_0^1$ lies in one of the classes (H1)--(H6).
Suppose for a contradiction that $H\leq Z$. Recall that $(q^m-1)^2$ divides $|G_0|=2|G_{0,V_1}|=2|G_0^1||H|$. Hence $(q^m-1)^2$ divides $2|\GammaL_m(q)|(q-1)$. First suppose that $em\geq 3$ and $(em,p)\neq (6,2)$. By Zsigmondy's theorem~\cite{Zsi1892}, there exists a primitive prime divisor $r$ of $p^{em}-1$ (see~\cite[Theorem 5.2.14]{KleLie1990}). Let $f$ be the largest integer for which $r^f$ divides $q^m-1$. Now $r^{2f}$ divides $(q^m-1)^2$, and $r$ is odd, so $r^{2f}$ divides $|\GammaL_m(q)|(q-1)$, but $r$ is coprime to $q$ and does not divide $p^i-1$ for $i<em$, so $r$ must divide $e$. However, $r\equiv 1\mod em$ by~\cite[Proposition 5.2.15]{KleLie1990}, a contradiction. Thus either $em=2$ (so $m=2$ and $e=1$), or $(em,p)=(6,2)$. Suppose that $m=2$. Now $(q^2-1)^2$ divides $2q(q-1)^2(q^2-1)e$, so $q+1$ divides $2(q-1)e$. This is impossible when $p=2$ and $e=3$. Hence $e=1$. Now $p+1$ divides $2(p-1)$, but $(p+1,p-1)=(p-1,2)$, so $p=3$, in which case $G_0^1$ belongs to (H7), a contradiction. Further, if $q=4$ and $m=3$, then $(4^3-1)^2$ divides $6|\GammaL_3(4)|$, a contradiction.
Thus $q=2$ and $m=6$. In particular, $H=1$, and $G_0^1$ is one of $G_2(2)'=\PSU_3(3)$, $G_2(2)=\PSU_3(3){:}2$, $\Sp_6(2)$ or $\SL_6(2)$. Since $(2^6-1)^2$ divides $2|G_0^1|$, we conclude that $G_0^1=\SL_6(2)$. Now there exists a bijective map $\alpha: \SL_6(2)\to \SL_6(2)$ such that $G_{0,V_1}=\{(g,g^\alpha):g\in \SL_6(2)\}$. Moreover, $\alpha$ is a homomorphism, so $\alpha\in\Aut(\SL_6(2))=\SL_6(2){:}\langle \iota\rangle$ where $\iota$ maps each element of $\SL_6(2)$ to its inverse transpose. Since $G_{0,V_1}$ has index $2$ in $G_{0}$ and $(2^6-1)^2$ is odd, it follows that $G_{0,V_1}$ is transitive on $V_6(2)^*\times V_6(2)^*$. Further, $G_{0,V_1}$ is conjugate in $\SL_6(2)\times \SL_6(2)$ to $\{(g,g):g\in \SL_6(2)\}$ or $\{(g,g^\iota):g\in \SL_6(2)\}$. However, neither of these is transitive, for if we view $V_6(2)$ as $\mathbb{F}_2^6$ and define $v_1:=(1,0,0,0,0,0)$ and $v_2:=(0,1,0,0,0,0)$, then $(v_1,v_1)$ and $(v_1,v_2)$ lie in different orbits.
Hence $H$ is a non-central normal subgroup of $G_0^1$. If $G_0^1$ lies in (H5) or (H6), then $H=G_0^1$, so $G_0$ lies in (I5) or (I6), respectively. Let $N$ be $\SL_m(q)$, $\Sp_m(q)$, $G_2(q)'$ or $\SL_2(5)$ when $G_0^1$ lies in classes (H1)--(H4), respectively. Since $NZ/Z$ is the socle of the almost simple group $G_0^1Z/Z$, it follows that $N\unlhd H$. Hence $N\times N\unlhd G_0$, and $G_0$ lies in one of the classes (I1)--(I4).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:rank3thm}
Before we use~\cite{Lie1987} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}, we discuss three minor oversights in the main theorem of~\cite{Lie1987}.
This theorem states that if $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ for some prime $p$, then $G_0$ belongs to one of $13$ classes, and these classes are labelled (A1)--(A11), (B) and (C). The three issues are described below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item In (A9), (A10) and (C), there is a non-abelian simple group $L$ such that $L\unlhd G_0/Z(G_0)$ where $L\leq \PSL_a(q)$ and $q^a=p^d$. Here $Z(G_0)$ should be replaced with $G_0\cap \mathbb{F}_q^*$.
Indeed, except for the case $(L,p^d)=(A_7,2^8)$ of (C), such $G_0$ are analysed in~\cite{Lie1987} as part of~\cite[p.485, Case (I)]{Lie1987}, where the following hold: $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(q)$; $L$ is the socle of $G_0/(G_0\cap \mathbb{F}_q^*)$; and the (projective) representation of $L$ on $V=V_a(q)$ is absolutely irreducible and cannot be realised over a proper subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $G_0\leq \GL_a(q)$, then $Z(G_0)=G_0\cap \mathbb{F}_q^*$ by~\cite[Lemma~2.10.1]{KleLie1990}, but $G_0\cap \mathbb{F}_q^*$ is not a subgroup of $Z(G_0)$ in general.
\item The case $(L,p^d)=(A_7,2^8)$ of (C) is different. Here $A_7\leq \SL_4(4)$ and $q=4$, but this representation of $A_7$ on $V_4(4)$ can be realised over $\mathbb{F}_2$ since $A_7\leq A_8\simeq \SL_4(2)\leq \SL_4(4)$. In~\cite[p.483, Case (IIc)]{Lie1987}, Liebeck notes that $H_0:=\mathbb{F}_4^*\times A_7$ has two orbits on $V^*$, and since $H_0/\mathbb{F}_4^*$ is simple, $H_0$ lies in (C). Here Liebeck is classifying those $G$ for which $G_0\leq N_{\GammaL_4(4)}(\SL_4(2))$ and $G_0\cap \SL_4(2)=A_7$. Since $C_{\GammaL_4(4)}(\SL_4(2))=\mathbb{F}_4^*{:}\langle \sigma_4\rangle$, we may take $G_0$ to be $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle=\mathbb{F}_4^*{:}\langle \sigma_4\rangle \times A_7$, but the socle of $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle/\mathbb{F}_4^*$ is not simple, so $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle$ is not in (C). This is an omission of~\cite[p.483]{Lie1987} but not~\cite{Lie1987} since $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle\simeq \GammaL_1(4)\otimes A_7$, which stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(2)\otimes V_4(2)$, so $H_0$ and $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle$ are in class (A3), and there are no other possibilities for $G_0$ by a computation in {\sc Magma}. Note that $H_0$ and $H_0\langle\sigma_4\rangle$ belong to class~(T4) of Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups}, and they also belong to class~(S2).
\item When $L=A_9<\Omega_8^+(2)$, the subdegrees in~\cite[Table~14]{Lie1987} are recorded as $105$ and $150$; these should be $120$ and $135$, which are, respectively, the numbers of non-singular and singular vectors with respect to the non-degenerate quadratic form preserved by $\Omega_8^+(2)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\emph{\ref{thm:rank3}}]
By~\cite{Lie1987} and Remark~\ref{remark:rank3thm}, one of the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \begin{itemize}\item[(a)] $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$.
\item[(b)] $V=V_n(q^2)$ and $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q^2)$ where $q^{2n}=p^d$ and $n\geq 2$ (see~\cite[p.482]{Lie1987}).
\item[(c)] $V=V_2(q^3)$ and $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(q^3)$ where $q^6=p^d$ (see~\cite[p.483]{Lie1987}).
\item[(d)] $V=\bigwedge^2(V_5(q))$ and $\SL_5(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{10}=p^d$.
\item[(e)] $\Sz(q)={}^2B_2(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^4=p^d$ and $q$ is an odd power of $2$.
\end{itemize}
\item $\SU_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{2n}=p^d$ and $n\geq 2$.
\item $\Omega_{2m}^\pm(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $q^{2m}=p^d$ and $m\geq 1$.
\item $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $2n=d$.
\item $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(q)\otimes V_m(q)$ where $q^{2m}=p^d$ and $m\geq 2$.
\item $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$ and the socle $L$ of $G_0/(G_0\cap \mathbb{F}_q^*)$ is absolutely irreducible on $V=V_n(q)$ and cannot be realised over a proper subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Further, one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}\item[(a)] $V$ is a spin module, $L=\POmega_m^\varepsilon(q)$ and $(m,n,\varepsilon)$ is $(7,8,\circ)$ or $(10,16,+)$.
\item[(b)] $(L,p^d)$ and the embedding of $L$ in $\PSL_n(q)$ are given by~\cite[Table~2]{Lie1987}, where $(L,p^d)\neq (A_7,2^8)$. The subdegrees of $G$ are given by~\cite[Theorem 5.3]{FouKal1978} and \cite[Table~14]{Lie1987}, except for $L=A_9$, in which case the subdegrees are $120$ and $135$.
\end{itemize}
\item $G_0$ normalises $E$ where $E\leq \GL_d(p)$ and $(E,p^d)$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:Bclass}
(see~\cite[\S4.6]{KleLie1990} for details on extraspecial groups and~\cite[p.483, Case (IIe)]{Lie1987}).
The subdegrees of $G$ are given by~\cite[Theorem~1.1, 2(b) or 2(b$'$)]{Fou1969} when $E=D_8$ or $Q_8$, and~\cite[Table 13]{Lie1987} otherwise.
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c}
\hline
$E$ & $p^d$ \\
\hline
$3^{1+2}$ & $2^6$\\
$D_8$, $Q_8$ & $3^4,3^6,7^2,13^2,17^2,19^2,23^2,29^2,31^2,47^2$\\
$Q_8\circ Q_8$ & $3^4$\\$D_8\circ Q_8$ & $3^4,5^4,7^4$\\
$D_8\circ Q_8\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle$ & $5^4$\\
$Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8$ & $3^8$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{}
\label{tab:Bclass}
\end{table}
\end{enumerate}
We now consider each of the cases described above in order to prove that $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}.
\textbf{Case (1).} If one of (a), (b), (c) or (d) holds, then $G_0$ lies in class (R0), (S1), (S0) or (R3), respectively. If (e) holds, then either $G_0$ lies in class (R4), or $q=2$ and $G_0$ lies in class (R0).
\textbf{Case (2).}
Either $G_0$ lies in class (R1), or $n=2$, in which case $G_0$ lies in class (S1) since $\SL_2(q)$ and $\SU_2(q)$ are conjugate in $\GL_d(p)$. Indeed, let $\{x_1,x_2\}$ be a basis of $V_2(q^2)$ on which $\SL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and choose $\mu\in \mathbb{F}_{q^2}^*$ such that $\mu+\mu^q=0$. Then $\SL_2(q)$ preserves the non-degenerate unitary form $\f$ for which $\f(x_1,x_2)=\mu$ and $\f(x_i,x_i)=0$ for $i=1,2$.
\textbf{Case (3).} Here one of the following holds: $G_0$ lies in class (R2); $m=2$ and $\varepsilon=+$, in which case $\Omega_4^+(q)$ and $\SL_2(q)\otimes \SL_2(q)$ are conjugate in $\GL_d(p)$, so $G_0$ lies in class (T1) for $q>2$ and class (I0) for $q=2$; or $m=1$, in which case $\varepsilon=+$ and $G_0$ lies in class (I0).
\textbf{Case (4).} By Theorem~\ref{thm:A2groups}, $G_0$ lies in one of the classes (I0)--(I8).
\textbf{Case (5).} By Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups}, either $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (R0), (I0), (T1), (T2) or (T3), in which case we are done, or $G_0$ lies in (T4), (T5) or (T6). If $G_0$ lies in class (T5), then $V$ is naturally an $m$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$-vector space of the form $V_1(q^2)\otimes V_m(q)$, and $\SL_m(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q^2)$, so $G_0$ belongs to class (S1). Similarly, if $G_0$ lies in class (T4), then since $\GL_2(2)=\GammaL_1(2^2)$, again $V$ is naturally a $4$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_{2^2}$-vector space of the form $V_1(2^2)\otimes V_4(2)$, and $A_7\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_4(2^2)$, so $G_0$ belongs to class (S2). Lastly, if $G_0$ lies in class (T6), then $V$ is naturally a $2$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_{q^3}$-vector space of the form $V_2(q)\otimes V_1(q^3)$, and $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(q^3)$, so $G_0$ belongs to class~(S0).
\textbf{Case (6).}
View $L$ as a subgroup of $G_0\mathbb{F}_q^*/\mathbb{F}_q^*$, and define $M$ to be the subgroup of $\GL_n(q)$ for which $M/\mathbb{F}_q^*=L$. Now $\mathbb{F}_q^*=Z(M)$, so by~\cite[31.1]{Asc2000}, $M=M'\mathbb{F}_q^*$ and $M'$ is quasisimple. Since $M\unlhd G_0\mathbb{F}_q^*$ and $M'$ is perfect, it follows that $M'\unlhd G_0$ and $M'\leq \SL_n(q)$. If (a) holds, then $M'=\spin_m^\varepsilon(q)$ (see~\S\ref{s:(R5)} for more details), so $G_0$ belongs to class (R5). Suppose instead that (b) holds. Using the $p$-modular character tables in~\cite{BAtlas,Atlas,GAP4}, we determine that $M'=S$, where $S$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:AS}.
Now $S$ is absolutely irreducible on $V$ and cannot be realised over a proper subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, so $S$ is irreducible on $V_d(p)$ by~\cite[Theorems VII.1.16 and VII.1.17]{BlaHup1981}. Thus $ G_0$ belongs to class (AS).
\textbf{Case (7).}
Where necessary, we use {\sc Magma} to verify the various claims made below.
If either $p^d=3^8$ and $E=Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8$, or $p^d=7^4$ and $E=D_8\circ Q_8$, then $G_0$ belongs to (E). Suppose that $p^d=5^4$. If $E=D_8\circ Q_8$, then $G_0$ belongs to (E). Otherwise, $E=D_8\circ Q_8\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle$, and we may assume that $G_0\nleq N_{\GL_4(5)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$, in which case $G_0$ belongs to (E). Suppose that $p^d=2^6$ and $E$ is an extraspecial group $3^{1+2}$. Now $N_{\GL_d(p)}(E)$ is conjugate to $\GammaU_3(2)$, so we may assume that $N_{\GL_d(p)}(E)=\GammaU_3(2)$. If $\SU_3(2)\leq G_0$, then $G_0$ belongs to (R1); otherwise, $G_0$ belongs to (E).
Suppose that $d=2$, in which case $E=D_8$ or $Q_8$ and $p\in \{7,13,17,19,23,29,31,47\}$. For each such $p$, the group $\GL_2(p)$ contains a unique conjugacy class of subgroups isomorphic to $E$. If $p\neq 7$, then $N_{\GL_2(p)}(D_8)$ has at least $4$ orbits on $V_d(p)$, so $E=Q_8$, in which case $G_0$ belongs to (E). Suppose instead that $p=7$. Now $N_{\GL_2(7)}(Q_8)$ is transitive on $V^*$ and contains, up to conjugacy in $\GL_d(p)$, five subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$; these have orders $24$, $24$, $24$, $36$ and $72$. The group of order $36$ has orbits of size $12$ and $36$ on $V^*$ and lies in (I0). The remaining four groups have two orbits of size $24$; two of these are subgroups of $\GammaL_1(7^2)$ and therefore belong to (R0), and the other two belong to (E). Lastly, if $E=D_8$, then $N_{\GL_2(7)}(E)\leq \GammaL_1(7^2)$, so $G_0$ belongs to (R0).
Suppose that $p^d=3^6$ and $E=D_8$ or $Q_8$. Now $E\leq \GammaL_2(27)$ by~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Fou1969}. The group $\GammaL_2(27)$ has a unique conjugacy class of subgroups isomorphic to $E$, and each such group is conjugate in $\GL_6(3)$ to $E\otimes 1\leq \GL_2(3)\otimes \GL_3(3)$. The normalisers of $D_8\otimes 1$ and $Q_8\otimes 1$ in $\GL_6(3)$ are $\GammaL_1(9)\otimes \GL_3(3)$ and $\GL_2(3)\otimes \GL_3(3)$, respectively, so $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(3)\otimes V_3(3)$, and we considered such groups in case (5) above.
Suppose that $p^d=3^4$ and $E=D_8\circ Q_8$. Now $N_{\GL_4(3)}(E)$ is transitive on $V^*$ and has, up to conjugacy in $\GL_d(p)$, exactly $18$ subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$. Eight of these groups have orbit sizes $32$ and $48$; these lie in (S1). Another eight have orbit sizes $16$ and $64$; these stabilise a decomposition $V=V_2(3)\oplus V_2(3)$, and we considered such groups in case (4) above. This leaves two groups with orbit sizes $40$ and $40$. One is a subgroup of $\GammaL_1(3^4)$ and therefore lies in (R0). The other is isomorphic to $\SL_2(5)$ and lies in class (AS).
It remains to consider the case where $p^d=3^4$ and $E$ is one of $Q_8$, $D_8$ or $Q_8\circ Q_8$. If $E=D_8$ or $Q_8$, then $\GL_4(3)$ contains a unique conjugacy class of subgroups isomorphic to $E$ whose normalisers in $\GL_4(3)$ have $2$ orbits on $V^*$, and this conjugacy class contains $E\otimes 1\leq \GL_2(3)\otimes \GL_2(3)$. The normalisers of $D_8\otimes 1$ and $Q_8\otimes 1$ in $\GL_4(3)$ are $\GammaL_1(9)\otimes \GL_2(3)$ and $\GL_2(3)\otimes \GL_2(3)$, respectively. Both of these normalisers are subgroups of $(\GL_2(3)\otimes \GL_2(3)){:}2$, which is the normaliser in $\GL_4(3)$ of $Q_8\otimes Q_8\simeq Q_8\circ Q_8$, and $\GL_4(3)$ contains a unique conjugacy class of subgroups isomorphic to $Q_8\circ Q_8$. Thus, for each possible $E$, the group $G_0$ stabilises a decomposition $V=V_2(3)\otimes V_2(3)$, and we considered such groups in case (5) above.
\end{proof}
In \cite[Remark~3]{Lie1987}, Liebeck observes that if $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, then $G_0$ has exactly two orbits on the set of one-dimensional subspaces of $V$ with one exception: those groups in class (AS) with $S=2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5$ and degree $3^4$. However, Liebeck does not specify the field over which this occurs, and the choice of field matters; indeed, in the exceptional case, $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaL_2(9)\leq \GL_4(3)$, and $G_0$ is transitive on the one-dimensional subspaces of $V_2(9)$ but has two orbits on the set of one-dimensional subspaces of $V_4(3)$. In the following, we give an explicit statement of \cite[Remark~3]{Lie1987}, which we deduce from~\cite{Lie1987}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:remark3}
Let $G$ be an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime, and let $s^c=p^d$ where one of the following holds (in the notation of Theorem~\emph{\ref{thm:rank3}}).
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G_0$ lies in class $\mathcal{C}$, where $\mathcal{C}$ and $(c,s)$ are given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:ar}}.
\item[(ii)] $G_0$ lies in class \emph{(E)} and either $(c,s)=(3,4)$, or $p$ is odd and $(c,s)=(d,p)$.
\item[(iii)] $G_0$ lies in class \emph{(AS)}, and $(c,s)=(d,p)$ unless $(S,p^d)$ is one of $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$, $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,7^4)$, $(3{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6,2^6)$ or $(J_2,2^{12})$, in which case $(c,s)=(d/2,p^2)$.
\end{itemize}
Then $G_0\leq \GammaL_c(s)$. Further, $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{c-1}(s)$ unless $G_0$ lies in \emph{(R0)} or \emph{(AS)} with $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$, in which case $G_0$ is transitive on the points of $\PG_{c-1}(s)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{table}[!h]
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
$\mathcal{C}$ & (R0) & (R1) & (R2) & (R3) & (R4) & (R5) & (T1)--(T3) & (S0) & (S1)--(S2) & (I)\\
$(c,s)$ & $(1,p^d)$ & $(n,q^2)$ & $(2m,q)$ & $(10,q)$ & $(4,q)$ & $(n,q)$ & $(2m,q)$ & $(2,q^3)$ & $(n,q^2)$ & $(d,p)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{For $G_0$ in class $\mathcal{C}$, the parameters $(c,s)$ where $G_0\leq \GammaL_c(s)$}
\label{tab:ar}
\end{table}
We now use the pair $(c,s)$ from Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3} to state Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}, which was alluded to in Example~\ref{example:AG} and Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\begin{hyp}
\label{hyp:AGgroups}
Let $(G,a,r)$ be defined as follows: $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 2$ and $p$ is prime, $r^a=p^d$ and one of the following holds, where $s^c=p^d$ and $(c,s)$ is given by Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G_0$ lies in one of (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3), (S0)--(S2) or (E), and $\mathbb{F}_r$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_s$.
\item[(ii)] $G_0$ lies in (AS), and $\mathbb{F}_r$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_s$ unless $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$, in which case $r=p$.
\item[(iii)] $V=V_b(r)\oplus V_b(r)$ and $G_0\leq (\GammaL_b(r)\wr S_2)\cap \GammaL_{2b}(r)$ where $a=2b$.
\end{itemize}
\end{hyp}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:AGgroups}
If $(G,a,r)$ satisfies Hypothesis~\emph{\ref{hyp:AGgroups}}, then $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $(G,a,r)$ satisfies Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}, and let $V:=V_d(p)$ where $p^d=r^a$ and $p$ is prime. Now $G_0$ has two orbits on $V^*$. In particular, if $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^d$, then $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{m-1}(q)$ if and only if $\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}^*\subseteq u^{G_0}$ for all $u\in V^*$.
Note also that if $t^n=q^m$ where $\mathbb{F}_t$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, then $\GammaL_m(q)\leq \GammaL_n(t)$. If $V=V_b(r)\oplus V_b(r)$ and $G_0\leq (\GammaL_b(r)\wr S_2)\cap \GammaL_{2b}(r)$ where $a=2b$, then clearly $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$. If $G_0$ lies in one of (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3), (S0)--(S2), (E) or (AS) with $(S,p^d)\neq (2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$, and if $s^c=p^d$ where $(c,s)$ is given by Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}, then by Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}, $G_0\leq \GammaL_c(s)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{c-1}(s)$, so if $\mathbb{F}_r$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_s$, then $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$.
Lastly, suppose that $G_0$ lies in class (AS) with $(S,p^d)= (2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$ and $r=p$. Clearly $G_0\leq \GL_4(3)$, and $-1\in G_0$ since $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5\unlhd G_0$ and $2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5$ is irreducible on $V$, so $\{u,-u\}\subseteq u^{G_0}$ for all $u\in V^*$. Thus $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{3}(3)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:hypfail}
Let $V:=V_b(r)\oplus V_b(r)$ and $p^d=r^{2b}$ where $p$ is prime, $r$ is not prime and $b\geq 1$. Let $G:=\AGammaL_b(r)\wr S_2$. Then $G_0=\GammaL_b(r)\wr S_2$, and $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V_d(p)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}. However, we claim that $(G,2b,r)$ does not satisfy Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}. Suppose for a contradiction that it does. Now (iii) does not hold since $G_0$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_{2b}(r)$ (see~\S\ref{s:(I)} for more details), so (i) or (ii) holds. Recall from Table~\ref{tab:subdegree} that $G$ has subdegrees $2(r^b-1)$ and $(r^b-1)^2$.
If (ii) holds, then $G_0$ lies in class (AS) and $r=s=p^2$, so $(S,p^d)$ is $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,7^4)$ or $(J_2,2^{12})$, but this is impossible by the subdegrees listed in Table~\ref{tab:AS}. Thus (i) holds. If $G_0$ lies in class (E), then $r=s=4$ and $p^d=2^6$, a contradiction. Thus $G_0$ lies in one of (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3) or (S0)--(S2). By Table~\ref{tab:subdegree}, there is a subdegree $t$ of $G$ that is divisible by~$p$. Then $t=2(r^b-1)$, $p=2$, and $2$ is the highest power of $p$ that divides~$t$. Since $r\leq s$ and $r$ is not prime, it follows that $G_0$ lies in class (S1) with $(n,q)=(2,2)$ and $(b,r)=(1,4)$, but then $\SL_2(2)\unlhd G_0=\SL_2(2)\wr S_2$, a contradiction.
\end{remark}
\section{Dependent partial linear spaces}
\label{s:dep}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $q$ is a prime power and $n\geq 1$. A partial linear space $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$\textit{-dependent} if $L\subseteq \langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$ for every $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ and $x\in L^*$, and $\mathbb{F}_q$\textit{-independent} otherwise. Observe that if $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent, then it is $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-dependent for all divisors $m$ of $n$ since we may view $V$ as a vector space $V_{n/m}(q^m)$. In other words, if $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent, then it is $\mathbb{F}_r$-independent for all subfields $\mathbb{F}_r$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
Using Kantor's classification~\cite[Proposition~4.1]{Kan1985} of the $G$-affine linear spaces for which $G$ is $2$-transitive and $G\leq \AGammaL_1(q)$ (see also Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}), we prove the following.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Kantor}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine partial linear space where $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $u\in L^*$. If $\langle u\rangle^* \subseteq u^{G_0}$, then $\{\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q:\lambda u\in L\}$ is either $\{0,1\}$ or a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$. Let $U:=\langle u\rangle$ and $H:=U{:}G_{0,U}^{U}\leq \AGammaL_1(q)$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:intersect}, $\mathcal{S}\cap U$ is a partial linear space, and $H\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}\cap U)$. If $\lambda u, \mu u\in U^*$, then by assumption there exists $g\in G_0$ such that $(\lambda u)^g=\mu u$, so $U^g=U$. Thus $H$ acts $2$-transitively on $U$. Let $F:=\{\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q:\lambda u\in L\}$ and $k:=|F|\geq 2$. If $k=2$, then $F=\{0,1\}$, so we may assume that $k\geq 3$. Now $\mathcal{S}\cap U$ is an $H$-affine linear space whose line set contains $L\cap U$, and $H$ lies in class (H0), so Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}(i) or (ii) holds. In either case,
$F$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\end{proof}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 2$ and $q$ is a prime power such that $q>2$. Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, so that $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$ (see~\S\ref{ss:affine}). Observe that the following three statements are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{n-1}(q)$.
\item[(ii)] $\langle u\rangle^*\subseteq u^{G_0}$ for all $u\in V^*$.
\item[(iii)] $\langle x\rangle^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for some $x\in V^*$.
\end{itemize}
Now suppose that $G_0$ has two orbits $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ on the points of $\PG_{n-1}(q)$, and let $\langle x_1\rangle\in \Sigma_1$ and $\langle x_2\rangle\in \Sigma_2$. Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ containing $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively, and note that $V^*=X_1\cup X_2$. In Example~\ref{example:AG} (for $G$ primitive), we constructed two $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}_i:=(V,\mathcal{L}_i)$, where $\mathcal{L}_i:=\{\langle u\rangle+v:\langle u\rangle\in\Sigma_i,v\in V\}=\{\langle u\rangle+v: u\in X_i,v\in V\}$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Observe that $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent partial linear spaces.
Let $F:=\mathbb{F}_r$ be a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $r> 2$ where $r^a=q^n$. Now $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)\leq \GammaL_a(r)$, and $G_0$ has two orbits $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$, where $\langle x_1\rangle_F\in \Delta_1$ and $\langle x_2\rangle_F\in \Delta_2$. Thus both $(V,\{\langle u\rangle_F+v: u\in X_1,v\in V\})$ and $(V,\{\langle u\rangle_F+v: u\in X_2,v\in V\})$ are $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces from Example~\ref{example:AG} (when $G$ is primitive). Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:Kantor}, we now prove that every $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear space has this form for some subfield $F$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:dep}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 2$ and $q$ is a prime power, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\langle x\rangle^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for some $x\in V^*$. Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Then there exists a subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $|F|> 2$ and an orbit $X$ of $G_0$ on $V^*$
such that $\mathcal{L}=\{\langle u\rangle_{F}+v:u\in X,v\in V\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(q)$. There exists $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $w\in L^*$. Since $\langle x\rangle^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$, it follows that $\langle w\rangle^*\subseteq w^{G_0}$. By assumption, $L\subseteq \langle w\rangle$ and $|L|\geq 3$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:Kantor}, there exists a subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $|F|> 2$ such that $L=\langle x\rangle_{F}$. Hence $\mathcal{L}=\{\langle u\rangle_{F}+v:u\in w^{G_0},v\in V\}$.
\end{proof}
Let $G$ be an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. If $G_0$ belongs to one of (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3) or (S0)--(S2), then by Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}, $V=V_c(s)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_c(s)$ where $(c,s)$ is given by Table \ref{tab:ar}, and $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_s}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$,
so each $\mathbb{F}_s$-dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear space is given by Proposition~\ref{prop:dep} and therefore Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to some triple $(G,\log_r(p^d),r)$ that satisfies Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}. Thus for those $G_0$ in classes (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3) and (S0)--(S2), it remains to consider $\mathbb{F}_s$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces. This we do in \S\ref{s:(R1)}--\ref{s:(S0)}, and we will see that Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic} imposes severe restrictions on the possible examples; in particular, for $G_0$ in classes (R1)--(R5), there is a unique $\mathbb{F}_s$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space, and this example arises in class (R2) with $G=3^4{:}M_{10}\simeq 3^4{:}(\Omega_4^-(3).2)$. However, for $G_0$ in classes (I0)--(I8), since $G_0$ need not be a subgroup of $\GammaL_{2m}(q)$, it is no longer convenient to make the distinction between $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces in our proofs; instead, in \S\ref{s:(I)}, we develop methods for building such partial linear spaces from $2$-transitive affine linear spaces. Similarly, for $G_0$ in classes (E) and (AS), our methods are primarily computational (see \S\ref{s:(E)} and \S\ref{s:(AS)}), so it is again more convenient not to make the distinction between dependent and independent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces.
The next two results are also consequences of Lemma~\ref{lemma:Kantor}. When $q^n=p^d$ for a prime $p$, we say that a subset $L$ of $V:=V_n(q)$ is an \textit{affine} $\mathbb{F}_p$\textit{-subspace} of $V$ if $L$ is an affine subspace of the $\mathbb{F}_p$-vector space $V$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:closed}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $q$ is a power of a prime $p$, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\langle x\rangle^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for some $x\in V^*$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space whose lines are affine $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspaces of $V$. Then there exists a subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that each $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ is an $F$-subspace of $V$ with the property that $F=\{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q:\lambda u\in L\}$ for all $u\in L^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ and $B:=L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $\mathcal{S}(0)$. For $u\in B$, let $F_u:=\{\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_{q}:\lambda u\in L\}$. First we claim that $F_u$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ for all $u\in B$. Let $u\in B$, and note that $\{0,1\}\subseteq F_u$. If $|F_u|\geq 3$, then the claim holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:Kantor}. Otherwise, $|F_u|=2$, but $|F_u|\geq p$ since $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, so $p=2$, and the claim follows. Let $u,v\in B$. Now $v=u^g$ for some $g\in G_0$, so $B=B^g$, and $g$ is $\sigma$-semilinear for some $\sigma\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$, so $F_v=F_u^\sigma=F_u$. Thus we may define $F:=F_u$ for $u\in B$, and $L$ is an $F$-subspace of $V$. If $L'\in\mathcal{L}_0$, then $L'=L^g$ for some $g\in G_0$, so $L'$ also has the desired structure.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:affineplus}
Let $V:=V_n(q)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $q$ is a power of a prime $p$, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\langle x\rangle^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for some $x\in V^*$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space. If $|L\cap \langle u\rangle|\geq 3$ for some $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $u\in L^*$, then every line of $\mathcal{S}$ is an affine $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $|L\cap \langle u\rangle|\geq 3$ for some $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $u\in L^*$, then $\{\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q:\lambda u\in L\}$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:Kantor}, so $(L\cap \langle u\rangle)^{\tau_u}=L\cap \langle u\rangle$. Thus $L^{\tau_u}=L$, and we may apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}.
\end{proof}
Now we construct some dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces for $G$ in class (R0).
\begin{example}
\label{example:R0}
Let $q:=p^d$ and $V:=\mathbb{F}_q$ where $p$ is prime and $d\geq 2$. Let $G$ be an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, so that $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(q)$. Let $F:=\mathbb{F}_r$ be a proper subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $r>2$ such that $\langle x\rangle_F^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for $x\in V^*$. Write $q=r^a$. Then $G_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$, and $G_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$, so $(V,\{\langle u\rangle_F+v: u\in x^{G_0},v\in V\})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG} for $x\in V^*$.
To see that such $G$ and $F$ exist, assume that $p$ is odd and $d$ is even, and choose $F$ to be any subfield of $V=\mathbb{F}_q$ for which $[\mathbb{F}_q:F]$ is even. Let $\zeta :=\zeta_q$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_q$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}). Then $\GammaL_1(q)=\langle \zeta, \sigma\rangle$, and the orbits of $\langle \zeta^2,\sigma\rangle $ on $V^*$ are the squares $\langle \zeta^2\rangle$ and the non-squares $\langle \zeta^2\rangle \zeta$ of $\mathbb{F}_q^*$.
Let $G:=V{:}G_0$, where $G_0$ is any subgroup of $\langle \zeta^2,\sigma\rangle $ with two orbits on $V^*$. Then $G$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, and $G$ is primitive by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive} since $|x^{G_0}\cup \{0\}|=(q+1)/2$ for $x\in V^*$.
Further, since $[\mathbb{F}_q:F]$ is even, every element of $\langle 1\rangle_F^*=F^*$ is a square in $\mathbb{F}_q^*$, so $\langle x\rangle_F^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for $x\in V^*$. Thus $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\{\langle u\rangle_F+v: u\in \langle \zeta^2\rangle,v\in V\})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG}. In fact, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=V{:}\langle \zeta^2,\sigma\rangle$ since $V{:}\langle \zeta^2,\sigma\rangle$ is the automorphism group of the Paley graph with vertex set $\mathbb{F}_q$, in which vertices $x$ and $y$ are adjacent if and only if $x-y$ is a square in $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ (see~\cite[Theorem~9.1]{Jon2020}).
\end{example}
\section{Class (R1)}
\label{s:(R1)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(q^2)$ for which $\SU_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $n\geq 3$. The orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ are the non-zero isotropic vectors and the non-isotropic vectors. Note that $\SU_n(q)$ acts transitively on the set of non-zero isotropic vectors for $n\geq 3$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990}. In order to simplify the proofs in this section, we define a standard basis for a unitary space. Let $\f$ be the non-degenerate unitary form preserved by $\SU_n(q)$, and let $m$ be such that $n=2m$ or $n=2m+1$. By~\cite[Proposition~2.3.2]{KleLie1990}, $V$ has a \textit{standard basis} $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m\}$ or $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_0\}$ when $n=2m$ or $n=2m+1$, respectively, where $\f(e_i,e_j)=\f(f_i,f_j)=0$ and $\f(e_i,f_j)=\delta_{i,j}$ for all $i,j$, and when $n$ is odd, $\f(x_0,x_0)=1$ and $\f(e_i,x_0)=\f(f_i,x_0)=0$ for all $i$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R1)}
Let $V:=V_n(q^2)$ where $n\geq 3$ and $q$ is a prime power, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\SU_n(q)\unlhd G_0$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $F:=\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ and $\overline{\lambda}:=\lambda^q$ for $\lambda\in F$. Let $T:F\to \mathbb{F}_q$ be the trace map $\lambda\mapsto \lambda+\overline{\lambda}$, and let $N:F\to\mathbb{F}_q$ be the norm map $\lambda \mapsto \lambda\overline{\lambda}$. Note that both $T$ and $N$ are surjective maps. Further, $T$ has kernel $K:=\mathbb{F}_q\tau$ for some $\tau\in F^*$.
Suppose for a contradiction that $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $F$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $\f$ be the non-degenerate unitary form preserved by $\SU_n(q)$. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$. Since $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is $F$-independent, $B\setminus \langle x\rangle$ is non-empty. Let $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$.
First suppose that $x$ is isotropic. Let $m$ be such that $n=2m$ or $n=2m+1$. Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m\}$ or $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m,x_0\}$ be a standard basis of $V$ when $n=2m$ or $n=2m+1$, respectively. In either case, we denote this basis by $\mathcal{B}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $x=e_1$.
For $\lambda\in F$, define $V_{x,\lambda}:=\{w \in V^*: \f(w,w)=0\ \mbox{and}\ \f(x,w)=\lambda \}$.
We claim that if $\lambda\neq 0$, then $\SU_n(q)_x$ acts transitively on $V_{x,\lambda}$. We may assume that $\lambda=1$. Note that $f_1\in V_{x,1}$, and let $u\in V_{x,1}$. Then $u=\varepsilon e_1+f_1+u_0$ for some $\varepsilon\in F$ and $u_0\in \langle e_1,f_1\rangle^\perp$. There exists $g\in \SL_n(q^2)$ such that $e_1^g=e_1$, $f_1^g=u$ and $w^g=-\f(w,u)e_1+w$ for $w\in \mathcal{B}\setminus \{e_1,f_1\}$. Now $\f(v_1^g,v_2^g)=\f(v_1,v_2)$ for all $v_1,v_2\in V$, so $g\in \SU_n(q)_x$ and the claim holds.
Next we claim that if $n\geq 5$, then $\SU_n(q)_x$ acts transitively on $V_{x,0}\setminus \langle x\rangle$. Note that $e_2\in V_{x,0}\setminus \langle x\rangle$, and let $u\in V_{x,0}\setminus \langle x\rangle$. Then $u=\varepsilon e_1+u_0$ for some $\varepsilon\in F$ and non-zero isotropic vector $u_0\in \langle e_1,f_1\rangle^\perp$. Since $n\geq 4$, there exists $g\in \SL_n(q^2)$ such that $e_2^g=\varepsilon e_1+e_2$, $f_1^g=f_1-\overline{\varepsilon} f_2$ and $w^g=w$ for $w\in \mathcal{B}\setminus \{e_2,f_1\}$. Now $\f(v_1^g,v_2^g)=\f(v_1,v_2)$ for all $v_1,v_2\in V$, so $g\in \SU_n(q)_x$. Moreover,
we may view $\SU_{n-2}(q)$ as a subgroup of $\SU_n(q)$ that fixes $\langle e_1,f_1\rangle$ pointwise and acts naturally on $\langle e_1,f_1\rangle^\perp$,
and there exists $h\in \SU_{n-2}(q)$ such that $e_2^h=u_0$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990} since $n\geq 5$. Now $gh\in \SU_n(q)_x$ and $e_2^{gh}=u$, so the claim holds.
Choose $\mu\in F\setminus K$ and let $\lambda:=\f(x,y)$. First suppose that either $n\geq 4$ and $\lambda \neq 0$, or $n\geq 5$ and $\lambda=0$. Now $\SU_n(q)_x$ acts transitively on $V_{x,\lambda}\setminus \langle x\rangle$ by the claims above, so $V_{x,\lambda}\setminus \langle x\rangle\subseteq B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii). In particular, $\overline{\lambda}f_1+\mu e_2$ and $\overline{\lambda}f_1+f_2$ are elements of $B$, but then $z:=\mu e_2 -f_2$ is isotropic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction since $\f(z,z)=-(\mu+\overline{\mu})\neq 0$.
Next suppose that $n=3$. Now $V_{x,0}=\langle x\rangle$, so $\lambda\neq 0$. Again, $V_{x,\lambda}\subseteq B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii). Choose distinct $\delta,\varepsilon\in F$ such that $N(\delta)=N(\varepsilon)=-N(\lambda)T(\mu)$. Now
$\mu\overline{\lambda}e_1+\overline{\lambda}f_1+\delta x_0$ and $\mu\overline{\lambda}e_1+\overline{\lambda}f_1+\varepsilon x_0$ are elements of $V_{x,\lambda}$ and therefore $B$, but then $(\delta-\varepsilon)x_0$ is isotropic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction.
Hence $n=4$ and $\lambda=0$. Let $\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_{q}$ be a transversal for $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ in $F^*$. Recall that $\tau\in F^*$ and $\tau+\overline{\tau}=0$. For $0\leq i\leq q$, let
$\Lambda_i:=\langle \lambda_i e_2,\lambda_i\tau f_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$ and $\Delta_i:=\{\delta e_1+u : \delta\in F,u\in \Lambda_i^*\}$.
It is straightforward to verify that the orbits of $\SU_4(q)_x$ on $V_{x,0}\setminus \langle x\rangle$ are $\Delta_0,\ldots,\Delta_q$ since the orbits of $\SU_2(q)$ on the isotropic vectors in $\langle e_2,f_2\rangle^*$ are $\Lambda_0^*,\ldots,\Lambda_q^*$. Thus $\Delta_i\subseteq B$ for some $i$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), in which case $\lambda_i e_2$ and $\lambda_i\tau f_2$ are elements of $B$. There exists $g\in G_{0,B}$ such that $(\lambda_ie_2)^g=x$. Now $z:=(\lambda_i\tau f_{2})^g\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$ and $\f(x,z)=\f(\lambda_i e_2,\lambda_i\tau f_2)\neq 0$, but we have already seen (replacing $y$ by $z$ above) that this leads to a contradiction.
Thus $x$ is non-isotropic. Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $V$ (which exists by~\cite[Proposition~2.3.1]{KleLie1990}). We may assume without loss of generality that $x=v_1$. Now $B$ consists of non-isotropic vectors, so $\delta:=\f(y,y)\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$. Let $\lambda:=\f(x,y)$ and $\varepsilon:= \delta-\lambda\overline{\lambda}\in \mathbb{F}_q$. Define
$\Gamma:=\{v\in V\setminus \langle x\rangle: \f(v,v)=\delta,\f(x,v)=\lambda\}$. Let $W:=\langle x\rangle$, $U:=W^\perp$ and $U_\varepsilon:=\{u\in U^*: \f(u,u)=\varepsilon\}$. Now $\Gamma=\{\overline{\lambda}x+u : u\in U_\varepsilon\}$. Observe that if either $n\geq 4$, or $n=3$ and $\varepsilon\neq 0$, then $\SU_n(q)_x$ acts transitively on $\Gamma$ since $\SU_{n-1}(q)$ acts transitively (as a subgroup of $\SU_n(q)_x$) on $U_\varepsilon$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990}, so $\Gamma\subseteq B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii).
First suppose that $\varepsilon=0$. By the above observations, there exist $\lambda_2,\lambda_3\in F^*$ such that $N(\lambda_2)+N(\lambda_3)=0$ and $z_1:=\overline{\lambda}x+\lambda_2v_2+\lambda_3v_3\in B$ (we may take $z_1=y$ when $n=3$). Choose $\mu\in F^*$ such that $\mu\neq 1$ and $\mu\overline{\mu}=1$. Let
$z_2:=\overline{\lambda}x+\mu\lambda_2v_2+\overline{\mu}\lambda_3v_3$. There exists $g\in \SU_n(q)_x$ such that $v_2^g=\mu v_2$, $v_3^g=\overline{\mu}v_3$ and $v_i^g=v_i$ for $i\geq 4$. Now $z_2=z_1^g\in B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), but $z_2-z_1$ is isotropic, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i).
Hence $\varepsilon\neq 0$ and $\Gamma\subseteq B$. It suffices to find distinct $z_1,z_2\in \Gamma$ such that $z_2-z_1$ is isotropic, for this will contradict Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i).
If $q=2$, then $\varepsilon=1$, so we may take $z_1$ and $z_2$ to be $\overline{\lambda}x+v_2$ and $\overline{\lambda}x+v_3$. Thus $q\geq 3$. Now $|K|\geq 3$, so there exists $\mu\in F^*$ such that $\mu\neq 1$ and $\mu+\overline{\mu}=2$ (including when $q$ is even). Let $F^*=\langle \zeta\rangle$, and write $\varepsilon=\zeta^{i(q+1)}$ and $\mu=\zeta^{j-i}$ where $1\leq i\leq q-1$ and $1\leq j-i< q^2-1$. Choose $\alpha\in F$ such that $\alpha\overline{\alpha}=\varepsilon-\zeta^j\zeta^{jq}$. Let $z_1:=\overline{\lambda}x+\zeta^iv_2$ and $z_2:=\overline{\lambda}x+\zeta^jv_2+\alpha v_3$. Now $z_1$ and $z_2$ are distinct elements of $\Gamma$ since $\zeta^i\neq \zeta^j$. Further, $$\f(z_1,z_2)+\f(z_2,z_1)-2\lambda\overline{\lambda}=\zeta^i\zeta^{jq}+\zeta^j\zeta^{iq}=(\zeta^{(j-i)q}+\zeta^{j-i})\zeta^{i(q+1)}=2\varepsilon=2\delta-2\lambda \overline{\lambda},$$
so $\f(z_2-z_1,z_2-z_1)=2\delta-\f(z_2,z_1)-\f(z_1,z_2)=0$. Thus $z_2-z_1$ is isotropic.
\end{proof}
\section{Class (R2)}
\label{s:(R2)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_{2m}(q)$ for which $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$ where either $m\geq 3$ and $\varepsilon=\pm$, or $m=2$ and $\varepsilon=-$. The orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ consist of the non-zero singular vectors and the non-singular vectors. In order to simplify the proofs in this section, we define a standard basis for a quadratic space. Let $Q$ be the non-degenerate quadratic form preserved by $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)$, and let $\f$ be the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form associated with $Q$ (so $\f(x,y)=Q(x+y)-Q(x)-Q(y)$ for all $x,y\in V$).
By~\cite[Proposition~2.5.3]{KleLie1990}, if
$\varepsilon=+$, then $V$ has a basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m\}$ where $Q(e_i)=Q(f_i)=\f(e_i,e_j)=\f(f_i,f_j)=0$ and $\f(e_i,f_j)=\delta_{i,j}$ for all $i,j$. Further, if $\varepsilon=-$, then
$V$ has a basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_{m-1},f_1,\ldots,f_{m-1},x_0,y_0\}$ where $Q(e_i)=Q(f_i)=\f(e_i,e_j)=\f(f_i,f_j)=\f(e_i,x_0)=\f(f_i,x_0)=\f(e_i,y_0)=\f(f_i,y_0)=0$ and $\f(e_i,f_j)=\delta_{i,j}$ for all $i,j$, and $Q(x_0)=1$, $\f(x_0,y_0)=1$ and $Q(y_0)=\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_q$ such that the polynomial $X^2+X+\alpha$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{F}_q$; we then define $e_m:=x_0$ and $f_m:=y_0$. In either case, we refer to $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m\}$ as a \textit{standard basis} of $V$.
First we consider the case where $m\geq 3$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R2)mbig}
Let $V:=V_{2m}(q)$ where $m\geq 3$ and $q$ is a prime power, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $\varepsilon=\pm$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be the non-degenerate quadratic form preserved by $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)$, let $\f$ be the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form associated with $Q$, and let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m,f_1,\ldots,f_m\}$ be a standard basis for $V$. Suppose
for a contradiction that $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$. By assumption, $B\setminus \langle x\rangle$ is non-empty.
Let $U:=\langle e_1,f_1\rangle$ and $W:=U^\perp$, and note that $V=U\oplus W$ since $U$ is non-degenerate. We may view $\Omega^\varepsilon_{2m-2}(q)$ as a subgroup of $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)$ that fixes $\langle e_1,f_1\rangle$ pointwise and acts naturally on $W$ by~\cite[Lemma 4.1.1]{KleLie1990}. For $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q$, the group $\Omega^\varepsilon_{2m-2}(q)$ acts transitively on $W_\lambda:=\{w\in W^*: Q(w)=\lambda\}$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990} since $m\geq 3$. The following consequence of Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii) will be used repeatedly without reference below: if $x\in U$ and
$u+w\in B$ where $u\in U$ and $w\in W^*$, then $u+z\in B$ for all $z\in W_{Q(w)}$.
First suppose that $x=e_1$, in which case $B$ consists of singular vectors. Choose $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$, and write $y=u+w$ where $u\in U$ and $w\in W$. Since $y-x$ is singular by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), it follows that $\f(y,e_1)=0$. Then $\f(u,e_1)=0$, so $u\in \langle x\rangle$. Since $y\not\in\langle x\rangle$, it follows that $w$ is a non-zero singular vector. Thus $u+e_2$ and $u+f_2$ are elements of $B$, but then $e_2-f_2$ is singular by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction.
Thus we may assume that $x=e_1+f_1$, in which case $B$ consists of non-singular vectors. We claim that $B \subseteq U$. Suppose for a contradiction that there exists $y\in B\setminus U$. Write $y=u+w$ where $u\in U$ and $w\in W^*$. Let $\lambda:=Q(w)$. If either $\varepsilon=+$, or $\varepsilon=-$ and $m\geq 4$, then $u+\lambda e_2+f_2+e_3$ and $u+\lambda e_2+f_2$ are elements of $B$, but then $e_3$ is non-singular by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction. Thus $m=3$ and $\varepsilon=-$ (so $e_3$ and $f_3$ are non-singular). If $\lambda\neq 0$, then there exist $\mu_1,\mu_2\in\mathbb{F}_q$ such that $Q(\mu_1 e_3+\mu_2 f_3)=\lambda$ (see the remark after~\cite[Proposition 2.5.3]{KleLie1990}), in which case $u+e_2+\mu_1 e_3+\mu_2 f_3$ and $u+\mu_1 e_3+\mu_2 f_3$ are elements of $B$, but then $e_2$ is non-singular by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction. Thus $\lambda=0$. If $q>2$, then there exists $\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q^*\setminus \{1\}$,
in which case $u+e_2$ and $u+\mu e_2$ are elements of $B$, but then $(\mu-1)e_2$ is non-singular by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction. Thus $q=2$. In particular, $L$ is a subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. Therefore, since $u+e_2$, $u+f_2$ and $u+e_2+f_2+e_3$ are elements of $B$, it follows $u+e_3\in B$, but $Q(e_3)\neq 0$, so this is a contradiction, as above in the case $\lambda\neq 0$.
Thus $B\subseteq U$. Choose $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$. In order to obtain a contradiction, it suffices to find $g\in \Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)_x$ such that $y^g\notin U$. There exists $g_1\in \GL_{2m}(q)$ such that $e_1^{g_1}=e_1+e_2$, $f_1^{g_1}=f_1-e_2$, $ e_2^{g_1}= e_1-f_1+e_2+f_2$, $f_2^{g_1}=e_2$ and $g_1$ fixes $\{e_3,\ldots,e_m,f_3,\ldots,f_m\}$ pointwise, and there exists $g_2\in \GL_{2m}(q)$ that fixes $\{e_1,e_3,\ldots, e_m,f_1,f_3,\ldots,f_m\}$ pointwise and interchanges $e_2$ and $f_2$. Let
$g:=g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}g_1g_2$. Now $Q(v^{g_i})=Q(v)$ for $v\in V$ and $i\in \{1,2\}$, so $g\in \Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)_x$
(see the definition of $\Omega_{2m}^\varepsilon(q)$ in~\cite[\S 2.5, Descriptions~$1$ and~$2$]{KleLie1990}). Write $y=\delta_1 e_1+\delta_2 f_1$ where $\delta_1,\delta_2\in\mathbb{F}_q$, and note that $\delta_1\neq \delta_2$ since $y\notin\langle x\rangle$.
Now $(\delta_1 e_1+\delta_2 f_1+(\delta_2-\delta_1)f_2)^{g_1}=y$, so $y^g=\delta_2 e_1+\delta_1 f_1+(\delta_2-\delta_1) e_2\notin U$, as desired.
\end{proof}
In contrast to the case where $m\geq 3$, an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space does exist when $m=2$ and $q=3$. We describe this example now.
\begin{example}
\label{example:(R2)}
Let $G_0:=M_{10}\simeq A_6.2\simeq \Omega_4^-(3).2$. Let $V$ be one of the irreducible $\mathbb{F}_3G_0$-modules of dimension $4$. (There are two such modules, but the corresponding groups are conjugate in $\GL_4(3)$.) Let $G:=V{:}G_0$. Now $G$ has subdegrees $20$ and $60$, and the restriction of $V$ to $H_0:=A_6$ is irreducible, so it is isomorphic to the fully deleted permutation module $D=S/W$ where $S=\{(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_6)\in \mathbb{F}_3^6{:} \sum_{i=1}^6 \lambda_i=0\}$ and $W=\{(\lambda,\ldots,\lambda):\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_3\}$. With this viewpoint, $H_0$ has orbits of sizes $20$, $30$ and $30$ containing $(1,1,1,0,0,0)+W$, $(1,-1,0,0,0,0)+W$ and $(1,-1,1,-1,0,0)+W$, respectively. Let $x:=(1,0,0,0,0,-1)+W$ and $B:=x^{K_0}$ where $K_0$ is the subgroup of $H_0$ that fixes $6$. Let $\mathcal{L}:=L^G$ where $L:=B\cup\{0\}$. We claim that $\mathcal{M}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $6$ and point-size $12$: by Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}, it suffices to show that $B$ is a block of $G_0$ and that there exists $h\in H_L$ for which $0^h=x$ where $H:=V{:}H_0$. Let $C$ be the orbit of $H_0$ containing $x$. Now $C$ is a block of $G_0$, so $G_{0,x}\leq G_{0,C}=H_0$. Thus $G_{0,x}$ is the subgroup of $H_0$ that fixes $1$ and $6$. Since $G_{0,x}\leq K_0$, it follows that $B$ is a block of $G_0$. Define $h:=\tau_v (1 2 6)$ where $v:=(0,-1,0,0,0,1)+W$. Then $h\in H_L$ and $0^h=x$, so the claim holds. Using {\sc Magma}, we verify that $\Aut(\mathcal{M})=G$. Note that if we instead choose $K_0$ to be the subgroup of $H_0$ that fixes $1$, then we obtain another $G$-affine proper partial linear space (to see this, take $h:=\tau_v(162)$ where $v:=(-1,1,0,0,0,0)+W$), but we will see in Proposition~\ref{prop:(R2)msmall} that these partial linear spaces are isomorphic. Note also that $G_0$ has no proper subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$.
\end{example}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R2)msmall}
Let $V:=V_{4}(q)$ where $q$ is a prime power, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\Omega_{4}^-(q)\unlhd G_0$.
There is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$ if and only if $q=3$, $G_0=M_{10}$ and $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{M}$ or $\mathcal{M}^g$ where $g\in N_{\GL_4(3)}(G_0)\setminus G_0$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is the partial linear space of Example~\emph{\ref{example:(R2)}}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $S:=\Omega_{4}^-(q)$, and note that $S\simeq \PSL_2(q^2)$. Let $Q$ be the non-degenerate quadratic form preserved by $S$, let $\f$ be the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form associated with $V$, and let $\{e_1,e_2,f_1,f_2\}$ be a standard basis for $V$. By~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990}, the orbits of $S$ on $V^*$ are $V_\lambda:=\{v\in V^*: Q(v)=\lambda\}$ for $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q$. In particular, since $V$ contains $q(q^2+1)(q-1)$ non-singular vectors, it follows that $|V_\lambda|=q(q^2+1)$ for $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$.
Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}, $G$ is primitive, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a non-trivial block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$. If $x$ is singular, then $y$ is singular and $y\in \langle x\rangle^\perp$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), but then $y\in\langle x\rangle$, a contradiction. Thus $x$ is non-singular, and $B$ consists of non-singular vectors.
First we claim that $S_x\simeq \PSL_2(q)$. Note that $|S_x|=q(q^2-1)/(2,q-1)=|\PSL_2(q)|$.
If $q$ is odd, then $\langle x\rangle$ is non-degenerate, so $\Omega_3(q)$ is a subgroup of $S$ that fixes $\langle x\rangle$ pointwise by~\cite[Lemma 4.1.1(iii)]{KleLie1990}; thus $\PSL_2(q)\simeq \Omega_3(q)\leq S_x$, and the claim follows.
Otherwise $q$ is even, in which case $S_x=S_{\langle x\rangle}$, and $S_{\langle x\rangle}\simeq \Sp_2(q)$ by the proof of~\cite[Proposition 4.1.7]{KleLie1990} (which is only stated for orthogonal groups with larger dimension). Thus $S_x\simeq \PSL_2(q)$, as desired.
If $q=2$, then $S$ is transitive on non-singular vectors and $S\simeq A_5$. By the claim, $S_x\simeq S_3$, so $S_x$ is maximal in $S$, in which case $B=x^S=x^{G_0}$, a contradiction. Thus $q>2$.
Let $M$ be a maximal subgroup of $S$ containing $S_x$. We claim that either $[M:S_x]\leq 2$, or $q=3$ and $M\simeq A_5$. If $q\neq 3$, then since $S_x\simeq \PSL_2(q)$, it follows from~\cite[Table 8.17]{BraHolRon2013} (see also Dickson~\cite{Dic1901}) that $M\simeq \PGL_2(q)$, in which case $[M:S_x]\leq 2$. If $q=3$, then $S\simeq A_6$ and $S_x\simeq A_4$, and the claim follows.
Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$. We next claim that either $|B\cap V_\lambda|\leq 2$, or $q=3$ and $S_{B\cap V_\lambda}\simeq A_5$. Let $z\in B\cap V_\lambda$. Now $V_\lambda$ is an orbit of $S$ and $B$ is a block of $G_0$, so $B\cap V_\lambda$ is a block of $S$ in its action on $V_\lambda$, and $S_z\leq S_{B\cap V_\lambda}$. If $V_\lambda\subseteq B$, then some conjugate of $B$ contains $V_1$, but $Q(f_1+e_2)=1=Q(e_2)$, while $f_1$ is singular, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i). Thus $S_{B\cap V_\lambda}$ lies in some maximal subgroup $M$ of $S$. If $q=3$ and $M\simeq A_5$, then since $ S_z\simeq A_4$, we conclude that $B\cap V_\lambda =\{z\}$ or $S_{B\cap V_\lambda}\simeq A_5$, as desired. Otherwise, $|B\cap V_\lambda|\leq [M:S_z]\leq 2$ by the previous claim.
We may assume that $x=e_2$ (since $x$ is non-singular). Suppose that $q$ is even. Let $U:=\langle e_1,f_1\rangle$ and $W:=U^\perp=\langle e_2,f_2\rangle$. Suppose that there exists $z\in B\setminus W$. Write $z=u+w$ where $u\in U^*$ and $w\in W$. Now $\{u^g+w:g \in \Omega_2^+(q)\}\subseteq B\cap V_{Q(z)}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), but the orbits of $\Omega_2^+(q)$ on $U^*$ all have size $q-1$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990}, so $|B\cap V_{Q(z)}|>2$, a contradiction. Hence $B\subseteq W$. Now $y=\delta_1e_2+\delta_2f_2$ for some $\delta_1,\delta_2\in \mathbb{F}_q$ where $\delta_2\neq 0$. For $e\in \{e_1+e_2,e_2\}$, the reflection $r_e$ is an isometry of $(V,Q)$ for which $v\mapsto v+\f(e,v)e$ for all $v\in V$. By~\cite[p.30]{KleLie1990},
$g:=r_{e_1+e_2}r_{e_2}\in S$ since $g$ is a product of two reflections. Now $x^g=x$, so $y^g\in B$, but $f_2^g=e_1+f_2$, so
$y^g=\delta_2 e_1 + y\not\in W$, a contradiction.
Thus $q$ is odd. Now $\Omega_3(q)=S_x$. Let
$U:=\langle x\rangle$ and $W:=U^\perp$. Write $y=u+w$ where $u\in U$ and $w\in W^*$. Let $\lambda:=Q(y)$. Now $\{u+w^g:g\in \Omega_3(q) \}\subseteq B\cap V_\lambda$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), but
the orbits of $\Omega_3(q)$ on $W^*$ have sizes $(q^2-1)/2$, $q(q+1)$ and $q(q-1)$ by~\cite[Lemma 2.10.5]{KleLie1990}, none of which are at most $2$. Thus $q=3$ and $S_{B\cap V_\lambda}\simeq A_5$. In particular, $|B\cap V_{\lambda}|=5$.
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary} and {\sc Magma}, we determine that this is only possible if $G_0= M_{10}$ and $|B|=5$. Further, $G_0$ has exactly two such blocks, say $B_1$ and $B_2$, and by Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}, both $(B_1\cup\{0\})^G$ and $(B_2\cup\{0\})^G$ are $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces, so one must be $\mathcal{M}$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is the partial linear space of Example~\ref{example:(R2)}. Since $N_{\GL_4(3)}(G_0)=M_{10}.2$, the other is $\mathcal{M}^g$ where $g\in N_{\GL_4(3)}(G_0)\setminus G_0$.
\end{proof}
\section{Class (R3)}
\label{s:(R3)}
Recall that the exterior square $\bigwedge^2(W)$ of a vector space $W:=V_n(q)$ is the quotient of $W\otimes W$ by the ideal $I:=\langle u\otimes u: u\in W\rangle$, and we write $u\wedge v$ for $u\otimes v+I$. A non-zero vector of $\bigwedge^2(W)$ is \textit{simple} whenever it can be written in the form $u\wedge v$ for some $u,v\in W$. Note that $u\wedge u=0$ and $u\wedge v=-v\wedge u$ for all $u,v\in W$. Further, if $\{u_1,\ldots,u_n\}$ is a basis for $W$, then $\{u_i\wedge u_j:1\leq i<j\leq n\}$ is a basis for $\bigwedge^2(W)$. Lastly, $\GammaL(W)$ acts on $\bigwedge^2(W)$ by $(u\wedge v)^g=u^g\wedge v^g$ for all $g\in \GammaL(W)$ and $u,v\in W$. The kernel of this action is $\langle -1\rangle$ for $n\geq 3$.
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=\bigwedge^2(V_5(q))$ for which $\SL_5(q)\unlhd G_0$. The orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ consist of the set of simple vectors and the set of non-simple vectors.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R3)}
Let $V:=\bigwedge^2(V_5(q))$ where $q$ is a prime power. Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\SL_5(q)\unlhd G_0$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for a contradiction that $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$.
First suppose that $x$ is simple. Then $x=x_1\wedge x_2$ for some linearly independent $x_1,x_2\in V_5(q)$ and $y=y_1\wedge y_2$ for some linearly independent $y_1,y_2\in V_5(q)$. If $ x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ are linearly independent, then $y-x$ is not simple, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), so $\mu_1x_1+\mu_2x_2 +\mu_3y_1+\mu_4y_2=0$ for some $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_4\in \mathbb{F}_q$ where $\mu_i\neq 0$ for some $i$. If $\mu_3=\mu_4=0$, then we have a contradiction, so without loss of generality, we may assume that $\mu_3\neq 0$. Hence $y=v_1\wedge v_2$ where $v_2:=y_2$ and $v_1:=\lambda_1 x_1+\lambda_2 x_2$ for some $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in \mathbb{F}_q$.
Now $x_1,x_2,v_2$ are linearly independent since $y\notin \langle x\rangle$, so we may choose $v_3\in V_5(q)$ such that $x_1,x_2,v_2,v_3$ are linearly independent, and there exists $g\in \SL_5(q)$ such that $x_1^g=x_1$, $x_2^g=x_2$ and $v_2^g=v_3$. Then $x^g=x$, so $z:=v_1\wedge v_3=y^g\in B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii). Since $v_1,v_2,v_3$ are linearly independent, there exists $v_4\in V_5(q)$ such that $v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4$ are linearly independent, and there exists $h\in \SL_5(q)$ such that $v_1^h=v_3$, $v_3^h=-v_1$ and $v_2^h=v_4$. Then $z^h=z$, so $v_3\wedge v_4=(v_1\wedge v_2)^h\in B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii). Thus $v_1\wedge v_2-v_3\wedge v_4$ is simple by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction.
Thus $x$ is not simple, in which case $x=x_1\wedge x_2+x_3\wedge x_4$ for some linearly independent $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\in V_5(q)$ and $y=y_1\wedge y_2+y_3\wedge y_4$ for some linearly independent $y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\in V_5(q)$. Suppose that $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_4$ are linearly independent. We may assume without loss of generality that $y_1,y_2,y_3\in \langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\rangle$. Choose $x_0\in \langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\rangle \setminus \langle y_3\rangle$. There exists $g\in \SL_5(q)$ such that $x_i^g=x_i$ for $1\leq i\leq 4$ and $y_4^g=x_0+y_4$. Then $x^g=x$ and $y^g-y=y_3\wedge x_0\neq 0$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}. By symmetry, we conclude that $y_i\in \langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\rangle$ for $1\leq i\leq 4$. Now $y=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq 4}\lambda_{i,j} x_i\wedge x_j$ for some $\lambda_{i,j}\in\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $x_0:=\lambda_{1,3}x_3+\lambda_{1,4}x_4$. There exists $h\in \SL_5(q)$ such that $x_1^h=x_1+x_2$ and $x_i^h=x_i$ for $2\leq i\leq 4$. Now $x^h=x$ and $y^h-y= x_2\wedge x_0$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}, $x_0=0$. By exchanging the roles of $x_1$ and $x_2$ in this argument, we see that $y=\lambda x_1\wedge x_2+\mu x_3\wedge x_4$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb{F}_q$. Note that $\lambda\neq \mu$ since $y\notin \langle x\rangle$. There exists $k\in \SL_5(q)$ such that $x_1^k=x_1+x_3$, $x_4^k=x_4-x_2$ and $x_i^k=x_i$ for $i=2,3$. Then $x^k=x$ and $y^k-y=(\lambda-\mu) x_3\wedge x_2\neq 0$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}.
\end{proof}
\section{Class (R4)}
\label{s:(R4)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V_4(q)$ for which $\Sz(q)\unlhd G_0$, where $q=2^{2n+1}$. Recall that the group $G$ has suborbits of size $(q-1)(q^2+1)$ and $q(q-1)(q^2+1)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R4)}
Let $V:=V_4(q)$ where $q:=2^{2n+1}$ for some $n\geq 1$, and let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\Sz(q)\unlhd G_0$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We follow the notation of~\cite{Suz1962}. Let $\theta\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ where $\alpha^\theta=\alpha^{2^{n+1}}$ for all $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_q$. For $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{F}_q$, define $f(\alpha,\beta):=\alpha^{\theta+2} +\alpha\beta+\beta^\theta$,
$$
[\alpha,\beta]:=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\alpha & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\alpha^{\theta+1}+\beta & \alpha^\theta & 1 & 0 \\
f(\alpha,\beta) & \beta & \alpha & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix},
\tau:=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix},
$$
and observe that $[\alpha,\beta][\gamma,\delta]=[\alpha+\gamma,\alpha \gamma^\theta+\beta+\delta]$ for all $\gamma,\delta\in\mathbb{F}_q$.
We also define
\begin{align*}
Q(q)&:=\{[\alpha,\beta]:\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{F}_q\},\\
K(q)&:=\{\diag(\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1},\kappa^{\theta^{-1}},(\kappa^{\theta^{-1}})^{-1},(\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1})^{-1}):\kappa\in \mathbb{F}_q^*\},\\
H(q)&:=\langle Q(q),K(q)\rangle,\\
\Sz(q)&:=\langle H(q),\tau\rangle.
\end{align*}
Clearly $Q(q)$ is a group of order $q^2$. Note that if $\kappa^{\theta+1}=1$ for some $\kappa\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$, then $\kappa=1$ since the integers $q-1$ and $2^{n+1}+1$ are coprime, so $\{\kappa^{\theta+1}:\kappa\in\mathbb{F}_q^*\}=\mathbb{F}_q^*$. Now $K(q)$ is a cyclic group of order $q-1$, and $K(q)$ normalises $Q(q)$, so $H(q)=Q(q){:}K(q)$ and $|H(q)|=q^2(q-1)$. Let $\Sz(q)$ act on $V$ with respect to the basis $\{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$.
By~\cite[Theorem 7]{Suz1962} and its proof, $\Sz(q)$ has order $q^2(q-1)(q^2+1)$ and every element of $\Sz(q)\setminus H(q)$ has the form $h_1\tau h_2$ for some $h_1\in H(q)$ and $h_2\in Q(q)$. It follows that $\Sz(q)_{v_1}=Q(q)$ and
$$\Omega_1:=v_1^{\Sz(q)}=\{\lambda v_1:\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*\}\cup\{\mu(f(\alpha,\beta)v_1+\beta v_2 +\alpha v_3+v_4):\mu\in\mathbb{F}_q^*,\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{F}_q\},
$$
a set of size $(q-1)(q^2+1)$.
Moreover, $\Sz(q)_{v_2}=\{[0,\beta]:\beta\in\mathbb{F}_q\}$ and $\Omega_2:=v_2^{\Sz(q)}$ is a set of size $q(q-1)(q^2+1)$. Hence $V{:}\Sz(q)$ is itself a rank~$3$ permutation group on $V$.
Suppose for a contradiction that $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Then $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is also a $(V{:}\Sz(q))$-affine partial linear space. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}, $V{:}\Sz(q)$ is primitive, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a non-trivial block of $\Sz(q)$ on $x^{\Sz(q)}$.
By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$. Now $y=\sum_{i=1}^4\lambda_i v_i$ for some $\lambda_i\in \mathbb{F}_q$. If $x=v_1$, then $y\in \Omega_1\setminus \langle v_1\rangle$, so $\lambda_4\neq 0$, but
$x^{[0,1]}=x$ and $y^{[0,1]}-y=(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)v_1+\lambda_4 v_2\notin x^{\Sz(q)}$,
contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}. It follows that $x\not\in \Omega_1$, so $x\in \Omega_2$, and we may assume without loss of generality that $x=v_2$.
Observe that $\Sz(q)_x\leq \Sz(q)_B<\Sz(q)$. Now $q$ divides $|\Sz(q)_B|$, so $\Sz(q)_B\leq H(q)^g$ for some $g\in \Sz(q)$ by~\cite[Theorem 9]{Suz1962}. If $g\notin H(q)$, then $H(q)^g= H(q)^{\tau h}$ for some $h\in Q(q)$, but $\Sz(q)_x=Z(Q(q))$, so $\Sz(q)_x \leq H(q)^\tau$, a contradiction since $\tau$ conjugates any lower triangular matrix to an upper triangular matrix. Hence $g\in H(q)$, so $\Sz(q)_B\leq H(q)$.
Let $C:=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle\setminus \langle v_1\rangle$. Now $\Sz(q)_C=H(q)$ and $C$ is a block of $\Sz(q)$ in its action on~$\Omega_2$. Thus $B\subseteq C$. In particular, $|B|$ divides $q(q-1)$. Moreover, $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_2$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}, so $|B|$ divides $q-1$. Observe that $\Sz(q)_x$ is the kernel of the action of $H(q)$ on $C$, so $\overline{H}:=H(q)/\Sz(q)_x$ acts regularly on $C$. Thus $|\overline{H}_B|$ divides $q-1$.
Let $\overline{Q}:=Q(q)/\Sz(q)_x$ and $\overline{K}:=K(q)\Sz(q)_x/\Sz(q)_x\simeq K(q)$. Note that $\overline{H}=\overline{Q}{:}\overline{K}$. Further, $|\overline{Q}|=q$ and $|\overline{K}|=q-1$. Now $\overline{H}_B\cap \overline{Q}=1$. In particular, $\overline{H}_B$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\overline{H}/\overline{Q}\simeq \overline{K}$, so $\overline{H}_B$ is cyclic. Let $h$ be a generator of $\overline{H}_B$. We claim that $h\in \overline{K}^g$ for some $g\in \overline{Q}$. Observe that $\overline{K}\cap \overline{K}^g=1$ for all $g\in \overline{Q}\setminus \{1\}$, so $$|\overline{H}\setminus (\bigcup_{g\in \overline{Q}}\overline{K}^g)|=|\overline{H}|-(|\overline{Q}|(|\overline{K}|-1)+1)=|\overline{Q}|-1.$$ Thus $\overline{Q}\setminus \{1\}=\overline{H}\setminus (\bigcup_{g\in \overline{Q}}\overline{K}^g)$, and the claim follows.
Hence $\overline{H}_B\leq \overline{K}^g$ for some $g\in \overline{Q}$. It follows that $B\subseteq \{\alpha (\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1}+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}})v_1+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}}v_2: \kappa\in \mathbb{F}_q^*\}$ for some $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_q$. Note that $\alpha\neq 0$, or else $B\subseteq \langle x\rangle$. Since $|B|\geq 2$, there exists $\kappa\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ such that $\kappa\neq 1$ and $\alpha (\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1}+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}})v_1+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}}v_2\in B$, and since $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_2$-subspace of $V$, $\alpha (\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1}+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}})v_1+(\kappa^{\theta^{-1}}+1)v_2\in B$. Note that $\kappa^{\theta^{-1}}+1=(\kappa+1)^{\theta^{-1}}$. Now
$$\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1}+\kappa^{\theta^{-1}}=(\kappa+1)^{\theta^{-1}+1}+(\kappa+1)^{\theta^{-1}}=\kappa^{\theta^{-1}+1}+\kappa.$$
Thus $\kappa^\theta=\kappa$, but then $\kappa=\kappa^\theta=\kappa^{\theta^2}=\kappa^2$, so $\kappa=1$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Class (R5)}
\label{s:(R5)}
In order to determine the $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces where $G$ belongs to (R5), we first outline the theory of spin modules and the quasisimple group $\spin_m^\varepsilon(q)$. Our exposition closely follows Chevalley's treatise on the subject~\cite{Che1996}.
Let $W:=V_m(q)$ where $m\geq 7$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $Q$ be a non-degenerate quadratic form on $W$ with associated non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $\f$. (In particular, if $m$ is odd, then $q$ is odd.) Let $\varepsilon$ be the type of $Q$, where $\varepsilon\in\{+,-,\circ\}$. The \textit{Clifford algebra} $C(W,Q)=C$ is defined to be the algebra $T/I$, where $T$ is the tensor algebra of $W$ (see~\cite{ShuSur2015}) and $I$ is the ideal generated by $v\otimes v-Q(v)$ for all $v\in W$. We view $W$ as a subspace of $C$ by identifying each $v\in W$ with $v+I$. Similarly, we view $\mathbb{F}_q$ as a subalgebra of $C$ by identifying each $\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_q$ with $\lambda+I$. We also suppress the notation~$\otimes$. Now $v^2=Q(v)$ and $vw+wv=\f(v,w)$ for all $v,w\in V$.
By~\cite[II.1.2]{Che1996}, for any basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$ of $W$, the Clifford algebra has a basis consisting of the products $v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_k}$ for $1\leq k\leq m$ and integers $i_1,\ldots,i_k$ such that $1\leq i_1<\cdots<i_k\leq m$, as well as the empty product $1$. In particular, $C$ has dimension $2^m$. Further, $C=C_+\oplus C_-$ where $C_+$ (respectively, $C_-$) is the subspace of $C$ generated by the basis vectors with an even (respectively, odd) number of factors. We call the elements of $C_+$ and $C_-$ \textit{even} and \textit{odd}, respectively.
Let $Z(C)$ denote the centre of $C$. For $m$ even, $Z(C)=\mathbb{F}_q$ by~\cite[II.2.1]{Che1996}, and for $m$ odd, $Z(C)=\mathbb{F}_q+\mathbb{F}_qz_0$ for some $z_0\in C_-$ by~\cite[II.2.6]{Che1996}. In particular, $Z(C)\cap C_+=\mathbb{F}_q$. For $R\subseteq C$, we write $R^\times$ for the set of invertible elements in~$R$.
The \textit{Clifford group} $\Gamma(C)=\Gamma$ is defined to be $\{s\in C^\times: s^{-1}xs\in W\ \mbox{for all}\ x\in W\}$. Note that $\Gamma\cap W$ is the set of non-singular vectors of $W$, for such a vector $v$ has inverse $Q(v)^{-1}v$ and $v^{-1}xv=-x+\f(x,v)Q(v)^{-1}v$ for all $x\in W$, while no singular vector of $W$ is invertible. The \textit{even Clifford group} $\Gamma^+$ is defined to be $\Gamma\cap C_+$. There is a natural representation $\chi$ of $\Gamma$ on $W$ defined by $s\chi: x\mapsto s^{-1}xs$ for $s\in\Gamma$ and $x\in W$. By~\cite[II.3.1]{Che1996}, $\chi$ has kernel $Z(C)^\times$, and $\Gamma\chi$ is $\GO_m^\varepsilon(q)$ for $m$ even and $\SO_m^\varepsilon(q)$ for $m$ odd. By~\cite[II.3.3]{Che1996}, the group $\Gamma^+\chi$ has index $2$ in $\GO_m^\varepsilon(q)$ and, for $q$ odd, equals $\SO_m^\varepsilon(q)$.
Note that $v\chi=-r_v$ for all non-singular vectors $v\in W$, where $r_v$ is the \textit{reflection} in $v$, defined by $x\mapsto x-\f(x,v)Q(v)^{-1}v$ for all $x\in W$.
The Clifford algebra has an antiautomorphism $\alpha$ defined by $v_1v_2 \cdots v_k\mapsto v_k v_{k-1}\cdots v_1$ for all $k\geq 1$ and $v_i\in W$ (see~\cite{ShuSur2015}). Now $\Gamma^\alpha=\Gamma$ and $s(s^\alpha)\in Z(C)^\times$ for $s\in\Gamma$ by~\cite[II.3.5]{Che1996}, so there is a homomorphism $\varphi:\Gamma\to Z(C)^\times$ defined by $s\mapsto s(s^\alpha)$ for $s\in \Gamma$. Note that $v\varphi=v^2=Q(v)$ for $v\in \Gamma\cap W$. Let $\Gamma_0:=\ker(\varphi)$ and $\Gamma_0^+:=\Gamma_0\cap C_+$. Let $\pi:\mathbb{F}_q^*\to \mathbb{F}_q^*/\mathbb{F}_q^{*2}$ be the natural homomorphism, where $\mathbb{F}_q^{*2}=\{\lambda^2:\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*\}$, and note that $|\mathbb{F}_q^*/\mathbb{F}_q^{*2}|=\gcd(2,q-1)$. Since $\ker(\chi|_ {\Gamma^+})=\mathbb{F}_q^*\leq \ker(\varphi\pi)$, there is a homomorphism $\theta:\Gamma^+\chi\to \mathbb{F}_q^*/\mathbb{F}_q^{*2}$ called the \textit{spinor norm} defined by $s\chi \mapsto s\varphi\pi$ for $s\in \Gamma^+$. Now $(\ker(\varphi|_{\Gamma^+}))\chi\leq \ker(\theta)$, and $\ker(\theta)\leq (\ker(\varphi|_{\Gamma^+}))\chi$ since $\ker(\pi)\leq (\ker(\chi|_{\Gamma^+}))\varphi$. Thus $\Gamma_0^+\chi=\ker(\theta)$. It follows from the definition of $\Omega_m^\varepsilon(q)$ in~\cite[\S 2.5, Descriptions~$1$ and~$2$]{KleLie1990} that $\ker(\theta)=\Omega_m^\varepsilon(q)$. Thus $\Gamma_0^+\chi= \Omega_m^\varepsilon(q)$. Further, $\Gamma_0^+\cap \ker(\chi)=\langle -1\rangle$ since $\ker(\chi|_ {\Gamma^+})=\mathbb{F}_q^*$. Hence $\Gamma_0^+/\langle -1\rangle\simeq \Omega_m^\varepsilon(q)$. The group $\Gamma_0^+$ is called the \textit{spin group} and is also denoted by $\spin_m^\varepsilon(q)$. Since $\Omega_m^\varepsilon(q)$ is perfect, $\Gamma_0^+=(\Gamma_0^+)'\langle -1\rangle$. There exist $u,v\in W$ such that $Q(u)=Q(v)=1$ and $\f(u,v)=0$. Now $uv\in \Gamma_0^+$, so $-1=(uv)^2\in (\Gamma_0^+)'$. Thus $\spin_m^\varepsilon(q)$ is perfect. The proof of the following is routine.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:spinelements}
Let $Q$ be a non-degenerate quadratic form on $W:=V_{m}(q)$ with type $\varepsilon$ and associated bilinear form $\f$ where $m\geq 7$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $u,v\in W$ be linearly independent where $Q(u)=0$ and $\f(u,v)=0$. Then $(1-uv)(1+uv)=1$ and $(1+uv)x(1-uv)=x+\f(x,v)u-\f(x,u)v-Q(v)\f(x,u)u$ for all $x\in W$. In particular, $1-uv\in \spin_{m}^\varepsilon(q)$.
\end{lemma}
Now suppose that $m$ is even and $\varepsilon=+$. Write $m=2r$. Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_r,f_1,\ldots,f_r\}$ be a standard basis of $W$ (see \S\ref{s:(R2)}). Let $E:=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_r\rangle$, and denote by $C^E$ the subalgebra of $C$ generated by $E$. For $S=\{i_1,\ldots,i_k\}$ in the power set $\mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\})$ where $i_1<\cdots <i_k$, let $e_S:=e_{i_1}\cdots e_{i_k}$ and $f_S:=f_{i_1}\cdots f_{i_k}$. Let $e_\varnothing:=1$ and $f_\varnothing:=1$.
Then $\{e_S : S\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\})\}$ is a basis for $C^E$, and $\{f_Te_S : T,S\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\})\}$ is a basis for $C$. Let $f^*:=f_1\cdots f_r=f_{\{1,\ldots, r\}}$, and note that $f^*f_i=0$ for $1\leq i\leq r$.
Using this observation and the above basis for $C$, it can be verified that, for each $a\in C^E$ and $c\in C$, there exists a unique $a'\in C^E$ such that $f^*ac=f^*a'$, and we write $a^c:=a'$. Further, $C^E$ is a right $C$-module under this action.
Define $C^E_+:=C^E\cap C^+$. Now $C^E_+$ is an irreducible $\mathbb{F}_q\Gamma^+_0$-module by~\cite[II.4.3]{Che1996} and the introduction to~\cite[Ch.\ III]{Che1996}; it is called the \textit{spin module} and has dimension $2^{r-1}$.
The kernel of the action of $\Gamma^+$ on $C^E_+$
has order $\gcd(2,q-1)$ by~\cite[III.6.1]{Che1996}. Let $z:=\Pi_{i=1}^r (e_i+f_i)(f_i-e_i)$. For $S\subseteq \{1,\ldots,r\}$, note that $f^*e_S(e_i+f_i)(f_i-e_i)$ is $-f^*e_S$ when $i\in S$ and $f^*e_S$ otherwise, whence $e_S^z=(-1)^{|S|}e_S$. Since those $e_S$ with $|S|$ even form a basis of $C^E_+$, it follows that $\langle z\rangle$ is the kernel of $\Gamma^+$ on $C^E_+$. In particular, for $r$ odd, $C^E_+$ is a faithful $\mathbb{F}_q\spin_{2r}^+(q)$-module.
We claim that $\spin_{10}^+(q)$ is quasisimple with centre $\spin_{10}^+(q)\cap Z$ where $Z:=Z(\GL(C_+^E))$. Since $\Gamma_0^+/\langle -1\rangle\simeq\Omega_{10}^+(q)$, it suffices to consider the case where $\Omega_{10}^+(q)$ is not simple, so we assume that $q\equiv 1\mod 4$. Now there exists $\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ such that $\lambda^2=-1$, and $z\lambda\in \Gamma_0^+\cap Z$. Since $(\Gamma_0^+\cap Z)/\langle -1\rangle \leq Z(\Gamma_0^+)/\langle -1\rangle\leq Z(\Omega_{10}^+(q))$, which has order $2$, it follows that $\Gamma_0^+\cap Z=Z(\Gamma_0^+)$ and that $\Gamma_0^+$ is quasisimple.
Let $M$ be a maximal totally singular subspace of $W$. By~\cite[\S 3.1]{Che1996}, there exists a unique one-dimensional subspace $P_M$ of $C^E$ such that $v^w=0$ for all $v\in P_M$ and $w\in M$. Any non-zero element of $P_M$ is called a \textit{representative spinor} of $M$; for example, $1$ is a representative spinor of $\langle f_1,\ldots,f_r\rangle$. Any element of $C^E$ that is the representative spinor of some maximal totally singular subspace is called a \textit{pure spinor}. If $u$ is a representative spinor of the maximal totally singular subspace $M'$, then $M'=\{v\in W : u^v=0\}$ by~\cite[III.1.4]{Che1996}. Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence between the maximal totally singular subspaces of $W$ and the one-dimensional subspaces of $C^E$ spanned by pure spinors.
If $u$ is a representative spinor of $M$ and $s\in \Gamma$, then $u^s$ is a representative spinor of $s^{-1}Ms$ by~\cite[III.1.3]{Che1996}. The group $\Gamma_0\chi$ acts transitively on the maximal totally singular subspaces by~\cite[III.2.7]{Che1996}, so $\Gamma_0$ acts transitively on the one-dimensional subspaces of $C^E$ spanned by pure spinors. Since $m$ is even, any element $s$ of $\Gamma$ is either even or odd by~\cite[II.3.2]{Che1996}, so $1^s$ is either even or odd. Thus a pure spinor is either even or odd, and $\Gamma_0^+$ acts transitively on the one-dimensional subspaces of $C_+^E$ spanned by pure spinors. Further, since $W$ has exactly $2(q+1)(q^2+1)\cdots (q^{r-1}+1)$ maximal totally singular subspaces,
there are exactly $(q-1)(q+1)(q^2+1)\cdots (q^{r-1}+1)$ pure spinors in $C_+^E$. The following is~\cite[III.1.12]{Che1996}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:evenspinor}
Let $M$ and $M'$ be distinct maximal totally singular subspaces of $V_{2r}(q)$ with respect to a non-degenerate quadratic form with type $+$ where $r\geq 4$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $u$ and $u'$ be representative spinors of $M$ and $M'$, respectively.
Then $u+u'$ is pure if and only if $\dim(M\cap M')=r-2$.
\end{lemma}
Observe that $\{e_S : S\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\}),|S|\equiv 0\mod 2\}$ is a basis for $C^E_+$ consisting entirely of pure spinors. Indeed, $e_S$ is a representative spinor for the maximal totally singular subspace spanned by $e_i$ for $i\in S$ and $f_j$ for $j\in \{1,\ldots,r\}\setminus S$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:eventrick}
Let $Q$ be a non-degenerate quadratic form on $W:=V_{2r}(q)$ with type $+$ where $r\geq 4$ and $q$ is a power of a prime $p$. Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_r,f_1,\ldots,f_r\}$ be a standard basis of $W$, and let $E:=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_r\rangle$. Let $H\leq \spin_{2r}^+(q)$, and let $B$ be a block of $H$ on $C^E_+$ such that $B\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $C^E_+$. Let $x,y\in B$. Let $I:=\{S\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\}): |S|\equiv 0\mod 2\}$ and write $y=\sum_{S\in I} \lambda_Se_{S}$ where $\lambda_S\in\mathbb{F}_q$ for $S\in I$. Let $\ell,k\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ where $\ell\neq k$, and let $I_{\ell,k}:=\{S \in I:\ell\in S,k\notin S\}$. If $\lambda_T\neq 0$ for some $T\in I_{\ell,k}$ and $1-f_\ell e_k\in H_x$, then
$$\sum_{S\in I_{\ell,k}} (-1)^{i_S}\lambda_S e_{(S\setminus \{\ell\})\cup \{k\}}\in B$$
for some $i_S\in \{0,1\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $f^*:=f_1\cdots f_r$ and $s:=1-f_\ell e_k$. Now $f^*y^s=f^*y-\sum_{S\in I_{\ell,k}}\lambda_S f^*e_Sf_\ell e_k$ since $f^*e_Sf_\ell e_k=0$ for $S\in I\setminus I_{\ell,k}$. Further, for $S\in I_{\ell,k}$, $f^*e_Sf_\ell e_k=f^*(-1)^{i_S}e_{(S\setminus \{\ell\})\cup \{k\}}$ for some $i_S\in \{0,1\}$ since for any $A\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,r\})$ with $\ell\notin A$, $f^*e_Ae_\ell f_\ell =f^*e_A(1-f_\ell e_\ell)=f^*e_A$. Let $w:=\sum_{S\in I_{\ell,k}} (-1)^{i_S}\lambda_S e_{(S\setminus \{\ell\})\cup \{k\}}\neq 0$. Now $x^s=x$, so $y-w=y^s\in B$. Thus $w\in B$.
\end{proof}
Now we consider class (R5) where $(m,n,\varepsilon)=(10,16,+)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R5)10}
Let $V$ be the spin module of $\spin_{10}^+(q)$ where $q$ is a prime power. Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\spin_{10}^+(q)\unlhd G_0$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be a non-degenerate quadratic form on $W:=V_{10}(q)$ with type $+$ and standard basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_5,f_1,\ldots,f_5\}$. Let $E:=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_5\rangle$ so that $V=C_+^E$, and let $Z:=Z(\GL(C_+^E))$. Recall that $\spin_{10}^+(q)/(\spin_{10}^+(q)\cap Z)\simeq \POmega_{10}^+(q)$ and
that $\spin_{10}^+(q)Z$ acts transitively on the set of pure spinors in $C_+^E$. By~\cite[Lemma 2.9]{Lie1987}, $\spin_{10}^+(q)Z$ has two orbits on $(C_+^E)^*$. Thus one of the orbits of $G_0$ is the set of pure spinors. Let $q=p^e$ where $p$ is prime.
Suppose for a contradiction that $(C_+^E,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$, and $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $C_+^E$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}(i) since $-1\in \spin_{10}^+(q)$. Let $I:=\{S\in \mathbb{P}(\{1,\ldots,5\}): |S|\equiv 0\mod 2\}$, and for distinct integers $\ell,k\in \{1,2,3,4,5\}$, let $I_{\ell,k}:=\{S \in I:\ell\in S,k\notin S\}$. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$. Write $y=\sum_{S\in I} \lambda_Se_{S}$ where $\lambda_S\in\mathbb{F}_q$ for $S\in I$.
First suppose that $x=1$. Since $y\notin\langle 1\rangle$, there exists $T\in I\setminus \{\varnothing\}$ such that $\lambda_T\neq 0$. Since $T$ is a non-empty proper subset of $\{1,\ldots,5\}$, we may choose $k\in \{1,\ldots,5\}\setminus T$ and $\ell\in T$. Now $T\in I_{\ell,k}$ and $1-f_\ell e_k\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, so Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick} implies that $w:=\sum_{S\in I_{\ell,k}} (-1)^{i_S}\lambda_S e_{(S\setminus \{\ell\})\cup \{k\}}\in B$ for some $i_S\in \{0,1\}$. Thus $w=\sum_{j\neq \ell,k} \mu_j e_{\{j,k\}} +\mu e_{A}$ for some $\mu_j,\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q$ where $A:=\{1,\ldots,5\}\setminus \{\ell\}$. First suppose that $w=\mu e_A$. Then $1+\mu e_A\in B$. However, $1+\mu e_A$ is not pure by Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}, a contradiction. Thus $\mu_j\neq 0$ for some $j$ (where $j\neq \ell,k$). Choose $i\in \{1,\ldots,5\}\setminus \{\ell,k,j\}$, and note that $i\in A$. Let $\ell^*:=j$ and $k^*:=i$. Now $1-f_{\ell^*} e_{k^*}\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, and $\{j,k\}$ is the only element of $I_{\ell^*,k^*}$ in the decomposition of $w$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}, $\langle e_{\{i,k\}}\rangle \cap B\neq\varnothing$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\{i,k\}=\{1,2\}$. Since $1-f_1e_3\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, $\langle e_{\{2,3\}}\rangle \cap B\neq\varnothing$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}. By a similar argument, $\langle e_{\{3,4\}}\rangle \cap B\neq\varnothing$. Thus $\delta_1e_{\{1,2\}}+\delta_2e_{\{3,4\}}\in B$ for some $\delta_1,\delta_2\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}.
Thus $x$ is not a pure spinor, in which case we may assume that $x=1+e_{\{1,2,3,4\}}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. Let $A:=\{1,2,3,4\}$. Suppose that there exists $T\in I$ such that $\lambda_T\neq 0$ and $5\in T$. Choose $k\in A\setminus T$. Now $T\in I_{5,k}$ and $1-f_5 e_k\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, so Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick} implies that $w:=\sum_{S\in I_{5,k}} (-1)^{i_S}\lambda_S e_{(S\setminus \{5\})\cup \{k\}}\in B$ for some $i_S\in \{0,1\}$. Now $w=\sum_{j\neq 5,k} \mu_j e_{\{j,k\}} +\mu e_{A}$ for some $\mu_j,\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q$. Since $w$ is not pure, $\mu_j\neq 0$ for some $j$ (where $j\neq 5,k$). Choose $i\in A\setminus \{k,j\}$. Let $\ell^*:=j$ and $k^*:=i$. Now $1-f_{\ell^*} e_{k^*}\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, and
$\{j,k\}$ is the only element of $I_{\ell^*,k^*}$ in the decomposition of $w$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}, $\langle e_{\{i,k\}}\rangle \cap B\neq\varnothing$, a contradiction. Thus $5\notin S$ for all $S\in I$ such that $\lambda_S\neq 0$. Suppose that $\lambda_{\{1,2\}}\neq 0$. Now $1-f_1 e_3\in \spin_{10}^+(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, so $\langle e_{2,3},e_{3,4}\rangle\cap B\neq \varnothing$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. It follows that $y=\lambda 1+\mu e_A$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ such that $\lambda\neq\mu$. Let $u:=e_2-f_4$ and $v:=f_3-e_1$, and observe that $s:=1-uv\in \spin_{10}^+(q)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}. Now $1^s=1-e_{\{1,2\}}$ and $e_A^s=e_A+e_{\{1,2\}}$, so $x^s=x$. Thus $(\mu-\lambda)e_{\{1,2\}}= y^s-y\in B$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We continue to assume that $W=V_m(q)$ where $m=2r\geq 8$ and that $Q$ is a non-degenerate form on $W$ of type $\varepsilon=+$ with associated bilinear form $\f$. As above, $C=C(W,Q)$, $\Gamma=\Gamma(C)$, and
$W$ has a standard basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_r,f_1,\ldots,f_r\}$.
First suppose that $q$ is even, and define $\spin_{2r-1}(q):=\{s\in \Gamma_0^+ : s^{-1}\langle e_r+f_r\rangle s=\langle e_r+f_r\rangle\}$. By~\cite[p.197]{KleLie1990}, $\spin_{2r-1}(q)\simeq \Sp_{2r-2}(q)$, and the \textit{spin module} of $\Sp_{2r-2}(q)$ is defined to be $C_+^E$ restricted to $\spin_{2r-1}(q)$.
Suppose instead that $q$ is odd. Let $\overline{W}$ be the subspace of $W$ spanned by $e_r+f_r$ and $e_1,\ldots,e_{r-1},f_1,\ldots,f_{r-1}$. Observe that the restriction of $f$ to $\overline{W}$ is non-degenerate. Let $\overline{C}:=C(\overline{W},Q)$ and $\overline{\Gamma}:=\Gamma(\overline{C})$. We may view $\overline{C}$ as the subalgebra of $C$ generated by $\overline{W}$ by~\cite[II.1.4]{Che1996}, in which case $\overline{C}_+=\overline{C}\cap C_+$. Further, $\spin_{2r-1}(q)= \overline{\Gamma}_0^+=\overline{\Gamma}^+\cap \Gamma_0^+$ by~\cite[II.6.1]{Che1996}. The \textit{spin module} of $\spin_{2r-1}(q)$ is defined to be the restriction of $C_+^E$ to $\overline{\Gamma}_0^+$ (see~\cite[II.5.1 and \S 3.8]{Che1996}).
Now we consider class (R5) where $(m,n,\varepsilon)=(7,8,\circ)$. Note that $\spin_{7}(q)$ is quasisimple with centre $\spin_7(q)\cap Z=\langle -1\rangle$ where $Z:=Z(\GL(C_+^E))$ since $\Sp_6(q)$ ($q$ even) and $\Omega_7(q)$ ($q$ odd) are simple.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(R5)7}
Let $V$ be the spin module of $\spin_7(q)$ where $q$ is a prime power. Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $\spin_{7}(q)\unlhd G_0$. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be a non-degenerate quadratic form on $W:=V_{8}(q)$ with type $+$ and standard basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_4,f_1,\ldots,f_4\}$. Let $E:=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_4\rangle$, so that $V=C_+^E$, and let $Z:=Z(\GL(C_+^E))$.
Recall that $\spin_7(q)/(\spin_7(q)\cap Z)\simeq \Omega_7(q)$. Recall also that $\spin_7(q)Z$ acts on the set $P$ of pure spinors in $C_+^E$ and that $|P|=(q^3+1)(q^4-1)$. If $q$ is even, then by~\cite[Lemma 2.8]{Lie1987}, $\spin_7(q)Z$ has two orbits on $(C_+^E)^*$ with sizes $(q^3+1)(q^4-1)$ and $q^3(q-1)(q^4-1)$, so $P$ is an orbit of $\spin_7(q)Z$. If $q$ is odd, then by~\cite[p.494]{Lie1987}, $\spin_7(q)Z$ has three orbits on $(C_+^E)^*$, one with size $(q^3+1)(q^4-1)$ and two with size $q^3(q-1)(q^4-1)/2$, so $P$ is an orbit of $\spin_7(q)Z$. Thus one of the orbits of $G_0$ is the set of pure spinors. Let $q=p^e$ where $p$ is prime.
Suppose for a contradiction that $(C_+^E,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$, and by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}, $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $C_+^E$. Let $A:=\{1,2,3,4\}$ and $I:=\{S\in\mathbb{P}(A):|S|\equiv 0\mod 2\}$. For distinct integers $\ell,k\in A$, let $I_{\ell,k}:=\{S \in I:\ell\in S,k\notin S\}$. Note that $1-f_\ell e_k\in \spin_7(q)$ for distinct $k,\ell\in \{1,2,3\}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$. Write $y=\sum_{S\in I} \lambda_Se_{S}$ where $\lambda_S\in\mathbb{F}_q$ for $S\in I$.
First suppose that $x=1$. Then $1-f_\ell e_k$ fixes $x$ for all $k,\ell\in \{1,2,3\}$. We claim that $\langle e_{\{i,j\}}\rangle\cap B$ is empty for all $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$ such that $i\neq j$. Suppose otherwise. Then $\lambda e_{\{1,2\}},\mu e_{\{1,3\}}\in B$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}. Now $s:=1-f_1(e_4+f_4)\in \spin_7(q)_x$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}, so $\mu(e_{\{1,3\}}+e_{\{3,4\}})=(\mu e_{\{1,3\}})^{s}\in B$. But then $\lambda e_{\{1,2\}}+\mu e_{\{3,4\}}\in B$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. Thus the claim holds. If $\lambda_T=0$ for all $T\in I$ such that $|T|=2$, then $y=\lambda_Ae_A$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. However, this implies that $1+\lambda_A e_A\in B$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. Thus $\lambda_T\neq 0$ for some $T\in I$ such that $|T|=2$. Choose $\ell\in T\setminus \{ 4\}$ and $k\in \{1,2,3\}\setminus T$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}, $\lambda e_{\{i,k\}}+\mu e_{\{k,4\}}\in B$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb{F}_q$ where $\{i,k,\ell\}=\{1,2,3\}$.
If $\lambda\neq 0$, then $\langle e_{\{\ell,k\}}\rangle \cap B\neq\varnothing$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick}, a contradiction. Thus $\mu e_{\{k,4\}}\in B$. Let $s:=1-e_ke_\ell\in \spin_7(q)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}. Now $s$ fixes $\mu e_{\{k,4\}}$, so $1^s\in B$, but then $e_{\{k,\ell\}}\in B$, a contradiction.
Thus $x$ is not a pure spinor, in which case we may assume that $x=1+e_A$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. Suppose that $\lambda_T\neq 0$ for some $T\in I$ such that $|T|=2$. Choose $\ell\in T\setminus \{ 4\}$ and $k\in \{1,2,3\}\setminus T$. Since $x^{1-f_\ell e_k}=x$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:eventrick} implies that $\langle e_{\{i,k\}},e_{\{k,4\}}\rangle\cap B\neq \varnothing$ where $\{i,k,\ell\}=\{1,2,3\}$,
contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}. Thus $y=\lambda 1+\mu e_A$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ such that $\lambda\neq \mu$. Let $u:=e_2-f_2-e_4-f_4$ and $v:=f_3-e_1$, and observe that $s:=1-uv\in \spin_7(q)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:spinelements}. Now $1^s=1-e_{\{1,2\}}+e_{\{1,4\}}$ and $e_A^s=e_A+e_{\{1,2\}}-e_{\{1,4\}}$, so $x^s=x$. Thus $(\mu-\lambda)(e_{\{1,2\}}-e_{\{1,4\}})= y^s-y\in B$, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:evenspinor}.
\end{proof}
\section{Tensor product class (T)}
\label{s:(T)}
Let $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$ and $W:=V_m(q)$ with $q$ a prime power and $m\geq 2$. Recall from~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs} that for $g\in \GL(U)$ and $h\in \GL(W)$, the linear map $g\otimes h$ maps $u\otimes w$ to $u^g\otimes w^h$ for all $u\in U$ and $w\in W$. Recall also that for $S\leq \GL(U)$ and $T\leq \GL(W)$, the group $S\otimes T=\{g\otimes h : g\in S,h\in T\}\leq \GL(V)$, and $\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ acts naturally on $V$, $U$ and $W$ in such a way that $(u\otimes w)^\sigma = u^\sigma \otimes w^\sigma$ for all $u\in U$, $w\in W$ and $\sigma\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Either $m\geq 3$ and the stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$ is
$ (\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$, or $m=2$, in which case we may assume that $U=W$, and the stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$ is $(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(U)){:}(\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})\times \langle\tau\rangle)$ where $\tau\in \GL(V)$ is defined by $u\otimes w\mapsto w\otimes u$ for all $u,w\in U$. We adopt the convention of writing elements of $(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ as $g\otimes h$ for $g\in \GammaL(U)$ and $h\in \GammaL(W)$ where $g$ and $h$ are $\sigma$-semilinear for the same $\sigma\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$. Recall that the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ are the \textit{simple} tensors $\{u\otimes w: u\in U^*, w\in W^*\}$ and the \textit{non-simple} tensors $\{u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_2 : w_1,w_2\in W, \ \dim\langle w_1,w_2\rangle =2\}$ for any choice of basis $\{u_1,u_2\}$ of $U$.
This section is devoted to the proof of the following result, which deals with the classes (T1), (T2) and (T3). However, in the process of proving Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}, we will often prove results for more general families of groups in class (T) so that these results can be used for classes (S0), (S1) and (S2).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(T1)--(T3)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes~\emph{(T1)},~\emph{(T2)} or~\emph{(T3)}. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{L}$ is $\{U\otimes w+v: w \in W^*,v\in V\}$ or $\{u\otimes W+v: u \in U^*,v\in V\}$, and either $m\geq 3$, or $m=2$ and $G_0\leq (\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Observe that the partial linear spaces of Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}(ii) are all described in Example~\ref{example:tensor}, though the case $q=2$ is omitted from Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)} by our restrictions on $G_0$. In Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple} below, we prove that the incidence structures $\mathcal{S}_U$ and $\mathcal{S}_W$ of Example~\ref{example:tensor} are indeed $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces for all $m$ and $q$, where $G:=V{:}(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$. We will prove at the end of this section that $G=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_U)=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)$.
In order to prove Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}, we first consider the orbit of simple tensors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:tensorsimple}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of simple tensors. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $u\otimes w\in L^*$. Then $L\subseteq U\otimes w$ or $L\subseteq u\otimes W$. Moreover, if $S\otimes T\leq G_0$ for some $S\leq \GL(U)$ and $T\leq \GL(W)$, then $L^*=C\otimes w$ or $u\otimes C$, where $C$ is a block of $S$ on $U^*$ or $T$ on $W^*$, respectively.
\item[(ii)] Let $H_0\leq G_0$. Then for any $u\in U^*$ and $w\in W^*$, both $(U\otimes w)^*$ and $(u\otimes W)^*$ are blocks of $H_0$ in its action on the simple tensors unless $m=2$ and $H_0$ contains an element interchanging $U$ and $W$, in which case neither are blocks.
\item[(iii)] Define $\mathcal{L}$ to be $\{U\otimes w+v: w \in W^*,v\in V\}$ or $\{u\otimes W+v: u\in U^*,v\in V\}$. Then $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space if and only if either $m\geq 3$, or $m=2$ and $G_0\leq (\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
\item[(iv)] If $m=2$, then the two partial linear spaces described in (iii) are isomorphic.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) Suppose that there exists $u_1\otimes w_1\in L\setminus U\otimes w$ and $u_2\otimes w_2\in L\setminus u\otimes W$. Then $\{w_1,w\}$ and $\{u_2,u\}$ are both linearly independent sets, and $u_1\otimes w_1-u\otimes w$ and $u_2\otimes w_2-u\otimes w$ are both simple by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), so $u_1=\lambda u$ and $w_2=\mu w$ for some $\lambda,\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$. Thus $\lambda u\otimes w_1- u_2\otimes \mu w$ is a non-simple tensor, contradicting Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i). Hence $L\subseteq U\otimes w$ or $L\subseteq u\otimes W$.
Moreover, suppose that $S\otimes T\leq G_0$ and $L\subseteq U\otimes w$. Then $L^*=C\otimes w$ for some $C\subseteq U^*$. Suppose that $v'=v^g$ for some $v',v\in C$ and $g\in S$. Then $v'\otimes w=(v\otimes w)^{g\otimes 1}$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $C\otimes w=(C\otimes w)^{g\otimes 1}=C^g\otimes w$. Thus $C=C^g$. The case where $L\subseteq u\otimes W$ is similar.
(ii) First suppose that $m=2$ and $H_0$ contains an element $\nu$ interchanging $U$ and $W$, where we may assume that $W=U$. If $(U\otimes u)^*$ is a block for some $u\in U^*$, then $(U\otimes u)^{\nu}=u'\otimes U$ is also a block for some $u'\in U^*$, but $u'\otimes u\in (U\otimes u)^* \cap (u'\otimes U)^*$, a contradiction. Similarly, $(u\otimes U)^*$ is not a block for any $u\in U^*$.
Otherwise, $H_0\leq (\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_{q})$. Let $w\in W^*$. Suppose that $u'\otimes w=(u\otimes w)^{g\otimes h}$ for some $u\otimes w,u'\otimes w\in (U\otimes w)^*$ and $g\otimes h\in H_0$. Then $u'=\lambda u^{g}$ and $w=\lambda^{-1} w^{h}$ for some $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$. Hence $(U\otimes w)^{g\otimes h}=U^{g}\otimes \lambda w = U\otimes w$, so $(U\otimes w)^*$ is a block. The proof for $(u\otimes W)^*$ is similar.
(iii) This follows from (ii) and Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive},~\ref{lemma:necessary} and~\ref{lemma:sufficient}.
(iv) Suppose that $m=2$. Let $\tau\in \GL(V)$ be defined by $u\otimes w\mapsto w\otimes u$ for all $u,w\in U=W$. Now $\tau$ interchanges the line sets of the two partial linear spaces of (iii), so these two partial linear spaces are isomorphic.
\end{proof}
Note that in (i), we are not necessarily assuming that $S$ is transitive on $U^*$ nor that $T$ is transitive on $W^*$. Similarly, we are not necessarily assuming in (ii) that $H_0$ is transitive on the set of simple tensors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a power of a prime $p$ and $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of simple tensors. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $\SL(U)\otimes 1\leq G_0$ and $L\subseteq U\otimes w$ for some $w\in W^*$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{U\otimes v: v \in W^*\}$.
\item[(ii)] If $1\otimes \SL(W)\leq G_0$ and $L\subseteq u\otimes W$ for some $u\in U^*$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{v\otimes W: v \in U^*\}$.
\item[(iii)] If $q=p$ and $L\subseteq U\otimes w$ for some $w\in W^*$, and if $-1\otimes g\in G_0$ for some $g\in \GL(W)_w$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{U\otimes v: v \in W^*\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $L=U\otimes w$ or $u\otimes W$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{U\otimes v: v \in W^*\}$ or $\{v\otimes W: v \in U^*\}$ by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:necessary} and~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(ii). It is routine to verify that if $C$ is a block of $\SL_n(q)$ on $V_n(q)^*$ where $n\geq 2$ and $x\in C$, then either $C\subseteq \langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$, or $C=V_n(q)^*$. Thus (i) and (ii) follow from Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(i). For (iii), $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $U\otimes w$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}, and $|U\otimes w|=p^2$, so $L=U\otimes w$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:T34simple}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes~\emph{(T1)},~\emph{(T3)} or~\emph{(T4)}.
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of simple tensors. Then $\mathcal{L}_0$ is $\{U\otimes w: w \in W^*\}$ or $\{u\otimes W: u\in U^*\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $u\otimes w\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(i), either $L\subseteq U\otimes w$, or $L\subseteq u\otimes W$. Hence we are done when $G_0$ lies in (T1) by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(i)--(ii), so we assume that $G_0$ lies in (T3) or (T4). Now $(U\otimes w)^*$ and $(u\otimes W)^*$ are blocks of $G_0$ on $\mathcal{S}(0)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(ii). If $G_0$ lies in (T4), then we use {\sc Magma} to determine that there are exactly two non-trivial blocks of $G_0$ on $\mathcal{S}(0)$ that contain $u\otimes w$, so the desired result follows. Suppose that $G_0$ lies in (T3), and recall that $q$ is prime and $-1\otimes g\in G_0$ for some $g\in \GL_m(q)$. If $L\subseteq u\otimes W$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{v\otimes W: v \in U^*\}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(ii). Otherwise, $L\subseteq U\otimes w$. Now there exists $h\in \SL(W)$ such that $(w^g)^h=w$, and $-1\otimes gh \in G_0$, so $\mathcal{L}_0=\{U\otimes v: v \in W^*\}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(iii).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:T2simple}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ belongs to~\emph{(T2)}. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of simple tensors. Then $\mathcal{L}_0$ is $\{U\otimes w: w \in W^*\}$ or $\{u\otimes W: u\in U^*\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $B:=L^*$. If $L\subseteq u\otimes W$ for some $u\in U^*$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{v\otimes W: v \in U^*\}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(ii), as desired. Otherwise, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(i), $L\subseteq U\otimes w$ for some $w\in W^*$, and $B=C\otimes w$, where $C$ is a block of $\SL_2(5)$ on $U^*$. If $C=U^*$, then $\mathcal{L}_0=\{U\otimes v: v \in W^*\}$, as desired, so we suppose for a contradiction that $C\neq U^*$. Let $U=\langle u_1,u_2\rangle$ and $x:=u_1$. We may assume that $x\otimes w\in B$, so that $x\in C$. Since $\SL_2(5)$ is an irreducible subgroup of $\GL_2(q)$, its central involution must be the central involution of $\GL_2(q)$. Thus $q=9$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(iii) and the definition of (T2), and $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_3$-subspace of $U\otimes w$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}.
View $\SL_2(3)$ as the subgroup of $\SL_2(9)$ that acts naturally on the basis $\{u_1,u_2\}$ over $\mathbb{F}_3$. Assume that $\zeta^2=\zeta+1$ where $\zeta:=\zeta_9$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}). There exists $s\in \GL_2(9)$ such that $u_1^s=\zeta^2 u_1$ and $u_2^s=-u_1+\zeta^6 u_2$. Let $S:=\langle \SL_2(3),s\rangle$. Now $S\simeq \SL_2(5)$ (this can be verified using {\sc Magma}), and $\GL_2(9)$ has a unique conjugacy class of subgroups isomorphic to $\SL_2(5)$, so we may assume that $S\otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0$ and that $C$ is a block of $S$.
The group $S$ has $2$ orbits on $U^*$, each with size $40$, and $S$ acts transitively on the set of $1$-spaces of $U$. Let $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ be the two orbits of $S$ where $x\in \Omega_1$, and note that $\Omega_2=\zeta \Omega_1$. Since $|\SL_2(3)_x|=3$ and $|S_x|=3$, we conclude that $S_x\leq \SL_2(3)$. Then $S_x$ has orbits of size $3$ on $U\setminus \langle x\rangle$, and no such orbit contains both $u$ and $-u$.
Observe that $|L|$ divides $81$, while $|L|-1=|B|$ divides $|(U\otimes w)^*|=80$ since $(U\otimes w)^*$ is a block of $S\otimes \SL(W)$ in its transitive action on the set of simple tensors by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(ii). Since $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_9$-independent, it follows that $|C|=8$. If $C$ is not contained in $\Omega_1$, then by the observations made above concerning the orbits of $S_x$, we must have $|C\cap \Omega_2|=6$. However, $C\cap \Omega_2$ is a block of $S$ on $\Omega_2$, while $6$ does not divide $40$, a contradiction. Thus $C\subseteq \Omega_1$. In particular, $C=x^{S_C}$ and $|S_C|=24$. Recall that $S=\langle \SL_2(3),s\rangle$ where $u_1^s=\zeta^2 u_1$ and $u_2^s=-u_1+\zeta^6 u_2$.
There are exactly two subgroups of $S$ of order $24$ that contain $S_x$, namely $\SL_2(3)$ and $\SL_2(3)^s$ since $s$ normalises $S_x$. Hence $C$ is either $x^{\SL_2(3)}=\langle u_1,u_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}^*$ or $$x^{\SL_2(3)^s}=\{\pm u_1\}\cup \{ \zeta^iu_1+u_2 : i\in \{3,5,6\}\}\cup \{\zeta^ju_1-u_2: j\in \{1,2,7\} \}.$$
Let $\lambda:=\zeta^2$ and $\mu:=\lambda^{-1}$. There exists $h\in \SL(W)$ such that $w^h=\mu w$. Note that $x^s=\lambda x$. Now $x\otimes w=(x\otimes w)^{s\otimes h}$, so $C\otimes w=(C\otimes w)^{s\otimes h}=C^{s\mu}\otimes w$. Thus $C=C^{s\mu}$. However, if $C=x^{\SL_2(3)}$, then $u_2\in C$, so $\zeta^2u_1-u_2=u_2^{s\mu}\in C$, a contradiction. Similarly, if $C=x^{\SL_2(3)^s}$, then $\zeta^2u_1-u_2\in C$, so $u_2=(\zeta^2u_1-u_2)^{s\mu}\in C$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Next we consider the orbit of non-simple tensors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:nonsimple}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a power of a prime $p$, $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$ and $1\otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of non-simple tensors. Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ and $x\in L^*$. Write $x=u_1\otimes x_1+u_2\otimes x_2$ where $U=\langle u_1,u_2\rangle$ and $X:=\langle x_1,x_2\rangle \subseteq W$. Then $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $U\otimes X$, and $|L|$ divides $q^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for a contradiction that there exists $y\in L\setminus (U\otimes X)$. Now $y=u_1\otimes y_1+u_2\otimes y_2$ for some $y_1,y_2\in W$, and without loss of generality, we may assume that $y_1\notin X$. We may therefore extend $\{x_1,x_2,y_1\}$ to a basis $\{x_1,x_2,y_1,v_4,\ldots,v_m\}$ of $W$. Now there exists $g\in \SL(W)_{x_1,x_2,v_4,\ldots,v_m}$ such that $y_1^g=x_1+y_1$, in which case $y_2^g-y_2=\lambda x_1$ for some $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}, since $x^{1\otimes g}=x$, it follows that $y^{1\otimes g}\in L^*$ and therefore that the non-zero vector $y^{1\otimes g}-y=u_1\otimes x_1 + u_2\otimes \lambda x_1$ is not simple, a contradiction. Thus $L\subseteq u_1\otimes X+u_2\otimes X=U\otimes X$. There exists $g\in \SL(W)$ such that $x_1^g=-x_1$ and $x_2^g=-x_2$, and $v^{1\otimes g}=-v$ for all $v\in L$,
so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $U\otimes X$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}(i). If $u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_2$ and $u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_3$ are elements of $L$ for some $w_1,w_2,w_3\in X$, then $u_2\otimes (w_3-w_2)\in L$, so $w_2=w_3$. Thus $|L|\leq |X|=q^2$, and since $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-vector space, $|L|$ divides $q^2$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lemma:nonsimple} enables us to give a reduction to the case where $m=2$; we include groups satisfying (T5) for our analysis of class (S1) in \S\ref{s:(S1)}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:tensorred}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)=\langle u_1,u_2\rangle$, $W:=V_m(q)=\langle x_1,\ldots,x_m\rangle$, $m\geq 3$, $q$ is a prime power, $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$ and $1\otimes \SL(W)\unlhd G_0$. Let $X:=\langle x_1,x_2\rangle$, $Y:=U\otimes X$ and $H:=Y{:}G_{0,Y}^Y$. Then $H$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $Y$ such that $H_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $Y$ and $1\otimes \GL(X)\unlhd H_0$. \begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $u_1\otimes x_1+u_2\otimes x_2$ lie on a line $L$. Then $\mathcal{S}\cap Y=(Y,L^H)$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $H$-affine proper partial linear space.
\item[(ii)] Let $(Y,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $H$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $u_1\otimes x_1+u_2\otimes x_2$ lie on a line $L$. Then $(V,L^G)$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, if $G_0$ belongs to class~\emph{(Ti)} where $i\in \{1,2,3,5\}$, then $H_0$ belongs to class~\emph{(Ti)}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A:=(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ where $\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ fixes $x_1$ and $x_2$. Note that $G_0\leq A$ since $m\geq 3$. Now $A_Y=(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(W)_X){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $A_{(Y)}=1\otimes \GL(W)_{(X)}$, so there is a natural permutation isomorphism between $A_Y/A_{(Y)}=A_Y^Y$ and $(\GL(U)\otimes \GL(X)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$. In particular, $H_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $Y$ and $1\otimes \GL(X)\simeq (1\otimes \SL(W))_Y^Y\unlhd H_0$.
Clearly $H$ is an affine permutation group on $Y$. We claim that $H$ has rank~$3$ on $Y$.
Let $Y'$ be the set of non-simple tensors of $Y$. Since $1\otimes \GL(X)$ is faithful and semiregular on $Y'$ and $|Y'|=q(q-1)(q^2-1)=|\GL(X)|$, it follows that $1\otimes \GL(X)$ is regular on $Y'$. In particular, $H_0$ is transitive on $Y'$. Let $u\otimes x,u'\otimes x'$ be simple tensors in $Y$. There exists $g\otimes h\in G_0$ such that $(u\otimes x)^{g\otimes h}=u'\otimes x'$. Now $u^g=\lambda u'$ and $x^h=\lambda^{-1}x'$ for some $\lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^*$. Further, there exist $w,w'\in X$ such that $X=\langle x,w\rangle=\langle x',w'\rangle$, and since $m\geq 3$, there exists $k\in \SL(W)$ such that $(x')^k=x'$ and $(w^h)^k=w'$. Now $g\otimes hk\in G_{0,Y}$ since $X^{hk}=X$, and $(u\otimes x)^{g\otimes hk}= u'\otimes x'$, so the claim holds.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (Ti) where $i\in \{1,2,3,5\}$. If $i=1$ or $2$, then $S\otimes 1\unlhd G_0$ where $S=\SL(U)$ or $\SL_2(5)$, respectively, and $S\otimes 1\simeq (S\otimes 1)^Y_Y\unlhd H_0$, so $H$ belongs to (Ti). If $i=3$, then since $-1\otimes 1\in H_0$ and
$K\otimes \GL(X)\simeq (K\otimes \GL(W))_Y^Y$ for any $K\leq\GL(U)$, it follows that $H$ belongs to (T3). Lastly, if $i=5$, then $H_0\leq ((\GL_1(q^2)\otimes \GL(W)){:}\langle (t\otimes 1)\sigma_q \rangle)_Y^Y\simeq (\GL_1(q^2)\otimes \GL(X)){:}\langle (t\otimes 1)\sigma_q \rangle$, so $H$ belongs to (T5).
(i) Lemma~\ref{lemma:intersect} implies that $\mathcal{S}\cap Y$ is an $H$-affine partial linear space. Since $L\subseteq Y$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:nonsimple}, $L$ is also a line of $\mathcal{S}\cap Y$, so $\mathcal{S}\cap Y$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent with line-size at least $3$, and $0$ and $u_1\otimes x_1$ are non-collinear points, so $\mathcal{S}\cap Y$ is a proper partial linear space. Also, $\mathcal{S}\cap Y=(Y,L^H)$.
(ii) Let $B:=L^*$. We claim that $G_L$ is transitive on $L$ and that $B$ is a non-trivial block of $G_0$ on the non-simple tensors of $V$, for then $(V,\mathcal{L}^G)$ will be a (clearly $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent) $G$-affine proper partial linear space by Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}.
Since $-1\otimes 1\in H_0$, Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive} and~\ref{lemma:affine} imply that $G_L$ is transitive on $L$. Suppose that $(u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_2)^{g\otimes h}=u_1\otimes w_1'+u_2\otimes w_2'$ for some $u_1\otimes w_1+u_2\otimes w_2,u_1\otimes w_1'+u_2\otimes w_2'\in B$ and $g\otimes h\in G_0$. Now $X^h=\langle w_1,w_2\rangle ^h=\langle w_1',w_2'\rangle=X$, so $g\otimes h\in G_{0,Y}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $H_0$ on the non-simple tensors of $Y$, so $B^{g\otimes h}=B$. Thus $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on the non-simple tensors of $V$, and it is clearly non-trivial.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:T123nonsimple}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes~\emph{(T1)},~\emph{(T2)} or~\emph{(T3)}. Then there is no $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $0$ is collinear with a non-simple tensor.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred}, we may assume that $m=2$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)$ is the set of non-simple tensors. Let $q=p^e$ where $p$ is prime.
Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ and $B:=L^*$. Now, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:nonsimple}, $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ and $|L|$ divides $q^2$. Further, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ in its action on the non-simple tensors by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that there are no such blocks when any of the following cases hold: (T1) with $q=3$, (T2) or (T3). Thus $G_0$ belongs to (T1) and $q\geq 4$.
We may assume that $U=W$. Now $S:=\SL_2(q)\otimes \SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0$. Let $x:=u_1\otimes u_1+u_2\otimes u_2\in B$, where $U=\langle u_1,u_2\rangle$. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle x\rangle$, and $y=u_1\otimes (\lambda_1 u_1+\lambda_2u_2)+u_2\otimes (\varepsilon_1u_1+\varepsilon_2u_2)$ for some $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2\in\mathbb{F}_q$. For $g\in \SL_2(q)$, let $\tilde{g}$ denote the transpose of $g^{-1}$. Now $S_x=\{g\otimes \tilde{g}: g \in \SL_2(q)\}$. Since $q\geq 4$, there exists $a\in \mathbb{F}_q^*\setminus \langle -1 \rangle$. There exist $g,h\in \SL_2(q)$ such that $u_1^g=au_1$, $u_2^g=a^{-1}u_2$, $u_1^h=u_1$ and $u_2^h=u_1+u_2$. Then $u_1^{\tilde{g}}=a^{-1}u_1$, $u_2^{\tilde{g}}=au_2$, $u_1^{\tilde{h}}=u_1-u_2$ and $u_2^{\tilde{h}}=u_2$. Since $g\otimes \tilde{g}$ fixes $x$ and $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii) implies that $z:=y^{g\otimes \tilde{g}}-y\in L$. Let $\lambda:=(a^2-1)\lambda_2$ and $\varepsilon:=(a^{-2}-1)\varepsilon_1$. Then $z=u_1\otimes \lambda u_2+u_2\otimes \varepsilon u_1$. Suppose that $\varepsilon=0$. Then $\lambda=0$ since $B$ only contains non-simple tensors. Since $a\not\in \langle -1\rangle$, it follows that $\lambda_2=\varepsilon_1=0$, so $y=\lambda_1 u_1\otimes u_1 + \varepsilon_2 u_2\otimes u_2$. Now $(\varepsilon_2-\lambda_1)u_1\otimes u_2=y^{h\otimes \tilde{h}}-y\in L$ since $h\otimes \tilde{h}$ fixes $x$, so $\varepsilon_2=\lambda_1$, but then $y\in \langle x\rangle$, a contradiction. Thus $\varepsilon\neq 0$. Let $w:=u_1\otimes \varepsilon(u_1-u_2)+u_2\otimes (-\varepsilon)u_2=z^{h\otimes \tilde{h}}-z\in B$. Then $u_1\otimes (1-a^2)\varepsilon u_2=w^{g\otimes \tilde{g}}-w\in B$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\emph{\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}}]
If (i) holds, then $0$ is collinear with a simple tensor by Lemma~\ref{lemma:T123nonsimple}, so (ii) holds by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:T34simple},~\ref{lemma:T2simple} and~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii). Conversely, if (ii) holds, then (i) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii).
\end{proof}
To finish this section, we prove a result that enables us to determine the full automorphism group of a $G$-affine proper partial linear space when $G$ belongs to class (T). We then apply this result to the partial linear spaces of Example~\ref{example:tensor}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Taut}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, $q$ is a prime power and $G_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Then $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine permutation group on $V$ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma$ be the graph with vertex set $V$ in which distinct vectors $v$ and $v'$ are adjacent if and only if $v-v'$ is a simple tensor. Then $\Gamma$ is isomorphic to the bilinear forms graph $H_q(2,m)$ (see~\cite[\S9.5A]{BroCohNeu1989}). By~\cite[Theorem~9.5.1]{BroCohNeu1989}, $\Aut(\Gamma)=V{:}\Aut(\Gamma)_0$, where $\Aut(\Gamma)_0$ is the full stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:rank3} and Remark~\ref{remark:PLSrank3}, the collinearity graph of~$\mathcal{S}$ is either $\Gamma$ or the complement of $\Gamma$, so $\Aut(\mathcal{S})\leq \Aut(\Gamma)$, and the result holds since $V\leq G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:tensoraut}
Let $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, and $q$ is a prime power. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is $\{(U\otimes w) +v : w\in W^*,v\in V\} $ or $\{(u\otimes W) +v : u\in U^*,v\in V\} $. Then $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\otimes \GL_m(q)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)\simeq V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ \GL_m(q)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemmas~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii) and~\ref{lemma:Taut}.
\end{proof}
\section{Subfield classes (S1) and (S2)}
\label{s:(S1)}
Classes (S1) and (S2) consist of those affine permutation groups $G$ of rank~$3$ on $V_n(q^2)$ for which either $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $n\geq 2$, or $A_7\unlhd G_0$ where $(n,q)=(4,2)$ and $A_7\leq \SL_4(2)\simeq A_8$. Let $r:=q^2$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}). Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be a basis of $V_n(r)$ on which $\GL_n(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $W:=\langle v_1,\ldots,v_n\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$. By assumption, $G_0\leq \GammaL_n(r)$, so $G_0\leq (\GL_n(q)\circ K^*){:}\langle \sigma_r\rangle$ where $\sigma_r$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}) acts on $V_n(r)$ with respect to $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$.
Representatives for the orbits of $G_0$ are $v_1$ and $v_1+\zeta v_2$, and $v_1^{G_0}=\{\lambda v : \lambda\in K^*,v\in W^*\}$. Let $\lambda W:=\{\lambda v : v \in W\}$ for $\lambda\in K^*$. The orbits of $\SL_n(q)$ on $v_1^{G_0}$ are $(\lambda_1W)^*,\ldots,(\lambda_{s}W)^*$, where $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{s}$ is a transversal for $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ in~$K^*$ (so $s=q+1$).
Here is an equivalent definition for the classes (S1) and (S2). As above, let $r:=q^2$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$, and let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be a basis of $W:=V_n(q)$. The extension of scalars $K\otimes W$ is an $n$-dimensional $K$-vector space with basis $\{1\otimes v_1,\ldots,1\otimes v_n\}$ on which $(\GL_1(r)\otimes \GL_n(q)){:}\langle \sigma_r\rangle$ acts naturally. Now classes (S1) and (S2) consist of those affine permutation groups $G$ of rank~$3$ on $K\otimes W$ for which either $1\otimes \SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ where $n\geq 2$, or $1\otimes A_7\unlhd G_0$ where $(n,q)=(4,2)$ and $A_7\leq \SL_4(2)$. Representatives for the orbits of $G_0$ are $1\otimes v_1$ and $1\otimes v_1+\zeta\otimes v_2$. Further, we may view $K\otimes W$ as a $2n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space with basis $\{1\otimes v_1,\ldots,1\otimes v_n,\zeta\otimes v_1,\ldots,\zeta\otimes v_n\}$, in which case $G_0$ lies in class (T5) or (T4), respectively. (Note that in class (T5), there exists $t\in \GL_2(q)$ such that $t\sigma_q$ acts as the Frobenius automorphism of $K$.)
The orbits of $1\otimes \SL_n(q)$ on $(1\otimes v_1)^{G_0}$ are $\lambda_1\otimes W^*,\ldots,\lambda_{s} \otimes W^*$ where $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{s}$ is a transversal for $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ in $K^*$. If we define $\mathcal{L}$ to be the set of translations of $\lambda_i\otimes W$ for $1\leq i\leq q+1$, then $(K\otimes W,\mathcal{L})$ is one of the proper partial linear spaces described in Example~\ref{example:tensor} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii), and it is both $K$-independent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent. However, if we instead define $\mathcal{L}$ to be the set of translations of $K\otimes v=\langle 1\otimes v\rangle_K$ for $v\in W^*$, then $(K\otimes W,\mathcal{L})$ is not only the other proper partial linear space described in Example~\ref{example:tensor} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii), but also a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG} that is $K$-dependent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent.
(In the notation of Example~\ref{example:AG}, for any $G_0$ in class (S1) or (S2), the partial linear space is $\mathcal{S}_1$, where $\Delta_1$ is the orbit $\{\langle 1\otimes v\rangle_K : v\in W^*\}$ of $G_0$ on the points of $\PG_{n-1}(q^2)$.)
By combining these two viewpoints of classes (S1) and (S2), we obtain the following as an immediate consequence of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple},~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(ii) and Lemma~\ref{lemma:T34simple}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(S1)--(S2)good}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(q^2)$ where $q$ is a prime power and either $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $n\geq 2$, or $A_7\unlhd G_0$ and $(n,q)=(4,2)$. Let $K:=\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$. Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_n(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $W:=\langle v_1,\ldots,v_n\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The only $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $v_1$ are collinear has line set $\mathcal{L}:=\{\lambda W+v:\lambda\in K^*,v\in V\}$.
\item[(ii)] The partial linear space $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:tensor}}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Next we consider the orbit containing $v_1+\zeta v_2$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(S1)--(S2)bad}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(q^2)$ where $q$ is a prime power and either $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $n\geq 2$, or $A_7\unlhd G_0$ and $(n,q)=(4,2)$. Let $r:=q^2$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_{r}$ (where $\zeta^2=\zeta+1$ when $q=3$). Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_n(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $x:=v_1+\zeta v_2$, $y_1:=\zeta^2v_1+v_2$ and $y_2:=-\zeta v_1+v_2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $A$ be the affine permutation group on $V$ for which $A_0=\GL_n(q)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_r\rangle$, where $\sigma_r$ acts on $V$ with respect to $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$. Then $A$ has rank~$3$.
\item[(ii)] $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear if and only if $q=3$, $G\leq A$ and $\mathcal{L}=L^A$ where $L=\langle x,y_1\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ or $\langle x,y_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$.
\item[(iii)] Let $q:=3$. Let $L_3:=\langle x\rangle_{K}$ and $L_i:=\langle x,y_i\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ for $i=1,2$.
Let $\mathcal{S}_i$ be the partial linear space $(V,L_i^A)$ for $1\leq i\leq 3$. Then $\mathcal{S}_3$ is $K$-dependent and $\mathcal{S}_1\simeq \mathcal{S}_2\simeq \mathcal{S}_3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
When $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$, we will use Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred} to reduce to the case $n=2$. In order to deal with the case $n=2$, we require the following
technical result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{linear tech}
Let $q:=p^e$ where $p$ is a prime and $e\geq 1$, and let $s:=p^f$ where $1\leq f< 2e$ and $f$ divides $2e$. If $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)$ divides $s-1$,
then $(q,s)$ is $(3,3)$, $(7,7)$ or $(8,4)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $f$ is a proper divisor of $2e$, it follows that $f\leq e$. First suppose that $f=e$. Then $s=q$, so $q+1=a\gcd(q+1,4e)$ for some $a\in \{1,2\}$, in which case $q=3$ or $7$.
Now suppose that $f<e$. Since $f$ divides $2e$, it follows that $f\leq 2e/3$. Define $m$ to be $1$ when $q$ is even, $2$ when $q\equiv 1\mod 4$, and $4$ when $q\equiv 3\mod 4$. Now $p^e/me<p^{2e/3}$, so $p^e<(me)^3$.
If $q$ is even, then $2\leq e\leq 9$. Since $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,e)\leq p^{2e/3}-1$, it follows that $q$ is $2^3$ or $2^9$. Since $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,e)$ divides $s-1$ and $f\mid 2e$ but $f<e$, it follows that $(q,s)=(8,4)$.
If $q$ is odd, then $2\leq e\leq 10$, so $p\leq 19$. Since $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)\leq p^{2e/3}-1$, it follows that $q$ is $3^3$, $5^3$, or $11^3$. Then $f\in \{1,2\}$, but $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)\nmid (s-1)$.
\end{proof}
Now we consider the case $n=2$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:A4red}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_2(q^2)$ where $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $r:=q^2$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$ (where $\zeta^2=\zeta+1$ when $q=3$). Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $A$ be the affine permutation group on $V$ for which $A_0=\GL_2(q)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_r\rangle$, where $\sigma_r$ acts on $V$ with respect to $\{v_1,v_2\}$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $v_1+\zeta v_2$ are collinear.
\item[(ii)] $q=3$, $G\leq A$ and $\mathcal{L}=L^A$ where $L=\langle v_1+\zeta v_2,\zeta^2v_1+v_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ or $\langle v_1+\zeta v_2,-\zeta v_1+v_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If (ii) holds, then (i) holds by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive} and~\ref{lemma:sufficient} and a computation in {\sc Magma}.
Conversely, suppose that (i) holds, and let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$. By Lemmas~\ref{lemma:nonsimple} and~\ref{lemma:closed}, there exists a subfield $\mathbb{F}_s$ of $K$ such that each $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ is an $\mathbb{F}_s$-subspace of $V$ with the property that $\mathbb{F}_s=\{\lambda\in K:\lambda u\in L\}$ for all $u\in L^*$. Write $q=p^e$ and $s=p^f$ where $p$ is prime. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:nonsimple}, $\mathcal{S}$ has line-size at most $q^2$. Since $\mathcal{S}$ is $K$-independent, $\mathbb{F}_s$ is a proper subfield of $K$, so $f$ is a proper divisor of $2e$. If $q=3$, then (ii) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary} and a computation in {\sc Magma}, so we assume that $q\neq 3$.
We claim that $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)$ divides $s-1$. If so, then $(q,s)$ is $(7,7)$ or $(8,4)$ by Lemma~\ref{linear tech}, in which case we use {\sc Magma} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}(i) and (ii) to obtain a contradiction.
Since $\SL_2(q)$ and $\SU_2(q)$ are conjugate in $\GL(V)$ (see case (2) of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}), we may assume that $\SU_2(q)\unlhd G_0\leq \GammaU_2(q)$, in which case the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ consist of the non-zero isotropic vectors and the non-isotropic vectors, with sizes $(q^2-1)(q+1)$ and $q(q-1)(q^2-1)$, respectively. Further, the vector $v_1+\zeta v_2$ in (i) corresponds to a non-isotropic vector, so $0$ is collinear with a non-isotropic vector. Let $\f$ be the non-degenerate unitary form preserved by $\SU_2(q)$, and let
$\{u_1,u_2\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $V$ (see~\cite[Proposition~2.3.1]{KleLie1990}). Then $u_1$ is non-isotropic. Let $N$ be the kernel of the (multiplicative) norm map $\lambda\mapsto \lambda^{q+1}$ for $\lambda\in K^*$.
Let $D$ be the set of $g\in \GL_2(q^2)$ such that $u_1^g=u_1$ and $u_2^g=\lambda u_2$ for some $\lambda\in N$, and observe that $D\simeq C_{q+1}$ since the norm map is surjective. It is routine to verify that $\GammaU_2(q)_{u_1}\cap \GL_2(q^2)=D$, so $\GammaU_2(q)_{u_1}/D$ is a group of order $2e$, and $|G_{0,u_1}/(G_{0,u_1}\cap D)|$ divides~$2e$.
Since the subdegrees of $G$ are $(q^2-1)(q+1)$ and $|u_1^{G_0}|=q(q-1)(q^2-1)$, it follows that the least common multiple of $q+1$ and $q-1$ divides $|G_0|/q(q^2-1)=(q-1)|G_{0,u_1}|$. Thus $m:=(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,q-1)$ divides $|G_{0,u_1}|$, which divides $|G_{0,u_1}\cap D| 2e$, so $m/\gcd(m,2e)$ divides $|G_{0,u_1}\cap D|$. Now $\gcd(q+1,q-1)=\gcd(2,q-1)$, so $|G_{0,u_1}\cap D|$ is divisible by $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)$. Thus,
for any non-isotropic vector $v\in V$, the order of $|G_{0,v}\cap \GL_2(q^2)|$ is divisible by $(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)$. Moreover, $(q+1)\neq \gcd(q+1,4e)$ since $q\neq 3$, so there exists $h\in G_{0,u_1}\cap D $ such that $h\neq 1$, in which case $u_2^h=\lambda u_2$ for some $\lambda\in N\setminus \{1\}$.
Let $L$ be the line of $\mathcal{S}$ on $0$ and $u_1$, and let $B:=L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on the set of non-isotropic vectors. By assumption, there exists $y\in B\setminus \langle u_1\rangle$. Write $y=\lambda_1u_1+\lambda_2u_2$ where $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in K$. Now $\lambda_1u_1+\lambda \lambda_2u_2=y^h\in B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), so $\delta u_2\in B$ where $\delta:=(\lambda-1)\lambda_2$ since $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_s$-subspace of $V$. Let $D'$ be the set of $g\in \GL_2(q^2)$ such that $u_2^g=u_2$ and $u_1^g=\alpha u_1$ for some $\alpha\in N$. Let $N'$ be the set of $\alpha\in N$ such that $u_1^g=\alpha u_1$ for some $g\in G_{0,\delta u_2}\cap D'$. Then $N'\leq N$, and $N'\simeq G_{0,\delta u_2}\cap D'=G_{0,\delta u_2}\cap \GL_2(q^2)$, so
$(q+1)/\gcd(q+1,4e)$ divides $|N'|$.
If $\mu\in N'$, then $\mu u_1\in B$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(ii), so $\mu\in \mathbb{F}_s^*$. Thus $N'\leq \mathbb{F}_s^*$, and the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\emph{\ref{prop:(S1)--(S2)bad}}] (i) This is routine.
(ii) If $A_7\unlhd G_0$ and $(n,q)=(4,2)$, then there are no $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:necessary} and~\ref{lemma:affine} and a computation in {\sc Magma}, so we assume that $\SL_n(q)\unlhd G_0$. If $n=2$, then we are done by Proposition~\ref{prop:A4red}, so we assume that $n\geq 3$. Let $Y:=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle_K$ and $H:=W{:}G_{0,Y}^Y$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred}, $\GL_2(q)\unlhd H_0$ and $H$ is transitive of rank~$3$.
First we claim that if $q=3$ and $H_0 \leq \GL_2(3)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_9\rangle$, then $H_0=\GL_2(3)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_9\rangle$. Since $H$ has rank~$3$, there exists $g\in H_0$ mapping $v_1$ to $\zeta^2 v_1$, and $g=h\zeta^{2i}(\zeta\sigma_9)^j$ for some $h\in \GL_2(3)$, $i\in \{0,1\}$ and $j\in \{0,1\}$, but this is impossible if $j=1$, so $j=0$, whence $i=1$. Since $\GL_2(3)\leq H_0$, it follows that $\zeta^2\in H_0$. Similarly, there exists $g\in H_0$ mapping $v_1$ to $\zeta v_1$, so $\zeta\sigma_9\in H_0$, and the claim holds.
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ lie on a line $L$. Then $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred}(i), $\mathcal{S}\cap Y=(Y,L^H)$ is an $H$-affine proper partial linear space. Since $\mathcal{S}\cap Y$ contains the line $L$, it is $K$-independent, so by Proposition~\ref{prop:A4red} and the claim,
$q=3$, $H_0=\GL_2(3)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_9\rangle$ and $L=\langle x,y_1\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ or $\langle x,y_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$.
Let $g\in G_0$. Then $Y^g=Y^h$ for some $h\in \GL_n(3)$. There exists $s\in \SL_n(3)$ such that $v_1^{hs}=v_1$ and $v_2^{hs}=v_2$, so $gs\in G_{0,Y}\leq A_0$. Thus $G\leq A$. Further, $L^{G}=L^{A}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred}(ii) since $A$ is a rank~$3$ group and $A_{0,Y}^Y=H_0$.
Conversely, suppose that $q=3$, $G\leq A$ and $\mathcal{L}=L^A$ where $L=\langle x,y_1\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ or $\langle x,y_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$.
Then $H_0\leq \GL_2(3)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_9\rangle$, so
$H_0=\GL_2(3)\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma_9\rangle$ by the claim. Thus $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorred}(ii) and Proposition~\ref{prop:A4red}, and it is clearly $K$-independent.
(iii) Clearly $\mathcal{S}_3$ is $K$-dependent. Since $\zeta$ normalises $A$, it follows that $\zeta$ maps $\mathcal{L}_1$ to $\mathcal{L}_2$, so it suffices to show that $\mathcal{S}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$ are isomorphic. Since $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n,\zeta v_1,\ldots,\zeta v_n\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_3$-basis of $V$, there exists $t\in \GL_{2n}(3)$ such that $v_i^t=\zeta^2 v_i$ and $(\zeta v_i)^t=-v_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. Now $t$ centralises $\GL_n(3)$, and $t^{-1}\zeta\sigma_9 t=\zeta^3\sigma_9$ and $t^{-1}\zeta^2t=\zeta\sigma_9$, so $t$ normalises $A_0$. Further, $x^t=\zeta^2v_1-v_2$ and $y_2^t=v_1+\zeta^2 v_2$, so $y_2^t=\zeta^6 x^t$, in which case $L_2^t=\langle x^t\rangle_{K}$. Thus $(L_2^A)^t=(\langle x^t\rangle_{K})^{A}=L_3^A$.
\end{proof}
In Remark~\ref{remark:lineartopls}, we observed that if $\mathcal{S}:=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{L})$ and $\mathcal{S}':=(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{L}')$ are isomorphic linear spaces satisfying the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}(i), then any isomorphism $\varphi:\mathcal{S}\to \mathcal{S}'$ determines isomorphisms between the proper partial linear spaces obtained from $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}'$ (in the sense of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}). In the following, we show that the converse of this observation need not hold.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:linearspace}
Let $V:=V_2(q^2)$ where $q$ is a prime power, let $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ where $r:=q^2$, and let $G$ be the rank~$3$ affine primitive permutation group $V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ K^*){:}\Aut(K)$ from class (S1). Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $W:=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$ and $Y:=(v_1+\zeta_{r} v_2)^{G_0}$. Let $\mathcal{L}_U:=\{\langle w\rangle_K +v: w\in W^*,v\in V\}$, $\mathcal{L}_W:=\{\lambda W+v:\lambda\in K^*,v\in V\}$ and $\mathcal{L}_Y:=\{\langle w\rangle_K +v: w\in Y, v\in V\}$. Let $\mathcal{S}_U:=(V,\mathcal{L}_U)$, $\mathcal{S}_W:=(V,\mathcal{L}_W)$ and $\mathcal{S}_Y:=(V,\mathcal{L}_Y)$. Now $\mathcal{S}_U$, $\mathcal{S}_W$ and $\mathcal{S}_Y$ are $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces, and the collinearity relation of $\mathcal{S}_U$ and $\mathcal{S}_W$ is disjoint from the collinearity relation of $\mathcal{S}_Y$.
Further, as we discussed at the beginning of this section, $\mathcal{S}_U$ and $\mathcal{S}_W$ are the two partial linear spaces of Example~\ref{example:tensor} (for $m=2$).
Thus $\mathcal{S}_U\simeq \mathcal{S}_W$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iv), and of course $\mathcal{S}_Y$ is isomorphic to itself. However, the linear spaces $\mathcal{S}_1:=(V,\mathcal{L}_U\cup \mathcal{L}_Y)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(V,\mathcal{L}_W\cup \mathcal{L}_Y)$ (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}) are not isomorphic for $q\geq 3$: $\mathcal{S}_1$ is the affine plane $\AG_2(r)$, while $\mathcal{S}_2$ is the Hall plane of order $r$ (see~\cite[\S13]{Lun1980}).
\end{remark}
\section{Subfield class (S0)}
\label{s:(S0)}
Class (S0) is similar to class (S1): it consists of those affine permutation groups $G$ of rank~$3$ on $V_2(q^3)$ for which $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0$. Let $r:=q^3$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_r$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}). Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $V_2(r)$ on which $\GL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $U:=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$. By assumption, $G_0\leq \GammaL_2(r)$, so $G_0\leq (\GL_2(q)\circ K^*){:}\langle \sigma_r\rangle$ where $\sigma_r$ (see~\S\ref{ss:basicsvs}) acts on $V_2(r)$ with respect to $\{v_1,v_2\}$.
Representatives for the orbits of $G_0$ are $v_1$ and $v_1+\zeta v_2$, and $v_1^{G_0}=\{\lambda v : \lambda\in K^*,v\in U^*\}$. Let $\lambda U:=\{\lambda v : v \in U\}$ for $\lambda\in K^*$. The orbits of $\SL_2(q)$ on $v_1^{G_0}$ are $(\lambda_1U)^*,\ldots,(\lambda_{s}U)^*$, where $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{s}$ is a transversal for $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ in~$K^*$ (so $s=q^2+q+1$).
Here is an equivalent definition for the class (S0). As above, let $r:=q^3$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$. Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $U:=V_2(q)$. The extension of scalars $U\otimes K$ is a $2$-dimensional $K$-vector space with basis $\{v_1\otimes 1,v_2\otimes 1\}$ on which $\GL_2(q)\otimes \GL_1(r){:}\langle \sigma_r\rangle$ acts naturally. Now class (S0) consists of those affine permutation groups $G$ of rank~$3$ on $U\otimes K$ for which $\SL_2(q)\otimes 1\unlhd G_0$. Representatives for the orbits of $G_0$ are $v_1\otimes 1$ and $v_1\otimes 1+v_2\otimes \zeta$. Further, we may view $U\otimes K$ as a $6$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space with basis $\{v_1\otimes 1,v_2\otimes 1,v_1\otimes \zeta,v_2\otimes \zeta,v_1\otimes \zeta^2,v_2\otimes \zeta^2\}$, in which case $G_0$ lies in class (T6). (Note that in class (T6), there exists $t\in \GL_3(q)$ such that $t\sigma_q$ acts as the Frobenius automorphism of $K$.)
The orbits of $\SL_2(q)\otimes 1$ on $(v_1\otimes 1)^{G_0}$ are $U^*\otimes\lambda_1,\ldots, U^*\otimes \lambda_{s}$ where $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{s}$ is a transversal for $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ in $K^*$. If we define $\mathcal{L}$ to be the set of translations of $U\otimes \lambda_i$ for $1\leq i\leq q^2+q+1$, then $(U\otimes K,\mathcal{L})$ is one of the proper partial linear spaces described in Example \ref{example:tensor} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii), and it is both $K$-independent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent. However, if we instead define $\mathcal{L}$ to be the set of translations of $v\otimes K=\langle v\otimes 1\rangle_K$ for $v\in U^*$, then $(U\otimes K,\mathcal{L})$ is not only the other proper partial linear space described in Example~\ref{example:tensor} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iii), but also a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG} that is $K$-dependent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent. (In the notation of Example~\ref{example:AG}, for any $G_0$ in class (S0), the partial linear space is $\mathcal{S}_1$, where $\Delta_1$ is the orbit $\{\langle v\otimes 1\rangle_K : v\in U^*\}$ of $G_0$ on the points of $\PG_{1}(q^3)$.)
By combining these two viewpoints of class (S0), we obtain the following as an immediate consequence of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple} and~\ref{lemma:tensorsimpleSL}(i).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(S0)good}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_2(q^3)$ where $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $K:=\mathbb{F}_{q^3}$.
Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $U:=\langle v_1,v_2\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}$. \begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The only $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $v_1$ are collinear has line set $\mathcal{L}:=\{\lambda U+v:\lambda\in K^*,v\in V\}$.
\item[(ii)] The partial linear space $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:tensor}}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Unfortunately, in contrast to class (S1), we are unable to provide a classification of the $K$-independent $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces for which $0$ is collinear with $v_1+\zeta v_2$ for groups $G$ in class (S0). (Note that the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(c) hold under these assumptions.) Here the group $\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$ acts regularly on the orbit containing $v_1+\zeta v_2$, so our usual techniques fail. However, we can classify the $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces when $\GL_2(q)\circ K^*\leq G_0$. Since the affine permutation group with stabiliser $\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$ is transitive of rank~$3$, any example that arises for $G_0$ also arises for $\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$, so we assume that $G_0=\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$.
To state our classification, we need some notation. Let $F/E$ be a field extension of degree~$2$, and let $\End_E(F)$ denote the ring of $E$-endomorphisms of $F$. For
$\varphi\in \End_E(F)$, we denote the $2\times 2$ transformation matrix of $\varphi$ with respect to an $E$-basis $\mathcal{B}$ of $F$ by $[\varphi]_\mathcal{B}$. In other words, if $\mathcal{B}=\{b_1,b_2\}$ and $v=\lambda_1b_1+\lambda_2 b_2$ for some $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in E$, then $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)[\varphi]_{\mathcal{B}}=(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ if and only if $v\varphi=\mu_1b_1+\mu_2b_2$ where $\mu_1,\mu_2\in E$. Note that in the following result, it is more convenient not to make the distinction between $K$-independent and $K$-dependent partial linear spaces.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(S0)bad}
Let $r:=q^3$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_r$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$ where $q$ is a prime power. Let $V:=K^2$ and $G:=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ K^*)$. Let $x:=(1,\zeta)\in V$. Then $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear if and only if $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $L=\{\lambda x : \lambda\in F\}$, where $F$ is a subfield of $K$ and $|F|>2$.
\item[(ii)] $L=\{x \diag(\lambda,\lambda^\tau)^g: \lambda\in F\}$, where $F$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, $\tau$ is a non-trivial element of $ \Aut(F)$, and $g\in\GL_2(q)$.
\item[(iii)] $L=\{x[\varphi_\lambda]_\mathcal{B}^g : \lambda\in F\}$, where $F$ is a field with $[F: F\cap \mathbb{F}_q]=2$, the map $\varphi_\lambda\in \End_{F\cap \mathbb{F}_q}(F)$ is defined by $v\mapsto \lambda v$ for all $v\in F$, the set $\mathcal{B}$ is an $(F\cap \mathbb{F}_q)$-basis of $F$, and $g\in \GL_2(q)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Before proving Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}, we make some remarks and prove some lemmas.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:S0exceptions}
Biliotti et al.~\cite{BilMonFra2015} consider the case where $G_0=\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$ for $2$-$(v,k,1)$ designs in~\cite[Theorem 32]{BilMonFra2015}, but they mistakenly assert that their result applies to all rank~$3$ groups $G$ in class (S0) with $K^*\leq G_0$ by stating that any such group must contain $\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$ (see~\cite[p.148]{BilMonFra2015}). This is not true, as we now see. Let $K$ be a field of order $r:=q^3$ where $q=p^e$ and $p$ is prime. Let
$S:=\SL_2(q)\circ K^*$ and $T:=\GL_2(q)\circ K^*$. Now $T$ is regular on $(1,\zeta_r)^{T}$ and $S$ has index $(2,q-1)$ in $T$, so $S$ has $(2,q-1)$ orbits on $(1,\zeta_r)^{T}$, say $X_1,\ldots,X_{(2,q-1)}$. Note also that $(1,0)^S=(1,0)^T$. Let $g:=\diag(\zeta_q,1)$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_r$.
Then $T=S\langle g\rangle$ and $S\langle g,\sigma\rangle/S=\langle Sg\rangle\times \langle S\sigma\rangle\simeq C_{(2,q-1)}\times C_{3e}$. Now $G_0$ is the point stabiliser of a rank $3$ group in class (S0) that contains $K^*$ but not $T$ precisely when the following hold: $q$ is odd; $S\leq G_0\leq S\langle g,\sigma\rangle$; $g\notin G_0$; and $X_1^h=X_2$ for some $h\in G_0\cap \langle g,\sigma\rangle$. Suppose then that $q$ is odd. The subgroups of $ S\langle g,\sigma\rangle/S$ not containing $Sg$ are cyclic, so it is routine to determine the possibilities for $G_0$: $e$ is even, and either
$X_1^\sigma=X_1$, in which case $G_0$ is $S\langle g\tau\rangle$ for any $\tau\in\langle\sigma\rangle$ with even order, or $X_1^\sigma=X_2$, in which case $G_0$ is $S\langle g\tau\rangle$ for any $\tau\in\langle\sigma^2\rangle$ with even order, or $S\langle \tau\rangle$ for any $\tau\in\langle\sigma\rangle\setminus \langle\sigma^2\rangle$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:S0bad}
Let $K$ be a field of order $q^3$ where $q=p^e$ and $p$ is prime. Let $V:=K^2$ and $G:=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ K^*)$.
Note that the fields $F$ for which $[F:F\cap \mathbb{F}_q]=2$ are precisely the fields of order $p^{2f}$ where $f$ divides $e$ but $2f$ does not divide $e$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be any $G$-affine proper partial linear space that arises from Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}(iii) with respect to the field $F$, where $|F|=p^{2f}$. Now $F$ is not a subfield of $K$. Hence, if $f< e$, then $\mathcal{S}$
cannot be obtained from any $G$-affine $2$-$(q^6,p^{2f},1)$ design by Propositions~\ref{prop:dep} and~\ref{prop:(S0)good} (in the sense of Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}).
\end{remark}
Next we have a lemma that applies to all groups in class (S0).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:A5add}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_2(q^3)$ where $\SL_2(q)\unlhd G_0$ and $q$ is a power of a prime $p$. Let $r:=q^3$. Let $\{v_1,v_2\}$ be a basis of $V$ on which $\GL_2(q)$ acts naturally over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $v_1+\zeta_{r} v_2$ are collinear. If $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$, then $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ and $|L|$ divides~$q^3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$. Then $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine} since $-1\in \SL_2(q)$.
If $\lambda v_1 +\mu v_2,\lambda v_1+\delta v_2\in L^*$ for some $\lambda,\mu,\delta\in \mathbb{F}_r^*$, then $(\mu-\delta)v_2\in L$, so $\mu=\delta$. Thus $|L|\leq q^3$, and since $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-vector space, $|L|$ divides $q^3$.
\end{proof}
In the following, for a field of size $s$, we denote the ring of $2\times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{F}_s$ by $\M_2(s)$. Note that if $F$ is a field and $\varphi:F\to \M_2(s)$ is an injective ring homomorphism, then $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(s)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:(S0)bad}
Let $r:=q^3$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_r$ and $\zeta:=\zeta_r$, where $q$ is a prime power. Let $V:=K^2$ and $G:=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ K^*)$. Let $x:=(1,\zeta)\in V$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ where $L=\{x(\lambda\varphi): \lambda\in F\}$ for some field $F$ with $|F|>2$ and injective ring homomorphism $\varphi:F\to \M_2(r)$ such that $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$ or $K^*$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear. Let $L$ be the line containing $0$ and $x$. Since $G$ is transitive of rank~$3$ on $V$, the line set $\mathcal{L}=L^G$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A5add}, $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ and $|L|=p^m$ for some $m\leq 3e$ where $q=p^e$ and $p$ is prime. Let $B:=L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$. Let $H:=G_{0,B}$. Note that $|H|=p^m-1$ since $G_0$ is regular on $x^{G_0}$. In order to establish (ii), since $B=\{x^h :h \in H\}$, it suffices to prove that $H\cup\{0\}$ is a field (as a subring of $\M_2(r)$) and that $H\leq \GL_2(q)$ or $K^*$.
Observe that $H\cap K^*=\{\lambda\in K^* : \lambda x \in B\}$, for if $\lambda\in K^*$ and $\lambda x\in B$, then $x^\lambda\in B^\lambda\cap B$, and since $\lambda\in G_0$, it follows that $B^\lambda=B$, so $\lambda\in H$. Since $L$ is closed under addition, it follows that $(H\cap K^*)\cup \{0\}$ is closed under addition. Clearly $H\cap K^*$ is
a subgroup of the abelian group $K^*$,
so $(H\cap K^*)\cup \{0\}$ is a field and $|H\cap K^*|=p^f-1$ for some $f$ that divides $3e$. Since $|H\cap K^*|$ divides $|H|$, it follows that $f$ divides $m$. If $f=m$, then $H\leq K^*$, in which case $H\cup \{0\}$ is a field and (ii) holds, so we may assume that $f<m$.
The group $H/(H\cap K^*)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\GL_2(q)/(\GL_2(q)\cap K^*)$, which has order $q(q^2-1)$, so $p^m-1$ divides $(p^f-1)(p^{2e}-1)$. We claim that $m$ divides $2e$. We may assume that $m>2$. If the pair $(p,m)\neq (2,6)$, then $p^m-1$ has a primitive prime divisor, say $t$ (see~\cite{Zsi1892} or~\cite[Theorem 5.2.14]{KleLie1990}). Now $t$ divides $(p^f-1)(p^{2e}-1)$, but $f<m$, so $t$ divides $p^{2e}-1$. Since $p$ has order $m$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/t\mathbb{Z})^*$, we conclude that $m$ divides $2e$, as desired. Otherwise, $(p,m)=(2,6)$. Now $f\in \{1,2,3\}$, and $63$ divides $(2^f-1)(4^e-1)$. If $f=1$ or $2$, then $7$ divides $4^e-1$, and $4$ has order $3$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/7\mathbb{Z})^*$, so $3$ divides $e$. Thus $m$ divides $2e$. If instead $f=3$, then $9$ divides $4^e-1$, and $4$ has order $3$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/9\mathbb{Z})^*$, so $m$ divides $2e$. Hence we have established the claim.
Next we claim that $H\leq \GL_2(q)$. Since $m$ divides $2e$, the order of $H$ divides $q^2-1$. Let $h\in H$. Now $h=\lambda g$ for some $g\in \GL_2(q)$ and $\lambda\in K^*$. Since $h$ has order dividing $q^2-1$, it follows that $g^{q^2-1}\lambda^{q^2-1}=1$. Since $g\in \GL_2(q)$, either $g$ has one Jordan block and the order of $g$ divides $p(q-1)$, or $g$ has two Jordan blocks (over an extension field of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with degree at most $2$) and the order of $g$ divides $q^2-1$. Thus $\lambda^{p(q^2-1)}=1$, so the order of $\lambda$ divides $\gcd(p(q^2-1),q^3-1)=q-1$. Hence $\lambda\in \GL_2(q)$, and the claim follows.
It remains to show that $H\cup \{0\}$ is a field. To do so, it suffices to prove that $\det(1+h)\neq 0$ for all $h\in H\setminus \{-1\}$. Indeed, suppose that this statement holds, and let $h_1,h_2\in H$. We claim that $h_1+h_2\in H\cup \{0\}$, in which case it will follow that $H\cup \{0\}$ is a field since $H$ is a subgroup of $\GL_2(q)$ and any finite division ring is a field by Wedderburn's theorem. If $h_1+h_2=0$, then we are done, so assume otherwise. Now $h_1^{-1}h_2\neq -1$, so $\det(1+h_1^{-1}h_2)\neq 0$, whence $\det(h_1+h_2)\neq 0$. Since $H\leq\GL_2(q)$, it follows that $h_1+h_2\in \GL_2(q)$. Now $x^{h_1+h_2}\neq 0$, and $L$ is closed under addition, so $x^{h_1+h_2}=x^{h_1}+x^{h_2}\in B$. Thus there exists $k\in H$ such that $x^{h_1+h_2}=x^k$, but $\GL_2(q)$ is semiregular on $x^{G_0}$, so $h_1+h_2=k\in H$, as desired.
Let $h\in H\setminus \{-1\}$, and suppose for a contradiction that $\det(1+h)=0$. Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be the eigenvalues of $h$ in some field extension of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Since $|H|=p^m-1$, the order of $h$ is not divisible by $p$, so $h$ has two Jordan blocks. Thus $h^g=\diag(\lambda,\mu)$ for some $g\in \GL_2(\mathbb{F}_q(\lambda))$. Now $(1+h)^g=1+h^g$, so $\det(1+h^g)=0$. Thus $\lambda=-1$ or $\mu=-1$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\lambda=-1$. In particular, $\mu\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$, so $g\in \GL_2(q)$. Let $y:=x^g$, and write $y=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ where $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in K^*$. Now $B^g$ is a block of $G_0$ containing $y$, and $h^g\in G_{0,B^g}$, so $(-\lambda_1 ,\mu \lambda_2)\in B^g$. However, $L^g$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, so $(-\lambda_1 ,-\lambda_2 )\in B^g$, but then $(0,\lambda_2(\mu +1) )\in L^g$. Since $B^g\subseteq x^{G_0}$, it follows that $\mu=-1$, but then $h=-1$, a contradiction. Thus we have established~(ii).
Conversely, suppose that $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ where $L=\{x(\lambda\varphi): \lambda\in F\}$ for some field $F$ with $|F|>2$ and injective ring homomorphism $\varphi:F\to \M_2(r)$ such that $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$ or $K^*$. Let $H:=(F\varphi)^*$ and $B:=L^*=x^H$. Since $G_0$ acts regularly on $x^{G_0}$, it follows that $B$ is a block of $G_0$, and clearly $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, so (i) holds by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive} and~\ref{lemma:sufficient}.
\end{proof}
Now we consider the possibilities for the field $F$ and the injective ring homomorphism $\varphi$ in the case where $\varphi:F\to \M_2(q)$. There are two natural ways of defining such a ring homomorphism. First, let $F$ be a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, let $\tau\in \Aut(F)$ and define $\varphi:F\to \M_2(q)$ by $\lambda\mapsto \diag(\lambda,\lambda^\tau)$. Clearly $\varphi$ is an injective ring homomorphism. Second, let $E$ be a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, and let $F$ be a field extension of $E$ of degree $2$. Define $\varphi:F\to \End_E(F)$ by $\lambda\mapsto \varphi_\lambda $ where $\varphi_\lambda: v\mapsto \lambda v$ for all $v\in F$. This is an injective ring homomorphism, and by fixing a basis for the $E$-vector space $F$, we see that $\End_E(F)\simeq \M_2(E)$, and $\M_2(E)$ is a subring of $\M_2(q)$, so $\varphi$ naturally gives us an injective ring homomorphism from $F$ to $\M_2(q)$. It is well known that, up to conjugacy in $\GL_2(q)$, there are no other ways of embedding $F$ in $\M_2(q)$. We state this result explicitly below, and since we could not find a reference for it in this form, we prove it for completeness.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:(S0)badmore}
Let $F$ be a field, and let $\varphi:F\to \M_2(q)$ be an injective ring homomorphism where $q$ is a prime power. Let $H:=(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$, and let $H=\langle h\rangle$. Let $\varepsilon$ be an eigenvalue of $h$ in some field extension of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then $F^*\simeq \langle \varepsilon\rangle$, and we may view $F$ as a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon)$. Further, exactly one of the following holds, where $E:=F\cap \mathbb{F}_q$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{F}_q$, and $h$ is conjugate in $\GL_2(q)$ to $\diag(\varepsilon,\varepsilon^\tau)$ for some $\tau\in \Aut(F)$.
\item[(ii)] $[F:E]=2$, and $h$ is conjugate in $\GL_2(q)$ to $[\varphi_\varepsilon]_{\mathcal{B}}$,
where $\varphi_\varepsilon\in \End_E(F)$ is defined by $ v\mapsto \varepsilon v$ for all $v\in F$, and $\mathcal{B}:=\{1,\varepsilon\}$ is an $E$-basis of $F$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $p$ be the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
Since $\varphi$ maps the identity of $F$ to the identity of $\M_2(q)$, it follows that $F$ also has characteristic $p$. In particular, the order of $h$ is not divisible by $p$. Let $f(X)\in \mathbb{F}_q[X]$ be the characteristic polynomial of $h$. Then $f(X)=(X-\varepsilon)(X-\delta)$ for some $\delta\in \mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon)$. Since the order of $h$ is not divisible by $p$, it must have two Jordan blocks, so $h$ is conjugate in $\GL_2(\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon))$ to $g:=\diag(\varepsilon,\delta)$.
Let $\ell$ and $m$ be the order of $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ in $\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon)^*$, respectively. We may assume that $\ell\leq m$. Now $\langle g\rangle \cup \{0\}$ is conjugate to $F\varphi$, so it is closed under addition. In particular, it contains the matrix $1-\diag(1,\delta^\ell)=\diag(0,1-\delta^\ell)$, so $1=\delta^\ell$, and it follows that $m=\ell=|F|-1$. Thus $F^*\simeq \langle \varepsilon\rangle\simeq \langle\delta\rangle$, and we may view $F$ as the subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon)$ that contains $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$. Now $\delta=\varepsilon^n$ for some integer $n$, so $\langle g\rangle=\{\diag(\lambda,\lambda^n):\lambda\in F^*\}$, and it follows that $(\lambda+\mu)^n=\lambda^n+\mu^n$ for all $\lambda,\mu\in F$. Thus there exists $\tau\in \Aut(F)$ such that $\delta=\varepsilon^\tau$, and (i) holds when $\varepsilon\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$.
Suppose instead that $\varepsilon\notin \mathbb{F}_q$. As in the statement of the lemma, let $E:=F\cap \mathbb{F}_q$. Now $f(X)\in E[X]$ is irreducible, so $f(X)$ is the minimal polynomial of $\varepsilon$ over $E$, but $F=E(\varepsilon)$, so $[F:E]=2$. Thus $\mathcal{B}$ is an $E$-basis for $F$, and there exist $a,b\in E$ such that $\varphi_\varepsilon$ maps $\varepsilon$ to $a\cdot 1+b\cdot \varepsilon$. Now $\varepsilon$ is a root of $X^2-bX-a\in E[X]$, so $f(X)=X^2-bX-a$.
Since $X^2-bX-a$ is also the characteristic polynomial of $[\varphi_\varepsilon]_{\mathcal{B}}$, we conclude that $[\varphi_\varepsilon]_{\mathcal{B}}$ is conjugate in $\GL_2(\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon))$ to $\diag(\varepsilon,\delta)$. Hence $h$ and $[\varphi_\varepsilon]_{\mathcal{B}}$ are conjugate in $\GL_2(\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon))$, but both matrices have entries in $\mathbb{F}_q$, so they are also conjugate in $\GL_2(q)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\emph{\ref{prop:(S0)bad}}]
Let $(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)bad}, $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ where $L=\{x(\lambda\varphi): \lambda\in F\}$ for some field $F$ with $|F|>2$ and injective ring homomorphism $\varphi:F\to \M_2(r)$ such that $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$ or $K^*$. If $(F\varphi)^*\leq K^*$, then (i) holds, so we may assume that $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$. Let $(F\varphi)^*=\langle h\rangle$, and let $\varepsilon$ be an eigenvalue of $h$ in some field extension of $\mathbb{F}_q$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)badmore}, $F^*\simeq \langle \varepsilon\rangle$, we may view $F$ as a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q(\varepsilon)$, and Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)badmore}(i) or (ii) holds.
First suppose that Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)badmore}(i) holds. Then $\varepsilon\in \mathbb{F}_q$ and $h=\diag(\varepsilon,\varepsilon^\tau)^g$ for some $\tau\in \Aut(F)$ and $g\in \GL_2(q)$. If $\tau=1$, then (i) holds. Otherwise, (ii) holds. Thus we may assume that Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)badmore}(ii) holds. Let $E:=F\cap \mathbb{F}_q$. Then $[F:E]=2$, and $h$ is conjugate in $\GL_2(q)$ to $[\varphi_\varepsilon]_{\mathcal{B}}$, where
$\varphi_\varepsilon\in \End_E(F)$ is defined by $ v\mapsto \varepsilon v$ for all $v\in F$, and $\mathcal{B}=\{1,\varepsilon\}$ is an $E$-basis of $F$. Thus (iii) holds.
Conversely, suppose that $\mathcal{L}=L^G$ where $L$ is given by (i), (ii) or (iii). In each case, we claim that that $L=\{x(\lambda \varphi): \lambda\in F\}$ for some injective ring homomorphism $\varphi:F\to \M_2(r)$ such that $(F\varphi)^*\leq \GL_2(q)$ or $K^*$. If the claim holds, then since $|F|>2$ in (i)--(iii), Lemma~\ref{lemma:(S0)bad} implies that $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear, as desired.
If (i) holds, then we define $\varphi$ by $\lambda\mapsto \diag(\lambda,\lambda)$ for all $\lambda\in F$, and the claim holds.
If (ii) holds, then we define $\varphi$ by $\lambda\mapsto \diag(\lambda,\lambda^\tau)^g$ for all $\lambda\in F$, and the claim holds.
If (iii) holds, then we define $\varphi$ by $\lambda\mapsto [\varphi_\lambda]_\mathcal{B}^g$ for all $\lambda\in F$, and the claim holds.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad} provides a classification of the $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces for which $0$ and $(1,\zeta)$ are collinear when $G_0$ lies in class (S0) and $\GL_2(q)\circ \mathbb{F}_{q^3}^*\leq G_0$. However, we suspect that the situation is much more complicated in general.
To illustrate this, we now provide a complete classification of the partial linear spaces that arise when $q=4$.
\begin{example}
\label{example:hardS0}
Let $q:=4$, $r:=q^3$, $K:=\mathbb{F}_{r}$, $\sigma:=\sigma_r$, $\zeta:=\zeta_{r}$, $x:=(1,\zeta)$ and $V:=K^2$.
Let $S:=\GL_2(q)$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the point stabiliser of an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ in (S0) is
either $S\langle\zeta,\sigma^i\rangle$ for $i\in \{1,2,3,6\}$, or conjugate to $S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$. Note that $S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$ does not contain $S\circ K^*=S\langle\zeta\rangle$. Recall that we may view $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ as a member of class (T6) and therefore as a subgroup of $W_0:=(S\otimes \GL_3(q)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$.
We claim that Table~\ref{tab:S0examplesq=4} contains a complete list of representatives for the isomorphism classes of $X$-affine proper partial linear spaces for which $0$ and $x$ are collinear, where $X$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ in (S0). For each such partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$, we prove that $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=V{:}\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$, and we list the following in Table~\ref{tab:S0examplesq=4}: the line-size $k$; $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$;
and when $S\langle\zeta\rangle\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$, a reference to
Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
\hline
$k$ & $\mathcal{S}$ & $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$ & \ref{prop:(S0)bad} & Notes \\
\hline
$4$ & $\mathcal{S}_{4,1}$ & $W_0$ & (i) & $K$-dependent\\
& $\mathcal{S}_{4,2}$ & $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ & (ii) & \\
& $\mathcal{S}_{4,3}$ & $S\langle \zeta,\sigma^3\rangle$ & (ii) & \\
& $\mathcal{S}_{4,4}$ & $S\langle \zeta\rangle$ & (ii) & \\
& $\mathcal{S}_{4,\ell}$ & $S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$ & n/a & $5\leq \ell\leq 7$ \\
\hline
$8$ & $\mathcal{S}_{8,1}$ & $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ & (i) & $K$-dependent \\
\hline
$16$ & $\mathcal{S}_{16,1}$ & $S\langle \zeta\rangle$ & (iii) & \\
& $\mathcal{S}_{16,\ell}$ & $S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$ & n/a & $2\leq \ell\leq 3$ \\
\hline
$64$ & $\mathcal{S}_{64,1}$ & $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ & (i) & $K$-dependent \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ when $q=4$ and $0$ is collinear with $(1,\zeta_{64})$}
\label{tab:S0examplesq=4}
\end{table}
Observe in Table~\ref{tab:S0examplesq=4} that there are five pairwise non-isomorphic partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ for which $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0=S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$, none of which are isomorphic to a partial linear space described by Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}. Further, there are three pairwise non-isomorphic partial linear spaces that are described by Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}(ii), necessarily with $F=\mathbb{F}_4$ and $\tau=\sigma_4$.
Now we prove the claim. Let $G:=V{:}S\langle\zeta\rangle$, $H:=V{:}S\langle \zeta^3,\zeta^7\sigma^2\rangle$, $N:=V{:}S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ and $W:=V{:}W_0$. Then $N_{N_0}(H_0)=H_0\langle \sigma^2\rangle=G_0\langle\sigma^2\rangle$ and $|G_0|=|H_0|$. Let $\mathcal{G}:=\{H,G,G\langle\sigma^2\rangle,G\langle\sigma^3\rangle,N\}$.
For $X\in \{G,H\}$, let $\mathcal{B}_X$ denote the set of non-trivial blocks $B$ of $X_0$ on $x^{N_0}$ such that $x\in B$ and $B\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_2$-subspace of $V$. Let $Y\in \mathcal{G}$, and recall
from Lemmas~\ref{lemma:necessary} and~\ref{lemma:A5add} that if $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $Y$-affine proper partial linear space and $L\in \mathcal{L}_0\cap \mathcal{L}_x$, then $L^*\in \mathcal{B}_X$ for some $X\in \{G,H\}$. Conversely, if $X\in \{G,H\}$ and
$B\in \mathcal{B}_X$, then $(V,(B\cup \{0\})^X)$ is an $X$-affine proper partial linear space by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive} and~\ref{lemma:sufficient}. Therefore, in order to find all of the relevant partial linear spaces, it suffices to determine the sets $\mathcal{B}_X$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\mathcal{B}_G=\mathcal{B}_H$, and $\mathcal{B}_G$ consists of 19 blocks. Three of these correspond to $K$-dependent $N$-affine partial linear spaces with line-sizes $4$, $8$ and $64$, which we denote by $\mathcal{S}_{4,1}$, $\mathcal{S}_{8,1}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{64,1}$, respectively. Note that these are described by Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}(i) with $F=\mathbb{F}_k$ where $k$ is the line-size. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{8,1})=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{64,1})=N$. We will determine $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,1})$ below.
Of the remaining sixteen blocks in $\mathcal{B}_G$, six have size $15$ and ten have size $3$.
First we consider the blocks with size $15$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the group $\langle\sigma\rangle$ permutes the six $G$-affine partial linear spaces with line-size $16$ transitively, so all of these examples are isomorphic; let $\mathcal{S}_{16,1}$ denote one of these. Further, the group $\langle\sigma\rangle$ does not act on the six $H$-affine partial linear spaces with line-size $16$, while $\langle\sigma^2\rangle$ has two orbits of size $3$; let $\mathcal{S}_{16,2}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{16,3}$ denote orbit representatives of these. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{16,1})=G$, while $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{16,2})=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{16,3})=H$, and the partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}_{16,1}$, $\mathcal{S}_{16,2}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{16,3}$ are pairwise non-isomorphic. Note that $\mathcal{S}_{16,1}$ must have the form of Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}(iii) with $F=\mathbb{F}_{16}$.
It remains to consider the blocks with size $3$.
Recall that $\mathcal{S}_{4,1}$ denotes the $K$-dependent $N$-affine partial linear space with line-size $4$.
By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the group $\langle\sigma\rangle$ has orbit sizes $1$, $3$ and $6$ on the ten $G$-affine $K$-independent partial linear spaces with line-size $4$. In particular, $N$ is an automorphism group of the partial linear space in the orbit of size $1$; let $\mathcal{S}_{4,2}$ denote this partial linear space, and let $\mathcal{S}_{4,3}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{4,4}$ be representatives of the orbits with size $3$ and $6$, respectively. Note that $\mathcal{S}_{4,j}$ must have the form of Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)bad}(ii) with $F=\mathbb{F}_4$ and $\tau=\sigma_4$ for $2\leq j\leq 4$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\langle\sigma\rangle$ does not act on the nine $H$-affine $K$-independent partial linear spaces with line-size $4$ that are not equal to $\mathcal{S}_{4,2}$, while $\langle\sigma^2\rangle$ has orbit sizes $3$, $3$ and $3$; let $\mathcal{S}_{4,5}$, $\mathcal{S}_{4,6}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{4,7}$ be orbit representatives of these.
Let $j\in \{1,\ldots,7\}$. We wish to determine $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})$, but we are unable to do so directly using {\sc Magma}.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:Taut}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})\leq W$. In particular, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,1})=W$, so we assume that $j\neq 1$.
Recall that $S\unlhd W_0$ and $S\langle \zeta^3\rangle\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})_0$.
By a computation in {\sc Magma},
there are exactly four subgroups of $W_0$ (up to conjugacy) that contain $S$ and have two orbits on $V^*$ but are not conjugate to a subgroup of $N_0$.
Further, if $B$ is a block of one of these four groups on~$x^{N_0}$ for which $x\in B$ and $B\cup \{0\}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_2$-subspace of $V$ with size~$4$, then $B\cup \{0\}=\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_4}$.
However, $j\neq 1$, so $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})_0$ is conjugate in $W_0$ to a subgroup of $N_0$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $N_0$ is the only conjugate of $N_0$ in $W_0$ that contains $\zeta^3$. Thus $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})_0\leq N_0$. Now we can deduce from the actions of $\langle\sigma\rangle$ given above that $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_{4,j})$ is as described in Table~\ref{tab:S0examplesq=4}.
By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $G\langle\sigma^2\rangle$ is the normaliser of $H$ in $S_{4096}$, and $G$ and $H$ are not permutation isomorphic. Thus the partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}_{4,j}$ are pairwise non-isomorphic for $1\leq j\leq 7$.
\end{example}
\section{The imprimitive class (I)}
\label{s:(I)}
Let $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime.
We adopt the following notation throughout this section.
The stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$ in $\GL_{2n}(p)$ is $\GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle $, where $\tau$ is the involution in $\GL_{2n}(p)$ defined by $(u_1,u_2)^\tau =(u_2,u_1)$ for all $u_1,u_2\in V_n(p)$. We write $V_1:=\{(u,0): u \in V_n(p)\}$ and $V_2:=\{(0,u):u\in V_n(p)\}$, and for $G_0\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle$ and $i\in \{1,2\}$, we write
$G_0^i$ for the image of the projection of $G_{0,V_1}=G_0\cap (\GL_n(p)\times \GL_n(p))$ onto the $i$-th factor of $\GL_n(p)\times \GL_n(p)$.
If $G$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, then the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ are $V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ and $V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. In particular, $G$ is primitive if and only if $p^n>2$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}.
Further, $G_0^i$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$ for both $i$, and $G_{0,V_1}$ is an index $2$ subgroup of $G_0$. Now $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,s)\tau\rangle$ for some $t,s\in\GL_n(p)$. Conjugating $G_0$ by $(s^{-1},1)$ if necessary, we may assume that $s=1$, in which case $G_0^1=G_0^2$ and $G_0\leq G_0^1\wr \langle\tau\rangle$ since $((t,1)\tau)^2=(t,t)$.
If $H_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^n$ and $H_0$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$, then $V{:}(H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle)$ is a rank~$3$ subgroup of $V{:}(\GL_n(p)\wr \langle \tau\rangle)$. Note that $\GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_{2m}(q)$ when $q\neq p$. Indeed,
$(\GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle\tau\rangle)\cap \GammaL_{2m}(q)=\{(g_1\sigma,g_2\sigma):g_1,g_2\in \GL_m(q),\sigma\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)\}\langle \tau\rangle$, which is isomorphic to $(\GL_m(q)\wr \langle \tau\rangle){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$.
In previous sections, the rank~$3$ groups under consideration were all subgroups of $\AGammaL_m(q)$ for some field extension $\mathbb{F}_q$ of $\mathbb{F}_p$, in which case it was logical to consider $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent and $\mathbb{F}_q$-independent partial linear spaces separately. However, since this does not naturally occur for all groups in a particular subclass of (I), we will not make this distinction here. Nevertheless, we will see that there are two infinite families of $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent proper partial linear spaces for each field $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that $q^m=p^n$. In fact, one of these examples admits $V{:}(\GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle\tau\rangle)$ as an automorphism group, even though $\GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ is not $\mathbb{F}_q$-semilinear when $q\neq p$.
In this section, we prove the following two propositions. For the first, recall the definition of the cartesian product of two partial linear spaces that was given in \S\ref{ss:plsnew}, and observe that the partial linear space in (i) below is that of Example~\ref{example:grid}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(I)good}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime and $G_0\leq \GL_n(p)\wr \langle \tau\rangle$.
Then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is the $p^n\times p^n$ grid where $p^n>2$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{S}=\AG_m(q)\cprod\AG_m(q)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle \tau\rangle$, where $q^m=p^n$, $m\geq 2$ and $q>2$.
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal{S}\simeq \mathcal{S}'\cprod\mathcal{S}'$ and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathcal{S}'$ is the nearfield plane of order $9$ and $G_0\leq N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Here $p^n=3^4$.
\item[(b)] $\mathcal{S}'$ is the Hering plane of order $27$ or either of the two Hering spaces with line-size $9$, and $G_0=\SL_2(13)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Here $p^n=3^6$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:Hexample}
The partial linear space $\mathcal{S}:=\AG_m(q)\cprod\AG_m(q)$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good}(ii) has line set $\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}+v : u\in V_1^*\cup V_2^*,v\in V\}$, so $\mathcal{S}$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent partial linear space. In particular, $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the triple $(\AGL_m(q)\wr \langle\tau\rangle,2m,q)$, which satisfies Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups}(iii). However, $\AGammaL_m(q)\wr\langle \tau\rangle\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$, and if $q$ is not prime, then the triple $(\AGammaL_m(q)\wr\langle \tau\rangle,2m,q)$ does not satisfy Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups} by Remark~\ref{remark:hypfail}.
\end{remark}
Recall that for a vector space $V$ and $H\leq \GL(V)$, we write $C_V(H)$ for the subspace of $V$ consisting of those vectors in $V$ that are fixed by every element of $H$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(I)bad}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime, $G_0\leq \GL_n(p)\wr \langle \tau\rangle$ and $G_0$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_1(p^n)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. If $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$, then $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space $(V,\mathcal{L})$ where one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{L}=\{\langle v\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q} +w: v\in V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*,w\in V\}$ and $G_0\leq (\GammaL_m(q)\wr \langle\tau\rangle)\cap\GammaL_{2m}(q)$, where $q^m=p^n$, $m\geq 2$ and $q>2$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{L}=\{\{(v,v^r) +w : v \in V_n(p)\} : r\in R, w\in V\}$
for $R\leq \GL_n(p)$, where $n=2$ and
$(p,R)$ is one of
$(3,Q_8)$,
$(5,\SL_2(3))$,
$(7,2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-)$,
$(11,\SL_2(3)\times C_5)$,
$(23,2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\times C_{11})$,
$(11,\SL_2(5))$,
$(29,\SL_2(5)\times C_7)$ or
$(59,\SL_2(5)\times C_{29})$.
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal{L}=\{(v,v^\alpha): v\in M\}^{V{:}H_0\times H_0}$, where $p^n=3^4$, $M=C_{V_4(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$ for some $u\in V_4(3)^*$, $\alpha\in \{1,\beta\}$ where $\beta$ is chosen to be one of the two involutions in $\GL(M)_u\setminus (N_{\GL_4(3)}(H_0))_M^M$, and $H_0\leq \GL_4(3)$ is one of $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-{:}2$ or $(D_8\circ Q_8).C_{5}$.
\item[(iv)] $\mathcal{L}=\{(v,v^\alpha): v\in M\}^{V{:}H_0\times H_0}$, where $p^n=3^6$, $M=C_{V_6(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$ for some $u\in V_6(3)^*$, $\alpha\in \GL(M)_u\simeq S_3$ such that $\alpha^2=1$, and $H_0=\SL_2(13)\leq \GL_6(3)$.
\item[(v)] $\mathcal{L}=\{\{(v,v^{g})+w : v\in V_n(p)\} : g\in \SL_2(3)\alpha\cup \SL_2(3)\alpha^2r,\ w\in V\}$, where $p^n=7^2$, $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-=\SL_2(3)\langle r\rangle$, and $\alpha$ is chosen to be one of the non-trivial elements of $N_{\GL_2(7)}(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-)_u\simeq C_3$ for some $u\in V_2(7)^*$.
\end{itemize}
Conversely, if one of (i)--(v) holds, then $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is an affine proper partial linear space.
\end{prop}
We are unable to provide a classification of the $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces~$\mathcal{S}$ for which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$ for groups $G$ in class (I0), which is why we assume that $G_0$ is not a subgroup of $ \GammaL_1(p^n)\wr \langle\tau\rangle$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)bad}. Note that these conditions on $G$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are precisely those of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(b).
Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good} is a direct consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)goodmore}, proved below, while Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)bad} will follow (with some work) from Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}, where detailed information about the groups involved is given. See also Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep}--\ref{example:(I)spor}.
First we consider the orbit $V_1^*\cup V_2^*$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:A2good}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime and $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle(t,1)\tau\rangle\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}'\cprod\mathcal{S}'$ where $\mathcal{S}'$ is a linear space with point set $V_n(p)$ and line-size at least $3$ admitting $V_n(p){:}G_0^1$ as a $2$-transitive group of automorphisms.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that (i) holds and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the line set of $\mathcal{S}$. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ and $B:=L^*$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $(u,0)\in L$ for some $u\in V_n(p)^*$. If there exists $(0,v)\in B$ for some $v\in V_n(p)^*$, then $(u,-v)\in V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i), a contradiction. Thus $L\subseteq V_1$, so $L=\{(v,0):v \in L'\}$ for some $L'\subseteq V_n(p)$. Let $\mathcal{S}':=(V_n(p),\mathcal{L}')$ where $\mathcal{L}'$ is defined to be the set of subsets $M'$ of $V_n(p)$ for which $\{(v,0): v\in M'\}\in\mathcal{L}$. Then $\mathcal{S}'$ is a linear space with line-size at least $3$ admitting $V_n(p){:}G_0^1$ as a $2$-transitive group of automorphisms. It remains to show that $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}'\cprod\mathcal{S}'$. Let $M\in \mathcal{L}$. Then $M=L^g+(v_1,v_2)$ for some $g\in G_0$ and $(v_1,v_2)\in V$. Now $g=(g_1,g_2)\tau^i$ for some $g_1,g_2\in\GL_n(p)$ and $i\in \{1,2\}$. If $i=2$, then $M=\{(v,v_2): v \in (L')^{g_1}+v_1\}$, and if $i=1$, then $M=\{(v_1,v): v \in (L')^{g_1}+v_2\}$. Now $g_1\in G_0^1$ since $G_0\leq G_0^1\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, so $(L')^{g_1}+v_j\in\mathcal{L}'$ for $j=1,2$. Thus $M\in\mathcal{L}'\cprod\mathcal{L}'$. On the other hand, a typical line of $\mathcal{S}'\cprod\mathcal{S}'$ has the form $\{(v,w):v\in M'\}$ or $\{(w,v):v\in M'\}$ for some $w\in V_n(p)$ and $M'\in\mathcal{L}'$. Now $\{(v,0): v\in M'\}\in\mathcal{L}$, so $\{(v,w):v\in M'\}=\{(v,0): v\in M'\}+(0,w)\in \mathcal{L}$. Further, $g:=(1,t^{-1})\tau\in G_0$, so
$\{(w,v):v\in M'\}= \{(v,w^t):v\in M'\}^g\in\mathcal{L}$. Thus (ii) holds.
Conversely, suppose that (ii) holds. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:cartesian}, $\mathcal{S}$ is a proper partial linear space with point set $V$ in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})\geq (V_n(p){:}G_0^1)\wr\langle\tau\rangle\simeq V{:}(G_0^1\wr\langle\tau\rangle)\geq G$. Thus (i) holds.
\end{proof}
Using Kantor's classification~\cite{Kan1985} of the linear spaces with a $2$-transitive group of automorphisms (see Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}), we prove the following, from which Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good} immediately follows. Note that this result includes the groups in class (I0); in fact, its proof does not require Theorem~\ref{thm:A2groups}. For the following, recall the definition of $\zeta_9$ and $\sigma_9$ from \S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(I)goodmore}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime and $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle(t,1)\tau\rangle\leq \GL_n(p)\wr \langle \tau\rangle$.
Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{L}=\{V_i+v: i\in \{1,2\}, v\in V\}$ where $p^n\neq 2$.
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{L}=\{\langle u\rangle_F +v : u\in V_1^*\cup V_2^*, v\in V\}$ for some subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $q^m=p^n$, $|F|\geq 3$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle \tau\rangle$. If $m=1$, then $F\neq \mathbb{F}_q$.
\item[(iii)] $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}'\cprod\mathcal{L}'$ where $(V_n(p),\mathcal{L}')$ is a linear space and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $G_0\leq N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ and $p^n=3^4$, and if $\mathcal{N}$ denotes the line set of the nearfield plane of order $9$, then either $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{N}$, or $G_0\leq (\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ where $\SL_2(5)\leq \SL_2(9)$, in which case $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{N}^g$ for some $g\in \{1,\zeta_9^2\}$ and $G_0$ is $(\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9)\rangle\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ or $(\SL_2(5)\times \SL_2(5))\langle (\zeta_9\sigma_9,1)\tau\rangle$.
\item[(b)] $\mathcal{L}'$ is the line set of the Hering plane of order $27$ or either of the two Hering spaces with line-size $9$, and $G_0=\SL_2(13)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ where $p^n=3^6$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $t\in G_0^1=G_0^2$ and $G_0\leq G_0^1\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. If one of (i)--(iii) holds, then $(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2good} and Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}.
Conversely, let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2good},
$\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}'\cprod\mathcal{L}'$ where $\mathcal{S}':=(V_n(p),\mathcal{L}')$ is a linear space with line-size at least $3$ admitting $V_n(p){:}G_0^1$ as a $2$-transitive group of automorphisms. Thus $\mathcal{S}'$ is given by Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}. If Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}(i) holds for $\mathcal{S}'$, then $\mathcal{L}'=\{V_n(p)\}$, and (i) holds.
Suppose that Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}(ii) holds for $\mathcal{S}'$. Then $G_0^1\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^n$ and $\mathcal{L}'=\{\langle u\rangle_F+v : u\in V_n(p)^*, v\in V_n(p)\}$ where $F$ is a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $|F|\geq 3$. If $m=1$ and $F=\mathbb{F}_q$, then (i) holds; otherwise, (ii) holds.
Suppose that Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}(iv) holds for $\mathcal{S}'$. Then $G_0^1=\SL_2(13)$ where $p^n=3^6$ and $\mathcal{S}'$ is the Hering plane of order $27$ or either of the two Hering spaces with line-size $9$. It is straightforward to verify that $G_0= \SL_2(13)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, so (iii)(b) holds.
Suppose that Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}(iii) holds for $\mathcal{S}'$. Now $G_0^1\leq N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$ where $p^n=3^4$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the line set of the nearfield plane of order $9$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}, either $D_8\circ Q_8\unlhd G_0^1$ and $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{N}$, or $G_0^1=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle\leq \GammaL_2(9)$ and $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{N}^g$ for some $g\in \{1,\zeta_9^2\}$. In either case, $G_0\leq N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. If $G_0\leq (\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9)\rangle\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, then since $G$ has rank~$3$, it can be verified that $G_0=(\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ or $(\SL_2(5)\times \SL_2(5))\langle (\zeta_9\sigma_9,1)\tau\rangle$.
Thus (iii)(a) holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)goodnearfield}
Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the nearfield plane of order $9$ (see~\S\ref{ss:nearfield}). By Propositions~\ref{prop:(I)good}(iii)(a) or~\ref{prop:(I)goodmore}(iii)(a), $\mathcal{N}\cprod \mathcal{N}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with point set $V:=V_4(3)\oplus V_4(3)$ where $G:=V{:}(N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)\wr\langle \tau\rangle)$. By Remark~\ref{remark:2trans}, $N_{\GL_4(3)}(D_8\circ Q_8)=D_8\circ Q_8\circ 2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $\Aut(\mathcal{N}\cprod\mathcal{N})=G$. Note also that the lines of $\mathcal{N}\cprod \mathcal{N}$ are affine subspaces of $V$.
\end{example}
We wish to determine the full automorphism groups of the partial linear spaces in Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good}(iii)(b), but we are unable to do this using {\sc Magma}. Instead, we use the following consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}. We will also use this result to determine the full automorphism groups of some of the partial linear spaces from Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)bad}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:(I)aut}
Let $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 2$ and $p$ is an odd prime. Let $G$ be an insoluble affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ where $G_0\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Let
$\mathcal{S}$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with point set $V$ that is not isomorphic to the $p^n\times p^n$ grid. Then $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine permutation group on $V$, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0 \leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H:=\Aut(\mathcal{S})$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}, $H$ is an affine permutation group on $V$. Since $G_0$ is not soluble, $H_0$ does not belong to class (R0). If $H_0$ belongs to one of the classes (T), (S) or (R1)-(R5), then $p$ divides one of the subdegrees of $H$ (see Table~\ref{tab:subdegree}), but $H$ has subdegrees $2(p^n-1)$ and $(p^n-1)^2$, so $p=2$, a contradiction. By Tables~\ref{tab:E} and \ref{tab:AS}, $H$ belongs to class (I), so $H_0$ stabilises some (internal) direct sum decomposition $V=U_1\oplus U_2$ where $U_1$ and $U_2$ are $n$-dimensional subspaces of $V$. Now $G_0$ also stabilises this decomposition. In particular, $V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ and $U_1^*\cup U_2^*$ are both orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ with order $2(p^n-1)$, and $2(p^n-1)\neq (p^n-1)^2$ since $n\geq 2$, so $V_1^*\cup V_2^*=U_1^*\cup U_2^*$. If $x,y\in U_1^*$ where $x\in V_1$ and $y\in V_2$, then $x+y\in U_1$, so without loss of generality, $x+y\in V_1$, but then $y\in V_1$, a contradiction. Thus $\{U_1,U_2\}=\{V_1,V_2\}$, so $H_0$ stabilises the decomposition of $V$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)goodHering}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the Hering plane of order $27$ or either of the two Hering spaces with line-size $9$ (see \S\ref{ss:2trans}). By Propositions~\ref{prop:(I)good}(iii)(b) or~\ref{prop:(I)goodmore}(iii)(b), $\mathcal{H}\cprod\mathcal{H}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with point set $V:=V_6(3)\oplus V_6(3)$ where $G:=V{:}(\SL_2(13)\wr\langle\tau\rangle)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:(I)aut}, $\Aut(\mathcal{\mathcal{H}\cprod\mathcal{H}})$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$, and $\Aut(\mathcal{\mathcal{H}\cprod\mathcal{H}})_0\leq \GL_6(3)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Note that $\SL_2(13)$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_3(9)$ or $\GammaL_2(27)$. Thus $\Aut(\mathcal{\mathcal{H}\cprod\mathcal{H}})=G$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $G$ is self-normalising in $\Sym(V)$, so the two partial linear spaces with line-size $9$ are not isomorphic. Note that the lines of $\mathcal{H}\cprod \mathcal{H}$ are affine subspaces of $V$ for all possible $\mathcal{H}$, and $G_0$ has no proper subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$.
\end{example}
Now we consider the orbit $V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. We begin by describing a method of constructing a partial linear space on $V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ from a linear space on $V_n(p)$ that has a $2$-transitive affine group of automorphisms for which the stabiliser of any line $M$ induces a sharply $2$-transitive group on $M$. There are several examples of linear spaces with such groups, including $\AG_m(q)$ with its group of automorphisms $\AGL_m(q)$ (where $q^m=p^n$), as well as $(V_2(p),\{V_2(p)\})$ with its group of automorphisms $V_2(p){:}R$, where $R\leq \GL_2(p)$ and $R$ is regular on $V_2(p)^*$; for example, we may take $p=3$ and $R=Q_8$. The reader may find it helpful to remember these examples throughout the following exposition.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:A2badtriple}
Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V_n(p),\mathcal{M})$ be a linear space where $n\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. The pair $(H_0,M)$ \textit{sharply generates} $\mathcal{S}$ if the following two conditions hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $M\in \mathcal{M}_0$ and $H_0\leq \GL_n(p)$.
\item[(ii)] $H:=V_n(p){:}H_0$ is a $2$-transitive subgroup of $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$, and $H_M^M$ is sharply $2$-transitive.
\end{itemize}
Let $R:=H_{0,M}^M$ and $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$. Then $R\unlhd N_M^M\leq \Sym(M)_0$, so
$ N_M^M\leq N_{\Sym(M)_0}(R)$.
The triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is \textit{compatible} with $\mathcal{S}$ if
$(H_0,M)$ sharply generates $\mathcal{S}$ and the following two conditions hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\alpha\in N_{\Sym(M)_0}(R)$ and $\alpha^2\in N_M^M$.
\item[(b)] There exist $w\in M^*$ and $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ such that $M^{h_1}+w=M$ and $(v^{h_1}+w)^\alpha=v^{\alpha h_2}+w^\alpha$ for all $v\in M$.
\end{itemize}
The triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is \textit{$u$-compatible} with $\mathcal{S}$ if $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is compatible with $\mathcal{S}$ and $u^\alpha=u\in M^*$. The triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is \textit{linearly ($u$-)compatible} with $\mathcal{S}$ if $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is ($u$-)compatible with $\mathcal{S}$, the line $M$ is a subspace of $V_n(p)$ (in which case $N_M^M\leq \GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)$), and $\alpha\in \GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)$.
\end{definition}
Suppose that $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates a linear space $\mathcal{S}:=(V_n(p),\mathcal{M})$. Let $H:=V_n(p){:}H_0$, $R:=H_{0,M}^M$, $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$ and $ ^-:N_M\to N_M^M$ be the natural homomorphism. Here are some important observations. First, the linear space $\mathcal{M}$ can be recovered from $(H_0,M)$ since $\mathcal{M}=M^{H}$. Second, if $M$ is a subspace of $V_n(p)$, then $H_M^M=M{:}R$. Lastly, for any $M$, the group $R$ is regular on $M^*$, so for $u\in M^*$, the subspace $C_{V_n(p)}(H_{0,u})$ contains $M$, and
if $R\unlhd X\leq \Sym(M)_0$, then
$X=R{:}X_u$ for $u\in M^*$.
Here are some natural instances of triples that are compatible with $\mathcal{S}$.
First, $(H_0,M,\overline{s})$ is compatible with $\mathcal{S}$ for $s\in N_M$: clearly (a) holds, and for any $w\in M^*$, there exists $h_1\in H_0$ such that $M^{h_1}+w=M$ since $H_M$ is transitive on $M$, so (b) holds with $h_2:=s^{-1}h_1s$. In particular, $(H_0,M,1)$ is compatible with $\mathcal{S}$.
Second, for any triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ that is compatible with $\mathcal{S}$ and any $s\in H_{0,M}$, the triple $(H_0,M,\alpha \overline{s})$ is also compatible with $\mathcal{S}$: (a) holds for $\alpha\overline{s}$ since $\alpha$ normalises $R$, and (b) holds since there exist $w\in M^*$ and $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ such that $M^{h_1}+w=M$ and $(v^{h_1}+w)^\alpha=v^{\alpha h_2}+w^\alpha$ for all $v\in M$, in which case $(v^{h_1}+w)^{\alpha\overline{s}}=v^{(\alpha\overline{s})(s^{-1}h_2s)}+w^{\alpha\overline{s}}$ for all $v\in M$.
(However, we caution the reader that there are instances where $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a compatible triple and $s\in N_M$, but $(\alpha\overline{s})^2\notin N_M^M$: see Examples~\ref{example:(I)sl25} and~\ref{example:(I)E}.)
Finally, if $M$ is a subspace of $V_n(p)$ and $\alpha\in N_{\GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)}(R)$ such that $\alpha^2\in N_M^M$, then $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is linearly compatible with $\mathcal{S}$ since (b) holds for any $w\in M^*$ with $h_1=h_2=1$.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:A2badfamily}
Let $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime, and let $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ be a triple that is compatible with a linear space on $V_n(p)$.
Let $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$ and $ ^-:N_M\to N_M^M$ be the natural homomorphism. Recall that the stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$ in $\GL_{2n}(p)$ is $\GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle $, where $(u_1,u_2)^\tau =(u_2,u_1)$ for all $u_1,u_2\in V_n(p)$.
Define
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)&:=\{(v,v^\alpha) : v \in M \}^{V:H_0\times H_0},\\
\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)&:=(V,\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)),\\
\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)&:=\{(s_1,s_2) \in N_M\times N_M : \overline{s}_2 = \overline{s}_1^\alpha\}, \\
\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)&:=(H_0\times H_0) \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\langle \{(s,1)\tau : s\in N_M, \overline{s}=\alpha^2 \}\rangle.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Clearly $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a group, and if $s\in N_M$ such that $\overline{s}=\alpha^2$, then $(s,1)\tau$ normalises $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$, so $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\langle \{(s,1)\tau : s\in N_M, \overline{s}=\alpha^2 \}\rangle$ is a group. Thus $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a group with normal subgroups $H_0\times H_0$ and $(H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
Observe that for $t\in N_M$ such that $\overline{t}=\alpha^2$, $(H_0\times H_0)\langle (t,1)\tau \rangle$ has two orbits on $V^*$. In particular, $V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a rank~$3$ group. Observe also that $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)_{V_1}=(H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ since $(s,s)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for all $s\in N_M$ such that $\overline{s}=\alpha^2$.
Here are some basic properties of $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:A2badgeneric}
Let $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime, and let $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ be a triple that is compatible with a linear space on $V_n(p)$. Let $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$ and $ ^-:N_M\to N_M^M$ be the natural homomorphism. Let $R:=H_{0,M}^M$ and $S:=N_M^M$. Let $t\in N_M$ be such that $\overline{t}=\alpha^2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\langle (t,1)\tau \rangle=\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\langle \{(s,1)\tau : s\in N_M, \overline{s}=\alpha^2 \}\rangle$.
\item[(ii)]
$(H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)=(H_0\times H_0)\{(s_1,s_2)\in N_M\times N_M : u^{s_1}=u,\overline{s}_2=\overline{s}_1^\alpha\}$ for $u\in M^*$.
\item[(iii)] For $s\in N_{M}$, $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\overline{s})=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)^{(1,s)}$ and $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\overline{s})=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,1)^{(1,s)}$.
\item[(iv)] For $r\in R$, $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha r)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha r)=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
\item[(v)] Suppose that $\alpha$ normalises $S$ and fixes $u\in M^*$. Then $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ if and only if $\alpha^2=1$ and $\alpha$ centralises $S_u$.
\item[(vi)] $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a $(V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha))$-affine partial linear space.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) If $s\in N_M$ such that $\overline{s}=\alpha^2$, then $(st^{-1},1)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$, so (i) holds.
(ii) Let $u\in M^*$. Recall that $R$ is regular on $M^*$. Let $(s_1,s_2)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. There exist $h_1,h_2\in H_{0,M}$ such that $t_1:=h_1^{-1}s_1$ fixes $u$ and $t_2:=h_2^{-1}s_2$ fixes $u^\alpha$, in which case $t_1,t_2\in N_M$. Note that $\overline{t}_1^\alpha$ and $\overline{t}_2$ both fix $u^\alpha$.
Now $\overline{h}_2\overline{t}_2=\overline{s}_2=\overline{s}_1^\alpha=\overline{h}_1^\alpha\overline{t}_1^\alpha$, and $R_{u^\alpha}=1$, so $\overline{t}_2=\overline{t}_1^\alpha$. It follows that (ii) holds.
(iii)
Let $s\in N_M$. Recall that $(H_0,M,\overline{s})$ and $(H_0,M,1)$ are compatible with $\mathcal{S}$. Since $(1,s)$ normalises $V$ and $H_0\times H_0$, it follows that $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,1)^{(1,s)}=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\overline{s})$.
It is routine to verify that $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)^{(1,s)}=\mathcal{N}(H_0,M, \overline{s})$.
Further, $((s,s)\tau)^{(1,s)}=(s^2,1)\tau$ and $(s,s)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)$, so $(\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)\langle \tau\rangle)^{(1,s)}=\mathcal{N}(H_0,M, \overline{s})\langle (s^2,1)\tau\rangle$. Thus (iii) holds by (i).
(iv) Let $s\in H_{0,M}$. Recall that $(H_0,M,\alpha\overline{s})$ is compatible with $\mathcal{S}$. Since
$(1,s)\in H_0\times H_0$, it follows that $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha\overline{s})=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. It is routine to verify that $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)^{(1,s)}=\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha \overline{s})$.
Further, $(\alpha\overline{s})^2=\alpha^2 \overline{s}^\alpha\overline{s}=\overline{th}$ for some $h\in H_{0,M}$. Hence by (i),
$\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha \overline{s})=(H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)^{(1,s)}\langle (th,1)\tau\rangle=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ since $(1,s),(1,h)\in H_0\times H_0$.
(v) Suppose that $\alpha$ normalises $S$ and fixes $u\in M^*$. First suppose that $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. Then $(t,1)\tau \in \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$, so $(t,1)\tau=(h_1,h_2)(s_1,s_2)\tau$ for some $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ and $s_1,s_2\in N_M$ such that $\overline{s}_2=\overline{s}_1$. Thus $h_1,h_2\in H_{0,M}$, so $\alpha^2=\overline{t}=\overline{h}_1\overline{s}_2=\overline{h}_1\overline{h}_2^{-1}\in R_u=1$. Let $\overline{t}_1\in S_u$ where $t_1\in N_M$. Now $\overline{t}_1^\alpha=\overline{t}_2\in S_u$ for some $t_2\in N_M$ since $\alpha$ normalises $S$
and fixes $u$, so $(t_1,t_2)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\leq (H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)$. Since $t_1$ and $t_2$ fix $u$, and since $H_{0,u}\times H_{0,u}\leq \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)$, (ii) implies that
$(t_1,t_2)\in \mathcal{N}(H_0,M,1)$, so $\overline{t}_1=\overline{t}_2=\overline{t}_1^\alpha$. Thus $\alpha$ centralises $S_u$, as desired. Conversely, if $\alpha^2=1$ and $\alpha$ centralises $S_u$, then $\overline{t}=\alpha^2=\overline{1}$, so $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha) =\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$ by (i) and (ii).
(vi) Let $L:=\{(v,v^\alpha) : v \in M\}$, and observe that $\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle$ fixes $L$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}, (vi) holds if $B:=L^*$ is a block of $H_0\times H_0$ and $(V{:}(H_0\times H_0))_L$ is transitive on $L$. Suppose that $(v,v^\alpha)^{(h_1,h_2)}=(w,w^\alpha)$ for some $v,w\in M^*$ and $(h_1,h_2)\in H_0\times H_0$. Now $h_1,h_2\in H_{0,M}$ and $v^{\alpha h_2\alpha^{-1}}=w=v^{h_1}$, and $R$ is regular on $M^*$, so $\alpha \overline{h}_2=\overline{h}_1\alpha$. Thus $(h_1,h_2)$ fixes $B$, so $B$ is a block of $H_0\times H_0$. By assumption, there exist $w\in M^*$ and $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ such that $M^{h_1}+w=M$ and $(v^{h_1}+w)^\alpha=v^{\alpha h_2}+w^\alpha$ for all $v\in M$. Let $v_1,v_2\in V_n(p)$ be such that $v_1^{h_1}=w$ and $v_2^{h_2}=w^\alpha$, and let $g:=\tau_{(v_1,v_2)}(h_1,h_2)$, where $\tau_{(v_1,v_2)}$ denotes the translation of $V$ by $(v_1,v_2)$. Now $L^g=L$ and $0^g=(w,w^\alpha)\in B$. It follows that $(V{:}(H_0\times H_0))_L$ is transitive on $L$.
\end{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iv), since $R$ is transitive on $M^*$, there is no loss in assuming that $\alpha$ fixes some $u\in M^*$. In other words, we may restrict our attention to triples that are $u$-compatible.
It turns out that $\AG_m(q)$, the nearfield plane of order $9$ and exactly one of the Hering spaces on $3^6$ points with line-size $9$ have sharply generating pairs. Further, for $n=2$ and $p\in \{3,5,7,11,23,29,59\}$, the linear space with line set $\{V_2(p)\}$ has sharply generating pairs.
Note that the lines of these linear spaces are all affine subspaces of $V_n(p)$. We now describe five families of examples that arise under this framework, all of which are built from linearly $u$-compatible triples.
\begin{notation}
Let $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime.
Recall that the stabiliser of the decomposition of $V$ is $\GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle $, where $(u_1,u_2)^\tau =(u_2,u_1)$ for all $u_1,u_2\in V_n(p)$, and
recall Definitions~\ref{defn:A2badtriple} and~\ref{defn:A2badfamily}.
Given a pair $(H_0,M)$ that sharply generates some linear space on $V_n(p)$ where $M$ is a subspace of $V_n(p)$, we let $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$, $R:=H_{0,M}^M$, $S:=N_M^M$, $T:=N_{\GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)}(R)$ and $ ^-:N_M\to S$ be the natural homomorphism. Recall that $R\leq S\leq T$ and $T=R{:}T_u$ for all $u\in M^*$. Further, $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a linearly $u$-compatible triple if and only if $\alpha\in T_u$ and $\alpha^2\in S_u$. Lastly, for such a triple, $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is a $(V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha))$-affine partial linear space by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(vi).
\end{notation}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)dep}
Let $U:=V_m(q)$ where $q^m=p^n$, and let $u\in U^*$. Let $F$ be a subfield of $\mathbb{F}_q$, let $M:=\langle u\rangle_F$, and let $H_0:=\GL_m(q)$. Now $(U,M^{U{:}H_0})$ is isomorphic to the linear space $\AG_a(r)$ where $r=|F|$ and $r^a=p^n$, and $(U{:}H_0)_M^M\simeq \AGL_1(F)$, so $(U{:}H_0)_M^M$ is sharply $2$-transitive. Thus $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates $(U,M^{U{:}H_0})$.
Further, $N=\GammaL_m(q)$, $R\simeq \GL_1(F)$, and $S=T\simeq \GammaL_1(F)$.
Let $\alpha\in T_u\simeq \Aut(F)$. There exists $\theta\in \Aut(F)$ such that $(\lambda u)^\alpha=\lambda ^\theta u$ for all $\lambda\in F$; with some abuse of notation, we may write $\theta$ for $\alpha$, in which case
$$
\mathcal{L}(\GL_m(q),\langle u\rangle_F,\theta)=\{\{(\lambda u_1+v_1,\lambda^\theta u_2+v_2) : \lambda\in F\} : u_1,u_2\in U^*,v_1,v_2\in U\}.
$$
In addition, there exists $\pi\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ such that $\pi|_F=\theta^2$. We may assume that $\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ acts on $U$ in such a way that $u$ is fixed, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(i) and (ii), $\mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),\langle u\rangle_F,\theta)$ equals
$$(\GL_m(q)\times \GL_m(q))\{(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)\times\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q): \sigma_1|_F=\sigma_2|_F\}\langle (\pi,1)\tau\rangle,$$
which is a subgroup of $\GammaL_m(q)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Observe that $\mathcal{S}(\GL_m(q),M,1)\simeq \mathcal{S}(\GL_m(q),M,\theta)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii). Further, $\mathcal{S}(\GL_m(q),M,1)$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent partial linear space that contains the line $\langle (u,u)\rangle_F$. In fact, if $F=\mathbb{F}_r$ and $r^a=q^m$, then by viewing $U$ as $V_a(r)$, we see that
$\mathcal{L}(\GL_m(q),M,1)=\mathcal{L}(\GL_a(r),M,1)$ and
$$\mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),M,1)\leq \mathcal{G}(\GL_a(r),M,1)=(\GammaL_a(r)\wr\langle\tau\rangle) \cap\GammaL_{2a}(r).$$
Since $\Aut(F)\simeq S_u=T_u$ is abelian, parts (iii) and (v) of Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric} imply that for $\theta_1,\theta_2\in\Aut(F)$, the group $\mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),M,\theta_1)=\mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),M,\theta_2)$ if and only if $\theta_1^2=\theta_2^2$, and this occurs if and only if $\theta_2=\theta_1\iota$ where $\iota\in \Aut(F)$ and either $\iota=1$, or, for $|\Aut(F)|$ even, $\iota$ is the unique involution in $\Aut(F)$. In particular, in this latter case, $\mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),M,1)$ admits both $\mathcal{S}(\GL_m(q),M,1)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\GL_m(q),M,\iota)$ as examples.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)reg}
Let $M:=V_n(p)$ and $H_0\leq \GL_n(p)$ be regular on $V_n(p)^*$. Now $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates the linear space $(V_n(p),\{V_n(p)\})$.
Further, $R=H_0$ and $S=N=T$. Let $u\in V_n(p)^*$ and $\alpha\in T_u$. Since $\alpha$ normalises $R$, and since $N_M=N$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)&=\{\{(v+v_1,v^{g}+v_2): v\in V_n(p)\}: g\in R\alpha,v_1,v_2\in V_n(p)\},\\
\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)&=(R\times R)\{ (s,s^\alpha): s \in T_u\} \langle (\alpha^2,1)\tau\rangle.
\end{align*}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii), $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for all $\alpha\in T_u$. Moreover, since $S=T$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii) and (v) imply that for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in T_u$, the groups $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha_1)$ and $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha_2)$ are equal if and only if $\alpha_1^2=\alpha_2^2$ and $\alpha_2\alpha_1^{-1}\in Z(T_u)$.
The possibilities for $H_0$ are given by Zassenhaus's classification~\cite{Zas1936}
of the sharply $2$-transitive permutation groups (see~\cite[\S 7.6]{DixMor1996}); in particular, either $H_0$ is a subgroup of $\GammaL_1(p^n)$,
or $n=2$ and $(p,H_0,T_u)$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:sharp} (cf.~Theorem~\ref{thm:2trans}), in which case $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ is listed in Table~\ref{tab:main}. Note that $Q_8\leq \GammaL_1(9)$, but we include this case in Table~\ref{tab:sharp} since $T_u\nleq \GammaL_1(9)$. Note also that if $H_0=\GL_1(p^n)$, then $\mathcal{S}(H_0,V_n(p),\alpha)=\mathcal{S}(H_0,\langle u\rangle_F,\alpha)$ where $F=\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$, a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:(I)dep}. For any possible $H_0$, the linear space $\mathcal{N}$ with point set $V$ and line set $\{V_i+v : i \in \{1,2\}, v\in V\}\cup \mathcal{L}(H_0,M,1)$ is a nearfield plane (see~\S\ref{ss:nearfield}); in particular, if $n=2$ and $(p,H_0)$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:sharp}, then either $p=3$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is the nearfield plane of order~$9$, or $p\neq 3$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is an irregular nearfield plane of order $p^2$.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c c c c c }
\hline
$p$ & $3$ & $5$ & $7$ & $11$ & $23$ & $11$ & $29$ & $59$\\
$H_0$ & $Q_8$ & $\SL_2(3)$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-$ & $\SL_2(3)\times C_5$ & $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\times C_{11}$ & $\SL_2(5)$ & $\SL_2(5)\times C_7$ & $\SL_2(5)\times C_{29}$ \\
$T_u$ & $S_3$ & $C_4$ & $C_3$ & $C_2$ & $1$ & $C_5$ & $C_2$ & $1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Exceptional sharply $2$-transitive groups}
\label{tab:sharp}
\end{table}
We claim that for each $(p,H_0)$ in Table~\ref{tab:sharp}, the group $V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$ is the full automorphism group of $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$. If $(p,H_0)$ is not $(29,\SL_2(5)\times C_7)$ or $(59,\SL_2(5)\times C_{29})$, then we verify this using {\sc Magma}. Let $K:=\Aut(\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1))$ where $(p,H_0)$ is $(29,\SL_2(5)\times C_7)$ or
$(59,\SL_2(5)\times C_{29})$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:(I)aut}, $K$ is an affine permutation group on $V$, and $K_0\leq \GL_2(p)\wr \langle\tau\rangle$. If $K$ belongs to (I1), then $\{(v,v): v\in V_2(p)^*\}$ is a block of $\SL_2(p)\times \SL_2(p)$, a contradiction. Thus $K$ belongs to (I4), and it follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badequiv} below (and its proof) that $K=V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)sl213}
Here $p^n=3^6$. Let $H_0:=\SL_2(13)\leq \GL_6(3)$. Let $u\in V_6(3)^*$ and $M:=C_{V_6(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $M$ is a line of one of the Hering spaces $\mathcal{H}$ with line-size $9$ (see \S\ref{ss:2trans}). Now $V_6(3){:}H_0$ is a $2$-transitive subgroup of $\Aut(\mathcal{H})$, so $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates $\mathcal{H}$.
Further, $N=H_0$, $S=R= Q_8$, $T=\GL_2(3)$ and $T_u\simeq S_3$. If $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2\in S$, then $\alpha^2\in R_u=1$, so there are four possibilities for $\alpha$, namely $1$ and the three involutions in $T_u$. Now $H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for all such $\alpha$, so $H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle$ admits $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for all such $\alpha$. Let $K:=\Aut(\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha))$ for such an $\alpha$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:(I)aut}, $K$ is an affine permutation group on $V$, and $K_0\leq \GL_6(3)\wr \langle\tau\rangle$. Note that $\SL_2(13)$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_3(9)$ or $\GammaL_2(27)$. If $K$ belongs to class (I1) or (I2), then $\{(v,v^\alpha): v\in M^*\}$ is a block of $\SL_6(3)\times \SL_6(3)$ or $\Sp_6(3)\times \Sp_6(3)$, a contradiction. Thus $\Aut(\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha))=V{:}(H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle)$ for each $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2=1$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $V{:}(H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle)$ is self-normalising in $\Sym(V)$, so the four partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ are pairwise non-isomorphic.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)sl25}
Here $p^n=3^4$. Let $U:=V_2(9)$, $u\in U^*$, $\zeta:=\zeta_9$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_9$ where $u^\sigma=u$ (see \S\ref{ss:basicsvs} for the definition of $\zeta_9$ and $\sigma_9$). Now $\SL_2(5)\leq \SL_2(9)$ and $N_{\GL_4(3)}(\SL_2(5))=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$. Let $H_0:=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta^2, \zeta\sigma\rangle\simeq 2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-{:}2$ and $M:=\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_9}$. Note that $\SL_2(5)$ has two orbits on $U^*$, and if $\Omega$ is one such orbit, then $\zeta\Omega$ is the other. Now $H_0$ is transitive on $U^*$ and has order $480$. Further,
$H_{0,u}\leq \GL_2(9)$, so $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates $\AG_2(9)$, and $N=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$.
(Note that the pair $(\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta^i\sigma\rangle,M)$ sharply generates $\AG_2(9)$ for $i\in \{1,3\}$, but it is more convenient to work only with $H_0$ since $\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta^i\sigma\rangle$ is not normal in $N$.)
With some abuse of notation, we may write $\zeta$ for $\overline{\zeta}$ and $\sigma$ for $\overline{\sigma}$, in which case
$R=\langle \zeta^2,\zeta\sigma\rangle =Q_8$, $S=\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle\simeq \GammaL_1(9)$, $T= \GL_2(3)$ and $\langle \sigma\rangle=S_u\leq T_u\simeq S_3$. If $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2\in S_u$, then $\alpha^2=1$, so there are four possibilities for $\alpha$, namely $1$, $\sigma$, and the two remaining involutions in $T_u$. Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}, we verify that $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\sigma)=H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle \langle (\sigma,\sigma)\rangle$, while for an involution $\alpha\in T_u\setminus\{1,\sigma\}$, $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)=H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle$. In particular, any subgroup of $H_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle \langle (\sigma,\sigma)\rangle$ admits $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ and $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\sigma)$, while any subgroup of $H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ admits $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u$ with $\alpha^2=1$. Note that $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)\simeq \mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\sigma)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii), and $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)\simeq \mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\beta)$ for involutions $\alpha,\beta\in T_u\setminus \{1,\sigma\}$ since $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha^\sigma)=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)^{(\sigma,\sigma)}$. By a computation in {\sf GAP} using~\cite{NautyTraces,Grape},
the full automorphism group of $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is $V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2=1$. In particular, $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for any involution $\alpha\in T_u\setminus \{1,\sigma\}$. Further, $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)\not\simeq \mathcal{S}(\GL_2(9),M,1)$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)E}
Here $p^n=3^4$. Let $H_0:=(D_8\circ Q_8).C_{5}\leq \GL_4(3)$. Let $u\in V_4(3)^*$ and $M:=C_{V_4(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$. The nearfield plane of order $9$ (see \S\ref{ss:nearfield}) admits the $2$-transitive group $V_4(3){:}H_0$ as an automorphism group by Remark~\ref{remark:2trans} and contains the line $M$, so $(H_0,M)$ is a sharply generating pair for this linear space. Further, $N=(D_8\circ Q_8).\AGL_1(5)$, $R= Q_8$, $S\simeq \GammaL_1(9)$, $T= \GL_2(3)$, $S_u\simeq C_2$, $T_u\simeq S_3$ and $ C_8\simeq N_u\leq N_M$ since $V_4(3){:}N$ is an automorphism group of the nearfield plane of order $9$ by Remark~\ref{remark:2trans}. Write $N_u=\langle s\rangle$. Then $H_{0,u}=\langle s^4\rangle$ and $S_u=\langle \overline{s}\rangle$, so $N=H_0\langle s\rangle$ and $s^2$ fixes $M$ pointwise. Let $K_0:=H_0\langle s^2\rangle$, so $H_0\leq K_0\leq N$ and $K_0=(D_8\circ Q_8).D_{10}$. Then $K_{0,u}=\langle s^2\rangle$ and $M=C_{V_4(3)}(K_{0,u})$, so $(K_0,M)$ is also a sharply generating pair for the nearfield plane of order $9$. Note that $N=N_{\GL_4(3)}(K_0)$. If $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2\in S_u$, then $\alpha^2=1$, so there are four possibilities for $\alpha$, namely $1$, $\overline{s}$, and the two remaining involutions in $T_u$.
Observe that $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)=\mathcal{L}(K_0,M,\alpha)$ for any $\alpha\in T_u$ with $\alpha^2=1$ since $s^2$ fixes $M$ pointwise.
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}, we verify that
$$\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\overline{s})=\mathcal{G}(K_0,M,1)=\mathcal{G}(K_0,M,\overline{s})=K_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle \langle (s,s)\rangle,
$$
while $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)=\mathcal{G}(K_0,M,\alpha)=K_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ for an involution $\alpha\in T_u\setminus \{1,\overline{s}\}$. In particular, any subgroup of
$K_0\wr\langle \tau\rangle \langle (s,s)\rangle$ admits $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ and $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\overline{s})$, while any subgroup of $K_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ admits $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u$ with $\alpha^2=1$. Note that $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)\simeq \mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\overline{s})$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii), and $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)\simeq \mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\beta)$ for involutions $\alpha,\beta\in T_u\setminus \{1,\overline{s}\}$ since $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha^{\overline{s}})=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)^{(s,s)}$. By a computation in {\sf GAP} using~\cite{NautyTraces,Grape},
the full automorphism group of $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is $V{:}\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u$ such that $\alpha^2=1$. In particular, $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,1)$ is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for any involution $\alpha\in T_u\setminus \{1,\overline{s}\}$.
\end{example}
Now we describe a sporadic example that is very similar to Example~\ref{example:(I)reg} but is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for any $u$-compatible triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
\begin{example}
\label{example:(I)spor}
Let $R:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\leq \GL_2(7)$ and $T:=N_{\GL_2(7)}(R)$. Let $u\in V_2(7)^*$ and $V:=V_2(7)\times V_2(7)$. Now $R$ is regular on $V_2(7)^*$, so $T=R{:}T_u$. Further, the following hold: $T_u\simeq C_3$, $R$ has a unique index $2$ subgroup $K:=\SL_2(3)=R'$, and $T=N_{\GL_2(7)}(K)$. Write $R=K\langle r\rangle$. Let
$X_0:=(K\times K) \langle (r,1)\tau\rangle$ and $Y_0:=X_0\{(s,s): s \in T_u\}$. Now $X_0$ has index $2$ in $R\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, while $Y_0$ has index $2$ in $\mathcal{G}(R,V_2(7),1)=R\wr\langle \tau\rangle\{(s,s) : s \in T_u\}$ (see~Figure~\ref{fig:sporexp}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{sporadicdiagram}
\end{center}
\caption{Groups of Example~\ref{example:(I)spor}}
\label{fig:sporexp}
\end{figure}
For $g\in \{1,r\}$,
let $\Omega(g):=\{(v,v^{h}) : v\in V_2(7)^*, h\in Kg\}$. Now $X_{0,V_1}=(K\times K)\langle (r,r)\rangle $, and the orbits of $X_{0,V_1}$ on $V_2(7)^*\times V_2(7)^*$ are $\Omega(1)$ and $\Omega(r)$, so $V{:}X_0$ and $V{:}Y_0$ are rank~$3$ groups.
For $\alpha\in T_u$, let
$$
\mathcal{L}(\alpha):=\{\{(v,v^{g}) : v\in V_2(7)\}+w : g\in K\alpha\cup K\alpha^2r,w\in V\}.
$$
Observe that $\mathcal{L}(1)=\mathcal{L}(R,V_2(7),1)$ but $\mathcal{L}(\alpha) \neq \mathcal{L}(R,V_2(7),\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u\setminus \{1\}$.
We claim that $\mathcal{S}(\alpha):=(V,\mathcal{L}(\alpha))$ is a proper $(V{:}Y_0)$-affine partial linear space for $\alpha\in T_u$.
Let $L_\alpha:=\{(v,v^\alpha):v\in V_2(7)\}$ and $B_\alpha:=L_\alpha^*$. Since $\mathcal{L}(\alpha)_0=L_\alpha^{X_0}$ and $\{(s,s): s\in T_u\}$ fixes $L_\alpha$, it suffices to show that $B_\alpha$ is a block of $X_0$ by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive} and~\ref{lemma:sufficient}. Now $B_\alpha$ is a block of $R\times R$ and therefore of $X_{0,V_1}$. Recall that $(r,1)\tau$ maps the $X_{0,V_1}$-orbit $\Omega(1)$ to $\Omega(r)$, and observe that $B_\alpha\subseteq \Omega(1)$ since $v^\alpha\in v^{K}$ for all $v\in V_2(7)^*$. Thus $B_\alpha$ is a block of $X_0$, and the claim holds. Note that $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\alpha^2)$ are isomorphic for $\alpha\in T_u$ since $\mathcal{L}(\alpha^2)=\mathcal{L}(\alpha)^{(1,r)}$. Let $\alpha\in T_u\setminus\{1\}$. Now $B_\alpha$ is not a block of $R\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ since $\tau$ fixes $(u,u)$ but not $B_\alpha$, so neither $R\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ nor $\mathcal{G}(R,V_2(7),1)$ are automorphism groups of $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$. Indeed, we verify using {\sc Magma} that $V{:}Y_0$ is the full automorphism group of $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$;
in particular, $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}(1)=\mathcal{S}(R,V_2(7),1)$.
Let $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)$ be the affine plane of order $49$ on $V$ with line set $\{V_i+v : i \in \{1,2\}, v\in V\}\cup \mathcal{L}(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in T_u$.
By~\cite[Theorem~19.10]{Lun1980}, there are (up to isomorphism) two affine planes of order~$49$ of type F$\ast$7 (as defined in~\cite[p.95]{Lun1980}):
the irregular nearfield plane $\mathcal{A}(1)$ (cf. Example~\ref{example:(I)reg}) and the \textit{exceptional L\"uneburg plane of order $49$}. We claim that $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)$ is isomorphic to the latter when $\alpha\neq 1$. Now $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)\not\simeq\mathcal{A}(1)$ when $\alpha\neq 1$, or else $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)\simeq \mathcal{S}(1)$ by Remark~\ref{remark:lineartopls}, a contradiction. Thus it suffices to show that $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)$ is of type F$\ast$7. To do so, we must show that $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)$ has properties~(j) and~(ij) of~\cite[p.95]{Lun1980}. Property (j) requires $\Aut(\mathcal{A}(\alpha))_L$ to be $2$-transitive on $L$ for all lines $L$, which holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}(ii).
For~(ij), let $P$ and $Q$ be the points at infinity of the lines $V_1$ and $V_2$, respectively, and let $O$ be the point $0\in V$. Let $S_0:=K\times 1$ and $S_\infty:=1\times K$. Then $S_0\simeq S_\infty\simeq \SL_2(3)$, and $S_0$ and $S_\infty$ have the same four orbits on $\ell_\infty$. Further, $S_0$ fixes $P$ and the line on $O$ and $Q$ pointwise (i.e., $V_2\cup \{Q\}$), while $S_\infty$ fixes $Q$ and the line on $O$ and $P$ pointwise (i.e., $V_1\cup \{P\}$). Since~(ij) requires the existence of $P$, $Q$, $O$, $S_0$ and $S_\infty$ with precisely these properties, $\mathcal{A}(\alpha)$ is of type F$\ast$7, and the claim holds.
\end{example}
We wish to prove that no other examples arise; the following lemma is a basic but crucial observation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:A2badbasic}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime and $G_0\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Let $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ be a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$. Then $L=\{(v,v^\alpha) : v\in M\}$ for some $M\subseteq V_n(p)$ and injective map $\alpha:M\to V_n(p)$.
In particular, if $(x,x)\in L$, then $\alpha$ fixes $x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $(v,w_1),(v,w_2)\in L^*$ for some $v,w_1,w_2\in V_n(p)$, then $w_1=w_2$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:basic}(i). The desired result then follows from the symmetry of this argument.
\end{proof}
In the following, we prove that if $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0$ where $H_0$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$, then every $G$-affine proper partial linear space $\mathcal{S}$ with $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$ has the form $\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for some $u$-compatible triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$. In order to give an elementary proof of this fact, we do not assume that the triple is linearly compatible.
Note that if $H_0\times H_0\leq G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle \tau\rangle$ where $H_0\leq \GL_n(p)$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$, then for any $u\in V_n(p)^*$, there exists $h\in H_0$ such that $u^{ht}=u$, and $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (ht,1)\tau\rangle$. Thus, for such $G_0$, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $t$ fixes some non-zero vector.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:A2badequiv}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 1$, $p$ is prime and $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle\leq \GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ such that
$H_0\leq \GL_n(p)$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$ and $t\in \GL_n(p)_u$ for some $u\in V_n(p)^*$. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$.
\item[(ii)]
$\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for some triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ that is $u$-compatible with a linear space on $V_n(p)$ such that $|M|\geq 3$ and $\alpha^2=t|_M$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If (ii) holds, then (i) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(vi). Conversely, suppose that (i) holds, and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the line set of $\mathcal{S}$. Recall that $t\in G_0^1=G_0^2$, and note that $G_0^1\leq N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$ since $H_0\unlhd G_0^1$.
Let $L\in \mathcal{L}_0$ be such that $(u,u)\in L$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badbasic}, $L=\{(v,v^\alpha): v\in M\}$ for some $M\subseteq V_n(p)$ and injective map $\alpha:M\to V_n(p)$, where $\alpha$ fixes $0$ and $u$. Also, $|M|=|L|\geq 3$. Let $ ^-:N_M\to N_M^M$ be the natural homomorphism and $R:=H_{0,M}^M
$.
Let $B:=L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$. Then $(t,1)\tau\in G_{0,B}$ since $(t,1)\tau$ fixes $(u,u)$. Thus $L=\{(v^{\alpha},v^t):v\in M\}$, so $\alpha\in \Sym(M)$ and $t\in N_M$. Further $\alpha^2=\overline{t}=t|_M$.
Let $H:=V_n(p){:}H_0$. We claim that $(V_n(p),M^H)$ is a linear space. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}, it suffices to show that $C:=M^*$ is a block of $H_0$ on $V_n(p)^*$ and that $H_M$ is transitive on $M$.
Now $C$ is a block of $H_0$ on $V_n(p)^*$, for if $v^h=w$ for some $v,w\in C$ and $h\in H_0$, then there exists $h'\in H_0$ such that $(v^\alpha)^{h'}=w^\alpha$, so $(h,h')\in G_{0,B}$, in which case $C^h=C$, as desired.
Recall that $(t,1)\tau$ fixes $(u,u)$ and $L$, and note that $V{:}(H_0\times H_0)\langle(t,1)\tau\rangle$ is a rank~$3$ subgroup of $G$.
Now, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, there exist $(v_1,v_2)\in V$ and $(h_1,h_2)\in H_0\times H_0$ such that $g:=\tau_{(v_1,v_2)}(h_1,h_2)$ fixes $L$ and maps $(0,0)$ to $(u,u)$, where $\tau_{(v_1,v_2)}$ denotes the translation of $V$ by $(v_1,v_2)$. Then $L=L^g=\{(v^{h_1}+u,v^{\alpha h_2}+u) : v \in M\}$. In particular, $\tau_{v_1}h_1$ fixes $M$ and maps $0$ to $u$, where $\tau_{v_1}$ denotes the translation of $V_n(p)$ by $v_1$. Thus $H_M$ is transitive on $M$, and the claim holds.
Next we claim that that $H_M^M$ is sharply $2$-transitive, in which case $(H_0,M)$ sharply generates $(V_n(p),M^H)$. Since $H_M^M$ is $2$-transitive, it suffices to prove that $H_{0,u}$ fixes $C=M^*$ pointwise. Let $h\in H_{0,u}$. Now $(h,1)\in G_{0,B}$, so $(v^h,v^\alpha)\in B$ for all $v\in C$, in which case $(v^h)^\alpha=v^\alpha$ for all $v\in C$. Since $\alpha$ is injective, $v^h=v$ for all $v\in C$, as desired.
Now we claim that $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is $u$-compatible with $(V_n(p),M^H)$. For condition (a) of Definition~\ref{defn:A2badtriple}, since $\alpha^2=\overline{t}\in N_M^M$,
it remains to prove that $\alpha$ normalises $R$. Let $h\in H_{0,M}$. There exists $h'\in H_{0,M}$ such that $u^{h'}=(u^h)^\alpha$. Now $(h,h')\in G_{0,B}$, so $L=\{(v^h,v^{\alpha h'}) : v\in M\}$, in which case $\overline{h}\alpha=\alpha\overline{h'}$. Thus $\alpha$ normalises $R$.
We saw above that there exist $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ such that $L=\{(v^{h_1}+u,v^{\alpha h_2}+u) : v \in M\}$. In particular, $M^{h_1}+u=M$ and $(v^{h_1}+u)^\alpha=v^{\alpha h_2}+u^\alpha$ for all $v\in M$, so condition (b) of Definition~\ref{defn:A2badtriple} holds, and the claim follows.
It remains to prove that $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. By definition, $\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)\subseteq L^G=\mathcal{L}$, so it suffices to show that $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. Since $\overline{t}=\alpha^2$ where $t\in N_M$ and $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle$, we only need to show that $G_{0,V_1}\leq (H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$. Let $(g_1,g_2)\in G_{0,V_1}$. There exist $h_1,h_2\in H_0$ such that $u^{h_1g_1}=u=u^{h_2g_2}$. Let $s_1:=h_1g_1$ and $s_2:=h_2g_2$. Now $(s_1,s_2)\in G_{0,B}$, so $L=\{(v^{s_1},v^{\alpha s_2}) : v\in M\}$, and $s_1,s_2\in N_M$ since $H_0\unlhd G_0^1\leq N$. Further, $\overline{s}_1\alpha=\alpha \overline{s}_2$, so $\overline{s}_2=\overline{s}_1^\alpha$. Thus $(g_1,g_2)=(h_1^{-1},h_2^{-1})(s_1,s_2)\in (H_0\times H_0)\mathcal{N}(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
Now we prove that Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep}--\ref{example:(I)spor} are the only partial linear spaces $\mathcal{S}$ on $V_n(p)\times V_n(p)$ with an affine automorphism group in class (I) but not (I0) for which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$.
In particular, we see that with the exception of Example~\ref{example:(I)spor}, every such partial linear space has the form of Definition~\ref{defn:A2badfamily}. We also provide more information about the possible rank~$3$ groups that arise. Although the groups $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$ and $\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ are often conjugate, we work with arbitrary $\alpha$ since this is not true in general (see Examples~\ref{example:(I)sl25} and~\ref{example:(I)E}). For the following, recall the definition of $\zeta_q$ and $\sigma_q$ from \S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(I)badmore}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ where $n\geq 2$, $p$ is prime, $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle \leq \GL_n(p)\wr \langle \tau\rangle$
and $G_0$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_1(p^n)\wr \langle\tau\rangle$. Let $u\in V_n(p)^*$. Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$ if and only if one of the following holds (up to conjugacy in $\GL_n(p)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$).
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ for some triple $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ that is linearly $u$-compatible with a linear space on $V_n(p)$. Here $\alpha\in T_u$ where $T:=N_{\GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)}(H_{0,M}^M)$, and one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $H_0=\GL_m(q)$ and $M=\langle u\rangle_F$ for some subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $q^m=p^n$, $m\geq 2$ and $|F|\geq 3$. Here there exists $\theta\in\Aut(F)$ such that $(\lambda u)^\alpha=\lambda^\theta u$ for all $\lambda\in F$, and $\theta^2=\pi|_F$ where $\pi\in \Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is such that $t$ is $\pi$-semilinear.
\item[(b)] $H_0$ is regular on $V_n(p)^*$ and $M=V_n(p)$ where $n=2$ and $(p,H_0,T_u)$ is given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:sharp}}. Either $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0$ and $\alpha^2t^{-1}\in H_0$, or one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $p=7$ and either $G_0=X_0$ and $\alpha=1$,
or $G_0=X_0^{g_\alpha}\{(s,s): s \in T_u\}$ where $g_\alpha=(1,\alpha)$, $X_0=(\SL_2(3)\times \SL_2(3))\langle (r,1)\tau\rangle$ and $H_0=2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-=\SL_2(3)\langle r\rangle$.
\item[(2)] $p=23$ and $G_0=(K\times K)\langle (t,1)\tau\rangle$ where $K:=\SL_2(3)\times C_{11}$ is the unique index $2$ subgroup of $H_0=T=2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-\times C_{11}$, and $t\in H_0\setminus K$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(c)] $H_0=\SL_2(13)$ and $M=C_{V_6(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$ where $p^n=3^6$. Here $T_u\simeq S_3$, $\alpha^2=1$ and
$G_0=\SL_2(13)\wr\langle \tau\rangle
=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$.
\item[(d)] $H_0=\SL_2(5)\langle \zeta_9^2,\zeta_9\sigma_9\rangle\leq\GammaL_2(9)$ and $M=\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_9}$ where $p^n=3^4$ and $u^{\sigma_9}=u$. Here $T_u\simeq S_3$, $\alpha^2=1$,
$\SL_2(5)\times \SL_2(5)\unlhd G_0\leq H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle\langle (\sigma_9,\sigma_9)\rangle=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$, and if $G_0\nleq H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, then $\alpha\in\{1,\sigma_9\}$.
\item[(e)]
$H_0=(D_8\circ Q_8).C_{5}$ and $M=C_{V_4(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$ where $p^n=3^4$. Here $T_u\simeq S_3$, $\alpha^2=1$, $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0\leq (H_0\langle s^2\rangle)\wr\langle\tau\rangle\langle (s,s)\rangle=\mathcal{G}(H_0,M,1)$, $H_0\langle s\rangle=N_{\GL_4(3)}(H_0)$, $u^s=u$, $M^s =M$,
and if $G_0\nleq (H_0\langle s^2\rangle)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, then $\alpha\in\{1,s|_M\}$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(ii)] $\mathcal{L}=\{\{(v,v^{g})+w : v\in V_n(p)\} : g\in \SL_2(3)\alpha\cup \SL_2(3)\alpha^2r, w\in V\}$ and $G_0=X_0$ or $X_0\{(s,s): s \in T_u\}$, where $p^n=7^2$,
$T=N_{\GL_n(p)}(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-)$, $X_0=(\SL_2(3)\times \SL_2(3))\langle (r,1)\tau\rangle$, $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_4^-=\SL_2(3)\langle r\rangle$, $\alpha\in T_u\setminus \{1\}$ and $T_u\simeq C_3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If (i) holds, then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric} and the information given in Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep}--\ref{example:(I)E}. If (ii) holds, then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space by the information given in Example~\ref{example:(I)spor}.
Conversely, suppose that $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space in which $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. There exists $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$ such that $(u,u)\in L$. Let $B:=L^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a block of $G_0$ on $V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badbasic}, $L=\{(v,v^\alpha) : v\in M\}$ for some $M\subseteq V_n(p)$ with $|M|\geq 3$ and injective map $\alpha:M\to V_n(p)$, where $\alpha$ fixes $0$ and $u$. By assumption, $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (I1)--(I8), so that (in the notation of Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}), $G_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)\wr \langle\tau\rangle$ where $q^m=p^n$ and $m\geq 2$. Recall that $t\in G_0^1=G_0^2\leq\GammaL_m(q)$. Let $\sigma:=\sigma_q$. We may assume without loss of generality that $u^\sigma=u$. Let $\zeta:=\zeta_q$.
Let $\pi\in\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$ be such that $t$ is $\pi$-semilinear.
Assume for this paragraph that $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0$ where $H_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$. Now $u^{ht}=u$ for some $h\in H_0$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badequiv}, $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)$, $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,M,\alpha)$ and $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is $u$-compatible with a linear space on $V_n(p)$.
In particular, $M\subseteq C_{V_n(p)}(H_{0,u})$.
Further, $\alpha^2=\overline{ht}$ and $ht\in N_M$, where $N:=N_{\GL_n(p)}(H_0)$ and $ ^-:N_M\to N_M^M$ is the natural homomorphism. Note that the line $M$ is described by Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}, and $H_0$ is regular on $V_n(p)^*$ when $M=V_n(p)$. Note also that if $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$, then $M$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V_n(p)$ and $\alpha\in\GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)$, in which case $\alpha\in T_u$ where $T:=N_{\GL(M,\mathbb{F}_p)}(H_{0,M}^M)$ and $(H_0,M,\alpha)$ is linearly $u$-compatible.
Suppose now that $H_0\leq \GL_m(q)$ and $M=\langle u\rangle_{F}$ for some subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$. We claim that
(i)(a) holds. Note that $H_{0,M}^M=\GL_m(q)_M^M\simeq \GL_1(F)$. There exists $g\in H_0$ such that $u^g=-u$. Now $L\subseteq M\oplus M$ since $\alpha\in\Sym(M)$, and $g\in \GL_m(q)$, so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. Thus $\alpha\in T_u\simeq \Aut(F)$, and we have already seen that $\alpha^2=\overline{ht}\in \GammaL_m(q)_M^M$, so $(\GL_m(q),M,\alpha)$ is linearly $u$-compatible. Further, there exists $\theta\in \Aut(F)$ such that $(\lambda u)^\alpha=\lambda^\theta u$ for all $\lambda\in F$, and $\theta^2=\pi|_F$. Now $L^{\GL_m(q)\times \GL_m(q)}=L^{H_0\times H_0}$, so $\mathcal{L}(\GL_m(q),M,\alpha)=\mathcal{L}(H_0,M,\alpha)=\mathcal{L}$. Recall that $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (ht,1)\tau\rangle$, and $G_{0,V_1}\leq (H_0\times H_0)\{ (s_1,s_2)\in N_M\times N_M : \overline{s}_2=\overline{s}_1^\alpha\}$. Since $G_{0,V_1}\leq \GammaL_m(q)\times \GammaL_m(q)$ and $ht$ is $\pi$-semilinear, it follows that $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(\GL_m(q),M,\alpha)$ (cf. Example~\ref{example:(I)dep}), and the claim holds.
We now consider the various possibilities for $G_0$. Whenever $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0$ such that $H_0\leq \GammaL_m(q)$ is transitive on $V_n(p)^*$, we make use of the above observations and notation.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to one of (I1)--(I3). We may take $H_0$ to be $\SL_m(q)$, $\Sp_m(q)$ or $G_2(q)'$, respectively (by~\cite[p.125]{Wil2009} when $H_0=G_2(q)'$). Now $H_0$ is not regular on $V_n(p)^*$, so $M\neq V_n(p)$, in which case
$M=\langle u\rangle_{F}$ for some subfield $F$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}. Thus (i)(a) holds.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (I5). We may take $H_0$ to be $A_6$ or $A_7$. Now $H_0$ is not regular on $V_n(p)^*$, so $M\neq V_n(p)$, but this contradicts Theorem~\ref{thm:Kantor}.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (I6). We may take $H_0$ to be $\SL_2(13)$, which is self-normalising in $\GL_6(3)$. Since $-1\in H_0$, Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine} implies that $L$ is a subspace of $V_6(3)$, so $M$ is a subspace of $C_{V_6(3)}(\SL_2(13)_u)\simeq V_2(3)$. Either $M=\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$, in which case (i)(a) holds, or $M=C_{V_6(3)}(\SL_2(13)_u)$, in which case (i)(c) holds by Example~\ref{example:(I)sl213}.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (I7), and let $N^*:=N_{\GL_m(q)}(\SL_2(3))$. Then $G_0\leq N^*\wr\langle\tau\rangle$. Note that $m=2$ and $q=p$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $-1\in G_0$, so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. In particular, $M$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V_2(p)$ and $|L|$ divides $p^2$. If $|L|=p$, then $L=\langle (u,u)\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p}$ and $G_0\leq \GL_2(p)\wr\tau = \mathcal{G}(\GL_2(p),\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p},1)$, so (i)(a) holds. Otherwise, $|L|=p^2$ and $M=V_2(p)$.
Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $N^*$ has a subgroup $R$ that is regular on $V_2(p)^*$ and isomorphic to a group in Table~\ref{tab:sharp}. Moreover, $N^*=N_{\GL_2(p)}(R)$, so $G_0$ normalises $R\times R$. If $R\times R\subseteq G_0$, then we may take $H_0$ to be $R$, in which case $\alpha^2t^{-1}=h\in H_0$ and $T_u$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:sharp}, so (i)(b) holds. Suppose instead that $R\times R$ is not a subgroup of $G$. Since $G_0\nleq \GammaL_1(p^2)\wr\langle\tau\rangle$, it can be checked using {\sc Magma} that either $p=23$ and (i)(b)(2) holds, or $p=7$, in which case either (i)(b)(1) holds, or (ii) holds (up to conjugacy in $N^*\times N^*$).
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (I4). Then $S\times S\unlhd G_0\leq N^*\wr\langle \tau\rangle$ where $S:=\SL_2(5)$, $N^*:=N_{\GammaL_m(q)}(S)$ and $m=2$.
Now $-1\in G_0$, so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. In particular, $M$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V_n(p)$ and $|L|$ divides $q^2$.
Suppose that $q\in \{11,19,29,59\}$ (we treat the case $q=9$ below). Now $q=p$, so if $|L|=p$, then $L=\langle (u,u)\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p}$ and $G_0\leq \GL_2(p)\wr\tau = \mathcal{G}(\GL_2(p),\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p},1)$, so (i)(a) holds. Otherwise, $|L|=p^2$ and $M=V_2(p)$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $N^*=S\langle \zeta\rangle$, so $|N^*_u|=60/(q+1)$. Further, if $q=19$, then $G_0=N^*\wr \langle \tau\rangle$, so we may take $H_0$ to be $N^*$, but $N^*$ is not regular on $V_2(p)^*$, a contradiction. Thus $q\in \{11,29,59\}$. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $N^*$ has a subgroup $R$ that is regular on $V_2(p)^*$ and isomorphic to a group in Table~\ref{tab:sharp}. Moreover, $N^*=N_{\GL_2(p)}(R)$ and $R\times R\unlhd G_0$. Thus we may take $H_0$ to be $R$, in which case $\alpha^2t^{-1}=h\in H_0$ and $T_u$ is given by Table~\ref{tab:sharp}, so (i)(b) holds.
Still assuming that $G_0$ lies in (I4), suppose that $q=9$.
If $|L|=3$, then $L=\langle (u,u)\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_2(9)\wr\langle\tau\rangle=\mathcal{G}(\GL_2(9),\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3},1)$, so (i)(a) holds. Otherwise, $|L|\in \{9,81\}$ since $|L|$ divides $81$ and $|B|$ divides 6400.
By a computation in {\sc Magma} and Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep} and~\ref{example:(I)sl25},
if $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(\GL_2(9),\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_9},1)=\GL_2(9)\wr \langle\tau\rangle\langle (\sigma,\sigma)\rangle$, then (i)(a) holds, and if not, then
(i)(d) holds.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (I8). Then $(D_8\circ Q_8)\times (D_8\circ Q_8)\unlhd G_0\leq N^*\wr\langle\tau\rangle$ where $N^*:=N_{\GL_m(q)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$, $m=4$ and $q=p=3$. Now $-1\in G_0$, so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_3$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. In particular, $M$ is a subspace of $V_4(3)$ and $|L|$ divides $3^4$. If $|L|=3$, then $L=\langle (u,u)\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}$ and $G_0\leq \GL_4(3)\wr\tau = \mathcal{G}(\GL_4(3),\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3},1)$, so (i)(a) holds. Otherwise, $|L|>3$. By Example~\ref{example:(I)E}, $\GL_4(3)$ has a subgroup $H_0:=(D_8\circ Q_8).C_5$ that is transitive on $V_4(3)^*$. Further, $N:=N_{\GL_4(3)}(H_0)=(D_8\circ Q_8).\AGL_1(5)=H_0\langle s\rangle$, where $N_u=\langle s\rangle\simeq C_8$ and $H_{0,u}=\langle s^4\rangle$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, there exists $g\in N^*\times N^*$ such that $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0^g$.
(Note that $H_0$ is not normal in $N^*$ since $N<(D_8\circ Q_8).S_5=N^*$ by Remark~\ref{remark:2trans}.)
Thus we may assume that
$H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle(t,1)\tau\rangle$, in which case $M=C_{V_4(3)}(H_{0,u})\simeq V_2(3)$ and (i)(e) holds. (The additional statements can be verified using {\sc Magma} and Example~\ref{example:(I)E}.)
\end{proof}
For Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}(ii) and cases (a), (c), (d) and (e) of Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}(i), the number of examples for a particular group $G$ can be determined directly from the conditions on $\alpha$, as described in Examples~\ref{example:(I)spor},
\ref{example:(I)dep},~\ref{example:(I)sl213},~\ref{example:(I)sl25} and~\ref{example:(I)E}, respectively. This can also be done for Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}(i)(b) when $H_0\times H_0\unlhd G_0$ and $\alpha^2t^{-1}\in H_0$, as follows. Observe that if $T_u$ is abelian and $G_0\leq \mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(p),\alpha_1)\cap\mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(p),\alpha_2)$ for some $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in T_u$, then $\alpha_1^2=r_1t$ and $\alpha_2^2=r_2t$ for some $r_1,r_2\in H_0$, so $\alpha_1^2=\alpha_2^2$ since $H_{0,u}=1$, in which case $\mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(p),\alpha_1)=\mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(p),\alpha_2)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric} (cf. Example~\ref{example:(I)reg}). In particular, if $T_u$ is cyclic of odd order, then $G_0$ admits a unique example, and if $T_u=C_2$ or $C_4$, then $G_0$ admits exactly two examples. Otherwise, $T_u=S_3$ and the groups $\mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(3),\alpha)$ are pairwise distinct for $\alpha\in T_u$. In particular, both $\mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(3),1)$ and its subgroup $H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle\{(s,s): s \in A_3\}$ admit exactly one example,
while $H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle\{(s,s^{-1}): s\in A_3\}=\bigcap_{\alpha\in S_3\setminus A_3} \mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(3),\alpha)$ admits exactly three examples. Up to conjugacy, these are all of the rank~$3$ groups. (Note that $H_0\wr\langle\tau\rangle=\bigcap_{\alpha\in (S_3\setminus A_3)\cup\{1\}} \mathcal{G}(H_0,V_2(3),\alpha)$ admits exactly four examples, but $H_0=Q_8\leq \GammaL_1(9)$, so this group is not considered in Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}.)
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\emph{\ref{prop:(I)bad}}]
This follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)badmore}, Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badgeneric}(iii), and the information given in Examples~\ref{example:(I)dep}--\ref{example:(I)spor}.
\end{proof}
\section{The extraspecial class (E)}
\label{s:(E)}
We begin by describing the exceptional partial linear spaces that arise for class (E). Recall the definition of $\zeta_q$ from \S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{example}
\label{example:(E)walker}
Let $E:=D_8\circ Q_8$, and let $G:=V{:}N_{\GL_4(5)}(E)$ where $V:=V_4(5)$. Now $G$ has rank~$3$ with subdegrees $240$ and $384$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $G_0=(\SL_2(5)\circ E \circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$, and the proper subgroups of $G_0$ with two orbits on $V^*$ are $\SL_2(5)\circ E$ and $\SL_2(5)\circ E\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle$. The exceptional Walker plane of order $25$ is an affine plane with group of automorphisms $G$, and $G$ has $\ell_\infty$-orbit lengths $(10,16)$ (see~\cite{Ost1981,Walk1979} and~\cite[Corollary~8]{BilJoh2001}). Now $G$ has two orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of this affine plane, so $\mathcal{S}_1:=(V,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(V,\mathcal{L}_2)$ are $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)=G$. Further, the lines of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are affine subspaces of $V$.\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(E)mason-ostrom}
Let $E:=D_8\circ Q_8$, and let $G:=V{:}N_{\GL_4(7)}(E)$ where $V:=V_4(7)$. Now $G$ has rank~$3$ with subdegrees $480$ and $1920$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $G_0=2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+\circ E\circ \langle \zeta_7\rangle$, and the proper subgroups of $G_0$ with two orbits on $V^*$ are $2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+\circ E$ or a conjugate of $(E\circ \langle \zeta_7\rangle){}^{\displaystyle .} \AGL_1(5)$. The Mason-Ostrom plane of order $49$ is an affine plane with group of automorphisms $G$, and $G$ has $\ell_\infty$-orbit lengths $(10,40)$ (see~\cite{MasOst1985} and~\cite[Corollary~8]{BilJoh2001}). Now $G$ has two orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of this affine plane, so $\mathcal{S}_1:=(V,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(V,\mathcal{L}_2)$ are $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)=G$. Further, the lines of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are affine subspaces of $V$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(E)nonplane}
Let $E:=Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8$, and let $G:=V{:}N_{\GL_8(3)}(E)$ where $V:=V_8(3)$. By~\cite[p.485]{Lie1987}, $G_0=E{}^{\displaystyle .} \SO^-_6(2)\leq \GSp_8(3)$, and $G$ has rank~$3$ with subdegrees $1440$ and $5120$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the only proper subgroup of $G_0$ with two orbits on $V^*$ is $E{}^{\displaystyle .} \Omega_6^-(2)$. Now $G_0$ has an orbit $\Delta$ on the points of $\PG_7(3)$ with size $720$. By a computation in {\sf GAP} using~\cite{FinInG}, there is a partition $\Sigma$ of $\Delta$ into hyperbolic lines---that is, projective lines arising from non-degenerate $2$-subspaces of $V$ with respect to the symplectic form preserved by $\Sp_8(3)$---such that $G_0$ acts transitively on the elements of $\Sigma$.
Embed $\PG_7(3)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_8(3)$. View $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_8(3)$ (i.e., the set of points in $\PG_8(3)$ that are not in $\Pi$),
and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of affine $2$-subspaces of $\AG_8(3)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in an element of $\Sigma$. Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $9$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$.
\end{example}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(E)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_d(p)$ where $p$ is prime, $E\unlhd G_0$, $E$ is irreducible on $V$ and $(E,p^d,G)$ is given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:E}}. Then $\mathcal{S}$ is a
$G$-affine proper partial linear space if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}=(V,\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p}+v : u\in X, v\in V\})$ where $X$ is an orbit of $G_0$ on $V^*$ and $p\neq 2$.
\item[(ii)] $(E,p^d)=(3^{1+2},2^6)$ and $\mathcal{S}=(V,\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_4}+v : u\in X, v\in V\})$ where $V=V_3(4)$ and $X$ is an orbit of $G_0$ on $V^*$. Here $\mathcal{S}$ has an automorphism group in class~\emph{(R1)}.
\item[(iii)] $(E,p^d)=(D_8\circ Q_8,5^4)$
and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(E)walker}}.
\item[(iv)] $(E,p^d)=(D_8\circ Q_8,7^4)$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(E)mason-ostrom}}.
\item[(v)] $(E,p^d)=(Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8,3^8)$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(E)nonplane}}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that by Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}, $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$. Further, if $(E,p^d)=(3^{1+2},2^6)$, then $G_0\leq\GammaU_3(2)$ and $V=V_3(4)$, so $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_4}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$. In particular, if (i) or (ii) holds, then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space, and when (ii) holds, $V{:}\GammaU_3(2)$ is an automorphism group of $\mathcal{S}$ in class (R1). Moreover, if one of (iii)--(v) holds, then we have already seen in Examples~\ref{example:(E)walker}--\ref{example:(E)nonplane} that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
Suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. Since $E$ is irreducible, $G$ is primitive by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible}, so $B$ is a non-trivial block of $G_0$ on $x^{G_0}$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}. If $p$ is odd, then since $E$ is irreducible, its central involution is $-1$.
Thus $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V_d(p)$ for all possible $p$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. If $|L|=p$, then (i) holds, so we assume that $|L|\geq p^2$. In particular, $d>2$. If $(E,p^d)=( D_8\circ Q_8\circ \langle\zeta_{5}\rangle,5^4)$ and $G_0\nleq N_{\GL_4(5)}(D_8\circ Q_8)$, then there are no examples by a computation in {\sc Magma}. Otherwise, $(E,p^d)$ is one of $(3^{1+2},2^6)$, $(D_8\circ Q_8,5^4)$, $(D_8\circ Q_8,7^4)$ or $(Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8,3^8)$, in which case one of (ii)--(v) holds by a computation in {\sc Magma}.
\end{proof}
\section{The almost simple class (AS)}
\label{s:(AS)}
We begin by describing the exceptional partial linear spaces that arise for class (AS). Note that when computing with {\sc Magma} in these examples, we often use~\cite{web-atlas} to construct the representation of the appropriate quasisimple group. Recall the definition of $\zeta_q$ and $\sigma_q$ from \S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)nearfield}
Let $S:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5\simeq \SL_2(5)$. By~\cite[Lemma 11.2]{Fou1964}, the normaliser $N$ of $S$ in~$\GammaL_2(9)$ is $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ where $\zeta:=\zeta_9$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_9$, and $N$ is transitive on $V^*$ where $V:=V_2(9)$. Moreover, by~\cite[Theorem 5.3]{FouKal1978}, the subgroups of $N$ containing $S$ with two orbits on $V^*$ are $S$, $S\langle \zeta^2\rangle$, $S\langle \sigma\rangle$, $S\langle \zeta^2\sigma\rangle$ and $S\langle \zeta^2,\sigma\rangle$; these all have orbit sizes $40$ and $40$ on $V^*$. Note that $S\langle \sigma\rangle^\zeta=S\langle \zeta^2\sigma\rangle\simeq 2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^+$.
The nearfield plane of order $9$ is an affine plane whose full automorphism group is the $2$-transitive group $V{:}(D_8\circ Q_8\circ S\langle \zeta\sigma\rangle)$ (see~\S\ref{ss:nearfield} and Remark~\ref{remark:2trans}), and $V{:}S$ has $\ell_\infty$-orbit lengths $(5,5)$ (see~\cite[Corollary~8]{BilJoh2001}). Now $V{:}S$ has two orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of the nearfield plane, so $\mathcal{S}_1:=(V,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(V,\mathcal{L}_2)$ are $(V{:}S)$-affine proper partial linear spaces by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that, without loss of generality, $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)=V{:}S\langle \sigma\rangle $ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)=V{:}S\langle \zeta^2\sigma\rangle$.
Thus $\mathcal{S}_1$ is a $(V{:}G_0)$-affine proper partial linear space for $G_0\in \{S,S\langle \sigma \rangle\}$, and $\mathcal{S}_2$ is a $(V{:}G_0)$-affine proper partial linear space for $G_0\in \{S,S\langle \zeta^2\sigma \rangle\}$.
Note that $\mathcal{S}_1\simeq \mathcal{S}_2$ since $\zeta\sigma$ maps $\mathcal{L}_1$ to $\mathcal{L}_2$.
Note also that the lines of $\mathcal{S}_1$ are affine $\mathbb{F}_3$-subspaces of $V$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)korch}
Let $S:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5\simeq \SL_2(5)$ and $q:=49$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the normaliser $N$ of $S$ in $\GammaL_2(q)$ is $S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$ where $\zeta:=\zeta_q$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_q$, and $N$ has
orbits $X$ and $Y$ on $V^*$ with sizes $960$ and $1440$, respectively, where $V:=V_2(q)$. Moreover, the proper subgroups of $N$ with two orbits on $V^*$ are $S\circ \langle \zeta\rangle$ and $S\langle \zeta\sigma, \zeta^2\rangle=2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-\circ \langle \zeta^2\rangle$. Let $G:=V{:}S\langle \zeta\sigma, \zeta^2\rangle$. The Korchm{\'a}ros plane of order $49$ is an affine plane with group of automorphisms $G$, and $G$ has $\ell_\infty$-orbit lengths $(20,30)$~\cite{Kor1985}. Now $G$ has two orbits on the lines of this affine plane; let $\mathcal{L}$ be the orbit for which $|\mathcal{L}_0|=20$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}, $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with $\mathcal{S}(0)=X$, and using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$ and $\mathcal{L}$ consists of affine $\mathbb{F}_7$-subspaces of $V$. We do not consider the other partial linear space arising from the Korchm{\'a}ros plane here, for it is $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent with
line set $\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}+v : u\in Y, v\in V\}$. Further, $\mathcal{S}$ is not isomorphic to the $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent partial linear space with line set $\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}+v : u\in X, v\in V\}$, for the automorphism group of this latter partial linear space contains $V{:}S\langle \zeta,\sigma\rangle$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)walker}
Let $S:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the normaliser $N$ of $S$ in $\GL_4(5)$ is $(S\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$, and $N$ has orbit sizes $144$ and $480$ on $V^*$ where $V:=V_4(5)$. Moreover, $N$ has no proper subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$. Let $G:=V{:}N$. The exceptional Walker plane of order $25$, or Hering plane, is an affine plane with group of automorphisms $G$, and $G$ has $\ell_\infty$-orbit lengths $(6,20)$ (see~\cite{Walk1979} and~\cite[Corollary~8]{BilJoh2001}).
Now $G$ has two orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of this affine plane, so $\mathcal{S}_1:=(V,\mathcal{L}_1)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2:=(V,\mathcal{L}_2)$ are $G$-affine proper partial linear spaces by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}. Using {\sc Magma}, we determine that $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_1)=\Aut(\mathcal{S}_2)=G$. Further, the lines of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ are affine subspaces of~$V$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)A9}
Let $S:=A_9$.
By~\cite[p.509]{Lie1987},
the group $G:=V{:}S$ has rank~$3$, where $V:=V_8(2)$ and $S\leq \Omega_8^+(2)$. The orbits of $S$ on $V^*$ are the sets of non-singular and singular vectors with respect to the quadratic form preserved by $\Omega_8^+(2)$, with sizes $120$ and $135$, respectively. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $S$ has no proper subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$.
The following definition is made in~\cite[\S 2.3.3]{BueVanBook1994}. Let $\Delta$ be the set of points of $\PG_7(2)$ that are singular with respect to the quadratic form preserved by $\Omega_8^+(2)$. By~\cite{Dye1977}, there exists a spread $\Sigma$ of $\Delta$---that is, a partition of the points of $\Delta$ into maximal totally singular subspaces---such that $S$ acts $2$-transitively on the elements of $\Sigma$. Embed $\PG_7(2)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_8(2)$. View $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_8(2)$ (i.e. the set of points in $\PG_8(2)$ that are not in $\Pi$), and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of affine $4$-subspaces of $\AG_8(2)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in an element of $\Sigma$. Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $16$. By~\cite[\S 2.3.3]{BueVanBook1994}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)M11}
Let $S:=M_{11}$. Let $V$ be the irreducible $\mathbb{F}_3S$-module of dimension $5$ such that $S$ has orbit sizes $110$ and $132$ on $V^*$. Let $G:=V{:}S$. Let $x$ be an element of the orbit of $S$ of size $132$ on $V^*$. Then $S_x\simeq A_5$, and there are exactly two maximal subgroups $H$ of $S$ for which $S_x\leq H\simeq \PSL_2(11)$. Let $B:=x^H$. Now $B$ is a block of $S$. Let $L:=B\cup \{0\}$ and $\mathcal{L}:=L^G$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $S_L$ is transitive on $L$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:sufficient}, $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $12$ and point-size $12$.
By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$.
Note that if we instead choose $H$ to be the other maximal subgroup of $S$ for which $S_x\leq H\simeq \PSL_2(11)$, then we obtain another $G$-affine proper partial linear space, but we will see in Proposition~\ref{prop:(AS)} that these partial linear spaces are isomorphic. Note also that $S$ has no proper subgroups with two orbits on $V^*$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)G24}
Let $S:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4)$.
By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the normaliser $N$ of $S$ in $\GL_{12}(3)$ is $S.2^-$, and $N$ has orbit sizes $65520$ and $465920$ on $V^*$ where $V:=V_{12}(3)$. Moreover, the only proper subgroup of $N$ with two orbits on $V^*$ is $S$. Recall from Table~\ref{tab:AS} that $S\leq \Sp_{12}(3)$, so $N\leq \GSp_{12}(3)$ by~\cite[Corollary~2.10.4(i)]{KleLie1990}.
Let $G:=V{:}N$.
Now $G_0$ has an orbit $\Delta$ on the points of $\PG_{11}(3)$ with size $32760$.
By a computation in {\sf GAP} using~\cite{FinInG}, there is a partition $\Sigma$ of $\Delta$ into hyperbolic lines---that is, projective lines arising from non-degenerate $2$-subspaces of $V$ with respect to the symplectic form preserved by $\Sp_{12}(3)$---such that $G_0$ acts transitively on the elements of $\Sigma$.
Embed $\PG_{11}(3)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_{12}(3)$. View $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_{12}(3)$, and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of affine $2$-subspaces of $\AG_{12}(3)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in an element of $\Sigma$. Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size~$9$.
We claim that $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:primrank3plus}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine permutation group on $V$. A consideration of the subdegrees in Tables~\ref{tab:E}--\ref{tab:subdegree} shows that $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ belongs to class (AS) with $S=2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4)$ or $2{}^{\displaystyle .} \Suz$. It then follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:(AS)} below that $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{example:(AS)J2}
Let $S:=2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, the normaliser $N$ of $S$ in $\GL_6(5)$ is $(S\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle){}^{\displaystyle .} 2$, and $N$ has orbit sizes $7560$ and $8064$ on $V^*$ where $V:=V_6(5)$. Moreover, the proper subgroups of $N$ with two orbits on $V^*$ are $S$ and $S\circ \langle \zeta_5\rangle$. Recall from Table~\ref{tab:AS} that $S\leq \Sp_{6}(5)$, so $N\leq \GSp_{6}(5)$ by~\cite[Corollary~2.10.4(i)]{KleLie1990}.
Let $G:=V{:}N$. Now $G_0$ has an orbit $\Delta$ on the points of $\PG_5(5)$ with size $1890$. By the proof of~\cite[Lemma~5.1]{Lie1987}, there is a partition $\Sigma$ of $\Delta$ into hyperbolic lines---that is, projective lines arising from non-degenerate $2$-subspaces of $V$ with respect to the symplectic form preserved by $\Sp_6(5)$---such that $G_0$ acts transitively on the elements of $\Sigma$. (This partition arises from the $315$ quaternionic reflections described in~\cite[p.42]{Atlas}: these reflections form a conjugacy class $C$ of involutions of $S$, and for each $r\in C$, there is a unique non-degenerate $2$-subspace of $V$ on which $r$ acts as $-1$, and $C_{S}(r)$ acts as $\SL_2(5)$ on this $2$-subspace.)
Embed $\PG_5(5)$ as a hyperplane $\Pi$ in $\PG_6(5)$. View $V$ as the set of points in $\AG_6(5)$, and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of affine $2$-subspaces of $\AG_6(5)$ whose completions meet $\Pi$ in an element of $\Sigma$. Then $\mathcal{S}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $25$. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, $\Aut(\mathcal{S})=G$.
\end{example}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:(AS)}
Let $G$ be an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V:=V_n(q)$ where $q^n=p^d$ for $p$ prime, $S\unlhd G_0$,
$S$ is irreducible on $V_d(p)$ and $(S,p^d,G,q)$ is given by Table~\emph{\ref{tab:AS}}. Let $\zeta:=\zeta_q$. Then $\mathcal{S}$ is a
$G$-affine proper partial linear space if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mathcal{S}=(V,\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_p}+v : u\in X, v\in V\})$ where $X$ is an orbit of $G_0$ on $V^*$ and $p\neq 2$.
\item[(ii)] $(S,p^d)$ is one of $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,7^4)$, $(3{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6,2^6)$ or $(J_2,2^{12})$ and $\mathcal{S}=(V,\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}+v : u\in X, v\in V\})$ where $X$ is an orbit of $G_0$ on $V^*$. Here $q=p^2$.
\item[(iii)] $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,3^4)$
and $G_0$ and $\mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{S}^{\zeta^2}$ are described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)nearfield}}.
\item[(iv)] $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,7^4)$ and $G_0$ and $\mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{S}^{\zeta}$ are described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)korch}}.
\item[(v)] $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6,5^4)$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)walker}}.
\item[(vi)] $(S,p^d)=(A_9,2^8)$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)A9}}.
\item[(vii)] $(S,p^d)=(M_{11},3^5)$ and $G_0$ and $\mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{S}^{\zeta}$ are described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)M11}}.
\item[(viii)] $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4),3^{12})$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)G24}}.
\item[(ix)] $(S,p^d)=(2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2,5^6)$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\emph{\ref{example:(AS)J2}}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, $S$ is irreducible on $V_d(p)$, so $G$ is primitive by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitiveirreducible}. Let $\sigma:=\sigma_q$.
By Corollaries~\ref{cor:remark3} and~\ref{cor:AGgroups}, $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_q}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$, except when $S=2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5$ and $q=9$, in which case $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_3}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$. In particular, if (i) or (ii) holds, then $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space. Moreover, if one of (iii)--(ix) holds, then we have already seen in Examples~\ref{example:(AS)nearfield}--\ref{example:(AS)J2} that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
Suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is a $G$-affine proper partial linear space.
Let $L\in\mathcal{L}_0$, let $B:=L^*$, and let $x\in B$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:necessary}, $B$ is a non-trivial block of $G_0$ on $X:=x^{G_0}$.
First suppose that $S\neq M_{11}$. Then $-1\in G_0$ (including the case $p=2$), so $L$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-subspace of $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. If $|L|=p$, then $p\neq 2$ and (i) holds. Thus we may assume that $|L|>p$, so $d>2$. Using {\sc Magma} and~\cite{web-atlas}, we verify that one of (ii)-(vi), (viii) or (ix) holds.
Thus $(S,p^d)=(M_{11},3^5)$ and $q=3$. If $B=\{x,-x\}$, then (i) holds, so we assume otherwise. By a computation in {\sc Magma}, either $|X|=220$, $G_0\in \{S,S\times \mathbb{F}_3^*\}$ and $|B|=4$ where $B$ is the same block for $S$ and $S\times \mathbb{F}_3^*$; or $|X|=132$, $G_0=S$ and $B$ is one of two blocks with size $11$. In the latter case, (vii) holds. In the former case, $|L|$ does not divide $3^5$, but $-1\in (S\times \mathbb{F}_3^*)\setminus S$, so we obtain a contradiction using Lemmas~\ref{lemma:necessary},~\ref{lemma:sufficient} and~\ref{lemma:affine}.
\end{proof}
Note that the partial linear space in Proposition~\ref{prop:(AS)}(ii) with $S=3{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6$ and $|X|=18$ is the unique generalised quadrangle of order $(3,5)$; see \cite{BueVan1994} for more details.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\label{s:proof}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a finite proper partial linear space, and let $G\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$ where $G$ is an affine primitive permutation group of rank~$3$ with socle $V:=V_d(p)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is prime. We may assume that $\mathcal{S}$ has point set $V$. Let $k$ be the line-size of $\mathcal{S}$, and let $\ell$ be the point-size of $\mathcal{S}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:lines}, $|\mathcal{S}(0)|=\ell(k-1)$.
Suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is described in one of Examples~\ref{example:(R2)},~\ref{example:(I)goodnearfield},~\ref{example:(I)goodHering},~\ref{example:(I)reg}--\ref{example:(I)spor},~\ref{example:(E)walker}--\ref{example:(E)nonplane} or~\ref{example:(AS)nearfield}--\ref{example:(AS)J2}. By the information in these examples, in order to prove that (iii) holds, it remains to justify the comments in the column ``Notes" for Examples~\ref{example:(R2)},~\ref{example:(I)goodHering} (with line-size $27$),~\ref{example:(E)nonplane} and~\ref{example:(AS)A9}--\ref{example:(AS)J2}, where we claim that $\mathcal{S}$ cannot be obtained from any $2$-$(p^d,k,1)$ design admitting a rank~$3$ group (by the method of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}), as well as Examples~\ref{example:(I)goodnearfield},~\ref{example:(I)goodHering} (with line-size~$9$) and~\ref{example:(I)sl213}--\ref{example:(I)E}, where we claim that $\mathcal{S}$ can be obtained from a rank~$3$ affine $2$-$(p^d,k,1)$ design. By joining the lines of a partial linear space of line-size $9$ from Example~\ref{example:(I)goodHering} with the lines of a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:(I)sl213}, both of which admit $3^{12}{:}(\SL_2(13)\wr S_2)$ as an automorphism group, we obtain a rank~$3$ affine $2$-$(3^{12},9,1)$ design by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}. Similarly, we obtain a rank~$3$ affine $2$-$(3^{8},9,1)$ design by joining the lines of a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:(I)goodnearfield} with the lines of a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:(I)sl25} (respectively,~\ref{example:(I)E}), both of which admit $3^8{:}(2{}^{\displaystyle .} S_5^-\wr S_2)$ (respectively, $3^8{:}(((D_8\circ Q_8).D_{10})\wr S_2)$) as an automorphism group.
Now suppose that $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Examples~\ref{example:(R2)},~\ref{example:(I)goodHering} (with line-size $27$),~\ref{example:(E)nonplane} or~\ref{example:(AS)A9}--\ref{example:(AS)J2}, and suppose that there exists a permutation group $H$ on $V$ that is transitive of rank~$3$ and an automorphism group of a $2$-$(p^d,k,1)$ design $\mathcal{D}$ with point set $V$ such that $H$ has orbits $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_2$ on the lines of $\mathcal{D}$, where $\mathcal{L}_1$ is the line set of $\mathcal{S}$. Now $H\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S})$, and $\Aut(\mathcal{S})$ is an affine primitive permutation group with socle $V$. We claim that $V\leq H$. Note that $|H|=|V||H_0|$ and $H_0$ has two orbits on $V^*$. In particular, by the information given in the examples, either $H_0=\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0$, or $H_0$ is one of the following: $(Q_8\circ Q_8\circ Q_8){}^{\displaystyle .} \Omega_6^-(2)$ when $p^d=3^8$; $2{}^{\displaystyle .} G_2(4)$ when $p^d=3^{12}$; or one of $2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2$ or $2{}^{\displaystyle .} J_2 \circ 4$ when $p^d=5^6$. In particular, $[\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0:H_0]=2^i$ for some $i$, and $i=0$ when $p=2$. However $[V:V\cap H]=[HV:H]$, and this divides $[\Aut(\mathcal{S}):H]=[\Aut(\mathcal{S})_0:H_0]$, so the claim holds. Now $(V,\mathcal{L}_2)$ is an $H$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $k$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}, but no such partial linear space exists by Propositions~\ref{prop:(R2)msmall},~\ref{prop:(I)bad},~\ref{prop:(E)} and~\ref{prop:(AS)} since $\SL_2(13)$ is not a subgroup of $\GammaL_2(27)$. Thus (iii) does indeed hold.
For the remainder of this proof, we say that a triple $(H,a,r)$ is \textit{good} if it satisfies Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:AGgroups} and $H$ has socle $V$, in which case $H$ is primitive on $V$ and $r^a=p^d$, and by Corollary~\ref{cor:AGgroups}, $H_0\leq \GammaL_a(r)$ and $H_0$ has two orbits on the points of $\PG_{a-1}(r)$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:rank3}, $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (R0)--(R5), (T1)--(T3), (S0)--(S2), (I0)--(I8), (E) or (AS). If $G_0$ belongs to the class (R0), then (iv)(a) holds. If $G_0$ belongs to class (E), then by Proposition~\ref{prop:(E)}, either $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Examples~\ref{example:(E)walker}--\ref{example:(E)nonplane} and (iii) holds, or $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the good triple $(G,d,p)$ when $p$ is odd or $(G,3,4)$ when $p=2$, in which case (i) holds. Similarly, if $G_0$ belongs to class (AS), then by Proposition~\ref{prop:(AS)}, either $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Examples~\ref{example:(AS)nearfield}--\ref{example:(AS)J2} and (iii) holds, or $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the good triple $(G,d,p)$ when $p\neq 2$ or the good triple $(G,d/2,p^2)$ when $S\unlhd G_0$ and $(S,p^d)$ is one of $(2{}^{\displaystyle .} A_5,7^4)$, $(3{}^{\displaystyle .} A_6,2^6)$ or $(J_2,2^{12})$, in which case (i) holds.
Suppose that $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (R1)--(R5), (T1)--(T3) or (S0)--(S2). Now $V=V_c(s)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_c(s)$ where $(c,s)$ is given by
Table \ref{tab:ar} of Corollary~\ref{cor:remark3}, and $\langle x\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_s}^*\subseteq x^{G_0}$ for all $x\in V^*$. If $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_s$-dependent, then by Proposition~\ref{prop:dep}, $\mathcal{S}$ has line set $\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_r}+v : u\in \mathcal{S}(0),v\in V\}$ for some subfield $\mathbb{F}_r$ of $\mathbb{F}_s$ with $r>2$, so $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the good triple $(G,\log_r(p^d),r)$ (see the discussion before Proposition~\ref{prop:dep}). Otherwise, $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mathbb{F}_s$-independent. If $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (R1)--(R5), then by Propositions~\ref{prop:(R1)},~\ref{prop:(R2)mbig},~\ref{prop:(R2)msmall},~\ref{prop:(R3)},~\ref{prop:(R4)},~\ref{prop:(R5)10} and~\ref{prop:(R5)7}, $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:(R2)}, so (iii) holds. If $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (T1)--(T3), then by Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}, $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:tensor}, and (ii) holds. If $G_0$ belongs to (S1) or (S2), then by Propositions~\ref{prop:(S1)--(S2)good} and~\ref{prop:(S1)--(S2)bad}, either $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:tensor} and (ii) holds, or $s=9$ and $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG}
that is defined with respect to the good triple $(G,c,s)$, so (i) holds.
Lastly, suppose that $G_0$ belongs to (S0). If $|\mathcal{S}(0)|=q(q^3-1)(q^2-1)$, then (iv)(c) holds. Otherwise, by Proposition~\ref{prop:(S0)good}, $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:tensor}, so (ii) holds.
We may therefore assume that $G_0$ belongs to one of the classes (I0)--(I8). Now $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$. Let $V_1:=\{(u,0): u \in V_n(p)\}$ and $V_2:=\{(0,u):u\in V_n(p)\}$, and recall that $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$ or $V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. First suppose that $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_1^*\cup V_2^*$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)good}, one of the following holds: $\mathcal{S}$ is the $p^n\times p^n$ grid of Example~\ref{example:grid}, in which case (ii) holds; $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space in Example~\ref{example:(I)goodnearfield} or~\ref{example:(I)goodHering}, in which case (iii) holds; or $\mathcal{S}=\AG_b(r)\cprod \AG_b(r)$ where $r^b=p^n$, $b\geq 2$ and $r>2$, in which case $\mathcal{S}$ is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the good triple $(V{:}((\GammaL_b(r)\wr S_2)\cap \GammaL_{2b}(r)),2b,r)$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}, and (i) holds. Suppose instead that $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. If $G_0$ lies in class (I0), then (iv)(b) holds, so we assume otherwise. By Proposition~\ref{prop:(I)bad}, either $\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space described in Examples~\ref{example:(I)reg}--\ref{example:(I)spor}, in which case (iii) holds, or $G_0\leq (\GammaL_b(r)\wr S_2)\cap \GammaL_{2b}(r)$ and
$\mathcal{S}$ is isomorphic to a partial linear space with line set $\{\langle u\rangle_{\mathbb{F}_r} +v: u\in V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*,v\in V\}$ where $r^b=p^n$, $b\geq 2$ and $r>2$, in which case (i) holds since this partial linear space is described in Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the good triple $(G,2b,r)$. \qed
\section{Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:affinesub}}
\label{s:affinesub}
First we require the following result. Recall the definition of $\zeta_q$ and $\sigma_q$ from \S\ref{ss:basicsvs}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:onedim}
Let $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$ where $d\geq 1$ and $p$ is an odd prime. Suppose that $G_0$ has $t$ orbits on $V_1(p^d)^*$ where $t\leq 2$, and suppose that $|G_0|$ is even when $t=2$. Then $-1\in G_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $q:=p^d$, $\zeta:=\zeta_q$ and $\sigma:=\sigma_q$. Let $H:=G_0\cap \langle \zeta\rangle$. By~\cite[\S 3]{FouKal1978}, $G_0=\langle \zeta^n,\zeta^k\sigma^s\rangle $ for some integers $n$, $k$ and $s$ such that $H=\langle \zeta^n\rangle$, $|H|=(q-1)/n$, $|G_0|=d(q-1)/sn$ and $s$ divides $d$. Since $-1\in G_0$ if and only if $|H|$ is even, it suffices to prove that $(q-1)/n$ is even. Since $q$ is odd, we may assume that $n$ is even, and since $|G_0|$ is even and $s$ divides $d$, we may assume that $d$ is even. Write $d=2^ed'$ and $n=2^fn'$ where $d'$ and $n'$ are odd. If $t=2$, then since $n$ is even, the orbits of $G_0$ on $V^*$ have the same size by~\cite[Corollary 3.8]{FouKal1978}, in which case $n/2$ divides $d$ by~\cite[Theorem 3.10]{FouKal1978}. If $t=1$, then $n$ divides $d$ by~\cite[Proposition 15.3]{Fou1964}. Thus, in either case, $f\leq e+1$, so it suffices to prove that $2^{e+2}$ divides $q-1$.
Let $r:=p^{d'}$. Since $e\geq 1$,
$$ q-1=r^{2^e}-1=(r-1)(r^{2^0}+1)(r^{2^1}+1)\cdots (r^{2^{e-1}}+1).$$
Since $4$ divides $r-1$ or $r+1$,
it follows that $2^{e+2}$ divides $q-1$, as desired.
\end{proof}
Note that $\GammaL_1(q)$ may contain odd-order subgroups with two orbits on $V_1(q)^*$: if $q\equiv 3\mod 4$, then $G_0:=\{\lambda^2:\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q^*\}$ has odd order, and the orbits of $G_0$ on $\mathbb{F}_q^*$ are $G_0$ and $-G_0$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\emph{\ref{cor:affinesub}}]
We may assume that $\mathcal{S}$ has point set $V$. Suppose that the lines of $\mathcal{S}$ are not affine subspaces of $V$. Now Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iii) or (iv) holds. If Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iii) holds, then by the descriptions of $\mathcal{S}$ given in Examples~\ref{example:(R2)},~\ref{example:(I)goodnearfield},~\ref{example:(I)goodHering},~\ref{example:(I)reg}--\ref{example:(I)spor},~\ref{example:(E)walker}--\ref{example:(E)nonplane} and~\ref{example:(AS)nearfield}--\ref{example:(AS)J2}, either (i) or (ii) holds.
Thus we may assume that Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv) holds. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}, $p$ is odd and $G_0$ does not contain $-1$. In particular, Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(c) does not hold. If Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(a) holds, then $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^d)$ and $G_0$ has two orbits on $V^*$, so by Lemma~\ref{lemma:onedim}, $|G_0|$ is odd. However, this contradicts the fact that the orbitals of $G$ are self-paired by Remark~\ref{remark:PLSrank3}.
Hence Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(iv)(b) holds. Now $V=V_n(p)\oplus V_n(p)$ and $G_0\leq \GammaL_1(p^n)\wr S_2$ where $\mathcal{S}(0)=V_n(p)^*\times V_n(p)^*$. In order to show that (iii) holds, it remains to show that (2)--(7) hold and $n\geq 2$. Now (2) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:notaffine}, (3) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affineplus}, (4) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:A2badbasic}, and (5) holds by Lemma~\ref{lemma:affine}. If $H\times K\leq G_0$ for some $H,K\leq \GammaL_1(p^n)$ and if $H$ and $K$ are both transitive on $V_n(p)^*$, then $-1\in H$ and $-1\in K$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:onedim}, so $-1\in G_0$, a contradiction. Thus (7) holds. Let $V_1:=\{(u,0): u \in V_n(p)\}$ and $V_2:=\{(0,u):u\in V_n(p)\}$, and for $i\in \{1,2\}$, let
$G_0^i$ be the image of the projection of $G_{0,V_1}=G_0\cap (\GammaL_1(p^n)\times \GammaL_1(p^n))$ onto the $i$-th factor of $\GammaL_1(p^n)\times \GammaL_1(p^n)$. Since $G_0$ is transitive on $V_1^*\cup V_2^*$, it follows that $G_0^1$ and $G_0^2$ are transitive on $V_n(p)^*$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:onedim}, $-1\in G_0^1$ and $-1\in G_0^2$, so (6) holds.
Now suppose for a contradiction that $n=1$. Then $G_0^1=\GL_1(p)=G_0^2$. For $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $K_i$ be the kernel of the projection map of $G_{0,V_1}=G_0\cap (\GL_1(p)\times \GL_1(p))$ onto $G_0^i$. Since $G_0=G_{0,V_1}\langle (t,s)\tau\rangle$ for some $t,s\in\GL_1(p)$, there exists $H\unlhd G_0^1$ such that $K_1=1\times H$ and $K_2=H\times 1$, and $|G_0|=2|G_0^1||H|$. By assumption, $G_0$ is transitive on $V_1(p)^*\times V_1(p)^*$, so $(p-1)^2$ divides $|G_0|$. Thus $|H|=p-1$ or $(p-1)/2$, so $\langle \zeta^2\rangle\leq H$, where $\zeta:=\zeta_p$. Since $\zeta\in G_0^1=G_0^2$, it follows that $(\zeta,\zeta)\in G_0$, but then $-1\in G_0$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Example~\ref{example:tensor} and $2$-$(v,k,1)$ designs}
\label{s:extra}
In this section, we consider when a partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:tensor} can be obtained from a $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using a rank~$3$ group (in the sense of Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}).
Let $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 2$, and $q$ is a prime power. Let $\mathcal{S}_U:=(V,\mathcal{L}_U)$ where $\mathcal{L}_U:=\{(U\otimes w) +v : w\in W^*,v\in V\} $, and define $\mathcal{S}_W$ and $\mathcal{L}_W$ similarly. Recall that $\mathcal{S}_U\simeq \mathcal{S}_W$ when $m=2$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:tensorsimple}(iv). Let $K:=\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$. In \S\ref{s:(S1)}, we saw that $\mathcal{S}_U$ may be viewed as a $K$-dependent proper partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the rank~$3$ affine primitive group $G:=V{:}(\GL_m(q)\circ K^*){:}\Aut(K)$ from class (S1). We may define $\mathcal{L}_Y:=\{\langle u\rangle_K +v : u \in Y,v\in V\}$, where $Y$ is the orbit of $G_0$ on $V^*$ consisting of those vectors that are not collinear with $0$ in $\mathcal{S}_U$, in which case $\mathcal{S}_Y:=(V,\mathcal{L}_Y)$ is a $K$-dependent $G$-affine proper partial linear space whose collinearity relation is disjoint from that of $\mathcal{S}_U$. Observe that the incidence structure $(V,\mathcal{L}_U\cup \mathcal{L}_Y)$ is the linear space $\AG_m(q^2)$. Thus the partial linear space $\mathcal{S}_U$ can be obtained from a $2$-$(q^{2m},q^2,1)$ design using a rank $3$ group (in the sense of Remark~\ref{remark:PLSfromLinear} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}).
Similarly, in \S\ref{s:(S0)} we saw that for $K:=\mathbb{F}_{q^3}$ and $m=3$, $\mathcal{S}_W$ may be viewed as a $K$-dependent proper partial linear space from Example~\ref{example:AG} with respect to the rank~$3$ affine primitive group $G:=V{:}(\GL_2(q)\circ K^*){:}\Aut(K)$ from class (S0), in which case $\mathcal{S}_W$ can be obtained from the $2$-$(q^{6},q^3,1)$ design $\AG_2(q^3)$ using a rank~$3$ group. However, when $m\geq 4$, it turns out that $\mathcal{S}_W$ cannot be obtained from any $2$-$(v,k,1)$ design using a rank~$3$ group unless $(m,q)=(5,2)$, which we now prove.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:tensornodesign}
Let $V:=U\otimes W$ where $U:=V_2(q)$, $W:=V_m(q)$, $m\geq 4$ and $q$ is a prime power. Let $\mathcal{L}_W:=\{(u\otimes W) +v : u\in U^*,v\in V\} $. The following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $H$ is a permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ and there is a $2$-$(q^{2m},q^m,1)$ design $\mathcal{D}:=(V,\mathcal{L})$ such that $H\leq \Aut(\mathcal{D})$ and $H$ has two orbits on $\mathcal{L}$, one of which is $\mathcal{L}_W$.
\item[(ii)] $H=V{:}(\GammaL_1(2^2)\otimes \GammaL_1(2^5))\leq \AGammaL_1(2^{10})$ and $(m,q)=(5,2)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that (i) holds, and
let $\mathcal{S}_W$ denote the partial linear space $(V,\mathcal{L}_W)$. Note that $H\leq \Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:tensoraut},
$\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)= V{:}(\GL_2(q)\otimes \GL_m(q)){:}\Aut(\mathbb{F}_q)$, so $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)$ is primitive on $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primitive}. Thus $H$ is primitive on $V$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:primrank3}.
If $H$ is not affine, then
by Proposition~\ref{prop:primrank3}, either $H$ is almost simple, or $H$ has subdegrees $2(q^m-1)$ and $(q^m-1)^2$. However, the former is not possible by Theorem~\ref{thm:Guralnick} since $H$ is not $2$-transitive, and the
latter is not possible since $m\geq 4$ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)$ has subdegrees $(q+1)(q^m-1)$ and $q(q^m-1)(q^{m-1}-1)$. Thus $H$ is affine, so the socles of $H$ and $\Aut(\mathcal{S}_W)$ are equal by ~\cite[Proposition~5.1]{Pra1990}.
Hence $H$ is an affine permutation group of rank~$3$ on $V$ and $H_0$ stabilises the tensor decomposition of $V$. Since $m\geq 4$, $H$ belongs to one of the classes (R0), (I0) or (T1)--(T5) by Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups}. Recall the definition of the group $H_0^W$
from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:tensorgroups}. Now $H_0^W$ is transitive on the lines of $\PG(W)$ since $H_0$ is transitive on the set of non-simple tensors of $V$, so either $H_0^W$ is $2$-transitive on $\PG(W)$, or $H_0^W=\GammaL_1(2^5)$ with $(m,q)=(5,2)$~\cite{Kan1973}. If $H_0^W=\GammaL_1(2^5)$ and $(m,q)=(5,2)$, then (ii) holds by a computation in {\sc Magma}, so we assume otherwise. By~\cite{CamKan1979}, either $\SL_m(q)\unlhd H_0^W$, or $H_0^W=A_7$ and $(m,q)=(4,2)$. In particular, $H_0$ is not soluble, so $H_0$ does not belong to (R0) or (I0).
Let $\mathcal{L}'$ be the orbit of $H$ on $\mathcal{L}$ that is not $\mathcal{L}_W$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:linearspace}, $\mathcal{S}':=(V,\mathcal{L}')$ is an $H$-affine proper partial linear space with line-size $q^m$ for which $\mathcal{S}'(0)$ is the set of non-simple tensors of $V$.
If $H_0$ belongs to one of the classes (T1)--(T3), then by Proposition~\ref{prop:(T1)--(T3)}, $\mathcal{S}'$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-dependent, but then $\mathcal{S}'$ has line-size at most $q$, a contradiction. Otherwise, $H_0$ belongs to (T4) or (T5), in which case $H_0$ belongs to (S2) or (S1), respectively. By Proposition~\ref{prop:(S1)--(S2)bad}, $\mathcal{S}'$ is isomorphic to an $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$-dependent partial linear space, but then $\mathcal{S}'$ has line-size at most $q^2$, a contradiction.
Conversely, suppose that (ii) holds. Using {\sc Magma} and Lemmas~\ref{lemma:transitive}, \ref{lemma:sufficient} and \ref{lemma:linearspace}, we verify that (i) holds.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{Introduction}
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) \cite{A1} are one of the most significant developments in machine learning research of the past decade. Since their first introduction, GANs have attracted intensive interest in the machine learning community not only for their ability to learn highly structured probability distributions but also for their theoretically implications \cite{A1,A2,A3,A4}. Essentially, GANs are constructed around two functions \cite{A5, A6}: the generator $\mathbf{G}$, which maps a sample \textit{z} to the data distribution, and the discriminator $\mathbf{D}$, which is trained to distinguish real samples of a dataset from fake samples produced by the generator. With the goal of reducing the difference between the distributions of generated and real samples, a GAN training algorithm trains $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ in tandem.
GAN training is dynamic and sensitive to nearly every aspect of its setup, from optimization parameters to model architecture \cite{A7}. Training instability, or mode collapse, is one of the major obstacles in developing applications. Despite excellent progresses in recent years \cite{A8,A9,A10,A11,A12}, the mode collapse problem still persists. For example, one of the most impressive works to emerge recently is BigGANs \cite{A7}, which is the largest published GAN system based on the state of the art Spectral Normalization (SN-GAN)\cite{A10}. However, BigGANs can still suffer from the training instability problem, especially when the batch size is scaled up. Although implementing training stabilization measures such as employing $R_{1}$ zero-centred gradient penalty term \cite{A7} in the loss metric of the discriminator to prevent spectral noise can improve stability, this can cause severe degradation in performance, resulting in a 45\% reduction in Inception Score.
In this paper, we present Spectral Regularization, a robust method for combating the mode collapse problem in GANs. Theoretically, we have found that spectral distribution is closely related to $D$'s performance, and affect how the supremum of Lipschitz constraint can be reached. Regarding mode collapse as the rapid decay in performance, we reason that the spectral distributions in $\mathbf{D}$ may also have a strong relation to mode collapse.
Through comprehensive analysis of spectral distributions in a large number of GAN models trained with the state of the art SN-GAN algorithm, we discover that when mode collapse occurs to a model, spectral distributions of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ in $\mathbf{D}$ also collapse, where $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ is spectral normalized weight matrix. Specifically, we observe that when a model performs well and no mode collapse occurs, there are a large number of singular values of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ in $\mathbf{D}$ very close to 1, and that when mode collapse occurs to a model, singular values of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ in $\mathbf{D}$ will drop dramatically. We refer to the phenomenon where a large number of singular values drop significantly as {\bf spectral collapse}.
In all GAN models of various sizes and trained with a variety of parameter settings on datasets extensively used in the literature, we observe that mode collapse and spectral collapse always go side by side. This fact leads us to reason that mode collapse in SN-GANs is caused by spectral collapse in $\mathbf{D's}$ weight matrices. Based on such insight into spectral distributions of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$, we propose a new and robust method called spectral regularization to prevent GANs from mode collapse. In addition to normalizing the weight matrices, spectral regularization imposes constraints on $\mathbf{D's}$ weight matrices by compensating their spectral distributions to avoid spectral collapse. Theoretical analysis shows that spectral regularization is better than spectral normalization at preventing weight matrix from concentrating into one particular direction.
We show that SN-GANs are a special case of spectral regularization, and in a series of extensive experiments we demonstrate that spectral regularization not only provides superior performances to spectral normalization but also can always avoid mode collapse in cases where spectral normalization failed.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows:
(1) Through theoretical analysis and extensive experimental observations, we provide an insight into the likely causes of mode collapse in a state of the art GAN normalization technique, spectral normalization (SN-GANs). We introduce the concept of {\bf spectral collapse} and provide strong evidence to link spectral collapse with mode collapse in SN-GANs.
(2) Based on above insight, we have developed a new robust regularization method, {\bf Spectral Regularization}, where we compensate the spectral distributions of the weight matrices in $\mathbf{D}$ to prevent spectral collapse, thus preventing mode collapse in GANs. Extensive experimental results show that spectral regularization not only can always prevent mode collapse
but also can consistently provide improved performances over SN-GANs.
\section{Analysis of Mode Collapse in SN-GANs}\label{sec2}
\subsection{A Brief Summary of SN-GANs}
For easy discussion, we first briefly recap the essential ideas of the spectral normalization technique for training GANs \cite{A10}. As far we are aware, this is currently one of the best methods in the literature and has been successfully used to construct large systems such as BigGANs \cite{A7} . For convenience, we largely follow the notation convention of \cite{A10}. Considering a simple discriminator of a neural network of the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{key1}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
f(x,\theta)=W^{L+1}(a_{L} \cdot W^{L} \cdot a_{L-1} \cdot W^{L-1} \cdots a_{1}W^{1}x)
\end{equation}
where $ \theta :=\{W^{1}, \cdots ,W^{L}, W^{L+1}\}$ is the learning parameters set, $ W^{l} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{l} \times d_{l-1}} $, $ W^{L+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times d_{L}} $, and $ a_{l} $ is an element-wise non-linear activation function. We omit the bias term of each layer for simplicity. The final output of the discriminator is given by
\begin{equation}\label{key2}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
D(x, \theta)=\mathcal{A}(f(x, \theta))
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}$ is an activation function corresponding to the divergence of a distance measure of users' choice.
The standard formulation of GANs is given by \cite{A10,A2}:
\begin{equation}\label{key3}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt}
\underset{G}{\mathrm{min}} \ \underset{D}{\mathrm{max}} V(G, D)
\end{equation}
where min and max of \textit{G} and \textit{D} are taken over the set of the generator and discriminator functions respectively. The conventional form of \textit{V}(\textit{G}, \textit{D}) is given by $ E_{x \sim q_{data}}[\mathrm{log}D(x)]+E_{x'\sim q_{G}}[\mathrm{log}(1-D(x'))]$ \cite{A10},
where $ q_{data}$ is the data distribution and $ q_{G}$ is the model (generator) distribution.
To guarantee Lipschitz continuity, spectral normalization \cite{A10} controls the Lipschitz constant of the discriminator function by literally constraining the spectral norm of each layer:
\begin{equation}\label{key4}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W):=W/\sigma(W)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$(W) is the spectral norm of the weight matrix \textit{W} in the discriminator network, which is equivalent to the largest singular value of \textit{W}.
The authors of SN-GANs \cite{A10} and those of BigGANs \cite{A7} have demonstrated the superiority of spectral normalization over other normalization or regularization techniques, e.g., gradient penalty \cite{A8}, weight normalization\cite{A11} and orthonormal regularization \cite{A19}. However, as a state of the art GAN model, BigGANs (based on spectral normalization) can still suffer from mode collapse.
Therefore, mode collapse remains an unsolved open problem, seeking better and more robust solution is very important for advancing GANs.
\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
Our theoretical analysis has found that the spectral distribution of the weight matrix determine how the supremum of Lipschitz constraint can be reached, and affect performance of $D$.
To be specific. SN-GANs enforce Lipschitz constraint on the weight matrix in each convolutional layers of $D$ by constraining the spectral norm, thus guaranteeing $D$ satisfy Lipschitz constraint. Furthermore, we have found that the spectral distribution affects how the supremum of Lipschitz constraint can be reached. To verify this, Corollary 1 is present here. (see proof in Appendix)
\noindent \textbf{Corollary 1.} If a linear function $f = Wx$ satisfies Lipschitz constraint: $\left \| f(x_1) - f(x_2) \right \| \leq \left \| x_1 - x_2 \right \| $, then the supremum of the Lipschitz constraint is obtained when all the singular values of the weight matrix $W$ are 1.
On the other hand, through singular value decomposition, we find that spectral distribution affect the performance of $D$.
The weight matrix $W$ in the convolutional layers can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{key66}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\begin{split}
W&=U\cdot \Sigma \cdot V^{T}\\
&=\sigma_{1}u_1v_1+\sigma_{2}u_2v_2+\cdots+\sigma_{n}u_nv_n
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where both \textit{U} and \textit{V} are orthogonal matrix, the columns of \textit{U}, $\left [ u_{1}, u_{2}, \cdots, u_{m} \right ]$, are called left singular vectors of \textit{W}, the columns of \textit{V}, $\left [ v_{1}, v_{2}, \cdots, v_{n} \right ]$, are called right singular vectors of \textit{W}, and $\sigma \cdots \sigma_{n}$ are the singular values of $W$.
\begin{table}[htp]
\caption{Experiment settings. The experiments are divided into 5 groups $A, B, C, D$ and $E$. Within each group, the models share exactly the same network architecture but differ in batch size. For groups $A-D$, we vary the batch sizes inside each group to study how batch sizes relate to mode collapse, and we change the channel sizes between groups to investigate how discriminator capacity affects mode collapse. Group $E$ is experiments applied to a different data set. The purpose is to evaluate how different data affect mode collapse. Batch represents the batch size. CH is the channel size of the discriminator. The subscript of each group name annotates the batch and channel setting of that experiment, e.g., $A_{a-b}$ represents setting with a batch size $a$ and a CH size $b$.}
\centering
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0cm}
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\resizebox{90mm}{25mm}{
\begin{tabular}{l c c c |l c c c }
\hline \hline
Setting & Batch & CH & Dataset&Setting & Batch & CH & Dataset \\
\hline
$A_{16-128}$ & 16 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$C_{8-32}$ & 8 & 32 & CIFAR-10\\
$A_{32-128}$ & 32 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$C_{16-32}$ & 16 & 32 & CIFAR-10 \\
$A_{64-128}$ & 64 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$C_{32-32}$ & 32 & 32 & CIFAR-10 \\
$A_{128-128}$ & 128 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$C_{64-32}$ & 64 & 32 & CIFAR-10 \\
\cline{5-8}
$A_{256-128}$ & 256 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$D_{128-256}$& 128 & 256 & CIFAR-10 \\
$A_{512-128}$ & 512 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$D_{256-256}$ & 256 & 256 & CIFAR-10 \\
$A_{1024-128}$ & 1024 & 128 & CIFAR-10&$D_{512-256}$ & 512 & 256 & CIFAR-10 \\
\cline{1-8}
$B_{8-64}$ & 8 & 64 & CIFAR-10& $E_{64-128}$& 64 & 128 & STL-10 \\
$B_{16-64}$ & 16 & 64 & CIFAR-10 &$E_{256-128}$ & 256 & 128 & STL-10 \\
$B_{32-64}$ & 32 & 64 & CIFAR-10 &$E_{256-64}$ & 256 & 64 & STL-10 \\
$B_{64-64}$ & 64 & 64 & CIFAR-10& $E_{256-32}$& 256 & 32 & STL-10\\
$B_{128-64}$ & 128 & 64 & CIFAR-10 & $E_{512-64}$ & 512 & 64 & ImageNet\\
$B_{256-64}$ & 256 & 64 & CIFAR-10 & $E_{2018-64}$ & 2048 & 64 & ImageNet \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular} }
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\label{t11}
\end{table}
We can see that, $\sigma$ in Equation \ref{key66} determine how corresponding singular vectors are utilized in implementing convolutional operation $Wx$. Extremely, if $\sigma_{1} > 0$, and $\sigma_{2}=\cdots=\sigma_{n}=0$, we can see that the convolutional operation $Wx$ only uses the first singular value and its corresponding singular vector.
Through the theoretical analysis above, it is clear that spectral distribution plays a key role in determining Lipschitz constraint and $D$'s performance. However, spectral normalization only constrains the spectral norm, and takes no consideration on spectral distribution.
Recalling that mode collapse can be regarded as the intense decay in $D$'s performance, we reason that mode collapse may also have a strong relationship with spectral distribution. Furthermore, finding such a relationship may helps solve the mode collapse problem.
\subsection{Mode Collapse vs Spectral Collapse}
In order to find the likely link between mode collapse and spectral distributions, we have conducted a series of experiments for unconditional image generation on CIFAR-10 \cite{A13}, STL-10 \cite{A17} and conditional image generation on ILRSVRC2012 \cite{A21} datasets. Our implementation is based on the SN-GANs architecture of \cite{A10}, which uses the hinge loss as the discriminator objective and is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{key5}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\begin{split}
L_{D}=&E_{x \sim q_{data}}[\mathrm{min}(0,-1+D(x))]\\
&+E_{x \sim q_{G}}[\mathrm{min}(0,-1-D(x))]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The optimization settings follow literature \cite{A10, A18}.
Previous authors have shown that increasing batch size or decreasing discriminator capacity could potentially lead to mode collapse \cite{A7}. We therefore conduct experiments for various combinations of batch and channel sizes as listed in Table \ref{t11}. We follow the practices in the literature of using Inception Score (IS) \cite{A16} and Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance (FID) \cite{A17} as approximate measures of sample quality, and results are shown in Table \ref{t22} where we also identify all settings where mode collapse has occurred to SN-GANs. Through monitoring Inception Scores, Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance and synthetic images during training, mode collapse is observed in 10 settings including $B_{64-64}$, $B_{128-64}$, $B_{256-64}$, $C_{8-32}$, $C_{16-32}$, $C_{32-32}$, $C_{64-32}$, $E_{256-64}$, $E_{256-32}$ and $E_{2048-64}$. In other 16 settings, mode collapse has not happened.
Mode collapse is a persistent problem in GAN training and is also a major issue in SN-GANs as has been shown in BigGANs\cite{A7} and in Table \ref{t22}. Here, we monitor the entire spectral distributions of SN-GANs, i.e., all singular values of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ in the discriminator network during training.
The discriminator network in our implementation uses the same architecture as that in the original SN-GANs\cite{A10}. For image generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10, there are 10 convolutional layers. As for image generation on ImageNet, 17 convolutional layers are included. Please see Appendix for the setting details. In order to discover the likely link of mode collapse to spectral distribution, we plot the spectral distributions of every layer of the discriminator for all 26 settings. In the following, we present some typical examples and readers are referred to the Appendix for all other plots.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $A_{256-128}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $B_{32-64} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $D_{128-256} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1d.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $E_{256-128} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1e.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $E_{512-64} $} }
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\caption{Spectral distributions in the last layer for Good GANs (no mode collapse) at different number of iterations. The curves represent the spectral distributions after $5k$ iterations, $10k$ iterations, ..., $50k$ iterations, ... . }
\label{fig:fig1}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $B_{64-64}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $B_{128-64}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $B_{256-64}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2d.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $C_{8-32} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2e.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $C_{16-32} $} }
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2f.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $C_{32-32}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2g.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $C_{64-32}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2h.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $E_{256-64} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2i.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $E_{256-32} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2j.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $E_{2048-64} $}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\caption{Spectral distributions in the last layer for settings where mode collapse occurs. The curves represent the spectral distributions after $1k$ iterations, $10k$ iterations, ..., $50k$ iterations, ... .}
\label{fig:fig2}
\vspace*{0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small group $A$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small group $B$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small group $C$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3d.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small group $D$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3e.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small group $E$}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Spectral distributions (after $50k$ iterations) in $layer\_0$ for different settings.}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig4a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small spectral distributions }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig4b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Inception Score }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig4c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An example showing how spectral distributions relate to Inception Score and Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance. Here the setting is $B_{128-64}$ and the spectral distributions correspond to those of $layer\_9$.}
\label{fig:fig31}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:fig1} shows the spectral distributions of the last layer ($layer\_9$ for task on CIFAR-10 and STL-10, $layer\_16$ for task on ImageNet) of 5 settings where mode collapse does not happen. Figure \ref{fig:fig2} shows the spectral distributions of the last layer of all 10 settings where mode collapse has occurred. Through analyzing the spectral distribution plots in Figure \ref{fig:fig1} and Figure \ref{fig:fig2}, we notice a very interesting pattern. In the cases where no mode collapse happens, the shapes of the spectral distribution curves do not change significantly with the number of training iteration. On the other hand, for those settings where mode collapse has occurred, the shapes of the spectral distribution curves change significantly as training progresses. In particular, a large number of singular values become very small when training passes a certain number of iterations. This is as if the curves have "collapsed", and we refer to this phenomenon as {\bf spectral collapse}.
The phenomenon of spectral collapse is also observed across different settings. Figure \ref{fig:fig3} plots the spectral distributions of the 5 groups of experimental settings in Table \ref{t11}. It is seen that in groups $A$ and $D$, the spectral distributions across different settings are very similar and no spectral collapse is observed. Very interestingly, no mode collapse is observed either. In group $B$, the spectral distributions of $B_{64-64}, B_{128-64}$ and $B_{256-64}$ have collapsed, not surprisingly, mode collapse also happens to these 3 settings. In group $C$, the spectral distributions of all settings have collapsed, i.e., most singular values are very small (except for the first one which is forced to be 1 by spectral normalization). Again as expected, mode collapse happens to all settings in this group. In group $E$, it is seen that settings $E_{256-64}$, $E_{256-32}$ and $E_{2048-64}$ have suffered from spectral collapse. Again, mode collapse is observed for these three settings.
In order to understand what has happened when spectral collapse occurs, Figure \ref{fig:fig31} shows how a typical spectral distribution relates to Inception Score and Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance during training. It is seen that up to 19k iterations both IS and FID are showing good performances, and the corresponding spectral distribution has a large number of large singular values. At 20k iterations, IS and FID performances start to drop, correspondingly, the spectral distribution starts to fall. At 21k iterations, the IS and FID performances have dropped significantly and mode collapse has started, and very importantly, the spectral distribution has dropped dramatically - starting to collapse.
The association of mode collapse with spectral collapse is observed for all the layers and on all settings (readers are referred to the Appendix for more examples). We therefore believe that mode collapse and spectral collapse happen at the same time, and spectral collapse is the likely cause of mode collapse. In the following section, we will introduce spectral regularization to prevent spectral collapse thus avoiding mode collapse.
\section{Spectral Regularization}
We have now established that spectral collapse is closely linked to mode collapse in SN-GANs. In this section, we introduce spectral regularization, a technique for preventing spectral collapse. We show that preventing spectral collapse can indeed solve the mode collapse problem, thus demonstrating that spectral collapse is the cause of mode collapse rather than a mere symptom.
Performing singular value decomposition, the weight matrix $ W $ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{key6}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
W=U\cdot \Sigma \cdot V^{T}
\end{equation}
where both \textit{U} and \textit{V} are orthogonal matrix, the columns of \textit{U}, $\left [ u_{1}, u_{2}, \cdots, u_{m} \right ]$, are called left singular vectors of \textit{W}, the columns of \textit{V}, $\left [ v_{1}, v_{2}, \cdots, v_{n} \right ]$, are called right singular vectors of \textit{W}, and $\Sigma$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{key7}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\Sigma =\begin{bmatrix}
D &0 \\
0 &0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $D=diag\left \{ \sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}, \cdots, \sigma_{r} \right \}$ represents the spectral distribution of $W$.
When mode collapse occurs, spectral distributions concentrate on the first singular value, and the rest singular values drop dramatically (spectral collapse). To avoid spectral collapse, we can apply $\Delta D$ to compensate $D$. Here, we introduce two methods for implementation of $\Delta D$.
The first method is referred to as static compensation, where $\Delta D$ is given by $diag\left \{ \sigma_{1}-\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2}, \cdots, \sigma_{1}-\sigma_{i},0,\cdots,0 \right \}$, and $i$ is a hyperparameter ($1 \le i\le r$). In other words, static compensation is applied according to the difference between the first and $i$-th singular value.
The other method is referred to as dynamic compensation. In the training process, we monitor the maximum ratio $\gamma_{j}= max(\frac{\sigma_{j}^{'}}{\sigma_{1}^{'}})$, where $\sigma_{j}^{'}$ represents recorded $j$-th singular value in the training process. Then, we utilize the difference between maximum ratio value and current value as the compensation. As a result, $\Delta D$ is given by $diag\left \{ 0, \gamma_{2}\cdot\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2}, \cdots, \gamma_{r} \cdot\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{r} \right \}$.
Comparison of these two compensation method will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:exp}.
Spectral compensation turns $D$ into $D'$ as follows: $D'=D+\Delta D$. Correspondingly, $W$ turns to $W'$: $W'=W+\Delta W$, where $\Delta W$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{key8}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\Delta W= U\cdot\begin{bmatrix}
\Delta D &0 \\
0 &0 \end{bmatrix} \cdot V^{T}=\sum_{k=2}^{N}(\Delta\sigma_{k})u_{k}v_{k}^{T}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of singular value to be compensated, and $\Delta \sigma_{k}$ represents the compensation value in $k$-th singular value. For static compensation, $N$ in Equation \ref{key8} equals to the hyperparameter $i$, while for dynamic compensation, $N$ equals to the number of singular values $r$.
Finally, we apply spectral normalization to guarantee Lipschitz continuity, and obtain our spectral regularized $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SR}}(W)$:
\begin{equation}\label{key9}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SR}}(W)=\frac{W+\Delta W}{\sigma(W)} =\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)+\Delta W/ \sigma(W)
\end{equation}
Clearly, spectral normalization is a special case of spectral regularization, when no compensation is applied.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{IS and FID results for different settings, where IS is Inception Score and FID is Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance. For IS, higher is better, while lower is better for FID. SN, SR represent Spectral normalization and Spectral Regularization, respectively. MC stands for mode collapse, and SC stands for spectral collapse, $\times$ represents that no mode collapse or spectral collapse occurs. \textbf{SN} in the MC column or SC column represents that mode collapse or spectral collapse occurred to spectral normalization. Note that neither mode collapse nor spectral collapse happen to spectral regularization for all settings.}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{28mm}{
\begin{tabular}{l| c c|c c|c |c||l |c c| c c| c |c}
\hline \hline
\multirow{2}*{\tabincell{c}{Experiment\\ Setting}}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{IS}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{FID}& \multirow{2}*{MC}&\multirow{2}*{SC}&\multirow{2}*{\tabincell{c}{Experiment\\ Setting}} &\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{IS}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{FID}& \multirow{2}*{MC}&\multirow{2}*{SC}\\
\cline{2-5}
\cline{9-12}
& SN& SR &SN& SR& & & &SN &SR& SN& SR & & \\
\hline
$A_{16-128}$ & 8.15$\pm$.09 & 8.35$\pm$.09 &22.31$\pm$.28 &24.67$\pm$.28 & $\times$ & $\times$ &
$C_{8-32}$ & 4.21$\pm$.18 & 4.93$\pm$.20 &80.00$\pm$1.12 &66.05$\pm$2.12 & \textbf{SN} & \textbf{SN} \\
$A_{32-128}$ & 8.38$\pm$.07 &8.45$\pm$.10 & 25.96$\pm$.42 & 22.00$\pm$.17 &$\times$ &$\times$ &
$C_{16-32}$ & 4.05$\pm$.15 &4.78$\pm$.23 & 79.69$\pm$.21&59.25$\pm$.43 & \textbf{SN} & \textbf{SN} \\
$A_{64-128}$ & 8.39$\pm$.15 & 8.65$\pm$.12 & 21.15$\pm$.15 &20.31$\pm$.18 & $\times$ & $\times$ &
$C_{32-32}$ & 4.29$\pm$.08 &4.70$\pm$.15 & 78.39$\pm$.17 &62.10$\pm$.24 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN} \\
$A_{128-128}$ &8.61$\pm$.12 & 8.72$\pm$.08 & 21.01$\pm$.23 &19.98$\pm$.19 & $\times$& $\times$ &
$C_{64-32}$ & 4.30$\pm$.14 &5.00$\pm$.14 & 85.15$\pm$1.20 &56.11$\pm$.54 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN}\\
\cline{8-14}
$A_{256-128}$ & 8.45$\pm$.14 &8.48$\pm$.03 & 20.87$\pm$.25 &19.87$\pm$.21 &$\times$ & $\times$ &
$D_{128-256}$ & 8.14$\pm$.06 & 8.92$\pm$.18 &24.43$\pm$.41 & 18.95$\pm$.23 & $\times$ & $\times$\\
$A_{512-128}$ & 8.34$\pm$.09 &8.53$\pm$.04 & 21.85$\pm$.14 & 20.13$\pm$.12 & $\times$& $\times$ &
$D_{256-256}$ & 8.29$\pm$.12 & 8.83$\pm$.14& 22.54$\pm$.29 &19.56$\pm$.11 &$\times$ &$\times$ \\
$A_{1024-128}$ & 8.31$\pm$.21 &8.52$\pm$.16 & 21.68$\pm$.35 &20.34$\pm$.13 &$\times$ &$\times$ &
$D_{512-256}$&8.33$\pm$.09 &8.36$\pm$.12 & 22.58$\pm$.16 & 21.82$\pm$.29&$\times$ & $\times$ \\
\cline{1-14}
$B_{8-64}$ & 6.67$\pm$.05 &7.42$\pm$.06 & 45.19$\pm$.89 & 35.78$\pm$.11 &$\times$ & $\times$&
$E_{64-128}$& 8.98$\pm$.20 &9.14$\pm$.18 &42.40$\pm$.56 &39.89$\pm$.89 &$\times$ &$\times$ \\
$B_{16-64}$ & 7.34$\pm$.06 &7.59$\pm$.08 & 31.73$\pm$.49& 29.42$\pm$.22 &$\times$ & $\times$ &
$E_{256-128}$ & 9.10$\pm$.13 &9.11$\pm$.17 & 40.11$\pm$.89 &40.08$\pm$.29 & $\times$& $\times$ \\
$B_{32-64}$ & 7.18$\pm$.03 &7.48$\pm$.09 & 33.76$\pm$.35 &28.60$\pm$.25 & $\times$& $\times$ &
$E_{256-64}$ &7.38$\pm$.14 & 7.67$\pm$.06 &74.50$\pm$1.52 &69.20$\pm$.83 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN}\\
$B_{64-64}$ & 6.96$\pm$.11 &7.52$\pm$.11 & 36.65$\pm$.29& 28.40$\pm$.36 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN} &
$E_{256-32}$& 4.04$\pm$.11 & 4.38$\pm$.07 & 98.50$\pm$1.34 & 89.17$\pm$1.23 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN}\\
$B_{128-64}$ & 7.10$\pm$.14 & 7.13$\pm$.05 & 35.99$\pm$.48 &31.41$\pm$.56 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN} &
$E_{512-64}$& 34.13$\pm$.64 & \textbf{40.76$\pm$.73}& 59.88$\pm$.57 & \textbf{54.84$\pm$.68} &$\times$ &$\times$ \\
$B_{256-64}$ & 6.85$\pm$.08 &7.58$\pm$.03 & 35.88$\pm$.42&27.68$\pm$.23 & \textbf{SN}& \textbf{SN}&
$E_{2048-64}$& 21.78$\pm$.87 & \textbf{31.58 $\pm$.43}& 71.37$\pm$1.14 & \textbf{61.08 $\pm$.53} &\textbf{SN} &\textbf{SN}\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular} }
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\label{t22}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Gradient Analysis of Spectral Regularization}
We perform gradient analysis to show that spectral regularization provides a more effective way over spectral normalization in preventing $W$ from concentrating into one particular direction during training and thus avoiding spectral collapse.
From Equation (\ref{key9}), taking static compensation as an example, we can write the gradient of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SR}}(W)$ with respect to $W_{ab}$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{key10}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{1pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{1pt}
\begin{split}
&\frac{\partial \overline{W}_{\mathrm{SR}}(W)}{\partial W_{ab}}=\frac{1}{\sigma(W)}\{E_{ab}-\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}[u_{1}v_{1}^{T}]_{ab}\\
&-\frac{\Delta W}{\sigma(W)}[u_{1}v_{1}^{T}]_{ab}+\sum_{k=2}^{i}[u_{1}v_{1}^{T}-u_{k}v_{k}^{T}]_{ab}\cdot u_{k}v_{k}^{T}\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $[\cdot]_{ab}$ represents the $(a,b)$-th entry of corresponding matrix, $E_{ab}$ is the matrix whose $(a,b)$-th entry is 1 and zero everywhere else.
We would like to comment on the implication of Equation (\ref{key10}). The first two terms, $E_{ab}-\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}[u_{1}v_{1}^{T}]_{ab}$, are the gradient of spectral normalization $\frac{\partial \overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)}{\partial{W_{ab}}}$ \cite{A10}, this is very easy to see from Equation (\ref{key9}). As explained in \cite{A10}, the second term can be regarded as being able to prevent the columns space of $W$ from concentrating into one particular direction in the course of training. In other words, spectral normalization prevents the transformation of each layer from becoming sensitive only in one direction.
However, as we have seen (e.g. Figure \ref{fig:fig2}), despite performing spectral normalization, the spectral distributions of $\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SN}}(W)$ can still concentrate on the first singular value thus causing spectral collapse. This shows the limited ability of spectral normalization in preventing $W$ from spectral collapse.
In addition to the first two terms of spectral normalization, spectral regularization introduces the third and fourth terms in Equation (\ref{key10}). It can be seen that the third term enhances the effect of the second term, through which $W$ is much less likely to concentrate into one particular direction. Furthermore, the fourth term can be seen as the regularization term, encouraging $W$ to move along all $i$ directions pointed to by $u_{k}v_{k}^{T}$, for $k=1, 2, ..., i$, each weighted by the adaptive regularization coefficient $[u_{1}v_{1}^{T}-u_{k}v_{k}^{T}]_{ab}$.
This encourages $W$ to make full use of the directions pointed to by $u_{j}v_{j}^{T}$, thus preventing $W$ from being concentrated on only 1 direction, which in turn stabilizes the training process.
From above analysis, it is clear that as compared to spectral normalization, spectral regularization of Equation (\ref{key10}) encourages $W$ of the discriminator to move in a variety of directions thus preventing it from concentrating only on one direction, which in turn prevents spectral collapse. We will show in the experimental section that performing spectral regularization can indeed prevent mode collapse where spectral normalization has failed.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:exp}
For all settings listed in Table \ref{t11}, we have conducted experiments using SN-GANs and the newly introduced spectral regularization algorithm (we use the abbreviation: SR-GANs for the spectral regularized GANs).
All procedures and settings for SN-GANs and SR-GANs are identical, except that for SR-GANs the last discriminator update implements spectral regularization (Equation \ref{key9}) and SN-GANs implement spectral normalization (Equation \ref{key4}).
Before studying the properties of spectral regularization, we demonstrate experimentally that the new SR-GANs is superior to SN-GANs in both quality and stability.
The Inception Score (IS) and Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance (FID ) performances are shown in Table \ref{t22}. Please note that in the cases where mode collapse have happened, IS and FID are the best results before mode collapse. It is clearly seen that in all cases, SR-GANs outperforms SN-GANs.
In particular, for conditional image generation on ImageNet with setting $E_{512-64}$ and $E_{2048-64}$, SR-GAN has improved IS by 19.4\% and 44.9\%, respectively.
On average, SR-GANs have improved the IS by 13.9\% and FID by 21.8\% over SN-GANs.
Very importantly, in all 10 settings where mode collapse has occurred to SN-GANs, none has happened to SR-GANs. In fact, we have not yet observed mode collapses in an extensive set of experiments.
\subsection{Conditional Generation on ImageNet}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.7\linewidth]{fig6a.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small IS}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.7\linewidth]{fig6b.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small FID }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.7\linewidth]{fig6c.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small Spectral Distribution }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.7\linewidth]{fig6d.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small Spectral Distribution }}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{1\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6a1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6b1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6c1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6d1.png}
\caption{\textrm{\small SRGAN(iterations = 70k) }}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{1\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6a2.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6b2.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6c2.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.11\linewidth]{fig6d2.png}
\caption{\textrm{\small SNGAN(iterations = 70k)}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inception Score, Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance, spectral distribution and synthetic images of SN-GAN and SR-GAN for the setting $E_{2048-64}$. (a), (b) shows the IS and FID, respectively. (c) is the spectral distributions for $layer\_16$ in SRGAN. (d) indicates the effect of SR on spectral distribution. (e), (f) are conditional generations by SRGAN and SNGAN, respectively.}
\label{fig:fig6}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\end{figure*}
It is clearly seen in Table \ref{t22}, spectral regularization greatly improves the performance, and contributes to stable training. For setting $E_{512-64}$, no mode collapse is observed in SN-GAN. Applying spectral regularization can further improve the performance. As for setting $E_{2048-64}$, spectral regularization avoids mode collapse, and greatly improve the image quality.
In Figure \ref{fig:fig6}, we show the training history of SN-GAN with setting $E_{2048-64}$. It is clear that at around 40k iterations, mode collapse occurs, and image quality starts to decrease dramatically. Accordingly, synthetic images in Figure \ref{fig:fig6}(f) are of low quality and limited diversity.
To demonstrate the superiority of SR over SN, we resume the training with the snapshot of SN-GAN at iterations = 40k, and apply Spectral Regularization with dynamic compensation (SR-d). The effect of SR on improving performance and guaranteeing training stability is rather obvious. Firstly, spectral regularization avoids the occurrence of mode collapse, which is supposed to happen at iterations = 40k in SN-GAN. What's more, spectral regularization contributes to performance improvement as well, i.e. IS, FID are improved by 44.9\% and 9.1\%, respectively.
Figure \ref{fig:fig6}(c) shows the spectral distribution of $layer\_16$ in SR-GAN. It is clearly shown that spectral regularization avoids spectral collapse observed in Figure \ref{fig:fig2}(j). Owing to the stronger constraint of spectral regularization on spectral distributions of each convolutional layer, SR-GANs can gain performance improvement steadily with iterations, instead of suffering from mode collapse.
\subsection{Unconditional Generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1\linewidth]{fig7a.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small IS}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1\linewidth]{fig7b.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small FID }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1\linewidth]{fig7c.jpg}
\caption{\textrm{\small Spectral Distribution }}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1\linewidth]{fig7d.png}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small SR}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.19\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1\linewidth]{fig7e.png}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small SN}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{Inception Score, Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance, spectral distribution and synthetic images of SN-GAN and SR-GAN for the setting $C_{64-32}$}
\label{fig:fig7}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\end{figure*}
We apply spectral Regularization with static compensation (SR-s) in unconditional generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets. The default value of the hyperparameter $i$ for static compensation in SR-GANs is empirically set as $i = 0.5r$, where $r$ is the number of singular values in the corresponding weight matrix. Readers are referred to Appendix for the details of the network architecture settings.
When applying spectral regularization, model performance is steadily improved, and stable training is guaranteed as shown in Table \ref{t22} . While for spectral normalization, SN-GANs still suffers from mode collapse.
Worst of all, when channel size is small, mode collapse will happen to SN-GAN regardless of batch size as shown in our group $C$ experiments.
Figure \ref{fig:fig7} shows the training history of SN-GAN and SR-GAN for the setting $C_{64-32}$. It is seen that for SN-GAN, mode collapse has happened almost at the start of the training process and performance continues to deteriorate until eventually lead to mode collapse. In contrast, the performance of SR-GAN improves steadily and eventually converges (no mode collapse).
In the comparison of spectral distribution (Figure \ref{fig:fig7}(c)), it is seen that spectral normalization cannot stop other singular values to drop significantly thus causing spectral collapse which in turn results in mode collapse. In contrast, static compensation in spectral regularization ensures that the first $i$ singular values are equal in all cases, thus ensuring that spectral collapse would not happen hence preventing mode collapse.
Examples of generated images by the two training methods for this setting are also shown in the Figure \ref{fig:fig7}(d) and (e). It is again clearly seen that mode collapse has indeed happened to SN-GAN while the images generated by SR-GAN are of better quality and more varieties.
Through the example above, we can see that for experiment setting with too large batch size or too small channel size, SN-GANs cannot ensure stable training. Nevertheless, for various experiment setup spectral regularization can indeed guarantee training stability, and contribute to model performance, demonstrating that spectral regularization is a robust method for stable training.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig8a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Inception Score}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig8b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance }}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{The effect of $i$ on model performance. $N$ represents the number of singular values in corresponding weight matrix.}
\label{fig:fig8}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig9a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $x \sim q_{train}$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig9b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $x \sim q_{G}$} }
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig9c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $L_D$}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{Statistics of $D(x)$ and $L_D$.}
\label{fig:fig9}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig10a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=0.25$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig10b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=0.50$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig10c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{Statistics of $D(x)$ with setting $A_{128-128}$.}
\label{fig:fig10}
\vspace*{-0.0cm}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig11a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=0.25$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig11b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=0.50$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.15\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig11c.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small $i$=$r$}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{ Statistics of $D(x)$ with setting $B_{128-64}$.}
\label{fig:fig11}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Hyperparameter $i$ in SR-GANs} \label{sec4.2}
When applying static compensation in spectral regularization, there is a single hyperparameter $i$, and its value will affect performances. In the experiments above, $i$ in SR-GANs is set to $i=0.5r$, where $r$ is the number of singular values. Clearly, when $i=1$, SR-GAN is the same as SN-GAN, therefore SN-GAN is a special case of SR-GAN. To investigate the effect of $i$, we gradually increase $i$, and observe its influence on model performance.
In Figure \ref{fig:fig8}, we show the Inception Scores and Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distances for different values of $i$. For experiment groups $A, D$ and $E$, increasing $i$ from 0.25$N$ to 0.5$N$, the performances are improved. However, continuously increasing $i$ from 0.5$N$ to $N$, the performances deteriorate. For experiments in group $B$, performances increase steadily with $i$.
To understand why $i$ affects performances in this way, we feed the discriminator function with the generated data and real data from both the training and testing sets, and then record the statistics of $D(x)$ in Equation (\ref{key2}) and the discriminator objective $L_D$ in Equation (\ref{key5}). For explanation convenience, some typical results are illustrated here.
The probability distributions of $D(x)$ for the generated data $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{G}}$ and that for the training data $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{train}}$ for the setting of $A_{128-128}$ and different $i$ values are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig9} (a) and Figure \ref{fig:fig9} (b), respectively. Here $q_{train}$ represents training set, and $q_{G}$ represents generated set. The probability distributions of $L_D$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig9} (c).
When increasing $i$ from 0.25$N$ to $N$, the distributions of $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{train}}$ have a tendency of moving to the right, and at the same time the distributions of $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{G}}$ have a tendency of moving to the left. This means that the discriminator can better discriminate between the real and generated samples. This is also verified by the distributions of $L_D$ as can be clearly seen in Figure \ref{fig:fig9} (c).
To investigate discriminator's performance on the testing set, we show the probability distributions of $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{train}}$ and $D(x)|_{x \sim q_{test}}$ for the setting $A_{128-128}$ in Figure \ref{fig:fig10}, where $q_{test}$ represents test set. It is seen that for $i=0.25r$ and $i=0.5r$, the two distributions are more similar to each other than that of $i=r$. In the case of $i=r$, the discriminator behaves significantly differently between the training data and testing data, this means that overfitting has occurred and results in a drop in performances. In summary, Figure \ref{fig:fig9} and Figure \ref{fig:fig10} explain the performance drop for setting $i=r$ in experiment groups $A, D$ and $E$.
Furthermore, we monitor the statistics of $D(x)$ for the settings in group $B$ to explain why $i$ affects the behaviors of SR-GANs as in Figure \ref{fig:fig8}. The probability distributions of $D(x)$ for the setting $B_{128-64}$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig11}. We can see that for all the $i$ values, the probability distributions of the discriminator output for the training and testing data agree well with each other, indicating no overfitting has occurred.
Although there is no systematic method for determining the best $i$ value for different settings, our experiences is that setting $i=0.5r$ seems to work well. In a series of extensive experiments we conducted, setting $i=0.5r$, SR-GANs always outperform SN-GANs and very importantly, we have not yet observed mode collapse.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig12a.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Inception Score}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.46\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig12b.jpg}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\caption{\textrm{\small Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance }}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.25cm}
\caption{Comparison of two compensation methods.}
\label{fig:fig12}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Static Compensation vs Dynamic Compensation}
Two kinds of compensation method are proposed in this paper: static and dynamic compensation. In Figure \ref{fig:fig6}(d) and Figure \ref{fig:fig7}(c), we show how these two compensation methods affect the spectral distribution.
Static compensation encourages to use the first $i$ singular values. Therefore, spectral distributions mainly concentrate on the first $i$ singular values, leaving the rest almost zero (Figure \ref{fig:fig7}(c)). Meanwhile, the shape of spectral distributions are totally different from that in SN-GANs. Unlike static compensations, which try to carry out compensation at the largest scale, dynamic compensations focus on guaranteeing the shapes of spectral distributions, and avoiding the occurrence of spectral collapse. As we can see in Figure \ref{fig:fig6}(c), the shapes of spectral distributions hardly change at the end of training.
Recalling the Equation \ref{key66}, static compensations averagely utilize the first $i$ singular vectors, regardless of their differences. However, dynamic compensations consider the differences, and carry out compensation adaptively.
To further show the difference between static and dynamic compensation, comparative trials are conducted based on settings $A_{128-128}$, $B_{16-64}$, $C_{64-32}$, $D_{128-256}$ and $E_{512-64}$. For these setting, two kinds of compensation methods are applied, and results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig12}.
static compensations achieve better results on unconditional generation with setting $A_{128-128}$
and $D_{128-256}$. While dynamic compensations behave better in the rest tasks. Therefore, no convincing evidence shows dynamic compensation is better than static compensation, or the other way around. Our suggestion is that, for image generation on datasets of low resolutions and few categories, static compensation may works better. For image generation on datasets of high resolutions and more categories, dynamic compensation is better.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we monitor spectral distributions of the discriminator's weight matrices in SN-GANs. We discover that when mode collapse occurs to a SN-GAN, a large number of its weight matrices singular values will drop to very small values, and we introduce the concept of spectral collapse to describe this phenomenon. We have provided strong evidence to link mode collapse with spectral collapse. Based on such link, we have successfully developed a spectral regularization technique for training GANs. We show that by compensating the spectral distributions of the weight matrices, we can successfully prevent spectral collapse which in turn can successfully prevent mode collapse. In a series of extensive experiments, we have successfully demonstrated that preventing spectral collapse can not only avoid mode collapse but also can improve GANs performances.
\appendices
\section{Proof of Corollary 1}
\noindent \textbf{Corollary 1.} If a linear function $f = Wx$ satisfies Lipschitz constraint: $\left \| f(x_1) - f(x_2) \right \| \leq \left \| x_1 - x_2 \right \| $, then the supremum of the Lipschitz constraint is obtained when all the singular values of the weight matrix $W$ are 1.
\noindent Proof:
Because $f$ is a linear function: $f(x)= Wx$. The 1-Lipschitz constraint for $f$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{keya1}
\left \|Wx \right \| \leqslant \left \|x \right \|
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{keya1} is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}
\left \|Wx \right \|^{2} \leqslant \left \|x \right \|^{2}
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}
\left \|Wx \right \|^{2}= x^TW^TWx=x^TV \Sigma V^Tx
\end{equation}
where columns of $V$, $[v_1, \cdots, v_n]$ are eigenvectors of $W^TW$, and diagonal entries of diagonal matrix $\Sigma $ are eigenvalues of $W^TW$.
Taking $y=V^Tx$, then
\begin{equation}
\left \|Wx \right \|^{2}=y^T\Sigma y =\lambda_1y_1^2 +\cdots +\lambda_ny_n^2
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{i}$ is the $i$-th eigenvalue, and $y_i$ is the $i$-th element of $y$.
Because $W^TW$ is symmetric, $V^T=V^{-1}$, then
\begin{equation}
\left \|y \right \|
^2=y^Ty=x^TVV^Tx=x^Tx=\left \|x \right \|^2
\end{equation}
Finally, $\left \|Wx \right \|^{2} \leqslant \left \|x \right \|^{2}$ is equivalent to $\lambda_1y_1^2 +\cdots +\lambda_ny_n^2 \leqslant y_1^2 +\cdots +y_n^2$. We can see that the upper bound of 1-Lipschitz constraint can be obtained only when all eigenvalues of $W^TW$ are 1. In other words, all the singular values of $W$ are 1.
\section{Architecture and Optimization Settings}
In this paper, we employ SN-GAN architecture for image generation task. To better illustrate how we change the channel size in the discriminator architecture, we show the architecture details in Figure \ref{fig:figa1}.
The weight in the convolutional layer is in the format [$out$, $in$, $h$, $w$], where $out$ is the output channel, $in$ represents the input channel, $h$ and $w$ are kernel sizes.
Particularly, there are 10 convolutional layers ($layer\_0 \sim layer\_9$) in $D$ network for image generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10, and 17 convolutional layers ($layer\_0 \sim layer\_16$) in $D$ network for image generation on ImageNet.
ch in Figure \ref{fig:figa1} corresponds to channel size of discriminator function in main text, where extensive experiments are conducted with different settings of ch. All the experiments are conducted based on the following architecture. Image generation on STL-10 shares the same architecture with that on CIFAR-10. Thus, images in STL-10 are compressed to 32 $\times$ 32 pixels, identical to the resolution of images in CIFAR-10. For conditional generation on ImageNet, images are compressed to 128 $\times$ 128 pixels.
The optimization settings follow SN-GANs. To be specific, for image generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10, the learning rate is taken as 0.0002, the number of updates of the discriminator per one update of the generator $n_{critic}$ is 5, and Adam optimizer is used as the optimization with the first and second order momentum parameters as 0 and 0.9, respectively. For image generation on ImageNet, the learning rate for $G$ and $D$ is taken as 0.0001 and 0.0004, respectively, the number of updates of the discriminator per one update of the generator $n_{critic}$ is 1. Adam optimizer is used as the optimization with the first and second order momentum parameters as 0 and 0.9, respectively. And, spectral normalization is applied in $G$ architecture. To alleviate the huge demand for computational facility, we apply the trick of gradient accumulation, which is proposed in the implementation of BigGANs.
\section{Spectral Distribution}
In Figure \ref{fig:figa3} $\sim$ Figure \ref{fig:figa10}, we show the spectral distributions for settings, which suffer from mode collapse.
We can see that spectral collapse and mode collapse always go side by side.
For image generation on CIFAR-10 and STL-10, spectral collapse is observed in all layers except $layer\_2$ and $layer\_5$, which act as the role of skip connection, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:figa1}. While for image generation on ImageNet, spectral collapse is observed in all layers except $lay\_2$.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Large antenna arrays and \gls{mmwave} frequencies will be adopted to meet the challenging requirements of future 5G mobile networks.
Due to the increased path loss at such high frequencies, multi-antenna systems with beamforming techniques are used to increase the antenna gain, thus making it possible to reach an acceptable communication range in \gls{mmwave} networks~\cite{rangan14}.
Among the possible antenna array designs, the most suitable approach is the use of \glspl{upa}, where the antenna elements are spaced on a two-dimensional plane and a 3D beam can be synthesized~\cite{Rabinovich}.
However, before proceeding with the manufacturing, a careful design phase is required to optimize the user performance.
For an accurate analysis of 5G \gls{mmwave} cellular scenarios, it is important to consider realistic antenna patterns combined with a rigorous channel model in order to simulate the wireless radiation environment \cite{rebato18}.
Given the high prototyping cost, antenna designs are generally evaluated through simulators first.
However, given the large number of parameters that need to be tuned, the optimization of an objective function (e.g., maximization of the \gls{sinr}) is extremely time-consuming, or even infeasible.
Gathering results from a realistic simulator can take a very long time, depending on the required level of detail and the accuracy of the employed antenna models.
Therefore, an alternative way must be found to reach the optimization goal.
\glsunset{ml}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{workflow.pdf}
\caption{Workflow of the proposed framework.
The diagram highlights how the \emph{parameter optimization} is reached using a ML-based emulator.}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure}
\glsreset{ml}
To address this problem, in this paper we propose and evaluate a \gls{ml} framework able to emulate a complex simulator and to achieve the optimization in a reasonable amount of time.
This concept is represented by the diagram in \cref{fig:workflow}, which shows how the parameter optimization can be reached through the \gls{ml}-based emulator, that only requires a relatively small dataset of simulated data.
To summarize, given the aforementioned objectives, in this paper we introduce a methodology able to greatly reduce the amount of time required to optimize the parameters of complex simulations by means of \gls{ml} algorithms.
We test and evaluate the proposed framework on a 5G network simulator, with the intention to optimize basic antenna array parameters.
\subsection{Related Works}
\label{subsec:related_works}
Researchers are eager to understand the possibilities that the \gls{ml} techniques can offer when applied to communication problems. The new database proposed in~\cite{Alkhateeb2019} is proof of this new trend, as it lays the premises for a common research ground.
One common application of \gls{ml} is parameter estimation, where great results were achieved even where the most sophisticated classical techniques failed.
This is the case in~\cite{Arnold2019}, where the authors try to estimate the downlink channel starting from samples of the uplink channel.
While well-known signal processing techniques (e.g., the Wiener filter) were not able to perform a good estimate, the \gls{ml} approach proposed by the authors yields very good results.
Another common approach is the encoding of the channel representation through autoencoders~\cite{simeone}.
Autoencoders are an unsupervised learning algorithm, and as such they do not need labeled data but can learn autonomously.
The idea behind this technique is to train two \glspl{nn}, one performing the encoding of the input data, the second trying to decode it.
The layer between the two should contain, in our case, a useful and extremely compressed representation of the channel.
This can be applied at many levels, starting from the pure, physical channel model, to the entire transmitter-channel-receiver chain~\cite{OShea2017}.
This allows obtaining either encoders/decoders, transmitter/receiver chains or channel models that have a much lower computational complexity.
Then, \gls{ml} has been successfully applied also at the network layer.
Innovative ideas and proposals have challenged even the most resilient classical paradigms such as the ISO/OSI architecture~\cite{cognetworks}, as the evolution of the information infrastructures calls for a radical change.
These new approaches started showing their potential in the increasingly heterogeneous network scenarios, e.g., when facing the high data load and quality of experience required for video streaming~\cite{testolin}.
We believe that \gls{ml} can play a central role in tackling highly complex problems in a data-rich environment.
Furthermore, the authors in~\cite{sun18} use Deep \glspl{nn} to optimize the allocation algorithm in a wireless resource management problem.
The proposed concept is similar to the one described in our work, as a learning tool is used to approximate a complex input-output function.
However, the authors also include the optimization step into the learning process and use many more training samples to accommodate the needs of their deep architecture.
For our work, instead, it is crucial to use as few samples as possible as we aim to speed up the optimization process by approximating very slow simulators, making the data acquisition the main bottleneck.
In the literature, many research activities have been focusing on the study of \gls{mmwave} mobile environments while in parallel a lot of works have studied in the past the problem of beamforming and antenna array optimization.
However, there are no conclusive works focused on antenna optimization for \gls{mmwave} mobile scenarios.
In view of this goal, in the remainder of the section, we report some related works on antenna characterization for \gls{mmwave} bands which have been a guideline for the activity carried out in this paper.
Our previous work~\cite{Rebato16} has been considered as the baseline for the mobile network simulator.
Starting from that, several changes have been made to adapt the cellular simulator to test all the antenna element and array settings.
At high frequencies, such as in the \gls{mmwave} bands, where strong attenuations are present, quantifying the actual antenna gain obtained due to the radiation pattern is fundamental to precisely evaluate any \gls{mmwave} system.
In a previous work~\cite{rebato18}, realistic antenna radiation patterns have been studied and precisely characterized, motivated by the need to properly capture \gls{mmwave} propagation behaviors and understand the achievable performance in 5G cellular scenarios.
As it is customary, antenna patterns were modeled as the superposition between the single element radiation pattern and the array factor.
The latter term is a function used to characterize the effects of the entire array, while the former is used to quantify how the power of each antenna element is irradiated in all directions.
The work shows how the single element radiation pattern affects the network performance, thus highlighting how optimization of this further parameter is not only possible but also required.
\section{Framework Description}
\label{sec:framework_description}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{reduced_pairplot}
\caption{Correlation between selected inputs and outputs.}
\label{fig:pairplot}
\end{figure*}
The objective of the proposed framework is to speed up simulation-based optimization in the presence of slow simulators.
Optimization based on simulated data requires several iterations, each with a different input configuration, for the optimization strategy to steer toward the optimal value.
The major constraint is the simulation time\footnote{
Simulation times vary remarkably depending on the type of simulation and the accuracy required.
It is not unlikely for a single run to require hours or even days.
}, which makes a brute-force approach infeasible.
The goal of our framework is to require a small number of simulations to learn the input-output relationship through \gls{ml} algorithms, which are orders of magnitude faster to evaluate.
A key advantage is that, after the preliminary database creation, the optimization of the selected antenna parameters can be achieved in a negligible amount of time, even when testing different optimization goals.
In fact, we remark that once the emulator is trained, the optimization of multiple objective functions can be done instantaneously.
Although the idea is broadly applicable, our focus here is on antenna optimization over network-level metrics for \gls{mmwave} systems.
We consider this use case as a testbed and we report the results of this particular optimization later in the paper.
In order to assess the validity of this framework, three main questions have to be answered:
\begin{enumerate}[label=Q.\arabic*,ref=Q.\arabic*]
\item \label{item:1}Is it possible to emulate a complex network simulator with a learning tool, and which learning tool can achieve the best emulation accuracy?
\item \label{item:nSamples}How many train and test samples are needed for the chosen learning paradigm to converge and to be robustly evaluated?
\item Does the achieved precision allow an optimization that is accurate enough to be useful?
\end{enumerate}
The remainder of this section is devoted to addressing these problems.
\subsection{Network Simulator}
\label{sec:sim}
To test the framework, we need some data to learn from.
A custom simulator was built in order to efficiently obtain results from such complex simulations.
Simulation parameters are \gls{3gpp} standard compliant~\cite{3gpp.38.901,3gpp.38.913}, using the \gls{umi} scenario with no \gls{o2i} losses.
The variable parameters of the scenarios are listed here:
\begin{itemize}
\item the antenna spacing $d_z, d_y $ in the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively;
\item the number of antenna elements $n_z, n_y \in \{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ in the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively.
The total number of antenna elements is fixed to $N = 64$, in order to obtain a fair comparison between different configurations.
Thus, $n_z$ and $n_y$ are the integer divisors of $N$ and are deterministically related through $n_z = N/n_y$.
\end{itemize}
For each configuration, we collect network-level metrics such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item the average \gls{sinr} $\qty(\ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}})$;
\item the $5^{th}$ percentile of the \gls{sinr} $\qty(\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5)$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Data Analysis and Machine Learning}
\label{sec:ml}
\glsreset{nn}
The dataset was created with the simulator introduced in \cref{sec:sim}.
Given that our goal is to show the capabilities of the framework and not the optimization itself, the simulator has been simplified to obtain a good number of samples in a reasonable amount of time.
It should be clear that such a rich database would correspondingly require more time when using a complex, thus more realistic simulation.
As usual in \gls{ml} when dealing with new datasets, the initial phase is devoted to the analysis of the gathered data.
A proper preprocessing, e.g., normalizing the inputs and removing the linearly correlated features, can boost the learning performance.
The scatter plot showing the relation between the inputs and the outputs is reported in \cref{fig:pairplot}.
Note that, even though the visual inspection of the data through different representations can help identify some hidden trends, its effectiveness is limited both by the high dimensionality of the problem and by the scarcity of available samples.
Therefore, in general, it is not possible to rely on this kind of data analysis for optimization.
The objective of the learning algorithm is to learn the underlying function mapping the input antenna configuration to the output network metrics, for example
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
f:\mathbb{R}^n \to& \mathbb{R}^m\\
\vb{x} \mapsto& \vb{y}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\vb{x}$ is the vector of the $n$ input antenna parameters, $f$ represents the simulator, computing the output network statistics from a given antenna configuration, and, finally, $\vb{y}$ is the vector of the $m$ considered network metrics.
Therefore, the learning algorithm (\emph{emulator}) learns an approximation $\hat{f}$ of the \emph{simulator}'s underlying function $f$, thus trying to mimic it.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{SINR5}
\caption{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5$}
\label{fig:incremental:a}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{SINRmean}
\caption{\ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}}}
\label{fig:incremental:b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots show the \gls{nrmse} as a function of the number of training samples.
Multiple runs are performed, showing mean (line) and $95\%$ confidence interval (shadowed area) for each algorithm.}
\label{fig:incremental}
\end{figure*}
Considering a scalar output $y$, the prediction or emulation error is then computed as the difference between the prediction of the emulator $\hat{y}$ and the corresponding simulator output $y$.
In order to assess this, we define the \gls{nrmse} as
\begin{equation}
\label{nrmse_def}
\mathrm{nRMSE} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}
\qty( \frac{y_i-\hat{y}_i}
{y_i} )^2 },
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of samples of the test set.
This parameter allows for a fair comparison among metrics on different scales, as the normalization yields a percentage of standard error with respect to the simulated value.
Note that \gls{sinr} values are first converted to linear units.
In this paper, results are validated using a test set of $300$ samples, that was proved to be large enough for this setup to obtain good testing accuracy.
In this work, the test set size is kept fixed, to allow a simplified presentation of the framework while guaranteeing a proper result validation.
Therefore, concerning question~\ref{item:nSamples}, only the training set size is taken into account.
Several learning techniques \cite{Bishop:2006:PRM:1162264} have been analyzed and tested.
However, only results for linear regression, \glspl{gpr}, random forests and \glspl{svr} are hereby reported.
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Linear regression} is the most basic class of regression algorithms. Despite its simplicity, many versions and adaptations have been created, able to solve non-trivial problems. It is often considered as a baseline for more powerful algorithms.
\item \emph{\glspl{gpr}} consider data as if it were sampled from a Gaussian stochastic process, trying to minimize the log-marginal-likelihood during the fit;
\item \emph{Random forests} are ensembles of decision trees, that approximate stepwise the target function;
\item \emph{\glspl{svr}} are derived from the \gls{svm} classification algorithm.
Among all the typical kernels, the Gaussian one performed best and is used here.
\end{itemize}
One of the main advantages of linear regression is that, due to its simplicity, it is fast to train and easily interpretable, i.e., the analysis of the coefficients leads to some insights on the importance of the different inputs and their correlation.
On the other hand, random forests and \glspl{svr} are black-box algorithms, meaning that results are hardly interpretable.
Given their popularity, \glspl{nn} have been tested as well.
However, the lack of a large dataset has been found to be problematic for a stable convergence and they have thus been discarded from this study.
An effective way to address questions~\ref{item:1} and~\ref{item:nSamples} is reported in \cref{fig:incremental}, where the performance of the selected algorithms is evaluated for increasing training sizes.
We recall that increasing the number of training samples is always beneficial for learning, improving both emulation accuracy and stability.
However, it affects the dataset creation time, going against the purpose of the framework.
From the comparison of \cref{fig:incremental:a,fig:incremental:b}, it emerges that different emulation accuracies can be achieved for different metrics and that some learning algorithms predict a given metric better than others.
This suggests that the choice of the technique should be made specifically for each metric.
Eventually, this choice should also be made considering the number of available samples, as more complex algorithms, e.g., random forest, may outperform more basic ones when trained with enough samples.
Moreover, note that the performance of linear regression quickly saturate, while more complex algorithms achieve a lower error before converging.
Saturation is expected even with the most powerful algorithms since data obtained from the simulator is inherently noisy (e.g., the number of Monte Carlo simulations is never infinite, thus statistics are not perfect).
Instead, the reason why simpler algorithms tend to saturate earlier and with higher errors is because they are too simple to describe the inherent properties of the underlying function $f$.
This concept can be easily seen in \cref{fig:slice_fitting}, where we visually compare the emulator fit with the simulator samples.
As expected, the \gls{nrmse} decreases as the training size increases, but at different rates for different algorithms.
The trade-off between the number of samples and the emulation precision has to be taken into account when selecting the algorithm.
The achieved \gls{nrmse} can be quite low, namely about $3.2\%$ and $5.7\%$ for $\ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5$, respectively.
Finally, it can be observed that the two estimated metrics in \cref{fig:incremental} present different behaviors and performance for different outputs.
Furthermore, in general, we observed that it is not possible to have a universally valid list of best algorithms, as this is very much dependent on the simulator, the scenario, and even the considered metric.
As a basic approach, once the error achieves a target threshold, the emulator can be used for the optimization and the simulator can be stopped.
As an example, if our target is a $6\%$ error, then for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5$ we would need $300$ training samples, while for $\ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}}$ only $150$ samples would suffice, much fewer than the $700$ reported here.
Thus, in a realistic deployment, the number of required samples could be decided on the fly.
\subsection{Optimization}
The proposed framework is optimization agnostic, meaning that most standard numerical optimization techniques can be equally used.
Clearly, the learned representation is just an approximation of the real-world performance: while the simulator tries to reproduce reality via random experiments, the emulator tries to approximate the input-output relationship of the simulator via a black-box approach, adding a level of abstraction that further distances it from the real world.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{slice_fitting}
\caption{Representation of a one-dimensional plot obtained by fixing all the array parameters except one.
The plot makes it possible to visually compare the emulator fit with the simulator samples.
In this case, an $8\times8$ array was used with $d_y=0.5\lambda$ horizontal spacing, while the vertical spacing $d_z$ is varying.
The emulator is still trained in all $4$ inputs simultaneously, justifying the suboptimal fit towards higher values of $d_z$.}
\label{fig:slice_fitting}
\end{figure}
Since in general our models are not required to be differentiable, nor would we have an explicit derivative for most of them, gradient-based techniques are hardly usable.
Some of the inputs could also be categorical or discrete (e.g., the number of antennas in each dimension).
Furthermore, we are not posing any constraint on the convexity (or concavity) of the underlying function.
For these reasons, gradient-based optimization algorithms would not even be desirable.
On the other hand, since a global optimum is typically desired, gradient-free global optimization algorithms exist that satisfy all these requirements (e.g., genetic algorithms or simulated annealing).
Nowadays most scientific-oriented programming languages have optimization libraries, implementing several algorithms.
As briefly explained in \cref{sec:framework_description}, \cref{fig:slice_fitting} shows the noisiness of the training data.
Thus, finding the maximum values over the raw data might not be the best choice, while numerically finding a global maximum over a smooth model might be a better choice, provided that the model is not underfitting.
In the next section, we show the results obtained for the antenna optimization.
\section{Optimization Results}
\label{sec:optimization_results}
The optimization phase shows the significant advantages of this framework.
As previously stated, we remark that the proposed framework can be used for optimization in a wide set of scenarios, beyond that of cellular network design, used here as an example.
As the optimization is done jointly on all the input parameters, the hyperspace where it operates can be extremely vast and complex.
These features, along with the complexity of the search of the global maximum, require a very large number of evaluations.
The gain of the framework can then be measured comparing the number of entries necessary for the database creation with the number of function evaluations needed by the optimization.
This is because, due to the typical complexity of a simulator, the time required to obtain the database far exceeds that of the training and the optimization itself.
In terms of time costs, the training itself is negligible and, once trained, the predictions are instantaneous.
Another aspect to take into account is that, although significant, the database creation in our framework is an overhead that is needed only once, as it does not depend on the optimization goal.
The same emulator, providing almost instantaneous iterations, can be used with different optimization objectives, without requiring long simulation-based iterations.
For our example, given the data analysis initially done (partially shown in \cref{fig:pairplot}), we use as the objective function
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\text{maximize} \quad\quad \ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}}\\
&\text{s.t.} \quad\quad\quad \ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5 > 6\text{ dB}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the constraint on the worst \glspl{ut} (identified with $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5$) has been introduced in order to guarantee some degree of fairness and coverage to all the \glspl{ut} in the network.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{sinr_bars_inception.pdf}
\caption{Comparison among the network performance obtained with the baseline configuration (blue bar), with the optimal configuration identified using the simulator samples (orange bar) and using the emulator (green bar).}
\label{fig:opt_results}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Numerical results shown in \cref{fig:opt_results}.}
\label{tab:opt_results}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
& \ensuremath{\overline{\sinr}} & $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_5$ & $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_{50}$ & $\ensuremath{\mathrm{SINR}}_{95}$ \\
\midrule
Baseline & $20.52$ & $4.91$ & $20.26$ & $36.99$ \\
Opt. Simulator & $23.24$ & $7.25$ & $23.18$ & $39.27$ \\
Opt. Emulator & $23.49$ & $7.47$ & $23.45$ & $39.64$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The optimization results obtained within the scenario described in the previous section are presented in \cref{tab:opt_results,fig:opt_results}.
Results show that in the proposed scenario, a baseline setup consisting of $8\times 8$ arrays with $\lambda/2$ spacing in both directions performs significantly worse than the optimized ones.
The other two configurations represent the optimum obtained over the collected dataset (\emph{Opt. Simulator}, made of $1,000$ randomly sampled points in the four-dimensional space described in \cref{sec:framework_description}) and the global optimum obtained using our framework (\emph{Opt. Emulator}).
They both identified a $64\times 1$ configuration (vertical \gls{ula}), but respectively with $0.825\lambda$ and $0.734\lambda$ spacing.
Results show a $\sim 3$~dB improvement over the trivial baseline.
Although in this case the results are really close (both inputs and outputs), two facts are important: firstly, we discussed in \cref{sec:framework_description} that significantly fewer than $1,000$ samples would have been enough, a far lower number than required by a brute force optimization; secondly, as more inputs are considered, the input space will not be sampled enough to find a good setup, making emulation even more important.
Having computed $1,000$ samples while the optimization required more than $12,000$ function evaluations, we obtain a speedup factor of $12\times$ with respect to brute force evaluation.
A key advantage of our approach is the possibility of changing the objective functions of the optimizer, which would be easily and quickly done with the emulator, without having to retrain it.
\section{Conclusions and Future works}
\label{sec:conclusions}
An innovative framework has been presented that makes the joint optimization of multiple parameters a reality, needing just a fraction of the time that is currently required when directly employing a simulator.
As simulators are generally computationally complex and time-consuming, the key idea is to bypass them using a fast emulator, obtained through \gls{ml} techniques.
After a long, initial database creation, any objective function can be optimized in a matter of minutes or even seconds.
The effectiveness of this methodology has been proved using a network simulator.
Network simulators require a long time to compute the network metrics for specific antenna configurations, thus representing the perfect testbed for our framework.
Future works call, in the first place, for further studies on how to reduce the number of required training samples, in order to further reduce the dataset creation overhead.
Moreover, a second aspect would be to increase the accuracy of the emulators, possibly resorting to more complex \gls{ml} techniques.
Finally, the range of applicability of the framework, concerning both the complexity of the involved simulator and the number of parameters to be optimized, is left for future studies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Mattia Lecci's activity was financially supported by \emph{Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio Padova e Rovigo} under the grant ``Dottorati di Ricerca 2018''.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we consider the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NS}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_tV+V\cdot\nabla V+\nabla P-\nu\Delta V=0,\\
\na\cdot V=0,\\
V|_{t=0}=V_{in}(x,y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ denote the viscosity which is the multiplicative inverse of the Reynolds number $Re$. $V=(U^1,U^2)$ and $P$ denote the velocity and the pressure of the fluid respectively.
Let $\Om=\pa_xU^2-\pa_yU^1$ be the vorticity, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vorticity}
\Om_t+V\cdot\nabla \Om-\nu\Delta \Om=0.
\end{equation}
The Couette $(y,0)$ is a steady solution of \eqref{eq:NS}.
Now we introduce the perturbation, let $\Om=\om-1$ and $V=(y,0)+(U^x,U^y)$ then $\om=\pa_xU^y-\pa_yU^x$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NS2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\omega+y\pa_x\omega-\nu\Delta\om=-U\cdot\na \om,\\
\om|_{t=0}=\om_{in}(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
and $U=(U^x,U^y)=(-\pa_y\psi, \pa_x\psi)$ with $\Delta\psi=\om$.
The study of \eqref{eq:NS2} for small perturbations is an old problem in hydrodynamic stability, considered by both Rayleigh \cite{Ray} and Kelvin \cite{Kel}, as well as by many modern authors with new perspectives(see e.g. the classical texts \cite{Dra,Yag} and the references therein). Rayleigh and Kelvin both studied the linearization of \eqref{eq:NS2}, which is simply
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LNS2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\omega+y\pa_x\omega-\nu\Delta\om=0,\\
\Delta\psi=\om,\\
\om|_{t=0}=\om_{in}(x,y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, if we denote by $\hat{\om}(t,k,\eta)$ the Fourier transform of $\om(t,x,y)$, then the solution of \eqref{eq:LNS2} can be write as
\begin{equation}\label{eq: Lin-sol}
\begin{split}
&\hat{\om}(t,k,\eta)=\hat{\om}_{in}(k,\eta+kt)\exp\left(-\nu\int_0^t|k|^2+|\eta-ks+kt|^2ds\right),\\
&\hat{\psi}(t,k,\eta)=\f{-\hat{\om}_{in}(k,\eta+kt)}{k^2+\eta^2}\exp\left(-\nu\int_0^t|k|^2+|\eta-ks+kt|^2ds\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which gives that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: ED_and_ID}
\begin{split}
&\|\pa_yP_{\neq}\psi\|_{L^2}+\langle t\rangle \|\pa_xP_{\neq}\psi\|_{L^2}\leq C\langle t\rangle^{-1}e^{-c\nu t^3}\|P_{\neq}\om_{in}\|_{H^{2}},\\
&\|P_{\neq}\om\|_{L^2}\leq C\|P_{\neq}\om_{in}\|_{L^2}e^{-c\nu t^3},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
here we denote by $P_{\neq}f=f(x,y)-\f{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{T}}f(x,y)dx$ the projection to nonzero mode of $f$. The first inequality in \eqref{eq: ED_and_ID} is the inviscid damping and the second one is the enhanced dissipation. These two results both are related to the vorticity mixing effect.
In \cite{Orr}, Orr observed an important phenomenon that the velocity will tend to 0 as $t\to \infty$, even for a time reversible system such as the Euler equations($\nu=0$). This phenomenon is so-called inviscid damping, which is the analogue in hydrodynamics of Landau damping found by Landau \cite{Lan}, which predicted the rapid decay of the electric field of the linearized Vlasov equation around homogeneous equilibrium. Mouhot and Villani \cite{MV} made a breakthrough and proved nonlinear Landau damping for the perturbation in Gevrey class(see also \cite{BMM}).In this case, the mechanism leading to the damping is the vorticity mixing driven by shear flow or Orr mechanism \cite{Orr}. See \cite{Ry} for similar phenomena in various system.
We point out that the inviscid damping for general shear flow is a challenge problem even in linear level due to the presence of the nonlocal operator for general shear flow.
For the linear inviscid damping we refer to \cite{Zill,WZZ1,Jia,GNRS2018} for the results of general monotone flows.
For non-monotone flows such as the Poiseuille flow and the Kolmogorov flow, another dynamic phenomena should be taken into consideration, which is so called the vorticity depletion phenomena, predicted by Bouchet and Morita \cite{BouMor} and later proved by Wei, Zhang and Zhao \cite{WZZ2,WZZ3}.
Due to possible nonlinear transient growth, it is a challenging task extending linear damping to nonlinear damping.
Even for the Couette flow there are only few results. Moreover, nonlinear damping is sensitive to the topology of the perturbation.
Indeed, Lin and Zeng \cite{LZ} proved that nonlinear inviscid damping is not true for the perturbation of the Couette flow in $H^s$ for $s<\f32$.
Bedrossian and Masmoudi \cite{BM1} proved nonlinear inviscid damping around the Couette flow in Gevrey class $2_-$.
Recently Deng and Masmoudi \cite{DM} proved that the instability for initial perturbations in Gevrey class $2_+$.
We refer to \cite{IJ,Jia2} and references therein for other related interesting results.
Moreover it is also observed by Orr that, if we rewrite the linearized system by the change of coordinates $f(t,z,y)=\om(t,z+ty,y)$, then the Fourier transform of the stream function $\phi(t,z,y)=\psi(t,z+yt,y)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: stream-Four}
\hat{\phi}(t,k,\eta)=\f{\hat{f}(t,k,\eta)}{(\eta-kt)^2+k^2},
\end{eqnarray}
The denominator of \eqref{eq: stream-Four} is minimized at $t=\f{\eta}{k}$ which is known as the Orr critical times.
The second phenomenon --- enhanced dissipation is sometimes referred to modern authors as the ‘shear-diffusion mechanism’. This decay rate is much faster than the diffusive decay of $e^{-\nu t}$. The mechanism leading to the enhanced dissipation is also due to vorticity mixing.
However, for the nonlinear system, the Orr mechanism is known to interact poorly with the nonlinear term, creating a weakly nonlinear effect referred to as an echo.
The basic mechanism is straight-forward: a mode which is near its critical time is creating most of the velocity field and at this point can interact with the enstrophy which as already mixed to transfer enstrophy to a mode which is un-mixing.
When this third mode reaches its critical time, the result of the nonlinear interaction becomes very strong (the time delay explains the terminology ‘echo’).
There are two necessary ways to control(compete against) the echo cascades.
One is to assume enough smallness of the initial perturbations such that the rapid growth of the enstrophy may not happen before enhanced dissipative time-scale $\nu^{-\f13}$.
The other is to assume enough regularity (Gevery class) of the initial perturbations such that one can pay enough regularity to control the growth caused by the echo cascade.
In this work, we are interested in the first method to stabilize the system and studying the long time behavior of \eqref{eq:NS2} for small initial perturbations $\om_{in}$. We are aimed at finding the largest perturbation (threshold) in Sobolev spaces below which the Couette flow is stable. More precisely, we are studying the following classical question:
{\it Given a norm $\|\cdot\|_X$, find a $\beta=\beta(X)$ so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\leq \nu^{\b} \Rightarrow \text{stability},\\
&&\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\gg \nu^{\b} \Rightarrow \text{instability}.
\end{eqnarray*}
}
Another interesting question which is related to this problem is the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping which can be proposed in the following two ways:
1. {\it Given a norm $\|\cdot\|_{X}$($X\subset L^2$), determine a $\beta=\beta(X)$ so that for the initial vorticity $\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\ll \nu^{\beta}$ and for $t>0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: enha-invis}
\|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{X}e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}\quad \text{and}\quad
\|V_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{t,x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{X},
\end{eqnarray}
or the weak enhanced dissipation type estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: enha-invis-weak}
\|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_tL^2_{x,y}}\leq C\nu^{-\f16}\|\om_{in}\|_{X}
\end{eqnarray}
holds for the Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eq:NS2}.}
2. {\it Given $\beta$, is there an optimal function space $X\subset L^2$ so that if the initial vorticity satisfies $\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\ll \nu^{\beta}$, then \eqref{eq: enha-invis} or \eqref{eq: enha-invis-weak} hold for the Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eq:NS2}?}
These two problems(find the smallest $\beta$ or find the largest function space $X$) are related to each other, since one can gain regularity in a short time by a standard time-weight argument if the initial perturbation is small enough.
We summarize the results as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $\beta=0$, Bedrossian, Masmoudi and Vicol \cite{BMV} showed that if $X$ is taken as Gevery-$m$ with $m<2$, then the Couette flow is stable and \eqref{eq: enha-invis-weak} holds.
\item For $\beta=\f12$, Bedrossian, Vicol and Wang \cite{BWV} proved the Couette flow is stable as well as the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping for the perturbation of initial vorticity in $H^s, s>1$.
\item For $\beta=\f12$, recently in \cite{MZ1}, we proved the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping for the perturbation of initial vorticity in the almost critical space $H^{log}_xL^2_{y}\subset L^2_{x,y}$.
\end{itemize}
Let us also mention some other recent progress \cite{BGM1,BGM2,BGM3,CEW2019,DingLin,GNRS2018,LWZ,LX,IMM,WZ2018,WZZ3,ZEW} on the stability problem of different types of shear flows in different domains.
In this paper, we find a smaller $\beta(=\f13)$ such that the Couette flow is stable and the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping hold, when $X$ takes a Sobolev spaces. Our main result is stated as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: main}
For $\s\geq 40$, $\nu>0$, there exist $0<\ep_0,\nu_0<1$, such that for all $0<\nu\leq \nu_0$ and $0<\ep\leq \ep_0$, if $\om_{in}$ satisfies $\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{\s}}\leq \ep\nu^{\f13}$, then the solution $\om(t)$ of \eqref{eq:NS2} with initial data $\om_{in}$ satisfies the following properties: \\
1. Global stability in $H^{\s}$,
\begin{equation}
\left\|\om\left(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y\right)\right\|_{H^{\s}}\leq C\ep\nu^{\f13},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(t,y)$ is given explicitly by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(t,y)=\int_0^te^{\nu(t-\tau)\pa_y^2}\left(\f{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{T}}U^x(\tau,x,y)dx\right)d\tau.
\end{eqnarray*}
2. Inviscid damping,
\begin{equation}
\left\|P_{\neq}U^x\right\|_2+\langle t\rangle\left\|U^y\right\|_2\leq \f{C\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\langle t\rangle^{-1}.
\end{equation}
3. Weak enhanced dissipation,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: enha-thm}
\left\|P_{\neq}\om(t)\right\|_2\leq \f{C\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}.
\end{equation}
The constant $C$ is independent of $\nu$ and $\ep$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
By replacing $D(t,\eta)$ by $D(t,\eta)^{\al}$ with $\al\geq 1$ in the proof and assuming $\s$ large enough(depending on $\al$), one can obtain the stronger enhanced dissipation of the following from:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: enhan-stro}
\left\|P_{\neq}\om(t)\right\|_2\leq \f{C\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle^{\al}}.
\end{eqnarray}
However, the weak enhanced dissipation of the same decay rate as in the Theorem \ref{Thm: main} is enough for the proof of the Sobolev stability.
Both \eqref{eq: enha-thm} and \eqref{eq: enhan-stro} are far from the exponential decay of the linear case.
\end{remark}
Let us now outline the main ideas in the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm: main}. First, we provide a (well chosen) change of variable that adapts to the solution as it evolves and yields a new ‘relative’ velocity which is time-integrable. Second, we will construct a new multiplier which can be regarded as a ghost weight in phase space and helps us control the growth caused by echo cascades.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm: main}}
In this section, we will present several key propositions and complete the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm: main} by admitting those propositions.
\subsection{Notation and conventions}
See Section \ref{Sec: L-P} for the Fourier analysis conventions we are taking. A convention we generally use is to denote the discrete $x$ (or $z$) frequencies as subscripts. By convention we always use Greek letters such as $\eta$ and $\xi$ to denote frequencies in the $y$ or $v$ direction and lowercase Latin characters commonly used as indices such as $k$ and $l$ to denote frequencies in the $x$ or $z$ direction (which are discrete). Another convention we use is to denote $M,N,K$ as dyadic integers $M,N,K\in \mathbb{D}$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{D}=\left\{\f12,1,2,4,8,...,2^j,...\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
When a sum is written with indices $K,M,M',N$ or $N'$ it will always be over a subset of $\mathbb{D}$.
We will mix use same $A$ for $Af=(A(\eta)\hat{f}(\eta))^{\vee}$ or $A\hat{f}=A(\eta)\hat{f}(\eta)$, where $A$ is a Fourier multiplier.
We use the notation $f\lesssim g$ when there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of the parameters of interest such that $f\leq Cg$(we analogously $g\gtrsim f$ define). Similarly, we use the notation $f\approx g$ when there exists $C>0$ such that $C^{-1}g\leq f\leq Cg$.
We will denote the $l^1$ vector norm $|k,\eta|=|k|+|\eta|$, which by convention is the norm taken in our work. Similarly, given a scalar or vector in $\mathbf R^n$ we denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle v\rangle = (1+|v|^2)^{\f12}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We use a similar notation to denote the $x$ or $z$ average of a function: $<f>=\f{1}{2\pi}\int f(x,y)dx=f_0$. We also frequently use the notation $f_{\neq}=P_{\neq}f=f-f_0$. We denote the standard $L^2$ norms by $\|\cdot\|_2$. The norm of Sobolev space $H^{\s}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f\|_{H^{\s}}=\left\|(\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\hat{f})^{\vee}\right\|_2
\end{eqnarray*}
The norm space-time Sobolev space $L^{p}_{T}(H^{\s})$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f\|_{L^{p}_{T}(H^{\g})}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{t'\in[1,t]}\|f(t')\|_{H^{\s}},\quad p=\infty,\\
&\left(\int_1^t\|f(t')\|_{H^{\s}}^pdt'\right)^{\f1p},\quad 1\leq p<\infty.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $|m|=0,1,2,...$ and $m\eta\geq 0$, let
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{m,\eta}=\f{2\eta}{2m+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
We then use
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{m,\eta}\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over = [t_{m,\eta},t_{m-1,\eta}],
\end{eqnarray}
for $m=1,2,...,$ to denote any resonant interval and its left and right part with $\eta\geq (2m+1)m$. For $|\eta|\geq 3$, we denote $E(\sqrt{|\eta|})$ the largest integer satisfying $(2E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1)E(\sqrt{|\eta|})\leq |\eta|$ and then $E(\sqrt{|\eta|})\approx \sqrt{|\eta|}$. Let $t(\eta)=\f{2\eta}{2E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\approx \sqrt{|\eta|}$ be the starting of the resonant interval. Then we denote
\begin{eqnarray}
I_t(\eta)\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over = [t(\eta), 2|\eta|]=\bigcup_{m=1}^{E(\sqrt{\eta})}I_{m,\eta}
\end{eqnarray}
the whole resonant interval.
For a statement $Q$, $1_{Q}$ or $\chi^{Q}$ will denote the function that equals $1$ if $Q$ is true and $0$ otherwise.
\subsection{Coordinate transform}
We will use the same change of coordinates as in \cite{BMV} which allows us to simultaneously 'mod out' by the evolution of the time-dependent background shear flow and treat the mixing of this background shear as a perturbation of the Couette flow (in particular, to understand the nonlinear effect of the Orr mechanism).
The change of coordinates used is $(t,x,y)\to (t,z,v)$, where
$z(t,x,y)=x-tv(t,y)$ and $v(t,y)$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\pa_t-\nu\pa_{yy})\left(t(v(t,y)-y)\right)=< U^x>(t,y),
\end{eqnarray*}
with initial data $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}t(v(t,y)-y)=0$. Where $< U^x>(t,y)=\f{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{T}}U^x(t,x,y)dx$.
Define the following quantities
\begin{align}
C(t,v(t,y))&=v(t,y)-y,\label{eq: C}\\
v'(t,v(t,y))&=(\pa_yv)(t,y),\label{eq: v'}\\
v''(t,v(t,y))&=(\pa_{yy}v)(t,y),\label{eq: v''}\\
[\pa_tv](t,v(t,y))&=(\pa_tv)(t,y),\label{eq: v_t}\\
f(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))&=\om(t,x,y),\label{eq: om}\\
\phi(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))&=\psi(t,x,y),\label{eq: psi}\\
\widetilde{u}(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))&=U^x(t,x,y).\label{eq: U^x}
\end{align}
Thus we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq: phi f}
\Delta_t\phi\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over =\pa_{zz}\phi+(v')^2(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2\phi+v''(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\phi=f,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq: f1}
\begin{split}
&\pa_tf+[\pa_tv]\pa_vf-\nu v''t\pa_zf
+v'\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f=\nu\Delta_tf,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\na_{z,v}^{\bot}=(-\pa_v,\pa_z)$, $\na_{z,v}=(\pa_z,\pa_v)$ and $P_{\neq}\phi=\phi-< \phi>$, $\widetilde{u}_0(t,v)=\f{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{T}_{2\pi}}\widetilde{u}(t,z,v)dz$.
We also obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: tu_0}
\pa_t\widetilde{u}_0+[\pa_t v]\pa_v\widetilde{u}_0+< v'\na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq 0}\phi\cdot\na \widetilde{u}>=\nu\Delta_t\widetilde{u}_0.
\end{equation}
Define the auxiliary function
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(t,v)=\f{1}{t}(\widetilde{u}_0(t,v)-C(t,v)),
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies that
\begin{align*}
&[\pa_tv]=g+\nu v'',\\
&v'\pa_vC(t,v)=v'(t,v)-1,\\
&\pa_tC+[\pa_tv]\pa_vC=[\pa_tv],\\
&v'\pa_vv'=v''=\Delta_tC,
\end{align*}
and that $g$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq: g}
\pa_tg+\f{2g}{t}+g\pa_vg=-\f{v'}{t}< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>+\nu(v')^2\pa_{vv}g.
\end{equation}
If we denote $h=v'-1$, we get that
\begin{eqnarray}
\pa_th+g\pa_v h=\f{-f_0-h}{t}+\nu\widetilde{\Delta}_th.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\bar{h}=\f{-f_0-h}{t}$, thus we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray}
\pa_t\bar{h}+g\pa_v\bar{h}=-\f{2}{t}\bar{h}+\f{v'}{t}< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f>+\nu\widetilde{\Delta}_t\bar{h}.
\end{eqnarray}
It gives that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: f-new}
\pa_tf+u\cdot\na_{z,v}f=\nu\widetilde{\Delta}_tf,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
u(t,z,v)=\left(\begin{aligned}0\\g\end{aligned}\right)+v'\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\widetilde{\Delta}_tf=\pa_{zz}f+(v')^2(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2f$.
By the changing of the coordinates we deduce our problem to studying the following system:
\begin{align}\label{eq: main f}
&\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\pa_tf+u\cdot\na_{z,v}f=\nu\widetilde{\Delta}_tf, \\
&u(t,z,v)=\left(\begin{aligned}0\\g\end{aligned}\right)+v'\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi,\\
&\Delta_t\phi=f, \quad v''=v'\pa_vv', \quad h=v'-1,
\end{aligned}\right.\\
\label{eq: coor}
&\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\pa_tg+\f{2g}{t}+g\pa_vg=-\f{v'}{t}< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>+\nu(v')^2\pa_{vv}g,\\
&\pa_t\bar{h}+\f{2}{t}\bar{h}+g\pa_v\bar{h}=\f{v'}{t}< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f>+\nu(v')^2\pa_{vv}\bar{h},\\
&\pa_th+g\pa_v h=\bar{h}+\nu(v')^2\pa_{vv}h,\\
&\widetilde{u}=-v'(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\phi.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
\subsection{Main energy estimate}
In light of the previous section, our goal is to control solution to \eqref{eq: main f} and \eqref{eq: coor} uniformly in a suitable norm as $t\to \infty$. The key idea we use for this is the carefully designed time-dependent norm written as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|A^{\sigma}(t,\na)f\right\|_2^2=\sum_k\int_{\eta}\left|A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right|^2d\eta,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)$ is defined in \eqref{eq: Asigma}.
We also introduce another time-dependent norm for $8\leq s\leq \s-10$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|A_E^{s}(t,\pa_k,\pa_v)f\right\|_{2}^2=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\left|A_E^{s}(t,k,\eta)\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right|^2d\eta,
\end{eqnarray*}
which quantifies the enhanced dissipation effect with
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_E^{s}(t,k,\eta)=\langle k,\eta\rangle^sD(t,\eta),
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
D(t,\eta)=\f13\nu|\eta|^3+\f{1}{24}\nu(t^3-8|\eta|^3)_+.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $E$ stands for enhanced dissipation.
We define our higher Sobolev energy:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: Energy}
\mathcal{E}^{\s}(t)=\f{1}{2}\left\|A^{\sigma}(t)f(t)\right\|_2^2+\mathcal{E}_{v}(t),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{v}(t)=\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu^{\f13}\|h\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu^{\f13}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2
\end{equation}
By the well-posedness theory for 2D Navier-Stokes equation in Sobolev spaces we may safely ignore the time interval (say) $[0,1]$ by further restricting the size of the initial data. That is we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem: LWP}
For $\ep>0$, $\nu>0$ and $\s\geq 40$, there exists $\ep'>0$ such that if $\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{\s}}\leq \ep'\nu^{\f13}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0,1]}\mathcal{E}^{\s}(t)\leq (\ep\nu^{\f13})^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
We define the following controls referred to in the sequel as the bootstrap hypotheses for $t\geq 1$.
\noindent{\bf Higher regularity: main system}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: B1-Main-High}
\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_{2}^2
+\nu\int_1^t\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_{2}^2dt'
+\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\leq (8\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,
\end{equation}
where the $CK$ stands for 'Cauchy-Kovalevskaya'
\begin{eqnarray*}
CK_w(t)=\sum_k\int \f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_k(t,\eta)}\left|A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right|^2d\eta.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent{\bf Higher regularity: coordinate system}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: B1-Coo-High}
\begin{split}
&\langle t\rangle \|g\|_{H^{\s}}+\int_1^t\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}dt'\leq 8\ep\nu^{\f13},\\
&t^{3}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2^2
+\int_1^tt'^{3}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}{A^{\sigma}\bar{h}}\right\|^2_2dt'\\
&\quad\quad \quad +\f14\int_1^tt'^{2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'
+\f14\nu\int_1^tt'^{3}\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'
\leq 8\ep(\ep\nu^{\f16})^2,\\
&\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s}}^2dt'\leq 8(10\ep\nu^{\f16})^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf Lower regularity: enhanced dissipation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: B2-enhan}
\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2+\f25\nu \int_1^t\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_E f(t')\right\|_{2}^2dt'\leq (8\ep\nu^{\f13})^2.
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf Lower regularity: decay of zero mode}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: B2-zero}
\begin{split}
&\langle t\rangle^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_vg(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt'\leq (8\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
&\langle t\rangle^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_v\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt'\leq (8\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
&\|f_0\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2+
\nu\int_1^t\left(\|\pa_vf_0(t')\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t'\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0(t')\|_{H^s}^2\right)dt'\leq (8\ep\nu^{\f13})^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf Assistant estimates}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assistant}
\begin{split}
&\langle t\rangle \|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}+\int_1^t\|\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}dt'\leq 8\ep\nu^{\f13},\\
&\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2dt'\leq 8(10\ep\nu^{\f13})^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The following proposition follows from the bootstrap hypotheses, elliptic estimates and the properties of the multipliers: $A^{\sigma}$ and $A_E^s$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: basic estimate}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses, the following inequalities hold:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: high energy}&\|f\|_{H^{\s}}
+\nu^{\f12} \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L} f\right\|_{L^2_{T}(H^{\s})}+\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}f\right\|_{L^2_{T}(H^{\s})}\lesssim \ep \nu^{\f13},\\
\label{eq: enha}&\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^s}+\nu^{\f12}\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L} f_{\neq}\right\|_{L^2_T(H^{s})}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle},
\end{align}
and the inviscid damping results
\begin{align}\label{eq: inviscid}
&\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-4}}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle},\quad
\|\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-3}}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
This proposition together with Lemma \ref{lem: composition} implies Theorem \ref{Thm: main}.
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem: total-growth}, we get
$A^{\sigma}_{k}(t,\eta)\approx \langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}$. Thus we have $\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2\approx \|f\|_{H^{\s}}$ which implies \eqref{eq: high energy}.
By Lemma \ref{lem: D-D}, we get $D(t,\eta)\geq \nu t^3$, thus $\|A_E^sf\|_2\gtrsim \nu t^3\|f\|_{H^{s}}$ which gives \eqref{eq: enha}.
The inviscid damping result \eqref{eq: inviscid} follows form Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} and Lemma \ref{lem: tu}.
\end{proof}
For the enhanced dissipation and the inviscid damping in Sobolev norm, we also have the following remark.
\begin{remark}\label{Rmk: basic estimate}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\om_{\neq}(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)\|_{H^s}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left\|U^{y}(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)\right\|_{H^{\s-4}}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle},\\
&\left\|U^x_{\neq}(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)\right\|_{H^{\s-4}}\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle}.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
Recall that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&f(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))=\om(t,x,y) \Rightarrow \om(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)=f(t,x,v(t,y)),\\
&&\widetilde{u}(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))=U^x(t,x,y) \Rightarrow U^x(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)=\widetilde{u}(t,x,v(t,y)),\\
&&\pa_z\phi(t,z(t,x,y),v(t,y))=U^{y}(t,x,y) \Rightarrow
U^y(t,x+ty+\Phi(t,y),y)=(\pa_z\phi)(t,x,v(t,y)),
\end{eqnarray*}
The remark follows directly from \eqref{eq: enha}, \eqref{eq: inviscid}, the composition Lemma \ref{lem: composition} and the bootstrap hypotheses for the regularity of the coordinate system. \\
By Lemma 2.1, for the rest of the proof we may focus on times $t\geq 1$. Let $I^*$ be the connected set of times $t\geq 1$ such that the bootstrap hypotheses \eqref{eq: B1-Main-High}-\eqref{eq:assistant} are all satisfied. We will work on regularized solutions for which we know $\mathcal{E}^{\s}(t)$ takes values continuously in time, and hence $I^*$ is a closed interval $[1,T^*]$ with $T^*\geq 1$. The bootstrap is complete if we show that $I^*$ is also open, which is the purpose of the following proposition, the proof of which constitutes the majority of this work.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: bootstrap}
For $\s\geq 40$, $\nu>0$ and $8\leq s\leq \s-10$, there exist $0<\ep_0,\nu_0<1$, such that for all $0<\nu\leq \nu_0$ and $0<\ep\leq \ep_0$, such that if on $[1,T^*]$ the bootstrap hypotheses \eqref{eq: B1-Main-High}-\eqref{eq:assistant} hold, then for any $t\in [1,T^*]$, \\
1. Vorticity boundedness,
\begin{align*}
&\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_{2}^2
+\nu\int_1^t\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_{2}^2dt'
+\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\leq (6\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,
\end{align*}
2. Control of coordinates system,
\begin{align*}
&\langle t\rangle \|g\|_{H^{\s}}+\int_1^t\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}dt'\leq 6\ep\nu^{\f13},\\
&t^{3}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2^2
+\int_1^tt'^{3}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}{\bar{h}}\right\|^2_{H^{\s}}dt'\\
&\quad\quad \quad +\f14\int_1^tt'^{2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'
+\f14\nu\int_1^tt'^{3}\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'
\leq 6\ep(\ep\nu^{\f16})^2,\\
&\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s}}^2dt'\leq 6(10\ep\nu^{\f16})^2.
\end{align*}
3. Enhanced dissipation,
\begin{align*}
&\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2+\f25\nu \int_1^t\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_E f(t')\|_{2}^2dt'\leq (6\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,
\end{align*}
4. Decay of zero mode,
\begin{align*}
&\langle t\rangle^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_vg(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt\leq (6\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
&\langle t\rangle^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_v\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt\leq (6\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
&\|f_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2+
\nu\int_1^t\left(\|\pa_vf_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t'\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0(t')\|_{H^s}^2\right)dt'\leq (6\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,
\end{align*}
5. Assistant estimate,
\begin{align*}
&\langle t\rangle \|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}+\int_1^t\|\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}dt'\leq 6\ep\nu^{\f13},\\
&\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2dt'\leq 6(10\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,
\end{align*}
from which it follows that $T^*=+\infty$.
\end{proposition}
The remainder of the paper is devoted to the proof of Proposition \ref{prop: bootstrap}, the primary step being to show that on $[1,T^*]$, we have the following estimates:
\begin{align}
\nonumber\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_{2}^2
+\nu\int_1^t\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_{2}^2dt'
&+\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\label{eq: aim1}\\
&\leq 2\|A^{\sigma} f(1)\|_{2}^2+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23},\\
\label{eq: aim2}
\langle t\rangle \|g\|_{H^{\s}}
+\int_1^t\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}dt'
&\leq 2\|g(1)\|_{H^{\s}}+C\ep^2\nu^{\f13},\\
t^{3}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2^2
+\int_1^tt'^{3}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}{\bar{h}}\right\|^2_{H^{\s}}dt'
&+\f14\int_1^tt'^{2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'\nonumber\\
+\f14\nu\int_1^tt'^{3}\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2dt'
&\leq 2\|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s}}+C\ep^4\nu^{\f13},\label{eq: aim3}\\
\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s}}^2dt'
&\leq 2\|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s}} +C\ep^3\nu^{\f13},\label{eq: aim4}\\
\label{eq: aim5}
\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2+\f25\nu \int_1^t|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_E f(t')\|_{2}^2dt'
&\leq 2\|A^s_Ef(1)\|_2^2+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23},\\
\label{eq: aim6}
\langle t\rangle^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_vg(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt'
&\leq 2\|g(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+ C\ep(\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
\label{eq: aim7}
\langle t\rangle^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\nu \int_1^tt'^4\|\pa_v\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt
&\leq 2\|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+C\ep(\ep\nu^{\f13})^2,\\
\|f_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2+
\nonumber
\nu\int_1^t\Big(\|\pa_vf_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2&+\f{t'\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0(t')\|_{H^s}^2\Big)dt'\\
&\leq 2\|f_0(1)\|_{H^s}^2+\nu\|\pa_vf_0(1)\|_{H^s}^2+ C\ep^3\nu^{\f23},\label{eq: aim8}\\
\label{eq: aim9}
\langle t\rangle \|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}+\int_1^t\|\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}dt'
&\leq 2\|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+C\ep^2\nu^{\f13},\\
\label{eq: aim10}
\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+\nu\int_1^t\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2dt'
&\leq 2\|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+8\|\bar{h}\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s-1})}^2+C\ep^2\nu^{\f13}.
\end{align}
for some constant $C$ independent of $\ep,\nu$ and $T^*$. If $\ep$ is sufficiently small then \eqref{eq: aim1}-\eqref{eq: aim10} implies Proposition \ref{prop: bootstrap}.
It is natural to compute the time evolution of the following quantities:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_{H,f}=\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_{2}^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{H,g}=t\|g\|_{H^{\s}},\quad
\mathcal{E}_{H,\bar{h}}=t^3\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{H,h}=\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s}}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_{L,\neq}=\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{L,g}=t^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{L,\bar{h}}=t^4\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{L,0}=\|f_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2+\f{t\nu}{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_{as,\bar{h}}=t^2\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2,\quad
\mathcal{E}_{as,h}=\|h(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H$ stands for the highest regularity, $L$ stands for the lower regularity, $as$ stands for assistant.
The most difficult part in the proof is to control the energy $\mathcal{E}_{H,f}$.
Here we present the calculations of the time evolution of $\mathcal{E}_{H,f}$.
The calculations of the time evolution of $\mathcal{E}_{H,g}$, $\mathcal{E}_{as,\bar{h}}$, $\mathcal{E}_{as,{h}}$, $\mathcal{E}_{H,\bar{h}}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{H,h}$ are in Section \ref{Sec: higher regular controls}.
The calculations of the time evolution of $\mathcal{E}_{L,g}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{L,\bar{h}}$ are in Section \ref{Sec: Lower energy estimate}.
The calculations of the time evolution of $\mathcal{E}_{L,\neq}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{L,0}$ are in Section \ref{Sec: Decay estimate of vorticity}.
The rest part of this section will give an outline of the proof of \eqref{eq: aim1}.
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim2} can be found in Section \ref{sec: g-high};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim3} and \eqref{eq: aim4} can be found in Section \ref{sec: high-h-barh};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim5} can be found in Section \ref{sec: f-low-enha};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim6} can be found in Section \ref{sec: g-low};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim7} can be found in Section \ref{sec: bar h};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim8} can be found in Section \ref{sec: f-low-0};
The proof of \eqref{eq: aim9} and \eqref{eq: aim10} can be found in Section \ref{sec: barh and h-high}.
Form the time evolution of $\mathcal{E}_{H,f}$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq: dten}
\f{1}{2}\f{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R}\left|A^{\sigma} f(t)\right|^2dvdz
=-CK_{w}
-\int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma}(u\na f)dzdv
+\nu \int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma}\left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf\right)dzdv.
\end{equation}
where the $CK$ stands for 'Cauchy-Kovalevskaya'
\begin{eqnarray}
CK_w=\sum_k\int \f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_k(t,\eta)}\left|A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right|^2d\eta.
\end{eqnarray}
To treat the second term in \eqref{eq: dten}, we have
\begin{align*}
\int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma}(u\na_{z,v}f)dzdv=-\f12\int \na\cdot u|A^{\sigma} f|^2dvdz
+\int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma}(u\cdot\na f)-u\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f\right]dzdv.
\end{align*}
Notice that the relative velocity is not divergence free:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\na\cdot u=\pa_vg+\pa_z\phi\pa_vv'=\pa_vg+\pa_zP_{\neq}\phi\pa_vh.
\end{eqnarray*}
The first term is controlled by the bootstrap hypothesis \eqref{eq: B2-zero}. For the second term we use the elliptic estimates, Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, which shows that under the bootstrap hypotheses we have
\begin{equation}
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-4}}\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, by the Sobolev embedding, $\s>40$ and the bootstrap hypotheses,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: in-by-part-term}
\begin{split}
\left|\int \na\cdot u|A^{\sigma} f|^2dvdz\right|
&\lesssim \|\na u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2\\
&\lesssim \big(\|g\|_{H^2}+(1+\|h\|_{H^{2}})\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^3}\big)\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To handle the commutator, $\int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma}(u\cdot\na f)-u\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f\right]dzdv$, we use a paraproduct decomposition. Precisely, we define three main contributors: transport, reaction and remainder:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: com-bony}
\int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma}(u\cdot\na f)-u\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f\right]dzdv
=\f{1}{2\pi} \sum_{N\geq 8}T_N+\f{1}{2\pi} \sum_{N\geq 8}R_N+\f{1}{2\pi}\mathcal{R},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align*}
&T_N=2\pi \int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma}(u_{<N/8}\cdot \na f_N)-u_{<N/8}\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f_N\right]dzdv\\
&R_N=2\pi \int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma} (u_{N}\cdot \na f_{<N/8})-u_{N}\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f_{<N/8}\right]dzdv\\
&\mathcal{R}=2\pi\sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18N\leq N'\leq 8N} \int A^{\sigma} f\left[A^{\sigma}(u_{N}\cdot \na f_{N'})-u_{N}\cdot\na A^{\sigma} f_{N'}\right]dzdv
\end{align*}
Here $N\in \mathbb{D}=\{\f12,1,2,4,...,2^j,...\}$ and $g_N$ denote the $N$-th Littlewood-Paley projection and $g_{<N}$ means the Littlewood-Paley projection onto frequencies less than $N$.
For the last term, we get
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\nu \int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma} \left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf\right)dzdv
&=\nu \int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma} \left({\Delta}_Lf\right)dzdv
-\nu \int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2f\right)dzdv\\
\nonumber
&=-\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\right\|_2^2\\
\nonumber
&\quad -\nu \int A^{\sigma} f_{\neq}A^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2f_{\neq}\right)dzdv\\
\nonumber
&\quad -\nu \int A^{\sigma} f_{0}A^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)\pa_v^2f_{0}\right)dv\\
&=-\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\right\|_2^2
+E^{\neq}+E^0. \label{eq: E_0andEneq}
\end{align}
The next four propositions together with \eqref{eq: in-by-part-term} imply \eqref{eq: aim1}. At first, we deal with the dissipation term. In Section \ref{Sec: dissipation}, we will prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: dissipation}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu \int_1^{t}\left(\int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma} \left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf\right)dzdv\right) dt'\leq -\f78\nu \int_1^{t} \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
Next we control the transport part. In Section \ref{Sec: Transport}, we will prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop: transport}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_1^t\sum_{N\geq 8}|T_N(t')|dt'
\lesssim \ep\sup_{t'\in[1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
Next we control the remainder part. In Section \ref{Sec: Remainder}, we will prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop: Remainder}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\mathcal{R}(t)| \lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
At last, we control the reaction part. In Section \ref{Sec: reaction}, we will prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: reaction}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_1^t\sum_{N\geq 8}|R_N(t')|dt'
\lesssim \ep\sup_{t'\in[1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2+\ep \int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'+\ep^3\nu^{\f23}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
Let us admit the above propositions and finish the proof of \eqref{eq: aim1}.
\begin{proof}
We then get by \eqref{eq: dten} that
\begin{align*}
&\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_2^2+2\int_1^tCK_{w}(t')dt'\\
&=\|A^{\sigma} f(1)\|_2^2-2\int_1^t\int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma}(u\na f)dzdvdt'
+\nu 2\int_1^t\int A^{\sigma} fA^{\sigma}\left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf\right)dzdvdt'\\
&\leq \|A^{\sigma} f(1)\|_2^2-\f{7}{4}\nu \int_1^{t} \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23}\\
&\quad+C\int_1^t\bigg[\left|\int \na\cdot u|A^{\sigma} f|^2dvdz\right|
+\sum_{N\geq 8}|T_N(t')|+|\mathcal{R}(t')| +\sum_{N\geq 8}|R_N(t')|\bigg]dt'.
\end{align*}
Thus by \eqref{eq: in-by-part-term} and the above propositions, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|A^{\sigma} f(t)\|_2^2+2\int_1^tCK_{w}(t')dt'+\f{7}{4}\nu \int_1^{t} \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'\\
&\leq \|A^{\sigma} f(1)\|_2^2+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23}
+C\ep \sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2
+C\ep \int_1^tCK_{w}(t')dt'.
\end{align*}
Thus by taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Toy model and the nonlinear growth}
\subsection{The toy model}
According to the change of coordinate, the relative velocity now is time integrable. The growth may come from the reaction term. In each time interval $I_{m,\eta}$ which contain only one Orr critical time $t=\f{\eta}{m}$,
it is necessary to study the following toy model
\begin{align*}
\pa_t\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)&+\nu(k^2+(\eta-mt)^2)\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)\\
&=\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq 1}\sum_{m-l=\pm 1}\f{\pm \eta}{l^2+(\eta-lt)^2}\widehat{f}(t,l,\eta)\widehat{f}(t,\pm 1,\xi-\eta)d\eta.\\
\pa_t\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)&+\nu((m\pm1)^2+(\eta-(m\pm1)t)^2)\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)\\
&=\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq 1}\f{\eta}{m^2+(\eta-mt)^2}\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)\widehat{f}(t,\pm 1,\xi-\eta)d\eta.
\end{align*}
Since the $\widehat{f}(t,\pm 1,\xi-\eta)$ is restricted to the lower frequency $|\xi-\eta|\leq 1$, we can regard it as a constant in $\xi$ valuable. Moreover, $\widehat{f}(t,\pm 1,\xi-\eta)$ also has enhanced dissipation.
As $t\in I_{m,\eta}$, $(m\pm1)^2+(\eta-(m\pm1)t)^2\approx \f{\eta^2}{m^2}$, thus we deduce to the following simplified toy model
\begin{align}
\pa_t\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)
+\nu(m^2+(\eta-mt)^2)\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)
&=\f{\ka e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}m^2}{|\eta|}\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta),\label{eq: toy-1}\\
\pa_t\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)
+\f{\nu\eta^2}{m^2}\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)
&=\f{\ka|\eta| e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}}{m^2(1+(\f{\eta}{m}-t)^2)}\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)\label{eq: toy-2}.
\end{align}
where $\ka$ stands for the smallness assumption of the initial data. Our goal is to find the largest $\ka$ such that we can control the total growth caused by the toy model. Thus we assume the enhanced dissipation is $e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}$.
The next step of simplification bases on the following observations:
\begin{itemize}
\item When $t\gg \nu^{-\f13}$, the enhanced dissipation will offer a small coefficient which makes the Orr mechanism weaker. So we focus on the time region $t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}$. The resonant time region is $I_t(\eta)\approx [\sqrt{|\eta|},2|\eta|]$. So we are interested in the case $|\eta|\lesssim \nu^{-\f23}$ so that $I_t(\eta)\cap [1,C\nu^{-\f13}]\neq \emptyset$. During this time region $e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}\approx 1$.
\item The rapid growth of $\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)$ happens when $|t-\f{\eta}{m}|\approx 1$.
\item The coefficient in front of $\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)$ on the right hand side of \eqref{eq: toy-2} is much bigger than the coefficient in front of $\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)$ on the right hand side of \eqref{eq: toy-1}. It means that $\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)$ will grow faster than $\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)$. We may replace $\widehat{f}(t,m,\eta)$ by $\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)$ in the second equation.
\item Since $|\eta|\lesssim \nu^{-\f23}$, when $|t-\f{\eta}{m}|\approx 1$, the dissipation coefficient in \eqref{eq: toy-2} $\f{\nu\eta^2}{m^2}\lesssim \f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}$ is not bigger than the coefficient of the right hand sider if $\ka\approx \nu^{\f13}$. Thus we can remove the dissipation term.
\end{itemize}
Thus we deduce to the following toy model
\begin{align*}
\pa_t\widehat{f}(t,m\pm 1,\eta)
=\f{\ka|\eta| e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}}{m^2(1+(\f{\eta}{m}-t)^2)}\widehat{f}(t,m\pm1,\eta).
\end{align*}
For $t\in I_{m,\eta}$, let $\tau=t-\f{\eta}{m}$, then $\tau\in [-D_{m,\eta}^-,D_{m,\eta}^+]$ where $D_{m,\eta}^-=\f{\eta}{(2m+1)m}=\f{\eta}{m}-t_{m,\eta}$ and $D_{m,\eta}^+=\f{\eta}{(2m-1)m}=t_{m-1,\eta}-\f{\eta}{m}$ for $m\geq 1$, then $D_{m,\eta}^{\pm}\approx \f{\eta}{m^2}$.
At last we use the following model to control the entropy growth in each critical time region.
\begin{equation}\label{eq: toy model}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\pa_{\tau}g_m= \langle \nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\nu^{\f13}\f{\eta}{m^2}}{1+\tau^2}g_m,\\
&g_m(-D_{m,\eta}^-)=1.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
We need to point out that in the toy model $e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}$ is replaced by $\langle \nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}$ with $0<\b\leq \f12$ due to some technical reasons when we deal with zero mode (see \eqref{eq: beta<1/2}). The condition $\b>0$ ensures the total growth is bounded (see Lemma \ref{lem: total-growth}).
For $m\eta>0$ and $|m|\in [1,E(\sqrt{|\eta|})]$, with $|\eta|\geq 3$, we define for $0<\b\leq \f12$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: g_m}
g_m(\tau,\eta)=\exp\Big( \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{{-(1+\b)}}\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}\big(\arctan(\tau)+\arctan(D_{m,\eta}^-)\big)\Big),
\end{equation}
then $g_m$ solves \eqref{eq: toy model}.
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_m(D_{m,\eta}^+,\eta)=G_{m}(\eta)\underbrace{g_m(-D_{m,\eta}^-,\eta)}_{=1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{m}(\eta)=\exp\Big( \langle \nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}\big(\arctan(D_{m,\eta}^+)+\arctan(D_{m,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
Otherwise, we let $g_{m}(\tau,\eta)=1$.
\subsection{Key multiplier}
In this subsection, we will define the key multiplier which govern the growth.
We define $w(t,\eta)$ in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $t\leq t(\eta)$, $w(t,\eta)=1$;
\item For $t\in I_{j,\eta}$ with $|j|\in [1, E(\sqrt{|\eta|})]$ and $j\eta>0$, $w(t,\eta)=w(t_{j,\eta},\eta)g_{j}(t-\f{\eta}{j},\eta)$;
\item For $t\geq 2|\eta|$, $w(t,\eta)=w(2|\eta|,\eta)$.
\end{itemize}
According the definition of $g_{m}$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq: w_t/w}
\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}\approx \f{\langle \nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\nu^{\f13}\f{\eta}{m^2}}{1+(t-\f{\eta}{m})^2}1_{t\in I_{m,\eta}}\approx \f{\langle \nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{-\b}m^{-1}}{1+(t-\f{\eta}{m})^2}1_{t\in I_{m,\eta}}
\end{equation}
Next for $m\eta>0$ and $|m|\in [1,E(\sqrt{|\eta|})]$, with $|\eta|\geq 3$, we will construct a continuous function $\varrho(m,\eta)$ taking value almost as $\f{m}{|m|}\max\{|m|,|\eta|\}$. First let $\rho(x)$ be a bounded smooth function such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: rho}
\rho(x)=\left\{\begin{aligned}
&1, \quad x\geq \f{1}{10},\\
&\text{ smooth connected}, \quad x\in \big[\f{1}{20}, \f{1}{10}\big],\\
&0, \quad x\leq \f{1}{20},
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
We also let $\rho$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\f{1}{20}}^{\f{1}{10}}\rho(x)dx=\f{1}{20}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\rho_k(x)=\rho(\f{x}{k})$ and
\begin{equation}
w_{k}(t,\eta)=w\left(t, \varrho(k,\eta)\right).
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq: rho(k,eta)}
\varrho(k,\eta)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\f{k}{20}+\int_{0}^{\eta}\rho_k(x)dx, \quad k\neq 0, \\
&\eta, \quad k=0.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Then we get that for $|\eta|\leq \f{|k|}{20}$, $\varrho(k,\eta)=\f{k}{20}$ and
$w_{k}(t,\eta)=w\left(t,\f{k}{20}\right)$;
and for $|\eta|\geq \f{|k|}{10}$, $\varrho(k,\eta)=\eta$ and $w_{k}(t,\eta)=w(t,\eta)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: rho}
It holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\varrho(k,\eta)\approx \langle k,\eta\rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $|k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{100}|l,\xi|$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\varrho(k,\eta)-\varrho(l,\xi)|\lesssim |k-l,\xi-\eta|.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to obtain that $\varrho(k,\eta)\lesssim \langle k,\eta\rangle$.
The lower bound follows from the fact that for $\f{|k|}{20}\leq |\eta|\leq \f{|k|}{10}$, $\varrho(k,\eta)\gtrsim \f{|k|}{20}\geq \f{\eta}{2}$.
If $|\xi|\geq |l|$, then $|k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{50}|\xi|$,
$|\eta|\geq \f{49}{50}|\xi|$ and $|k|\leq |k-l|+|l|\leq \f{51}{50}|\xi|\leq 2|\eta|$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\varrho(k,\eta)-\varrho(l,\xi)|=|\xi-\eta|.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $|\xi|\leq \f{|l|}{100}$, then $|k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{101}{10000}|l|$, $|k|\geq \f{9899}{10000}|l|$ and $|\eta|\leq |\xi|+|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{201}{10000}|l|\leq \f{|k|}{20}$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\varrho(k,\eta)-\varrho(l,\xi)|=\f{1}{20}|k-l|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we only need to focus on $|\xi|\approx |l|\approx |\eta|\approx |k|$. Thus
\begin{align*}
|\varrho(k,\eta)-\varrho(l,\xi)|
&=\left|\f{k}{20}-\f{l}{20}+k\int_{0}^{\f{\eta}{k}}\rho(x)dx-l\int_{0}^{\f{\xi}{l}}\rho(x)dx\right|\\
&\lesssim |k-l|+|k-l|\int_{0}^{\f{\eta}{k}}\rho(x)dx+\left|l\int_{\f{\eta}{k}}^{\f{\xi}{l}}\rho(x)dx\right|\\
&\lesssim |k-l|+\f{|\eta l-\xi k|}{|k|}
\lesssim |k-l|+\f{|\eta,k||k-l,\eta-\xi|}{|k|}\\
&\lesssim |k-l,\xi-\eta|.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
With $w_{k}(t,\eta)$, now we can define our key multiplier $A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: Asigma}
A^{\sigma}_k(t,\eta)=\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}}{w_k(t,\eta)}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Basic estimate for the multiplier}
The following lemma expresses the well-separation of critical times.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{BM1}]\label{lem: 3.2}
Let $\xi,\eta$ be such that there exists some $\al\geq 1$ with $\al^{-1}|\xi|\leq |\eta|\leq \al |\xi|$ and let $k,n$ be such that $t\in I_{k,\eta}\cap I_{n,\xi}$, then $k\approx n$ and moreover at least one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] $k=n$;
\item [(b)] $|t-\f{\eta}{k}|\geq \f{1}{10\al}\f{\eta}{k^2}$ and $|t-\f{\xi}{n}|\geq \f{1}{10\al}\f{\xi}{n^2}$;
\item [(c)] $|\eta-\xi|\gtrsim_{\al} \f{|\eta|}{|n|}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Now we will present a lemma about the upper and lower bounds estimates of $w(t,\eta)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: total-growth}
It holds that
\begin{align*}
w(t,\eta)\approx 1.
\end{align*}
As a consequence, $A^{\s}_k(t,\eta)\approx \langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have for any $t,\eta$,
\begin{align*}
1&\leq w(t,\eta)
\leq \prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{1}G_{m}(\eta)
\leq \exp\left(\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{1}\f{\pi\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}(1+\nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta})^{-(1+\b)}\right)\\
&\lesssim \left\{\begin{aligned}
&\exp\left(\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{1}\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}\right)\quad \nu^{\f13}\eta\leq 1\\
&\exp\left(\sum_{m=\nu^{\f13}\eta}^{E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}
+\sum_{m=\nu^{\f13}\eta}^{1}\f{m^{-1+\b}}{(\nu^{\f13}\eta)^{\b}}\right)\quad 1\leq \nu^{\f13}\eta\leq E(\sqrt{|\eta|})\\
&\exp\left(\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{1}\f{m^{-1+\b}}{(\nu^{\f13}\eta)^{\b}}\right)\quad 1\leq E(\sqrt{|\eta|})\leq \nu^{\f13}\eta
\end{aligned}\right.\\
&\lesssim \left\{\begin{aligned}
\nu^{\f13}\eta\lesssim &1,\quad |\eta|\lesssim \nu^{-\f13},\\
&1, \quad \nu^{-\f13}\lesssim |\eta|\lesssim \nu^{-\f23},\\
\f{1}{(\nu^{\f13}\sqrt{|\eta|})^{\b}}\lesssim &1, \quad \nu^{-\f23}\lesssim|\eta|.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
The above lemma gives that for all $t$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: As}
A^{\sigma}_{k}(t,\eta)\approx \langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}.
\end{equation}
Next we introduce several lemma related to the properties of $D$. The first lemma can be found in \cite{BMV} which will be useful in the proof of the commutator estimate in Section \ref{Sec: Decay estimate of vorticity}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{BMV}]\label{lem: D-D}
Uniformly in $\nu$, $\eta,\xi$ and $t\geq 1$ we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
D(t,\eta)\gtrsim \nu \max\{|\eta|^3,t^3\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{D(t,\xi)}{D(t,\eta)}\lesssim \langle \eta-\xi\rangle^3,\quad
|D(t,\xi)-D(t,\eta)|\lesssim \f{D(t,\xi)}{\langle \xi\rangle+\langle \eta\rangle}\langle \eta-\xi\rangle^3
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
Next lemma we will introduce the product lemma related to $D$ which is a Sobolev type estimates comparing to the Lemma 3.7 in \cite{BMV}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: product}
The following holds for all $q^1$ and $q^2$ and $\g>1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|D(q^1q^2)\|_{H^{\g}}\lesssim \|q^1\|_{H^{\g+3}}\|Dq^2\|_{H^{\g}\g},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|D(\na^{\bot} q^1\cdot \na q^2)\|_{H^{\g}}\lesssim \|q^1\|_{H^{\g+5}}\|Dq^2\|_{H^{\g}}+\|D q_1\|_{H^{\g}}\|q_2\|_{H^{\g+5}}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the dual method. By Lemma \ref{lem: D-D}, we get
\begin{align*}
&\|D(q^1q^2)\|_{H^{\g}}
=\|\langle \na\rangle^{\g}D(q^1q^2)\|_{L^2}\\
&=\sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\left|\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)
\langle k,\eta \rangle^{\g}D(\eta)\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)d\xi d\eta\right|\\
&\lesssim \sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}|\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)|
\langle k,\eta \rangle^{\g}\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^3 |\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)||D(\xi)\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{|k-l,\eta-\xi|\leq |l,\xi|}|\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)|
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^3 |\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)||D(\xi)\langle l,\xi \rangle^{\g}\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{|k-l,\eta-\xi|>|l,\xi|}|\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)|
\langle k-l,\eta-\xi \rangle^{\g}\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^3 |\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)||D(\xi)\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \|\varphi\|_{L^2}\|Dq^2\|_{H^{\g}}\|q^1\|_{H^{\g+3}}.
\end{align*}
The last inequality we use the fact that $\|\widehat{q}\|_{L^{1}}\lesssim \|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\g}\widehat{q}\|_{L^2}\|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{-\g}\|_{L^2}\lesssim \|q\|_{H^{\g}}$ for $\g>1$.
We also have
\begin{align*}
&\|D(\na^{\bot}q^1\cdot\na q^2)\|_{H^{\g}}\\
&=\sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\left|\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)
\langle k,\eta \rangle^{\g}D(\eta)\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)(-\eta+\xi,k-l)\cdot (l,\xi)d\xi d\eta\right|\\
&\lesssim \sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{|k-l,\eta-\xi|\leq |l,\xi|}|\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)|
|D(\eta-\xi)\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)||\langle\xi\rangle^3\langle l,\xi \rangle^{\g+2}\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sup_{\|\varphi\|_{L^2}=1}
\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{|k-l,\eta-\xi|>|l,\xi|}|\hat{\varphi}_{k}(\eta)|
\langle k-l,\eta-\xi \rangle^{\g+2}\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^3 |\hat{q}^1_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)||D(\xi)\hat{q}^2_{l}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \|\varphi\|_{L^2}\|Dq^2\|_{H^{\g}}\|q^1\|_{H^{\g+5}}+\|\varphi\|_{L^2}\|Dq^1\|_{H^{\g}}\|q^2\|_{H^{\g+5}}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Elliptic estimate}\label{Elliptical estimate}
The purpose of this section is to provide a thorough analysis of $\Delta_t$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: lin-inv-dam}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses, for $\nu$ sufficiently small and $s'\in [0,2]$, it holds that for $2\leq \g\leq \s-1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g-s'}}\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^{s'}}\|\langle\pa_z\rangle^{-s'}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\g}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and for $\gamma\leq \s-1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\gamma}}=\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\gamma}}\lesssim \|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\gamma}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We get that for $s'\in [0,2]$ and $s\geq 0$ that
\begin{align}
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s}}^2
\nonumber&=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s} |\hat{\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
\nonumber&\leq \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2s'}}{\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2s'}(k^2+(\eta-kt)^2)^2} |\widehat{\Delta_L\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s+2s'}}{k^{2s'}(1+t^2)^{s'}} |\widehat{\Delta_L\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{(1+t^2)^{s'}}\|\langle\pa_z\rangle^{-s'}{\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi}\|_{H^{s+s'}}^2.\label{eq: Lin-inv-dam}
\end{align}
We write $\Delta_t$ as a perturbation of $\Delta_L$ via
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi=P_{\neq}f
+(1-(v')^2)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi
-v''(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we get
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}
&\leq \|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\g}}
+C\|(1-(v')^2)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}
+C\|v''(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}.
\end{align*}
then by using the fact that $v''=(h+1)\pa_vh$, \eqref{eq: prod1} and the bootstrap hypotheses, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}
&\leq \|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\g}}+
C\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{\s-1})\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}\\
&\quad+C(1+\|h\|_{\s-1})\|h\|_{H^{\s}}\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}\\
&\lesssim \|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\g}}+C\ep\nu^{\f16}\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}
\end{align*}
which implies $\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}\lesssim \|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\g}}$. The lemma follows from \eqref{eq: Lin-inv-dam} with $s=\s-2-s'$.
\end{proof}
As $(1-(v')^2)$ and $v''$ are zero mode, by the same argument as the proof, we can easily get that for $\g\leq \s-1$
\begin{equation}\label{eq: ellip-z}
\|\langle\pa_z\rangle^{\s-\g}\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\g}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{2}\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f\|_2.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: tu}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\na_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-2}}+\|\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-2}}\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle }\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-1}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\g\leq \s-1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\g}}\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\g}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $\widetilde{u}$ we get
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{u}_{\neq}=-(1+h)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{align*}
Here we use the same argument as \eqref{eq: Lin-inv-dam} and get that
\begin{align}\label{eq: Lin-inv-dam2}
\|(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s}}^2
\nonumber&=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}|\eta-kt|^2 |\hat{\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
\nonumber&\leq \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}
\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2}
|\eta-kt|^2}
{\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2}(k^2+(\eta-kt)^2)^2} |\widehat{\Delta_L\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
\nonumber&\leq \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}
\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2}}
{\langle \f{\eta}{k}\rangle^{2}(k^2+(\eta-kt)^2)} |\widehat{\Delta_L\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta}\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s+2}}{k^{2}(1+t^2)} |\widehat{\Delta_L\phi}(k,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{1+t^2}\|\langle\pa_z\rangle^{-1}{\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi}\|_{H^{s+1}}^2.
\end{align}
Then by Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} and the bootstrap hypotheses, we have
\begin{align*}
\|\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-2}}
&\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-2}})\|(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-2}}\\
&\lesssim \f{(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-2}})}{\langle t\rangle}\|\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-1}}.
\end{align*}
The first inequality follows from \eqref{eq: Lin-inv-dam2} with $s=\s-2$.
We also have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\pa_z\widetilde{u}_{\neq}=-(1+h)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\pa_zP_{\neq}\phi,\\
&&(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\widetilde{u}_{\neq}=-(1+h)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi-\pa_vh(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore by Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} and the bootstrap hypotheses, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\g}}
\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}})\|\Delta_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\g}}\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\g}}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: elliptical highest}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\lesssim \|\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle \langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_R\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}\lesssim \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}+\f{\ep^2\nu^{\f12}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}=\Delta_LP_{\neq}\phi=P_{\neq}f
+(1-(v')^2)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi
-v''(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we get
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
&\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^3}\|(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^{\s}}\|(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\quad+\|(1+h)\pa_vh\|_{H^3}\|\na_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
+\|(1+h)\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\|\na_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\ep\nu^{\f13}\|\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\ep\nu^{\f16}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}
+\ep\nu^{\f16}\|\na_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\quad+\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\|\na_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\ep\nu^{\f16}\|\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\langle t\rangle^{-1}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\|\Delta_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{4}}\\
&\lesssim \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\ep\nu^{\f16}\|\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\f{\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle\langle\nu t^3\rangle}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
We also have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\pa_z\widetilde{u}_{\neq}=-(1+h)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\pa_zP_{\neq}\phi,\\
&&(\pa_v-t\pa_z)\widetilde{u}_{\neq}=-(1+h)(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi-\pa_vh(\pa_v-t\pa_z)P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore by Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} and the bootstrap hypotheses, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^{\s}})\|\Delta_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
By taking $\ep$ small enough, we get the first inequality.
In what follows we use the shorthand
\begin{eqnarray*}
G(\xi)=\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\xi).
\end{eqnarray*}
and then
\begin{align*}
&\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}(k^2+(\eta-kt)^2)\phi_k(t,\eta)\\
&=\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}f_{k}(t,\eta)\\
&\quad-\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}{G}(\xi)(\eta-\xi-kt)^2\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\eta-\xi)d\xi\\
&\quad-\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}{G}(\eta-\xi)(\xi-kt)^2\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\\
&\quad-i\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\widehat{v''}(\xi)(\eta-\xi-kt)\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\eta-\xi)d\xi\\
&\quad-i\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\widehat{v''}(\eta-\xi)(\xi-kt) \widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\\
&=\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}f_{k}(t,\eta)
+E_{HL}^1+E_{LH}^1
+E_{HL}^2+E_{LH}^2
\end{align*}
We have $t\approx t_{k,\eta}\approx \f{\eta}{k}$ and then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{\pa_tw_{k}(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}=\f{\langle\nu^{\f13}t_{k,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\nu^{\f13}\f{\eta}{k^2} }{1+(\f{\eta}{k}-t)^2}\lesssim \f{1}{k}\langle\nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\nu^{\f13}t\lesssim \f1k.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we get
\begin{align*}
\|E_{HL}^1\|_{H^{\s}}
&\lesssim \|G\|_{H^{\s}}\|(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^4}\\
&\lesssim \|h\|_{H^{\s}}(\|h\|_{H^3}+1)\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^4}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f12}}{\langle\nu t^3\rangle}.
\end{align*}
For $E_{LH}^1$, we get
\begin{align*}
\f{\pa_tw_{k}(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}\f{w_{k}(t,\xi)}{\pa_tw_{k}(t,\xi)}\approx \f{1+|\f{\xi}{k}-t|^2}{1+|\f{\eta}{k}-t|^2}\lesssim \langle\eta-\xi\rangle^2
\end{align*}
Then we get
\begin{align*}
\|E_{LH}^1\|_{H^{\s}}
&\lesssim \left\|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\widehat{G}(\eta-\xi)(\xi-kt)^2\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \left\|1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\langle\eta-\xi\rangle\widehat{G}(\eta-\xi)(\xi-kt)^2\langle k,\xi\rangle^{\s}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\xi)}{w_{k}(t,\xi)}}\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \|G\|_{H^6}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_R\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}
\lesssim \ep \nu^{\f13}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_R\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}},
\end{align*}
similarly we have
\begin{align*}
\|E_{LH}^2\|_{H^{\s}}
&\lesssim \left\|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\eta)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\widehat{v''}(\eta-\xi)|\xi-kt|\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \left\|1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\langle\eta-\xi\rangle\widehat{v''}(\eta-\xi)|\xi-kt|\langle k,\xi\rangle^{\s}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\xi)}{w_{k}(t,\xi)}}\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\xi)d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \|v''\|_{H^6}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_R\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}
\lesssim \ep \nu^{\f13}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_R\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
At last we deal with $T_{HL}^2$, we have $\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw_k(t,\xi)}{w_{k}(t,\xi)}}\lesssim \f{kt}{\eta}$ and then get
\begin{align*}
\|E_{HL}^2\|_{H^{\s}}
&\lesssim \left\|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\f{kt}{\eta}1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\widehat{v''}(\xi)(\eta-\xi-kt) \widehat{\phi}_k(t,\eta-\xi)d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \left\|1_{t\in I_{k,\eta}}1_{k\neq 0}
\int_{|\xi|\geq |\eta-\xi|}\langle \xi\rangle^{\s-1}|\widehat{v''}(\xi)||kt||\eta-\xi-kt||\widehat{\phi}_k(t,\eta-\xi)|d\xi\right\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim t\|v''\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\na_{L}\phi_{\neq}\|_{H^4}\\
&\lesssim \|h\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{5}}
\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f12}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
By the fact that $u=(0,g)^{T}+(1+h)\na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq}\phi$, Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} and under the bootstrap hypotheses, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: u H^s}
\|u\|_{H^s}\lesssim \|g\|_{H^s}+\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s+1}}\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: loss-elliptic-A_E^s}
Under the bootstrap hypotheses for $\ep$ sufficiently small, for $s\leq \s-7$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|A^s_{E}(P_{\neq}\phi)\|_2\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^2}(\|A^s_{E}f\|_2+\|f\|_{H^{\s}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem: D-D}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|A^s_{E}(\na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi)\|_2^2
&\approx \|\nu\max\{t^3,\eta^3\}\hat{\phi}_{\neq}\|_{H^{s}}^2\\
&\lesssim \nu^2\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{2|\eta|\geq t} \langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s+6}|\hat{\phi}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta
+\nu^2\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{2|\eta|< t} t^6\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}|\hat{\phi}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&=\Pi_1+\Pi_2.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, we get
\begin{align*}
|\Pi_1|\lesssim \|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s+3}}^2\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^4}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{s+5}}^2\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^4}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}^2,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
|\Pi_2|\lesssim \nu^2t^6\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s}}^2
&\lesssim \nu^2\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{2|\eta|< t} t^6\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}}{(k^2+|\eta-kt|^2)^2}|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\phi}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu^2\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{2|\eta|< t} t^6\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s}}{(k^2+|\eta|^2+k^2t^2)^2}|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\phi}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^4}\|\nu t^3\Delta_{L}\phi_{\neq}\|_{H^{s}}^2.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, we then obtain that
\begin{align*}
|\Pi_2|\lesssim
\f{1}{\langle t\rangle^4}\|\nu t^3f_{\neq}\|_{H^{s}}^2\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^4}\|A_E^sf_{\neq}\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Dissipation error term}\label{Sec: dissipation}
In this section, we will deal with the dissipation error term in \eqref{eq: E_0andEneq}.
\subsection{Treatment of the zero mode}
By the fact that $A^{\sigma}_0(\eta)\approx \langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\approx 1+|\eta|^{\s}$ and $|\eta|\leq |\xi|+|\eta-\xi|\lesssim \max\{|\xi|,|\eta-\xi|\}$, we get that
\begin{align*}
|E^0|&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}\langle \eta\rangle^{2\s}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|(|\eta|+|\xi-\eta|)\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|\geq |\xi|}|\eta|^{2\s}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|<|\xi|}|\eta|^{2\s}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\bar{\hat{\pa_vf}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{\pa_v(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|< |\xi|}
|\eta|^{\s+1}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^{\s+1}\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|\geq |\xi|}|\eta|^{\s+1}
|\bar{\hat{f}}_0(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\eta-\xi|^{\s-1}|\xi|^2\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^2}^2\|1-(v')^2\|_{2}
+\nu\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^2}\|\pa_v(1-(v')^2)\|_{2}\|f_0\|_{2}\\
&\quad+\nu\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^{\s}}^2\|1-(v')^2\|_{H^2}
+\nu\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|f_0\|_{H^4}.
\end{align*}
The purpose of above estimate is to obtain the homogeneous derivative.
By the fact that $(v')^2-1=(1-(v'))^2+2(v'-1)=h^2+2h$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|h^2\|_{H^{s}}\lesssim \|h\|_{H^1}\|h\|_{H^{s}},\quad \|\pa_vh^2\|_{H^s}\lesssim \|h\|_{H^1}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{s}}\quad s\geq 1,
\end{eqnarray*}
we obtain by the bootstrap hypotheses that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E^0}
\begin{split}
|E^0|&\lesssim \nu (\|h\|_{H^2}+1)\Big(\|\pa_v A^{\sigma} f_{0}\|_2^2\|h\|_{H^{2}}
+\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_0\|_{H^4}\Big).\\
&\lesssim \ep\nu^{\f13}\nu\|\pa_v A^{\sigma} f_{0}\|_2^2+\ep\nu^{\f13}\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Treatment of the non-zero mode}
We use a paraproduct decomposition in $v$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq}=E^{\neq}_{LH}+E^{\neq}_{HL}+E^{\neq}_{HH},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
&E^{\neq}_{LH}=-\sum_{M\geq 8}\nu \int A^{\sigma} f_{\neq}A^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)_{<M/8}(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2(f_{\neq})_{M}\right)dzdv\\
&E^{\neq}_{HL}=-\sum_{M\geq 8}\nu \int A^{\sigma} f_{\neq}A^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)_{M}(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2(f_{\neq})_{<M/8}\right)dzdv\\
&{E}^{\neq}_{HH}=-\nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}\int A^{\sigma} f_{\neq}A^{\sigma} \left((1-(v')^2)_{M}(\pa_v-t\pa_z)^2(f_{\neq})_{M'}\right)dzdv.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $E^{\neq}_{LH}$}
We have
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq}_{LH}\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8} \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)
|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}|\xi-kt|^2f_{k}(\xi)_{M}d\xi d\eta.
\end{align*}
By the fact that $\xi\approx \eta\approx M$, $|k,\eta|\approx |k,\xi|$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-kt|\lesssim |\xi-\eta|+|\eta-kt|\lesssim \langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
we have
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq}_{LH}&\lesssim
\nu\sum_{M\geq 8} \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2}A^{\sigma} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|
|\widehat{\langle\pa_v\rangle(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}|\xi-kt|A^{\sigma}_{k}(\xi)f_{k}(\xi)_{M}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})_{\sim M}\|_2\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})_{M}\|_2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^4},
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq}_{LH}&\lesssim \nu\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})\|_2^2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^4},
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $E^{\neq}_{HL}$}
We have
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq}_{HL}&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8} \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
\left[1_{|\eta|\leq 16|k|}+1_{|\eta|>16|k|}\right]
A^{\sigma} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M}|\xi-kt|^2f_{k}(\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&=E^{\neq,z}_{HL}+E^{\neq,v}_{HL}
\end{align*}
For $E^{\neq,z}_{HL}$, we have $|k,\eta|\approx |k|\approx |k,\xi|$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-kt|\lesssim |\xi-\eta|+|\eta-kt|\lesssim \langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
which then implies
\begin{align*}
E^{\neq,z}_{HL}&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8} \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
1_{|\eta|\leq 16|k|}
A^{\sigma}\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
|\langle\eta-\xi\rangle\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M}|\xi-kt||k|^{\s}f_{k}(\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8} M^{-2}\|(1-(v')^2)_{M}\|_{H^5}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
E^{\neq,z}_{HL}\lesssim \nu\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^5}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})\|_2^2
\end{eqnarray*}
We turn to $E^{\neq,v}_{HL}$. In this case
$|k,\eta|\approx |\eta|\approx |\eta-\xi|\approx M$, then we get
\begin{align*}
|E^{\neq,v}_{HL}|&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8} \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
1_{|\eta|>16|k|}
A^{\sigma} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)||\eta-\xi|\langle\eta-\xi\rangle^{\s-1}|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M}|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
|\xi-kt|^2f_{k}(\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\sum_{M\geq 8}
\|(f_{\neq})_{\sim M}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v(1-(v')^2)_{M}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\langle t\rangle^2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{5}}\\
&\lesssim \nu
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\langle t\rangle^2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{5}}.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $E^{\neq}_{HH}$}
In this case, it holds that $|\eta-\xi|\approx |\xi|\approx M'$.
We divide into two parts:
\begin{align*}
|{E}^{\neq}_{HH}|&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}
\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
\left[1_{|k|\geq 16|\xi|}+1_{|k|<16|\xi|}\right]\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
A^{\sigma} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)
|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M'}|\xi-kt|^2f_{k}(\xi)_{M}d\xi d\eta\\
&={E}^{\neq,z}_{HH}+{E}^{\neq,v}_{HH}.
\end{align*}
To treat ${E}^{\neq,z}_{HH}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|k|\lesssim |k,\eta| \lesssim |k|+|\eta-\xi|+|\xi|\lesssim |k|,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-kt|\lesssim |\xi-\eta|+|\eta-kt|\lesssim \langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore we get that
\begin{align*}
{E}^{\neq,z}_{HH}&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}
\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
1_{|k|\geq 16|\xi|}
A^{\sigma}\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
\langle \xi-\eta\rangle|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M'}|\xi-kt||k|^{\s}f_{k}(\xi)_{M}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f)_{M}\|_{2}\|(1-(v')^2)_{\sim M}\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \nu \|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^3}.
\end{align*}
Next we turn to ${E}^{\neq,v}_{HH}$, in which case we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|k,\eta|\lesssim |k|+|\eta|\lesssim |k|+|\eta-\xi|+|\xi| \approx |k|+|\xi|\lesssim |\xi|\approx |\xi-\eta|,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-kt|\lesssim |\xi-\eta|+|\eta-kt|\lesssim \langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore we get that
\begin{align*}
{E}^{\neq,v}_{HH}&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}
\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
1_{|k|< 16|\xi|}
A^{\sigma}\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2} |\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times
\langle \xi-\eta\rangle|\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)_{M'}|\xi-kt||\xi|^{\s}f_{k}(\xi)_{M}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f)_{M}\|_{2}\|(1-(v')^2)_{\sim M}\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \nu \|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^3}.
\end{align*}
By the fact that $(v')^2-1=h^2+2h$, the bootstrap hypotheses and \eqref{eq: enha}, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: E_neq}
\begin{split}
|E^{\neq}|&\lesssim \nu
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\langle t\rangle^2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{5}}
+\nu \|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^4}\\
&\lesssim \nu(1+\|h\|_{H^2})
\Big(\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\langle t\rangle^2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{5}}
+\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2\|h\|_{H^4}\Big)\\
&\lesssim \nu \ep\nu^{\f13}\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2
+(\ep\nu^{\f13})^2\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-1}}\f{\langle t\rangle^2}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We end the section by proving Proposition \ref{prop: dissipation}.
\begin{proof}
We get by \eqref{eq: E_0andEneq} that
\begin{align*}
&\int_1^t\left(\nu \int A^{\sigma} f(t')A^{\sigma} \left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf(t')\right)dzdv\right)dt'\\
&\leq -\int_1^t\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'
+\int_1^t|E^{\neq}(t')|+|E^0(t')|dt'.
\end{align*}
Then by \eqref{eq:E^0} and \eqref{eq: E_neq}, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&\int_1^t\left(\nu \int A^{\sigma} f(t')A^{\sigma} \left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf(t')\right)dzdv\right)dt'\\
&\leq -\int_1^t\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'+C\ep\nu^{\f13}\int_1^t\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'\\
&\quad+C\ep\nu^{\f13}\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s-1})}^2
+C\int_1^t(\ep\nu^{\f13})^2\nu\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}\f{\langle t\rangle^2}{\langle \nu t'^3\rangle}dt'.
\end{align*}
Thus by taking $\ep$ small enough and using Proposition \ref{prop: basic estimate}, we get
\begin{align*}
&\int_1^t\left(\nu \int A^{\sigma} f(t')A^{\sigma} \left(\tilde{\Delta}_tf(t')\right)dzdv\right)dt'\\
&\leq -\f78\int_1^t\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'
+\ep^2\nu \|\pa_vh(t')\|_{L^2_{T}H^{\s-1}}\left(\int_1^t\f{1}{\langle \nu^{\f13} t'\rangle^2}dt'\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq -\f78\int_1^t\nu \left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^{\sigma} f(t')\right\|_2^2dt'+C\ep^3\nu^{\f23}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the proposition.
\end{proof}
\section{Transport}\label{Sec: Transport}
To treat the transport term, we need consider the commutator. The following lemma gives the key commutator estimate.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: w-w}
Assume that $|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|$, then it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|w(t,\eta)-w(t,\xi)|\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle}\times\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\nu^{-\f13},\quad t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13},\\
&\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b},\quad t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
Let us admit the lemma and finish the estimate of transport term first. Then proof of the lemma will be present at the end of this section.
We write
\begin{align*}
T_{N}&=i\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\hat{u}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)}{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta\\
&=i\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\hat{u}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}}{\langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}}-1\right)\f{w_{l}(t,\xi)}{w_{k}(t,\eta)}d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+i\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\hat{u}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_k(t,\eta)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta\\
&=T_N^1+T_N^2.
\end{align*}
For the first term, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\f{\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}}{\langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}}-1\right|\lesssim \f{\langle k-l,\eta-\xi\rangle}{\langle l,\xi\rangle},
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
|T_N^1|\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2\|u\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next we will deal with $T_{N}^2$.
By the support of the integrand, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
N/16\leq |k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq 3N/16,\quad
N/2\leq |l,\xi|\leq 3N/2.
\end{eqnarray*}
We then set more restrictions on the support of the integrand to make $k,\eta$ and $l,\xi$ be closer. We get
\begin{align*}
T_{N}^2&=i\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}(\chi^D+(1-\chi^D))
A_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\hat{u}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_k(t,\eta)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta\\
&=T_{N,D}^2+T_{N,*}^2,
\end{align*}
where $\chi^D$ is a characteristic function (the indicator function) of the set
\begin{eqnarray*}
D=\left\{(k,l,\xi,\eta):\ |k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{1000}|l,\xi|\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we get by $|\f{w(t,\xi)}{w(t,\eta)}|\lesssim 1$ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|T_{N,*}^2|\lesssim \|A^{\s}f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\s}f_{N}\|_2\|u\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We rewrite $T_{N,D}^2$ as follows.
\begin{align*}
T_{N,D}^2&=i\sum_{k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^D
A_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\hat{u}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_k(t,\eta)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+i\sum_{l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^D
A_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_l(\eta)
\hat{u}_{0}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot (l,\xi)A_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_l(t,\eta)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta\\
&=T_{N,\neq}^2+T_{N,=}^2.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Treatment of $T_{N,=}^2$}
We get by the fact that $u_0=(0,g)$ and that for $|l|\geq 20\max\{|\xi|,|\eta|\}$, $w_l(t,\xi)=w_l(t,\eta)=w(t,\f{l}{20})$ and then
\begin{align*}
T_{N,=}^2=i\sum_{0\neq l\leq 20\max\{|\xi|,|\eta|\}}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^D
A_k(\eta)\bar{\hat{f}}_l(\eta)
\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\cdot \xi A_l(\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{N}\left(\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_l(t,\eta)}-1\right)d\xi d\eta.
\end{align*}
Due to the fact that $0\neq l\leq 20\max\{|\xi|,|\eta|\}\approx |\xi|$, we get $\varrho(l,\eta)\approx |\eta|$. Thus by Lemma \ref{lem: w-w} and Lemma \ref{lem: rho}, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\left|\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_l(t,\eta)}-1\right|
&\lesssim |w(t,\varrho(l,\xi))-w(t,\varrho(l,\eta))|\\
&\lesssim \left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right)\f{|\varrho(l,\xi)-\varrho(l,\eta)|}{|\varrho(l,\eta)|}\\
&\lesssim \left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right)\f{|\eta-\xi|}{\eta}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
|T_{N,=}^2|&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2\|g\|_{H^{4}}\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\\
&\quad +\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2\| g\|_{H^{4}}\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Treatment of $T_{N,\neq}^2$}
By the definition of $\varrho(k,\eta)$, we have for $(l,k,\xi,\eta)\in D$ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\varrho(k,\eta)|\approx |\varrho(l,\xi)|\approx |l,\xi|.
\end{eqnarray*}
We get by Lemma \ref{lem: w-w} and Lemma \ref{lem: rho} that
\begin{align*}
\left|\f{w_l(t,\xi)}{w_k(t,\eta)}-1\right|
&\lesssim |w(t,\varrho(l,\xi))-w(t,\varrho(k,\eta))|\\
&\lesssim \f{|\varrho(l,\xi)-\varrho(k,\eta)|}{|\varrho(k,\eta)|}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right)\\
&\lesssim \f{|l-k,\xi-\eta|}{|l,\xi|}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right),
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{align*}
|T_{N,\neq}^2|
\lesssim
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2
\|u_{\neq}\|_{H^4}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right).
\end{align*}
By the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{\neq}=h\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi+\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi.
\end{eqnarray*}
We then get by Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}(by taking $s'=2$ in the lemma) that
\begin{align*}
\|u_{\neq}\|_{H^4}\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^4})\|\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^4}\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle^2}(1+\|h\|_{H^4})\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^7}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq: T_N-est}
\begin{split}
|T_{N}|
&\lesssim
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2
\big(\|g\|_{H^4}+\|u_{\neq}\|_{H^4}\big)\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)+\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)\right)\\
&\lesssim \ep\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2
\left(\f{\chi_{t\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)}{\langle t\rangle^2}+\f{\nu^{\f13\b+\f13}\chi_{t\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t)}{\langle t\rangle^{1+\b}}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now we are able to prove Proposition \ref{Prop: transport}.
\begin{proof}
We get by \eqref{eq: T_N-est} and Proposition \ref{prop: basic estimate}, \eqref{eq: L-P-ortho} and \eqref{eq: L-P-ortho2} that
\begin{align*}
\int_1^t\sum_{N\geq 8}|T_N(t')|dt'
&\lesssim
\ep\int_1^t\sum_{N\geq 8}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^{\sigma} f_{N}\|_2
\left(\f{\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')}{\langle t'\rangle^2}+\f{\nu^{\f13\b+\f13}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')}{\langle t'\rangle^{1+\b}}\right)dt'\\
&\lesssim \ep \sup_{t'\in[1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: w-w}}
We end this section by proving Lemma \ref{lem: w-w}.
\begin{proof}
Without loss of the generality, we assume $0<\eta<\xi$. Then according to the relation between $t$ and $\xi,\eta$, we need to consider following 5 cases.
\noindent{\bf Case 1.} For $t\leq t(\eta)$, $w(t,\eta)=w(t,\xi)=1$.
\noindent{\bf Case 2.} For $t(\eta)\leq t\leq t(\xi)$, there exists $l\in [1,E(\sqrt{|\eta|})]$ such that $t\in I_{l,\eta}$, then $|l-E(\sqrt{|\eta|})|\lesssim \sqrt{\xi}-\sqrt{\eta}$ and
\begin{align*}
&|w(t,\eta)-w(t,\xi)|=|w(t,\eta)-1|\\
&\leq \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}G_m(\eta)\exp\Big( \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)-1\right|\\
&\leq\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\exp\left(\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l}\f{C\nu^{\f13}\eta}{m^2}\right)-1
\leq \nu^{\f13}|\sqrt{\xi}-\sqrt{\eta}|,\quad \sqrt{\eta}\leq \nu^{-\f13},\\
&\exp\left(\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l}\f{Cl^{-1+\b}}{(\nu^{\f13}\eta)^{\b}}\right)-1\leq \f{|\sqrt{\xi}-\sqrt{\eta}|}{\sqrt{|\xi|}}\left(\f{\sqrt{|\xi|}}{\nu^{\f13}\eta}\right)^{\b}, \quad \sqrt{\eta}> \nu^{-\f13},
\end{aligned}\right.\\
&\lesssim {|\eta-\xi|}{\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}}.
\end{align*}
Here we use the fact that $|e^{x}-1|\lesssim |x|$ for $|x|\lesssim 1$.
\noindent{\bf Case 3.} For $t(\xi)\leq t\leq 2\eta$, there exist $k,l$ such that $t\in I_{k,\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}$. By Lemma \ref{lem: 3.2}, we need to consider the following three cases.
(3a.) $k=l$, let $F_1(m,\eta)=\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{m^2}$ and $F_2^{\pm}(m,\eta)=\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{m,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{m^2}\arctan(D_{m,\eta}^{\pm})$ then $G_m(\eta)=e^{F^{+}(m,\eta)+F^{-}(m,\eta)}$ and then we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq: F_1,F_2}
\begin{split}
&|\pa_{\eta}F_1(m,\eta)|\lesssim \f{F_1(m,\eta)}{\langle\eta\rangle},\quad
|\pa_{\eta}F_2^{\pm}(m,\eta)|\lesssim \f{F_2^{\pm}(m,\eta)}{\langle\eta\rangle},\\
&|\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})-\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})\big)|
\lesssim \min\left\{\f{|\xi-\eta|}{l},1\right\},\\
&e^{x}-1\leq (e^{x}+1)|x| \lesssim |x|,\quad\text{for}\quad |x|\lesssim 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Therefore, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&|w(t,\eta)-w(t,\xi)|=w(t,\xi)\left|\f{w(t,\eta)}{w(t,\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim
\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}
\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}
\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}
\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}
\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\big)\Big)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}
\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
+\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}
\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\quad+\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\big)\Big)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
+\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\quad+\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\arctan(D_{l,\eta}^-)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\Big)}-1\right|
+\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\Big)}-1\right|\\
&\quad+\left|\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})-\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})\big)\Big)-1\right|.
\end{align*}
Here and the rest of the proof we will always use the fact that for $x,y\lesssim 1$, $|xy-1|\lesssim |x||y-1|+|x-1|\lesssim |x-1|+|y-1|$.
Then the lemma follows from the following inequalities which follow from \eqref{eq: F_1,F_2} and the fact that $|f(x)-f(y)|\lesssim \|f'(z)\|_{L^{\infty}}|x-y|$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum E-E}
\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
\lesssim |\sqrt{\xi}-\sqrt{\eta}|\f{\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f13}\eta^{\f12}\rangle^{1+\b}}\lesssim |\eta-\xi|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum E-l}
\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
\lesssim \exp\left(C\f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle}\sum_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{l+1}(F^+_2+F^-_2)(m,\eta)\right)-1\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\arctan(D_{l,\eta}^-)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\Big)}-1\right|
\lesssim \exp\left(C\f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle}\right)-1\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle},\\
&\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\Big)}-1\right|
\lesssim \exp\left(C\f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle}\right)-1\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle\eta\rangle},\\
&\left|\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})-\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})\big)\Big)-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{l})-\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})\big)\\
&\lesssim \nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{l^2}\min\left\{\f{|\xi-\eta|}{l},1\right\}
\lesssim \left\{\begin{aligned}
&\nu^{-\f13}\f{|\xi-\eta|}{\eta},\quad t\approx \f{\eta}{l}\lesssim \nu^{-\f13},\\
&\nu^{\f13\b}t^{1-\b}\f{|\xi-\eta|}{\eta},\quad t\approx \f{\eta}{l}\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{align*}
(3b.) $k\neq l$, $|t-\f{\eta}{k}|\gtrsim \f{\eta}{k^2}$ and $|t-\f{\xi}{l}|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{l^2}$ with $k<l$. We have
\begin{align}\label{eq:w-w}
\nonumber&|w(t,\eta)-w(t,\xi)|=w(t,\xi)\left|\f{w(t,\eta)}{w(t,\xi)}-1\right|\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|+
\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{\max\{l,k\}+1}\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
+\left|\prod_{m=\max\{l,k\}}^{\min\{k,l\}+1}G_m(\eta)-1\right|\\
&\quad+\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{k,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{k^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{k})+\arctan(D_{k,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\big)\Big)}-1\right|.
\end{align}
Let $F_3(t,k,\eta)=\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{k,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{k^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{k})+\arctan(D_{k,\eta}^-)\big)$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|F_3|\lesssim k^{-1},\quad
|\pa_kF_3|\lesssim \f{1}{\langle k\rangle},\quad
|\pa_{\eta}F_3|\lesssim \f{1}{\langle \eta\rangle},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we use the fact that $\eta\gtrsim k^2$. Then the lemma follows from \eqref{eq:sum E-E}, \eqref{eq:sum E-l} and the following two inequalities
\begin{align*}
&\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{k,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\eta}{k^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\eta}{k})+\arctan(D_{k,\eta}^-)\big)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{l,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\f{\xi}{l^2}\big(\arctan(t-\f{\xi}{l})+\arctan(D_{l,\xi}^-)\big)\Big)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim e^{F_3(t,k,\eta)-F_3(t,l,\xi)}-1\lesssim |F_3(t,k,\eta)-F_3(t,l,\xi)|\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle k\rangle}|k-l|+\f{1}{\langle \eta\rangle}|\xi-\eta|\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle \eta\rangle},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\left|\prod_{m=\max\{k,l\}}^{\min\{k,l\}+1}G_m(\eta)-1\right|
\lesssim |l-k|\f{\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{l^2}}{\langle\f{\nu^{\f13}\eta}{l}\rangle^{1+\b}}\lesssim \f{|k-l|}{l}\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle \eta\rangle},
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that $|k-l|\lesssim \langle \f{\xi-\eta}{t}\rangle$, $l\approx \f{\eta}{t}$.
(3c.) $|\xi-\eta|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{l}\approx\f{\eta}{k}$.
In this case, we have
\begin{align*}
|w(t,\xi)-w(t,\eta)|\lesssim 1\lesssim k\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle \eta\rangle}.
\end{align*}
\noindent{\bf Case 4.} For $2\eta\leq t\leq 2\xi$, then $t\in I_{1,\xi}$ and
\begin{align*}
&|w(t,\eta)-w(t,\xi)|=w(t,\xi)\left|\f{w(2\eta,\eta)}{w(t_{l,\xi},\xi)g_{l}(t-\f{\xi}{l},\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \left|\f{w(2\eta,\eta)}{w(t_{l,\xi},\xi)g_{l}(t-\f{\xi}{l},\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|
+\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{2}\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\quad+\left|\f{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{1,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\eta\big(\arctan(\eta)+\arctan(\f13\eta)\big)\Big)}{\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{1,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\xi\big(\arctan(t-\xi)+\arctan(\f13\xi)\big)\Big)}-1\right|.
\end{align*}
Thus the lemma follows from \eqref{eq:sum E-E}, \eqref{eq:sum E-l} and the following inequalities
\begin{align*}
&\left|\exp\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{1,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\xi\big(\arctan(t-\xi)+\arctan(D_{1,\xi}^-)\big)\Big)-1\right|\\
&\lesssim \bigg|\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{1,\xi}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\xi\big(\arctan(t-\xi)+\arctan(\f13\xi)\big)\\
&\quad-\Big(\nu^{\f13} \langle\nu^{\f13}t_{1,\eta}\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\eta\big(\arctan(\eta)+\arctan(\f13\eta)\big)\Big)\bigg|\\
&\lesssim \left|\arctan(t-\xi)-\arctan(\eta)\right|+|\xi-\eta|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \max\{\arctan(\xi)-\arctan(\eta),\arctan(\eta)-\arctan(2\eta-\xi)\}+|\xi-\eta|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim |\xi-\eta|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}.
\end{align*}
\noindent{\bf Case 5.} For $t\geq 2\xi$. We get by \eqref{eq:sum E-E} and \eqref{eq:sum E-l} that
\begin{align*}\label{eq:w-w}
\nonumber&|w(2\eta,\eta)-w(2\xi,\xi)|=w(2\xi,\xi)\left|\f{w(2\eta,\eta)}{w(2\xi,\xi)}-1\right|\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\xi|})}^{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})+1}\f{1}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|+
\left|\prod_{m=E(\sqrt{|\eta|})}^{1}\f{G_m(\eta)}{G_m(\xi)}-1\right|\\
&\lesssim |\xi-\eta|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Remainder}\label{Sec: Remainder}
In this section we deal with the remainder and prove Proposition \ref{Prop: Remainder}. Now the commutator can not gain us anything so we may as well treat each term separately. We rewrite both terms on the Fourier side:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}&=\sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{N'\approx N}\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi} A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\hat{u}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{N'}d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{N'\approx N}\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi} A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)\hat{u}_{l}(\xi)_{N}A^{\sigma}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{N'}d\eta d\xi.
\end{align*}
On the support of the integrand, $|l,\xi|\approx |k-l,\eta-\xi|$ thus
\begin{align*}
A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\approx \langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\lesssim \langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}+\langle k-l,\eta-\xi\rangle^{\s}\approx \langle l,\xi\rangle\langle k-l,\eta-\xi\rangle^{\s-1}\approx A^{\sigma}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi),
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{align*}
|\mathcal{R}|\lesssim \sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2\|u_N\|_{H^{3}}\|f_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we get by \eqref{eq: u H^s}
\begin{equation}\label{eq: Reminder}
|\mathcal{R}|\lesssim \|f\|_{H^{\s}}^2\|u\|_{H^{3}}\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}^2,
\end{equation}
which gives Proposition \ref{Prop: Remainder}.
\section{Reaction}\label{Sec: reaction}
In this section, we deal with the reaction term and prove Proposition \ref{prop: reaction}.
Focus first on an individual frequency shell and divide each into several natural pieces
\begin{align*}
R_{N}=R_{N}^1+R_{N}^{\ep,1}+R_{N}^2+R_{N}^3,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
R_{N}^1&=\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma} \bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)(\eta l-\xi k)\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\hat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\\
R_{N}^{\ep,1}&=-\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\left[\widehat{(1-v')\na^{\bot}\phi_l}\right](\xi)_N\cdot\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\\
R^2_N&=\sum_{k}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\widehat{g}(\xi)_N\widehat{\pa_vf}_k(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\\
R_N^3&=-\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{u}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Main contribution}
The main contribution comes from $R_{N}^1$. We subdivide this integral depending on whether or not $(l,\xi)$ and/or $(k,\eta)$ are resonant as each combination requires a slightly different treatment. Define the partition:
\begin{align*}
1&=1_{t\notin I_{l,\eta}, t\notin I_{l,\xi}}+1_{t\notin I_{l,\eta}, t\in I_{l,\xi}}+1_{t\in I_{l,\eta}, t\notin I_{l,\xi}}+1_{t\in I_{l,\eta}, t\in I_{l,\xi}}\\
&=\chi^{NR,NR}+\chi^{NR,R}+\chi^{R,NR}+\chi^{R,R},
\end{align*}
where the $NR$ and $R$ denotes 'non-resonant' and 'resonant' respectively referring to $(k,\eta)$ and $(l,\xi)$. Correspondingly, denote
\begin{align*}
R_{N}^1&=\underbrace{\sum_{l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^D
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{l}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)(\eta l-\xi l)\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\hat{f}_{0}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi}_{R_{N,D}}\\
&\quad+\sum_{l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\left[\chi^{NR,NR}+\chi^{NR,R}+\chi^{R,NR}+\chi^{R,R}\right](1-\chi^D)\\
&\quad\quad\underbrace{\quad\quad\quad \times
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{l}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)(\eta l-\xi l)\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\hat{f}_{0}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi}_{R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}+R_{N,=}^{NR,R}+R_{N,=}^{R,NR}+R_{N,=}^{R,R}}\\
&\quad+\underbrace{\sum_{k,l\neq 0,k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}
(1-\chi^{D_1})A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)(\eta l-\xi k)\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\hat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi}_{R_{N,\neq,*}}\\
&\quad+\sum_{k,l\neq 0,k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}
\left[\chi^{NR,NR}+\chi^{NR,R}+\chi^{R,NR}+\chi^{R,R}\right]\chi^{D_1}\\
&\quad\quad\underbrace{\quad\quad\quad \times A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)(\eta l-\xi k)\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\hat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi}_{R_{N}^{NR,NR}+R_{N}^{NR,R}+R_{N}^{R,NR}+R_{N}^{R,R}}\\
&=R_{N,D}+R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}+R_{N,=}^{NR,R}+R_{N,=}^{R,NR}+R_{N,=}^{R,R}\\
&\quad +R_{N,\neq,*}+R_{N}^{NR,NR}+R_{N}^{NR,R}+R_{N}^{R,NR}+R_{N}^{R,R},
\end{align*}
where $\chi^D$ is a characteristic function (the indicator function) of the set
\begin{eqnarray*}
D=\left\{(l,\xi):\ |l|\geq \f54|\xi|\right\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\chi^{D_1}$ is a characteristic function (the indicator function) of the set
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_1=\left\{(l,k,\xi,\eta):\ |l|\leq |\xi|,\ |l-k,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{1000}|l,\xi|\right\},
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N,D}$}
For the case $|l|\geq \f54|\xi|$, we get for $t\geq 1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\lesssim \f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)|l|}{l^2+t^2l^2}\lesssim \f{|l|^{\s-1}}{1+t^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: R_N,D}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,D}|&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|\langle\pa_z\rangle^{\s-1} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}
\|f_{0}\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep \nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
The next 4 subsections we will use the fact that for $|l|\leq \f54|\xi|$ and $|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{3}{8}|l,\xi|\leq \f{27}{40}|\xi|$, we have $|\eta|\geq \f{13}{40}|\xi|\geq \f{13}{50}|l|$, which gives that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: w_l=w}
w_l(t,\eta)=w(t,\eta), \quad w_l(t,\xi)=w(t,\xi).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of the zero mode $R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}$}
We have
\begin{align*}
R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}&\lesssim
\sum_{l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^{NR,NR}(1-\chi^D)
\left|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{l}(\eta)\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\pa_vf}_{0}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\right|d\eta d\xi
\end{align*}
According to the relation between $t$ and $\xi$, we have the following 5 cases.
{\bf Case 1. } $t\leq \max\{t(\xi),t(\eta)\}\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}\approx \sqrt{N}$. Then in this case
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: tbd}
\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\lesssim \f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)|l|}{l^2(1+\f{|\xi|^2}{l^4})}\lesssim \f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)}{\sqrt{N}},
\end{eqnarray}
which implies
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\|\pa_vf_{0}\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}\rangle\langle t\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
{\bf Case 2. } $t\geq 2|\xi|$ or $t\geq 2|\eta|$. Then in this case,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:big1}
\f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\lesssim \f{1}{1+t^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{align}
\f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}
\nonumber&\lesssim \f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}-\f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\eta|^2}+\f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\eta|^2}\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \f{|l||\eta-\xi|(2|\xi-lt|+|\xi-\eta|)}{(l^2+|lt-\eta|^2)(l^2+|lt-\xi|^2)}+\f{|l|}{l^2+|lt-\eta|^2}\\
&\lesssim \f{|l|\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^2}{l^2+|lt-\eta|^2}
\lesssim \f{\langle\xi-\eta\rangle^2}{1+t^2},\label{eq:big2}
\end{align}
which implies that
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}
\|f_{0}\|_{H^{5}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
{\bf Case 3. } $t\in I_t(\xi)\cap I_t(\eta)$. In this case there exists $k,l'$ so that $t\in I_{k,\eta}\cap I_{l',\xi}$. By Lemma \ref{lem: 3.2}, we get $k\approx l'$.
If $l\leq \f12\min\{|l'|,|k|\}$, then
\begin{align*}
\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle\\
&\lesssim \f{\langle\xi-\eta\rangle}{l(1+\f{\xi^2}{l^2})}
\lesssim \f{\langle\xi-\eta\rangle}{1+\f{\xi^2}{l'^2}}\lesssim \f{\langle\xi-\eta\rangle}{1+t^2},
\end{align*}
here we use the fact that $t\approx \f{\xi}{l'}$.
If $l>\f12\min\{|l'|,|k|\}$,
then $\f{1}{l^2}\lesssim\f{1}{\min\{|l'|,|k|\}^2}\lesssim \f{1}{|l'k|}$
and by the fact that for $t\in I_{l',\xi}\cap I_{k,\eta}$ and $t\notin I_{l,\xi}\cup I_{l,\eta}$,
it holds that $|t-\f{\eta}{l}|\geq |t-\f{\eta}{k}|$ and $|t-\f{\xi}{l}|\geq |t-\f{\xi}{l'}|$.
Thus we get by \eqref{eq: w_l=w},
\begin{align*}
\f{|l|\langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{1}{k(1+|t-\f{\eta}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{1}{l'(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l'}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\eta}{k^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{\xi}{l'^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l'}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f13}(\f{\xi}{k})\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\xi)}{w(t,\xi)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \nu^{-\f13}
\end{align*}
In the third inequality, we use the fact that for $0<\b\leq \f12$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: beta<1/2}
\langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\lesssim \f{\xi}{k}\langle\nu^{\f13}(\f{\xi}{k})\rangle^{-(1+\b)}.
\end{equation}
Thus by the fact that $t\approx \f{\xi}{k}$, we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\| f_{0}\|_{H^{4}}\\
&\quad+\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\nu^{-\f13}(\nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}\pa_v) f_{0}\right\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
Putting together all the above estimates, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N,=^NR,NR}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,NR}|
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12}t^{\f32}\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\\
&\quad+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of the zero mode $R_{N,=}^{NR,R}$}
Since $t\in I_{l,\xi}$, if $t\leq t(\eta)\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}\approx \sqrt{N}$, then $l\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}$, thus by the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\eta)|l|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\lesssim \f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)}{|l|}\lesssim \f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)}{\sqrt{N}},
\end{eqnarray*}
we obtain that
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t\rangle}
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\|\pa_vf_{0}\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12}t^{\f32}\rangle}
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
If $t\geq 2|\eta|$, then we use the same argument as \eqref{eq:big1} and \eqref{eq:big2} and get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l|A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim \f{\langle \xi-\eta\rangle^2}{\langle t\rangle^2}A^{\sigma}_l(\xi).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\| f_{0}\|_{H^{5}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
If $t\in I_t(\eta)$, then there is $k\neq l$ such that $t\in I_{k,\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}$. By the fact that for $t\in I_{k,\eta}$ and $t\notin I_{l,\eta}$, $|t-\f{\eta}{l}|> |t-\f{\eta}{k}|$, then we get by \eqref{eq: beta<1/2} that
\begin{align*}
\f{|l|\langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{1}{k(1+|t-\f{\eta}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{1}{l(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\eta}{k^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{\xi}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f13}(\f{\xi}{k})\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\xi)}{w(t,\xi)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \nu^{-\f13}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} \chi_R\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\nu^{-\f13}(\nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}\pa_v) f_{0}\right\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim
\ep \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} \chi_R\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
Putting together all the above estimates, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N,=^NR,R}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,=}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12}t^{\f32}\rangle}
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}\\
&\quad+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of the zero mode $R_{N,=}^{R,NR}$}
Since $t\in I_{l,\eta}$, if $t\leq t(\xi)\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}$, then $l\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}$. By using \eqref{eq: tbd}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|R_{N,=}^{R,NR}|\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\| f_{0}\|_{H^{5}}
\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly if $t\geq 2|\xi|$, then by \eqref{eq:big2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|R_{N,=}^{R,NR}|\lesssim \f{1}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
\|f_{0}\|_{H^{5}}
\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $t\in I_t(\xi)$, then there is $k\neq l$ such that $t\in I_{k,\xi}\cap I_{l,\eta}$. By the fact that for $t\in I_{k,\xi}$ and $t\notin I_{l,\xi}$, $|t-\f{\xi}{l}|> |t-\f{\xi}{k}|$, then we get by \eqref{eq: beta<1/2} that
\begin{align*}
\f{|l|\langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{1}{k(1+|t-\f{\xi}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{1}{l(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{k})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\xi}{k^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{k}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{\eta}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f13}(\f{\xi}{k})\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\xi)}{w(t,\xi)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \nu^{-\f13}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,=}^{R,NR}|
&\lesssim
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\nu^{-\f13}(\nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}\pa_v) f_{0}\right\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim
\ep \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
Putting together all the above estimates, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N,=^R,NR}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,=}^{R,NR}|
&\lesssim
\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}\\
&\quad+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of the zero mode $R_{N,=}^{R,R}$}
We get by \eqref{eq: beta<1/2} that
\begin{align*}
\f{|l|\langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{l})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{|l|}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f12}(\f{\xi}{l})^{\f12}\rangle^{-1}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\xi}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\xi}{l}|^2)}}\sqrt{\f{\eta}{l^2(1+|t-\f{\eta}{l}|^2)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \langle\nu^{\f13}(\f{\xi}{l})\rangle^{-(1+\b)}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\xi)}{w(t,\xi)}}
\langle\xi-\eta\rangle \nu^{-\f13},
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{align}\label{eq: R_N,=^R,R}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,=}^{R,R}|
&\lesssim
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\nu^{-\f13}(\nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}\pa_v)f_{0}\right\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim
\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{L^2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\right\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N,\neq,*}$}
In this case, we get $(l,k,\xi,\eta)\notin D_1$ which means that at least one of the following two $|l|\geq |\xi|$, $|l-k,\xi-\eta|\geq \f{1}{1000}|l,\xi|$ holds. Thus we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)|l,\xi|}{l^2+|lt-\xi|^2}\lesssim A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\langle l-k,\xi-\eta\rangle,
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: R_N,neq,*}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,\neq,*}|
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\|_{2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\|_{2}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
The next 4 subsections, we restriction $(l,k,\xi,\eta)\in D_1$, which gives $|\eta|\geq \f{1}{20}|k|$ and $|\xi|\geq \f{1}{20}|l|$, thus
\begin{equation}
w_k(t,\eta)=w(t,\eta),\quad w_l(t,\xi)=w(t,\xi).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N}^{NR,NR}$}
Since we restrict the integrand in $D_1$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: k-l<k}
\left||l,\xi|-|k,\eta|\right|\leq |k-l,\eta-\xi|\leq \f{1}{1000}|l,\xi|.
\end{equation}
It follows form the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\eta l-\xi k)=(\eta-\xi)l +(l-k) \xi,
\end{eqnarray*}
and Lemma \ref{lem: total-growth} that
\begin{align*}
|R_{N}^{NR,NR}|&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{t\notin I_{k,\eta}, t\notin I_{l,\xi}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\left|\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\right|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{t\notin I_{k,\eta}, t\notin I_{l,\xi}}A^{\sigma}|\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2(1+\f{\xi^2}{l^4})}
|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi.
\end{align*}
Therefore we have
\begin{equation}\label{R_N^NR,NR}
\begin{split}
|R_{N}^{NR,NR}|
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\|_{2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\|_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N}^{NR,R}$}
By \eqref{eq: k-l<k}, we have $\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\approx \langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}$ and $A_l(\xi)\approx A_k(\eta)$ which gives
\begin{align*}
|R_{N}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq \f{|\eta|}{100}}\chi^{NR,R}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{|\eta-\xi|> \f{|\eta|}{100}}\chi^{NR,R}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|\f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&=R_{N,1}^{NR,R}+R_{N,2}^{NR,R}.
\end{align*}
Let us first deal with $R_{N,1}^{NR,R}$, so that $|\eta-\xi|\leq \f{|\eta|}{100}$.
If $t\leq t(\eta)\approx \sqrt{|\eta|}$, then $w_{k}(\eta)=1$ and by the fact that $t\geq t(\xi)\approx \sqrt{|\eta|}$, we get that $t\approx \sqrt{|\xi|}$, $|l|\approx\sqrt{|\xi|}$ and then
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,1}^{NR,R}|
&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}1_{t\notin I_{k,\eta}, t\in I_{l,\xi}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
A^{\sigma}|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}.
\end{align*}
If $t\geq 2|\eta|$, and for $|\eta-\xi|\leq \f{1}{100}|\eta|$, $|l|t-|\xi|\geq 2|\eta|-|\xi|\geq |\eta|-\big||\eta|-|\xi|\big|\gtrsim |\xi|$, which implies
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,1}^{NR,R}|
\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}.
\end{align*}
If $t\in I_t(\eta)$, there exists $k'\in [1, E(\sqrt{|\eta|})]$ such that $t\in I_{k',\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}$. Then by Lemma \ref{lem: 3.2}, we need to consider the following three cases:
(a.) $k'=l$. In this case, by using the fact that
\begin{align*}
\f{|\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
&\lesssim \sqrt{\f{|\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}}\sqrt{\f{|\eta|}{l^2+(\eta-lt)^2}}\langle \xi-\eta\rangle\\
&\lesssim \langle\nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}\nu^{-\f13}\langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\xi)}{w(t,\xi)}}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}},
\end{align*}
and $|l|\lesssim \sqrt{|\xi|}\lesssim |\xi|$, we get
\begin{align*}
&|R_{N,1}^{NR,R}|
\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq \f{|\eta|}{100}}1_{t\in I_{k',\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\f{A^{\sigma}_l(t,\xi)|\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq \f{1}{100}|\eta|}1_{t\in I_{l,\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}}\left|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}(\eta)}{{w}(\eta)}}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)\right|\\
&\quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad\quad \quad
\times \left|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}(\eta)}{{w}(\eta)}}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}
(1+\nu^{\f13}t)^2\nu^{-\f13}\widehat{\langle\na\pa_v\rangle f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\right|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}(\eta)}{{w}(\eta)}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}(\xi)}{{w}(\xi)}}\chi_RA^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\langle\nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}\nu^{-\f13} f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{align*}
(b.) $|t-\f{\eta}{k'}|\gtrsim\f{\eta}{k'^2}$ and $|t-\f{\xi}{l}|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{l^2}$. In this case, by using the fact that
\begin{align}\label{eq: bd-Delta^-1}
\f{|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim \f{|\xi|/l^2}{1+(\xi/l-t)^2}
\lesssim \f{|\xi|/l^2}{1+\f{\xi^2}{l^4}}\lesssim 1,
\end{align}
we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&|R_{N,1}^{NR,R}|
\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}
\end{align*}
(c.) $|\eta-\xi|\gtrsim \f{|\eta|}{|l|}\approx \f{|\xi|}{|l|}$. In this case, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim \f{|\xi|}{l^2}\lesssim |\eta-\xi|,
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives
\begin{align*}
R_{N,1}^{NR,R}
\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{align*}
Next we deal with $R_{N,2}^{NR,R}$, which we will use the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim 1+\f{|\xi|}{l^2}\lesssim \langle \xi-\eta\rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we get
\begin{align*}
R_{N,2}^{NR,R}&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{|\eta-\xi|>\f{|\eta|}{100}}\chi^{NR,R}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\f{A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^NR,R}
\begin{split}
|R_{N}^{NR,R}|\lesssim &\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}\| f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}\\
&+\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\langle\nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}\nu^{-\f13} f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{4}}\\
\lesssim &\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}
+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{N}\right\|_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N}^{R,NR}$} In this case we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim 1+\f{|\xi|}{l^2(1+\f{\xi^2}{l^4})}\lesssim 1,
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{align}\label{R_N^R,NR}
R_{N}^{R,NR}
\nonumber&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^{R,NR}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\left|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\right|d\eta d\xi\\
\nonumber&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma} \Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Treatment of $R_{N}^{R,R}$}
In this case $t\in I_{k,\eta}\cap I_{l,\xi}$ with $k\neq l$, by Lemma \ref{lem: 3.2}, we only need to deal with the following two cases.
(b.) $|t-\f{\eta}{k}|\gtrsim\f{\eta}{k^2}$ and $|t-\f{\xi}{l}|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{l^2}$. In this case, by the fact that $A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\approx A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim 1+\f{|\xi|}{l^2(1+\f{\xi^2}{l^4})}\lesssim 1,
\end{eqnarray*}
we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N}^{R,R}|&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^{R,R}
A^{\sigma}|\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|\f{A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{L^2}\| f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}}.
\end{align*}
(c.) $|\eta-\xi|\gtrsim \f{|\eta|}{|l|}\approx \f{|\xi|}{|l|}$. In this case, by using the fact that $A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\approx A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}\lesssim 1+\f{|\xi|}{l^2}\lesssim |\eta-\xi|,
\end{eqnarray*}
we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{N}^{R,R}|&\lesssim \sum_{k,l\neq 0,\, k\neq l}\int_{\eta,\xi}\chi^{R,R} A^{\sigma}|\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\f{A_{l}(\xi)|l,\xi|}{l^2+(\xi-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_N\|_{2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^R,R}
\begin{split}
|R_{N}^{R,R}|&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq: R_N,D}, \eqref{eq: R_N,=^NR,NR}, \eqref{eq: R_N,=^NR,R}, \eqref{eq: R_N,=^R,NR}, \eqref{eq: R_N,=^R,R}, \eqref{eq: R_N,neq,*}, \eqref{R_N^NR,NR}, \eqref{eq: R_N^NR,R}, \eqref{R_N^R,NR} and \eqref{eq: R_N^R,R} we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^1}
\begin{split}
|R_{N}^{1}|
&\lesssim \left(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12}t^{\f32}\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\right)
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}
\\
&\quad+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_RA^{\sigma} \Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Treatment of $R_N^2$}
We recall that
\begin{align*}
R^2_N&=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\widehat{g}(\xi)_N\widehat{\pa_vf}_k(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{0}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{0}(\eta)\widehat{g}(\xi)_N\widehat{\pa_vf}_0(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\\
&=R^2_{N,\neq}+R^2_{N,0}.
\end{align*}
By the fact that $|k,\eta-\xi|\leq \f{3}{16}N\leq \f{3}{8}|\xi|\approx |k,\eta|$, we have
\begin{align*}
|R^2_{N,\neq}|\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}(f_{\neq})_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g_N\|_2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{3}},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|R^2_{N,0}|\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}(f_{0})_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g_N\|_2\|f_{0}\|_{H^{3}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^2}
|R^2_{N}|\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|g_N\|_{H^{\s}}\|f\|_{H^3}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Treatment of $R_N^3$}
$R_N^3$ is easy to dealt with, because the derivatives land on the low frequency. We then get that
\begin{align*}
|R_N^3|
&\leq \left|\sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)A^{\sigma}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{u}_{l}(\xi)_{N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi\right|\\
&\leq \sum_{k,l}\int_{\eta,\xi}A^{\sigma}|\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)||l,\xi||\hat{u}_{l}(\xi)_{N}|A^{\sigma}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)|\widehat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi,
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^3}
|R_N^3|
\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|u_N\|_{H^{3}}\|f\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Corrections}\label{sec: correction}
In this section we treat $R_N^{\ep,1}$ which is higher order in $\nu^{\f13}$ than $R_N^1$. We expand $(1-v')\phi_l$ with a paraproduct only in $v$:
\begin{align*}
R_{N}^{\ep,1}&=-\f{1}{2\pi}\sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\Big((\xi-\eta)l-\xi'(k-l)\Big)\chi_N(l,\xi)\\
&\quad \quad \times\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{<M/8}
\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_M\widehat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&\quad-\f{1}{2\pi}\sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\Big((\xi-\eta)l-\xi'(k-l)\Big)\chi_N(l,\xi)\\
&\quad \quad \times\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M}
\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\widehat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&\quad-\f{1}{2\pi}\sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq M}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
A^{\sigma}_{k}(\eta)\Big((\xi-\eta)l-\xi'(k-l)\Big)\\
&\quad \quad \times\chi_N(l,\xi)\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M'}
\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{M}\widehat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&=R_{N,LH}^{\ep,1}+R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1}+R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1}.
\end{align*}
We recall that $\chi_N$ denotes the Littlewood-Paley cut-off to the $N$-th dyadic shell in $\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbf R$; see Section \ref{Sec: L-P}.
Begin first with $R_{N,LH}^{\ep,1}$. On the support of the integrand
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||k,\eta|-|l,\xi||\leq |k-l,\eta-\xi|\leq \f{3}{8}|l,\xi|,\\
&&||l,\xi'|-|l,\xi||\leq |\xi-\xi'|\leq \f{3}{8}|l,\xi'|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\approx A^{\sigma}_l(\xi')$ and
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,LH}^{\ep,1}|
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\Big|(\xi-\eta)l-\xi'(k-l)\Big|\chi_N(l,\xi)\\
&\quad \quad \times\Big|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{<M/8}
A^{\sigma}_l(\xi')\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_M\widehat{f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\Big|d\eta d\xi d\xi'
\end{align*}
From here we may proceed analogous to treatment of $R_N^1$ with $(l,\xi')$ playing the role of $(l,\xi)$. We omit the details and simply conclude the result is
\begin{equation}\label{R_N,LH^ep,1}
\begin{split}
|R_{N,LH}^{\ep,1}|
&\lesssim \|h\|_{H^{3}}\bigg[
\left(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^{\f32}\nu^{\f12}\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^{3}\nu\rangle}\right)
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad
+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} \chi_R\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{2}\bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Turn now to $R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1}$. On the support of the integrand, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\langle k,\eta\rangle^{\s}\approx \langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}\approx \langle l,\xi'-\xi\rangle^{\s},
\end{align*}
Thus we get that
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1}|&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}\chi_{|l|\geq \f{|\xi|}{16}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\chi_N(l,\xi)
\bigg|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
\times\langle l\rangle^{\s}|l,\xi'|\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\bigg|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&+\sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}
\chi_{|l|< \f{|\xi|}{16}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\chi_N(l,\xi)\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle^{\s}
\bigg|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
\times |l,\xi'|\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\bigg|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&=R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,z}+R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,v}.
\end{align*}
First consider $R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,z}$, where on the support of the integrand, $16|l|\geq |\xi|$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||k,\eta|-|l,\xi||\leq |k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{3}{16}|l,\xi|,\\
&&||l,\xi|-|l,\xi'||\leq |\xi-\xi'|\leq 38|\xi|/32\lesssim |l|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we divide $R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,z}$ into two parts
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,z}&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}\chi_{|l|\geq {16}{|\xi|}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\chi_N(l,\xi)
\bigg|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
\times \left[\langle l\rangle^{\s+1}\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\right]_{\sim N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\bigg|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&\quad+ \sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}\chi_{16|\xi|\geq |l|\geq \f{|\xi|}{16}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\chi_N(l,\xi)
\bigg|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M\sim N}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
\times\langle l\rangle^{\s}|l,\xi'|\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\bigg|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&=R_{N,HL,1}^{\ep,1,z}+R_{N,HL,2}^{\ep,1,z}
\end{align*}
To make it summable in $M$ we need more 'derivative' in higher(in $M$) frequency, luckily the all of the 'derivates' lands on the lower(in $M$) frequency.
If $|l|\geq 16|\xi|$, then in fact $38|\xi|/32\leq |l|/4$, therefore $||k,\eta|-|l,\xi'||\leq |l|/2\leq |l,\xi'|/2$, which gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
|k,\eta|\approx |l,\xi'|\approx |l|\approx N.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $|l|\geq 16|\xi|\geq 16|\xi'|$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l|}{l^2(1+(\xi'/l-t)^2)}\lesssim
\f{|l|^{-1}\langle \f{|\xi'|}{|l|}\rangle^2}{\langle \f{|\xi'|}{|l|}\rangle^2(1+(\f{\xi'}{l}-t)^2)}\lesssim \f{|l|^{-1}}{\langle t\rangle^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
We then get that
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HL,1}^{\ep,1,z}&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'}\chi_{|l|\geq {16}{|\xi|}}
|A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)|
\chi_N(l,\xi)
\bigg|\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
\times \left[\f{\langle l\rangle^{\s+1}}{l^2+(\xi'-lt)^2}\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_l(\xi')_{<M/8}\right]_{\sim N}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\bigg|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&\lesssim
\langle t\rangle^{-2}\sum_{M\geq 8}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2M^{-2}\|(v'-1)_{M}\|_{H^5}
\|(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f)_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f\|_{H^3},
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HL,1}^{\ep,1,z}
&\lesssim
\langle t\rangle^{-2}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h\|_{H^5}
\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f)_{\sim N}\|_2\|f\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2
\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f)_{\sim N}\|_2.
\end{align*}
Next we turn to $R_{N,HL,2}^{\ep,1,z}$.
If $\f{1}{16}|\xi|\leq |l|\leq 16|\xi|$, then $|l|\approx |l,\xi|\approx |\xi-\xi'|\approx M\approx N$.
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HL,2}^{\ep,1,z}
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2
M^{-1}\|(1-v')_{M\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|P_{\neq} \phi\|_{H^{4}}\|f\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|P_{\neq} \phi\|_{H^{4}}\|f\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2} \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\end{align*}
Next we turn to $R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,v}$, in which case we can consider all of the 'derivates' to be landing on $1-v'$. On the support of the integrand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||k,\eta|-|l,\xi||\leq |k-l,\xi-\eta|\leq \f{3}{16}|l,\xi|,\\
&&||\xi-\xi'|-|l,\xi||\leq |l,\xi'|\leq |\xi|/16+|\xi'|\leq 67|\xi'-\xi|/100.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $|l,\xi|\approx |\xi-\xi'|$, the sum only includes boundedly many terms. Therefore
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HL}^{\ep,1,v}&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|\pa_vh_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}\|f\|_{H^{3}}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|\pa_vh_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}.
\end{align*}
We turn to the remainder term $R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1}$.
In the case, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-\xi'|\approx |\xi'|\approx M \approx M'.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we divide into two cases according to the relationship between $l$ and $\xi'$:
\begin{align*}
|R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1}|
&\lesssim \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq M}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'} 1_{|l|\geq 3|\xi'|}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
\chi_N(l,\xi)\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M'}\\
&\quad \quad \times
\f{|l|A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)}{l^2+(\xi'-lt)^2}|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_l(\xi')_{M}||\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&+\sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq M}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'} 1_{|l|<3|\xi'|}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
\chi_N(l,\xi)\left[\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M'}\\
&\quad \quad \times
\f{|l|A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)}{l^2+(\xi'-lt)^2}
|\widehat{\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f}_l(\xi')_{M}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&=R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1,z}+R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1,v}.
\end{align*}
First we consider $R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1,z}$. In this case, we have $\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle\approx \langle \xi'\rangle$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\approx A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\approx
\langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}\approx
\langle l\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi\rangle^{\s}
\lesssim \langle l\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi'\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle^{\s}
\lesssim \langle l\rangle^{\s},
\end{eqnarray*}
and $N\approx |k,\eta|\approx \langle l\rangle$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\f{|l|A^{\sigma}_{l}(\xi)}{l^2+(\xi'-lt)^2}\lesssim \f{\langle l\rangle^{\s-1}}{\langle t\rangle^{2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, we get
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1,z}&\lesssim \langle t\rangle^{-2}\sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}} \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2M^{-2}\|h_{\sim M}\|_{H^4}\|\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \langle t\rangle^{-2}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h\|_{H^4}\|\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
For $|l|<3|\xi'|$, we have $\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle\approx \langle \xi'\rangle$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^{\sigma}_k(\eta)\approx A^{\sigma}_l(\xi)\approx
\langle l,\xi\rangle^{\s}\approx
\langle l\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi\rangle^{\s}
\lesssim \langle l\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi'\rangle^{\s}+\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle^{\s}
\lesssim \langle \xi'\rangle^{\s},
\end{eqnarray*}
and $N\approx \langle l,\xi\rangle\approx \langle \xi'-\xi\rangle$. Thus
\begin{align*}
R_{N,HH}^{\ep,1,v}&\lesssim
\sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq M}\sum_{k,l\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi,\xi'} 1_{|l|<3|\xi'|}
A^{\sigma}\bar{\hat{f}}_{k}(\eta)
\chi_N(l,\xi)\left[\langle \xi'-\xi\rangle^{\s-1}\widehat{(1-v')}(\xi'-\xi)\right]_{M'}\\
&\quad \quad \times
\langle \xi'\rangle^2
|\widehat{\phi}_l(\xi')_{M}\widehat{\na f}_{k-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi d\xi'\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}} \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2M^{-2}\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{\sim M}\|_{H^{4}}\|f\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{4}}\|f\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_2\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we conclude by the bootstrap hypotheses and Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: R_N^1,ep}
\begin{split}
|R_N^{1,\ep}|&\lesssim \ep\nu^{\f13}\bigg[
\left(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^{\f32}\nu^{\f12}\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^{3}\nu\rangle}\right)
\|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{L^2}
\|A^{\sigma}\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\|_{L^2}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad
+\ep\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} \chi_R\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{2}\bigg]\\
&\quad + \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2} \|A^{\sigma} f_{\sim N}\|_{2}\bigg[\|\pa_vh_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+
\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_{\neq})_{\sim N}\|_2
+\|h_{\sim N}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We end this section by proving Proposition \ref{prop: reaction}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{eq: R_N^1}, \eqref{eq: R_N^2}, \eqref{eq: R_N^3}, \eqref{eq: R_N^1,ep}, Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, Proposition \ref{Rmk: basic estimate}, \eqref{eq: L-P-ortho2} and the bootstrap hypotheses, we get that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{N\geq 8}|R_N|
&\lesssim
\left(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12} t^{\f32}\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\right)\|f\|_{H^{\s}}\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f)\|_2\\
&\quad+\ep \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}A^{\sigma} f\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma} \chi_R\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f_N\right\|_{2}\\
&\quad+\ep\nu^{\f13}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}
+ \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2} \|A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\bigg[\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_L\Delta_t^{-1}P_{\neq}f)\|_2
+\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}\bigg].
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{lem: elliptical highest}, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{N\geq 8}|R_N|
&\lesssim
\left(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu^{\f12} t^{\f32}\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t^2\rangle}
+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\right)\|f\|_{H^{\s}}\Big(\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}+\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle \langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\Big)\\
&\quad+\ep \left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_t{w}}{{w}}}A^{\sigma} f\right\|_{2}
\Big(\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{\s}}+\f{\ep^2\nu^{\f12}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\Big)\\
&\quad+\ep\nu^{\f13}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}
+ \f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}}{\langle t\rangle^2} \|A^{\sigma} f\|_{2}\big[\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big],
\end{align*}
and then by the bootstrap hypotheses and the Young's inequality, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\int_1^t\sum_{N\geq 8}|R_N(t')|dt'
&\lesssim \ep\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2+\ep\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\\
&\quad+\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2
\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s})}
\left(\int_1^t\Big(\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t'\rangle \langle \nu t'^3\rangle}\Big)^2dt'\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\ep\left(\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\right)^{\f12}
\left(\int_1^t\Big(\f{\ep^2\nu^{\f12}}{\langle \nu t'^3\rangle}\Big)^2dt'\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad +\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2\|g\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s})}
+\ep^3\nu\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2\\
&\quad+\ep^2\nu^{\f23}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2
\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s-1})}\\
&\lesssim \ep\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2+\ep\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\\
&\quad+\ep^3\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2
+\ep^3\nu^{\f13}\left(\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'\right)^{\f12}\\
&\lesssim \ep\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\|A^{\sigma} f(t')\|_2^2+\ep\int_1^tCK_w(t')dt'+\ep^{5}\nu^{\f23}
\end{align*}
Thus we have proved Proposition \ref{prop: reaction}.
\end{proof}
\section{Coordinate system}
\subsection{Higher regular controls}\label{Sec: higher regular controls}
In this subsection we will study the energy estimate for $g$ in $H^{\s}$ and $h,\bar{h}$ in $H^{\s-1}$ and $H^{\s}$.
\subsubsection{Energy estimate of $g$}\label{sec: g-high}
In this section, we will prove \eqref{eq: aim2}. We need to mention that the result of \eqref{eq: aim2} is not optimal, however it is enough. It is natural to computer the time evolution of $\left\|g\right\|_{H^{\s}}^2$.
We get
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\left\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g\right\|_2^2
&=2\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\pa_tgdv\\
&=-\f{4}{t}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g\|_2^2
-2\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}(g\pa_vg)dv\\
&\quad-\f{2}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s} (v'\langle \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}\rangle)dv\\
&\quad+2\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}((v')^2\pa_v^2g)dv\\
&=-\f{4}{t}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g\|_2^2
+V^{H,g}_1+V^{H,g}_2+V^{H,g}_3
\end{align*}
To treat $V^{H,g}_1$, we get by using integration by parts,
\begin{align*}
|V^{H,g}_1|&\lesssim \left|\int |\pa_vg| |\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g|^2dv\right|
+\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|[\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s},g]\pa_vg\|_{2}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{lem: commutator} and the Sobolev embedding theory, we get
\begin{align*}
|V^{H,g}_1|
\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{2}}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g\|_{2}^2.
\end{align*}
Next we treat $V^{H,g}_2$. We now use the fact that
\begin{align*}
<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>
= <\na_{L}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot \na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}>.
\end{align*}
Then by the bootstrap hypotheses, we get
\begin{align*}
|V^{H,g}_2|&\lesssim
\f{2}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}
\left[(v'-1)< \na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot \na\widetilde{u}_{\neq}>\right] dv\\
&\quad+\f{2}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s} \left[<\na_{L}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot \na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}>\right] dv\\
&\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}(v'-1)\|_2
\|< \na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot \na\widetilde{u}_{\neq}>\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s}< \na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}>\|_{2}\\
&\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\|h\|_{H^{\s}}
\|\na_{L}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
\|\na_{L}\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\|h\|_{H^{\s}}
\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}
\|\na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\| \na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}
+\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}
\|\na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\| \na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}
+\f{1}{t}\|\langle\pa_v\rangle^{\s} g\|_{2}
\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}
\|\na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}.
\end{align*}
At last we treat the dissipation term $V_3^{H,g}$. We have
\begin{align*}
V_3^{H,g}
&=2\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}(\pa_v^2g)dv\\
&\quad+2\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\big(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2g\big)dv\\
&=-2\nu\|\pa_v\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \|_2^2\\
&\quad+2\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\big(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2g\big)dv\\
&=-2\nu\|\pa_v\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}g \|_2^2+V_{3,\ep}^{H,g}
\end{align*}
The term $V_{3,\ep}^{H,g}$ is similar to $E^0$.
We then obtain by Young's inequality that
\begin{equation}\label{V_3,ep^H,g}
\begin{split}
|V_{3,\ep}^{H,g}|
&\lesssim \nu (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\left(\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s}}^2\|h\|_{H^{2}}+\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s}}\|g\|_{H^4}\right)\\
&\lesssim \nu (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\left(\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s}}^2\|h\|_{H^{2}}+\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|g\|_{H^4}^2\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By the bootstrap assumption, we get
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2
&\leq -\f{4}{t}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2-\nu\|\pa_vg \|_{H^{\s}}^2+C\bigg(\|g\|_{H^2}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\Big(
\| \na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}
+\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}
\|\na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\Big)\\
&\quad
+\nu \|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|g\|_{H^4}^2\bigg)\\
&\leq -\f{4}{t}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2+C\bigg[
\|g\|_{H^2}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}^2
+\nu \|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|g\|_{H^{4}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\Big(
\| \Delta_{L}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}
\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}
+\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}
\|\na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\Big)\bigg],
\end{align*}
which gives that for $t\geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\Big(t'\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}\Big)+\int_1^{t}\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}dt'\\
&\leq \|g(1)\|_{H^{\s}}+C\bigg(
\|g\|_{L^1_TH^2}\sup_{t'\in [1,T]}t'\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}
+\nu^{\f12}\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s-2})}\nu^{\f12}\|t g\|_{L^2_{T}(H^4)}\\
&\quad+ \|f_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(H^{\s})}\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{L^1_{T}H^{2}}
+\left\|\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\right\|_{L^1_{T}}\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(H^{2})}\\
&\quad +\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{L^{1}_{T}(H^{2})}\| f_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{\s}}
+ \|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(H^{2})} \left\|\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}\right\|_{L^1_{T}}\bigg)\\
&\leq \|g(1)\|_{H^{\s}}+C\bigg(
\|g\|_{L^1_TH^2}\sup_{t'\in [1,T]}t'\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}
+\nu^{\f12}\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s-2})}\nu^{\f12}\|t g\|_{L^2_{T}(H^4)}\\
&\quad+ \ep\nu^{\f13}\| \na_L\widetilde{u}_{\neq}\|_{L^1_{T}H^{2}}
+\ep\nu^{\f13}\|\na_L^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{L^{1}_{T}(H^{2})}
+\ep^2\nu^{\f23}\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_{T}(H^{\s})}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Thus by the bootstrap hypotheses, we get that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\Big(t'\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}\Big)
&+\int_1^{t}\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}dt'\\
&\leq \|g(1)\|_{H^{\s}}+C\bigg(
\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t'\in [1,T]}t'\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s}}+\ep^2\nu^{\f13}\bigg).
\end{align*}
By taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim2}.
\subsubsection{Energy estimate of $\bar{h}$ and $h$}\label{sec: barh and h-high}
We get that
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2
&=-\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}(g\pa_v \bar{h})dv
-\f{2}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\Big(v'< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f_{\neq}>\Big)dv\\
&\quad+\nu\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}(((v')^2-1)\pa_{vv}\bar{h})dv
-\nu\|\pa_v \bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\\
&=-\f{2}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2-\nu\|\pa_v \bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}+V^{H,\bar{h}}_{1}+V^{H,\bar{h}}_{2}+V^{H,\bar{h}}_{3},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2
&=-\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}h\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\Big(g\pa_v h-\bar{h}-\nu (v')^2\pa_v^2h\big)dv\\
&=-\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}h\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}(g\pa_v h)dv\\
&\quad+\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}h \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}dv\\
&\quad +\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}h \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\big(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2h\big)dv
-\nu\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\\
&=-\nu\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+V^{H,{h}}_{1}+V^{H,{h}}_{2}+V^{H,{h}}_{3}
\end{align*}
We use the same argument as in the treatment of $V^{H,g}_1$ and get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,\bar{h}}_{1}|\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,{h}}_{1}|\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
We also have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,{h}}_{2}|\leq \|{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
To treat $V^{H,\bar{h}}_{2}$, we have
\begin{align*}
V^{H,\bar{h}}_{2}&=\f{1}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\Big(< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f_{\neq}>\Big)dv\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\bar{h}\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-1}\Big(h< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f_{\neq}>\Big)dv.
\end{align*}
Thus by the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
<-\pa_vF\pa_zG+\pa_zF\pa_vG>=\pa_v<G\pa_zF>,
\end{eqnarray*}
we get
\begin{align*}
|V^{H,\bar{h}}_{2}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f_{\neq}>\|_{H^{\s-1}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|< \na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f_{\neq}>\|_{H^{1}}\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|<\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|< \pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\|_{H^{2}}\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_{z}f_{\neq}\|_{H^1}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})
\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{1}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}.
\end{align*}
Next we turn to $V_3^{H,\bar{h}}$ and $V_3^{H,{h}}$
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,\ep}^{H,\bar{h}}|
&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}\langle \eta\rangle^{2\s-2}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|(|\eta|+|\xi-\eta|)\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|\geq |\xi|}|\eta|^{2\s-2}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|<|\xi|}|\eta|^{2\s-2}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^2\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\eta||\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\leq 1}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{\pa_v(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right| d\eta d\xi\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|< |\xi|}
|\eta|^{\s}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\xi|^{\s}\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{\xi,\eta}1_{|\eta|\geq 1}1_{|\xi-\eta|\geq |\xi|}|\eta|^{\s-1}
|\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|(\widehat{1-(v')^2}(\eta-\xi))|\eta-\xi|^{\s-1}|\xi|^2\hat{\bar{h}}(\xi)\right|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^2}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^4}\\
&\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\Big(\|h\|_{H^2}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^4}\Big),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,\ep}^{H,{h}}|
&\lesssim \nu (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|\pa_v{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\|h\|_{H^{4}}.
\end{align*}
Putting together and using the bootstrap assumption, we get
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2
&\leq -\f{2}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+C\bigg(
\|g\|_{H^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_{z}f_{\neq}\|_{H^1}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}(1+\|h\|_{H^2})
\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{1}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}
\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^2}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}
+\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^4}
\bigg).
\end{align*}
We also get
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\big(t\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big)
&\leq -\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}+C\bigg(
t\|g\|_{H^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-1}}\\
&\quad+\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_{z}f_{\neq}\|_{H^1}
+\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{2}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
+\nu t\|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^4}
\bigg),
\end{align*}
which then implies
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(t\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big)
+\int_{0}^{T}\|\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-1}}dt'\\
&\leq \|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}
+C\bigg(\|g\|_{L^1_{T}(H^2)}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(t\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big)
+\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{\s}}\|\pa_{z}f_{\neq}\|_{L^1_{T}H^1}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
+\|\pa_{z}P_{\neq}\phi\|_{L^1_{T}H^{2}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}(H^{\s})}+\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_TH^{\s-2}}
\left\|\langle t\rangle\|\bar{h}\|_{H^4}\right\|_{L^2_T}\bigg)\\
&\leq \|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}+C\bigg(\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(t\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big)
+\ep^2\nu^{\f13}+\ep^2\nu^{\f76}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Then by taking $\ep$ small enough, we get \eqref{eq: aim3}.
We also get by Young's inequality and the bootstrap hypotheses that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\big)
+\nu\|\pa_v{h}\|_{L^2_TH^{\s-1}}^2\\
&\leq \|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+\|\bar{h}\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s-1})}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}\big)
+C\|g\|_{L^1_{T}(H^2)}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\big)\\
&\leq \|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+4\|\bar{h}\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s-1})}^2
+\Big(\f14+C\|g\|_{L^1_{T}(H^2)}\Big)\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\big)\\
&\leq \|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2+4\|\bar{h}\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s-1})}^2+\f{3}{8}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}\big(\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-1}}^2\big),
\end{align*}
which implies \eqref{eq: aim4}.
\subsection{Energy estimates of $\bar{h}$ and $h$ in $H^{\s}$}\label{sec: high-h-barh}
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2
&=-\int\f{\pa_tw(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}\left|\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}\right|^2d\eta
-\f{2}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2\\
&\quad \underbrace{-\int A^{\sigma} \bar{h}\left[A^{\sigma}(g\pa_v\bar{h})-g\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\right]dv}_{V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h}}}
+\f{1}{2}\int g'|A^{\sigma} \bar{h}|^2dv\\
&\quad +\underbrace{\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\eta l}{w(t,\eta)}\overline{\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)}d\xi d\eta}_{V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}}\\
&\quad +\underbrace{\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\overline{\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}(\eta-\xi') l}{w(t,\eta)} \hat{h}(\xi')\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{f}_{l}(\xi-\xi')d\xi'd\xi d\eta}_{V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},\ep}}\\
&\quad -\nu\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2
+\underbrace{\nu \int A^{\sigma} \bar{h} A^{\sigma} \left(((v')^2-1)\pa_{vv}\bar{h}\right)dv}_{V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h}}}\\
&=-CK_{w}^{\bar{h}}-\f{2}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2 -\nu\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2+V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h}}+V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}+V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},\ep}+V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h}}
\end{align*}
We the get
\begin{align*}
V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h}}
&=-\sum_{M\geq 8}\int A^{\sigma} \bar{h}\left[A^{\sigma}(g_{M}\pa_v\bar{h}_{<M/8})-g_{M}\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{<M/8}\right]dv\\
&\quad -\sum_{M\geq 8}\int A^{\sigma} \bar{h}\left[A^{\sigma}(g_{<M/8}\pa_v\bar{h}_{M})-g_{<M/8}\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{M}\right]dv\\
&\quad -\sum_{M\in\mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}\int A^{\sigma} \bar{h}\left[A^{\sigma}(g_{M}\pa_v\bar{h}_{M'})-g_{M}\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{M'}\right]dv\\
&=V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}+V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},LH}+V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HH}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
|V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}|&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\left[A^{\sigma}(\hat{g}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8})-\hat{g}(\xi)_{M}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\right]d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}
\int A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\langle\xi\rangle^{\s}\hat{g}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8} \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_2
\|g_{M}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^1}\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2
\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^1}.
\end{align*}
Next we treat $V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},LH}+V_{1,\s}$, we get
\begin{align*}
|V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}|&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\left[A^{\sigma}(\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M})-\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}\right]d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\geq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\left[A^{\sigma}(\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M})-\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}\right]d\xi d\eta,
\end{align*}
For the first term, by Lemma \ref{lem: w-w}, we have $|\xi|\approx |\eta|$ and then
\begin{align*}
&\left|\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\left[A^{\sigma}(\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M})-\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}\right]d\xi d\eta\right|\\
&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|\f{\langle\eta\rangle\eta}{w(t,\eta)}-\f{\langle\xi\rangle\xi}{w(t,\xi)}\right]|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|\langle\eta\rangle^{\s}\eta-\langle\xi\rangle^{\s}\xi\right]|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|\f{1}{w(t,\eta)}-\f{1}{w(t,\xi)}\right]\langle\xi\rangle^{\s+1}|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle\eta-\xi\rangle\langle\xi\rangle^{\s}|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\left|\f{1}{w(t,\eta)}-\f{1}{w(t,\xi)}\right]\langle\xi\rangle^{\s+1}|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim
\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle\eta-\xi\rangle\langle\xi\rangle^{\s}|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}
\int_{|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\f{\langle\eta-\xi\rangle}{\eta}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')+\nu^{\f13\b}t'^{1-\b}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')\right)\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad \quad
\times\langle\xi\rangle^{\s+1}|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_{2}\|g_{M}\|_{H^{3}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')+\nu^{\f13\b}t'^{1-\b}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')\right)\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_{2}\|g\|_{H^{3}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')+\nu^{\f13\b}t'^{1-\b}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')\right).
\end{align*}
For the second term, we have $|\xi-\eta|\geq \f{1}{10}|\eta|\approx |\xi|$, thus we get
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{M\geq 8}
\left|\int_{|\xi-\eta|\geq \f{1}{10}|\eta|} A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\left[A^{\sigma}(\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M})-\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}A^{\sigma}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\xi)_{M}\right]d\xi d\eta\right|\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8}
\int A^{\sigma} \widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)\langle\xi\rangle^{\s}\hat{g}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_v\bar{h}}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\geq 8} \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_2
\|g_{M}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^1}
\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2
\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^1}.
\end{align*}
Now we turn to $V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HH}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\eta|\lesssim |\eta-\xi|+|\xi|\approx |\xi|\approx|\eta-\xi|
\end{eqnarray*}
and then
\begin{align*}
|V_{1,\s}^{\bar{h},HH}|
&\lesssim \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2\|g_{M}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_{H^3}\\
&\lesssim \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2\|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^3}
\end{align*}
As suggested by Section \ref{sec: correction}, $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},\ep}$ is not significantly harder then $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}$, in fact the primary complications that arise in the treatment of $R_{N}^{\ep,1}$ do not arise in the treatment of $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},\ep}$.
Hence we focus only on $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}$; the control of $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},\ep}$ results in, at worst, similar contributions with an additional power of $\ep$.
Now we turn to $V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}$, we use Littlewood-Paley decomposition in $v$ and get that
\begin{align*}
V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h}}
&=\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int \chi_{|\eta|\leq 100|l|}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\eta l}{w(t,\eta)}\overline{\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)\hat{f}_l(\xi)}d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int \chi_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\eta l}{w(t,\eta)}\overline{\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{M}}d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\geq 8}\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int \chi_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\eta l}{w(t,\eta)}\overline{\hat{\phi}_{l}(\xi)_{M}\hat{f}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}}d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int \chi_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}\eta l}{w(t,\eta)}\overline{\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{M'}\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{M}}d\xi d\eta\\
&=V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},z}
+\sum_{M\geq 8}T_{M}^{\bar{h}}
+\sum_{M\geq 8}R_{M}^{\bar{h}}
+\mathcal{R}^{\bar{h}}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to obtain that
\begin{align*}
|V_{2,\s}^{\bar{h},z}|\lesssim \f1t\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\|\phi_{\neq}\|_{H^{4}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}
\lesssim \f{1}{t^3}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^6}
\end{align*}
There is a loss of derivate in $T_{M}^{\bar{h}}$. By using the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\eta|=|(\eta-\xi+lt)|+|(\xi-lt)|\lesssim \langle \eta-\xi+lt\rangle \langle \xi-lt\rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
We get
\begin{align*}
|T_{M}^{\bar{h}}|&\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int 1_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
\f{\langle \eta\rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)|}{w(t,\eta)}
\f{\langle \xi\rangle^{\s}|l|}{w(t,\xi)}|\langle\eta-\xi+lt\rangle\hat{\phi}_{l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}||\langle \xi-lt\rangle\hat{f}_{-l}(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \f1t\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_{2}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_{L}}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})_{M}\|_2\|\pa_z\na_{L}\phi_{\neq}\|_{H^2}\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{t^2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_{2}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_{L}}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})_{M}\|_2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}.
\end{align*}
For $R_{M}^{\bar{h}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
|R_{M}^{\bar{h}}|
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int 1_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
|A^{\sigma}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)|
A^{\sigma}(t,\xi)\f{\xi/l^2}{\langle\f{\xi}{l}-t\rangle^2}\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_zf}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int 1_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}\chi_{|l|\geq \f{1}{10}\sqrt{|\xi|}}
|A^{\sigma}\widehat{\bar{h}}|
A^{\sigma}(t,\xi)\f{\xi/l^2}{\langle\f{\xi}{l}-t\rangle^2}\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_zf}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int 1_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
1_{|l|\leq \f{1}{10}\sqrt{|\xi|}} \left[1_{t\in I_{l,\xi}}+1_{t\notin I_{l,\xi}}\right]
|A^{\sigma}\widehat{\bar{h}}|\\
&\quad\quad \quad \quad\quad \quad \times
A^{\sigma}(t,\xi)\f{\xi/l^2}{\langle\f{\xi}{l}-t\rangle^2}\widehat{\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f}_{l}(\xi)_{M}\widehat{\pa_zf}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{<M/8}d\xi d\eta\\
&=R_{M}^{\bar{h},z}+R_{M,R}^{\bar{h}}+R_{M,NR}^{\bar{h}}
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
|R_{M}^{\bar{h},z}|\lesssim \f1t\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\|_{2}
\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{M}\|_2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}
\end{align*}
Next we treat $R_{M,NR}^{\bar{h}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
|R_{M,NR}^{\bar{h}}|\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\left\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\right\|_{2}
\left\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{M}\right\|_2
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}
\end{align*}
If $t\in I_{l,\xi}$ with $|l|\leq \f{1}{10}\sqrt{|\xi|}$, then according the integrand we get $|\xi-\eta|\leq \f{3}{16}|\xi|$, and thus $t\in I_{k,\eta}$. By Lemma \ref{lem: 3.2}, we have the follow three cases.
a.) $k=l$. We get
\begin{align*}
|R_{M,R}^{\bar{h}}|\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_{R}A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{M}\right\|_2
\|\nu^{-\f13}\langle \nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}f_{\neq}\|_{H^6}
\end{align*}
b.) $|\f{\eta}{k}-t|\gtrsim \f{\eta}{k^2}$ and $|\f{\xi}{k}-t|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{k^2}$. Then the estimate is similar to $R_{M,NR}^{\bar{h}}$ and we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{M,R}^{\bar{h}}|\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\left\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\right\|_{2}
\left\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{M}\right\|_2
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}
\end{align*}
c.) $|\eta-\xi|\gtrsim \f{\xi}{l^2}$, then we get
\begin{align*}
|R_{M,R}^{\bar{h}}|\lesssim
\f{1}{t}\left\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}_{\sim M}\right\|_{2}
\left\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})_{M}\right\|_2
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^4}
\end{align*}
The remainder term is easy to dealt with. We use the fact that $|\eta|\lesssim |\eta-\xi|+|\xi|$ and $|\xi|\approx |\eta-\xi|$ and get that
\begin{align*}
|\mathcal{R}^{\bar{h}}|
&\lesssim \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{\f18M\leq M'\leq 8M}\f{1}{t}\sum_{l\neq 0}\int \chi_{|\eta|\geq 100|l|}
|A^{\sigma}\widehat{\bar{h}}(t,\eta)|
\langle \eta\rangle^{\s-2}|\hat{\phi}_{-l}(\eta-\xi)_{M'}||\xi|^3|l||\hat{f}_l(\xi)_{M}|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \sum_{M\in \mathbb{D}}\f{1}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2\|P_{\neq}\phi_{\sim M}\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|(f_{\neq})_{M}\|_{H^7}\\
&\lesssim \f{1}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^7}\lesssim \f{1}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^7}.
\end{align*}
To treat the dissipation error term $V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h}}|&\lesssim
\int \langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim
\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq |\xi|}1_{|\eta|\leq 1} |\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)||G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq |\xi|} 1_{|\eta|\geq 1}\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\quad+\int_{|\eta-\xi|\geq |\xi|}1_{|\eta|\geq 1} \langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&=V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},<1}+V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},LH}+V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}.
\end{align*}
Now we treat $V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},<1}$,
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},<1}|\lesssim \nu\|\bar{h}\|_{L^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^2}\|G\|_{H^{2}}\lesssim \nu\|\bar{h}\|_{L^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^2}\|h\|_{H^{2}}.
\end{align*}
Next we turn to $V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},LH}$, in which case it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\eta|\leq |\eta-\xi|+|\xi|\lesssim |\xi|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we have
\begin{align*}
V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},LH}
&\lesssim \nu\int_{|\eta-\xi|\leq |\xi|} |\eta|\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle \xi \rangle^{\s-1}|G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\|h\|_{H^3}\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2
\lesssim \ep\nu^{\f13}\nu\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Next we treat $V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}$ and get that
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,\s}^{\bar{h},HL}|
&\lesssim \nu\int_{|\eta-\xi|\geq |\xi|}
|\eta|\langle \eta \rangle^{\s}|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\eta)|\langle \eta-\xi \rangle^{\s-1}|G(\eta-\xi)||\xi|^2|\widehat{\bar{h}}(\xi)|d\xi d\eta\\
&\lesssim \nu\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\|h\|_{H^{\s-1}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^3}.
\end{align*}
Thus we conclude that
\begin{align*}
&\f12\f{d}{dt}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2+CK_{w}^{\bar{h}}+\f{2}{t}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2 +\f12\nu\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2\\
&\lesssim
\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_2^2
\|g\|_{H^{\s}}
+\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_{2}^2\|g\|_{H^{3}}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')+\nu^{\f13\b}t'^{1-\b}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')\right)\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^7}
+\f{1}{t^2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\|_{2}\|(\sqrt{-\Delta_{L}}A^{\sigma} f_{\neq})\|_2\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}\\
&\quad+\f{1}{t}\left\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\right\|_{2}
\left\|A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})\right\|_2
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^3}\\
&\quad +\f{1}{t}\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma}\bar{h}\right\|_{2}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}\chi_{R}A^{\sigma}(\Delta_{L}\Delta_t^{-1}f_{\neq})\right\|_2
\|\nu^{-\f13}\langle \nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}f_{\neq}\|_{H^6}\\
&\quad +\nu\|\bar{h}\|_{L^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^2}\|h\|_{H^{2}},
\end{align*}
which gives by the bootstrap hypotheses that
\begin{align*}
&(t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2)^2
+\int_1^tt'^{3}CK_{w}^{\bar{h}}dt'
+\f12\int_1^tt'^{2}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t')\|_2^2dt'
+\f12\nu\int_1^tt'^{3}\|\pa_vA^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t')\|_2^2dt'\\
&\leq \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(1)\|_2^2\\
&\quad+C\left[\|g\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s})}
+\int_{1}^t\f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{t'^2}\left(\nu^{-\f13}\chi_{t'\lesssim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')+\nu^{\f13\b}t'^{1-\b}\chi_{t'\gtrsim \nu^{-\f13}}(t')\right)dt'\right]\|t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2\|_{L^{\infty}_T}^2\\
&\quad+C\int_{1}^{t}\f{\ep^2\nu^{\f23}t^{\f12}}{\langle\nu t'^3\rangle}dt'\|t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2\|_{L^{\infty}_T}\\
&\quad+ C\|t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2\|_{L^{\infty}_T}\left(\int_1^t\left[\f{\ep t'^{\f12}}{t'}\f{\nu^{-\f16}}{\langle \nu t'^3\rangle}\right]^2dt'\right)^{\f12}\nu^{\f12}\|\sqrt{-\Delta_{L}}f_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{T}(H^{\s})}\\
&\quad +C\|t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2 \left(\int_1^t\left[t'^{\f12}\f{\ep\nu^{-\f16}}{\langle t\rangle \langle \nu t^3\rangle}\right]^2dt'\right)^{\f12}
\nu^{\f12}\|\pa_vh(t')\|_{L^2_{T}H^{\s}}\\
&\quad +C\left\|t'^{\f32}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t')\right\|_{L^2_{T}(L^2)}
\left\|\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}f_{\neq}\right\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s})}\left\|\f{\ep^2t^{\f12}\langle \nu^{\f13}t\rangle^{1+\b}}{\langle\nu t^3\rangle}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\\
&\quad+C\left\|t'^{\f32}\sqrt{\f{\pa_tw}{w}}A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t')\right\|_{L^2_{T}(L^2)}
\left\|\f{\ep^3\nu^{\f12}t^{\f12}}{\langle \nu t^3\rangle}\right\|_{L^2_T}\\
&\leq \|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(1)\|_2^2
+\f{1}{100} \|t^{\f32}\|A^{\sigma}\bar{h}(t)\|_2\|_{L^{\infty}_T}^2+\f{1}{100} \int_1^tt'^{3}CK_w^{\bar{h}}dt'
+C\ep^4\nu^{\f13}.
\end{align*}
The energy for $h$ in $H^{\s}$ is similar to the estimate of $H^{\s-1}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|{h}\|_{H^{\s}}^2
&=-\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}h\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\Big(g\pa_v h-\bar{h}-\nu (v')^2\pa_v^2h\big)dv\\
&=-\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}h\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}(g\pa_v h)dv\\
&\quad+\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}h \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\bar{h}dv\\
&\quad +\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}h \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s}\big(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2h\big)dv
-\nu\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{\s}}^2\\
&=-\nu\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{\s}}^2+V^{H,{h}}_{1,\s}+V^{H,{h}}_{2,\s}+V^{H,{h}}_{3,\s},
\end{align*}
We get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,{h}}_{1,\s}|\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{\s}}\|h\|_{H^{\s}}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,{h}}_{2,\s}|\lesssim \|h\|_{H^{\s}}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V^{H,{h}}_{3,\s}|\lesssim \ep\nu^{\f13}\nu \|\pa_vh\|_{H^{\s}}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\|{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^{\s})}^2
&\leq \|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s}}^2
+C\|g\|_{L^1_{T}H^{\s}}\|{h}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{\s}}^2
+C\|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s}}\|\bar{h}\|_{L^1_{T}(H^{\s})}\\
&\leq \|{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s}}^2+\f{1}{100} \|{h}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{\s}}^2+C\ep^3\nu^{\f13}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Lower energy estimate}\label{Sec: Lower energy estimate}
\subsubsection{Energy estimate of $g$ in $H^{\s-6}$}\label{sec: g-low}
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\Big( t^{4}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g\|_{2}^2\Big)
&=(4) t^{3}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} g\|_2^2
+ t^{4}\f{d}{dt}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g\|_{2}^2\\
&=(4)t^{3}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} g\|_2^2
+2 t^{4}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\pa_tgdv\\
&=-2t^{4}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}(g\pa_vg)dv\\
&\quad-2t^{3}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} (v'<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>)dv\\
&\quad+2t^{4}\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2g)dv
-2t^{4}\nu \|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2\\
&=-2t^{4}\nu \|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+V_1^{L,g}+V_2^{L,g}+V_3^{L,g}.
\end{align*}
As before we deal with $V_1^{L,g}$ by commutator estimate and integration by parts.
\begin{align*}
|V_1^{L,g}|
&\lesssim \left|t^{4}\int \pa_vg |\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g|^2 dv\right|
+\left|t^{4}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g [\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6},g]\pa_vg dv\right|\\
&\lesssim t^{4}\|g\|_{H^{3}}\|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2.
\end{align*}
For $V_2^{L,g}$, by the fact that $<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>=\pa_v<\pa_zP_{\neq} \phi \widetilde{u}>$, we get
\begin{align*}
|V_2^{L,g}|
&\lesssim t^{3}\|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}
\Big(\left\|((v'-1)<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>)\right\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\left\|<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}\widetilde{u}>\right\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2\Big)\\
&\lesssim t^{3}\|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}
(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|<\pa_zP_{\neq}\phi\widetilde{u}> \|_{H^{\s-5}}\\
&\lesssim t^{3}\|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}
(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})
\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-4}}\|\widetilde{u}\|_{H^{\s-5}}.
\end{align*}
Then by the bootstrap assumption and Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam}, we get
\begin{align*}
|V_2^{L,g}|
&\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}
\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-2}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-4}}.
\end{align*}
For the dissipation error term. We have
\begin{align*}
|V_3^{L,g}|
&\lesssim \left|t^{4}\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}g \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2g)dv\right|\\
&\lesssim t^{4}\nu\|((v')^2-1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2 \\
&\quad+ t^4\nu \|\pa_v((v')^2-1)\|_{2}\|\pa_vg\|_{2}\|g\|_{H^1}
+ t^4\nu \|((v')^2-1)\|_{2}\|\pa_vg\|_{2}^2\\
&\lesssim t^{4}\nu(1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}}\|\pa_vg\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+ t^4\nu (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{2}}\|\pa_vg\|_{H^2}\|g\|_{H^1}.
\end{align*}
Thus by the bootstrap assumption, we get that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\nu\int_1^Tt'^4 \|\pa_vg(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt'\\
&\leq \|g(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+C\bigg(\|g\|_{L^1_T(H^{\s-6})}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}t'^2\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}\int_1^T\f{\|f_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}_T(H^{\s-2})}^2}{t^2}dt\\
&\quad +\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(H^2)}\|t^2\pa_vg\|_{L^2_T(H^2)}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}t'^2\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}\bigg)\\
&\leq \|g(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+C\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|g(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\ep^2\nu^{\f23}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}t'^2\|g(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}.
\end{align*}
Thus by taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim6}.
\subsubsection{Energy estimate of $\bar{h}$ in $H^{\s-6}$}\label{sec: bar h}
The estimate is same as the estimates of $g$ in lower Sobolev spaces. We have
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\Big( t^{4}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h}\|_{2}^2\Big)
&=4 t^{3}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} \bar{h}\|_2^2
+ t^{4}\f{d}{dt}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h}\|_{2}^2\\
&=(4)t^{3}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} \bar{h}\|_2^2
+2 t^{4}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h} \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\pa_t\bar{h}dv\\
&=-2t^{4}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h} \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}(g\pa_v\bar{h})dv\\
&\quad-2t^{3}\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h} \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6} (v'<\na_{z,v}^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na_{z,v}f>)dv\\
&\quad+2t^{4}\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}\bar{h} \langle \pa_v\rangle^{\s-6}(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2\bar{h})dv
-2t^{4}\nu \|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2\\
&=-2t^{4}\nu \|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+V_1^{L,\bar{h}}+V_2^{L,\bar{h}}+V_3^{L,\bar{h}}.
\end{align*}
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|V_1^{L,\bar{h}}|\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{\s-6}}\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $V_2^{L,\bar{h}}$, we get by Lemma \ref{lem: lin-inv-dam} that,
\begin{align*}
|V_2^{L,\bar{h}}|
&\lesssim t\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|<\pa_zP_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\|_{H^{\s-5}}\\
&\lesssim t\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{\s-6}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}\\
&\quad+t\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^3} \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-5}}\\
&\lesssim t^{-1}\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^{\s-4}}\|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{2}}\\
&\quad+t^{-1}\|t^2\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}(1+\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}})\|P_{\neq}f\|_{H^5} \|f_{\neq}\|_{H^{\s-5}}.
\end{align*}
At last for the dissipation error term, we have
\begin{align*}
|V_3^{L,\bar{h}}|\lesssim t^{4}\nu(1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|h\|_{H^{\s-6}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+ t^4\nu (1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|\pa_v h\|_{H^{2}}\|\pa_v\bar{h}\|_{H^2}\|\bar{h}\|_{H^1}.
\end{align*}
Thus by the bootstrap hypotheses, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\nu\int_1^Tt'^4 \|\pa_v\bar{h}(t')\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2dt'\\
&\leq \|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+C\bigg(\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2
+\ep^2\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^2\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}\bigg)\\
&\leq \|\bar{h}(1)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+\f{1}{100}\sup_{t\in [1,T]}t^4\|\bar{h}(t)\|_{H^{\s-6}}^2+C\ep^4\nu^{\f23}.
\end{align*}
Therefore by taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim7}.
\section{Decay estimate of vorticity}\label{Sec: Decay estimate of vorticity}
\subsection{Decay estimate of nonzero mode: Enhanced dissipation}\label{sec: f-low-enha}
Up to an adjustment of the constants in the bootstrap argument, it suffices to consider only $t$ such that $\nu t^3\geq 1$ (say), as otherwise the decay estimate follows trivially from the higher regularity energy estimate.
Recall that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta} \langle k,\eta\rangle^{2s} |D(t,\eta)\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta.
\end{eqnarray*}
Computing the time evolution of $\|A^s_Ef\|_2$
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2
&=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta} \f{\pa_tD(t,\eta)}{D(t,\eta)}|A^s_E\hat{f}_k(t,\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\quad-\int A^s_EfA^s_E(u\cdot\na f)dvdz
+\nu\int A^s_EfA^s_E(\tilde{\Delta}_tf)dvdz\\
&\leq \f{1}{8}\nu t^2\left\|1_{t\geq 2|\eta|}A^s_E\widehat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right\|_2^2\\
&\quad-\int A^s_EfA^s_E(u\cdot\na f)dvdz
+\nu\int A^s_EfA^s_E(\tilde{\Delta}_tf)dvdz
\end{align*}
We write the dissipation term as follows
\begin{align*}
\nu\int A^s_EfA^s_E(\tilde{\Delta}_tf)dvdz
&=-\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2
-\nu\int A^s_EfA^s_E\left(((v')^2-1)(\pa_v^2-t\pa_z^2)f\right)dvdz\\
&=-\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2+E^{\nu}
\end{align*}
First, we need to cancel the growing term cause by $D(t,\eta)$. Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
&\f{1}{8}\nu t^2\left\|1_{t\geq 2|\eta|}A^s_E\widehat{f}_k(t,\eta)\right\|_2^2-\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2\\
&=\sum_{k\neq 0}\int \nu\left(\f18 t^21_{t\geq 2\eta}-k^2-(\eta-kt)^2\right)|A^s_E\hat{f}_k(\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\leq -\f{1}{8}\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
which gives that
\begin{equation}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2\leq -\int A^s_EfA^s_E(u\cdot\na f)dvdz-\f{1}{8}\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2+E^{\nu}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Euler nonlinearity}
We first divide into zero and non-zero frequency contributions, as they will be treated differently:
\begin{align*}
-\int A^s_EfA^s_E(u\cdot\na f)dvdz
&=-\int A^s_EfA^s_E(g\pa_vf)dvdz
-\int A^s_EfA^s_E\left(v'\na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na f\right)dvdz\\
&=E_1+E_2.
\end{align*}
For $E_1$ we use the commutator trick and the paraproduct (in both $z$ and $v$)
\begin{align*}
E_1&=\f12\int \pa_vg|A^s_Ef|^2dvdz
+\int A^s_Ef\left[g\pa_vA^s_Ef-A^s_E(g\pa_vf)\right]dvdz\\
&=\f12\int \pa_vg|A^s_Ef|^2dvdz
+\sum_{N\geq 8}T_N^0+\sum_{N\geq 8}R_N^0+\mathcal{R}^0,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
&T_N^0=\int A^s_Ef\left[g_{<N/8}\pa_vA^s_Ef_N-A^s_E(g_{<N/8}\pa_vf_N)\right]dvdz\\
&R_N^0=\int A^s_Ef\left[g_{N}\pa_vA^s_Ef_{<N/8}-A^s_E(g_{N}\pa_vf_{<N/8})\right]dvdz\\
&\mathcal{R}^0=\sum_{N\in\mathbb{D}}\sum_{N/8\leq N'\leq 8N}\int A^s_Ef\left[g_{N'}\pa_vA^s_Ef_{N}-A^s_E(g_{N'}\pa_vf_{N})\right]dvdz
\end{align*}
\noindent{\it Treatment of $T_N^0$.}\\
We get that
\begin{align*}
T_N^0
&=-i\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
A^s_E\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
D(\eta)(\langle k,\eta\rangle^{s}-\langle k,\xi\rangle^{s})
\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\xi\hat{f}_k(\xi)_Nd\eta d\xi\\
&\quad-i\sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
A^s_E\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)
\langle k,\xi\rangle^{s}(D(\eta)-D(\xi))
\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}\xi\hat{f}_k(\xi)_Nd\eta d\xi\\
&=T_N^{0,1}+T_N^{0,2}.
\end{align*}
For the term $T_N^{0,1}$, by Lemma \ref{lem: D-D} and the fact that $|k,\eta|\approx |k,\xi|$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\langle k,\eta\rangle^{s}-\langle k,\xi\rangle^{s}|\lesssim \f{|\xi-\eta|}{\langle \eta\rangle+\langle \xi\rangle}\langle k,\xi\rangle^{s}
\end{eqnarray*}
we have
\begin{align*}
|T_N^{0,1}|&\lesssim \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
|A^s_E\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|
\langle\eta-\xi\rangle^4|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|\f{|\xi|}{\langle \xi\rangle} A_E^s\hat{f}_k(\xi)_Nd\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A_E^sf_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A_E^sf_{N}\|_2\|g\|_{H^5}
\end{align*}
We turn to $T_N^{0,2}$, by Lemma \ref{lem: D-D}, we get
\begin{align*}
|T_N^{0,2}|&\lesssim \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}
|A^s_E\bar{\hat{f}}_k(\eta)|
\langle\eta-\xi\rangle|\hat{g}(\eta-\xi)_{<N/8}|\f{|\xi|}{\langle \xi\rangle} A_E^s\hat{f}_k(\xi)_Nd\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \|A_E^sf_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|A_E^sf_{N}\|_2\|g\|_{H^2}.
\end{align*}
Thus we get by \eqref{eq: L-P-ortho} and \eqref{eq: L-P-ortho2} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: T_N^0}
\sum_{N\geq 8}|T_N^0|\leq \|g\|_{H^5}\|A_E^sf\|_2^2
\end{equation}
\noindent{\it Treatment of $R_N^0$. }\\
The ‘reaction’ term $R_N^0$ is dealt with easily by 'moving' the derivative to $g$. We have
\begin{align*}
\left|\int A^s_Efg_{N}\pa_vA^s_Ef_{<N/8}dvdz\right|
\lesssim \|A^s_Ef_{\sim N}\|_{2}\|g_{N}\|_{H^2}\|A^s_Ef\|_{2},
\end{align*}
and by Lemma \ref{lem: D-D} and the fact that $A^s_E(g_{N}\pa_v(f)_{<N/8})=A^s_E(g_{N}\pa_v(f_{\neq})_{<N/8})$, we get
\begin{align*}
&\left|\int A^s_EfA^s_E(g_{N}\pa_v(f_{\neq})_{<N/8})dvdz\right|\\
&\lesssim \left|\sum_k\int_{\eta,\xi} A^s_E|\hat{f}_k(\eta)|
\langle\eta-\xi\rangle^3\langle k,\eta\rangle^{s}
|\hat{g}_{N}(\xi-\eta)||\xi||\hat{f}_k(\xi)_{<N/8}|d\eta d\xi\right|.
\end{align*}
On the support of the integrand, we have $|k,\eta|\approx |\xi-\eta|\gtrsim |k,\xi|$ and thus
\begin{align*}
\left|\int A^s_EfA^s_E(g_{N}\pa_v(f_{\neq})_{<N/8})dvdz\right|
\lesssim \|A^s_Ef_{\sim N}\|_2\|A^s_Ef\|_{2}\|g_{N}\|_{H^{s+4}}.
\end{align*}
The treatment of the remainder terms is similar to the reaction term. We have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}^0
&\lesssim \sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\|A^s_Ef\|_2\|A^s_Ef_{N}\|_{2}\|g_{\sim N}\|_{H^{s+4}}\\
&\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{s+4}}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore by the bootstrap hypotheses, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: E_1}
|E_1|\lesssim \|g\|_{H^{s+4}}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2\leq \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
\noindent{\it Treatment of $E_2$.}\\
Next turn to $E_2$. Now we need use the inviscid damping to obtain decay in time. Roughly speaking, if $f$ is of zero mode, we will land the operator $A^s_E$ on $P_{\neq}\phi$ and use the lossy elliptic estimate for $A^s_E$.
Thus we get by Lemma \ref{lem: product} that
\begin{align*}
|E_2|&\lesssim \|A_E^sf\|_2\|A_E^s((v'-1)\na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na f)\|_2
+\|A_E^sf\|_2\|A_E^s(\na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi\cdot\na f)\|_2\\
&\lesssim \|A_E^sf\|_2(1+\|h\|_{H^{s+3}})\|A_E^s(\na^{\bot}P_{\neq}\phi \cdot\na f_{\neq})\|_2\\
&\lesssim \|A_E^sf\|_2(1+\|h\|_{H^{s+3}})\|A_E^sP_{\neq}\phi\|_{2}\|f\|_{H^{s+5}}+\|A_E^sf\|_2^2(1+\|h\|_{H^{s+3}})\|P_{\neq}\phi\|_{H^{s+5}}.
\end{align*}
Thus by the bootstrap hypotheses and Lemma \ref{lem: loss-elliptic-A_E^s}, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq: E_2}
|E_2|\lesssim \f{\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}(\|A_E^sf\|_2^2+\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2\|A_E^sf\|_2).
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Dissipation error term}
By Lemma \ref{lem: D-D} and the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi-kt|\leq |\xi-\eta|+|\eta-kt|\leq \langle \xi-\eta\rangle \sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
we have
\begin{align*}
|E^{\nu}|
&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\left|
A_E^s\hat{f}_k(\eta)A_E^s(k,\eta)\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)|\xi-kt|^2\hat{f}_k(\xi)\right|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\left|
A_E^s\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2}\hat{f}_k(\eta)A_E^s(k,\eta)\langle \xi-\eta\rangle\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)|\xi-kt|\hat{f}_k(\xi)\right|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim
\nu \sum_{k\neq 0}\int_{\eta,\xi}\left|
A_E^s\sqrt{k^2+|\eta-kt|^2}\hat{f}_k(\eta)\langle \xi-\eta\rangle^4\widehat{(1-(v')^2)}(\eta-\xi)|\xi-kt|A_E^s(k,\xi)\hat{f}_k(\xi)\right|d\eta d\xi\\
&\lesssim \nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A_E^sf\right\|_2^2\|(1-(v')^2)\|_{H^6}\lesssim \nu(1+\|h\|_{H^2})\|h\|_{H^6}\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A_E^sf\right\|_2^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we get that
\begin{align*}
\f12\f{d}{dt}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2
&\leq E_1+E_2-\f{1}{8}\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2+E^{\nu}\\
&\leq \f{C\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^s_Ef\|_2^2
+\f{C\ep\nu^{\f13}}{\langle t\rangle^2}\|A^{\sigma} f\|_2^2\\
&\quad-\f{1}{8}\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2
+C\nu\ep\nu^{\f13}\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef\right\|_2^2,
\end{align*}
which gives that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2
+\int_1^t\f{1}{5}\nu\left\|\sqrt{-\Delta_L}A^s_Ef(t')\right\|_2^2dt'
\leq \|A^s_Ef(1)\|_2^2+C\ep\nu^{\f13}\|A^s_Ef(t)\|_2^2+C\ep^3\nu.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim5}.
\subsection{Decay of zero mode}\label{sec: f-low-0}
Here we start the proof of \eqref{eq: aim8}. The zero mode $f_0$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\pa_tf_0+g\pa_v f_0+v'<\na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq}\phi \cdot \na_{z,v}f>-\nu (v')^2\pa_v^2f_0=0.
\end{equation}
We want to prove that the zero mode slightly decays. It is nature to study the time evolution of
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t)=\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0\|_2^2+\f{t\nu}{2}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0\|_2^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
We get
\begin{align*}
\f{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t)
&=\f12\nu \|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0\|_2^2
+t\nu\f12\f{d}{dt}\left(\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0\|_2^2\right)+\f{d}{dt}\left(\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0\|_2^2\right)\\
&=-\f32\nu \|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0\|_2^2
-\nu^2 t\|\pa_v^2f_0\|_{H^s}^2\\
&\quad-\nu t \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_v(g\pa_v f_0)dv
-2\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}(g\pa_v f_0)dv\\
&\quad-\nu t\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_v\left( v'< \na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq}\phi \cdot \na_{z,v}f>\right) dv \\
&\quad-2\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\left( v'< \na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq}\phi \cdot \na_{z,v}f>\right) dv \\
&\quad+\nu^2 t\int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_v( ((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2f_0)dv\\
&\quad+2\nu \int \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0 \langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}(((v')^2-1)\pa_v^2f_0)dv\\
&=-\f32\nu \|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0\|_2^2
-\nu^2 t\|\pa_v^2f_0\|_{H^s}^2\\
&\quad+ V_{1,1}+V_{1,2}+V_{2,1}+V_{2,2}+V_{3,1}+V_{3,2}.
\end{align*}
To treat $V_{1,1}$ and $V_{1,2}$, we use commutator estimate and integration by part.
\begin{align*}
|V_{1,1}|+|V_{1,2}|
&\lesssim \|\pa_v g\|_{L^{\infty}}(\|f_0\|_{H^s}^2+\nu t\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2)\\
&\quad+\|f_0\|_{H^s}\|[\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s},g]\pa_vf_0\|_{L^2}
+\nu t\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}\|[\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_v,g]\pa_vf_0\|_{L^2}\\
&\lesssim \| g\|_{H^{s}}\left(\|f_0\|_{H^s}^2+\f12\nu t\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}^2\right).
\end{align*}
Next we turn to $V_{2,1}, V_{2,2}$, by using the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
< \na^{\bot}_{z,v}P_{\neq}\phi \cdot \na_{z,v}f>=\pa_v<\pa_z P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>,
\end{eqnarray*}
we get that
\begin{align*}
|V_{2,1}|&\lesssim \nu t\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}
\left(\left\|h\pa_v<\pa_z P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\right\|_{H^{s+1}}+\left\|\pa_v<\pa_z P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\right\|_{H^{s+1}}\right)\\
&\lesssim \nu t(1+\|h\|_{H^{s+1}})\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^s}
\left\|P_{\neq}\phi\right\|_{H^{s+3}} \left\|f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{s+2}},
\end{align*}
and similarly
\begin{align*}
|V_{2,2}|&\lesssim \|f_0\|_{H^s}
\left(\left\|h\pa_v<\pa_z P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\right\|_{H^{s}}+\left\|\pa_v<\pa_z P_{\neq}\phi f_{\neq}>\right\|_{H^{s+1}}\right)\\
&\lesssim (1+\|h\|_{H^{s}})\|f_0\|_{H^s}
\left\|P_{\neq}\phi\right\|_{H^{s+2}} \left\|f_{\neq}\right\|_{H^{s+1}}.
\end{align*}
Finally we turn to $V_{3,1},V_{3,2}$, as before, we have
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,1}|\lesssim
&\nu^2t \|\pa_v^2f_0\|_{H^s}^2\|(v')^2-1\|_{H^{s+1}}
+\nu^2t \|\pa_v((v')^2-1)\|_{2}\|\pa_v^2f_0\|_{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{H^1},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
|V_{3,2}|\lesssim
&\nu\|\pa_v^2f_0\|_{H^s}^2\|(v')^2-1\|_{H^{s}}+
\nu\|\pa_v((v')^2-1)\|_{2}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{2}\|f_0\|_{H^1}
\end{align*}
Thus by the bootstrap assumption, we get that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')
+\nu\int_1^T\|\pa_vf_0(t)\|_{H^s}^2dt\\
&\leq \left(\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0(1)\|_2^2+\f{\nu}{2}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0(1)\|_2^2\right)\\
&\quad
+C\bigg[\|g\|_{L^1_{T}(H^s)}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')
+\left[\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')\right]^{\f12}\|f_{\neq}\|_{L^{\infty}_T(H^{s+5})}^2\int_1^T\f{\sqrt{\nu t}+1}{t^2}dt\\
&\quad+\nu \|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_{T}H^1} \|\sqrt{\nu t}\pa_v^2f_0\|_{L^2_{T}(L^2)}\|\sqrt{\nu t}\pa_vf_0\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}(H^1)}
+\nu\|\pa_vh\|_{L^2_T(L^2)}\|\pa_vf_0\|_{L^2_T(L^2)}\|f_0\|_{L^{\infty}_T(H^1)}\bigg]\\
&\leq \left(\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0(1)\|_2^2+\f{\nu}{2}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0(1)\|_2^2\right)
+C\ep\nu^{\f13}\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')
+C\ep^2\nu^{\f23}\left[\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')\right]^{\f12}
+C\ep^3\nu\\
&\leq \left(\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}f_0(1)\|_2^2+\f{\nu}{2}\|\langle \pa_v\rangle^{s}\pa_vf_0(1)\|_2^2\right)
+C\ep\sup_{t'\in [1,t]}\mathcal{E}_{L,0}(t')+C\ep^3\nu.
\end{align*}
Thus by taking $\ep$ small enough, we proved \eqref{eq: aim8}.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Littlewood-Paley decomposition and paraproducts}\label{Sec: L-P}
In this section we fix conventions and notation regarding Fourier analysis, Littlewood-Paley and paraproduct decompositions. See e.g. \cite{BCD-book,Bony} for more details.
For $f(z,v)$ in the Schwartz space, we define the Fourier transform $\hat{f}_k(\eta)$ where $(k,\eta)\in \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbf R$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{f}_k(\eta)=\f{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times R}f(z,v)e^{-ikz-iv\eta}dzdv,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the Fourier inversion formula,
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(z,v)=\f{1}{2\pi}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{\mathbf R}\hat{f}_k(\eta)e^{ikz+iv\eta}d\eta.
\end{eqnarray*}
With this definition, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int f(z,v)g(z,v)dzdv=\sum_{k}\int \hat{f}_k(\eta)\hat{g}_k(\eta)d\eta,\\
&&\hat{fg}=\hat{f}\ast \hat{g}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This work makes heavy use of the Littlewood-Paley dyadic decomposition. Here we fix conventions and review the basic properties of this classical theory, see e.g. \cite{BCD-book} for more details. First we define the Littlewood-Paley decomposition only in the $v$ variable. Let $\psi\in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbf R; \mathbf R)$ be such that $\psi(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\leq \f12$ and $\psi(\xi)=0$ for $|\xi|\geq \f34$ and define $\chi(\xi)=\psi(\xi/2)-\psi(\xi)$ supported in the range $\xi\in (\f12,\f32)$. Then we have the partition of unity
\begin{eqnarray*}
1=\psi(\xi)+\sum_{M\in 2^{\mathbb{N}}}\chi_{M}(\xi)
\end{eqnarray*}
where we mean that the sum runs over the dyadic numbers $M=1,2,4,8,...,2^j,...$ and $\chi_{M}(\xi)=\chi(M^{-1}\xi)$ which has the compact support $M/2\leq |\xi|\leq 3M/2$. For $f\in L^2(\mathbf R)$, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&f_M=\big(\chi_{M}(\xi)\hat{f}(\xi)\big)^{\vee},\\
&&f_{\f12}= \big(\psi(\xi)\hat{f}(\xi)\big)^{\vee},\\
&&f_{<M}=f_{\f12}+\sum_{K\in 2^{\mathbb{N}},K<M}f_K
\end{eqnarray*}
which defines the decomposition
\begin{eqnarray*}
f=f_{\f12}+\sum_{K\in 2^{\mathbb{N}}}f_K.
\end{eqnarray*}
There holds the almost orthogonality and the approximate projection property
\begin{equation}\label{eq: L-P-ortho}
\begin{split}
&\|f\|_2^2\approx \sum_{K\in \mathbb{D}}\|f_K\|_2^2,\\
&\|f_{M}\|_2^2\approx \|(f_{M})_{M}\|_2^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The following is also clear for $M\geq 1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\||\pa_v|f_{M}\|_2^2\approx M\|f_{M}\|_2^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
We make use of the notation
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{\sim M}=\sum_{K\in \mathbb{D}:\ \f{1}{C}M\leq K\leq CM}f_{K},
\end{eqnarray*}
for some constant $C$ which is independent of $M$. Generally the exact value of $C$ which is being used is not important; what is important is that it is finite and independent of $M$. With this notation, we also have
\begin{equation}\label{eq: L-P-ortho2}
\|f\|_2^2\approx_{C} \sum_{K\in \mathbb{D}}\|f_{\sim K}\|_2^2
\end{equation}
During much of the proof we are also working with Littlewood-Paley decompositions defined in the $(z,v)$ variables, with the notation conventions being analogous. Our convention is to use $N$ to denote Littlewood-Paley projections in $(z,v)$ and $M$ to denote projections only in the $v$ direction.
Another key Fourier analysis tool employed in this work is the paraproduct decomposition, introduced by Bony \cite{Bony}(see also \cite{BCD-book}). Given suitable functions $f,g$ we may define the paraproduct decomposition (in either $(z, v)$ or just $v$),
\begin{align*}
fg&=T_fg+T_gf+\mathcal{R}(f,g)\\
&=\sum_{N\geq 8}f_{<N/8}g_N+\sum_{N\geq 8}f_{N}g_{<N/8}
+\sum_{N\in \mathbb{D}}\sum_{N/8\leq N'\leq 8N}g_{N'}f_N,
\end{align*}
where all the sums are understood to run over $\mathbb{D}$. In our work we do not employ the notation in the first line since at most steps in the proof we are forced to explicitly write the sums and treat them term-by-term anyway. This is due to the fact that we are working in non-standard regularity spaces and, more crucially, are usually applying multipliers which do not satisfy any version of $AT_fg\approx T_fAg$. Hence, we have to prove almost everything ‘from scratch’ and can only rely on standard para-differential calculus as a guide.
We also show some product estimates(or Young's inequality) based on Sobolev embedding. It holds for $s>1$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: prod1}
\begin{split}
&\|fg\|_{H^s(\mathbb{T}\times R)}
\lesssim \|f\|_{H^s(\mathbb{T}\times R)}\|g\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{T}\times R)},\\
&\|f\ast g\|_{2}\lesssim \|f\|_2\|g\|_{H^s(\mathbb{T}\times R)},\\
&\|f\ast g\ast h\|_2\lesssim \|f\|_2\|g\|_2\|h\|_{H^s(\mathbb{T}\times R)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We end this subsection by introducing the commutator estimate which can be found in \cite{KatoPonce}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{KatoPonce}]\label{lem: commutator}
Let $J=(1-\Delta)^{\f12}$, for $1<p<\infty$ and $s\geq 0$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|J^s(fg)-f(J^sg)\|_p\lesssim_{p,s}
\|\na f\|_{\infty}\|J^{s-1}g\|_p+\|J^sf\|_p\|g\|_{\infty}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Composition lemma}
According to the coordinate transform, we need the following composition lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: composition}
Suppose that $\g>1$, let $F\in H^{\g }:\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R\to \mathbf R$, $G:\ \mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R\to\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R$ be such that $\|\na G-I_{2\times 2}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \f14$ and $\na G-I_{2\times 2}\in H^{\g }:\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R\to \mathcal{M}_{2\times 2}$. Then there exists $C=C(\|\na G-I_{2\times 2}\|_{H^\g },\g )$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|F\circ G\|_{H^\g }\leq C\|F\|_{H^\g }.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we have $\|F\circ G\|_2^2\approx \|F\|_2^2$. Then
by the fact that $\na (F\circ G)=[(\na F)\circ G](\na G-I_{2\times 2})+(\na F)\circ G$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|F\circ G\|_{H^\g }\lesssim \|(\na F)\circ G\|_{H^{\g -1}}\|(\na G-I_{2\times 2})\|_{H^\g }+\|(\na F)\circ G\|_{H^{\g -1}}\lesssim \|(\na F)\circ G\|_{H^{\g -1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\g =[\g ]+\{\g \}$ with $\{\g \}\in [0,1)$, then by the equivalent definition of the fractional order Sobolev spaces, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|F\|_{H^\g }\approx \|F\|_{H^{[\g ]}}+\sum_{\g_1+\g_2=[\g]}\left(\int_{(\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R)^2}\f{|\pa_{x}^{\g_1}\pa_{y}^{\g_2}F(x_1,y_1)-\pa_{x}^{\g_1}\pa_{y}^{\g_2}F(x_2,y_2)|^2}{((x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2)^{1+\{\g\}}}dx_1dy_1dx_2dy_2\right)^{\f12}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, we only need to prove
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|F\circ G\|_{H^{\{\g\}}}\leq C\|F\|_{H^{\{\g\}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|F\circ G\|_{H^{\{\g\}}}^2\approx \int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\f{|F(G(x_1,y_1))-F(G(x_2,y_2))|^2}{((x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2)^{1+\{\g\}}}dx_1dy_1dx_2dy_2\\
&\lesssim \int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\f{|F(G(x_1,y_1))-F(G(x_2,y_2))|^2}{|G(x_1,y_1)-G(x_1,y_1)|^{2+2\{\g\}}}\f{|G(x_1,y_1)-G(x_1,y_1)|^{2+2\{\g\}}}{((x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2)^{1+\{\g\}}}dx_1dy_1dx_2dy_2\\
&\lesssim \|\na G\|_{L^{\infty}}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\f{|F(G(x_1,y_1))-F(G(x_2,y_2))|^2}{|G(x_1,y_1)-G(x_1,y_1)|^{2+2\{\g\}}}dx_1dy_1dx_2dy_2.
\end{align*}
By assumption $\|\na G-I_{2\times 2}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \f14$, we have $(x,y)\to (z,v)=G(x,y)$ is invertible and thus
\begin{align*}
\|F\circ G\|_{H^{\{\g\}}}^2
&\lesssim \|\na G\|_{L^{\infty}}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\int_{\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R}\f{|F(z_1,v_1)-F(z_1,v_1)|^2}{((z_1-z_2)^2+(v_1-v_2)^2)^{1+\{\g\}}}dz_1dv_1dz_2dv_2\\
&\lesssim (\|\na G-I_{2\times 2}\|_{H^2}+1)\|F\|_{H^{\{\g\}}}^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
We presented \textsf{IBM Science Summarizer}, the first system that provides researchers a tool to systematically explore and consume summaries of scientific papers.
As future work, we plan to add support for additional entities e.g., methods, and to increase our corpus to include more papers. Finally, we plan to provide this tool to the community as an open service and conduct an extensive user study about the usage and quality of the system, including automatic evaluation of the summaries.
\section{Human Evaluation}
\label{eval}
\textsf{IBM Science Summarizer} summarization paradigm is section-based, i.e., each section is summarized independently, and then all sections' summaries are combined into the paper's summary. In order to evaluate this paradigm, we approached $12$ authors from the NLP community, and asked them to evaluate summaries of two papers that they have co-authored (preferably as the first author).
For each paper, we generated two summaries of two types: the \textit{section-based} summary as described above, and a second summary generated using the same algorithm but ignoring sections (i.e., treating the paper content as flat text), a \textit{section-agnostic} summary. For the section-based summary, each section's summary length was fixed to $10$ sentences.
The length of the section-agnostic summary was defined as the length of the section-based summary. In total $24$ papers, and $48$ summaries were evaluated.
\paragraph{Tasks.} The authors evaluated summaries of each summary type, section-agnostic and section-based (in random order), by performing the following $3$ tasks per summary: (1) for each sentence in the summary, we asked them to indicate whether they would consider it as a part of a summary of their paper (i.e., precision oriented measure); (2) we asked them to evaluate how well each of the sections of the paper is covered in the summary (i.e., coverage/recall); and (3) we asked them to globally evaluate the quality of the summary.
For tasks (2) and (3) we used a 1-5 scale, ranging from very bad to excellent, $3$ means good.
\paragraph{Analysis.} The objective of the analysis is to find quantitative scores for each summary type to facilitate a comparison between them. For task (1), for each paper, we calculated the precision scores of the two summary types, and then computed the average score for each summary type across all papers.
For task (2), we calculated an average score for each paper and summary type by averaging over the sections scores. Then, we obtained the average of these scores for each summary type across all papers.
Finally, for task (3), we simply averaged the scores given by the authors to each summary type. To further quantify the evaluation, we analyzed how well each summary type did for each of the 3 tasks. For that we counted the number of times that each summary type scored better than the other, and then divided by the total number of papers, to obtain the ``\% wins''.
\paragraph{Results.} Table~\ref{tab:results} summarizes the results across the 3 tasks.
For example, for task (2), for $68\%$ of the papers, the section-based summary was scored higher, while, for $22\%$ the section-agnostic summary was scored higher (for $10\%$ of the papers, the summaries were scored equally). The average score for section-based summaries was $3.32$ with standard deviation of $0.53$.
Notably, the quality of the section-based summaries significantly outperforms the section-agnostic summaries on all 3 tasks, supporting our proposed paradigm.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Task & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Section-agnostic} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Section-based} \\\hline\hline
&\% wins & Avg. score (std)&\% wins & Avg. score (std) \\\hline
(1) &37 & 0.54 (0.17) &63& 0.6 (0.18)$\dagger$ \\ \hline
(2) & 22 & 3 (0.56) &68 &3.32 (0.53) $\dagger$ \\ \hline
(3) & 4.5 & 2.86 (0.56) &36& 3.22 (0.61) $\ddagger$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Tasks results for section-agnostic, and section-based. $\dagger$ - The results were significant with $p<0.05$. $\ddagger$- The results were significant with $p<0.005$. }
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\section{System Overview}
\label{framework}
\textsf{IBM Science Summarizer}'s main purpose is to support discovery, exploration and understanding of scientific papers by providing summaries.
The system has two parts. First, an ingestion pipeline parses and indexes papers' content from arXiv.com and ACL anthology, as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}(a).
Second, a search engine (backed up by a UI), supports search and exploration, coupled with summarization, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:framework}(b).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\columnwidth]{framework-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\textsf{IBM Science Summarizer} Framework.}~\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:ui} shows the user-interface for \textsf{IBM Science Summarizer}. Users interact with the system by posing natural language queries, or by using filters on the metadata fields such as conference venue, year, and author, or entities (e.g., tasks, datasets)\footnote{In this case, there is no user query.}. User experience is an important usability factor. Thus, our UI provides indicators to help users explore and understand results. Specifically, associating a comprehensive structure with each result allows users to navigate inside content in a controlled manner: each section shows clearly the elements that are computed by the system (section summary, detected entities, etc.) and the elements that are directly extracted from the original paper. This clear distinction allows users to have visibility into the systems' contributions~\cite{AI_UI}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{UI.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\textsf{IBM Science Summarizer} UI.}~\label{fig:ui}
\end{figure*}
\section{Ingestion Pipeline}
\label{indexing}
Our system contains 270,000 papers from arXiv.org (``Computer Science'' subset) and the ACL anthology\footnote{We removed duplication between the two by using Jaccard similarity on the titles and authors.}. The ingestion pipeline consists of paper acquisition, extracting the paper's text, tables and figures and enriching the paper's data with various annotations and entities.
\paragraph{Paper Parsing.}
We use Science-Parse\footnote{\url{github.com/allenai/science-parse}} to extract the PDF text, tables and figures. Science-Parse outputs a JSON record for each PDF, which among other fields, contains the title, abstract text, metadata (such as authors and year), and a list of the sections of the paper, where each record holds the section's title and text. We have merged sub-sections into their containing sections and this resulted in about 6-7 merged sections per article (e.g., see Fig.~\ref{fig:ui}).
Science-Parse also supports extracting figures and tables into an image file, as well as caption text.
In addition, we detect figure and table references in the extracted text. We extract tasks, datasets and metric (see details below).
Finally, we use Elasticsearch\footnote{\url{https://www.elastic.co}} to index the papers, where for each paper we index its title, abstract text, sections text and some metadata.
\input{entities_annotation}
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The publication rate of scientific papers is ever increasing and many tools such as Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and more, provide search capabilities and allow researchers to find papers of interest.
In Computer Science, and specifically, natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, new tools that go beyond search capabilities are used to monitor\footnote{{\url{arxiv-sanity.com}}}, explore~\cite{CLscholar}, discuss and comment\footnote{\url{groundai.com/}} publications.
Yet, there is still a high information load on researchers that seek to keep up-to-date.
Summarization of scientific papers can mitigate this issue and expose researchers with adequate amount of information in order to reduce the load.
Many tools for text summarization are available\footnote{\url{github.com/miso-belica/sumy,ivypanda.com/online-text-summarizer}}. However, such tools target mainly news or simple documents, not taking into account the characteristics of scientific papers i.e., their length and complexity.
A summarization system for scientific publications requires many underlying technologies: first, extracting structure, tables and figures from PDF documents, then, identifying important entities, and, finally, generating a useful summary.
We chose to provide summarization as part of a search system as it is the most common interface to consume scientific content, regardless of the task.
\input use-cases
\paragraph{Approach and Contribution.}
We present a novel summarization system for Computer Science publications, named \textsf{IBM Science Summarizer}, which can be useful foremost to the ACL community, and to researchers at large. It produces summaries focused around an information need provided by the user - a natural language query, scientific tasks (e.g., ``Machine Translation''), datasets or academic venues. \textsf{IBM Science Summarizer} summarizes the various sections of a paper independently, allowing users to focus on the relevant sections for the task at hand. In doing so, the system exploits the various entities and the user's interactions, like the user query, in order to provide a relevant summary. We validated our approach with human experts. The system is available at:
\url{https://ibm.biz/sciencesum}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{related}
Numerous tools support the domain of scientific publications including search, monitoring, exploring and more.
For automatic summarization, efforts mostly concentrated on automated generation of survey papers~\cite{Surveyor,CitationAS}. Surveyor~\cite{Surveyor} considers both content and discourse of source papers when generating survey papers. CitationAS~\cite{CitationAS} automatically generates survey papers using citation content for the medical domain.
The main differences between these systems and ours is that they create summaries from multi-documents, while our tool summarizes individual papers and supports query-focused summaries.
For supporting the ACL community, CL Scholar~\cite{CLscholar} presents a graph mining tool on top of the ACL anthology and enables exploration of research progress. TutorialBank~\cite{TutorialBank} helps researchers to learn or stay up-to-date in the NLP field.
Recently, paperswithcode\footnote{\url{paperswithcode.com/}} is an open resource for ML papers, code and leaderboards.
Our work is complementary to these approaches and provide the first tool for automatic summarization and exploration of scientific documents.\footnote{For clarity, more related works are referred to in the various sections of this paper.}
\section{Summarization}
\label{summarization}
This module generates a concise, coherent, informative summary for a given scientific paper that covers the main content conveyed in the text. The summary can either be focused around a query, or query agnostic (a generic summary)\footnote{Note that in order to optimize the response time, the production system currently offers query agnostic summaries.}.
Scientific papers are complex: they are long, structured, cover various subjects and the language may be quite different between sections, e.g., the introduction is quite different than the experiments section. To ensure our summarizer assigns sufficient attention to each of these aspects we have opted to generate a standalone summary for each section. This way we summarize a shorter, more focused text, and the users can navigate more easily as they are given the structure of the paper. Each of these section-based summaries are eventually composed together into one paper summary.
Scientific papers summarization goes back more than thirty years. Some of these works focus on summarizing content~\cite{Paice:1980:AGL:636669.636680, Paice:1993:IIC:160688.160696}, while others focused on citation sentences (citation-aware summarization) \cite{Elkiss:2008:BME:1331122.1331127, Qazvinian:2008:SPS:1599081.1599168,Abu-Jbara:2011:CCS:2002472.2002536}. Recently, \newcite{Yasunaga2019ScisummNetAL} released a large-scale dataset, \textit{Scisumm-Net}, including summaries produced by humans for over $1000$ scientific papers using solely the papers abstract and citations. While citations data encompasses the impact of the paper and views from the research community, it is not available for newly-published papers, and tends to lead to high level and shorter summaries (\textit{Scisumm-Net} average summary length is $151$ words). We opted to focus on more extensive, detailed summaries which do not rely on citations data.
As mentioned above, the inputs to the summarization module are an (optional) query and entities (task, dataset, metric), and the relevant papers returned by the search/filtering (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ui}).
Given a retrieved paper and the optional query $Q$ (or entity), we describe next how a summary is produced for each section $D$ in the paper.
\paragraph{Query Handling.}
If present, $Q$ can either be short and focused or verbose. If short, it is expanded using query expansion~\cite{Xu:2009:QDP:1571941.1571954}. This pseudo-relevance feedback transforms $Q$ into a profile of $100$ unigram terms, obtained from analyzing the top papers that are returned from our corpus as a response to the given query. Alternatively, in the case of a verbose query, a \textit{Fixed-Point} term weighting schema~\cite{Paik:2014:FMW:2661829.2661957} is applied in order to rank the terms of the query.
Alternatively, if only filtering is applied and there is no query, the keyphrases of the paper are extracted and used as a surrogate for the query. In this case, all keywords in the generated query are given the same weight.
\paragraph{Pre-Processing.}\label{sec:pre_processing}
Sentences are segmented using the \textit{NLTK} library and each sentence is tokenized, lower cased and stop words are removed. Then, each sentence is transformed into a unigrams and bi-grams \textit{bag-of-words} representations, where each \textit{n-gram} is associated with its relative frequency in the text.
\paragraph{Summarization Algorithm.}\label{sec:summarization}
In general, summaries can either be extractive or an abstractive. In the extractive case, a summary is generated by selecting a subset of sentences from the original input. Abstractive summarizers, on the other hand, can also paraphrase input text. In many cases, extractive summarization generates grammatical and focused summaries while abstractive techniques require heavy supervision, are limited to short documents and may transform meaning~\cite{Gambhir:2017:RAT:3041102.3041126}.
In our system, summarization is applied on $D$ using a state-of-the-art unsupervised, extractive, query focused summarization algorithm, inspired by \cite{DBLP:conf/sigir/FeigenblatRBK17}, whose details are briefly described as follows.
The algorithm gets a paper section, a natural language query $Q$, a desired summary length (in our case, $10$ sentences\footnote{We leave the study of variable-length section summaries for future work.}), and a set of entities associated with the query $E_Q$. The output $S$ is a subset of sentences from $D$ selected through an unsupervised optimization scheme. To this end, the sentence subset selection problem is posed as a multi-criteria optimization problem, where several summary quality objectives are be considered. The selection is obtained using the \textit{Cross Entropy (CE)} method \cite{Rubinstein:2004:CEM:1014902}. Optimization starts by assigning a uniform importance probability to each sentence in $D$. Then, CE works iteratively, and, at each iteration, it samples summaries using a learnt distribution over the sentences, and evaluates the quality of these summaries by applying a target function. This function takes into account several quality prediction objectives, which (for simplicity) are multiplied together. The learning process employs an exploration-exploitation trade-off in which the importance of a sentence is a fusion between its importance in previous iterations and its importance in the current one.
The following five summary quality predictors are used by~\newcite{DBLP:conf/sigir/FeigenblatRBK17}: query saliency, entities coverage, diversity, text coverage and sentence length.
\textit{Query saliency} measures to what extent the summary contains query related terms as expressed by the cosine similarity between the unigrams \textit{bag-of-words} representation of the summary and the query terms. \textit{Entities coverage} measures to what extent the set of entities identified in a summary shares the same set of entities with $E_Q$, measured by the Jaccard similarity between the sets. The aim of this objective is to produce a summary that is more aligned with the information need provided explicitly (as a filter specified by the user) or implicitly (learnt from the query terms). \textit{Diversity} lays towards summaries with a diverse language model using the entropy of the unigrams \textit{bag-of-words} representation of the summary. \textit{Text coverage} measures the summary coverage of $D$ as measured by cosine similarity between the bi-gram bag-of-words representation of a summary and $D$. Finally, the {length} objective biases towards summaries that include longer sentences, which tend to be more informative.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $F$ be a $p$-adic field, and $G$ a connected reductive group over $F$.
For an irreducible discrete series representation $\pi$ of $G(F)$, we can consider an invariant $\deg(\pi)\in\R_{>0}$
called the formal degree of $\pi$. It is in some sense a generalization of the dimension (or the degree)
of a finite-dimensional representation.
On the other hand, by the local Langlands correspondence,
irreducible smooth representations of $G(F)$ are conjecturally parametrized by pairs $(\phi,\rho)$,
where $\phi\colon W_F\times\SL_2(\C)\to {}^LG$ is an $L$-parameter,
and $\rho$ is an irreducible representation of a finite group $\mathcal{S}_\phi$ determined by $\phi$.
The formal degree conjecture, which was proposed by Hiraga-Ichino-Ikeda \cite{MR2350057},
predicts that $\deg(\pi)$ can be described
by using the pair $(\phi_\pi,\rho_\pi)$ attached to $\pi$. For more precise formulation, see Section \ref{sec:FDC-ssc}.
This conjecture has been solved for general linear groups \cite{MR2350057},
odd special orthogonal groups \cite{MR3649356} and unitary groups \cite{2018arXiv181200047B},
but it seems still open for many other groups.
In this article, we will focus on a very special class of discrete series representations,
simple supercuspidal representations.
They are introduced in \cite{MR2730575} and \cite{MR3164986}, and characterized among irreducible smooth representations
by the property that they have minimal positive depth.
The local Langlands correspondence for simple supercuspidal representations of quasi-split classical groups has been investigated in
Oi's work \cite{Oi-ssc-classical} very precisely. As an application of his results, he obtained the following theorem:
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 9.3]{Oi-ssc-classical}}}]\label{thm:FDC-Oi-intro}
Let $n\ge 1$ be an integer and write $2n=p^en'$ with $p\nmid n'$.
Assume $p\neq 2$ and either $p\nmid 2n$ or $n'\mid p-1$.
Let $G$ be one of the following groups:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Sp_{2n}$,
\item the quasi-split $\SO_{2n}$ attached to a ramified quadratic extension of $F$,
\item the split $\SO_{2n+2}$,
\item or the quasi-split $\SO_{2n+2}$ attached to an unramified quadratic extension of $F$.
\end{itemize}
Then, the formal degree conjecture holds for simple supercuspidal representations of $G(F)$.
\end{thm}
The goal of this article is to remove the condition ``either $p\nmid 2n$ or $n'\mid p-1$'' in the theorem above.
Here is our main theorem:
\begin{thm}[Theorem \ref{thm:main} and Remark \ref{rem:Gan-Ichino}]\label{thm:main-intro}
Assume $p\neq 2$. Let $G$ be one of the groups in Theorem \ref{thm:FDC-Oi-intro}.
Then, the formal degree conjecture holds for simple supercuspidal representations of $G(F)$.
\end{thm}
By the same method as in \cite{Oi-ssc-classical}, Theorem \ref{thm:main-intro} is easily reduced to the following:
\begin{thm}[Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}]\label{thm:exterior-square-intro}
Let $\tau$ be a $2n$-dimensional irreducible smooth representation of $W_F$ such that $\Sw \tau=1$.
Then we have $\Sw(\wedge^2\tau)=n-1$.
\end{thm}
In the case $p\mid 2n$ and $n'\mid p-1$ (which is more difficult than the case $p\nmid 2n$),
Oi used an explicit description of $\tau$ in \cite{2015arXiv150902960I} to obtain the theorem above.
Our strategy to Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square-intro} is totally different.
First we use Deligne's result \cite{MR771673} to reduce Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square-intro} to the case
where $F$ is an equal characteristic local field.
In the equal characteristic case, every irreducible smooth representation of $W_F$ with Swan conductor $1$ is essentially
obtained as the localization at $\infty\in \P^1$ of a Kloosterman sheaf $\Kl$
(see \cite[Sommes.\ trig.]{MR0463174} and \cite{MR955052}). The Swan conductor of the localization at $\infty$
of $\wedge^2\Kl$ can be computed by using
the Grothendieck-Ogg-Shafarevich formula and the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula.
The outline of this paper is as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:exterior}, we will compute the Swan conductor of the exterior square of
an irreducible smooth representation $\tau$ of $W_F$ with Swan conductor $1$.
Although in Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square-intro} we assumed that $\dim \tau$ is even
(in fact only this case is needed to prove Theorem \ref{thm:main-intro}),
we will also treat the case where $\dim \tau$ is odd.
In Section \ref{sec:FDC-ssc}, after recalling the formal degree conjecture,
we deduce Theorem \ref{thm:main-intro} from Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square-intro}.
\medbreak
\noindent{\bfseries Acknowledgment}\quad
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15H03605.
\medbreak
\noindent{\bfseries Notation}\quad
Every representation is considered over $\C$, unless otherwise noted.
\section{Exterior square of local Galois representations with Swan conductor 1}\label{sec:exterior}
Let $p$ be a prime number and $F$ a finite extension of $\Q_p$. We write $k$ for the residue field of $F$
and $q$ for the cardinality of $k$.
We fix an algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ of $F$
and put $\Gamma_F=\Gal(\overline{F}/F)$. Let $W_F$ denote the Weil group of $F$, that is,
the subgroup of $\Gamma_F$ consisting of elements which induce integer powers of the Frobenius automorphism on
the residue field $\overline{k}$ of $\overline{F}$.
It is a locally compact group containing the inertia group $I_F$ as an open subgroup.
Recall that $\Gamma_F$ is equipped with the upper numbering ramification filtration $\{\Gamma_F^j\}_{j\in \R_{\ge 0}}$,
which is a descending filtration consisting of open normal subgroups of $\Gamma_F$.
The subgroup $\Gamma_F^0$ equals the inertia group $I_F$, and $\Gamma_F^{0+}$ equals the wild inertia group $P_F$.
Here $\Gamma_F^{j+}$ denotes the closure of $\bigcup_{j'>j}\Gamma_F^{j'}$, as usual.
Let $V$ be a finite-dimensional smooth representation of $W_F$.
It is known that there exists a unique direct sum decomposition
$V=\bigoplus_{j\in\R_{\ge 0}}V_j$ as a representation of $P_F$, called the break decomposition,
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $V_0=V^{P_F}$, and
\item $V_j^{\Gamma_F^j}=0$ and $V_j^{\Gamma_F^{j+}}=V_j$ for each $j\in\R_{>0}$
\end{itemize}
(see \cite[Proposition 1.1, Lemma 1.4]{MR955052}).
The numbers $j$ with $V_j\neq 0$ are called the breaks of $V$. The Swan conductor $\Sw V$ of $V$ is defined by
\[
\Sw V=\sum_{j\in \R_{\ge 0}}j\dim V_j.
\]
Note that $\Sw V$ depends only on the restriction of $V$ to $P_F$.
Let $n\ge 1$ be an integer. In this section, we prove the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:exterior-square}
Let $(\tau,V)$ be an $n$-dimensional irreducible smooth representation of $W_F$ such that $\Sw \tau=1$.
Then we have
\[
\Sw(\wedge^2\tau)=\begin{cases}
m-1 & \text{if $n=2m$ is even,}\\
m & \text{if $n=2m+1$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{thm}
If $n=1$, this theorem is obvious. Therefore, we assume $n\ge 2$ in the following.
First we notice a simple lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:totally-wild}
Let $(\tau,V)$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}.
Then we have $V^{P_F}=0$. Moreover, $V$ has only one break $1/n$ and $V\vert_{I_F}$ is irreducible.
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
Since $P_F$ is a normal subgroup of $W_F$, $V^{P_F}$ is a $W_F$-subrepresentation of $V$.
The condition $\Sw V=1$ implies that $V^{P_F}\neq V$. Therefore we have $V^{P_F}=0$ by the irreducibility of $V$.
By \cite[Lemma 1.11]{MR955052}, $V$ has only one break $1/n$ and $V\vert_{I_F}$ is irreducible.
\end{prf}
To prove Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}, we will pass to the equal characteristic case.
Put $F'=k((T))$, which is an equal characteristic local field.
By Deligne's result \cite{MR771673}, we can prove the following:
\begin{lem}\label{lem:passage-to-char-p}
Let $(\tau,V)$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}.
Then there exists an $n$-dimensional irreducible smooth representation $(\tau',V')$ of $W_{F'}$ such that
\[
\Sw \tau'=\Sw \tau=1,\qquad \Sw(\wedge^2\tau')=\Sw(\wedge^2\tau).
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
By \cite[\S 3.5]{MR771673}, there exists an isomorphism $\Gamma_F/\Gamma_F^1\cong \Gamma_{F'}/\Gamma_{F'}^1$, which is canonical up to
inner automorphisms. By construction, it preserves the upper numbering ramification filtrations of $\Gamma_F$ and $\Gamma_{F'}$.
Further, \cite[Proposition 3.6.1]{MR771673} tells us that it induces an isomorphism $W_F/\Gamma_F^1\cong W_{F'}/\Gamma_{F'}^1$.
By using this isomorphism, we can construct a functor
\begin{itemize}
\item from the category of finite-dimensional smooth representations of $W_F$
whose breaks are less than $1$
\item to the category of finite-dimensional smooth representations of $W_{F'}$
whose breaks are less than $1$.
\end{itemize}
Clearly this functor maps irreducible representations to irreducible representations,
commutes with exterior products, and preserves the Swan conductors.
By Lemma \ref{lem:totally-wild}, $\tau$ has only one break $1/n$, which is less than $1$.
Therefore we can take $(\tau',V')$ as the image of $(\tau,V)$ under this functor.
\end{prf}
Now we use the Kloosterman sheaves introduced in \cite[Sommes.\ trig.]{MR0463174} and \cite{MR955052}.
Let us recall their construction briefly.
Take a prime number $\ell\neq p$. We fix an isomorphism $\overline{\Q}_\ell \cong\C$ and identify them.
Note that an irreducible finite-dimensional continuous representation of $W_F$ over $\overline{\Q}_\ell$ is automatically smooth,
hence can be identified with an irreducible smooth representation of $W_F$ over $\C$.
Let $\mathbb{P}^1$ denote the projective line over $k$, and put $\A^1=\P^1\setminus \{\infty\}$, $\mathbb{G}_m=\P^1\setminus \{0,\infty\}$.
We consider the diagram
\[
\mathbb{G}_m\xleftarrow{\mult}\mathbb{G}_m^n\xrightarrow{\add}\A^1,
\]
where the maps $\mult$ and $\add$ are given by $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\mapsto x_1\cdots x_n$ and
$(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\mapsto x_1+\cdots+x_n$, respectively.
We fix a non-trivial additive character $\psi\colon k\to \C^\times$, and
write $\mathcal{L}_\psi$ for the Artin-Schreier sheaf on $\A^1$ corresponding to $\psi$.
For multiplicative characters $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n\colon k^\times\to \C^\times$, we can construct the Kummer sheaf
$\mathcal{K}_{\chi_1},\ldots,\mathcal{K}_{\chi_n}$ on $\mathbb{G}_m$. We put
\[
\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)=R\mult_!\bigl((\mathcal{K}_{\chi_1}\boxtimes\cdots\boxtimes \mathcal{K}_{\chi_n})\otimes \add^*\mathcal{L}_\psi\bigr)[-n+1].
\]
If $\chi_1=\cdots=\chi_n=1$, we simply write $\Kl_n$ for $\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)$.
It is known that $\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)$ is a smooth sheaf on $\mathbb{G}_m$ of rank $n$.
Further, it enjoys the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)_{\overline{0}}$, which is a representation of $\Gamma_{\Frac \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{\P^1,0}}$,
is tamely ramified.
\item $\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)_{\overline{\infty}}$,
which is a representation of $\Gamma_{\Frac \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{\P^1,\infty}}$,
is totally wildly ramified with Swan conductor $1$ (in particular it is irreducible by \cite[Lemma 1.11]{MR955052}).
\end{itemize}
Here $\widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{\P^1,x}$ denotes the completion of the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{\P^1,x}$ at $x\in \P^1$.
See \cite[Sommes.\ trig., Th\'eor\`eme 7.8]{MR0463174} and \cite[Theorem 4.1.1]{MR955052} for detail.
In the following, we fix an isomorphism $k[[T]]\cong \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{\P^1,\infty}$ and identify them.
Then $\Kl(\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)_{\overline{\infty}}$ can be regarded as
an $n$-dimensional irreducible smooth representation of $W_{F'}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tau'-Kloosterman}
Let $\tau'$ be an $n$-dimensional irreducible smooth representation of $W_{F'}$ with Swan conductor $1$.
Then we have $\Sw(\wedge^2\tau')=\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{\infty}})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
By replacing $\tau'$ by its unramified twist,
we may assume that $\tau'$ extends to a smooth representation of $\Gamma_{F'}$.
Note that $\tau'$ is defined over a finite extension $E_\lambda$ of $\Q_\ell$ contained in $\overline{\Q}_\ell$.
By the theorem of Katz-Gabber (\cite[Theorem 1.5.6]{MR867916}),
there exists a smooth $E_\lambda$-sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathbb{G}_m$ of rank $n$ such that
$\mathcal{F}_{\overline{0}}$ is tamely ramified and $\mathcal{F}_{\overline{\infty}}$ is isomorphic to $\tau'$.
By \cite[Theorem 8.7.1]{MR955052} (see also the proof of \cite[Corollary 8.7.2]{MR955052}),
there exist a finite extension $k'$ of $k$, an element $a'\in k'^\times$ and multiplicative characters
$\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n\colon k'^\times\to \C^\times$ such that
\[
\mathcal{F}\otimes_kk'\cong \iota_{a'}^*\Kl(\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n),
\]
where $\iota_{a'}\colon \mathbb{G}_m\otimes_kk'\to \mathbb{G}_m\otimes_kk'$ is the multiplication by $a'$ and $\Kl(\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n)$
is the Kloosterman sheaf over $\mathbb{G}_m\otimes_kk'$ with respect to the additive character $\psi\circ\tr_{k'/k}$ of $k'$.
Since the base change from $k$ to $k'$ and the pull-back by $\iota_{a'}$ do not affect the Swan conductor at $\infty$,
we conclude that $\Sw(\wedge^2\tau')=\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl(\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n)_{\overline{\infty}})$.
On the other hand, by \cite[Proposition 10.1]{MR955052},
the restriction of $\Kl(\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n)_{\overline{\infty}}$ to $P_{k'((T))}=P_{F'}$ is
independent of $\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n$.
Hence we have
\begin{align*}
\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl(\chi'_1,\ldots,\chi'_n)_{\overline{\infty}})&=\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl(1',\ldots,1')_{\overline{\infty}})=\Sw(\wedge^2(\Kl_n\otimes_kk')_{\overline{\infty}})\\
&=\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{\infty}}),
\end{align*}
where $1'$ denotes the trivial character of $k'^\times$. This concludes the proof.
\end{prf}
By Lemma \ref{lem:tau'-Kloosterman}, we may focus on computing $\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{\infty}})$.
Since $\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{0}}$ is tame,
the Grothendieck-Ogg-Shafarevich formula \cite[Expos\'e X, Th\'eor\`eme 7.1]{SGA5} tells us that
\[
\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{\infty}})=-\chi_c(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n)
:=-\sum_{i=0}^2 (-1)^i\dim H^i_c(\mathbb{G}_m\otimes_k\overline{k},\wedge^2\Kl_n).
\]
We shall determine the Euler characteristic $\chi_c(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n)$ by computing the $L$-function
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=\exp\biggl(\sum_{r=1}^\infty \Bigl(\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})\Bigr)\frac{X^r}{r}\biggr),
\]
where $k_r=\F_{q^r}$ denotes the degree $r$ extension of $k=\F_q$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:exterior-L-function}
We have
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=\begin{cases}
\dfrac{(1-qX)(1-q^3X)\cdots (1-q^{2m-1}X)}{1-q^{2m}X}& \text{if $n=2m$ is even,}\\
(1-qX)(1-q^3X)\cdots (1-q^{2m-1}X) & \text{if $n=2m+1$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
First note that
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})
=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}}\otimes \Kl_{n,\overline{a}})-\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})\Bigr).
\]
By the proof of \cite[Proposition 10.4.1]{MR955052}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}}\otimes \Kl_{n,\overline{a}})=S_r(n,1,1)\\
&\qquad=\begin{cases}
-1-q^r-q^{2r}-\cdots-q^{(n-1)r}+q^{nr}& \text{if $n$ is even or $p=2$,}\\
-1-q^r-q^{2r}-\cdots-q^{(n-1)r}& \text{if $n$ is odd and $p\neq 2$}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
(note that ``if $\alpha(-\alpha)^n\beta=1$'' in the end of p.~173 of \cite{MR955052} should be ``if $\alpha(-\alpha)^n\beta=-1$'').
On the other hand, by \cite[(4.2.1.3), (4.2.1.5)]{MR955052}, we have
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})=(-1)^{n-1}\frac{1}{q^{2r}-1}\sum_{\rho\in(k_{2r}^\times)^\vee} g(\psi\circ \tr_{k_{2r}/k},\rho^{q^r-1})^n,
\]
where $(k_{2r}^\times)^\vee$ denotes the set of characters of $k_{2r}^\times$ and
\[
g(\psi\circ \tr_{k_{2r}/k},\rho^{q^r-1})=\sum_{a\in k_{2r}^\times}\psi(\tr_{k_{2r}/k}(a))\rho(a)^{q^r-1}
\]
denotes the Gauss sum.
Further, by \cite[(4.2.1.13)]{MR955052}, we have
\[
g(\psi\circ \tr_{k_{2r}/k},\rho^{q^r-1})
=\begin{cases}
q^r\rho(-1)& \text{if $\rho^{q^r-1}\neq 1$,}\\
-1 & \text{if $\rho^{q^r-1}=1$.}
\end{cases}
\]
Since
\begin{align*}
\#\{\rho\in(k_{2r}^\times)^\vee\mid \rho^{q^r-1}=1\}&=q^r-1,\\
\#\{\rho\in(k_{2r}^\times)^\vee\mid \rho^{q^r-1}\neq 1,\rho(-1)=1\}
&=\begin{cases}
\dfrac{(q^r-1)^2}{2} &\text{if $p\neq 2$,}\\
q^{2r}-q^r &\text{if $p=2$,}
\end{cases}\\
\#\{\rho\in(k_{2r}^\times)^\vee\mid \rho^{q^r-1}\neq 1,\rho(-1)=-1\}
&=\begin{cases}
\dfrac{q^{2r}-1}{2} &\text{if $p\neq 2$,}\\
0 &\text{if $p=2$,}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
we have
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})
=\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{q^r+1}\Bigl(\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}q^{nr}(q^r-1)}{2}-\dfrac{q^{nr}(q^r+1)}{2}-1\Bigr) &\text{if $p\neq 2$,}\\[10pt]
\dfrac{(-1)^{n-1}q^{(n+1)r}-1}{q^r+1} &\text{if $p=2$.}
\end{cases}
\]
Now we assume that $n=2m$ is even. Then we have
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})=-\frac{q^{(n+1)r}+1}{q^r+1}=-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots-q^{2mr},
\]
hence
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})\\
&\qquad =\frac{1}{2}\Bigl((-1-q^r-q^{2r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}+q^{2mr})\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -(-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots+q^{(2m-1)r}-q^{2mr})\Bigr)\\
&\qquad =-q^r-q^{3r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}+q^{2mr}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we conclude that
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=\frac{(1-qX)(1-q^3X)\cdots(1-q^{2m-1}X)}{1-q^{2m}X}.
\]
Next we consider the case where $n=2m+1$ is odd and $p\neq 2$. We have
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})=-\frac{q^{nr}+1}{q^r+1}=-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots-q^{2mr},
\]
hence
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})\\
&\qquad =\frac{1}{2}\Bigl((-1-q^r-q^{2r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}-q^{2mr})\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -(-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots+q^{(2m-1)r}-q^{2mr})\Bigr)\\
&\qquad =-q^r-q^{3r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we conclude that
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=(1-qX)(1-q^3X)\cdots(1-q^{2m-1}X).
\]
Finally we assume that $n=2m+1$ is odd and $p=2$.
Then we have
\[
\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a^2,\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})=\frac{q^{(n+1)r}-1}{q^r+1}=-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots+q^{(2m+1)r},
\]
hence
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{a\in k_r^\times}\Tr(\Frob_a,\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{a}})\\
&\qquad =\frac{1}{2}\Bigl((-1-q^r-q^{2r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}-q^{2mr}+q^{(2m+1)r})\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -(-1+q^r-q^{2r}+\cdots-q^{2mr}+q^{(2m+1)r})\Bigr)\\
&\qquad =-q^r-q^{3r}-\cdots-q^{(2m-1)r}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we conclude that
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=(1-qX)(1-q^3X)\cdots(1-q^{2m-1}X).
\]
\end{prf}
By the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula, we have
\[
L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=\prod_{i=0}^2 \det(1-X\Frob;H^i_c(\mathbb{G}_m\otimes_k\overline{k},\wedge^2\Kl_n))^{(-1)^{i+1}}.
\]
In particular we have $\deg L(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n,X)=-\chi_c(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n)$.
Hence we obtain the following corollary:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:exterior-Euler-char}
We have
\[
\Sw(\wedge^2\Kl_{n,\overline{\infty}})=-\chi_c(\mathbb{G}_m,\wedge^2\Kl_n)=\begin{cases}
m-1 & \text{if $n=2m$ is even,}\\
m & \text{if $n=2m+1$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{cor}
Now Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square} follows from Lemmas \ref{lem:passage-to-char-p}, \ref{lem:tau'-Kloosterman}
and Corollary \ref{cor:exterior-Euler-char}.
\section{The formal degree conjecture for simple supercuspidal representations}\label{sec:FDC-ssc}
In this section, we deduce the formal degree conjecture for simple supercuspidal representations of symplectic groups
and quasi-split even special orthogonal groups from Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}.
Let us first recall the conjecture quickly in the case of symplectic groups.
For more detail, see \cite{MR2350057}.
In the following, we put $G=\Sp_{2n}$ for an integer $n\ge 2$.
We fix a non-trivial additive character $\psi\colon F\to \C^\times$
and a Haar measure on $G(F)$.
Let $(\pi,V)$ be an irreducible discrete series representation of $G(F)$.
We fix a $G(F)$-invariant inner product $(\ ,\ )\colon V\times V\to \C$.
Then, there exists a unique positive real number $\deg(\pi)$, the formal degree of $\pi$,
satisfying
\[
\int_{G(F)} (\pi(g)v,w)\overline{(\pi(g)v',w')}dg=\deg(\pi)^{-1}(v,v')\overline{(w,w')}
\]
for every $v,w,v',w'\in V$. It depends on the fixed measure on $G(F)$, but is independent of the inner product $(\ ,\ )$.
The formal degree conjecture predicts that $\deg(\pi)$ can be described by using the local Langlands correspondence.
By the local Langlands correspondence due to Arthur \cite{MR3135650}, discrete series representations of $G(F)$
are parametrized by pairs $(\phi,\rho)$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi\colon W_F\times\SL_2(\C)\to \widehat{G}(\C)=\SO_{2n+1}(\C)$ is an $L$-parameter
such that the centralizer group $S_\phi=\Cent_{\widehat{G}(\C)}(\Imm \phi)$ is finite,
\item and $\rho$ is an irreducible representation of $\pi_0(S_\phi)=S_\phi$.
\end{itemize}
The pair attached to a discrete series representation $\pi$ is denoted by $(\phi_\pi,\rho_\pi)$.
Here is the statement of the formal degree conjecture for $\Sp_{2n}$:
\begin{conj}[{{\cite[Conjecture 1.4]{MR2350057}}}]\label{conj:HII}
For an irreducible discrete series representation $\pi$ of $G(F)$, we have
\[
\deg(\pi)=C\cdot \frac{\dim \rho_\pi}{\#S_{\phi_\pi}}\lvert\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)\rvert.
\]
Here
\begin{itemize}
\item $C\in \R_{>0}$ is a constant which depends only on the Haar measure on $G(F)$ and the non-trivial additive character $\psi$
(we may take $C=1$ by constructing a Haar measure carefully from $\psi$),
\item $\Ad\circ \phi_\pi$ is the composite of
\[
W_F\times\SL_2(\C)\xrightarrow{\phi_\pi}\widehat{G}(\C)\xrightarrow{\Ad}\GL(\Lie \widehat{G}(\C)),
\]
\item and
\[
\gamma(s,\Ad\circ \phi_\pi,\psi)=\varepsilon(s,\Ad\circ \phi_\pi,\psi)\frac{L(1-s,\Ad\circ \phi_\pi)}{L(s,\Ad\circ \phi_\pi)}
\]
denotes the local $\gamma$-factor.
\end{itemize}
\end{conj}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:S-gp-abelian}
In the case $G=\Sp_{2n}$, $S_{\phi_\pi}$ is known to be an elementary $2$-group, hence $\dim \rho_\pi=1$.
\end{rem}
The formal degree conjecture for a general connected reductive group is formulated similarly,
but one needs slight modification if the group is not simply connected. See \cite{MR2350057} for detail.
The formal degree conjecture has been proved for general linear groups \cite[Theorem 3.1]{MR2350057},
odd special orthogonal groups \cite{MR3649356}, and unitary groups \cite{2018arXiv181200047B},
but it seems still open for many other groups,
such as symplectic groups and even special orthogonal groups.
In this paper, we focus on a very special class of discrete series representations, called simple supercuspidal representations.
They are constructed by using the compact induction from a compact open subgroup of $G(F)$.
Here we choose a symplectic form given by the skew-symmetric $2n\times 2n$ matrix
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
& & & & 1\\ & & & -1 & \\ & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & \\ & 1 & & &\\ -1 & & & &
\end{pmatrix}
\]
to define $G=\Sp_{2n}$. We define a sequence of compact open subgroups
$G(F)\supset I\rhd I^+\rhd I^{++}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
I&=\begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal{O}_F& &\mathcal{O}_F\\ & \ddots & \\ \mathfrak{p}_F & & \mathcal{O}_F
\end{pmatrix},\qquad
I^+=\begin{pmatrix}
1+\mathfrak{p}_F& &\mathcal{O}_F\\ & \ddots & \\ \mathfrak{p}_F & & 1+\mathfrak{p}_F
\end{pmatrix},\\
I^{++}&=\begin{pmatrix}
1+\mathfrak{p}_F& \mathfrak{p}_F & &\mathcal{O}_F\\ & \ddots &\ddots & \\
& \mathfrak{p}_F & \ddots & \mathfrak{p}_F\\
\mathfrak{p}_F^2 & & & 1+\mathfrak{p}_F
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Here $\mathcal{O}_F$ denotes the ring of integers of $F$, and $\mathfrak{p}_F$ the maximal ideal of $\mathcal{O}_F$.
If we fix a uniformizer $\varpi$ of $\mathcal{O}_F$, then we have an isomorphism
\[
I^+/I^{++}\xrightarrow{\cong} k^{n+1}; (a_{ij})\mapsto (a_{12}\bmod\mathfrak{p}_F,\ldots,a_{n,n+1}\bmod\mathfrak{p}_F,\varpi^{-1}a_{2n,1}\bmod\mathfrak{p}_F).
\]
A character of $I^+/I^{++}\cong k^{n+1}$ is said to be affine generic if it is non-trivial on each factor of $k^{n+1}$.
Let $\chi$ be a character of $\pm I^+$ such that $\chi\vert_{I^{++}}$ is trivial and
$\chi\vert_{I^+}$ induces an affine generic character of $I^+/I^{++}$.
Then, the compact induction $\cInd_{\pm I^+}^{G(F)} \chi$ is known to be irreducible supercuspidal.
Representations obtained in this way are called simple supercuspidal representations.
The parameter $(\phi_\pi,\rho_\pi)$ attached to a simple supercuspidal representation $\pi$ is investigated by
Oi in detail.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Corollary 5.13, Theorem 7.17]{Oi-ssc-classical}}}]\label{thm:ssc-LLC}
Assume $p\neq 2$. Let $\iota$ denote the embedding $\widehat{G}(\C)=\SO_{2n+1}(\C)\hookrightarrow \GL_{2n+1}(\C)$.
For a simple supercuspidal representation $\pi$ of $G(F)$,
we have the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\iota\circ \phi_\pi=\tau\oplus \omega$, where $\tau$ is an irreducible $2n$-dimensional irreducible representation
of $W_F$ with Swan conductor $1$ and $\omega$ is a quadratic character of $W_F$.
Furthermore, $\tau$ is orthogonal, that is, there exists a $W_F$-invariant non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form
$\tau\times\tau\to \C$.
\item $\#S_{\phi_\pi}=2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
Strictly speaking, \cite[Theorem 7.17]{Oi-ssc-classical} claims that $\iota\circ \phi_\pi=\tau\oplus \det\circ\tau$,
where $\tau$ is the Langlands parameter of a simple supercuspidal representation of $\GL_n(F)$.
However, it is well-known that such $\tau$ is irreducible and has Swan conductor $1$; see \cite[\S 2]{MR3158004} for example.
Further, since $\tau$ is orthogonal (see \cite[Corollary 5.13]{Oi-ssc-classical}),
the character $\omega=\det\circ\tau$ is quadratic.
By using Theorem \ref{thm:ssc-LLC}, Oi obtained a partial result on the formal degree conjecture.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 9.3]{Oi-ssc-classical}}}]\label{thm:FDC-Oi}
We write $2n=p^en'$ with $p\nmid n'$.
Assume $p\neq 2$ and either $p\nmid 2n$ or $n'\mid p-1$.
Then, Conjecture \ref{conj:HII} holds for simple supercuspidal representations of $G(F)$.
\end{thm}
In the case $p\mid 2n$ and $n'\mid p-1$, Oi used an explicit description of $\tau$ in Theorem \ref{thm:ssc-LLC}
due to Imai and Tsushima \cite{2015arXiv150902960I}, which is extremely complicated.
It involves $4$ field extensions $F^{\mathrm{ur}}\subset E\subset T\subset M\subset N$ of the maximal unramified extension
$F^\mathrm{ur}$ of $F$. The extension $N/E$ is always Galois, but the extension $N/F^{\mathrm{ur}}$ is not necessarily Galois.
The condition $n'\mid p-1$ ensures that $N/F^{\mathrm{ur}}$ is a Galois extension, which makes computations much simpler.
The following is our main theorem for symplectic groups
(for quasi-split even special orthogonal groups, see Remark \ref{rem:Gan-Ichino}).
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Assume $p\neq 2$. Then, Conjecture \ref{conj:HII} holds for simple supercuspidal representations of $G(F)$.
\end{thm}
In fact, Theorem \ref{thm:main} can be deduced from Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square} exactly in the same way
as Oi did in \cite[\S 9.3]{Oi-ssc-classical}. We include some of his arguments for reader's convenience.
In the following, we assume that $p\neq 2$ and let $\pi$ be a simple supercuspidal representation of $G(F)$.
Let $\tau$ and $\omega$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:ssc-LLC}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Artin-L}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have $L(s,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)=1$.
\item We have $\Ar(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)=2n^2+2n$, where $\Ar$ denotes the Artin conductor.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
First of all, note that $\Ad\circ\phi_\pi=\wedge^2(\tau\oplus \omega)=\wedge^2\tau\oplus \tau\otimes\omega$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item It suffices to show that $(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)^{I_F}=0$. Since $p\neq 2$, the quadratic character $\omega$ is tamely ramified.
Therefore $(\tau\otimes\omega)^{P_F}=\tau^{P_F}\otimes\omega=0$ by Lemma \ref{lem:totally-wild}.
Hence it suffices to prove that $(\wedge^2\tau)^{I_F}=0$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:totally-wild}, $\tau\vert_{I_F}$ is irreducible, hence $\dim (\tau\otimes \tau^\vee)^{I_F}=1$.
Since $\tau$ is orthogonal by Theorem \ref{thm:ssc-LLC}, we have
\[
1=\dim (\tau\otimes \tau^\vee)^{I_F}=\dim (\tau\otimes \tau)^{I_F}=\dim (\Sym^2 \tau)^{I_F}\oplus \dim (\wedge^2 \tau)^{I_F}
\]
and $(\Sym^2 \tau)^{I_F}=(\Sym^2 \tau)_{I_F}\neq 0$. Therefore we obtain $(\wedge^2 \tau)^{I_F}=0$, as desired.
\item Since $\omega$ is tame, we have
\[
\Sw(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)=\Sw(\wedge^2\tau)+\Sw(\tau\otimes\omega)=\Sw(\wedge^2\tau)+\Sw(\tau)=n
\]
by Theorem \ref{thm:exterior-square}. On the other hand, by the proof of (i), we have
\[
\dim (\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)/(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)^{I_F}=\dim (\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)=\frac{2n(2n+1)}{2}=2n^2+n.
\]
Therefore we conclude that
\[
\Ar(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)=\Sw(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)+\dim (\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)/(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)^{I_F}=2n^2+2n.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prf}
\begin{prf}[of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
Let $\St$ denote the Steinberg representation of $G(F)$.
We may choose $\psi$ so that the following equalities hold:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\deg(\pi)}{\deg(\St)}&=\frac{q^{n^2+n}}{2\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_{\St},\psi)},\\
\lvert \varepsilon(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)\rvert&=q^{\frac{1}{2}\Ar(\Ad\circ\phi_\pi)}.
\end{align*}
See \cite[(72)]{MR2730575} for the first equality, and \cite[(10) and Proposition 2.3]{MR2730575} for the second.
Together with Lemma \ref{lem:Artin-L}, we obtain $\lvert \gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)\rvert=q^{n^2+n}$ and
\[
\deg(\pi)=\biggl\lvert \frac{\deg(\St)\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)}{2\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_{\St},\psi)}\biggr\rvert.
\]
On the other hand, by \cite[\S 3.3]{MR2350057}, the formal degree conjecture for $\St$ is known:
\[
\deg(\St)=C\lvert\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_{\St},\psi)\rvert.
\]
Hence we have
\[
\deg(\pi)=C\cdot \frac{1}{2}\lvert\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)\rvert=C\cdot \frac{\dim\rho_\pi}{\#S_{\phi_\pi}}\lvert\gamma(0,\Ad\circ\phi_\pi,\psi)\rvert,
\]
as desired (recall that $\dim \rho_\pi=1$ by Remark \ref{rem:S-gp-abelian} and $\#S_{\phi_\pi}=2$ by Theorem \ref{thm:ssc-LLC}).
\end{prf}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:Gan-Ichino}
As remarked in \cite[\S 9]{Oi-ssc-classical}, by using the results in \cite{MR3166215}, we can deduce from Theorem \ref{thm:main}
the formal degree conjecture for simple supercuspidal representations of quasi-split even special orthogonal groups,
under the assumption $p\neq 2$.
\end{rem}
\def\cftil#1{\ifmmode\setbox7\hbox{$\accent"5E#1$}\else
\setbox7\hbox{\accent"5E#1}\penalty 10000\relax\fi\raise 1\ht7
\hbox{\lower1.15ex\hbox to 1\wd7{\hss\accent"7E\hss}}\penalty 10000
\hskip-1\wd7\penalty 10000\box7}
\def\cftil#1{\ifmmode\setbox7\hbox{$\accent"5E#1$}\else
\setbox7\hbox{\accent"5E#1}\penalty 10000\relax\fi\raise 1\ht7
\hbox{\lower1.15ex\hbox to 1\wd7{\hss\accent"7E\hss}}\penalty 10000
\hskip-1\wd7\penalty 10000\box7}
\def\cftil#1{\ifmmode\setbox7\hbox{$\accent"5E#1$}\else
\setbox7\hbox{\accent"5E#1}\penalty 10000\relax\fi\raise 1\ht7
\hbox{\lower1.15ex\hbox to 1\wd7{\hss\accent"7E\hss}}\penalty 10000
\hskip-1\wd7\penalty 10000\box7}
\def\cftil#1{\ifmmode\setbox7\hbox{$\accent"5E#1$}\else
\setbox7\hbox{\accent"5E#1}\penalty 10000\relax\fi\raise 1\ht7
\hbox{\lower1.15ex\hbox to 1\wd7{\hss\accent"7E\hss}}\penalty 10000
\hskip-1\wd7\penalty 10000\box7} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$} \def$'$} \def\cprime{$'${$'$}
\newcommand{\dummy}[1]{}
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Motivation of the study}
We are interested in the study of well-posedness for a $p$-Laplace evolution problem with stochastic forcing on a bounded domain $D\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions for $1<p<\infty$. For $p=2$, we are in the case of the classical Laplace operator, for arbitrary $1<p<\infty$, $u\mapsto-\operatorname{div}\,(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)$ is a monotonone operator on the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}_0(D)$ that is singular for $p<2$ and degenerate for $p>2$. Evolution equations of $p$-Laplace type may appear as continuity equations in the study of gases flowing in pipes of uniform cross sectional areas and in models of filtration of an incompressible fluid through a porous medium (see \cite{BB}, \cite{DTH}): In the case of a turbulent regime, a nonlinear version of the Darcy law of $p$-power law type for $1<p<2$ is more appropriate (see \cite{DTH}). Turbulence is often associated with the presence of randomness (see \cite{BFH} and the references therein). Adding random influences to the model, we also take uncertainties and multiscale interactions into account. Randomness may be introduced as random external force by adding an It\^{o} integral on the right-hand side of the equation and by considering random initial values. Consequently, the equation becomes a stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) and the solution is then a stochastic process.\\
For square-integrable initial data $u_0$, the stochastic $p$-Laplace evolution problem is well-posed (see, e.g. \cite{EP}, \cite{WLMR}). In this contribution, we focus on more general, merely integrable random initial data. There has been an extensive study of the corresponding deterministic problem and its generalizations (see, e.g., \cite{DBFMHR}, \cite{DB}, \cite{DB2}) and from these results it is well known that the deterministic $p$-Laplace evolution problem is not well-posed in the variational setting for initial data in $L^1$ and $1<p<d$, were $d\in\mathbb{N}$ is the space dimension. For this reason, the problem is formulated in the framework of renormalized solutions. The notion of renormalization summarizes different strategies to get rid of infinities (see \cite{DeLM}) that may appear in physical models. It has been introduced to partial differential equations by Di Perna and Lions in the study of Boltzmann equation (see \cite{DL}) and then extended to many elliptic and parabolic problems (see, e.g., \cite{PBLBTGRGMPJLV}, \cite{DB2}, \cite{BR} and the references therein). Properties of renormalized solutions for the continuity equation of viscous compressible fluids have been studied in \cite{EF}. The basic idea of the classical renormalized formulation for PDE is to use an appropriate class of nonlinear functions of the solution as test functions in the equation. For SPDEs, this concept has been applied for stochastic transport equations in \cite{AF}, \cite{CO} and for the Boltzmann equation with stochastic kinetic transport in \cite{PS}. For many physically relevant singular SPDEs, a slightly different notion of renormalization has recently been developed (see \cite{GIP2015}, \cite{Hai2014} and the references therein). For these cases, renormalized solutions may be obtained as limits of classical solutions to regularized problems with addition of diverging correction terms. These counterterms arise from a renormalization group which is defined in terms of an associated regularity structure.\\
In this contribution, it is our aim to extend the notion of renormalized solutions in the sense of \cite{DB2} for the stochastic $p$-Laplace evolution problem with random initial data in $L^1$ and to show well-posedness in this framework.
For a quasilinear, degenerate hyperbolic-parabolic SPDE with $L^1$ random initial data, the well-posedness and regularity of kinetic solutions has been studied in \cite{BGMH}, but, to the best of our knowledge, these results do not apply in our situation.
\subsection{Statement of the problem}
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P,(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}, (\beta_t)_{t\in [0,T]})$ be a stochastic basis with a complete, countably generated probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$, a filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}\subset \mathcal{F}$ satisfying the usual assumptions and a real valued, $\mathcal{F}_t$-Brownian motion $(\beta_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$. Let $D \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain, $T>0$, $Q_T=(0,T) \times D$ and $p>1$. Furthermore, let $u_0: \Omega \to L^1(D)$ be $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable and $\Phi \in L^2(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^2(D)))$ be predictable.\\
We are interested in well-posedness to the following stochastic $p$-Laplace evolution problem
\begin{align}\label{1}
du - \textnormal{div}\,(|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u)\,dt &= \Phi ~d\beta ~~~&\textnormal{in}~ \Omega \times Q_T, \notag\\
u&=0 ~~~&\textnormal{on}~ \Omega \times (0,T) \times \partial D, \\
u(0, \cdot)&=u_0 ~~~&\in ~L^1(\Omega \times D). \notag
\end{align}
Due to the poor regularity of the initial data $u_0$, a-priori estimates on $\nabla u$ are not available and therefore the well-posedness result has to be formulated in the sense of a generalized solution, more precisely in the framework of renormalized solutions.
To show this we first show in Section 2 that there exists a strong solution to \eqref{1} in the case where the initial value $u_0$ is an element of $L^2(\Omega \times D)$. After that, we establish a comparison principle that shows that a sequence of strong solutions is a Cauchy sequence in $L^1(\Omega;\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)))$ whenever the sequence of initial values is a Cauchy sequence in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$. In Section 4 we prove a version of the It\^{o} formula which makes it possible to define renormalized solutions to equation \eqref{1}. Section 5 contains the definition of renormalized solutions to \eqref{1}, in Section 6 we show the existence of such a solution and Section 7 contains the uniqueness result, which is based on an $L^1$-contraction principle. Finally, in Section 8 we study the Markov properties of such a solution.
\section{Strong solutions}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem 2.1}
Let the conditions in the introduction be satisfied. Furthermore, let $u_0 \in L^2(\Omega \times D)$ be $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable. Then there exists a unique strong solution to (\ref{1}), i.e., an $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted stochastic process $u:\Omega\times [0,T]\to L^2(D)$ such that $u \in L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T; W_0^{1,p}(D))) \cap L^2(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^2(D)))$, $u(0, \cdot)=u_0$ in $L^2(\Omega \times D)$ and
\begin{align*}
u(t) - u_0 - \int_0^t \textnormal{div}\,(|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u)\, ds = \int_0^t \Phi \,d\beta
\end{align*}
in $W^{-1,p'}(D) + L^2(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{Remark 2.2}
Since we know from all terms except the term $\int_0^t \textnormal{div}\,(|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u) ~ds $ that these terms are elements of $L^2(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$ it follows that $\int_0^t \textnormal{div} (|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u) ~ds \in L^2(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. Therefore this equation is an equation in $L^2(D)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
The existence result is a consequence of \cite{NVKBLR}, Chapter II, Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.1. We only have to check the assumptions of this theorem. Following the notations therein, we set $V= W_0^{1,p}(D) \cap L^2(D)$ in the case $1<p<2$ and $V=W_0^{1,p}(D)$ in the case $p \geq 2$, $H=L^2(D)$, $E=\mathbb{R}$, $A: V \to V^*$, $A(u) = - \textnormal{div}\,(|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u)$, $B=\Phi$, $ f(t,\omega) = 2 + \Vert B(t,\omega) \Vert_2^2$ for almost each $(t,\omega) \in (0,T) \times \Omega$ and $z=0$. Then we have $\mathcal{L}_Q(E;H)= \mathcal{L}_2(\mathbb{R}, L^2(D)) = L^2(D)$.\\
We remark that $A$ does not depend on $(t,\omega) \in [0,T] \times \Omega$ and that $B$ does not depend on $u \in V$. Obviously, conditions (A1), (A2) and (A5) in \cite{NVKBLR} are satisfied. Moreover, in the case $p \geq 2$ the validity of conditions (A3) and (A4) is well known in the theory of monotone operators. Therefore we only consider the case $1<p<2$.\\
In this case we check condition (A3). Using the norms
\begin{align*}
\Vert v \Vert_V &:= \bigg( \Vert v \Vert_{W_0^{1,p}(D)}^p + \Vert v \Vert_2^p \bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}, \\
\Vert v \Vert_{W_0^{1,p}(D)}&:= \Vert \nabla v \Vert_{L^p(D)^d}
\end{align*}
we have
\begin{align*}
|B|_Q^2 + 2 \Vert v \Vert_V^p &= \Vert B \Vert_2^2 + 2 \Vert v \Vert_V^p \\
&= f-2 + 2 \Vert v \Vert_V^p\\
&= f - 2 + 2 \Vert v \Vert_{W_0^{1,p}(D)}^p + 2 \Vert v \Vert_2^p \\
&= f-2 + 2 \Vert v \Vert_2^p + 2\langle Av,v \rangle_{V^*,V}\\
&\leq f + \Vert v \Vert_2^2 + 2\langle Av,v \rangle_{V^*,V}
\end{align*}
for all $v \in V$ since $x^p \leq 1 + x^2$ for all $x \geq 0$. This proves condition (A3) for $\alpha=K=2$. \\
Now we check condition (A4). We estimate
\begin{align*}
\Vert A(u) \Vert_{V^*} \leq \Vert A(u) \Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)} \leq \Vert \nabla u \Vert_{L^p(D)^d}^{p-1} \leq \Vert u \Vert_V^{p-1}.
\end{align*}
The uniqueness is a consequence of \cite{NVKBLR}, Chapter II, Theorem 3.2, which applies under the same assumptions.
\end{proof}
\section{Comparison principle}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem 3.1}
Let $u_0, v_0 \in L^2(\Omega \times D)$ and $u$ and $v$ strong solutions to the problem \eqref{1} with initial value $u_0$ and $v_0$, respectively. Then
\begin{align*}
\sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} \int_D |u(t) - v(t)| \,dx \leq \int_D |u_0 - v_0| \,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We subtract the equations for $u$ and $v$ and we get
\begin{align*}
u(t) - v(t) - (u_0 - v_0) - \int_0^t \textnormal{div} (|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u - |\nabla v|^{p-2} \nabla v) \,ds = 0
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
Using the It\^{o} formula with an approximation of the absolute value and tending to the limit yields (see, e.g., Proposition 5 in \cite{VZ18})
\begin{align*}
\int_D |u(t) - v(t)| \,dx - \int_D |u_0 - v_0| \,dx \leq 0
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\section{It\^{o} formula and renormalization}
In order to find an appropriate notion of renormalized solutions to \eqref{1}, we prove an It\^{o} formula in the $L^1$-framework. We remark that the combined It\^{o} chain and product rule from \cite{BFH}, Appendix A4 does not apply to our situation for two reasons. Firstly, we take the bouded domain $D\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ into account in our regularizing procedure by adding a cutoff function (see Appendix, Subsection \ref{proof}). Secondly, the spacial regularities are different in our case.\\
For two Banach spaces $X$, $Y$, let $L(X;Y)$ denote the Banach space of bounded, linear operators from $X$ to $Y$ and $L(X)$ denote the space of bounded linear operators from $X$ to $X$ respectively.\\
For the sake of completeness, we recall the following regularization procedure:
\begin{lemma}\label{190212_lem01}
Let $D\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary, $1\leq p<\infty$. There exists a sequence of operators
\[\Pi_n:W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)\rightarrow W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D),~n\in\mathbb{N}\]
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i.)$] $\Pi_n(v)\in W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap C^{\infty}(\overline{D})$ for all $v\in W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$ and all $n\in\mathbb{N}$
\item[$ii.)$] For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and any Banach space
\[F\in \{W^{1,p}_0(D), L^2(D), L^1(D), W^{-1,p'}(D), W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)\}.\]
$\Pi_n : F \to F$ is a bounded linear operator such that
$\lim_{n \to \infty}{\Pi_n}_{|F}=I_F$ pointwise in $F$, where $I_F$ is the identity on $F$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix, Subsection \ref{proof}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Proposition 4.2}
Let $G \in L^{p'}(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$, $g\in L^2(\Omega\times Q_T)$, $f\in L^1(\Omega\times Q_T)$ be progressively measurable, $u_0 \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ be $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable and $u \in L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D))) \cap L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))$ satisfy the equality
\begin{align}\label{2}
u(t) - u_0 +\int_0^t (-\textnormal{div}\,G +f) \,ds = \int_0^t g \,d\beta
\end{align}
in $L^2(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
Then for all $\psi \in C^{\infty}([0,T] \times \overline{D})$ and all $S\in W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ with $S''$ piecewise continuous
such that $S'(0)=0$ or $\psi(t,x) =0$ for all $(t,x) \in [0,T]\times \partial D$ we have
\begin{align}\label{Itoformulat}
&(S(u(t)),\psi(t))_2 - (S(u_0),\psi(0))_2+ \int_0^t \langle -\operatorname{div}\,G+f,S'(u)\psi\rangle\,ds\nonumber\\
&=\int_0^t (S'(u)g,\psi)_2\,d\beta + \int_0^t (S(u),\psi_t)_2 \,ds + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D S''(u)g^2 \psi \,dx\,ds
\end{align}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$, where
\begin{align*}
&\langle -\operatorname{div}\,G+f,S'(u)\psi\rangle=\langle -\operatorname{div}\,G+f,S'(u)\psi\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D), W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D)}\\
&=\int_D(G\cdot\nabla[S'(u)\psi]+fS'(u)\psi)\, dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega\times (0,T)$.
In particular, for $\psi \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\overline{D})$ not depending on $t\in [0,T]$ we get
\begin{align}\label{Itoformula}
&\int_D (S(u(t)) - S(u_0)) \psi \,dx + \int_0^t \int_D G \cdot\nabla[S'(u)\psi] \,dx\,ds + \int_0^t \int_D fS'(u)\psi \,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
= &\int_0^t \int_D S'(u) \psi g \,dx\,d\beta + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D S''(u) \psi g^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us assume $S\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $S'$, $S''$ is bounded, the general result then follows by an approximation argument (see Corollary \ref{cor1} in the Appendix).\\
We choose the regularizing sequence $(\Pi_n)$ according to Lemma \ref{190212_lem01} and set $u_n:= \Pi_n(u)$, $u_0^{n}:= \Pi_n(u_0)$, $G_n:= \Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)$, $f_n:=\Pi_n(f)$ and $g_n:=\Pi_n(g)$. We apply the operator $\Pi_n$ to both sides of \eqref{2}. Since $\Pi_n \in L(W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D); W_0^{1,p}(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D))$, we may conclude
\begin{align*}
u_n(t) - u_0^n +\int_0^t G_n+f_n \,ds= \int_0^t g_n \,d\beta
\end{align*}
in $D$, for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. For $x \in D$ fixed, we apply the classic It\^{o} formula for $h(t,r):=S(r)\psi(t,x)$ with respect to the time variable $t$. Integration over $D$ afterwards and Fubini Theorem yield
\begin{align*}
I_1+I_2+I_3=I_4+I_5+\frac{1}{2}I_6,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
I_1=\int_D S(u_n(t))\psi(t) - S(u_0^n) \psi(0) \,dx,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_2=\int_0^t \langle G_n, S'(u_n) \psi \rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\,ds,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_3=\int_0^t\int_D f_nS'(u_n) \psi\,dx \,ds,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_4=\int_0^t \int_D S'(u_n) \psi g_n \,dx\,d\beta
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_5=\int_0^t \int_D S(u_n) \psi_t \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_6=\int_0^t \int_D S''(u_n) \psi g_n^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. Now, we want to pass to the limit with $n\to \infty$ in $I_1-I_6$. Since $u_0^n\rightarrow u_0$ and $u_n(t)\rightarrow u(t)$ in $L^1(D)$ a.s. in $\Omega$ for any $t\in [0,T]$,
\begin{align}\label{190314_01}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} I_1=\int_D S(u(t))\psi(t) - S(u_0) \psi(0) \,dx.
\end{align}
For any $s\in (0,t)$ and a.s. in $\Omega$, $G_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow -\operatorname{div}\, G(\omega,s)$ in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$. Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\Vert G_n(\omega,s)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}&\leq \Vert \Pi_n\Vert_{L(W^{-1,p'}(D))}\Vert -\operatorname{div}\, G(\omega,s)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}\\
&\leq C_U\Vert -\operatorname{div}\, G(\omega,s)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)},
\end{align*}
where $C_U\geq 0$ is a generic constant not depending on $n\in\mathbb{N}$ from the Uniform Boundedness Principle. Since $G(\omega,\cdot)\in L^{p'}(Q_T)^d$ for a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$, it follows that $-\operatorname{div}\, G(\omega,\cdot)\in L^{p'}(0,T;W^{-1,p'}(D))$ and from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} G_n=-\operatorname{div}\, G
\end{align*}
in $L^{p'}(0,t;W^{-1,p'}(D))$ for every $t\in (0,T)$, a.s. in $\Omega$. For every $s\in (0,t)$ and a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$, from the chain rule for Sobolev functions we get
\begin{align}\label{190315_01}
\nabla[S'(u_n(\omega,s))\psi(s)]=S''(u_n(\omega,s))\nabla u_n(\omega,s)\psi(s)+S'(u_n(\omega,s))\nabla \psi(s).
\end{align}
For any $s\in [0,t]$ and almost every $\omega\in\Omega$, $u_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow u(\omega,s)$ in $W^{1,p}_0(D)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$, passing to a (not relabeled) subsequence if necessary (that may depend on $(\omega,s)$), the right-hand side of \eqref{190315_01} converges to $S''(u(\omega,s))\nabla u(\omega,s)\psi(s)+S'(u(\omega,s))\nabla\psi(s)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.e. in $D$ and there exists $\zeta\in L^p(D)$, that may depend on $(\omega,s)$, such that
\begin{align*}
|u_n(\omega,s)|+|\nabla u_n(\omega,s)|\leq \zeta(\omega,s)
\end{align*}
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, a.s. in $D$. Consequently, $S'(u_n(\omega,s))\psi(s)\rightarrow S'(u(\omega,s))\psi(s)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $W^{1,p}_0(D)$ and this convergence holds for the whole sequence. From the boundedness of $S'$, $S''$, $\psi$ and $\nabla \psi$ it follows that there exist constants $C, \tilde{C}\geq 0$ not depending on the parameters $n,\omega,s$ such that
\begin{align*}
\Vert S'(u_n(\omega,s))\psi(s)\Vert_{W^{1,p}_0(D)}=C\Vert \Pi_n\Vert_{L(W^{1,p}_0(D))}\Vert u(\omega,s)\Vert_{W^{1,p}_0(D)}+\tilde{C}
\end{align*}
and $\Vert \Pi_n\Vert_{L(W^{1,p}_0(D))}\leq C_U$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ thanks to the Uniform Boundedness Principle. For these reasons, from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190315_03}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}S'(u_n)\psi=S'(u)\psi
\end{align}
in $L^p(0,t;W^{1,p}_0(D))$ a.s. in $\Omega$ and therefore
\begin{align}\label{190315_02}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} I_2=\int_0^t \langle -\operatorname{div}\, G, S'(u) \psi \rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\,ds.
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. For any $s\in (0,t)$ and a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$, $f_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow f(\omega,s)$ in $L^1(D)$. Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\Vert f_n(\omega,s)\Vert_{L^1(D)}\leq C_U\Vert f(\omega,s)\Vert_{L^1(D)}
\end{align*}
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, for all $s\in (0,t)$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. Therefore,
from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that $f_n\rightarrow f$ in $L^1((0,t)\times D)$ a.s. in $\Omega$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$. On the other hand, since $S'(u_n)\psi$ is bounded with respect to $n\in\mathbb{N}$ in $L^{\infty}(Q_T)$ and from the convergence \eqref{190315_03} in $L^p(0,t;W^{1,p}_0(D))$ it follows that $S'(u_n)\psi\stackrel{\ast}{\rightharpoonup}S'(u)\psi$ in $L^{\infty}(Q_t)$ a.s. in $\Omega$, therefore
\begin{align}\label{190315_04}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_3=\int_0^t\int_D fS'(u)\psi\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. Using It\^{o} isometry we get that
\begin{align}\label{190318_01}
&\mathbb{E}\left|\int_0^t\int_D S'(u_n)\psi g_n-S'(u)\psi g\,dx\,d\beta\right|^2\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_D |S'(u_n)\psi g_n-S'(u)\psi g|^2\,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
&\leq 2\Vert \psi\Vert_{\infty}^2\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^t\int_D|S'(u_n)(g_n-g)|^2\,dx\,ds+\int_0^t\int_D|(S'(u_n)-S'(u))g|^2\,dx\,ds\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq 2\Vert \psi\Vert_{\infty}^2\mathbb{E}\left[\Vert S'\Vert_{\infty}^2\int_0^t\Vert g_n-g\Vert^2_{L^2(D)}\,ds+\int_0^t\int_D|(S'(u_n)-S'(u))g|^2\,dx\,ds\right].
\end{align}
Since $g_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow g(\omega,s)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. in $\Omega\times (0,T)$ and
\begin{align*}
\Vert g_n(\omega,s)-g(\omega,s)\Vert^2\leq 2\Vert g(\omega,s)\Vert^2_{L^2(D)}(C_U+1),
\end{align*}
from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190318_03}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \mathbb{E}\int_0^t \Vert g_n-g\Vert^2_{L^2(D)}\, ds=0.
\end{align}
Since $u_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow u(\omega,s)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $L^1(D)$ and
\begin{align*}
\Vert u_n(\omega,s)\Vert_{L^1(D)}\leq C_U\Vert u(\omega,s)\Vert_{L^1(D)}
\end{align*}
for a.e. $(\omega,s)\in \Omega\times (0,T)$ and all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that $u_n\rightarrow u$ in $L^1(\Omega\times Q_T)$ and, passing to a not relabeled subsequence if necessary, also a.s. in $\Omega\times Q_T$. Consequently, a.s. in $\Omega\times Q_T$, we get
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}|S'(u_n(\omega,s,x))-S'(u(\omega,s,x))|^2|g(\omega,s,x)|^2=0.
\end{align*}
In addition,
\begin{align*}
|S'(u_n(\omega,s,x))-S'(u(\omega,s,x))|^2|g(\omega,s,x)|^2\leq 2\Vert S'\Vert_{\infty}^2|g(\omega,s,x)|^2
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega\times Q_T$ and from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190318_04}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} E\int_0^t\int_D|S'(u_n)-S'(u)|^2|g|^2\,dx\,ds=0
\end{align}
for any $t\in [0,T]$. Combining \eqref{190318_01}, \eqref{190318_03} and \eqref{190318_04}, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^t\int_DS'(u_n)\psi g_n\,dx\,d\beta=\int_0^t\int_DS'(u)\psi g \,dx\,d\beta
\end{align*}
in $L^2(\Omega)$ for any $t\in [0,T]$, and, passing a not relabeled subsequence if necessary, also a.s. in $\Omega$. Hence, up to a not relabeled subsequence,
\begin{align}\label{190318_05}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_4=\int_0^t\int_D S(u)\psi g\,dx\,d\beta
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. From the boundedness of $S$ and the convergence of $u_n(\omega,s)$ to $u(\omega,s)$ in $L^1(D)$ for all $s\in(0,t)$, a.s. in $\Omega$, it follows that $S(u_n)\rightarrow S(u)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $L^1(Q_T)$, a.s. in $\Omega$ and therefore
\begin{align}\label{190318_06}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_5=\int_0^t S(u)\psi_t\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. According to the convergence properties of $(g_n)$, $g_n^2\rightarrow g^2$ in $L^1((0,t)\times D)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. in $\Omega$. On the other hand, from the boundedness and the continuity of $S''$ we get $S''(u_n)\rightarrow S''(u)$ in $L^q((0,t)\times D)$ for all $1\leq q<\infty$ and weak-$\ast$ in $L^{\infty}((0,t)\times D)$ a.s. in $\Omega$, thus it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190318_07}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} I_6=\int_0^t\int_DS''(u)\psi g^2\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$.
Summarizing our results in \eqref{190314_01}, \eqref{190315_02}, \eqref{190315_04}, \eqref{190318_05}, \eqref{190318_06} and \eqref{190318_07}, we get
\begin{align*}
&\int_D S(u(t))\psi(t) - S(u_0) \psi(0) \,dx\\
&+\int_0^t \langle (-\operatorname{div} \,G+f), S'(u)\psi \rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D), W_0^{1,p}(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D)} \,ds\\
= &\int_0^t \int_D S'(u) \psi g \,dx\,d\beta + \int_0^t \int_D S(u) \psi_t \,dx\,ds + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D S''(u) \psi g^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\section{Renormalized solutions}
Let us assume that there exists a strong solution $u$ to \eqref{1} in the sense of Theorem \ref{Theorem 2.1}. We observe that for initial data $u_0$ merely in $L^1$, the It\^{o} formula for the square of the norm (see, e.g., \cite{EP}) can not be applied and consequently the natural a priori estimate for $\nabla u$ in $L^p(\Omega\times Q_T)^d$ is not available. Choosing $g=\Phi$, $f\equiv 0$, $\psi\equiv 1$ and
\[S(u)=\int_0^{u}T_k(r)\, dr\]
in \eqref{Itoformula}, where $T_k:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is the truncation function at level $k>0$ defined by
\begin{align*}
T_k(r)=\begin{cases} r &,~|r| \leq k, \\
k\operatorname{sign}(r) &,~ |r|> k,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
we find that there exists a constant $C(k)\geq 0$ depending on the truncation level $k>0$, such that
\[\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\int_D |\nabla T_k(u)|^p\,dx\,ds\leq C(k).\]
As in the deterministic case, the notion of renormalized solutions takes this information into account :
\begin{definition}\label{Definition 5.1}
Let $u_0 \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ be $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable. An $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted stochastic process $u: \Omega \times [0,T] \to L^1(D)$ such that $u \in L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D)))$ is a renormalized solution to (\ref{1}) with initial value $u_0$, if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
$T_k(u) \in L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))$ for all $k>0$.
\item[(ii)]
For all $\psi \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}([0,T] \times \bar{D})$ and all $S \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $S'$ has compact support with $S'(0)=0$ or $\psi(t,x) =0$ for all $(t,x) \in [0,T] \times \partial D$ the equality
\begin{align}\label{reneq190204}
&\int_D S(u(t))\psi(t) - S(u_0) \psi(0) \,dx + \int_0^t \int_D S''(u) |\nabla u|^p \psi \,dx\,ds\nonumber \\
+ &\int_0^t \int_D S'(u) |\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u \cdot \nabla \psi \,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
= &\int_0^t \int_D S'(u) \psi \Phi \,dx\,d\beta + \int_0^t \int_D S(u) \psi_t \,dx\,ds + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D S''(u) \psi \Phi^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align}
holds true for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
\item[(iii)]
The following energy dissipation condition holds true:
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{k \to \infty}\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k < |u| < k+1 \}} |\nabla u|^p \,dx\,dt= 0.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Several remarks about Definition \ref{Definition 5.1} are in order:
Let $u$ be a renormalized solution in the sense of Definition \ref{Definition 5.1}. Since $\operatorname{supp}\,(S')\subset [-M,M]$, it follows that $S$ is constant outside $[-M,M]$ and for all $k\geq M$, $S(u(t))=S(T_k(u(t)))$ a.s. in $\Omega\times D$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. In particular, we have
\[S(u)\in L^1(\Omega;\mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D)))\cap L^p(\Omega;L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}(D)))\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega\times Q_T).\]
From the chain rule for Sobolev functions it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{180701_02}
S'(u)(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)=S'(T_M(u))(|\nabla T_M(u)|^{p-2}\nabla T_M(u))=S'(u)\chi_{\{|u|<M\}}(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)
\end{equation}
a.s. in $\Omega\times Q_T$ and therefore from $(i)$ it follows that all the terms in \eqref{reneq190204} are well-defined. In general, for the renormalized solution $u$, $\nabla u$ may not be in $L^p(\Omega\times Q_T)^d$ and therefore $(iii)$ is an additional condition which can not be derived from $(ii)$. However, for $u\in L^1(\Omega\times Q_T)$ satisfying $(i)$, we can define a generalized gradient (still denoted by $\nabla u$) by setting
\[\nabla u(\omega,t,x):=\nabla T_k(u)\]
a.s. in $ \{ |u| < k\}$ for $k>0$. The function $\nabla u$ is well defined since $\bigcup\limits_{k>0} \{ |u| < k\} = \Omega \times Q_T$, $T_k(u)=T_k(T_{k+\epsilon}(u))$, $T_{k + \epsilon}(u) \in L^p(\Omega;L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}(D)))$ and therefore
\begin{align*}
\nabla T_k(u)= \nabla T_k(T_{k + \epsilon}(u)) = \nabla T_{k + \epsilon}(u) \chi_{\{|u|<k\}} = \nabla T_{k+ \epsilon}(u)
\end{align*}
in $ \{ |u| < k\}$ for all $k, \epsilon >0$.
For $u\in L^1(\Omega;\mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D)))$ such that $T_k(u)\in L^p(\Omega;L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}_0(D)))$ for all $k>0$, $(ii)$ is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{180625_01}
&S(u(t))-S(u(0))-\int_0^t \operatorname{div}\,(S'(u)|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u) \,ds+\int_0^t S''(u)[|\nabla u|^p-\frac{1}{2}\Phi^2] \,ds \nonumber\\
&=\int_0^t \Phi S'(u) \,d\beta,
\end{align}
or equivalently, in differential form,
\begin{align}\label{SPDE1}
&dS(u)-\operatorname{div}\,(S'(u)|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u) \,dt+S''(u)[|\nabla u|^p-\frac{1}{2}\Phi^2]\,dt
=\Phi S'(u) \,d\beta
\end{align}
in $W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, a.s. in $\Omega$ and for any $S\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ with $\operatorname{supp}(S')$ compact, and, since the right-hand side of \eqref{SPDE1} is in $L^2(D)$, also in $L^2(D)$.
\begin{remark}\label{Remark 5.2}
If $u$ is a renormalized solution to \eqref{1}, thanks to \eqref{SPDE1}, the It\^{o} formula from Proposition \ref{Proposition 4.2} still holds true for $S(u)$ for any $S\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ with $\operatorname{supp}(S')$ compact such that $S(u)\in W^{1,p}_0(D)$ a.s. in $\Omega\times (0,T)$. Indeed, in this case \eqref{2} is satisfied for the progressively measurable functions
\[\tilde{u}=S(u)\in L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D))) \cap L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D))),\]
\[G=S'(u)|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\in L^{p'}(\Omega\times Q_T)^d,\]
\[f=S''(u)[|\nabla u|^p-\frac{1}{2}\Phi^2\in L^1(\Omega\times Q_T),\]
\[g=\Phi S'(u)\in L^2(\Omega\times Q_T).\]
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Let $u$ be a renormalized solution to \eqref{1} with $\nabla u\in L^p(\Omega\times Q_T)^d$. For fixed $l>0$, let $h_l:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be defined by
\begin{align*}
h_l(r)=\begin{cases} 0 &,~|r| \geq l+1 \\
l+1-|r| &,~ l<|r|<l+1\\
1 &,~ |r|\leq l.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Taking $S(u)=\int_0^{u} h_l(r) \,dr$ as a test function in \eqref{181201_04}, we may pass to the limit with $l\rightarrow\infty$ and we find that $u$ is a strong solution to \eqref{1}.
\end{remark}
\section{Existence of renormalized solutions}
Before we show the existence of a renormalized solution, we show the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma 6.1}
Let $(u_0^n)_n \subset L^2(\Omega \times D)$ be an $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable sequence such that $u_0^n \to u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$ for a function $u_0 \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$. Furthermore, let $u_n$ be a strong solution to \eqref{1} with respect to the initial value $u_0^n$. Then there exists an $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted stochastic process $u: \Omega \times [0,T] \to L^1(D)$ such that $u \in L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)))$ and a subsequence in $n$ such that
\begin{align*}
u_n \to u ~~~\textnormal{in}~L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)))~\textnormal{and in}~\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D))~\textnormal{a.s. in}~\Omega.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By assumption $(u_0^n)_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$. Then, Theorem \ref{Theorem 3.1} yields
\begin{align*}
\sup\limits_{t \in [0,T]} \int_D |u_n(t) - u_m(t)| \,dx \leq \int_D |u_0^n - u_0^m| \,dx \to 0
\end{align*}
as $n,m \to \infty$, a.s. in $\Omega$ and in $L^1(\Omega)$. Especially, a.s. in $\Omega$ and for all $t \in [0,T]$ we have $u_n(t) \to u(t)$ in $L^1(D)$. As a limit function of a sequence of $\mathcal{F}_t$-measurable functions we may conclude that $u(t)$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-measurable.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem 6.2}
Let the assumptions in Definition \ref{Definition 5.1} be satisfied. Then there exists a renormalized solution to \eqref{1}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{}
Let $(u_0^n)_n \subset L^2(\Omega \times D)$ be an $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable sequence such that $u_0^n \to u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$. Now, let $u_n$ be a strong solution to (\ref{1}) with initial value $u_0^n$, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{20}
u_n(t) - u_0^n - \int_0^t \textnormal{div}\, (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n) \,ds = \int_0^t \Phi \,d\beta
\end{align}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. By Lemma \ref{Lemma 6.1} there exists an $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted stochastic process $u: \Omega \times [0,T] \to L^1(D)$ such that $u \in L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)))$ and a subsequence in $n$ such that
\begin{align*}
u_n \to u ~~~\textnormal{in}~L^1(\Omega; \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)))~\textnormal{and in}~\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D))~\textnormal{a.s. in}~\Omega.
\end{align*}
We claim that this function $u$ is a renormalized solution to \eqref{1} with initial value $u_0$.\\
\newline
Firstly, we apply the It\^{o} formula introduced in Proposition \ref{Proposition 4.2} to equality \eqref{20}. Therefore we know that for all $\psi \in C^{\infty}([0,T] \times \overline{D})$ and all $S \in W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $S''$ is piecewise continuous and $S'(0)=0$ or $\psi(t,x) =0$ for all $(t,x) \in [0,T] \times\partial D$ the equality
\begin{align}\label{190206_03}
&\int_D S(u_n(t))\psi(t) - S(u_0^n) \psi(0) \,dx + \int_0^t \int_D S''(u_n) |\nabla u_n|^p \psi \,dx\,ds \notag \\
&+ \int_0^t \int_D S'(u_n) |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla \psi \,dx\,ds\\
= &\int_0^t \int_D S'(u_n) \psi \Phi \,dx\,d\beta + \int_0^t \int_D S(u_n) \psi_t \,dx\,ds + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D S''(u_n) \psi \Phi^2 \,dx\,ds \notag
\end{align}
holds true for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
Now, we plug $S(r)=\int_0^{r} T_k(\overline{r}) \,d\overline{r}$ into \eqref{190206_03}.
Using $\psi=1$ we get
\begin{align*}
&\int_D \int_{u_0^n}^{u_n(t)} T_k(r) \,dr\,dx + \int_0^t \int_D \chi_k(u_n) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,ds\\
= &\int_0^t \int_D T_k(u_n) \Phi \,dx\,d\beta + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D \chi_k(u_n) \Phi^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $k>0$, all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. Taking expectation yields
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E} \int_D \int_{u_0^n}^{u_n(t)} T_k(r) \,drdx + \mathbb{E}\int_0^t \int_D |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^p \,dx\,ds\\
= \frac{1}{2} &\mathbb{E} \int_0^t \int_D \chi_k(u_n) \Phi^2 \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $k>0$, all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $\Omega$. The first term on the left hand side is nonnegative. Since $|\chi_k| \leq 1$ we may conclude that $T_k(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))$ for all $k>0$.\\
Hence for a subsequence we have $T_k(u_n) \rightharpoonup T_k(u)$ in $L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))$ for all $k>0$, which claims (i).\\
Furthermore, $ |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) $ is bounded in $L^{p'}(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$. Consequently, there exists a not relabeled subsequence of $n$ such that $|\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) \rightharpoonup \sigma_k$ in $L^{p'}(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$.\\
\newline
Obviously, the proof of (ii) is done as far as we can show that
\begin{align*}
T_k(u_n) \to T_k(u)~~~ \textnormal{in} ~~~L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))
\end{align*}
for all $k>0$.
This will be done in the following lemma that is inspired by Theorem 2 of \cite{DB}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma 6.3}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{Theorem 6.2} we have
\begin{align}\label{22}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} &\int_0^T \int_D \bigg( |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) - |\nabla T_k(u_m)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_m) \bigg) \cdot \\
&\cdot( \nabla T_k(u_n) - \nabla T_k(u_m)) \,dx\,ds=0, \notag
\end{align}
where $u_n$ is a strong solution to \eqref{1} with initial value $u_0^n \in L^2(\Omega \times D)$ satisfying $u_0^n \to u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$.\\
Especially, we have
\begin{align*}
\nabla T_k(u_n) \to \nabla T_k(u)~~~ \textnormal{in} ~~~L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
T_k(u_n) \to T_k(u)~~~ \textnormal{in} ~~~L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))
\end{align*}
for $n \to \infty$ and for all $k>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\label{Remark 6.4}
In Lemma \ref{Lemma 6.3} and in the following we use the notation $\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} F_{n,m}$ if $n$ and $m$ tend successively to $\infty$ and
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{m \to \infty} \lim\limits_{n \to \infty} F_{n,m} = \lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \lim\limits_{m \to \infty} F_{n,m}.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Since $u_n$ and $u_m$ are strong solutions to \eqref{1}, we consider the difference of the corresponding equations. Using $T_k(u_n - u_m)$ as a test function it yields
\begin{align*}
&\int_D \tilde{T}_k(u_n(T) - u_m(T)) \,dx \\
+ &\int_0^T \int_D (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla T_k(u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt\\
= &\int_D \tilde{T}_k(u_0^n - u_0^m) \,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$ and for all $k>0$, where $\tilde{T}_k(s) := \int_0^s T_k(r) \,dr$ for all $s \in \mathbb{R}$. Since $\tilde{T}_k$ is nonnegative we may conclude that
\begin{align}\label{23}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla T_k(u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt=0
\end{align}
for all $k>0$. We set
\begin{align*}
&\int_0^T \int_D \bigg( |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) - |\nabla T_k(u_m)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_m) \bigg) \cdot \\
&\cdot( \nabla T_k(u_n) - \nabla T_k(u_m)) \,dx\,dt \\
&= I_k^{n,m} + J_k^{n,m} + J_k^{m,n},
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, where
\begin{align*}
I_k^{n,m} &= \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| \leq k\}} (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla (u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt, \\
J_k^{n,m} &= \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| > k\}} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. $J_k^{m,n}$ is the same as $J_k^{n,m}$ where the roles of $n$ and $m$ are reversed. Therefore these two terms can be treated simultaneously.\\
Since $ \{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| \leq k\} \subset \{ |u_n - u_m| \leq 2k \}$, we get
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} I_k^{n,m} \\
&\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla T_{2k}(u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt =0
\end{align*}
for all $k>0$ by \eqref{23}. Now we set
\begin{align*}
0 \leq J_k^{n,m} = J_{1,k,k'}^{n,m} + J_{2,k,k'}^{n,m},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
J_{1,k,k'}^{n,m} &= \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| > k\} \cap \{|u_n - u_m| \leq k'\}} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt,\\
J_{2,k,k'}^{n,m} &=\int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| > k\} \cap \{|u_n - u_m| > k'\}} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt
\end{align*}
for all $k'>k>0$, a.s. in $\Omega$. Firstly, we focus on $J_{1,k,k'}^{n,m}$. It is $ \{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| > k\} \cap \{|u_n - u_m| \leq k'\} \subset \{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{k < |u_m| \leq k+k' \}$. Therefore we can estimate
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq J_{1,k,k'}^{n,m} \\
&\leq \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{k < |u_m| \leq k+k' \}} (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla (u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt \\
&+ \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{k < |u_m| \leq k+k' \}} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \nabla u_m \,dx\,dt\\
&+ \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{k < |u_m| \leq k+k' \}} |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt\\
&= J_{1,1,k,k'}^{n,m} +J_{1,2,k,k'}^{n,m} + J_{1,3,k,k'}^{n,m}
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. We see that \eqref{23} yields
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,1,k,k'}^{n,m} \\
&\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla T_{2k + k'}(u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt = 0.
\end{align*}
It is
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} J_{1,2,k,k'}^{n,m} = \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) \cdot \nabla T_{k+k'}(u_m) \chi_{\{k < |u_m| \leq k+k' \}} \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
Let us define $\theta_k^{k'}(r):= T_{k+k'}(r) - T_k(r)$. \\
Then $\nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u_m) = \nabla T_{k+k'}(u_m) \chi_{\{k < |u_m| < k+k' \}}$ and $\nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u_m) \rightharpoonup \nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u)$ in $L^{p}(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$. Now we can estimate
\begin{align*}
0 \leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,2,k,k'}^{n,m} = \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \sigma_k \nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u) \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
We show that $\sigma_k= \chi_{\{|u| < k\}} \sigma_{k+1}$ a.e. on $\{|u| \neq k \}$. If we do so it follows that $\sigma_k=0$ a.e. on $\{|u| > k \}$. Since $\nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u)=0$ on $\{ |u| \leq k \}$ it follows $\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,2,k,k'}^{n,m}=0$.\\
Let $\psi \in L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$. Then
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{Q_T} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) \cdot \psi \cdot \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \,dx\,dt = \mathbb{E} \int_{Q_T} \sigma_k \psi \cdot \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
On the other hand we know that $u_n \to u$ a.e. in $\Omega \times Q_T$. Hence, we have $\chi_{\{|u_n|<k \}} \to \chi_{\{|u|<k \}}$ a.e. in $\{|u| \neq k \}$. Therefore the theorem of Lebesgue yields
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\{|u_n|<k \}} \cdot \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \cdot \psi \to \chi_{\{|u|<k \}} \cdot \chi_{\{|u|\neq k \}} \cdot \psi ~~~\textnormal{in}~ L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d.
\end{align*}
We may conclude that
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{Q_T} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) \cdot \psi \cdot \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \,dx\,dt \\
= &\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{Q_T} |\nabla T_{k+1}(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_{k+1}(u_n) \cdot \psi \cdot \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \cdot \chi_{\{|u_n|<k \}} \,dx\,dt \\
= & \mathbb{E} \int_{Q_T} \sigma_{k+1} \psi \chi_{\{|u| \neq k \}} \cdot \chi_{\{|u|<k \}} \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
It follows that $\sigma_k= \chi_{\{|u| < k\}} \sigma_{k+1}$ a.e. on $\{|u| \neq k \}$ and therefore
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,2,k,k'}^{n,m}=0.
\end{align*}
Now let us consider $ J_{1,3,k,k'}^{n,m}$. Since $|\nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla \theta_k^{k'}(u_n) \rightharpoonup \tilde{\sigma}_k^{k'}$ in $L^{p'}(\Omega \times Q_T)$ for a subsequence we have
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,3,k,k'}^{n,m} = \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \tilde{\sigma}_k^{k'} \cdot \nabla T_k(u) \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
Since $\nabla \theta_k^{k'}(v)= \chi_{\{k < |v| < k+k'\}} \nabla \theta_{k-1}^{k'+2}(v)$ for all $v \in L^p(\Omega; L^p(0,T;W_0^{1,p}(D)))$, we can show by similar arguments as before that $\tilde{\sigma}_k^{k'}= \chi_{\{k < |u| < k+k'\}}\tilde{\sigma}_{k-1}^{k'+2}$ a.e. on $\{|u| \neq k\} \cup \{|u| \neq k+k'\}$. Therefore it follows that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{1,3,k,k'}^{n,m}=0.
\end{align*}
It is left to show that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{2,k,k'}^{n,m}=0.
\end{align*}
This is a consequence of the following lemma, that is similar to Lemma 2 in \cite{DB} (see also Theorem 2 in \cite{DB}).
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma 5.6}
Let $H$ and $Z$ be two real valued functions belonging to $W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $H''$ and $Z''$ are piecewise continuous, $H'$ and $Z'$ have compact supports and $Z(0)=Z'(0)=0$ is satisfied. Then
\begin{align}\label{7}
\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D H''(u_n) Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt =0.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the product rule for the It\^{o} formula (see Proposition \ref{itoproduct}) yields
\begin{align*}
&\int_D Z(u_n(t) - u_m(t)) H(u_n(t)) \,dx= \int_D Z(u_0^n - u_0^m)H(u_0^n) \,dx \\
- &\int_0^t \int_D |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \nabla \bigg(Z(u_n - u_m) H'(u_n) \bigg) \,dx\,ds \\
+ &\frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \int_D H''(u_n)Z(u_n - u_m) \Phi^2 \,dx\,ds \\
+ &\int_0^t \int_D H'(u_n)Z(u_n - u_m) \Phi \,dx\,d\beta \\
- &\int_0^t \int_D (|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \nabla \bigg( Z'(u_n - u_m)H(u_n) \bigg) \,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$ and a.s. in $ \Omega$. Using $t=T$ and passing to the limit yields
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D H''(u_n) Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\\
= -&\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} L^{n,m} -\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} M^{n,m} -\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} N^{n,m},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
L^{n,m} &= \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D Z''(u_n - u_m) H(u_n)(|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \\
&\cdot \nabla (u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt, \\
M^{n,m} &= \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D Z'(u_n - u_m) H'(u_n)(|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n - |\nabla u_m|^{p-2} \nabla u_m) \cdot \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt, \\
N^{n,m} &= \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D Z'(u_n - u_m) H'(u_n)|\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla (u_n - u_m) \,dx\,dt.
\end{align*}
The rest of the proof is the same as the proof of \cite{DB}, Theorem 2.
\end{proof}
We continue the proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma 6.3}. Using
\begin{align*}
(H_k^{\delta})''(r)=
\begin{cases}
1, ~&|r|<k, \\
-k \delta, ~&k \leq |r| \leq k+ \frac{1}{\delta}, \\
0, ~&|r| > k + \frac{1}{\delta}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
in equality \eqref{7} yields
\begin{align*}
&\limsup\limits_{n\to \infty} \limsup\limits_{m \to \infty} \mathbb{E}\int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\,\\
\leq &k \delta \limsup\limits_{n\to \infty} \limsup\limits_{m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq k+\frac{1}{\delta}\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\, \\
\leq &\delta \cdot k \Vert Z \Vert_{\infty} \limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq k+\frac{1}{\delta}\}} |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\,.
\end{align*}
Now applying Proposition \ref{Proposition 4.2} with $S= \int_0^{\cdot} \theta_{k}^{\frac{1}{\delta}} =: \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}$, $\psi= 1$, $g=\Phi$ and $f=0$ and taking expectation yields
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E} \int_D \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}(u_n(T)) \,dx + \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \chi_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq u_n + \frac{1}{\delta}\}} |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx \,dt \\
= &\mathbb{E} \int_D \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}(u_0^n) \,dx + \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \chi_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq u_n + \frac{1}{\delta}\}} \Phi^2 \,dx \, dt.
\end{align*}
The first term on the left hand side is nonnegative and the integrand of the second term on the right hand side can be estimated as follows
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq u_n + \frac{1}{\delta}\}} \Phi^2 \leq \Phi^2 ~\in ~L^1(\Omega \times Q_T).
\end{align*}
Multiplying by $\delta$ and passing to the limit with $n \to \infty$ yields
\begin{align*}
\delta \cdot \limsup\limits_{n \to \infty}~ \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \chi_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq u_n + \frac{1}{\delta}\}} |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx \,dt \leq \mathbb{E} \int_D \delta \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}(u_0) \,dx + \frac{1}{2} \delta \Vert \Phi \Vert_{L^2(\Omega \times Q_T)}^2.
\end{align*}
We can estimate that $\delta \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}(u_0) \to 0$ a.e. in $\Omega \times D$ as $\delta \to 0$ and $|\delta \tilde{\theta}_k^{\frac{1}{\delta}}(u_0)| \leq u_0 + C$ for a constant $C>0$. Therefore Lebesgue's Theorem yields
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{\delta \to 0} \limsup\limits_{n \to \infty} \delta \cdot \mathbb{E} \int_{\{k \leq |u_n| \leq k+\frac{1}{\delta}\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\, =0.
\end{align*}
Therefore we may conclude
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E}\int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\,\\
= &\limsup\limits_{n\to \infty} \limsup\limits_{m \to \infty} \mathbb{E}\int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\,=0.
\end{align*}
Choosing $Z$ such that $Z(r)=1$ for $|r|\geq k'$ and $Z \geq 0$ on $\mathbb{R}$ such that $Z(0)=Z'(0)=0$, it follows
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} J_{2,k,k'}^{n,m}\\
&= \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\} \cap \{|u_m| > k\} \cap \{|u_n - u_m| > k'\}} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2} \nabla u_n \cdot \nabla u_n \,dx\,dt \\
&\leq \lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_{\{|u_n| \leq k\}} Z(u_n - u_m) |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt=0,
\end{align*}
which finally shows the validity of equality \eqref{22}.
Since equality \eqref{22} holds true, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{25}
\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u_n) \cdot \nabla T_k(u_n) \,dx\,dt= \mathbb{E} \int_0^T \int_D \sigma_k \cdot \nabla T_k(u) \,dx\,dt.
\end{align}
Minty's trick yields $\sigma_k= |\nabla T_k(u)|^{p-2} \nabla T_k(u)$. We may conclude by using equality \eqref{25} that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \Vert \nabla T_k(u_n) \Vert_{L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d}^p = \Vert \nabla T_k(u)\Vert_{L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d}^p.
\end{align*}
Since $L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$ is uniformly convex and $\nabla T_k(u_n) \rightharpoonup \nabla T_k(u)$ in $L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d$ it yields
\begin{align*}
\nabla T_k(u_n) \to \nabla T_k(u) ~~~\textnormal{in} ~ L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d
\end{align*}
which ends the proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma 6.3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{190206_lem01}
Let $(u_0^n)_n \subset L^2(\Omega \times D)$ be a sequence such that $u_0^n \to u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega \times D)$ and let $u_n$ be the unique strong solution to \eqref{1} with initial value $u_0^n$, i.e., \eqref{20} holds true. Then,
\begin{align}\label{190206_01}
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\,\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}} |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt=0.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For fixed $l>0$, let $h_l:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be defined by
\begin{align*}
h_l(r)=\begin{cases} 0 &,~|r| \geq l+1, \\
l+1-|r| &,~ l<|r|<l+1\\
1 &,~ |r|\leq l.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We plug $S(r)=\int_0^{r} h_l(\overline{r})(T_{k+1}(\overline{r})-T_k(\overline{r}))\,d\overline{r}$ and $\Psi\equiv 1$ in \eqref{190206_03} and take expectation to obtain
\begin{align}\label{190206_04}
I_1+I_2+I_3=I_4+I_5,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
I_1&=\mathbb{E}\int_D \int_{u_0^n}^{u_n(t)}h_l(r)(T_{k+1}(r)-T_k(r))\, dr\,dx,\\
I_2&=\mathbb{E}\int_{\{l<|u_n|<l+1\}}-\operatorname{sign}(u_n)(T_{k+1}(u_n)-T_k(u_n))|\nabla u_n|^p\,dx\,ds,\\
I_3&=\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}h_l(u_n)|\nabla u_n|^p\,dx\,ds,\\
I_4&=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\int_{\{l<|u_n|<l+1\}} -\operatorname{sign}(u_n)(T_{k+1}(u_n)-T_k(u_n))\Phi^2\,dx\,ds,\\
I_5&=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}h_l(u_n)\Phi^2\,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
for all $t\in [0,T]$.
We can pass to the limit with $l\rightarrow\infty$ in \eqref{190206_04} by Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence theorem. We obtain
\begin{align}\label{190206_05}
J_1+J_2=J_3
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
J_1&=\mathbb{E}\int_D\int_{u_0^n}^{u_n(t)}T_{k+1}(r)-T_k(r)\, dr\,dx,\\
J_2&=\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}|\nabla u_n|^p\,dx\,ds,\\
J_3&=\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}\Phi^2\,dx\,ds.
\end{align*}
Since $u_n\rightarrow u$ in $L^1(\Omega;C([0,T];L^1(D)))$ and $u_0^n\rightarrow u_0$ in $L^1(\Omega\times D)$, for $n\rightarrow \infty$, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190206_08}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}J_1=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \int_D \int_{u_0}^{u(t)}T_{k+1}(r)-T_k(r)\, dr\,dx=0.
\end{align}
Now, the term $J_3$ desires our attention. For any $\sigma>0$ we have
\begin{align}\label{190206_06}
J_3&=\frac{1}{2}\,\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}\left(\chi_{\{\Phi^2>\sigma\}}+\chi_{\{\Phi^2\leq\sigma\}}\right)\Phi^2\,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\,\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}\sigma \,dx\,ds+\frac{1}{2}\,\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_{\{\Phi^2>\sigma\}}\Phi^2\,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\sigma}{2k}\Vert u_n\Vert_{L^1(\Omega\times Q_T)} +\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_{\{\Phi^2>\sigma\}}\Phi^2\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
Thanks to the convergence of $(u_n)$, there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ not depending on the parameters $k$, $n$ and $\sigma$ such that
\[\Vert u_n\Vert_{L^1(\Omega\times Q_T)}\leq C.\]
Thus,
\begin{align}\label{190206_07}
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} J_3\leq \mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_{\{\Phi^2>\sigma\}}\Phi^2\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
and therefore, passing to the limit with $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$, from \eqref{190206_07} and the nonnegativity of $J_3$ it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190206_09}
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} J_3=0.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{190206_05}, \eqref{190206_08} and \eqref{190206_09}, and using the nonnegativity of $J_2$, we arrive at \eqref{190206_01}.
\end{proof}
We have
\[\chi_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k+1\}}\rightarrow \chi_{\{k<|u|<k+1\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k+1\}}\]
for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $L^r(\Omega\times Q_T)$ for any $1\leq r<\infty$ and a.e. in $\Omega\times Q_T$. From Lemma \ref{Lemma 6.3} we recall that for any $k>0$,
\begin{align*}
\nabla T_k(u_n) \to \nabla T_k(u) ~~~\textnormal{in} ~ L^p(\Omega \times Q_T)^d
\end{align*}
for $n\rightarrow\infty$, thus, passing to a not relabeled subsequence if necessary, also a.s. in $\Omega\times Q_T$. Since $\nabla T_k(u)=0$ a.s. on $\{|u|=m\}$ for any $m\geq 0$, from Fatou's Lemma it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190206_02}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\, \mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}} |\nabla u_n|^p \,dx\,dt\nonumber\\
&\geq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} \mathbb{E}\,\int_{\{k<|u_n|<k+1\}} |\nabla u_n|^p\chi_{\{|u|\neq k\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k+1\}} \,dx\,dt\nonumber\\
&\geq\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u|<k+1\}} |\nabla u|^p \chi_{\{|u|\neq k\}}\chi_{\{|u|\neq k+1\}} \,dx\,dt\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}\int_{\{k<|u|<k+1\}} |\nabla u|^p \,dx\,dt
\end{align}
and the energy dissipation condition $(iii)$ follows combining \eqref{190206_01} with \eqref{190206_02}.
\section{Uniqueness of renormalized solutions}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem 7.1}
Let $u,v$ be renormalized solutions to \eqref{1} with initial data $u_0 \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ and $v_0 \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$, respectively. Then we get
\begin{align}\label{34}
\int_D |u(t) - v(t)| \,dx \leq \int_D |u_0 - v_0| \,dx
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This proof is inspired by the uniqueness proof in \cite{DBFMHR}. We know that $u$ satisfies the SPDE
\begin{align}\label{35}
&dS(u)-\operatorname{div}\,(S'(u)|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u) \,dt+S''(u)|\nabla u|^p\,dt\nonumber\\
&=\Phi S'(u) \,d\beta +\frac{1}{2}S''(u)\Phi^2 \,dt
\end{align}
for all $S \in C^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $\textnormal{supp}~ S'$ compact. Moreover, $v$ satisfies an analogous SPDE. Subtracting both equalities yields
\begin{align}\label{36}
&S(u(t)) - S(v(t)) = S(u_0) - S(v_0) + \int_0^t \textnormal{div}[S'(u) |\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u - S'(v)|\nabla v|^{p-2} \nabla v]\,ds \notag \\
- &\int_0^t \left(S''(u)|\nabla u|^p - S''(v)|\nabla v|^p\right)\,ds + \int_0^t \Phi (S'(u) - S'(v)) \,d\beta \\
+ &\frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \Phi^2 (S''(u) - S''(v)) \,ds \notag
\end{align}
in $W^{-1,p'}(D) + L^1(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
\newline
Now we set $S(r):= T_s^{\sigma}(r)$ for $r \in \mathbb{R}$ and $s,\sigma >0$ and define $T_s^{\sigma}$ as follows: Firstly, we define for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$
\begin{align*}
(T_s^{\sigma})'(r)= \begin{cases}
1 ,~&\textnormal{if}~|r| \leq s, \\
\frac{1}{\sigma}(s+\sigma - |r|), ~&\textnormal{if}~ s < |r| < s + \sigma, \\
0, ~&\textnormal{if}~ |r| \geq s+ \sigma.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Then we set $T_s^{\sigma}(r):= \int_0^r (T_s^{\sigma})'(\tau) \,d\tau$. Furthermore we have the weak derivative
\begin{align*}
(T_s^{\sigma})''(r)= \begin{cases}
-\frac{1}{\sigma} \textnormal{sgn}(r), ~&\textnormal{if}~ s < |r| < s + \sigma, \\
0, ~&\textnormal{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Applying Proposition \ref{Proposition 4.2} to equality \eqref{36} with $S(r)= \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k(r)=\frac{1}{k}\int_0^r T_k(\overline{r})\,d\overline{r}$ (see also Remark \ref{Remark 5.2}) yields
\begin{align*}
&\int_D \bigg( \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u(t)) - T_s^{\sigma}(v(t))) - \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u_0) - T_s^{\sigma}(v_0)) \bigg) \psi \,dx \\
- &\int_0^t \langle \textnormal{div} ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) |\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v) |\nabla v|^{p-2} \nabla v), \frac{1}{k} T_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v))\psi \rangle \,dr \\
= &\int_D \int_0^t \bigg( - ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) |\nabla u|^p - (T_s^{\sigma})''(v) |\nabla v|^p) + \frac{1}{2} \Phi^2 ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)) \bigg) \cdot \\
\cdot &\frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \psi \,dr \,dx \\
+ &\int_D \int_0^t \Phi ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \psi \,d\beta \,dx \\
+ &\frac{1}{2} \int_D \int_0^t \Phi^2 (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v))^2 \frac{1}{k} \chi_{\{|T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)|<k\}} \psi \,dr\,dx
\end{align*}
for all $s,\sigma, k>0$ and all $\psi \in C^{\infty}([0,T] \times \overline{D})$. Using $\psi=1$ yields
\begin{align}\label{37}
&\int_D \bigg( \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u(t)) - T_s^{\sigma}(v(t))) - \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u_0) - T_s^{\sigma}(v_0)) \bigg) \,dx \notag \\
- &\int_0^t \langle \textnormal{div} ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) |\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v) |\nabla v|^{p-2} \nabla v), \frac{1}{k} T_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \rangle \,dr \notag \\
= &\int_D \int_0^t \bigg( - ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) |\nabla u|^p - (T_s^{\sigma})''(v) |\nabla v|^p) + \frac{1}{2} \Phi^2 ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)) \bigg) \cdot \\
\cdot &\frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,dr \,dx \notag \\
+ &\int_D \int_0^t \Phi ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,d\beta\,dx \notag\\
+ &\frac{1}{2} \int_D \int_0^t \Phi^2 (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v))^2 \frac{1}{k} \chi_{\{|T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)|<k\}} \,dr\,dx. \notag
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$ for any $t\in [0,T]$. We write equality \eqref{37} as
\begin{align*}
I_1 + I_2= I_3+ I_4 + I_5.
\end{align*}
For $\omega\in \Omega$ and $t\in [0,T]$ fixed, we pass to the limit with $\sigma \to 0$ firstly, then we pass to the limit $k \to 0$ and finally we let $s \to \infty$. Before we do so, we have to give some remarks on $T_s^{\sigma}$.\\
By definition of $(T_s^{\sigma})'$ we see immediately that $(T_s^{\sigma})'(r) \to \chi_{\{|r|\leq s\}}$ pointwise for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$ as $\sigma \to 0$. Since $|(T_s^{\sigma})'| \leq 1$ on $\mathbb{R}$ we have,
\begin{align*}
(T_s^{\sigma})'(u) \to \chi_{\{|u|\leq s\}}
\end{align*}
in $L^1(Q_T)$ a.s. in $\Omega$ and a.e. in $\Omega \times Q_T$
as $\sigma \to 0$. An analogous result holds true for $v$ instead of $u$.\\
For $0<\sigma<1$ and fixed $s>0$, we have $\textnormal{supp}(T_s^{\sigma})' \subset [-s-1,s+1]$. Therefore $T_s^{\sigma}$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ for fixed $s$ and we may conclude $ T_s^{\sigma}(u) \to T_s(u)$ a.e. in $\Omega \times Q_T$ and in $L^1(Q_T)$ a.s. in $\Omega$ as $\sigma \to 0$. Furthermore, we have $\nabla T_s^{\sigma}(u)= \nabla T_s^{\sigma}(T_{s+1}(u))= \nabla T_{s+1}(u) (T_s^{\sigma})'(u)$. Since $|(T_s^{\sigma})'| \leq 1$ on $\mathbb{R}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\nabla T_{s+1}(u) (T_s^{\sigma})'(u) \to \nabla T_{s+1}(u) \chi_{\{|u| \leq s\}} ~~~\textnormal{in}~L^p(Q_T)^d
\end{align*}
for $\sigma\rightarrow 0$ a.s. in $\Omega$. Since $\nabla T_{s+1}(u) \chi_{\{|u| \leq s\}}= \nabla T_s(u)$ we have
\begin{align}\label{38}
\nabla T_s^{\sigma}(u) \to \nabla T_s(u) ~~~\textnormal{in} ~L^p(Q_T)^d
\end{align}
for $\sigma\rightarrow 0$ a.s. in $\Omega$. \\
Let us consider $I_1$. By Lebesgue's Theorem it follows
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_1= \int_D \bigg( \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s(u(t)) - T_s(v(t))) - \frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k( T_s(u_0) - T_s(v_0)) \bigg) \,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$. Since $\frac{1}{k} \tilde{T}_k \to | \cdot |$ pointwise in $\mathbb{R}$ as $k \to 0$, we may conclude
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{k \to 0} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_1 = \int_D |T_s(u(t)) - T_s(v(t))| - |T_s(u_0) - T_s(v_0)| \,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$. Finally, since $u(t),v(t),u_0,v_0 \in L^1(D)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, a.s. in $\Omega$ again Lebesgue's Theorem yields
\begin{align}\label{39}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty}\lim\limits_{k \to 0} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_1 = \int_D |u(t) - v(t)| - |u_0 - v_0| \,dx
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$.\\
\newline
Next we want to show that
\begin{align*}
\liminf\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_2 \geq 0
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. \\
Since $\textnormal{supp}(T_s^{\sigma})' \subset [-s-1,s+1]$ for $0< \sigma < 1$ we can estimate
\begin{align*}
I_2 = &\int_D \int_0^t ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) |\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v) |\nabla v|^{p-2} \nabla v) \frac{1}{k} \nabla T_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,dr \,dx \\
= &\int_D \int_0^t \bigg((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) |\nabla T_{s+1}(u)|^{p-2} \nabla T_{s+1}(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v) |\nabla T_{s+1}(v)|^{p-2} \nabla T_{s+1}(v) \bigg) \cdot \\
\cdot &\frac{1}{k} \nabla T_k( T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,dr \,dx.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align}\label{40}
\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_2 &= \frac{1}{k} \int_{\{|T_s(u) - T_s(v)|<k\}} \bigg(|\nabla T_{s}(u)|^{p-2} \nabla T_{s}(u) - |\nabla T_{s}(v)|^{p-2} \nabla T_{s}(v) \bigg) \cdot \\
&\cdot \nabla ( T_s(u) - T_s(v)) \,dr \,dx \geq 0 \notag
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$.\\
\newline
Considering $I_5$ we can easily estimate
\begin{align*}
0 \leq I_5 \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_D \int_0^t \Phi^2 \cdot k \,dr \, dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. Thus we get
\begin{align}\label{41}
\limsup\limits_{k \to 0} \limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_5=0
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
We write
\begin{align*}
I_3=I_3^1 + I_3^2,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
I_3^1 &= - \int_D \int_0^t ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) |\nabla u|^p - (T_s^{\sigma})''(v) |\nabla v|^p) \frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,dr \,dx,\\
I_3^2 &= \int_D \int_0^t \frac{1}{2} \Phi^2 ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)) \frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,dr \,dx.
\end{align*}
For $0< \sigma < 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
|I_3^1| \leq \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s < |u| < s+\sigma \}} |\nabla u|^p \,dr\,dx+ \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_{\{s < |v| < s+\sigma \}} |\nabla v|^p\,dr\,dx
\end{align*}
and we want show that there is a sequence $(s_j)_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $s_j \to \infty$ as $j \to \infty$ and
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{j \to \infty} \limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0}\frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s_j < |u| < s_j+\sigma \}} |\nabla u|^p \,dr\,dx+ \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_{\{s_j < |v| < s_j+\sigma \}} |\nabla v|^p\,dr\,dx =0.
\end{align*}
According to Lemma 6 in \cite{DBFMHR} it is sufficient to show that for any $s \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists a nonnegative function $F \in L^1(\Omega\times (0,t) \times D)$ such that for fixed $\omega \in \Omega$
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s < |u| < s+\sigma \}} |\nabla u|^p \,dr\,dx+ \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_{\{s < |v| < s+\sigma \}} |\nabla v|^p\,dr\,dx \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sigma}\left(\int_{\{s \leq |u| \leq s+\sigma \}} F \,dr \,dx +\int_{\{s \leq |v| \leq s+\sigma \}} F \,dr \,dx\right) +\epsilon(\sigma,s,\omega),
\end{align*}
where $\limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \epsilon(\sigma,s,\omega) \to 0$ as $s \to \infty$ to conclude that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{j \to \infty} \limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0} |I_3^1|=0,
\end{align*}
where $s$ is exchanged by $s_j$ in $I_3^1$.\\
For symmetry reasons, we only have to show the existence of a nonnegative function $F \in L^1(\Omega \times (0,t) \times D)$ such that for fixed $\omega \in \Omega$
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s < |u| < s+\sigma \}} |\nabla u|^p \,dr\,dx \leq \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s \leq |u| \leq s+\sigma \}} F \,dr \,dx + \epsilon(\sigma,s,\omega).
\end{align*}
To this end, we plug $S(u(t))=\frac{1}{\sigma} \int_0^{u(t)} h_l(\tau)(T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau)-T_s(\tau))\,d\tau$ and $\Psi\equiv 1$ in the renormalized formulation for $u$ to obtain
\begin{align*}
L_1+L_2+L_3=L_4+L_5+L_6
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, where
\begin{align*}
L_1 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_D \int_{u_0}^{u(t)} h_l(\tau)(T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau)) \, d\tau\, dx , \\
L_2 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_D \int_0^t - \operatorname{sign}(u) \chi_{\{l < |u| < l+1\}} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) |\nabla u|^p \, dr \, dx, \\
L_3 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_D \int_0^t h_l(u) \chi_{\{s < |u| < s + \sigma\}} |\nabla u|^p \, dr\, dx, \\
L_4 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma}\int_0^t\int_D h_l(u) (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi \, dx \, d\beta, \\
L_5 &:= \frac{1}{2\sigma} \int_D \int_0^t - \operatorname{sign}(u) \chi_{\{l < |u| < l+1\}} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi^2 \, dr\, dx, \\
L_6 &:= \frac{1}{2\sigma} \int_D \int_0^t h_l(u) \chi_{\{s < |u| < s + \sigma\}} \Phi^2 \, dr\, dx.
\end{align*}
It is straightforward to pass to the limit with $l \to \infty$ for a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$ in $L_1$, $L_3$, $L_4$, $L_5$ and $L_6$. We have
\begin{align*}
|L_2|\leq \frac{\sigma}{\sigma}\int_{\{l<|u|<l+1\}}|\nabla u|^p\,dr\,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. In order to pass to the limit with $l\rightarrow\infty$ in $L_2$, we recall that from the energy dissipation condition $(iii)$ it follows that, passing to a not relabeled subsequence if necessary,
\[\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\{l<|u|<l+1\}}|\nabla u|^p\,dr\,dx=0\]
a.s. in $\Omega$ and therefore $\lim\limits_{l \to \infty} L_2=0$ a.s. in $\Omega$. After this passage to the limit the remaining terms are
\begin{align*}
J_1 + J_2 = J_3 + J_4
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, where
\begin{align*}
J_1 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_D \int_{u_0}^{u(t)} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau)) \, d\tau\, dx, \\
J_2 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s < |u| < s + \sigma\}} |\nabla u|^p \, dr\, dx, \\
J_3 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_0^t \int_D (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi \, dx \, d\beta, \\
J_4 &:= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{\{s < |u| < s + \sigma\}} \frac{1}{2} \Phi^2 \, dr \, dx .
\end{align*}
We set $F=: \frac{1}{2} \Phi^2$.\\
It is left to show that $\lim\limits_{s \to \infty}\limsup\limits_{\sigma\to 0} \epsilon(\sigma, s,\omega)=0$, where
\begin{align*}
\epsilon(\sigma,s,\omega)= \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_D \int^{u(t)}_{u_0} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau)) \, d\tau \, dx + \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_0^t \int_D (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi \, dx \, d\beta.
\end{align*}
Since, $|\frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau))| \leq 1$ for $0<\sigma\leq 1$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\left|\int_{u_0}^{u(t)}\frac{1}{\sigma}(T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau))\,d\tau\right|\leq |u(t)-u_0|\in L^1(\Omega\times D).
\end{align*}
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau)) \to \operatorname{sign}(\tau) \chi_{\{|\tau| \geq s \}}
\end{align*}
a.e. in $\{|\tau| \neq s\}$ and from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0}\int_D \int^{u(t)}_{u_0} \frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau)) \, d\tau \, dx\\
&=\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0}\int_D \int^{u(t)}_{u_0} \frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(\tau) - T_s(\tau))\chi_{\{|\tau| \neq s\}} \, d\tau \, dx \\
&=\int_D \int^{u(t)}_{u_0} \operatorname{sign}(\tau) \chi_{\{|\tau| \geq s \}}\chi_{\{|\tau| \neq s\}} \, d\tau \, dx \to 0
\end{align*}
as $s \to \infty$ a.s. in $\Omega$. Moreover, since $\frac{1}{\sigma^2}(T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u))^2 \Phi^2 \to \chi_{\{|u| \geq s \}} \Phi^2$ a.e. in $\{ |u| \neq s \}$ and $\frac{1}{\sigma^2}(T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u))^2 \Phi^2 \leq \Phi^2\in L^2(\Omega\times Q_T)$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \mathbb{E} \,\bigg | \int_D \int_0^t \frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi \, dx \, d\beta \bigg |^2 \\
&=\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \mathbb{E} \,\bigg |\int_0^t \int_D\frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi\chi_{\{|u| \neq s\}} \, dx \, d\beta \bigg |^2 \\
&=\lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \mathbb{E} \,\int_0^t \int_D \frac{1}{\sigma^2} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u))^2 \Phi^2\chi_{\{|u| \neq s\}} \, dx \, dr \\
&=\mathbb{E}\,\int_0^t \int_D \chi_{\{|u| \geq s \}} \Phi^2\chi_{\{|u| \neq s\}} \, dx \, dr \to 0
\end{align*}
as $s \to \infty$. Passing to suitable subsequences in $\sigma$ and $s$ we may conclude
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \int_0^t \int_D \frac{1}{\sigma} (T_{s+ \sigma}(u) - T_s(u)) \Phi \, dx \, d\beta=0
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$.
It follows that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \epsilon(\sigma,s,\omega) =0.
\end{align*}
Therefore we get
\begin{align}\label{42}
\lim\limits_{j \to \infty} \limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0} |I_3^1|=0.
\end{align}
Now let us consider the integrand of $I_3^2$ pointwise in $Q_t$ for a fixed $w \in \Omega$. We have $(T_s^{\sigma})''(u) \to 0$ a.e. in $Q_T$ as $\sigma \to 0$. Hence the whole integrand of $I_3^2$ tends to $0$ a.e. in $Q_t$ as $\sigma \to 0$. W.l.o.g. assume that $u \geq v$ at some point in $Q_t$. Then we have $\frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \geq 0$. Furthermore, we have $(T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)>0$ if and only if $s<v<s+\sigma <u$ or $v<-s-\sigma<u<-s$. In both cases we can estimate easily that $ T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v) \leq \frac{\sigma}{2}$. Since $|(T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)| \leq \frac{2}{\sigma}$ the results above yield
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2} \Phi^2 ((T_s^{\sigma})''(u) -(T_s^{\sigma})''(v)) \frac{1}{k}T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \leq \frac{1}{2k} \Phi^2
\end{align*}
a.e. in $Q_t$ and $\frac{1}{2k} \Phi^2 \in L^1(Q_t)$. Therefore Fatou's Lemma yields
\begin{align}\label{43}
\limsup\limits_{\sigma \to 0} I_3^2 \leq 0
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$.\\
Now we consider the term $I_4$. Applying the It\^{o} isometry yields
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E} \bigg| \int_D \int_0^t \Phi \cdot ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,d\beta \,dx \bigg|^2 \\
= &\mathbb{E} \int_D \int_0^t |\Phi ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v))|^2 \,dr \,dx
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$. As $|(T_s^{\sigma})'| \leq 1 $ and $|\frac{1}{k}T_k| \leq 1$ we may conclude by applying the Lebesgue's Theorem
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{k \to 0} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} &\mathbb{E} \int_D \int_0^t |\Phi \cdot ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v))|^2 \,dr \,dx \\
= \lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{k \to 0} &\mathbb{E} \int_D \int_0^t |\Phi \cdot (\chi_{\{|u| \leq s\}} - \chi_{\{|v| \leq s\}}) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s(u) - T_s(v))|^2 \,dr \,dx \\
= \lim\limits_{s \to \infty} &\mathbb{E} \int_D \int_0^t |\Phi \cdot(\chi_{\{|u| \leq s\}} - \chi_{\{|v| \leq s\}}) \operatorname{sign}_0(T_s(u) - T_s(v))|^2 \,dr \,dx \\
= &0
\end{align*}
for all $t \in [0,T]$. Therefore we obtain
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{k \to 0} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \int_D \int_0^t \Phi \cdot ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,d\beta \,dx =0 ~~~\textnormal{in}~L^2(\Omega).
\end{align*}
Passing to suitable subsequences in $\sigma,k$ and $s$ it follows that
\begin{align}\label{44}
\lim\limits_{s \to \infty} \lim\limits_{k \to 0} \lim\limits_{\sigma \to 0} \int_D \int_0^t \Phi \cdot ((T_s^{\sigma})'(u) - (T_s^{\sigma})'(v)) \frac{1}{k} T_k (T_s^{\sigma}(u) - T_s^{\sigma}(v)) \,d\beta \,dx =0
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$. \\
From \eqref{39} - \eqref{44} it follows
\begin{align*}
\int_D |u(t) - v(t)| \,dx \leq \int_D |u_0 - v_0| \,dx
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$, for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\end{proof}
\section{Markov property}
Note that it is possible to replace the starting time $0$ by a starting time $r \in [0,T]$. In this case, we consider the filtration starting at time $r$, i.e., $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in [r,T]}$. Then, $\tilde{\beta}_t:= \beta_t - \beta_r$, $t \in [r,T]$, is a Brownian motion with respect to $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in [r,T]}$ such that $\sigma(\tilde{\beta_t}, ~t\geq r)$ is independent of $\mathcal{F}_r$ (see, e.g., Remark 3.2. in \cite{PB}). Moreover, the augmentation $\tilde{\mathcal{F}_t}$ of $\sigma(\tilde{\beta_t}, ~t\geq r)$ is right-continuous and independent of $\mathcal{F}_r$. Furthermore, we have $d\beta_t= d\tilde{\beta}_t$ and all results and arguments still hold true in the case of a starting time $r \in [0,T]$ and $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable initial conditions $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$.
In this section, we denote by $u(t,r,u_r)$ the unique renormalized solution of \eqref{1} starting in $u_r$ at time $r$ for $t,r \in [0,T]$ with $r \leq t$ and $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable.
\begin{proposition}\label{Proposition 8.1}
For all $r,s,t \in [0,T]$ with $r \leq s \leq t$ and all $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable we have
\begin{align*}
u(t,s, u(s,r,u_r))= u(t,r,u_r)
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the proof in \cite{PB} or \cite{WLMR}. Let $r \in [0,T]$, $\psi \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}([r,T] \times \overline{D})$ and $S \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $S'$ has compact support with $S'(0)=0$ or $\psi(t,x)=0$ for all $(t,x) \in [r,T] \times \partial D$. Now we fix $s,t \in [0,T]$ with $r \leq s \leq t$ and $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable. Since $ u(\cdot,r,u_r)$ is the unique renormalized solution to \eqref{1} starting in $u_r$ at time $r$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\int_D S(u(t,r,u_r))\psi(t) \,dx \\
= &\int_D S(u_r) \psi(r) \,dx - \int_r^t \int_D S''(u(\tau,r,u_r)) |\nabla u(\tau,r,u_r))|^p \psi \,dx\,d\tau \\
- &\int_r^t \int_D S'(u(\tau,r,u_r)) |\nabla u(\tau,r,u_r)|^{p-2} \nabla u(\tau,r,u_r) \cdot \nabla \psi \,dx\,d\tau\\
+ &\int_r^t \int_D S'(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi \Phi \,dx\,d\beta + \int_r^t \int_D S(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi_t \,dx\,d\tau
\\
+ \frac{1}{2} &\int_r^t \int_D S''(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi \Phi^2 \,dx\,d\tau
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
= &\int_D S(u(s,r,u_r))\psi(s) \,dx - \int_s^t \int_D S''(u(\tau,r,u_r)) |\nabla u(\tau,r,u_r))|^p \psi \,dx\,d\tau \\
- &\int_s^t \int_D S'(u(\tau,r,u_r)) |\nabla u(\tau,r,u_r)|^{p-2} \nabla u(\tau,r,u_r) \cdot \nabla \psi \,dx\,d\tau\\
+ &\int_s^t \int_D S'(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi \Phi \,dx\,d\beta + \int_s^t \int_D S(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi_t \,dx\,d\tau
\\
+ \frac{1}{2} &\int_s^t \int_D S''(u(\tau,r,u_r)) \psi \Phi^2 \,dx\,d\tau
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. Therefore $u(t,r,u_r)$ is a renormalized solution to \eqref{1} starting in $u(s,r,u_r)$ at time $s$. Uniqueness yields the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem 8.2}
Let $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$, $r \in [0,T]$ be $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable. The unique renormalized solution $u(t)=u(t,r,u_r)$, $t \in [r,T]$, of \eqref{1} starting in $u_r$ at time $r$ satisfies the Markov property in the following sense:\\
For every bounded and $\mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$-measurable function $G:L^1(D) \to \mathbb{R}$ and all $s,t \in [r,T]$ with $s \leq t$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [G(u(t))| \mathcal{F}_s](\omega)= \mathbb{E} [G(u(t,s,u(s,r,u_r)(\omega)))]
\end{align*}
for a.e. $\omega \in \Omega$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We apply Lemma 4.1 in \cite{PB} (The freezing Lemma). To this end we set for fixed $r,t,s \in [0,T]$ with $r \leq s \leq t$, $u_r \in L^1(\Omega \times D)$ $\mathcal{F}_r$-measurable and a fixed bounded and $\mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$-measurable function $G:L^1(D) \to \mathbb{R}$: $\mathcal{D}= \mathcal{F}_s$, $\mathcal{G}=\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t$, $E=L^1(D)$, $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$, $X=u(s)=u(s,r,u_r)$ and $\psi: L^1(D) \times \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$, $\psi(x,\omega)= G(u(t,s,x)(\omega))$.\\
It is only left to prove that $\psi$ is $\mathcal{B}(L^1(D)) \otimes \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t$-measurable. Since $G$ is $\mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$ measurable it is left to show that $\phi: L^1(D) \times \Omega \to L^1(D)$, $\phi(x,\omega)= u(t,s,x)(\omega)$ is $\mathcal{B}(L^1(D)) \otimes \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t-\mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$-measurable. To this end we show that $\phi$ is Carath\'{e}odory, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
&(i)~ \Omega \ni \omega \mapsto \phi(x,\omega) ~\textnormal{is}~ \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t-\textnormal{mesaurable for all}~x \in L^1(D), \\
&(ii)~ L^1(D) \ni x \mapsto \phi(x,\omega) ~\textnormal{is continuous for almost every}~\omega \in \Omega.
\end{align*}
Since it is possible to choose the filtration $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t$ instead of the filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in [s,T]}$, Theorem \ref{Theorem 6.2} yields that for fixed $x \in L^1(D)$ the function $u(t,s,x)$ is $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_t$-measurable. Moreover, Theorem \ref{Theorem 7.1} yields that the mapping in (ii) is a contraction for almost every $\omega \in \Omega$, especially it is continuous.\\
Now, Lemma 4.1. in \cite{PB} is applicable and yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
For $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s \leq t$ and $x \in L^1(D)$ we set $P_{s,t}: B_b(L^1(D)) \to B_b(L^1(D))$,
\begin{align*}
P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x) = \mathbb{E} [\varphi(u(t,s,x))],
\end{align*}
where $B_b(L^1(D))$ denotes the space of all bounded Borel functions from $L^1(D)$ to $\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, we set $P_t:= P_{0,t}$.\\
\newline
As a consequence of Theorem \ref{Theorem 8.2} we obtain the Chapman-Kolmogorov property:
\begin{corollary}\label{Corollary 8.3}
For $r,s,t \in [0,T]$, $r \leq s \leq t$, $x \in L^1(D)$ and $\varphi \in B_b(L^1(D))$ we have
\begin{align}
P_{r,t}(\varphi)(x)= P_{r,s}(P_{s,t}(\varphi))(x).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $r,s,t \in [0,T]$, $r \leq s \leq t$, $x \in L^1(D)$ and $\varphi \in B_b(L^1(D))$. From Theorem \ref{Theorem 8.2} it follows that
\begin{align*}
P_{r,t}(\varphi)(x) &= \mathbb{E} [\varphi(u(t,r,x))] = \mathbb{E} [ \mathbb{E} [\varphi(u(t,r,x)) |\mathcal{F}_s ]] = \mathbb{E} [ \mathbb{E} [\varphi(u(t,s,u(s,r,x))) ] ] \\
&=\mathbb{E} [ P_{s,t}(\varphi)(u(s,r,x)) ] = P_{r,s}(P_{s,t}(\varphi))(x).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{Corollary 8.4}
For all $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s \leq t$, we get
\begin{align*}
P_{s,t}=P_{0,t-s}.
\end{align*}
In particular, $(P_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ is a semigroup.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Similar as in Proposition \ref{Proposition 8.1} we can show that $u(\tau +s,s,x)=u^{\hat{\beta}}(\tau,0,x)$ for $s \in [0,T]$, $\tau \in [0,T-s]$, where $\hat{\beta}(\tau)= \beta(\tau+s) - \beta(s)$ and $u^{\hat{\beta}}(\tau,0,x)$ is the unique renormalized solution to \eqref{1} with respect to the Brownian motion $\hat{\beta}$ and initial value $x \in L^1(D)$. Since renormalized solutions to \eqref{1} are pathwise unique, they are jointly unique in law (see, e.g., \cite{O}, Theorem 2) and therefore we have
\begin{align*}
P_{s,s+\tau}= P_{0,\tau}.
\end{align*}
Setting $t= \tau + s$ yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
Now we show that $P_{s,t}$ is Feller and $(P_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ is a Feller semigroup (see, e.g., \cite{GDPJZ}, p. 247):
\begin{proposition}
For all $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s \leq t$ we have $P_{s,t} (\mathcal{C}_b(L^1(D))) \subset \mathcal{C}_b(L^1(D))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s \leq t$ and $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}_b(L^1(D))$. Let $(x_n) \subset L^1(D)$ such that $x_n \to x$ in $L^1(D)$. Theorem \ref{Theorem 7.1} and the continuity of $\varphi$ yields
\begin{align*}
\varphi (u(t,s,x_n)) \to \varphi(u(t,s,x))
\end{align*}
a.e. in $\Omega$. Since $\varphi$ is bounded this convergence is also a convergence in $L^1(\Omega)$ by Lebesgue's Theorem. Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x_n) = \mathbb{E} (\varphi (u(t,s,x_n))) \to \mathbb{E} (\varphi (u(t,s,x))) = P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x).
\end{align*}
Since $|P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x)| \leq \Vert \varphi \Vert_{\infty} < \infty$ for all $x \in L^1(D)$ we may conclude $P_{s,t}(\varphi) \in \mathcal{C}_b(L^1(D))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
The family $P_{s,t}$, $s,t \in [0,T]$, $s \leq t$, has the e-property in the sense of \cite{TKSPTZ}, i.e.:\\
For all $\varphi \in \textnormal{Lip}_b(L^1(D))$, $x \in L^1(D)$ and $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta >0$ such that for all $z \in B(x, \delta)$ and all $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T$:
\begin{align*}
|P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x) - P_{s,t}(\varphi)(z)| < \epsilon,
\end{align*}
where $\textnormal{Lip}_b(L^1(D))$ denotes the space of all bounded Lipschitz continuous functions from $L^1(D)$ to $\mathbb{R}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\varphi \in \textnormal{Lip}_b(L^1(D))$, $x \in L^1(D)$ and $\epsilon>0$ and let $L>0$ be a Lipschitz constant of $\varphi$. We set $\delta:= \frac{\epsilon}{L}$. Then, for all $z \in B(x, \delta)$ and all $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T$ Theorem \ref{Theorem 7.1} yields
\begin{align*}
|P_{s,t}(\varphi)(x) - P_{s,t}(\varphi)(z)| &= | \mathbb{E} (\varphi(u(t,s,x)) - \varphi(u(t,s,z)))| \\
&\leq L \cdot \mathbb{E} \Vert u(t,s,x) - u(t,s,z) \Vert_1 \\
&\leq L \cdot \Vert x - z \Vert_1 < L \cdot \delta = \epsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
As in \cite{WLMR} we define for $x \in L^1(D)$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}_x:= P \circ (u(\cdot, 0, x))^{-1},
\end{align*}
i.e., $\mathbb{P}_x$ is the distribution of the unique renormalized solution to \eqref{1} with initial condition $x \in L^1(D)$, defined as a probability measure on $\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D))$. We equip $\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D))$ with the $\sigma$-Algebra
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}:= \sigma(\pi_s, ~s \in [0,T])
\end{align*}
and filtration
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}_t:= \sigma(\pi_s, ~s \in [0,t]), ~t \in [0,T],
\end{align*}
where $\pi_t: \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)) \to L^1(D)$, $\pi_t(w):= w (t)$. Finally we can prove the following property of $\mathbb{P}_x$:
\begin{proposition}
$\mathbb{P}_x$, $x \in L^1(D)$, is a time-homogenous Markov process on $\mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D))$ with respect to the filtration $(\mathcal{G}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$, i.e., for all $s,t \in [0,T]$ such that $s+t \leq T$ and all $\varphi \in B_b(L^1(D))$ we have
\begin{align}\label{46}
\mathbb{E}_x (\varphi(\pi_{t+s})|\mathcal{G}_s) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (\varphi(\pi_t))
\end{align}
$\mathbb{P}_x$-a.s., where $\mathbb{E}_x$ and $\mathbb{E}_x( \cdot|\mathcal{G}_s)$ denote the expectation and the conditional expectation with respect to $\mathbb{P}_x$, respectively.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We start the proof by showing the right-hand side of \eqref{46} to be $\mathcal{G}_s$-measurable. This will be done by applying a so-called monotone class argument. To this end we set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}:= \{ \varphi: L^1(D) \to \mathbb{R}, ~\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s}(\varphi(\pi_t)): \mathcal{C}([0,T]; L^1(D)) \to \mathbb{R} ~\textnormal{is}~ \mathcal{G}_s-\textnormal{measurable} \}
\end{align*}
and we show that $B_b(L^1(D)) \subset \mathcal{H}$. Firstly we mention and prove that $\mathcal{H}$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{align*}
i&)~ \textnormal{If}~ A \in \mathcal{B}(L^1(D)), ~\textnormal{then}~ \chi_A \in \mathcal{H}, \\
ii&)~ \textnormal{If}~ f,g \in \mathcal{H} ~\textnormal{and}~c\in \mathbb{R}, ~\textnormal{then}~ f+g \in \mathcal{H} ~\textnormal{and}~cf \in \mathcal{H}, \\
iii&) ~\textnormal{If} ~f_n \in \mathcal{H}, ~0 \leq f_n \nearrow f ~\textnormal{and}~ f ~\textnormal{bounded, then} ~f \in \mathcal{H}.
\end{align*}
To i): Let $A \in \mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$. Then we have for arbitrary $w \in C([0,T];L^1(D))$:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (\chi_A(\pi_t))(w) &= \mathbb{E}_{w(s)} (\chi_A(\pi_t)) = \int \chi_A(\pi_t) \, dP_{w(s)} = \mathbb{E} [\chi_A(u(t,0,w(s)))] \\
&= P_t(\chi_A)(w(s)).
\end{align*}
Now let $B \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ and set $\tilde{B} := [P_t(\chi_A)]^{-1} (B) \in \mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$. Then
\begin{align*}
[\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (\chi_A(\pi_t))]^{-1}(B) &= \{w \in \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D)), ~P_t(\chi_A)(w(s)) \in B\} \\
&= \{w \in \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D)), ~w(s) \in \tilde{B}\} \\
&= (\pi_s)^{-1}(\tilde{B}) \in \mathcal{G}_s.
\end{align*}
To ii): This is obvious since the sum and the product of real valued measurable functions is again measurable.\\
To iii): Let $f_n \in \mathcal{H}$ and $0 \leq f_n \nearrow f$, where $f$ is a bounded function. Then for arbitrary $w \in \mathcal{C}([0,T];L^1(D))$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (f_n(\pi_t))(w) = \mathbb{E} [f_n(u(t,0,w(s)))] \to \mathbb{E} [f(u(t,0,w(s)))] = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (f(\pi_t))(w)
\end{align*}
by the monotone convergence theorem. As a pointwise limit of $\mathcal{G}_s$-measurable functions it follows that $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (f(\pi_t))$ is $\mathcal{G}_s$-measurable.\\
Now, properties i) and ii) yield that $\mathcal{H}$ contains all simple and Borel measurable functions and property iii) yields that $\mathcal{H}$ contains all bounded and Borel measurable functions, i.e., we may conclude $B_b(L^1(D)) \subset \mathcal{H}$. This means that for all $\varphi \in B_b(L^1(D))$ the function $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} (\varphi(\pi_t))$ is $\mathcal{G}_s$-measurable.\\
\newline
For the rest of the proof we follow the ideas in \cite{GDPJZ}. Let, for arbitrary $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $G: L^1(D)^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded $\otimes_{i=1}^{n} \mathcal{B}(L^1(D))$-measurable function and $0 \leq t_1 < ... < t_n \leq s$. Then from Theorem \ref{Theorem 8.2} and Corollary \ref{Corollary 8.4} it follows
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}_x [ G(\pi_{t_1},..., \pi_{t_n}) \varphi(\pi_{t+s})] \\
= &\mathbb{E}[ G(u(t_1,0,x),..., u(t_n,0,x)) \varphi(u(t+s,0,x))] \\
= &\mathbb{E}\bigg[ \mathbb{E}[ G(u(t_1,0,x),..., u(t_n,0,x)) \varphi(u(t+s,0,x)) | \mathcal{F}_s ]\bigg]\\
= &\mathbb{E}\bigg[ G(u(t_1,0,x),..., u(t_n,0,x)) \mathbb{E} [ \varphi(u(t+s,0,x)) |\mathcal{F}_s ]\bigg] \\
= &\mathbb{E}\bigg[ G(u(t_1,0,x),..., u(t_n,0,x)) \mathbb{E} [ \varphi(u(t+s,s,u(s,0,x)))]\bigg] \\
= &\mathbb{E}\bigg[ G(u(t_1,0,x),..., u(t_n,0,x)) \mathbb{E} [ \varphi(u(t,0,u(s,0,x)))]\bigg]\\
= &\mathbb{E}_x\bigg[ G(\pi_{t_1},..., \pi_{t_n}) \mathbb{E} [ \varphi(u(t,0,\pi_s))]\bigg] \\
= &\mathbb{E}_x\bigg[ G(\pi_{t_1},..., \pi_{t_n}) \mathbb{E}_{\pi_s} [ \varphi(\pi_t))]\bigg].
\end{align*}
This yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{190212_lem01}}\label{proof}
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we define the following disjoint subdivision of $D$:
\[D_n:=\{x\in D \ | \ \operatorname{dist}(x,\partial D)\geq \frac{2}{n}\},\]
\[B_n:=\{x\in D \ | \ \operatorname{dist}(x,\partial D)\leq \frac{1}{n}\}\]
\[H_n:=\{x\in D \ | \ \frac{1}{n}<\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial D)<\frac{2}{n}\}.\]
In particular, $(D_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is an increasing sequence of domains in $D$ such that $D_n\subset\subset D_{n+1}\subset D$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ with
\[\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}D_n=D.\]
We choose a sequence of cutoff functions $(\varphi_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:D\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $\varphi_n\in C^{\infty}_c(D)$, $0\leq \varphi_n\leq 1$ in $D$, $\varphi_n\equiv 1$ on $D_n$, $\varphi_n\equiv 0$ on $B_n$ and $|\nabla\varphi_n|\leq 2n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $(\rho_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be a sequence of symmetric mollifiers with support in $[-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}]$. For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we define the linear operator
\[\Pi_n:W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)\rightarrow W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D),\]
\[v\mapsto (\varphi_nv)\ast\rho_n.\]
We recall that $v\in W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$ iff there exist $G\in L^{p'}(D)^d$, $f\in L^1(D)$ such that $v=-\operatorname{div}\,G+f$ in $\mathcal{D}'(D)$ and, according to the multiplication and convolution of distributions (see, e.g., \cite{Wloka}, Def. 1.5., p. 15 and Def. 1.6., p. 20)
\begin{align}\label{190319_01}
\Pi_n(v)(x)&=((\varphi_n f)\ast\rho_n)(x)+\langle -\operatorname{div}\,G, \varphi_n(\cdot)\rho_n(x-\cdot)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W^{1,p}_0(D)}\nonumber\\
&=\int_{D}\rho_n(x-y)\varphi_n(y)f(y)\, dy+\int_DG(y)\nabla_y[\rho_n(x-y)\varphi_n(y)]\,dy
\end{align}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. From the definition of $\Pi_n$ it follows immediately that $\Pi_n$ is linear and from \eqref{190319_01} we get that $\Pi_n(v)$ is a smooth function with $\Pi_n(v)=0$ on $D^C$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. A straightforward calculation shows that, for arbitrary $v=-\operatorname{div}\, G+f\in W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$, there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ not depending on $f$ and $G$ that may depend on $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that
\begin{align}\label{190321_01}
&\Vert \Pi_n v\Vert_{W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D)}=\nonumber\\
&\max(\Vert \Pi_n(v)\Vert_{L^{\infty}(D)},\Vert \Pi_n(v)\Vert_{W^{1,p}_0(D)})\leq C (\Vert f\Vert_{L^1(D)}+\Vert -\operatorname{div}\, G\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)})
\end{align}
and, passing to the infimum over all $f\in L^1(D)$, $G\in L^{p'}(D)^d$ such that $v=f-\operatorname{div}\, G$ in \eqref{190321_01}, we get that $\Pi_n$ is a bounded linear operator from $W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$ into $W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. For $F\in \{W^{1,p}_0(D), L^2(D), L^1(D)\}$ and every $v\in F\subset W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$, from the classical properties of the convolution and Young inequality it follows that $\Pi_n\in L(F)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\Pi_n(v)\rightarrow v$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $F$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$. For arbitrary $v\in W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$,
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Vert \Pi_n(v)-v\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)}=0\]
iff
\begin{align}\label{190322_06}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(\Vert \Pi_n(f)-f\Vert_{L^1(D)}+\Vert\Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\, G)-(-\operatorname{div}\, G)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}\right)=0
\end{align}
for all $f\in L^1(D)$, $G\in L^{p'}(D)^d$ such that $v=f-\operatorname{div}\, G$. Thus, to conclude the proof, the convergence of $\Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\, G)$ to $-\operatorname{div}\, G$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ for arbitrary $G\in L^{p'}(D)^d$ deserves our attention. For $g\in W^{1,p}_0(D)$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\left|\langle \Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\, G),g\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W^{1,p}_0(D)}\right|\\
&=\left|\int_D g(x)\langle-\operatorname{div}\, G,\varphi_n(\cdot)\rho_n(x-\cdot)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W^{1,p}_0(D)}\,dx\right|\\
&=\left|\int_D\int_D G(y)\cdot[(\nabla_y\varphi_n(y))\rho_n(x-y)+(\nabla_y\rho_n(x-y))\varphi_n(y)]\,dy \,g(x)\,dx\right|\\
&\leq I_1^n+I_2^n,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
I_1^n&=\left|\int_D\int_D G(y)\cdot(\nabla_y\varphi_n(y))\rho_n(x-y)\,dy\,g(x)\,dx\right|,\\
I_2^n&=\left|\int_D\int_D G(y)\cdot(\nabla_y\rho_n(x-y))\varphi_n(y)\,dy \,g(x)\,dx\right|.
\end{align*}
Recalling that $\nabla_y\rho_n(x-y)=-\nabla_x\rho_n(x-y)$ using Fubini's theorem and Young's inequality it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190321_02}
I_2^n&=\left|\int_D\varphi_n(y)G(y)\cdot\int_D\nabla_x\rho_n(x-y)g(x)\,dx\,dy\right|\nonumber\\
&=\left|\int_D\varphi_n(y)G(y)\cdot\nabla_y[\rho_n\ast g](y)\,dy\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq \Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(D)^d}\Vert\nabla g\Vert_{L^p(D)}
\end{align}
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Thanks to Fubini's theorem and to the properties of $\nabla\varphi_n$ and using H\"older and Young's inequality we get
\begin{align}
I_1^n&=\left|\int_{H_n}\int_D\rho_n(x-y)g(x)\,dx\,G(y)\cdot(\nabla_y\varphi_n(y))\,dy\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq \int_{H_n}|n(\rho_n\ast g)(y)||G(y)|\,dy\nonumber\\
&\leq \Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(H_n)^d}\Vert n(\rho_n\ast g)\Vert_{L^p(H_n)}\nonumber\\
&\leq\Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(H_n)^d}\left[\int_{H_n}\left(\frac{|g(y)|}{\frac{1}{n}}\right)^p\,dy\right]^{1/p}.
\end{align}
Recalling that for all $y\in H_n$ we have $\operatorname{dist}(y,\partial D)<\frac{2}{n}$ it follows that
\begin{align*}
I_1^n\leq 2^p\Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(H_n)^d}\left[\int_{D}\left(\frac{|g(y)|}{\operatorname{dist}(y,\partial D)}\right)^p\,dy\right]^{1/p}.
\end{align*}
Now, using Hardy's inequality we conclude that there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ not depending on $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{190322_01}
I_1^n\leq C\Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(H_n)^d}\Vert \nabla g\Vert_{L^p(D)^d}.
\end{align}
From \eqref{190321_02} and \eqref{190322_01} it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190322_03}
\Vert \Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}\leq \Vert G\Vert_{L^{p'}(D)^d}+C\left(\int_{H_n}|G(y)|^{p'}\,dy\right)^{1/p'}
\end{align}
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, and therefore $\Vert \Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}$ is bounded with respect to $n\in\mathbb{N}$ for any $v=-\operatorname{div}\,G\in W^{-1,p'}(D)$. The proof of Theorem 4.15 in \cite{LH} yields that
\begin{align*}
\Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G) \to - \operatorname{div}\,G
\end{align*}
in $\mathcal{D}'(D) = (C_0^{\infty}(D))^*$.
Hence by density of $C_0^{\infty}(D)$ in $W_0^{1,p}(D)$ and boundedness of $\Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)$ in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ we get
\begin{align}\label{190322_04}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)=-\operatorname{div}\,G
\end{align}
weakly in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$. Finally, we remark that from \eqref{190322_03} we also get
\begin{align}\label{190322_05}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Vert \Pi_n(-\operatorname{div}\,G)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}\leq\Vert -\operatorname{div}\,G\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}.
\end{align}
Now, from \eqref{190322_05} and the uniform convexity of $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ it follows that \eqref{190322_04} holds strongly in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ and therefore \eqref{190322_06} holds true. In particular, we have obtained $\Pi_n\in L(F)$ and $\Pi_n(v)\rightarrow v$ for $v\in F$ and $n\rightarrow\infty$ in the case $F=W^{-1,p'}(D)$ and $F=W^{-1,p'}(D)+L^1(D)$.
\subsection{The It\^{o} product rule}
In the well-posedness theory of renormalized solutions in the deterministic setting (see, e.g., \cite{DB}), the product rule is a crucial part. In the following lemma, we propose an It\^{o} product rule for strong solutions to \eqref{1}. In the following, we will call a function $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ \textit{piecewise continuous}, iff it is continuous except for finitely many points.
\begin{prop}\label{itoproduct}
For $1<p<\infty$, $u_0$, $v_0\in L^2(\Omega\times D)$ $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable let $u$ be a strong solution to \eqref{1} with initial datum $u_0$ and $v$ be a strong solution to \eqref{1} with initial datum $v_0$ respectively.
Then, for any $H\in \mathcal{C}^2_b(\mathbb{R})$ and any $Z\in W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ with $Z''$ piecewise continuous such that $Z(0)=Z'(0)=0$
\begin{align}\label{181201_04}
&(Z((u-v)(t)),H(u(t)))_2=(Z(u_0-v_0),H(u_0))_2\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^t\langle \Delta_p(u)-\Delta_p(v),H(u)Z'(u-v)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W^{1,p}_0(D)}\, ds\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^t\langle \Delta_p(u),H'(u)Z(u-v)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\, ds+\int_0^t(\Phi H'(u),Z(u-v))_2\,d\beta\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_D\Phi^2H''(u)Z(u-v)\, dx\,ds
\end{align}
for all $t\in [0,T]$ a.s. in $\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We fix $t\in [0,T]$. Since $u$, $v$ are strong solutions to \eqref{1}, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{181201_03}
u(t)=u_0+\int_0^t\Delta_p(u)\,ds+\int_0^t\Phi\,d\beta,
\end{align}
\begin{align*}
v(t)=v_0+\int_0^t\Delta_p(v)\,ds+\int_0^t\Phi\,d\beta
\end{align*}
and consequently
\begin{align}\label{181201_02}
(u-v)(t)=u_0-v_0+\int_0^t \Delta_p(u)-\Delta_p(v)\,ds
\end{align}
holds in $L^2(D)$, a.s. in $\Omega$.
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we define $\Pi_n$ according to Lemma \ref{190212_lem01} and set $\Phi_n:=\Pi_n(\Phi)$, $u^{n}_0:=\Pi_n(u_0)$, $v^{n}_0:=\Pi_n(v_0)$, $u_{n}:=\Pi_n(u)$, $v_{n}:=\Pi_n(v)$, $U_n:=\Pi_n(\Delta_p(u))$, $V_n:=\Pi_n(\Delta_p(v))$. Applying $\Pi_n$ on both sides of \eqref{181201_02} yields
\begin{align}\label{181203_01}
(u_{n}-v_{n})(t)=u^{n}_0-v^{n}_0+\int_0^t U_n-h_{n}\,ds
\end{align}
and applying $\Pi_n$ on both sides of \eqref{181201_03} yields
\begin{align}\label{181203_02}
u_{n}(t)=u_0^{n}+\int_0^t g_{n}\,ds+\int_0^t \Phi_n \,d\beta\nonumber\\
\end{align}
in $W^{1,p}_0(D)\cap L^2(D)\cap \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\overline{D})$ a.s. in $\Omega$.
The pointwise It\^{o} formula in \eqref{181203_01} and \eqref{181203_02} leads to
\begin{align}\label{181212_01}
Z(u_{n}-v_n)(t)=Z(u^{n}_0-v_0^{n})+\int_0^t (U_n-h_{n})Z'(u_n-v_n)\,ds
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{181212_02}
H(u_{n})(t)=H(u^{n}_0)+\int_0^t g_{n}H'(u_{n})\,ds
+\int_0^t\Phi_n H'(u_n)\,d\beta+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\Phi_n^2H''(u_{n})\, ds
\end{align}
in $D$, a.s. in $\Omega$. From \eqref{181212_01}, \eqref{181212_02} and the product rule for It\^{o} processes, which is just an easy application of the classic two-dimensional It\^{o} formula (see, e.g., \cite{PB}, Proposition 8.1, p. 218), applied pointwise in $t$ for fixed $x\in D$ it follows that
\begin{align}\label{181212_03}
&Z(u_{n}-v_{n})(t)H(u_{n})(t)=Z(u^{n}_0-v^{n}_0)H(u^{n}_0)\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^t (g_{n}-V_n)Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\,ds+\int_0^t U_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\,ds\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^t \Phi_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\,d\beta+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\Phi_n^2H''(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\,ds
\end{align}
in $D$, a.s. in $\Omega$. Integration over $D$ in \eqref{181212_03} yields
\begin{align}\label{181212_04}
I_1=I_2+I_3+I_4+I_5+I_6
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
I_1&=(Z((u_n-v_n)(t)),H((u_n)(t))_2, \nonumber\\
I_2&=(Z(u^{n}_0-v^{n}_0),H(u^n_0))_2, \nonumber\\
I_3&=\int_0^t\int_D(g_{n}-V_n)Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\,dx\,ds, \nonumber\\
I_4&=\int_0^t\int_D U_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\,dx\,ds, \nonumber\\
I_5&=\int_0^t (\Phi_n H'(u_n),Z(u_n-v_n))_2\,d\beta, \nonumber\\
I_6&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_D\Phi_n^2 H''(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\,dx\,ds
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$. For any fixed $s\in [0,t]$ and almost every $\omega\in \Omega$, $u_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow u(\omega,s)$ and $v_n(\omega,s)\rightarrow v(\omega,s)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $L^2(D)$. Since $Z$, $H$, $H'$ are continuous and bounded functions, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{181212_05}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_1=(Z((u-v)(t)),H'(u(t))_2,
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{181212_06}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_2=(Z(u_0-v_0),H'(u_0))_2
\end{align}
in $L^2(\Omega)$ and a.s. in $\Omega$.
Note that
\begin{align*}
I_3=\int_0^t\langle(U_n-V_n),Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\,ds
\end{align*}
a.s. in $\Omega$ and from the properties of $\Pi_n$ it follows that
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}U_n(\omega,s)-V_n(\omega,s)=\Delta_p(u(\omega,s))-\Delta_p(v(\omega,s))\]
in $W^{-1,p'}(D)$ for all $s\in [0,t]$ and a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$. Recalling the convergence result for $(\Pi_n)$ from Lemma \ref{190212_lem01}, there exists a constant $C_1\geq 0$ not depending on $s,\omega$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\Vert U_n(\omega,s)-V_n(\omega,s)\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}&=\Vert \Pi_n(\Delta_p(u(\omega,s))-\Delta_p(v(\omega,s)))\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}\\
&\leq C_1 \Vert \Delta_p(u(\omega,s))-\Delta_p(v(\omega,s))\Vert_{W^{-1,p'}(D)}.
\end{align*}
Since the right-hand side of the above equation is in $L^{p'}(\Omega\times (0,t))$, from Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem it follows that
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} U_n-V_n=\Delta_p(u)-\Delta_p(v)\]
in $L^{p'}(\Omega\times (0,t);W^{-1,p'}(D))$ and, with a similar reasoning, also in $L^{p'}(0,t;W^{-1,p'}(D))$ a.s. in $\Omega$. From the chain rule for Sobolev functions it follows that
\begin{align}\label{190213_01}
\nabla(Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n))=Z''(u_n-v_n)\nabla(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)+Z'(u_n-v_n)H'(u_n)\nabla u_n
\end{align}
a.s. in $(0,t)\times \Omega$. Moreover, there exists a constant $C_2=C_2(\Vert Z'\Vert_{\infty},\Vert Z''\Vert_{\infty},\Vert H\Vert_{\infty},\Vert H'\Vert_{\infty})\geq 0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{181218_01}
\int_0^t \Vert \nabla(Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n))\Vert_p^p \, ds\leq C_2\int_0^t(\Vert\nabla u\Vert^p_p+\Vert\nabla v\Vert^p_p)\, ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. Consequently, for almost every $\omega\in\Omega$ there exists $\chi(\omega)\in L^p(0,t;W^{1,p}_0(D))$ such that, passing to a not relabeled subsequence that may depend on $\omega\in\Omega$,
\begin{align}\label{190212_02}
Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\rightharpoonup\chi(\omega)
\end{align}
weakly in $L^p(0,t; W^{1,p}_0(D))$. Since in addition,
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\rightarrow Z'(u-v)H(u)\]
in $L^p((0,t)\times D)$ a.s. in $\Omega$, we get
\begin{align}\label{190212_03}
\chi(\omega)=Z'(u-v)H(u)
\end{align}
in $L^p(0,t;W^{1,p}_0(D))$ a.s. in $\Omega$ and the weak convergence in \eqref{190212_02} holds for the whole sequence. Therefore,
\[Z'(u_n-v_n)H(u_n)\rightharpoonup Z'(u-v)H(u)\]
for $n\rightarrow\infty$ weakly in $L^p(0,t;W^{1,p}_0(D))$ for almost every $\omega\in\Omega$. Resuming the above results it follows that
\begin{align}\label{181218_03}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_3=\int_0^t \langle \Delta_p(u)-\Delta_p(v) ,Z'(u-v)H(u)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\,ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. With analogous arguments we get
\begin{align}\label{181212_12}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_4=\int_0^t\langle \Delta_p(u),H'(u)Z(u-v)\rangle_{W^{-1,p'}(D),W_0^{1,p}(D)}\, ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. By It\^{o} isometry,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}\left|\int_0^t\int_D\Phi_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)-\Phi H'(u)Z(u-v)\,dx\,d\beta\right|^2\\
&=\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\int_D |\Phi_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)-\Phi H'(u)Z(u-v)|^2\,dx\,ds.
\end{align*}
From the convergence
\[\Phi_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)\rightarrow
\Phi H'(u)Z(u-v)\]
in $L^2(D)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. in $\Omega\times (0,t)$ and since, for almost any $(\omega,s)$, there exists a constant $C_3\geq 0$ not depending on the parameters $n,s,\omega$ such that
\[\Vert \Phi_n(\omega,s) H'(u_n(\omega,s))Z(u_n(\omega,s)-v_n(\omega,s))\Vert_2\leq C_3\Vert \Phi(\omega,s)\Vert_2\]
for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, a.s. in $\Omega\times (0,t)$, it follows that
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Phi_n H'(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)=
\Phi H'(u)Z(u-v)\]
in $L^2(\Omega\times(0,t)\times D)$ and consequently
\begin{align}\label{181212_13}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} I_5=\int_0^t\int_D\Phi H'(u)Z(u-v)\,dx\,d\beta
\end{align}
in $L^2(\Omega)$ and, passing to a subsequence if necessary, also a.s. in $\Omega$. According to the properties of $(\Pi_n)$, $\Phi_n^2\rightarrow\Phi^2$ in $L^1((0,t)\times D)$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. in $\Omega$. From the boundedness and the continuity of $H''$ and $Z$ we get
\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} H''(u_n)Z(u_n-v_n)=H''(u)Z(u-v)\]
in $L^{q}((0,t)\times D)$ for all $1\leq q<\infty$ and weak-$\ast$ in $L^{\infty}((0,t)\times D)$ a.s. in $\Omega$, thus it follows that
\begin{align}\label{181213_01}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}I_6=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\int_D\Phi^2 H''(u)Z(u-v)\,dx\,ds
\end{align}
a.s. in $\Omega$. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, taking the limit in \eqref{181212_03} for $n\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. in $\Omega$
the assertion follows from \eqref{181212_05}-\eqref{181213_01}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
Proposition \ref{itoproduct} still holds true for $H\in W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $H''$ is piecewise continuous.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
There exists an approximating sequence $(H_{\delta})_{\delta>0}\subset \mathcal{C}^2_b(\mathbb{R})$ such that $\Vert H_{\delta}\Vert_{\infty}\leq \Vert H\Vert_{\infty}$, $\Vert H'_{\delta}\Vert_{\infty}\leq \Vert H'\Vert_{\infty}$, $\Vert H''_{\delta}\Vert_{\infty}\leq \Vert H''\Vert_{\infty}$ for all $\delta>0$ and $H_{\delta}\rightarrow H$, $H'_{\delta}\rightarrow H'$ uniformly on compact subsets, $H_{\delta}''\rightarrow H''$ pointwise in $\mathbb{R}$ for $\delta\rightarrow 0$. With this convergence we are able to pass to the limit with $\delta\rightarrow 0$ in \eqref{181201_04}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Appendices}
\label{sec:appendix}
\paragraph{Error case (a): wrong \texttt{COND\_COL} prediction}
{\small
\begin{itemize}
\item Table: 2-11568882-2, Header: [year , winners , score , runners up , venue , 3rd place] \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Question: what 's in third place that 's going 1-0 ?\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Ground Truth: SELECT 3rd place FROM 2-11568882-2 WHERE score = 1-0 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Full-model Prediction: SELECT 3rd place FROM 2-11568882-2 WHERE score = 1-0 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Gen-model Prediction: SELECT 3rd place FROM 2-11568882-2 WHERE 3rd = 1-0 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{itemize}
}
\paragraph{Error case (b): wrong \texttt{COND\_VAL} prediction}
{\small
\begin{itemize}
\item Table: 1-1081235-1, Header: [name of lava dome , country , volcanic area , composition , last eruption or growth episode] \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Question: what countries have had eruptions of growth episodes in 1986 ? \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Ground Truth: SELECT country FROM 1-1081235-1 WHERE last eruption or growth episode = 1986 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Full-model Prediction: SELECT country FROM 1-1081235-1 WHERE last eruption or growth episode = 1986 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Gen-model Prediction: SELECT country FROM 1-1081235-1 WHERE last eruption or growth episode = growth episodes in 1986 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{itemize}
}
\paragraph{Error case (c): predicting extra conditions or missing conditions}
{\small
\begin{itemize}
\item Table: 2-11480171-1, Header: [year , title , genre , role , director] \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Question: what drama role does she play in 1973 ? \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Ground Truth: SELECT role FROM 2-11480171-1 WHERE genre = drama AND year = 1973\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Full-model Prediction: SELECT role FROM 2-11480171-1 WHERE genre = drama AND year = 1973 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\item Gen-model Prediction: SELECT role FROM 2-11480171-1 WHERE year = 1973 \vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{itemize}
}
\section{Background}
\subsection{Text-to-SQL Task}
\label{sec:background-task}
{\it Text-to-SQL} task can be formulated as a conditional text generation problem, in which a question $\mathcal{Q}$ and a table $\mathcal{C}$ are given, the goal is to generate a SQL language $\mathcal{Y}$.
Figure \ref{figure:sql_sketch} illustrates WikiSQL output format which consists of three components: \texttt{AGG}, \texttt{SEL}, and \texttt{WHERE}. Particularly, \texttt{WHERE} clause contains multiple conditions where each condition is a triplet with the form of (condition\_column, condition\_operation, condition\_value).
\paragraph{Encoding Layer} The question $\mathcal{Q}$ and corresponding table schema $\mathcal{C}$ are first translated into the hidden representation by a BiLSTM sentence encoder:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{h}^{q}_t &= \BiLSTM(\overrightarrow{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_{t-1},\overleftarrow{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_{t+1}, \mathbf{q}_t, \mathcal{\theta}) \\
\mathbf{h}^{C}_t &= \BiLSTM(\overrightarrow{\mathbf{h}}^{C}_{t-1},\overleftarrow{\mathbf{h}}^{C}_{t+1} \mathbf{C}_t,\mathcal{\theta})
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{q}_t$ is embedding of question word $q_t$ and $\mathbf{C}_t$ is the representation of a column name $C_t$ which consists of words $c_t^1, \cdots, c_t^{|C_t|}$. The first and last hidden state of a BiLSTM over $C_t$ is concatenated as $\mathbf{C}_t$.
\paragraph{Decoding Layer}
Different from traditional text generation tasks, which share a decoder cross time-steps, in Text-to-SQL task, different decoders are designed in terms of different operations.
Generally, these decoders can be classified two types: \textsc{cls} for classifier, and \textsc{pt} for pointer.
\textsc{cls} is used for the operations, such as \texttt{AGG} and \texttt{COND\_OP}:
\begin{align}
\textsc{cls}(\mathbf{h}^{d}_t, \theta) &= \softmax(\mathbf{h}^{d}_t, \theta)
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{h}^{d}_t$ is one decoder hidden representation.
\textsc{pt} can be used to choose a proper column or word from a set of column or words. Formally, We refer to $\mathbf{h}^d_t$ as a pointer-query vector and $K=\{k_1,..k_{|K|}\}$ as a set of pointer-key vectors, and predict the probability of choosing each key:
\begin{align}
\textsc{pt}(\mathbf{h}^d_t,\mathbf{K}) &=\softmax (u) \label{pointer-eq}
\end{align}
$u_i$ can be obtained as:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{u}_i &=\mathbf{v}^T\tanh{(\mathbf{Q}[\mathbf{h}^d_t,k_i]+b)}, \quad i \in (1,...,|K|)
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\adjustbox{}{\textbf{SELECT} \texttt{\$AGG} \texttt{\$SEL}}
\adjustbox{}{(\textbf{WHERE} \texttt{\$COND\_COL} \texttt{\$COND\_OP} \texttt{\$COND\_VAL})}
\adjustbox{}{(\textbf{AND} \texttt{\$COND\_COL} \texttt{\$COND\_OP \texttt{\$COND\_VAL}})*}
\caption{SQL Sketch. The tokens starting with ``\$" are slots to fill. ``*" indicates zero or more \textbf{AND} clauses.}
\label{figure:sql_sketch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig/c2f-bottleneck-fig.png}
\caption{ Break down accuracy of a strong baseline model \cite{dong2018acl}. X-axis represents different subsets of WikiSQL test set, split by how many times a table occurs in training data. Splitting details are in Table \ref{data-size}.
}\label{fig:intro}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Diagnosing the Bottleneck of Text-to-SQL }
The existing testbed covers up the true generalization behavior of existing models. To address this problem, we provide a new testbed by breaking down the testing samples.
Specifically, we analyze the generalization problem on table aware {\it Text-to-SQL} tasks, by testing previous state-of-the-art model \cite{dong2018acl} on different tables which occur different times in training set. We observe the following problems
based on Figure \ref{fig:intro}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{WHERE} clause performance is more sensitive to how many times the table has been seen in the training data;
\item The performance of \texttt{WHERE} would get a big drop once the table in test set is not present in the training data, i.e. zero-shot testing case.
\end{itemize}
Despite of the importance of the generalization problem of unseen tables, few work explored it due to the lack of appropriate datasets.
The WikiSQL dataset was originally constructed to ensure that the training and test set have disjoint set of tables, which can provide a test bed for generalization test of new tables. However, we find that the current version of WikiSQL test cannot guarantee this because different tables extracted from different wiki pages may share the same table schema (i.e. table column names), even though their table content may not be the same.
The above problems motivate us to explicitly model the mapping between words in question and table column names, and test the model generalization to new tables on the true zero-shot sub testset of WikiSQL.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In this paper, we propose a novel auxiliary mapping task for zero-shot text-to-SQL learning. Traditional seq2seq generation model is augmented with an explicit mapping model from question words to table schema. The generation model is first improved by an attentive pooling inside the question, and bi-directional attention flow to improve the interaction between the question and table schema. The mapping model serves as an enhancement model to text-to-SQL task as well as regularization to the generation model to increase its generalization.
We compare our model with the a strong baseline coarse-to-fine model on the original WikiSQL testset as well as on the totally unseen test tables (a subset of zero-shot testing). Experimental results show that our model outperforms baseline models on both setting. Even though the generation model is already augmented with bi-directional attention to enhance the interaction between question and table, our results and analysis demonstrate that the explicitly mapping task can further increase the capability of generalization to unseen tables.
Spider \cite{Yu2018emnlp} was recently proposed as another large cross-domain text-to-SQL dataset besides WikiSQL.
It has more complex SQL templates including joint tables, which brings other interesting problems except for generalization. We plan to expand our models on this new dataset in the future.
\clearpage
\section{Experimental Setup}
\subsection{Dataset}
\label{sec:Dataset}
WikiSQL has over 20K tables and 80K questions corresponding to these tables. This dataset was designed for translating natural language questions to SQL queries using the corresponding table columns without access to the table content. This dataset is further split into training and testing sets that are separately obtained from different Wiki pages, assuming there is no overlap of tables between training and testing sets. However, we find in this split, $70\%$ question-table pairs in test set have the same table schema as those in the training set. This is because even train and test tables were obtained from different Wiki pages, these tables could still have the same table schema. For example, different football teams have their own Wiki page but each one have a table with the same schema recording match information.
We split the test set based on the number of shots (the number of a table occurrences in training data). We report experiments on the original full WikiSQL test set as well as different subset based on the number of shots, especially on the {\it zero-shot} testing case. Statistics of new test sets are in table \ref{data-size}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{4cm} c c c c c}
\toprule
\bf Model &\bf $ACC_{qm}$ & \bf $ACC_{ex}$ &\bf $ACC_{agg}$ & \bf $ACC_{sel}$ & \bf $ACC_{where}$ \\
\midrule
SEQ2SQL \cite{zhong2017seq2sql} &- & 59.4\% & 90.1\% & 88.9\% & 60.2\% \\
\midrule
SQLNET \cite{xu2017sqlnet} & 61.3\% & 78.0\% & 90.3\% & 90.9\% & 71.9\% \\
\midrule
TypeSQL \cite{yu2018naacl} & 66.7\% & 73.5\% & 90.5\% & 92.2\% & 77.8\% \\
\midrule
COARSE2FINE \cite{dong2018acl} & 71.7\% & 78.5\% & 90.4\% & 92.4\% & 84.2\% \\
\midrule
\midrule
Gen-model w/o AP & 72.8\% & 79.4\% & 90.2\% & 93.0\% & 84.7\% \\
\midrule
Gen-model & 73.5\% & 80.1\% & 90.3\% & 94.2\% & 84.8\% \\
\midrule
Full-model & \bf 75.0\% & \bf 81.7\% & 90.5\% & \bf 94.5\% & \bf 86.7\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\caption{Overall and break down results on full WikiSQL dataset. $\rm ACC_{qm}$, $\rm ACC_{ex}$ are accuracy numbers of query match (ignore the order of conditions) and execution result, and $\rm ACC_{agg}$, $\rm ACC_{sel}$, $\rm ACC_{where}$ are the accuracy of \texttt{AGG}, \texttt{SEL}, \texttt{WHERE} clauses. The upper part are baseline models, and the lower part are our generation model Gen-model and the whole model Full-model which is the Gen-model with the auxiliary mapping model. Gen-model w/o AP is the generation model without attentive pooling. }
\label{result-full}
\end{table*}
\begin{table} [!ht]
\begin{small}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\bf dataset & \bf number of shots & \bf \#questions \\
\midrule
W-full & [0,2045] & 15878 \\
\midrule
W-0 & 0 & 5201 \\
\midrule
W-1 & [1,5] & 1700 \\
\midrule
W-2 & [6,15] & 1842 \\
\midrule
W-3 & [16,40] & 1971 \\
\midrule
W-4 & [41,100] & 1654 \\
\midrule
W-5 & [101,500] & 1887 \\
\midrule
W-6 & [501,2045] & 1623 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Statisitics of WikiSQL test set. W-full is original WikiSQL test set and W-0, W-1,$\cdots$, W-6 are subsets split by the number of shots (number of a table occurrences in the training data).}
\label{data-size}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluation}
We follow the evaluation metrics in \cite{xu2017sqlnet} to measure the query synthesis accuracy: query-match accuracy ($\rm ACC_{qm}$) which measures the decoded query match the ground truth query without considering the order of conditions and execution accuracy ($\rm ACC_{ex}$) which measures the results from executing predicted queries. The accuracies are further break down into three categories: \texttt{AGG}, \texttt{SEL} and \texttt{WHERE}, as in
\cite{xu2017sqlnet}.
\subsection{Model Configuration}
We use 300-dim Glove word embedding as our pre-trained embedding. Hidden size for all LSTM is 250 and hidden size in attention function is set to 64. The loss weight $\lambda$ is set to 0.5. A 0.5-rate dropout layer is used before each output layer. Each concatenation is followed by one full-connected layer to reduce the dimension to the original hidden or attention size. Test model is selected by the best performing model on validation set.
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Text-to-SQL has recently attracted much attention as a sequence-to-sequence learning problem due to its practical usage for search and question answering~\cite{dong2016acl,zhong2017seq2sql,xu2017sqlnet,cai2018ijcai,yu2018naacl,dong2018acl,finegan-dollak2018acl,Yu2018emnlp,wang2018EG,Shi2018IncSQL}. The performance on some text-to-SQL tasks has been improved progressively \cite{dong2018acl,wang2018EG,Shi2018IncSQL} in recent years.
As pointed out in \cite{finegan-dollak2018acl}, when evaluating models on text-to-SQL tasks, we need to measure how well the models generalize to realistic unseen data, which is very common in the real applications.
Most of the previous text-to-SQL tasks assumed that all questions came from a fixed database and hence share one global table schema. This assumption is useful for some specific applications such as booking flights \cite{dahl1994atis} and searching GEO \cite{zelle1996geo}, but not applicable to many real scenarios when different questions involve querying on different tables. \cite{zhong2017seq2sql} addressed this problem and generated a dataset called WikiSQL, which is by far the largest text-to-SQL benchmark dataset.
In WikiSQL many tables have different table schemas and each table has its own limited labeled data.
One common approach is to encode the table column names in the input to the training of an encoder-decoder model \cite{yu2018naacl,dong2018acl}.
\cite{yu2018naacl} proposed to utilize high-level type information to better understand rare entities and numbers in the natural language questions and encode these information from the input. These type information come from either external knowledge graph, a column or a number. This approach of TypeSQL \cite{yu2018naacl} was proven to be effective on WikiSQL when it is required for the model to generalize to new tables.
We observe that a text-to-SQL encoder-decoder model implicitly learn a mapping between entities in natural language questions to column names in tables. The model is likely to fail on mapping to new table column names that it never sees before. Hence if we learn a better mapping from question words to table column names, then the text-to-SQL generation model would be better generalized to new tables. With this in mind, we introduce an auxiliary model to enhance the existing generation model.
Specifically, we propose a novel auxiliary \textbf{mapping task} besides traditional text-to-SQL \textbf{generation task}. Here we explicitly model the mapping from natural language entities to table column names. The mapping model serves as an supportive model to the specific text-to-SQL task as well as regularization to the generation model to increase its generalization. These two tasks are trained together with a multi-task learning loss.
In practice, we adopt the coarse-to-fine decoder as the prototype of our generation model due to their superior performance in text-to-SQL tasks. And the generation model is further improved by introducing bi-attention layer (question-to-table attention and table-to-question attention) \cite{Seo2017iclr} and attentive pooling layer \cite{bowen2016arxv}.
We test our models on WikiSQL, with emphasis on a \textsc{zero-shot} subset, where the table schemas of the test data never occur in the training data. Compared to the coarse-to-fine model, our models improve over the baselines by $3\%$ absolute in accuracy, achieve execution accuracy of $81.7\%$. In particular, on the \textsc{zero-shot} test part of WikiSQL, our models achieve even more gain, with $5\%$ improvement in accuracy over the baseline model.~\footnote{Our code will be released after paper is reviewed.}
In summary our contributions in this paper are three-fold:
1) We find the existing testbed covers up the true generalization behavior of neural text-to-SQL models,
and propose a new {\it zero-shot} test setting.
2) We improve the generalization ability of existing models by introducing an auxiliary task, which can explicitly learn the mapping between entities in the question and column names in the table.
3) The \textit{zero-shot} evaluation not only shows the superior performance of our proposed method compared with the strong baseline but makes it possible to explain where the major gain comes from.
\section{Model}
Our model consists of a seq2seq model for the SQL generation task (largely following the baseline coarse-to-fine model), and a mapping model as a auxiliary task to explicitly map question words to table schema (column names).
\subsection{Main Generation Model}
\paragraph{\texttt{Encoder}} we follow section \ref{sec:background-task} to obtain question and schema hidden representation $\mathcal{H}^q$ and $\mathcal{H}^c$. To enhance the interaction between question words $q$ and column name $c$, a bi-attention is used to generate final question and table schema representation:
\begin{align*}
\bar{\mathcal{H}}^q, \bar{\mathcal{H}}^c = \BiAtt(\mathcal{H}^q,\mathcal{H}^c,\theta)
\end{align*}
Considering the nature of structured SQL, we follow previous works
to use different sub-decoders for \texttt{AGG}, \texttt{SEL} and \texttt{WHERE} clause. Especially, our \texttt{WHERE} decoder is adapted from the baseline model \cite{dong2018acl}.
\paragraph{\texttt{AGG} and \texttt{SEL} Decoder}
Each SQL only contains one \texttt{AGG} and \texttt{SEL}, so we generate \texttt{AGG} and \texttt{SEL} based on entire question representation. Since different words or phrases in question do not equally contribute to the decisions of \texttt{AGG} and \texttt{SEL}, we employ an attentive pooling layer over $\bar{\mathcal{H}}^q$ to generate final hidden representation ${\mathbf{q}}^{SEL}$ for \texttt{AGG} and \texttt{SEL}.
We feed ${\mathbf{q}}^{SEL}$ into \textsc{cls} layer generate the aggregation operation \texttt{AGG} and
meassure the similarity score between ${\mathbf{q}}^{SEL}$ and each column name $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_j$ to predict \texttt{SEL} by \textsc{Pt} layer in (\ref{pointer-eq}):
\begin{align*}
y^{AGG} & = \textsc{cls}({\mathbf{q}}^{SEL}, \theta) \\
y^{SEL} &= \textsc{pt}(\mathbf{q}^{SEL},\bar{\mathcal{H}}^{c})
\end{align*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig/G-model.png}
\label{figure:-G-model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig/M-model.png}
\label{figure:M-model2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of our model. The upper figure is the text-to-SQL generation model which consists of three parts: encoder (lower left), AGG/SEL decoder (upper left) and where decoder (upper right). Lower right is \texttt{WHERE} decoder cell.
The bottom figure is our auxiliary mapping model with the ground-truth label of an example. Question word is mapped to a column only when it is tagged as part of a condition value ($\rm B_v$ or $\rm I_v$).}
\label{figure:model}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{\texttt{WHERE Decoder}} We took the \texttt{WHERE} decoder from the-state-of-the-art model \cite{dong2018acl}, which first generates a slot sketch of \texttt{WHERE} clause and transform the SQL generation into a slot filling problem. There are 35-category \texttt{WHERE} clauses in WikiSQL and each one is subsequence of \texttt{WHERE} clause which skip the \texttt{COND\_COL} and \texttt{COND\_VAL}. For example, "\texttt{WHERE} $=$ \texttt{AND} $>$ " is a sketch of \texttt{WHERE} clause which has 2 conditions. We first predict the sketch $\alpha$ based on $\bar{\mathcal{H}}^q$:
\begin{align*}
y^{\alpha} & = \textsc{cls}({\mathbf{q}}^{Where}, \theta) ,
\end{align*}
where ${\mathbf{q}}^{Where} = [\bar{\mathbf{h}}_1^q,\bar{\mathbf{h}}^q_{|\mathcal{Q}|}]$.
Once $y^{\alpha}$ is predicted, we obtain the \texttt{COND\_OP} sequence it represents. We embed each operation in \texttt{COND\_OP} sequence and feed them into \texttt{WHERE}-decoder cell. As Figure~\ref{figure:model} shows, the \texttt{WHERE}-decoder cell takes one \texttt{COND\_OP} as input and output \texttt{COND\_COL} and \texttt{COND\_VAL} for each decoder time step, while each decoder time step has 3 LSTM time steps. For $i$th condition, $x^d_{i,1}$,$x^d_{i,2}$,$x^d_{i,3}$ are $\texttt{COND\_OP}_i$ and $\texttt{COND\_COL}_i$ and $\texttt{COND\_VAL}_i$ and output $y^d_{i,1}$,$y^d_{i,2}$ are probability distribution of the index of $\texttt{COND\_COL}_i$ and the span of $\texttt{COND\_VAL}_i$. We do not have output for each $y^d_{i,3}$ because the input of next time step is given by pre-predicted $\texttt{COND\_OP}_{i+1}$.
The lstm-cell is updated 3 times for each decoder time step:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation*}
h^d_{i,j}=\begin{cases}
\LSTM (x^d_{i,j},h^d_{i,j-1})\quad & j\neq 1\\
\LSTM (x^d_{i,j},h^d_{i-1,3}) \quad & j=1
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{small}
The output layers for \texttt{COND\_COL} and \texttt{COND\_VAL} are both pointer layer which are pointed to column names and question words to predict \texttt{COND\_COL} index and the left and right end $VAL^l$, $VAL^r$ of the span of \texttt{COND\_VAL} in question:
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
y^d_{i,1}&= \textsc{PT}(h^d_{i,1},\mathcal{H}^c) \\
y^d_{i,2}&=P(VAL_i^l|\cdot)\cdot P(VAL_i^r|VAL_i^l,\cdot)\\
P(VAL_i^l|\cdot) &= \textsc{PT}(h_{i,2},\mathcal{H}^q)\\
P(VAL_i^r|VAL_i^l,\cdot) &= \textsc{PT}([h_{i,2};\bar{\mathbf{h}}_{VAL_i^l}^{q}],\mathcal{H}^q)
\end{align*}
\end{small}
\subsection{Auxiliary Mapping Model}
For a SQL query, each condition consists of three parts, \texttt{COND\_COL}, \texttt{COND\_OP} and \texttt{COND\_VAL}.
Our mapping model aims to discover the mapping between condition column and condition value. The mapping prediction is based on question and table schema representation $\mathcal{H}^q$ and $\mathcal{H}^c$, which are shared with generation model. Optimization based on mapping task loss can improve the question and table schema representation.
An intuitive way to achieve mapping is to directly learn a mapping function from each word in question to column names.
However, since not all words in a question are condition values, it's challenging to take all words into consideration.
To address this problem, we propose a two-step mapping model, in which we first learn a detector to screen out condition values, and then we learn a mapping function from condition values to column names.
\paragraph{Condition Value Detection}
Because the condition value sometimes covers multiple words, we label the span for condition values in questions with typical $\rm BIO$ \cite{nadeau2007survey} tags. We notice sometimes condition column names appear exactly in question, so the span of column name in question is also labeled with tags $\rm B_{c}$, $\rm I_{c}$ during training when a column name appear in question. Altogether we have five tags $\rm B_{c}$, $\rm I_{c}$, $\rm B_{v}$, $\rm I_{v}$, $\rm O$, which represent the first word of condition column, subsequent word of condition column, the first word of condition value, subsequent word of condition value and outside, respectively. Figure~\ref{figure:model} illustrates our mapping model by giving the ground-truth label for an example.
The mapping model takes encoding vector of question words $\bar{\mathcal{H}}^{q}= \bar{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_1,..., \bar{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_{|\mathcal{Q}|}$ and column names $\bar{\mathcal{H}}^{c}= \bar{\mathbf{h}}^{c}_1,..., \bar{\mathbf{h}}^{c}_{|\mathcal{C}|}$ as input. Mapping model first predict gate $y^{tag}$:
\begin{align*}
y^{tag}_i &=\argmax(\mathbf{v}_{tag}\tanh(\mathbf{W}_{tag} \bar{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_i+\mathbf{b}_{tag})),
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{W}_{tag} \in \mathbb{R}^{5*H} $ and $\mathbf{b}_{tag}\in \mathbb{R}^5$ are tagging parameters.
\paragraph{Value-column Mapping}
We only learn the mapping for question words which are tagged as $\rm B_{v}$, $\rm I_{v}$:
\begin{align*}
y_i^{map} &= \textsc{PT}(\bar{\mathbf{h}}^{q}_i,\bar{\mathcal{H}}^{c}), \ \ \ y_i^{tag} \in \{B_v, I_v\}
\end{align*}
\subsection{Loss Function}
We refer to the following ${L}_{gen}$ as generation task loss and $\mathcal{L}_{map}$ as mapping task loss.
\begin{align*}
{L}_{gen} & = - \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{Y}|} y_i^{op} \log(\hat{y}_i^{{op}}), \\
{L}_{map} &= - \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{Q}|} y_i^{tag} \log(\hat{y}_i^{{tag}}) - \sum_{i=1}^{K} y_i^{map} \log(\hat{y}_i^{{map}}),
\end{align*}
where $op$ represents different operations during decoder phase. $y$ and $\hat{y}$ denote the probability distribution of real label and predicted probability distribution. $K$ represents how many times words in question have been predicted as condition values.
Finally, the overall loss can be written as:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} & = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda L_{gen} + (1-\lambda) L_{map}
\end{align*}
where $N$ is the number of training samples and $\lambda$ is hyper-parameter.
\section{Related Work}
\label{relWork}
Recently neural network based approaches, especially sequence-to-sequence models have been applied to text-to-SQL successfully with progressively improving results
\cite{wang2017synthesizing,neelakantan2017iclr,iyer2017acl,yin2017acl,huang2018naacl,zhong2017seq2sql,xu2017sqlnet,cai2018ijcai,yu2018naacl,dong2018acl,finegan-dollak2018acl}.
Sketch-based approach is very effective, especially on WikiSQL task \cite{zhong2017seq2sql,xu2017sqlnet,yu2018naacl}. In \cite{zhong2017seq2sql} SEQ2SQL model used a coarse-grained sketch: aggregation, SELECT column and \texttt{WHERE} clause;
\cite{xu2017sqlnet} used a finer sketch to align to the syntactical structure of a SQL query with three specific slot-filling models: model\_COL, model\_AGG, and model\_OPval.
In TypeSQL \cite{yu2018naacl} it also adopted this sketch-based model structures. However, in \cite{dong2018acl} sketch was referred to as abstractions for meaning representation, leaving out low-level details. This meaning sketch was used as an input to the final decoding.
One of the challenge for using neural seq2seq models is the need of large annotated question-query pairs. \cite{zhong2017seq2sql,cai2018ijcai} have automatically generated large datasets using templates and had humans paraphrased the questions into natural language questions. WikiSQL is by far the largest text-to-SQL dataset.
WikiSQL was designed for testing model's generalization by splitting the tables in a way that there is no overlap of tables in training and testing.
Execution guided (EG) decoding was recently proposed in \cite{wang2018EG} that detects and excludes faulty outputs during the decoding by conditioning on the execution of partially generated output. Adding execution guided decoding to the coarse-to-fine model improved accuracy by $5.4\%$ on the wikiSQL dataset; and adding on top of the most recent IncSQL model \cite{Shi2018IncSQL} improved accuracy by $3.4\%$. It is proven that the EG module is very effective with any generative model.
Zero-shot semantic parsing has not obtained enough attention. \citet{herzig2018decoupling} applied a pipeline framework, including four independent models to achieve generalization, while our work is end-to-end trained and focusing on improving model's generalization with an auxiliary mapping task. Zero-shot slot filling \cite{bapna2017towards} also leverages the text of schema to connect language question words to column names (slots), but their model needs to predict the probability of each possible column indepentently while our model can select the column by processing the question and schema one time.
\section{Results and Analysis}
Table \ref{result-full} shows the overall and breakdown results on full WikiSQL dataset. We compare our models with strong baseline models on the original WikiSQL test data. All these models have no access to table content following \cite{zhong2017seq2sql}.
First our Gen-model with enhanced encoder/decoder improves over the baseline coarse-to-fine model by 1.6\% in accuracy of both $ACC_{qm}$ and $ACC_{ex}$.
Our Gen-model mainly improves on $ACC_{SEL}$ compared to baseline models. Ablation test shows the improvement is attributed to the attentive pooling in \texttt{SEL} decoding.
Second our Full-model outperforms our single generation model by 1.5\% and 1.6\% in query-match accuracy and execution accuracy, achieving a very competitive new execution accuracy of 81.7\%. Break down results show Full-model mainly improves the accuracy over Gen-model on the \texttt{WHERE} clause, with 1.9\% accuracy gain.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[\textsc{Where Decoder}]{
\label{fig:arc1}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/where_result.png}
}
\subfigure[\textsc{AGG}/\textsc{SEL Decoder}]{
\label{fig:arc2}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig/AGGSEL_result.png}
}
\label{result_with_testsets}
\caption{Accuracy of Full-model and Gen-model in different test subsets. W-0 represents zero-shot setting. The frequency of the table has been seen in the training data decrease from W-6 to W-0.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[Results on Unseen tables (W-0).]{
\label{fig:left}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{fig/exp2.pdf}
}
\subfigure[Results on seen/unseen columns.]{
\label{fig:right}
\includegraphics[width=0.28\linewidth]{fig/exp1.pdf}
}
\caption{\textit{C2F}, \textit{Gen-M} and \textit{Full-M} represent the baseline C2F model, and our proposed Gen-Model and Full-model respectively.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Training data amount}
Figure \ref{fig:arc1} illustrates Gen-model and Full-model accuracy of \texttt{WHERE} clause prediction on different test subsets from Table \ref{data-size}. Full-model is consistently better than single Gen-model in \texttt{WHERE} clause prediction. The biggest gap between Full-model and Gen-model in \texttt{WHERE} clause accuracy is on test subset W-0. This shows that Full-model generalizes better than Gen-model for the unseen test tables. We also found that Full-model accuracy on W-4 is slightly lower than that on W-3. We believe this is due to the fact that table itself is the other fact affecting models' performance, in addition to the amount of training tables.
Figure \ref{fig:arc2} again illustrates Gen-model outperforms Gen-model without attentive pooling on different amount of training data.
\subsection{Zero-shot Test}
Figure \ref{fig:left} illustrates the results on {\it zero-shot} test case (i.e. W-0). Our Full-model outperforms baseline coarse-to-fine model by 4.9\% and 4.4\% in $\rm ACC_{qm}$ and $\rm ACC_{ex}$. The accuracy improvement over the baseline coarse-to-fine model lie on the \texttt{SEL} and \texttt{WHERE} clause, with 3.6\% accuracy gain on \texttt{WHERE} clause over the baseline.
Figure \ref{fig:arc1} shows \texttt{WHERE} clause accuracy has a big drop on zero-shot setting (W-0) compared to few-shot setting (W-1). We further analyze the reason of this degradation by looking into how the performance is affected by whether a column name is present in the training data. On unseen test table schema, 28\% column names never appear in training set, which makes question related to these columns harder. We further divide conditions in \texttt{WHERE} clauses into two classes, one class with condition column appearing in training, the other with condition column not appearing in training. We measure the accuracy of each class on the \texttt{WHERE} clause. The result is reported in Figure \ref{fig:right}. Full-model outperforms single generation model by 4.2\% on unseen column names and 2.1\% on seen column names. This further shows the generalization ability of the Full-model.
\subsection{Case Study on Zero-shot Setting}
We also analyze the Full-model behavior on zero-shot test compared to the Gen-model alone. We first randomly sample 100 examples of which Full-model predicts correct on \texttt{WHERE} clause (Case-Correct in Table~\ref{tab:error-cases}), while Gen-model fails. We label the failure reasons of Gen-model into four categories (one example can belong to more than one categories): (a) wrong \texttt{COND\_COL} prediction, (b) wrong \texttt{COND\_VAL} prediction, (c) predicting extra conditions or missing conditions and (d) others. Table~\ref{tab:error-cases} shows the majority of \texttt{WHERE} clause errors are in (a): wrong COND column name errors.
We then randomly sample another set of 100 examples (Case-Wrong in Table~\ref{tab:error-cases}): Gen-model predicts \texttt{WHERE} clause correctly on these examples but Full-model fails.
Table~\ref{tab:error-cases} indicates Full-model corrects Gen-model mainly on wrong \texttt{COND\_COL} prediction, which shows our mapping task improves column name predictionin the generation task.
\begin{table}[]
\begin{small}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\toprule
\bf Examples & \bf (a) & \bf (b) & \bf (c) & \bf others \\
\midrule
Case-Wrong & 63 & 22 & 18 & 4 \\
\midrule
Case-Correct & 71 & 19 & 10 & 3\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of samples in each error categories. }
\label{tab:error-cases}
\end{small}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this short paper we generalize the results from \cite{ls} and \cite{duan} provided for rational exterior spaces to spaces with rational cohomology isomorphic to a tensor product of a graded exterior algebra with generators in odd dimensions and a graded algebra with all elements of even degree. In doing so, we expand the methods presented in these paper to, for example manifolds arising as blow ups of $\mathbb CP^n$, all products of spheres and some bundles over spheres. By the K\"{u}nneth Theorem our results are automatically extended to products of such spaces. It has also came to our attention that in \cite{duan} the author claims without proof that a tower of odd dimensional sphere bundles is a rational exterior space. This claim has been quoted in several papers without verification. We provide two examples showing that it is in fact false.
\newline\indent We start the paper by recalling some of the results and methods used in the aforementioned articles. In the subsequent section we provide our main results. We follow this with some examples of non-trivial towers of sphere bundles to which our theorems apply (this can be found via some work with the Serre spectral sequence). We finish the paper with a section containing counterexamples to the claim in \cite{duan}.
\section{Preliminaries}
Let $X$ be a connected euclidean neighborhood retract, in short ENR, $f:X\to X$ a continuous map and $f^k:=\underbrace{f\circ\ldots\circ f}_{k}$ a composition of $f$ with itself $k$ times (we use this convention also for the morphism of algebras). A mapping $f$ induces a graded ring homomorphism $H^*(f):H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$, $H^*(f)=H^0(f)\oplus H^1(f)\oplus\ldots$, where $H^n(f)$ is a map induced in the n-th cohomology group.\\
The number
$$
\mathcal{L}(f):=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\mathrm{tr}(H^n(f))
$$
is called the Lefschetz number of the map $f$. \\
The Lefschetz Fixed Point Theorem implies that if $\mathcal{L}(f)\neq 0$, then $f$ has a fixed point. Therefore, if $\mathcal{L}(f^k)\neq 0$ then $f$ has a periodic point of period $k$. However, we do not know what happens when $\mathcal{L}(f^k)=0$.\\
\indent Observe that we can define a Lefschetz number for any graded ring endomorphism $g:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$.
The Lefschetz Fixed Point Theorem loses its meaning in this context, but later we will see that such an extended definition is useful.
\begin{definicja}
We say that a continuous map $f$ is Lefschetz periodic point free, we will call it LPPF, if $\mathcal{L}(f^k)=0$ for all $k\geq 1$.
\end{definicja}
\indent In this section we recall the theory given in \cite{duan} and reformulate it in language of ring endomorphisms of cohomology ring.\\
\indent We say that an element $a\in H^r(X,\mathbb{Q})$, for some $r>0$, is decomposable if one can find such pairs of cohomology classes
$$
(b_i,c_i)\in H^{p_i}(X,\mathbb{Q})\times H^{q_i}(X,\mathbb{Q}),
$$
where $p_i,q_i>0$ and $p_i+q_i=r$, that $a=\sum b_i\smile c_i$. \\
\indent The set of all such elements, lets call it $D^r(X,\mathbb{Q})$, is a subspace of $H^r(X,\mathbb{Q})$.
So the quotient $A^r(X,\mathbb{Q}):=H^r(X,\mathbb{Q})/D^r(X,\mathbb{Q})$ is a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$.
Now, for a graded ring homomorphism $f:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(Y,\mathbb{Q})$ we have $f(D^r(X,\mathbb{Q}))\subset D^r(Y,\mathbb{Q})$, so passing to the quotient we get a homomorphism $A^r(f):A^r(X,\mathbb{Q})\to A^r(Y,\mathbb{Q})$. Denote
$$
A(X,\mathbb{Q}):=A^0(X,\mathbb{Q})\oplus A^1(X,\mathbb{Q})\oplus\ldots
$$$$
A(f):=A^0(f)\oplus A^1(f)\oplus\ldots
$$
\begin{definicja}
Rational exterior space $X$ is an ENR for which we can find such homogeneous elements $x_{1},\ldots,x_{s}\in H^{\mathrm{odd}}(X,\mathbb{Q})$ that the inclusions $x_i\hookrightarrow H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,s\}$ give rise to a ring isomorphism $\Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{s})\simeq H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ where $\Lambda_{\mathbb{Q}}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{s})$ is an exterior algebra on generators $x_{1},\ldots,x_{s}$.
\end{definicja}
\begin{przyklad}
Simplest examples of such spaces are products of odd dimensional spheres and Lie groups.
\end{przyklad}
We note that the methods used in \cite{duan} are algebraic in nature and hence the formula can be proven in the exact same fashion for a ring endomorphism of an exterior algebra. We state the following important result from \cite{duan} with this modification.
\begin{twierdzenie}\label{duan}
If $f:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ is an endomorphism of cohomology ring of a rational exterior space $X$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$ are eigenvalues of $A(f)$, then $L(f^k)=\prod_{i=1}^n(1-\lambda_{i}^k).$
\end{twierdzenie}
\begin{wniosek}\label{cor niep}
If $f:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ is an endomorphism of cohomology ring of a rational exterior space $X$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$ are eigenvalues of $A(f)$, then $L(f^k)=0$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ if and only if there is $i_0\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $\lambda_{i_0}=1$.
\end{wniosek}
Lefschetz zeta function is defined as a formal series
$$
\zeta_{f}(t):=\mathrm{exp}\Bigg(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{L(f^{k})}{k}t^{k}\Bigg).
$$
There is an equivalent form of the Lefschetz zeta function
\begin{lemat}
The following equality holds
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_{f}(t)=\prod_{k=0}^{n}\mathrm{det}(H^k(\mathrm{Id})-tH^{k}(f))^{(-1)^{k+1}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemat}
Proof can be found in \cite{franks}. Note that all the Lefschetz numbers in the series vanish if and only if $\zeta_{f}(t)$ is equal to $1$ for all $t$. Hence, the map is LPPF if and only if $\zeta_{f}(t)$ is equal to $1$ for all $t$ and consequently if this condition does not hold then $f$ has a periodic point.\\
\indent The following theorem appeared in \cite{ls} for products of even dimensional spheres. Using the same method one can prove it for a wider class of spaces.
\begin{twierdzenie}\label{teo parz}
Let $X$ be a space with only even cohomology groups nonzero, $f:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ a ring homomorphism. Then there is some $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $L(f^n)\neq 0$. In particular a map between such spaces always has a periodic point.
\begin{proof}
In our case
$$
\zeta_{f}(t)=\prod_{\substack{k\in\{0,\ldots,n\}\\2|k}}\mathrm{det}(H^k(\mathrm{Id})-tH^{k}(f))^{(-1)}.
$$
When $H^k(X,\mathbb{Q})$ is nonzero, the expression $\mathrm{det}(H^k(\mathrm{Id})-tH^{k}(f))$ is a polynomial of degree greater than one. So $\zeta_f(t)$ is different than $1$ for some $t$.
\end{proof}
\end{twierdzenie}
\section{main result}
Let $X=R\times E$ be a product of ENR's $R$ and $E$
and $f:X\to X$ a continuous map.\\
Let $F:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ be a ring homomorphism and $H^*(\pi_R):H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})$ be a map induced by a projection $\pi_R:R\times E\to R$. Define similarly $H^*(\pi_E):H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})$ induced by a projection $\pi_E:R\times E\to E$.\\
Denote by $F_{odd}$ a composition of $F$ with an embedding $H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})\ni \alpha\mapsto\alpha\otimes 1\in H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^0(E,\mathbb{Q})$ and by $F_{ev}$ a composition of $F$ with an embedding $H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})\ni \alpha\mapsto 1\otimes\alpha\in H^0(R,\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})$.
\begin{lemat}
Let $F:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ be a ring homomorphism, $X=R\times E$ a product of ENR's. Then
$$
\mathrm{tr}(F)=\mathrm{tr}(H^*(\pi_R)F_{odd}\otimes H^*(\pi_E)F_{ev}).
$$
\begin{proof}
Using the K\"unneth Theorem we get that $H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\simeq H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})$.
Denote by $\alpha_0^{d(\alpha_0)},\ldots,\alpha_s^{d(\alpha_s)}$ a basis of $H^*(R,\mathbb{Q})$ as graded vector space, where $d(\alpha_i)$ denotes degree of $\alpha_i$ as a cohomology class. Similarly denote by $\beta_0^{d(\beta_0)},\ldots,\beta_t^{d(\beta_t)}$ a basis of $H^*(E,\mathbb{Q})$. We arrange the basis so that the sequences $d(\alpha_k)$ and $d(\beta_l)$ are nondecreasing. By $\widehat{\alpha_k}^{d(\alpha_k)}$ and $\widehat{\beta_l}^{d(\beta_l)}$ we will understand $H^*(\pi_R)(\alpha_k^{d(\alpha_k)})$ and $H^*(\pi_E)(\beta_l^{d(\beta_l)})$. We want to compute the coefficients of $F(\alpha_i^{d(\alpha_i)}\otimes\beta_{j}^{d(\beta_{j})})$. Let $\eta:=d(\alpha_i)$, $\mu:=d(\beta_j)$.
\begin{align*}
F(\alpha_i^{\eta}\otimes\beta_{j}^{\mu})
&=F(\widehat{\alpha_i}^{\eta}\smile\widehat{\beta_{j}}^{\mu})\\
&=F(\widehat{\alpha_i}^{\eta})\smile F(\widehat{\beta_{j}}^{\mu})\\
&=\sum_{d(\alpha_{k})+d(\beta_{s})=\eta}a_{k,s}~\widehat{\alpha_{k}}^{d(\alpha_{k})}\smile\widehat{\beta_{s}}^{d(\beta_{s})}\smile\sum_{d(\alpha_{m})+d(\beta_{l})=\mu}b_{m,l}~\widehat{\alpha_{m}}^{d(\alpha_{m})}\smile\widehat{\beta_{l}}^{d(\beta_{l})}\\
&=\mathcal{A}+\sum_{k} a_{k,0}\widehat{\alpha_{k}}^{\eta}\smile\sum_{p}b_{0,p}\widehat{\beta_{p}}^{\mu}\\
&=\mathcal{A}+\sum_{k,p} a_{k,0}b_{0,p}\widehat{\alpha_{k}}^{\eta}\smile \widehat{\beta_{p}}^{\mu},
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{A}$ is a sum of all the elements of the form $\widehat{\alpha_{k}}^{d(\alpha_{k})}\smile\widehat{\beta_{s}}^{d(\beta_{s})}$ for $d(\alpha_{k})$, $d(\beta_{s})\neq 0$ with proper coefficients.
When we calculate a trace of $F$ we are interested only in the coefficient $a_{i,0}b_{0,j}$ which appears in the final line of the computation. It is the same number as corresponding coefficient for $\widetilde{\pi}_{H^*(R,\mathbb Q)}F_{odd}\otimes\widetilde{\pi}_{H^*(E,\mathbb Q)}F_{ev}$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemat}
Note, that
$$
\mathcal{L}(f^{k})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\mathrm{tr}(H^n(f^{k}))=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathrm{tr}((-1)^n H^n(f^{k}))=
\mathrm{tr}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(f^{k})=\mathrm{tr}T^k.
$$
where $T^k:H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ is defined as $T^k:=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(f^{k})$.
\begin{twierdzenie}\label{rown}
Let $X=R\times E$ a rational exterior space $R$ and a space $E$ with only even cohomology nonzero and let $f:X\to X$ be a continuous map. If $f$ is LPPF then there is an eigenvalue of $A^{odd}(f)$ equal to a root of unity. In particular $f$ has a periodic points if it does not have such an eigenvalue.
\end{twierdzenie}
\begin{proof}
From the above lemma we can conclude
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}(f^k)
&=\mathrm{tr}(T^k)\\
&=\mathrm{tr}(H(\pi_R)T^k_{odd})\mathrm{tr}(H(\pi_E)T^k_{ev})\\
&=\mathrm{tr}(H(\pi_R)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(f^{k})_{odd})\mathrm{tr}(H(\pi_E)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(f^{k})_{ev})\\
&=\mathrm{tr}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(\pi_R)H^n(f^{k})_{odd})\mathrm{tr}(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n H^n(\pi_E)H^n(f^{k})_{ev}).
\end{align*}
We get a product of Lefschetz numbers of two maps, the first is a ring endomorphism of cohomology ring of $R$, and the second a ring endomorphism of cohomology ring of $E$. The second map cannot always vanish as it is shown in Theorem \ref{teo parz} hence for all these numbers to be zero the first part must vanish at least for some $k$. All the eigenvalues of $\widetilde{\pi}_{H^*(R,\mathbb Q)}H^*(f^{k})_{odd}$ are equal to the eigenvalues of $f^{k}|_{H^*(R,\mathbb Q)\otimes H^0(E,\mathbb Q)}$. So by Theorem \ref{duan} there is a root of unity among the eigenvalues of $A^{odd}(f)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{obserwacja}
In the Theorem \ref{rown} we do not need $X$ to be a product, it is enought if $X$ is a space with rational cohomology ring isomorphic to a tensor product of an exterior algebra on odd degree generators and an algebra with only even degree elements.
\end{obserwacja}
We note that for a slightly better behaved class of spaces the criterion can be strengthened.
\begin{definicja} Let $X$ be as in the above observation. Let us assume that the algebra with even degree elements has at most one algebra generator in each degree. Moreover, each such generator squares to zero and the product of all these generators is the generator of the highest nontrivial degree. We call such a space an extended rational exterior space.
\end{definicja}
\begin{przyklad}
A product of a rational exterior space with $\mathbb{S}^{k_1}\times ...\times \mathbb{S}^{k_l}$ for pairwise different even natural numbers $k_1,...,k_l$ forms such a space.
\end{przyklad}
Following the exposition in \cite{duan} (with appropriate modifications) we choose a base $A=\{x_1,...,x_k,y_1,...,y_l\}$ of $A(X)$ consisting of homogeneous elements where $x_i$ denote elements of odd degree and $y_i$ denote elements of even degree. Under our assumptions this gives a base $H$ of the rational cohomology ring $H^*(X,\mathbb Q)$ consisting of $1$ and the cup products of the above generators. Consider the odd length function $\tilde{l}$ on elements of $H$ defined by $\tilde{l}(1)=1$ and $\tilde{l}(x_{i_1}\smile...\smile x_{i_r}\smile y_{j_1}\smile...\smile y_{j_q})=r$ as well as the standard length operator $l$ defined by $l(1)=1$ and $l(x_{i_1}\smile...\smile x_{i_r}\smile y_{j_1}\smile...\smile y_{j_q})=r+q$.
\begin{obserwacja} For $\alpha\in H$ we have $(-1)^{\mathrm{deg}\alpha}=(-1)^{\tilde{l}(\alpha)}$.
\end{obserwacja}
Consider next the duality operator
$$d(x_{i_1}\smile...\smile x_{i_r}\smile y_{j_1}\smile...\smile y_{j_q}):=x_{i'_1}\smile...\smile x_{i'_m}\smile y_{j'_1}\smile...\smile y_{j'_n},$$
where $i'$ and $j'$ denote the complement of $i$ and $j$ (preserving the order). Let $s:H\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ be the sign operator defined by $s(x_{i_1}\smile...\smile x_{i_r}\smile y_{j_1}\smile...\smile y_{j_q})=0$ when the sign of the permutation $(i_1,...,i_r,i'_1,...,i'_m)$ is even and $1$ otherwise ($j$ and $j'$ are omitted here since they correspond to the even degree generators which commute with any other element in the cohomology ring).
\begin{obserwacja} Given $(\alpha,\beta)\in H\times H$ with $l(\alpha)\geq l(d(\beta))$ we have
$$
\alpha\smile\beta = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(-1)^{s(\alpha)} x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l, & \textrm{if $\beta=d(\alpha)$},\\
0, & \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.
$$
\end{obserwacja}
Let $X$ be an extended rational exterior space. For a map $f:X\rightarrow X$ and $\alpha\in H$ we have
$$H^{*}(f)(\alpha)=\lambda_{\alpha}\alpha+\sum\limits_{\substack{\beta\in H\setminus\{\alpha\} \\ l(\alpha)\leq l(\beta)}} \sigma_{\alpha,\beta}\beta.$$
Due to the previous observation
$$H^{*}(f)(\alpha)\smile d(\alpha)=(-1)^{s(\alpha)}\lambda_{\alpha}x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l.$$
Note that the definition of the Lefschetz number $L(f)$ implies
$$L(f)=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in H}(-1)^{\mathrm{deg}\alpha}\lambda_{\alpha}=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in H}(-1)^{\tilde{l}(\alpha)}\lambda_{\alpha}.$$
Which together with the preceding discussion gives us
$$L(f)x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in H}(-1)^{\tilde{l}(\alpha)+s(\alpha)}H^{*}(f)(\alpha)\smile d(\alpha).$$
The right hand side of this equality can also be given by
$$(x_1-H^{*}(f)(x_1))\smile ...\smile (x_k-H^{*}(f)(x_k))\smile (y_1+H^{*}(f)(y_1))\smile ...\smile (y_l+H^{*}(f)(y_l)).$$
Hence, we arrive at the following lemma:
\begin{lemat} Let $X$ be an extended rational exterior space. If we treat $A(X)$ as a subspace of $H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ (this can be done due to the chosen basis $A$ and $H$) we have the formula
$$
L(f)x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l=$$
$$
(x_1-A(f)(x_1))\smile ...\smile (x_k-A(f)(x_k))\smile (y_1+A(f)(y_1))\smile ...\smile (y_l+A(f)(y_l)).
$$
\begin{proof} Let $H(r)$ denote the subspace of $H^*(X,\mathbb{Q})$ generated by those $\alpha\in H$ with $l(\alpha)\geq r$. Note that $H(r)=0$ when $r>k+l$. Note also that the cup product gives a map $\smile : H(r)\times H(p)\rightarrow H(r+p)$. By the definition of $A$ we have $f_*(x_i)-A(f)(x_i)\in H(2)$. This implies that the difference
$$(x_1-v(x_1))\smile ...\smile (x_k-H^{*}(f)(x_k))\smile (y_1+H^{*}(f)(y_1))\smile ...\smile (y_l+H^{*}(f)(y_l))-$$
$$
(x_1-A(f)(x_1))\smile...\smile (x_k-A(f)(x_k))\smile (y_1+A(f)(y_1))\smile ...\smile (y_l+A(f)(y_l))
$$
lies in $H(k+l+1)=0$. Now the desired equality follows from the preceding discussion.
\end{proof}
\end{lemat}
Now we are ready to prove the strengthening of our criterion for extended rational exterior spaces
\begin{twierdzenie} Let $X$ be an extended rational exterior space and let $f:X\rightarrow X$ be a continuous map. Then $L(f^n)=\Pi^r_{i=1}(1-\lambda_i^n)\Pi^k_{i=1}(1+\sigma_l^n)$ where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of $A^{odd}(f)$ and $\sigma_i$ are the eigenvalues of $A^{ev}(f)$. Hence, $f$ is Lefschetz periodic point free if and only if one of the following conditions hold
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists an integer $i$ such that $\lambda_i=1$,
\item there exist integers $i$ and $j$ such that $\lambda_i=\sigma_j=-1$.
\end{enumerate}
In, particular if neither of the conditions above is satisfied the $f$ has a periodic point.
\begin{proof} By standard linear algebra and the preceding discussion we have
$$
L(f)x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l=$$
$$\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{Id}-A(f))x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile (y_1+A(f)(y_1))\smile ...\smile (y_l+A(f)(y_l))$$
However, since $y_i$ are the only generators in each degree of $A^{ev}(X)$ we have that $A(f)(y_i)=\sigma_i y_i$. With this we can change the right hand side to
$$\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{Id}-A^{odd}(f))(1+\sigma_1)...(1+\sigma_l)x_1\smile ...\smile x_k\smile y_1\smile ...\smile y_l.$$
hence after substituting $f^n$ for $f$ we arrive at the formula:
$$L(f^n)=\Pi^r_{i=1}(1-\lambda_i^n)\Pi^k_{i=1}(1+\sigma_l^n).$$
To see the further claim note that $L(f)$ vanishes if and only if there exists $\lambda_i$ which is equal to $1$ or $\sigma_i$ which is equal to $-1$. If $1$ is among the eigenvalues of $A^{odd}(f)$ then all the numbers $L(f^n)$ vanish. On the other hand if $1$ is not among these eigenvalues but $-1$ is among the eigenvalues of $A^{ev}(f)$ then it is necessary for $L(f^2)$ to vanish that there is a $-1$ among the eigenvalues od $A^{odd}(f)$ since $i$ cannot be among the values of $A^{ev}(f)$ since this is a diagonal matrix on a rational vector space. One readily checks that in this case all of the $L(f^n)$ vanish. The final claim is automatic from the Lefschetz Fixed Point Theorem.
\end{proof}
\end{twierdzenie}
We finish this section by pinpointing a large class of sphere bundles to which our results apply.
\begin{propozycja}\label{prop z ciagiem dokl}
Let $B$ be a simply connected manifold of dimension $n$ with rational cohomology ring isomorphic to a tensor product of an exterior algebra on odd degree generators and an algebra with only even degree elements and let $k\in\mathbb{N}$ be odd integer $k\geq n$. Then any $\mathbb{S}^k$-bundle $E$ over $B$ has rational cohomology isomorphic to a tensor product of an exterior algebra on odd degree generators and an algebra with only even degree elements.
\begin{proof} It is well known that the second page of the Serre spectral sequence in cohomology (see e.g. chapter 5 in \cite{ah}) is of the form
$$E^{p,q}_2=H^{p}(B,H^{q}(\mathbb{S}^k,\mathbb{Q})).$$
From this we conclude that the only non-vanishing rows of the second page are the 0th and k-th row. So only the boundary operator on page $k+1$ can be non-zero. But on that page the derivative jumps $(k+1)$ steps to the right and since $k+1>n$ this means that it hits a column of zeroes. This shows that the cohomology of $E$ (which are isomorphic to the final page of $E^{p,q}_r$) are isomorphic as $\mathbb{Q}$ vector spaces to the cohomology of $B\times\mathbb{S}^k$. We choose a class $\alpha\in H^k(E,\mathbb{Q})$ corresponding to a non-zero class in $H^0(B,H^{k}(\mathbb{S}^k,\mathbb{Q}))$. Then the ring structure is defined by the following properties
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha^2=0$ since $k$ is odd.
\item The cup product on classes corresponding to classes in $H^{p}(B,H^{0}(\mathbb{S}^k,\mathbb{Q}))$ is prescribed by the mapping induced by the projection map $\pi:E\rightarrow B$.
\item Multiplying classes corresponding to classes in $H^{p}(B,H^{0}(\mathbb{S}^k,\mathbb{Q}))$ by $\alpha$ is prescribed by the multiplicative structure of the spectral sequence.
\end{enumerate}
This implies that the ring structure is also as in the tensor product (where we add the generator $\alpha$ in the k-th degree to the exterior algebra).
\end{proof}
\end{propozycja}
\begin{obserwacja} Note that this proof does not hold in general when $k$ is even since then $\alpha^2$ might not be zero as is the case for example in the twisted bundle of $\mathbb{S}^2$ over $\mathbb{S}^2$.
\end{obserwacja}
Combining this proposition with our main result we get the following corollary.
\begin{wniosek} Take $E$ as above and let $f:E\rightarrow E$ be a continuous map. If there are no roots of unity among the eigenvalues of $A^{odd}(f)$ then $f$ has periodic points.
\end{wniosek}
\section{counterexamples}
In this section we give two counterexamples to the claim in \cite{duan}, that a tower of odd
dimensional sphere bundles is a rational exterior space. \\
\indent The first example is the Kodaira-Thurston manifold, which is a bundle of $\mathbb{S}^1$ over $\mathbb{T}^3$. This space was discussed in the paper of William Thurston, see \cite{th}.\\
This manifold is obtained by identifying the points of $\mathbb{T}^2\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^1$ in the following way
$$
(x,y,t,z)\sim(x,y,t+j,z+jx),~j\in\mathbb Z.
$$
One can easily see that this is equivalent to taking $\mathbb{T}^2\times I\times\mathbb{S}^1$ with the boundaries identified by the function:
$$
f(x,y,0,z)=(x,y,1,z+x).
$$
From this we can conclude that the projection onto the first three coordinates gives this manifold the stucture of a circle bundle over $\mathbb{T}^3$. The Kodaira-Thurston manifold (denoted $X$) has a trivialization of the cotangent bundle given by the forms: $dx, dy, dt, dz-tdx.$
Computing the de Rham cohomology of $X$ we get
$$H^0(X,\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q},
H^1(X,\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q}^3,
H^2(X,\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q}^4,
H^3(X,\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q}^3,
H^4(X,\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q}.$$
We can see that $X$ cannot be a rational exterior space, because it has inappropriate dimensions of cohomology groups.\\
\indent Now we will give an example of a $5$-sphere bundle over a simply connected space $\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3$, which is not a rational exterior space and hence gives another counterexample to the claim from \cite{duan} (since it is a $5$-sphere bundle over the total space of a $3$-sphere bundle over a $3$-sphere). Let us consider a map $f:\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3\to\mathbb{S}^6$ shrinking 3-cells to a point. It induces an isomorphism in the sixth cohomology. Let us pull back the bundle $T\mathbb{S}^6$ through this map. The unit sphere bundle $X$ of the vector bundle $f^*(T\mathbb{S}^6)$ turns out to be the desired bundle. To see this we compute the fifth and sixth cohomology groups of $X$ via the Gysin exact sequence with rational coefficients (see e.g. \cite{chern}):
\begin{equation*}
0\to H^5(X,\mathbb{Q})\to H^{0}(\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{Q})\xrightarrow{e\smile} H^{6}(\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{Q})\to H^6(X,\mathbb{Q})\to 0.
\end{equation*}
Where the zeroes on the left and right correspond to $H^{5}(\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{Q})$ and $H^{1}(\mathbb{S}^3\times\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{Q})$ respectively and $e$ is the euler class of $f^*(T\mathbb{S}^6)$. Due to the naturality of the euler class and $f$ being an isomorphism in the sixth cohomology the Euler class is easily computed to be equal to $2$ (since the euler characteristic of $\mathbb{S}^6$ is equal to $2$). This implies that the middle arrow is an isomorphism and so:
\begin{equation*}
H^5(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^6(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong 0.
\end{equation*}
Now using the Serre spectral sequence one can easily compute the rest of the cohomology groups and the only non-zero ones are:
\begin{eqnarray*}
H^0(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^{11}(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong \mathbb{Q},\\
H^3(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong H^8(X,\mathbb{Q})\cong \mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence it cannot be a rational exterior space (for example the cup product of any two elements of degree $3$ is zero which wouldn't be possible for a rational exterior space with third cohomology of dimesnion $2$).
|
\section{{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~Algorithm}\label{sec:algorithm}
This section describes the verification algorithm of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}.
We formally present the algorithm in a general
setting, so it can be used for analyzing other safety properties as
well beyond our application to arithmetic safety.
\myparagraph{Language}
For brevity, we focus on a core subset of Solidity~\cite{solidity}. However, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~supports the full Solidity language as the extension is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:implementation}.
Consider the following subset of Solidity:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
c \in C ~::=~ G^*~ F^*, \qquad f \in F ~::=~ x(y) \{ S \}\\
a \in A ~::=~ x:= E \mid x[y]:=E \mid {\it assume}(B) \mid {\it assert}(B) \\
s \in S~::=~ A \mid {\it if}~B~S_1~S_2 \mid {\it while}^l ~E~S \mid S_1;S_2 \\
\end{array}
\]
We assume a single contract $c$ is given, which consists of a sequence of global state variable
declarations ($G^*$) and a sequence of function definitions ($F^*$),
where $G$ and $F$ denote the sets of global variables and functions in
the contract, respectively. We assume a constructor function
$f_0 \in F$ exists in $c$. Each function $f$ is defined by a function
name ($x$), argument ($y$), and a body statement ($S$).
A statement $S$ is an atomic statement ($A$), a conditional statement,
or a while loop. An atomic statement $a \in A$ is an assignment to a variable ($x:=E$), an assignment
to an array element ($x[y]:=E$), an ${\it assume}$ statement, or an
${\it assert}$ statement. In our language, we model mapping variables in
Solidity as arrays.
In our language, ${\it assume}$
differs from ${\it assert}$; while the former models the {\tt require}
statements in Solidity and stops execution if the condition evaluates
to false, the latter does not affect program semantics.
$E$ and $B$ stand for conventional arithmetic
and boolean expressions, respectively, where we assume
arithmetic expressions produce 256-bit unsigned integers.
In our language, loops are annotated with labels ($l$), and
the entry and the exit of each function $f$ are annotated with special labels
${\it entry}_f$ and ${\it exit}_f$, respectively. Let $\textit{Label}$ be the set of
all labels in the program.
We assume each function $f$ has \texttt{public} (or \texttt{external})
visibility, meaning that all functions in the contract can be called
from the outside.
\myparagraph{Goal}
Our goal is to develop an algorithm that proves or disproves
every assertion (which we also call {\em query}) in the contract. We
assume that safety properties to verify are expressed as
the ${\it assert}$ statements in the program.
In our application to arithmetic safety, assertions can
be automatically generated; for example,
for each addition \texttt{a+b} and multiplication \texttt{a*b},
we generate \texttt{assert(a+b>=a)} and
\texttt{assert(a==0||(a!=0 \&\& (a*b)/a==b))}, respectively.
\myparagraph{Notation}
We use the lambda notation for functions. For
example, $\lambda x. x+1$ is the function that takes $x$
and returns $x+1$.
We write $\textsf{FOL}$ for the set of first-order formulas
in the combined theory of fixed-sized bitvectors, arrays with extensionality, and equality with uninterpreted functions.
When $e$ is an expression or a formula, we write $e[y/x]$ for the new
expression where $x$ gets replaced by $y$.
We write $\mathsf{FV}(e)$ for the set of free variables in $e$.
\subsection{Algorithm Overview}\label{sec:alg-overview}
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~departs significantly from existing analyzers for smart contracts~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,mythril,oyente,manticore,
DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18,
Nikolic:2018:FGP:3274694.3274743, DBLP:conf/ccs/TsankovDDGBV18,
Grech:2018:MSO:3288538.3276486, vandal} in that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~applies a CEGIS-style verification algorithm that
iteratively searches for hidden invariants that are required for verifying safety properties.
\myparagraph{Invariants of Smart Contracts}
We consider two kinds of invariants for smart contracts: transaction and loop invariants. We say a formula is a
transaction invariant if it is valid at the end of the constructor and
the validity is preserved by the execution of public functions that
can be invoked by transactions. Loop
invariants are more standard; a formula is an invariant of a loop if the formula is valid at the
entry of the loop and is preserved by the loop body. Transaction
invariant is global and thus it is a single formula, whereas loop
invariants are local and must be separately given for each loop in the
program. Thus, our algorithm aims to discover a pair $(\psi,
\mu)$, where
$\psi \in \textsf{FOL}$ is a transaction invariant and
$\mu \in \textit{Label} \to \textsf{FOL}$ is a mapping from loop labels to
formulas.
We write $\bigwedge$ for pointwise conjoining
operation between two mappings $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, i.e.,
$\mu_1 \bigwedge \mu_2 = \lambda l \in \textit{Label}. \mu_1(l) \land \mu_2(l)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}
contract RunningExample {
uint public n;
constructor () { n = 1;}
function f () public {
assert (n + 1 >= n);
n = n + 1;
if (n >= 100) { n = 1; }
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Example contract.}
\label{fig:simple}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{example}
Consider the contract in Figure~\ref{fig:simple}.
The program has one global variable \texttt{n}, which is initialized
to \texttt{1} in the constructor.
The function \texttt{f} can be invoked from the outside of the contract;
it increases the value of \texttt{n} by 1 every time it is called,
but resets it to \texttt{1} whenever \texttt{n} is \texttt{100}.
Note that $n \le 100$ is a
transaction invariant: 1) it holds at the end of
the constructor, and 2) supposing that $n \le 100$ holds before
entering \texttt{f}, we can prove that it also holds
when exiting the function.
Our algorithm automatically discovers the invariant $n \le 100$ and
succeeds to prove that the assertion at line 5 is safe; upon entering \texttt{f}, $n \le 100$ holds
and $n \le 100 \to n + 1 \ge n$ is valid in the theory of unsigned 256
bitvector arithmetic.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{pic.pdf}
\caption{Algorithm~overview.}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\myparagraph{Algorithm Structure}
Figure~\ref{fig:overview} describes the overall structure of our algorithm.
The input is a smart contract written in Solidity, and the output is
a verification result that indicates whether each query (i.e.,
assertion) in the program is proven safe or not.
The algorithm consists of two components, a validator
and a generator, where the validator has a solver as a subcomponent.
The algorithm aims to find contract-specific invariants that are
inductive and strong enough to prove all provable queries in the given
contract. The role of the generator is to produce candidate invariants
that help the validator to prove as many queries as possible. Given a
candidate invariant, the validator checks whether the invariant is
useful for proving the queries. If it fails to prove the queries, it
provides the set of unproven queries as feedback to the
generator. The generator uses this feedback to refine the current
invariant and generate new ones. This way, the validator and
generator form an iterative loop that continuously refines the
analysis results until the program is proven to be safe or the given
time budget is exhausted. Upon termination, all unproven queries are
reported to users as potential safety violations.
Algorithm~\ref{algpseudo} shows our verification algorithm.
It uses a workset ($W$) to maintain candidate invariants,
which initially contains the trivial invariant
$({\it true}, \lambda l.{\it true})$ (line 1): the transaction invariant $\psi$
is ${\it true}$ and the loop invariant mapping $\mu$ maps every label ($l$)
to ${\it true}$. The repeat-until loop at lines
2--11 correspond to the feedback loop in
Figure~\ref{fig:overview}. At lines 3 and 4, the algorithm chooses
and removes a candidate invariant $(\psi, \mu)$ from the
workset.
We choose a candidate invariant that is the smallest in size.
At line 5, we run the validator to check whether the current
candidate is inductive and strong enough to prove queries, which
returns a pair of the boolean variable ${\it inductive}$, indicating
whether the current candidate invariant is inductive or not,
and the set $U$ of unproven queries.
If $U$ is empty (line 6), the
algorithm terminates and the contract is completely proven to be
safe. Otherwise (line 8), we generate a new set of candidate
invariants and add them to the workset.
Finally, when the current candidate fails to prove some
queries but is known to be at least inductive (line 9),
we strengthen the remaining candidate invariants using it (line 10),
because we can potentially prove more queries with stronger invariants.
By doing so, we can find useful invariants more efficiently.
The algorithm iterates until it times out or the workset becomes empty.
We assume that the algorithm implicitly maintains previously
generated invariants to avoid redundant trials.
\myparagraph{Technical Contributions}
Although the overall algorithm follows the general framework of CEGIS~\cite{Solar-Lezama:2006:CSF:1168917.1168907,Udupa:2013:TSP:2491956.2462174,Solar-Lezama:2008:PSS:1714168}, we provide an effective, domain-specific instantiation of the framework in the context of smart contract analysis.
Now we describe the details of this instantiation: validator (\ref{sec:vc}), generator (\ref{sec:generator}), and solver (\ref{sec:solver}).
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Our Verification Algorithm}
\label{algpseudo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require A smart contract $c$ to verify
\Ensure Verification success or potential safety violations
\mbit{State} $W \gets \myset{ ({\it true}, \lambda l. {\it true})}$
\Repeat
\mbit{State} Choose a candidate invariant $(\psi, \mu)$ from $W$
\mbit{State} $W \gets W \setminus \myset{(\psi, \mu)}$
\mbit{State} $ ({\it inductive}, U) \gets \textsc{Validator} (c, \psi, \mu)$
\If {$U = \emptyset$} {verification succeeds}
\Else
\mbit{State} $W \gets W \cup \textsc{Generator} (U, \psi, \mu)$
\If {$\it inductive$}
\mbit{State} $W \gets \myset{(\psi' \land \psi, \mu' \bigwedge \mu) \mid (\psi',\mu') \in W}$ \EndIf
\EndIf
\Until{$W = \emptyset$ or timeout}
\mbit{State} {\bf return}~potential safety violations
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\input{validator}
\input{generator}
\input{solver}
\subsection{Case Study: Application to Other Types of Vulnerabilities}\label{sec:checker}
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~can be used for analyzing other safety properties as well.
To show this, we applied {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~to finding bugs related to access control, where security-sensitive variables can be manipulated by anyone for malicious use.
For example, consider the code snippet adapted from the EtherCartel contract for
crypto idle game (CVE 2018-11329):
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none]
function DrugDealer() public { ceoAddr = msg.sender; }
function buyDrugs () public payable {
ceoAddr.transfer(msg.value); // send Ether to ceoAddr
drugs[msg.sender] += ...; // buy drugs by paying Ether
}
\end{lstlisting}
Observe that the address-typed variable \texttt{ceoAddr},
the beneficiary of Ether,
can be taken by anyone who calls the function \texttt{DrugDealer}.
If an attacker becomes the beneficiary by calling \texttt{DrugDealer},
the attacker might illegally take some digital assets whenever benign users
buy some digital assets (i.e., drugs) by calling \texttt{buyDrugs}
where \texttt{transfer} in it is a built-in function that sends Ether to \texttt{ceoAddr}.
This vulnerability was exploited in about 1 hour after
deployment~\cite{ceoAnyone}.
To detect this bug, we used {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~as follows.
First, we specified safety properties by automatically generating the
assertion \texttt{assert(msg.sender==addr)} right before each assignment of the form \texttt{addr=...;}, where \texttt{addr} is a global address-typed variable
which is often security-sensitive (excluding assignments in constructors, which typically set the contract owners).
Next, we ran {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~without any modification of its verification algorithm.
With this simple extension, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~worked effectively; it not only detected all
known CVE vulnerabilities (2018-10666, 2018-10705, 2018-11329)
but also proved the absence of this bug scenario for
55 contracts out of 60 from Table~\ref{table:main}.
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~could not prove safety of the remaining 5 contracts
due to the imprecise specification described above.
\section{Conclusion}
As smart contracts are safety-critical, formally verifying their
correctness is of the greatest importance. In this paper, we presented
a new and powerful verification algorithm for smart
contracts. Its central feature is the ability to automatically infer
hidden, in particular transaction, invariants of smart contracts and
leverage them during the verification process.
We implemented the
algorithm in a tool, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, for verifying arithmetic safety of
Ethereum smart contracts and
demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world smart contracts in
comparison with existing safety analyzers.
Our work shows a common yet significant shortcoming of existing
approaches (i.e., inability to infer and use transaction invariants)
and sheds light on the future development of automated tools for analyzing
smart contracts.
\subsection{Comparison of Scalability}
\subsection{Threats to Validity}\label{sec:threat}
We summarize limitations of our evaluation and consequent threats to validity.
Firstly, the benchmark contracts that we used
(60 CVE dataset + 25 {\textsc{Zeus}}~dataset) might not be representative
although we made effort to avoid bias in the datasets
(e.g., removal of duplicates).
Secondly, the performance of
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~may vary depending on the performance of
the off-the-shelf SMT solver (i.e., Z3) used internally
or timeout options used in the experiments.
Thirdly, we did not study the exploitability of bugs in this paper and did not
compare {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ and other tools in this regard. Thus, the results
may be different if those tools are evaluated with
exploitability in mind.
Lastly, although we did our best, we realized that manually classifying static analysis alarms into true or false
positives is extremely challenging and the classification can be
even subjective in a few cases.
\subsection{Comparison with Bug-finders}
\label{sec:precision}
We evaluate the bug-finding capability of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~by comparing it
with four bug-finding analyzers for Ethereum smart contracts:
{\textsc{Osiris}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}, {\textsc{Oyente}}~\cite{oyentetool},
{\textsc{Mythril}}~\cite{mythril}, and {\textsc{MantiCore}}~\cite{manticore}.
They are well-known open-sourced tools that
support detection of integer overflows
({\textsc{Osiris}}, {\textsc{Oyente}}, {\textsc{Mythril}}, {\textsc{MantiCore}}) and division-by-zeros ({\textsc{Mythril}}).
In particular, {\textsc{Osiris}}~is arguably the state-of-the-art tailored for finding
integer overflow bugs~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}.
\myparagraph{Setup}
We used 60 smart contracts that
have vulnerabilities with assigned CVE IDs. We have chosen these
contracts to enable in-depth manual study on the analysis results
with known vulnerabilities confirmed by CVE reports.
The 60 benchmark contracts were selected randomly from the
487 CVE reports that are related to arithmetic overflows (Table~\ref{table:cve}),
excluding duplicated contracts with minor syntactic
differences
(e.g., differences in contract names or logging events).
During evaluation, we found four incorrect CVE reports
(\#13, \#20, \#31, \#32 in Table~\ref{table:main}), which
will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section.
To run {\textsc{Osiris}}, {\textsc{Oyente}}, {\textsc{Mythril}}, and {\textsc{MantiCore}}, we
used public docker images provided together with these tools.
Following prior work~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}, we set the
timeout to 30 minutes per contract. For fair comparison, we activated only the analysis
modules for arithmetic bug detection when such option is available ({\textsc{Mythril}}, {\textsc{MantiCore}}).
We left other options as
default.
For {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, we set the timeout to 1 minute for the last
entrance of the loop in Algorithm~\ref{algpseudo},
and set the timeout to 10 seconds for Z3 request,
because these numbers worked effectively in our experience;
if we set each timeout to a lower value,
the precision may decrease (Section~\ref{sec:threat}).
In analysis reports of each tool, we only counted alarms related to
arithmetic bugs (integer over/underflows and division-by-zeros)
for a main contract whose name is available at the Etherscan website~\cite{etherscan}.
\myskip{
When a contract owner deploy the smart contracts, he chooses only one contract
to be a root contract among the contract structures in a source code;
only the contracts in an inheritance hierarchy of the root contract are compiled to EVM bytecode.
Thus, if there exist a contract which is not in an inheritance hierarchy,
it becomes a dead code when deployed. {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ only analyzes the source
codes in an inheritance hierarchy where the root contract is already determined.
The other tools, however, inspect the smart contracts, considering all cases
in which each contract can be the root. For this reason, the other tools sometimes
report the alarms that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ undetects when the root contract is not the
one which {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ assumes to be the root. It, however, does not mean
that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ is not a perfectly sound verifier because the undetected alarms are actually in dead codes.
}
\myparagraph{Results}
\input{big-table3}
Table~\ref{table:main} shows the evaluation results on the CVE
dataset. For each benchmark contract and tool, the table shows the
number of alarms (\textsf{\#Alarm}) and the number of false
positives (\textsf{\#FP}) reported by the tool;
regarding these two numbers,
we did not count cases where the tools ({\textsc{Oyente}}~and {\textsc{Mythril}})
ambiguously report that the entire body of a function or
the entire contract is vulnerable.
The \textsf{CVE}~columns indicate whether
the tool detected the vulnerabilities in CVE reports or not
(\textcolor{blue}{\ding{51}}: a tool successfully pinpoints all
vulnerable locations in each CVE report,
\xmark: a tool does not detect any of them,
$\triangle$: a tool detects only a part of
vulnerable points in each CVE report or,
obscurely reports the body of an entire function containing
CVE vulnerabilities is vulnerable
without pinpointing specific locations.
N/A: all vulnerabilities in CVE reports are actually safe;
see Table~\ref{table:cve-incorrect}).
The results show that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~far outperforms the existing bug-finders
in both precision and recall. In total, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~reported 492 arithmetic over/underflow and
division-by-zero alarms. We carefully inspected these alarms and
confirmed that 490 out of 492 were true positives (i.e., safety can be
violated for some feasible inputs), resulting in a false
positive rate (${\textsf{\#FP}}\over{\textsf{\#Alarm}}$) of 0.41\% (2/492).
We also inspected 484 (=976-492) unreported
queries to confirm that all of them are true negatives (i.e., no
feasible inputs exist to violate safety), resulting in a recall of
100\%. Of course, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~detected all CVE vulnerabilities.
In contrast, existing bug-finders missed many vulnerabilities.
For example, {\textsc{Osiris}}~managed to detect 41 CVE vulnerabilities with 17
undetected known vulnerabilities.
{\textsc{Oyente}}~ pinpointed 20 exact vulnerable locations in CVE,
partly detected vulnerabilities in 4 CVE reports,
vaguely raised alarms on 11 functions containing
vulnerable locations, and missed 23 CVE vulnerabilities.
{\textsc{Mythril}}~detected vulnerabilities in 10 CVE reports,
obscurely warned that 1 function is vulnerable,
and missed 46 known issues.
{\textsc{MantiCore}}~was successful in only two CVE reports,
failing on 42 CVE reports.
The false positive rates of {\textsc{Osiris}}, {\textsc{Oyente}}, and {\textsc{Mythril}}~were 5.42\%
(13/240), 8.19\% (14/171), and 10.64\% (10/94), respectively.
\myparagraph{Efficiency}
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~was also competitive
in terms of efficiency.
To obtain the results in Table~\ref{table:main} on the 60 benchmark programs,
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}, {\textsc{Osiris}}, {\textsc{Oyente}}, {\textsc{Mythril}}, and {\textsc{MantiCore}}~took
1.1 hour (3,807 seconds), 4.2 hours (14,942 seconds),
14 minutes,
13.8 hours (49,680 seconds), and 31.4 hours
(112,920 seconds) respectively,
excluding the cases of timeout
(though we set the timeout to 30 minutes, {\textsc{MantiCore}}~sometimes did not terminate within 3 days)
and internal errors (e.g., unsupported operations encountered,
abnormal termination) of {\textsc{Mythril}}~and {\textsc{MantiCore}}.
\myskip{
Bug-finders sometimes failed to detect bugs on some
benchmarks though they successfully detected similar vulnerabilities
on the other benchmarks.
For example, {\textsc{Osiris}}~and {\textsc{Oyente}}~were able to detect two CVE
vulnerabilities in the following \texttt{mintToken} function
adapted from the benchmark \#35:
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none]
function mintToken(address target, uint256 mintedAmount){
balanceOf[target] += mintedAmount; //CVE vulnerability
totalSupply += mintedAmount; //CVE vulnerability
}
\end{lstlisting}
but they failed to detect similar bugs in the benchmark \#40:
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none]
function mintToken(address target, uint256 mintedAmount){
balanceOf[target] += mintedAmount; //CVE vulnerability
totalSupply += mintedAmount; //CVE vulnerability
}
\end{lstlisting}
On the other hand, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~always produces
reliable results pinpointing all vulnerabilities in both examples.
}
\input{fp}
\myparagraph{False Alarms of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}}
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~produced two false alarms in the benchmark \#8, because
it is currently unable to capture quantified transaction invariants.
Consider the \texttt{unlockReward} function in Figure~\ref{fig:FP}.
The subtraction operation at line 5 seems to cause arithmetic underflow;
the \texttt{value} may be changed at line 4, and thereafter the relation
\texttt{totalLocked[addr] > value} seems not to hold anymore.
However, the subtraction is safe
because the following transaction invariant holds over the entire
contract:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fpinv}
\forall \mbox{\tt x}. \mbox{\tt totalLocked[x]} = \sum_{i}\mbox{\tt locked[x][$i$]}
\end{equation}
with an additional condition that computing the summation ($\sum_{i}\mbox{\tt
locked[x][$i$]}$) does not cause overflow.
With this transaction invariant, \texttt{value} is always less than \texttt{totalLocked[addr]}.
Because {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~considers quantifier-free invariants only (Section~\ref{sec:generator}), it falsely
reported that an underflow would occur at line 5.
{\textsc{Osiris}}~and {\textsc{Oyente}}~produced the false alarm too at the same location.
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}
function unlockReward(address addr, uint value) {
require(totalLocked[addr] > value);
require(locked[addr][msg.sender] >= value);
if(value == 0) value = locked[addr][msg.sender];
totalLocked[addr] -= value; // false positive
locked[addr][msg.sender] -= value;
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{
A function simplified from the benchmark \#8.
{\textsc{Osiris}}, {\textsc{Oyente}}, and {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~warn that
the subtraction at line 5 can cause arithmetic underflow, which is
false positive (i.e., the subtraction is safe).
}
\label{fig:FP}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
\myparagraph{False Negatives of Bug-finders}
We inspected CVE vulnerabilities that were commonly
missed by the four bug-finders, and
we found that the bug-finders often fail to detect bugs when
vulnerabilities could happen via inter-contract
function calls.
For example, consider code adapted from \#18:
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none]
function mint (address holder, uint value) {
require (total+ value <= TOKEN_LIMIT); // CVE bug
balances[holder] += value; // CVE bug
total += value; // CVE bug
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-0.5em}
There is a function call \texttt{token.mint (...,...)} in a main contract, where \texttt{token} is a contract object. We can see that
all three addition operations possibly overflow with some inputs.
For example, suppose \texttt{total=1}, $\texttt{value=0xfff\dots ff}$,
and $\texttt{TOKEN\_LIMIT=10000}$. Then, \texttt{total+value} overflows in
unsigned 256-bit and thus the safety checking statement can be bypassed.
Next, if \texttt{balances[holder]=0}, the \texttt{holder}
can have tokens more than the predetermined
limit \texttt{TOKEN\_LIMIT}. {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~detected the bugs as it conservatively analyzes inter-contract calls (Section~\ref{sec:implementation}).
\myparagraph{Incorrect CVE Reports Found by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}}
Interestingly, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~unexpectedly identified six incorrectly-reported
CVE vulnerabilities.
In Table~\ref{table:cve-incorrect},
the column \textsf{\# Incorrect Queries}
denotes the number of queries incorrectly reported to be vulnerable for each CVE ID.
We could discover them as {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~did not produce any alarms for those queries and then we manually confirmed that the CVE reports are actually incorrect.
We have submitted a request for revising these issues to the CVE assignment team.
With the capability of automatically computing transaction invariants,
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~successfully proved the safety for all the incorrectly
reported vulnerabilities (i.e., zero false positives). In other words, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~could not have discovered incorrect CVE reports if it were without transaction invariants.
The transaction invariants generated for proving the safety were similar to those in
Example 3 of Section~\ref{sec:overview}.
In contrast, existing bug-finders cannot be used for this purpose
such as proving the safety;
for example, {\textsc{Osiris}}~and {\textsc{Oyente}}~produced false positives
for \textit{all} of the 6 safe queries (i.e., the 6 incorrectly reported queries).
\label{sec:incorrect-cve}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{
List of incorrect CVE reports found by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}.
\textsf{\#Incorrect Queries}: the number of incorrectly reported queries to be vulnerable.
\textsf{\#FP}: the number of alarms raised by each tool for the incorrectly
reported queries.
}
\label{table:cve-incorrect}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{.38em}
\center
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textsf{CVE ID}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textsf{Name}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsf{\#Incorrect}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textsf{\#FP}} \\ \cline{4-6}
& & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsf{Queries}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\textsc{Osiris}}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\textsc{Oyente}}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{{\textsc{VeriSmart}}} \\ \hline
2018-13113 & ETT & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\
2018-13144 & PDX & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
2018-13326 & BTX & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\
2018-13327 & CCLAG & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table}
\input{zeus}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\input{effectiveness}
\input{checker}
\input{discussion}
\subsection{Generator} \label{sec:generator}
The generator takes the set $U$ as feedback and
produces new candidate invariants by refining the current one
$(\psi, \mu)$.
$\textsc{Generator}(U, \psi, \mu)$ returns the following set:
\begin{align*}
\myset{(\psi, \mu') \mid
\mu' \in \textsc{Loop}(\mu, U)}
\cup
\myset{(\psi', \mu) \mid \psi' \in \textsc{Tran} (\psi, U)}
\end{align*}
where $\textsc{Loop}$ and $\textsc{Tran}$ generate
new loop and transaction
invariants, respectively, based on the current
ones. We define $\textsc{Loop}(\mu, U)$ so as to return the
following set of refined loop invariants:
\[
\begin{small}
\bigcup_{((l_1,\_), a, (l_2, \_)) \in U}
\myset{ \mu[
l_i \mapsto \phi_i ] \mid i \in [1,2], \phi_i \in
\textsc{RefineL}(\mu(l_i), a) }
\end{small}
\]
where we assume $l_1$ and $l_2$ are loop labels, and $a$ is the
sequence of atomic statements in the basic path. The definition of $\textsc{Tran}(\psi, U)$:
\[
\myset{\psi' \mid ((l_1,\_), a, (l_2, \_)) \in U, \psi' \in \textsc{RefineT}(\psi,
a)}
\]
where we assume $l_1$ is the label of a function entry or
$l_2$ is the label of a function exit.
In the definitions above, the procedures
$\textsc{RefineL}$ and $\textsc{RefineT}$ are actually responsible for
refining loop and transaction invariants, which ultimately
determine the effectiveness of the generator and the overall
verification algorithm.
\myparagraph{Domain-Specific Refinement}
We define $\textsc{RefineL}$ and $\textsc{RefineT}$ in terms of
{\em refinement relation}.
A refinement relation $(\rightsquigarrow_{X,C}) \subseteq \textsf{FOL} \times \textsf{FOL}$ is
a binary relation on logical formulas, parameterized by variable set $X$ and constant set
$C$, which describes how a candidate invariant is refined in one step:
i.e., $\phi$ can be refined to any of
$\myset{\phi' \mid \phi \rightsquigarrow_{X,C} \phi'}$.
In our approach, choosing a right refinement relation
holds the key to cost-effective verification since it
defines the search space of candidate invariants.
For example, simply choosing a very general or specific refinement relation would not be
practical because of the huge or too limited search space.
Instead, we have to carefully design a
refinement relation tailored for real-world smart contracts to make
our algorithm cost-effective.
Fortunately, we observed that smart contracts in practice
share common properties and accordingly considered the following points when we
design the refinement relation.
First, smart contracts often use loops in simple and restricted
forms, e.g., {\tt for(i = 0; i < x ; i++)}, and therefore it is sufficient to consider simple numerical
invariants. In particular, we decided to focus on invariants of the forms $x =
y$, $x \ge y$, $x = n$, $x \ge n$, and $x \le n$, where $x, y$ are
variables and $n$ denotes integer constants. That is, we do not consider
non-linear or compound invariants such as $x = y^2$ and $x = y +
z$.
Second, because smart contracts use the mapping datatype extensively
(e.g., {\tt balance} in token contracts), it is particularly
important to capture their common properties (e.g., the sum of {\tt
balance} is equal to {\tt totalSupply}). Currently, we support
the function symbol ${\sf sum}$ for variables of mapping type: for
example, ${\sf sum}$$(${\tt balance}$)$ means the sum of all
balances.
Third, we consider invariants that are quantifier-free conjunctive
formulas. That is, we do not allow disjunctions or quantifiers to be
used in candidate invariants.
Based on the observations, we define the refinement relation:
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_1 \rightsquigarrow_{X,C} \phi_2 \iff \phi_2 = \phi_1 \land
\varphi~\mbox{and}~\varphi \in A
\end{array}
\]
where $A$ is the set of atomic predicates of the forms
$x=y, x \ge y, x=n, x \ge n, x \le n, {\sf sum}(x) = e$, where $x, y
\in X$, $n \in C$, and $e \in C \cup X$.
That is, the current invariant $\phi_1$ is strengthened with a linear
and quantifier-free atomic predicate ($\varphi$). Note that we only
use the symbol ${\sf sum}$ in the equality predicate as we found invariants
of other forms such as ${\sf sum}(x) > e$ are rarely used in practice.
Finally, we define $\textsc{RefineT}$ and $\textsc{RefineL}$ using $\rightsquigarrow_{X,C}$ as follows:
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\textsc{RefineL}(\psi, a) &=& \myset{ \psi' \mid \psi \rightsquigarrow_{{\it vars}(a)
, {\it const}(a)} \psi'} \\
\textsc{RefineT}(\phi, a) &=& \myset{ \phi' \mid \phi \rightsquigarrow_{{\it
globals}, {\it cnstr} \cup
{\it const}(a)} \phi'} \\
\end{array}
\]
where ${\it vars(a)}$ and ${\it const(a)}$ are the variables and
constants appearing in the atomic statements $a$, respectively. {\it globals}
and {\it cnstr} represent the set of global variables and constants in
the constructor function, respectively. We instantiate the sets $X$
and $C$ differently because transaction invariants often involve
global state variables and constants of the entire contract while loop
invariants involve local and global variables and constants that
appear in the enclosing function. In both cases, we reduce
the search space by focusing on local variables and constants to those
of the current basic path ($a$).
\myskip{
\myparagraph{Optimization with Abstract Interpretation}\TODO{Consider
remove this paragraph and mention the limitation of numerical abstract
domains in Related Work}
In our implementation of the algorithm,
we further reduce the search space by employing a lightweight
static analysis that is effective for finding our domain-specific numerical invariants.
We use the standard abstract interpretation with the interval
domain~\cite{Cousot:1977:AIU:512950.512973}, which is
able to find out invariants of the form $x =n$, $x \le n$, or $x
\ge n$. Before running Algorithm~\ref{algpseudo}, we run the interval
analysis flow-insensitively. The invariants found in
this pre-processing step will not be considered by the generator,
pruning out the search space. However, note that the interval
analysis performs over-approximations and is not able to find out all required
numerical invariants. For example, the interval analysis is not
precise enough to discover the invariant $x \le 100$ that holds for the contract in
Figure~\ref{fig:simple}. We also plan to use relational analyses
based on abstract domains such as Octagon~\cite{DBLP:journals/lisp/Mine06} or Polyhedra~\cite{DBLP:conf/popl/CousotH78}, for efficiently
finding relational invariants of the form $x=y$ or $x \ge y$.
Note that, however, the relational analyses also
cannot totally replace our domain-specific refinement. For example,
they cannot infer complex domain-specific invariants involving ${\sf sum}$ symbols.
Moreover, they often fail to find invariants when
programs involve non-linear computations.
For example, in a code snippet
{\tt i:=1; j:=1; while (-) \{i:= i*c; j:=j*c; \}} where {\tt c} is an unknown
argument value and the loop invariant is $i=j$,
both Octagon and Polyhedra fail to find the invariant,
although the invariant itself can be expressed in their domains.
}
\section{Implementation}\label{sec:implementation}
In this section, we explain implementation details of {\textsc{VeriSmart}},
which consists of about 7,000 lines of OCaml code.
Although Section~\ref{sec:algorithm} describes our algorithm
for a small subset of Solidity, our implementation supports
the full language (except for inline assembly).
Most Solidity features (e.g., function modifers) can be desugared into our core language in a
straightforward way.
We discuss nontrivial issues below.
\myparagraph{Function Calls}
Basically, we handle function calls by inlining them into their call-sites up to a
predefined inlining depth $k$ (currently, less than or equal to 2). Exceptions include
relatively large functions (with more than 20 statements) that might cause scalability
issues and inter-contract function calls (i.e., calling
functions in other contracts via contract objects).
To perform exhaustive verification, we handle those
remaining function calls conservatively as follows.
First, we conservatively reflect side-effects of function calls on the caller side.
To do so, we first run a side-effect analysis~\cite{Cooper:1988:ISA:53990.53996} to find variables
whose values may be changed by the called functions. Next, we weaken the
formulas at call-sites by replacing each of atomic predicates that
involve those variables by {\it true}.
For example, consider a call statement \texttt{x:=foo()} and assume
\texttt{foo} may change the value of variable \texttt{a} in its body.
Suppose further the precondition of the call-site is $a \ge 1 \land b \ge 1 \land c \ge 1 \land x \ge y$.
Then, we obtain the following postcondition of the call-site:
${\it true} \land b \ge 1 \land c \ge 1 \land {\it true}$ where
$a \ge 1$ and $x \ge y$ get replaced by ${\it true}$.
Regarding inter-contract function calls, it is enough to invalidate
the value of return variables only, as inter-contract calls in
Solidity cannot directly modify other contracts' states.
For example, consider the precondition above and an inter-contract
call \texttt{x : = o.foo ()}. We produce the postcondition $a \ge 1 \land b \ge 1 \land c \ge 1 \land {\it true}$,
where only $x \ge y$ is replaced by ${\it true}$.
Second, we separately analyze function bodies not
inlined. This step is needed to
detect potential bugs in the functions skipped during the step
described in the preceding paragraph.
To perform exhaustive verification, we analyze these functions by
over-approximating their input states.
Specifically, when the function in a main contract has
\texttt{public} or \texttt{external} visibility, we run the
algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:algorithm} which annotates entry and
exit with transaction invariant.
On the other hand, when the function in a main contract
has \texttt{internal} or \texttt{private} visibility
(i.e., the functions which cannot be called from the outside
and can only be accessed via function call statements)
or the function is defined in other contracts,
we generate the VCs after we annotate entries and exits of them with {\it true},
i.e., incoming state at the entry is over-approximated as {\it true}~and
inductiveness condition can be trivially checked at the exit.
In summary, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~performs exhaustive safety verification
without missing any possible behaviors.
In theory, we may lose precision due to the conservative function-call
analysis. However, as our experimental results in
Section~\ref{sec:evaluation} demonstrate, our approach
is precise enough in practice.
\myparagraph{Inheritance}
In Section~\ref{sec:algorithm}, we assumed a single contract is given.
To support contract inheritance,
we copy functions and global variables of
parent contracts to a main contract using the inheritance graph
provided by the Solidity compiler. During this conversion, we consider
function overriding and variable hiding, and do not copy functions with the same signatures
and the same variables.
\myparagraph{Structures}
We encode structures in Solidity with arrays.
To do so, we introduce a special mapping variable for each member of a
structure type, which maps structures to the member values.
For example, given a precondition $\phi$, the strongest postcondition
of command \texttt{x.y := z} is $m_y = m'_y \langle x \vartriangleleft z \rangle \land \phi[m'_y / m_y]$,
where $m_y$ is a map (or an array) from structures to the
corresponding values of member \texttt{y} and
$x$ is an uninterpreted symbol for the structure variable \texttt{x}.
Note that we are able to handle aliasing among structures
using this encoding.
For example,
if two structures \texttt{p} and \texttt{q} are aliased and
they both have \texttt{y} as a member, then
we can access the same member \texttt{y} using
either of the structures, i.e., $m_y[p]=m_y[q]$.
\myparagraph{Inline Assembly}
One potential source of false negatives of source code analyzer (e.g.,
{\textsc{Zeus}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18}) is inline assembly.
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~also has this limitation and may miss bugs hidden in
embedded bytecode.
However, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~conservatively analyzes the remaining parts of the source code
by considering the side-effects of the assembly blocks in a similar way that
we handle function call statements, i.e.,
we replace each atomic predicate by {\it true}~if it involves variables
used in assembly code (using the information provided by the
Solidity compiler).
Note that this limitation does not impair the practicality of
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~significantly, as inline assembly is not very common in
practice. For example,
in our benchmarks in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}, only four contracts (\#4, \#16, \#52 in Table~\ref{table:main},
\#24 in Table~\ref{table:zeus}) contain assembly blocks but none of
these assembly blocks include arithmetic operations.
\section{Introduction}
Safe smart contracts are indispensable for trustworthy blockchain
ecosystems. Blockchain is widely recognized as one of the most
disruptive technologies and smart contracts lie at the heart of this
revolution (e.g.,~\cite{insurance,
DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-00555}). Smart contracts are computer
programs that run on blockchains in order to automatically fulfill
agreed obligations between untrusted parties without
intermediaries. Unfortunately, despite their potential, smart
contracts are more likely to be vulnerable than traditional programs
because of their unique characteristics such as openness and
immutability~\cite{Atzei:2017:SAE:3080353.3080363}. As a result,
unsafe smart contracts are prevalent and are increasingly becoming a
serious threat to the success of the blockchain technology. For
example, recent infamous attacks on the Ethereum blockchain such as
the DAO~\cite{dao} and the Parity Wallet~\cite{parity} attacks were
caused by unsafe smart contracts.
In this paper, we present {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, a fully automated safety
analyzer for verifying Ethereum smart contracts with a particular
focus on arithmetic safety. We focus on detecting arithmetic bugs such
as integer over/underflows and division-by-zeros because smart
contracts typically involve lots of arithmetic operations and they are
major sources of security vulnerabilities nowadays. For example,
arithmetic over/underflows account for 95.7\% (487/509) of CVEs
assigned to Ethereum smart contracts, as shown in
Table~\ref{table:cve}. Even worse, arithmetic bugs, once exploited,
are likely to cause significant but unexpected financial damage (e.g.,
the integer overflow in the SmartMesh contract~\cite{peckshield-smt}
explained in
Section~\ref{sec:overview}).
Our goal is to detect all arithmetic bugs
before deploying smart contracts on the blockchain.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Statistics on CVE-reported security vulnerabilities of
Ethereum smart contracts (as of May. 31, 2019)}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{.2em}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Arithmetic & Bad & Access & Unsafe Input &
\multirow{2}{*}{Others} & \multirow{2}{*}{Total} \\[-0.1em]
Over/underflow & Randomness & Control & Dependency & & \\ \hline
487 (95.7 \%) & 10 (1.9 \%) & 4 (0.8 \%) & 4 (0.8 \%) & 4 (0.8\%) & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{509} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:cve}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table}
Unlike existing techniques,
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~aims to be a truly practical tool by performing automatic,
scalable, exhaustive, yet highly precise verification of smart contracts.
Recent years have seen an increased
interest in automated tools for analyzing arithmetic safety of smart
contracts~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,mythril,oyente,manticore,
DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}. However,
existing tools are still unsatisfactory.
A major weakness of bug-finding approaches (e.g.,
\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,oyente,mythril,manticore}) is that
they are likely to miss fatal bugs (i.e., resulting in false
negatives), because they do not consider all the possible behaviors of the program.
On the other hand, verification approaches (e.g.,
\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}) are exhaustive and therefore miss
no vulnerabilities, but they
typically do so at the expense of precision (i.e., resulting in false
positives). In practice, both false negatives and positives burden
developers with error-prone and time-consuming process for manually
verifying a number of undiscovered issues or incorrectly reported
alarms.
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~aims to overcome these shortcomings of existing
approaches by being exhaustive yet precise.
To achieve this goal, we present a new verification algorithm
for smart contracts. The key feature of the algorithm, which
departs significantly from the existing
analyzers for smart contracts~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,mythril,oyente,manticore,
DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}, is to
automatically discover domain-specific invariants of smart contracts during the verification process.
In particular, our algorithm automates the discovery of
{\em transaction invariants}, which are distinctive properties of
smart contracts that hold under arbitrary interleaving of
transactions and enable to analyze smart contracts exhaustively without exploring all program paths separately.
A technical challenge is to efficiently discover precise invariants from the huge search space.
We propose an effective algorithm tailored for typical smart contracts,
which iteratively generates and validates candidate invariants in a
feedback loop akin to the CEGIS (counter example-guided inductive
synthesis)
framework~\cite{Solar-Lezama:2006:CSF:1168917.1168907,Udupa:2013:TSP:2491956.2462174,Solar-Lezama:2008:PSS:1714168}.
Our algorithm is general and can be used for analyzing a wide range of
safety properties of smart contracts besides arithmetic safety.
Experimental results show that our algorithm is much more effective than existing techniques for analyzing Ethereum smart contracts.
We first evaluated the
effectiveness of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~by comparing it with four
state-of-the-art bug-finders: {\textsc{Osiris}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18},
{\textsc{Oyente}}~\cite{oyente}, {\textsc{Mythril}}~\cite{mythril}, and
{\textsc{MantiCore}}~\cite{manticore}. An in-depth study on 60
contracts that have CVE vulnerabilities shows that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~detects all known
vulnerabilities with a negligible false positive rate (0.41\%). By
contrast, existing bug-finders failed to detect a large amount ($>29.3\%$) of
known vulnerabilities with higher false positive rates ($>5.4\%$).
We also compared {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~with two state-of-the-art verifiers,
{\textsc{Zeus}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18} and
{\textsc{SMTChecker}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}. The results show that
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~is significantly more precise than them thanks to its
ability to discover transaction invariants of
smart contracts automatically.
\myparagraph{Contributions}
Our contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We present a new verification algorithm for smart
contracts (Section~\ref{sec:algorithm}). This is the first CEGIS-style algorithm that leverages transaction invariants automatically during the verification process.
\item We provide {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, a practical
implementation of our algorithm that supports the full Solidity
language, the de facto standard programming language for writing Ethereum smart
contracts.
\item We provide in-depth evaluation of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~in comparison with six
analyzers~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,oyente,mythril,manticore,DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}. All experimental results are
reproducible
as we make our tool and data publicly
available.\footnote{\url{http://prl.korea.ac.kr/verismart}}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{#1}}
\newcommand{\myparagraph}[1]{\setlength{\parindent}{7pt}\paragraph*{\textbf{{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\myappendix}[1]{\subsection{\textbf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\myblue}[1]{{\color{blue}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\textsf{\#Alarm}}{\textsf{\#Alarm}}
\newcommand{\textsf{\#FP}}{\textsf{\#FP}}
\newcommand{\textsf{\#Q}}{\textsf{\#Q}}
\newcommand{\textsf{\#FN}}{\textsf{\#FN}}
\newcommand{\textbf{F}}{\textbf{F}}
\newcommand{\textsf{CVE}}{\textsf{CVE}}
\newcommand{\textsf{Verified}}{\textsf{Verified}}
\newcommand{\psi}{\psi}
\newcommand{{\it entry}}{{\it entry}}
\newcommand{{\it exit}}{{\it exit}}
\newcommand{\mbs}{\mathbb{S}}
\newcommand{s_0}{s_0}
\newcommand{F}{F}
\newcommand{\mytrans}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\textsc{Tran}}{\textsc{Tran}}
\newcommand{\textsc{Loop}}{\textsc{Loop}}
\newcommand{\textsc{RefineL}}{\textsc{RefineL}}
\newcommand{\textsc{RefineT}}{\textsc{RefineT}}
\newcommand{{\sf sum}}{{\sf sum}}
\newcommand{{\it f}}{{\it f}}
\newcommand{{\sf org}}{{\sf org}}
\newcommand{{\sf transform}}{{\sf transform}}
\newcommand{{\sf index}_f}{{\sf index}_f}
\newcommand{{\sf index}_e}{{\sf index}_e}
\newcommand*{\ssb}[1]{\todoblue{Sunbeom: #1}}
\newcommand{\mytiny}[1]{\begin{tiny}#1\end{tiny}}
\section{Motivating Examples}
\label{sec:overview}
In this section, we illustrate central features of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~with
examples. We use three real-world
smart contracts to highlight key aspects of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~that differ from existing
analyzers.
\myparagraph{Example 1}
Figure~\ref{fig:smt} shows a simplified function
from the SmartMesh token contract (CVE-2018-10376). In April 2018, an
attacker exploited a vulnerability in the function and succeeded to
create an extremely large amount of unauthorized tokens
($\approx 5\cdot 10^{57}$ USD).
This vulnerability, named proxyOverflow,
was due to unexpected
integer
overflow.
The \texttt{transferProxy}
function
is responsible for transferring a designated amount of tokens
(\texttt{value}) from a source address (\texttt{from}) to a
destination address (\texttt{to}) while paying transaction fees
(\texttt{fee}) to the message sender (\texttt{msg.sender}). The core
functionality is implemented at lines 8--10, where the recipients'
balances (\texttt{balance[to]} and \texttt{balance[msg.sender]}) are
increased (lines 8 and 9) and the sender's balance
(\texttt{balance[from]}) is decreased by the same amount of the sent
tokens at line 10.
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}
function transferProxy (address from, address to, uint value, uint fee) {
if (balance[from] < fee + value) revert();
if (balance[to] + value < balance[to] ||
balance[msg.sender] + fee < balance[msg.sender])
revert();
balance[to] += value;
balance[msg.sender] += fee;
balance[from] -= value + fee;
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{A vulnerable function from SmartMesh (CVE-2018-10376).}
\label{fig:smt}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
Note that the developer is aware of the risks of integer over/underflows and has
made effort to avoid them.
The conditional statement at line 2 checks
whether the sender's balance ({\tt balance[from]}) is greater than or equal to the
tokens to be sent ({\tt fee+value}), aiming to prevent integer underflow at line
10. The guard statements at lines 4 and 5 check that the
recipients' balances are valid after the transaction, intending to prevent
integer overflows at lines 8 and 9, respectively.
However, the contract still has a loophole at line 2. The expression {\tt fee+value} inside the
conditional statement may cause integer overflow, which enables the
token sender to send more money than (s)he has.
Suppose all accounts initially have no balances, i.e.,
$\texttt{balance[from]=0}$, $\texttt{balance[to]=0}$, and $\texttt{balance[msg.sender]=0}$,
and the function is invoked with the arguments
\texttt{value}=\texttt{0x8ff...ff} and
\texttt{fee}=\texttt{0x700...01},
where 256-bit unsigned integer variables (\texttt{value} and
\texttt{fee}) are represented in hexadecimal numbers comprised of 64
digits (e.g., \texttt{value} has 63 \texttt{f}s and one \texttt{8}).
Suppose further the two unspecified address values are given as the same but
different from the sender's (i.e.,
$\texttt{from}=\texttt{to}\not=\texttt{msg.sender}$). These crafted
inputs then make the sanity checks at lines 2--6 powerless
(i.e., the three conditions at lines 2, 4, and 5 are all false because
$\texttt{fee+value}=\texttt{0x8ff...ff}+\texttt{0x700...01} = \texttt{0}$ and
$\texttt{balance[to]} = \texttt{balance[msg.sender]} = \texttt{0}$). Therefore, lines
8--10 for token transfer are executed unexpectedly,
creating a huge amount of tokens from nothing (i.e.,
$\texttt{balance[to]} = \texttt{balance[from]} = \texttt{0x8ff...ff}$ and
$\texttt{balance[msg.sender]} = \texttt{0x700...01}$.
This accident could have been prevented by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, as it pinpoints
the vulnerability at line 2.
Indeed, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~is an exhaustive verifier,
aiming to detect all
arithmetic issues in smart contracts. By contrast, inexhaustive bug-finders
are likely to miss critical vulnerabilities. For example,
among the
existing bug-finders~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18,oyente,mythril,manticore},
only {\textsc{Osiris}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}~is able to find the
vulnerability. {\textsc{Mythril}}~\cite{mythril}~and {\textsc{Oyente}}~\cite{oyente} fail to detect the well-known proxyOverflow
vulnerability.
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}
function multipleTransfer(address[] to, uint value) {
require(value * to.length > 0);
require(balances[msg.sender] >= value * to.length);
balances[msg.sender] -= value * to.length;
for (uint i = 0; i < to.length; ++i) {
balances[to[i]] += value;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{A vulnerable function from Neo Genesis Token (CVE-2018-14006).
}
\label{fig:multi}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
\myparagraph{Example 2}
Figure~\ref{fig:multi} shows the {\tt multipleTransfer} function
adapted from the Neo Genesis Token contract (CVE-2018-14006).
The function has a similar vulnerability to that of the
first example. At line 3 in Figure~\ref{fig:multi}, it
prevents the underflow possibility of the token sender's account but
does not protect the overflow of the tokens to be sent (\texttt{value
* to.length}), which is analogous to the situation at line 2 of
Figure~\ref{fig:smt}. That is, in a similar way, an attacker can send
huge amounts of tokens to any users by spending only few
tokens~\cite{cve14006-hack}.
Despite the similarity between vulnerabilities in Example 1 and 2,
bug-finders have no guarantees of consistently finding them.
For example, {\textsc{Osiris}}, which succeeded to detect the
vulnerability in Example 1, now fails to report the similar bug in
Example 2. The other bug-finders are ineffective too; {\textsc{Mythril}}~does
not report any issues and {\textsc{Oyente}}~obscurely reports that the entire
function body is vulnerable without specifying certain operations.
On the other hand, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~reliably reports that the expression {\tt value *
to.length} at lines 2--4 would overflow.
One of the main reasons for the unstable results of bug-finders is
that they rely heavily on a range of heuristics to avoid false
positives (e.g., see~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}).
Though heuristics are good at reducing false positives, the resulting analyzer
is often very brittle; even small changes in programs may end up with
missing fatal vulnerabilities as shown in Example 1 and 2, which is
particularly undesirable for safety-critical software like smart contracts.
\myparagraph{Example 3}
Figure~\ref{fig:cve13326} shows a simplified version of the contract,
called BTX. The program has two global state variables:
\texttt{balance} stores balances of each account address (line 2), and
\texttt{totalSupply} is the total amount of the supplied tokens (line
3). The constructor function initializes \texttt{totalSupply} with
$10000$ tokens (line 6), and gives the same amount of tokens to the
creator of the contract (line 7). The \texttt{transfer} function
sends \texttt{value} tokens from the transaction message sender's
account to the recipient's account (lines 12--13), if it does not
incur the underflow in the message sender's balance (line 11). The
\texttt{transferFrom} function is similar to \texttt{transfer} with an
exception to the order of performing addition and subtraction.
The contract has four arithmetic operations at lines 12, 13, 18, and
19, all of which are free of integer over/underflows. However, it
is nontrivial to see why they are all safe. In particular, the safety
of the two addition operations at lines 13 and 18 is tricky, because
there are no direct safety-checking statements in each function. To
see why they do not overflow, we need to discover the following two
{\em transaction invariants} that always hold no
matter how the transactions ({\tt transfer} and {\tt transferFrom})
are interleaved:
\begin{itemize}
\item the sum of all account values is $10000$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inv1}
\sum_{i}\mbox{\tt balance[$i$]} = 10000,
\end{equation}
\item and computing $\sum_{i}\mbox{\tt balance[$i$]}$ does not cause
overflow.
\end{itemize}
By combining these two conditions and the preconditions expressed in
the {\tt require} statements at lines 11 and 17,
we can conclude that, at lines 13 and 18, the maximum values of both
\texttt{balance[to]} and \texttt{value} are $10000$, and
thus the expression \texttt{balance[to]+value} does not overflow in
256-bit unsigned integer operations.
Since reasoning about the safety in this case is tricky, it is likely for human
auditors to make a wrong conclusion that the contract is unsafe. This
is in fact what happened in the recent CVE report (CVE-2018-13326)\footnote{\url{https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-13326}};
the CVE report incorrectly states that the two addition operations at
lines 13 and 18 are vulnerable
and thus the operations may overflow.
Unfortunately, existing safety analyzers do not help here.
In particular, verifiers, {\textsc{Zeus}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18}
and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}, are not precise enough
to keep track of the implicit invariants such as
(\ref{eq:inv1}) and therefore cannot prove the safety at lines 13 and 18.
Bug-finders {\textsc{Osiris}}~and
{\textsc{Oyente}}~also produce false alarms. {\textsc{Mythril}}~does not report
any issues, but this does not mean that
it proved the absence of vulnerabilities.
By contrast, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~is able to
prove that the contract is
safe without any false alarms. Notably, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~does so
by automatically inferring hidden invariants described above.
To our knowledge, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~is the first of its kind,
which discovers global invariants of smart
contracts and leverages them during the verification process in a
fully automated way.
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}
contract BTX {
mapping (address => uint) public balance;
uint public totalSupply;
constructor () {
totalSupply = 10000;
balance[msg.sender] = 10000;
}
function transfer (address to, uint value) {
require (balance[msg.sender] >= value);
balance[msg.sender] -= value;
balance[to] += value; // Safe
}
function transferFrom (address from, address to, uint value) {
require (balance[from] >= value);
balance[to] += value; // Safe
balance[from] -= value;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Example contract simplified from CVE-2018-13326.
}
\label{fig:cve13326}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We thank Junhee Lee and Minseok Jeon for their valuable comments on
Proposition~\ref{prop:invalidity-checking} and Appendix~\ref{sec:sum}.
This work was supported by Institute of Information \& communications
Technology Planning \& Evaluation(IITP) grant funded by the Korea
government(MSIT) (No.2019-0-01697, Development of Automated
Vulnerability Discovery Technologies for Blockchain Platform Security
and No.2019-0-00099, Formal Specification of Smart Contract).
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
In this section, we place our work in the literature and clarify our contributions regarding existing works. Section~\ref{sec:related1} compares our work with existing smart contract analyses. Section~\ref{sec:related2} discusses verification techniques for other domains.
\subsection{Analyzing Smart Contracts}\label{sec:related1}
Compared to existing techniques for analyzing smart contracts~\cite{oyente,oyentetool, mythril,Nikolic:2018:FGP:3274694.3274743, DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18, gasper, gastap,Grossman:2017:ODE:3177123.3158136,reguard,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18,DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,
DBLP:conf/ccs/TsankovDDGBV18, Grech:2018:MSO:3288538.3276486,
wh3-solidity, Hirai2017, Bhargavan2016, Grishchenko2018,Amani2018, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1812-08829},
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~is unique in that it achieves full automation, high precision, and high recall at the same time.
Below, we classify existing approaches into
fully automated and semi-automated approaches.
\myparagraph{Fully Automated Approaches}
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~belongs to the class of fully automated tools based on static or dynamic program analysis techniques that require no manual effort and can be used by end-users
who lack expertise in formal verification.
Instead, these approaches focus
on relatively simple safety properties (e.g., overflows).
One popular approach is bug-finders based on symbolic
execution or fuzz testing. For example,
{\textsc{Oyente}}~\cite{oyente,oyentetool}, {\textsc{Mythril}}~\cite{mythril},
{\textsc{Osiris}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18}, {\textsc{MantiCore}}~\cite{manticore}
and
{\textsc{Maian}}~\cite{Nikolic:2018:FGP:3274694.3274743}~discover bugs by
symbolically executing EVM bytecode. {\textsc{Oyente}}~is the first such tool
for Ethereum smart contracts, which detects various bug patterns including arithmetic bugs.
{\textsc{Mythril}}~is also a well-known
open-sourced tool for detecting a variety of bugs by performing
symbolic execution.
{\textsc{Osiris}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18} is a
tool that is specially designed for detecting arithmetic bugs.
{\textsc{Maian}}~\cite{Nikolic:2018:FGP:3274694.3274743} focuses on finding violations of trace properties.
{\textsc{Gasper}}~\cite{gasper} uses symbolic execution to identify gas-costly
programming patterns. {\textsc{ReGuard}}~\cite{reguard} and
ContractFuzzer~\cite{DBLP:conf/kbse/0001LC18} use fuzz testing to
detect common security vulnerabilities.
Although symbolic execution and fuzz testing are
effective for finding bugs, they inevitably miss critical vulnerabilities,
which is
particularly undesirable for safety-critical software like smart
contracts.
Other approaches are verifiers that perform exhaustive analyses based on static analysis or automatic program verification
techniques.
{\textsc{Zeus}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18} is a sound static analyzer that
can detect arithmetic bugs or prove their absence.
{\textsc{Zeus}}~leverages abstract interpretation and software model checking~\cite{DBLP:conf/cav/GurfinkelKKN15}.
{\textsc{SMTChecker}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18} is the ``official'' verifier for Solidity developed by the Ehtereum Foundation.
Its primarily goal is to verify the absence of
arithmetic bugs such as integer over/underflows and
division-by-zeros~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18} by performing SMT-based bounded verification.
Unlike {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, {\textsc{Zeus}}~and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~lack inter-transactional reasoning and this is currently considered a key limitation of these tools~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18,DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}.
{\textsc{Securify}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ccs/TsankovDDGBV18},
MadMax~\cite{Grech:2018:MSO:3288538.3276486}, and Vandal~\cite{vandal}
use declarative static analysis techniques based on
Datalog~\cite{Bravenboer2009}.
Besides their inability to infer transaction invariants,
one common drawback of Datalog-based analyzers is that they cannot
describe general classes of (in particular, numerical) static analyses
and is inappropriate for finding arithmetic bugs.
\myparagraph{Semi-Automated Approaches}
Semi-automated tools for formally specifying and verifying smart
contracts have different goals.
These approaches can
prove a wide range of functional properties at the expense of full automation; they
require users to manually provide specifications or invariants.
Hirai~\cite{Hirai2017} formalizes the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)
and provides a way to prove safety properties of smart contracts in
interactive theorem provers such as Isabelle/HOL~\cite{Nipkow:2002:IPA:1791547}. Bharagavan
et al.~\cite{Bhargavan2016} provide a framework for formally
specifying and verifying functional correctness of smart contracts
using the F* proof assistant~\cite{fstar}. Grishchenko et al.~\cite{Grishchenko2018} also use
F* to formalize small-step semantics of EVM bytecode and express a
number of security properties of smart contracts. Hildenbrandt et
al.~\cite{kevm} define formal semantics of EVM using the K
framework~\cite{rosu-serbanuta-2010-jlap}. Amani et al.~\cite{Amani2018} formalize EVM in
Isabelle/HOL and provide a program logic for reasoning about smart
contracts.
Lahiri et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1812-08829} describe an
approach for formal specification and verification of smart
contracts, where the primary goal is to take a high-level specification expressed
by a state machine and
to verify that the implementation meets the specification.
\myparagraph{Manual Safety Checking}
Some techniques~(e.g., SafeMath~\cite{safemath}) depend on manual annotation of programs to prevent bugs, which has two drawbacks.
First, manual annotation
is error-prone, hardly exhaustive, and sometimes
not recommended (e.g., decreasing readability, unnecessary waste of gas fees).
As a result, many smart contracts do not perform manual safety checking
exhaustively~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18, DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18}.
Second, verification prevents bugs at compile time
so that they can be fixed before deployment, but manual checking detects bugs only at runtime.
\subsection{Analyzing Arithmetic Safety of Traditional Programs}\label{sec:related2}
Ensuring arithmetic safety has been studied extensively in the program analysis and verification communities~\cite{DBLP:conf/pldi/BlanchetCCFMMMR03, DBLP:journals/fmsd/CousotCFMMR09,sparrow,DBLP:journals/fac/KirchnerKPSY15, Frama-C,
DBLP:conf/osdi/WangCJZK12,DBLP:conf/ndss/WangWLZ09,DBLP:conf/uss/MolnarLW09,DBLP:conf/uss/MolnarLW09,moy2009modular,DBLP:conf/asplos/Sidiroglou-Douskos15}.
Our work differs from them in two ways. First, we focus on smart contracts and provide
a domain-specific algorithm.
Second, to our knowledge, our CEGIS-style algorithm for verifying arithmetic safety is also new in this general context.
Astr{\'{e}}e~\cite{DBLP:conf/pldi/BlanchetCCFMMMR03, DBLP:journals/fmsd/CousotCFMMR09} is a domain-specific static analyzer tailored to flight-control software.
Sparrow~\cite{sparrow} and
Frama-C~\cite{DBLP:journals/fac/KirchnerKPSY15, Frama-C} are domain-unaware
static analyzers for C programs.
Astr{\'{e}}e, Sparrow, and Frama-C are based on abstract interpretation~\cite{Cousot:1977:AIU:512950.512973,Cousot:1979:SDP:567752.567778}.
Instead, we use a CEGIS-style algorithm because existing abstract domains such as intervals~\cite{Cousot:1977:AIU:512950.512973} and octagons~\cite{DBLP:journals/lisp/Mine06} cannot capture domain-specific invariants (e.g., {\sf sum}) of smart contracts. Furthermore, abstract interpretation cannot infer invariants that are useful in practice but not inductive with respect to their abstract semantics.
While our approach is similar to the existing CEGIS approaches
(e.g.,~\cite{Solar-Lezama:2006:CSF:1168917.1168907,Udupa:2013:TSP:2491956.2462174,Solar-Lezama:2008:PSS:1714168}), to the best of our knowledge,
its application to arithmetic safety verification has not been studied.
Bounded verification approaches (e.g.,~\cite{DBLP:conf/tacas/ClarkeKL04,DBLP:conf/vstte/ClochardFP15}) are different from our work as we perform unbounded verification.
Our work is different from symbolic execution-based techniques~\cite{DBLP:conf/osdi/WangCJZK12,DBLP:conf/ndss/WangWLZ09,DBLP:conf/uss/MolnarLW09,DBLP:conf/uss/MolnarLW09,moy2009modular,DBLP:conf/asplos/Sidiroglou-Douskos15}
or unsound static analysis~\cite{Sarkar:2007:FSA:1332044.1332098,DBLP:conf/dimva/CeesayZGLB06}, as we~aim to detect all bugs.
A few techniques aim to fix integer overflow bugs~\cite{DBLP:conf/popl/LongSKR14,Coker:2013:PTF:2486788.2486892,Cheng:2017:IAI:3155562.3155693}, which may introduce unwanted changes in programs though useful.
\myskip{
\subsection{Manual Safety Checking vs. Automated Analysis}
We remark the importance of using automated
verification tools against manual safety checking.
First, manual annotation (e.g., using SafeMath~\cite{safemath} library)
is error-prone, hardly exhaustive, and sometimes
not recommended (e.g., decreasing readability, unnecessary waste of gas fees).
As a result, many smart contracts today do not perform manual safety checking
exhaustively and at the risk of
potential vulnerabilities as observed in prior studies~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18, DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18}.
Second, verification can help at compile time
so that detected bugs can be fixed before deployment, but manual checking detects bugs only at runtime.
}
\myskip{
Finally, we remark the importance of using automated
verification tools against manual safety checking.
In theory, all vulnerabilities, including
integer overflows, can be avoided by manually checking safety at
runtime using, for example, {\tt require} statements or special
libraries such as SafeMath~\cite{safemath}.
However, manual checking is fundamentally different from automated verification.
First, manual annotation is error-prone, hardly exhausitive, and sometimes even not recommended (e.g., decreasing readability, increasing unnecessary waste of gas fees).
As a result, a large amount of smart contracts today do not perform safety checking
exhaustively and at the risk of
potential vulnerabilities as observed in prior studies~\cite{DBLP:conf/acsac/TorresSS18, DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18}.
Second, verification approaches can provide feedback at compile time
(so that detected bugs can be fixed before deploying smart contracts on immutable blockchains) but manual checking detects bugs only at runtime.
}
\subsection{Solver}\label{sec:solver}
The last component is the solver that is used by
the validator to discharge the verification conditions. The solver ultimately
uses an off-the-shelf SMT solver (we use Z3~\cite{z3paper})
but performs domain-specific preprocessing and optimization steps before using it, which we found important to make our approach practical for real-world contracts.
For a basic path $p$, we assume its verification condition
$F$ (either the inductiveness condition, i.e., $F=\textsc{GenVC}(p).1$, or
the safety condition of a query, i.e., $F \in \textsc{GenVC}(p).2$) is given.
\myparagraph{Preprocessing}
Since $F$ may contain symbols (i.e., ${\sf sum}$) that conventional SMT
solvers cannot understand, we must preprocess $F$ so that all such
uninterpretable symbols get replaced by equi-satisfiable formulas in
conventional theories.
For example, let $F$ contains ${\sf sum}$ as follows:
\[
F = \cdots \land {\sf sum}(x) = n \land x[i] = v_1 \land x[j] = v_2 \land \cdots
\]
where we elide portions of $F$ that are irrelevant to the mapping
variable $x$ (i.e., $x$ is only accessed with $i$ and $j$ in the given basic path $p$).
Our idea to translate $F$ into a formula without ${\sf sum}$ is
to instantiate the symbol with respect to the context where
$F$ is evaluated. In this example, we can translate the formula $F$ into
the following:
\[
\cdots \land F_1 \land F_2 \land x[i] = v_1 \land x[j] = v_2 \land \cdots
\]
where $F_1 = (i \not= j \to x[i] + x[j] + R_x = n) \land
(i = j \to x[i] + R_x = n)$
asserts that the sum of distinct elements of $x$ equals
$n$. Because $x$ is used in the given basic path with two index
variables $i$ and $j$, we consider two cases: $i=j$ and $i\not=j$.
When $i\not=j$, we replace ${\sf sum}(x)=n$ by $x[i] + x[j] + R_x = n$,
where $R_x$ is a fresh variable denoting the sum of $x[k]$ for all $k
\in {\it domain}(x) \setminus \myset{i,j}$, where ${\it domain}(x)$ is
the domain of the mapping. The other case ($i=j$) is
handled similarly. $F_2$ is the additional assertion that guarantees
the validity of $F_1$: $F_2 = (i \not= j \to x[i] + x[j] \ge x[j] \land
x[i] + x[j] + R_x \ge R_x) \land
(i = j \to x[i] + R_x \ge R_x) \land B_x$, where $B_x$ is a fresh
propositional variable, meaning that the summations in $R_x$ do not
overflow.
The general method for our preprocessing is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:sum}.
Note that the verification condition after preprocessing can be
checked by a conventional SMT solver. However, we found that the
resulting formulas are often too complex for modern SMT solvers to
handle efficiently, so we apply the following optimization techniques.
\myparagraph{Efficient Invalidity Checking}\label{sec:invalidity}
Most importantly, we quickly decide invalidity of formulas without invoking SMT solvers.
We observed that even state-of-the-art SMT solvers can be extremely inefficient
when our verification conditions are invalid.
For example, consider the following formula:
\[
{\it true} \to (a-b=0) \lor (a-b\not=0 \land ((a-b)*255) / (a-b) = 255).
\]
It is easy to see that the formula is invalid in the theory of
256-bit arithmetic (e.g., it does not hold when $a=2^{255}$ and $b=0$).
Unfortunately, however, the latest version of Z3~\cite{z3paper} (ver 4.8.4) and CVC4~\cite{BCD+11} (ver 1.7)
takes more than 3 minutes to conclude the formula is invalid.
To mitigate this problem, we designed a simple decision procedure
based on the free variables of formulas;
given a VC of the form $p \to q$, we conclude that it is invalid if
$\mathsf{FV} (p) \not\supseteq \mathsf{FV}(q)$.
The intuition is that $p$ must include more
variables than $q$, as a necessary condition to
be stronger than $q$. In the above example,
we conclude the formula is invalid because
$\mathsf{FV}({\it true}) \not\supseteq \mathsf{FV} (a=0 \lor (a\not=0 \land (a * b) / a = b)) = \myset{a,b}$. In practice, we found that this simple technique improves the scalability of the verification algorithm significantly as it avoids expensive calls to SMT solvers.
Let us explain why our technique is correct.
We first review the notion of interpretation in first-order logic~\cite{Bradley:2007:CCD:1324777}.
An interpretation $I: (D_I, \alpha_I)$ is a pair of a domain ($D_I$) and an assignment ($\alpha_I$). The domain $D_I$ is a nonempty set of
values (or objects). The assignment $\alpha_I$ maps variables, constants, functions,
and predicate symbols to elements, functions, and predicates over $D_I$.
Let $J: I \vartriangleleft \myset{x \mapsto v}$ denote
an $x$-variant of $I$ such that $J$ accords with $I$ on everything except for $x$. That is, $D_I = D_J$ and $\alpha_I[y]=\alpha_J[y]$ if $y \not= x$, but
$\alpha_I[x]$ and $\alpha_J[x]$ may be different.
Then, we have the following result (see Appendix~\ref{sec:invalidity-checking} for proof).
\begin{prop}\label{prop:invalidity-checking}
Let $p$ and $q$ be first-order formulas.
Then, $p \to q$ is invalid if the following three conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{sitm1} $\mathsf{FV}(p) \not\supseteq \mathsf{FV}(q)$,
\item\label{sitm2} $p$ is satisfiable: $\exists I.\; I \models p$, and
\item\label{sitm3} $q$ has a nontrivial variable: there exists $x \in \mathsf{FV}(q) \setminus \mathsf{FV}(p)$ such that
for any interpretation $I$, if $I \models q$ then $I \vartriangleleft\myset{x \mapsto v}
\models \neg q$ for some $v \in D_I \setminus \myset{\alpha_I[x]}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Our technique is based on this result but checks the first condition (\ref{sitm1}) only, which can be done syntactically and efficiently. We do not check the last two conditions (\ref{sitm2}) and (\ref{sitm3}) as they require invoking SMT solvers in general. Therefore, our technique may decide valid VCs as invalid (i.e., producing false positives) although no invalid VCs are determined to be valid (i.e., no false negatives). Because the technique causes no false negatives, it can be used by sound verifiers.
Although approximated, our technique rarely produces false positives in practice.
For example, consider the valid formula ${\it true} \to a \ge a$. Our technique may incorrectly conclude that the formula is invalid,
since $\mathsf{FV}({\it true}) \not\supseteq \mathsf{FV}(a \ge a)$ but we do not check the condition (\ref{sitm3}) that the formula violates.
Note that, however, such a {\em trivial} formula is unlikely to appear during the verification of real-world smart contracts; the verification condition ${\it true} \to a \ge a$ would be generated from the trivial expression $a-a$ that does not appear frequently in programs. Even when they appear, we can easily remove the {\em triviality}. For example, it is easy to simplify ${\it true} \to a \ge a$ into ${\it true} \to {\it true}$ that is not determined as invalid by our technique since $\mathsf{FV}({\it true}) \supseteq \mathsf{FV}({\it true})$. In fact,
no false positives were caused by our technique in our experiments in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
\myparagraph{Efficient Validity Checking}\label{sec:template}
\myskip{
First, we use a number of validity templates to quickly identify
valid formulas. We categorize the validity templates to two kinds:
domain-specific and arithmetic-specific templates.
Domain-specific templates include proof rules involving
domain-specific symbols such as ${\sf sum}$. For example,
if we know that ${\sf sum}(x) =
n$ and $x[p] \ge y$ hold for mapping variable $x$, constant $n$
(such that $n+n \ge n$),
index variable $p$, and integer-type variable $y$ , then it is safe
to conclude that $x[q] + v \ge x[q]$ holds for any index variable
$q$. Such a domain-specific proof rule can be useful for
strengthening the premise of a verification condition: when we have
a verification condition of the form $\phi_1 \to \phi_2$ such that
$\phi_1$ contains the terms ${\sf sum}(x)=n$ and $x[p] \ge y$, we
conjoin $\phi_1$ with $x[q] + v \ge x[q]$ and check the verification
condition with a stronger premise, i.e., $\phi_1 \land x[q] + v \ge
x[q] \to \phi_2$, which helps SMT solvers to check the formula more
efficiently.
Arithmetic-specific templates include
valid formulas such as $n_1 \le n_2 \implies \forall x.\;x \ge
(x*n_1)/n_2$ that often appear in the verification of arithmetic
safety. For example, we can conclude $x \ge (x * n_1) / n_2$ is safe
using $n_1 \le
n_2$ without invoking an SMT solver.
We use such a rule because
SMT solvers are particularly inefficient for complex formulas involving
multiplication. Domain-specific and arithmetic rules are used before
and after the preprocessing step, respectively.
We use 7 such domain-specific and 12 arithmetic-specific templates.
}
We also quickly identify some valid formulas by using a number of domain-specific templates. This is because our verification conditions are likely to involve
arrays and non-linear expressions extensively but
modern SMT solvers are particularly inefficient for handling them.
For example, a simple yet important validity template is as follows:
\[
\infer[n_1 \le n_2]
{F' \to x \ge (x*n_1) /n_2}
{}
\]
where $F'$ denotes an arbitrary formula, $x$ a 256-bit unsigned integer variable,
and $n_1$ and $n_2$ some integer constants.
This template asserts that, regardless of the precondition $F'$,
$x \ge (x*n_1) /n_2$ holds
if $n_1 \le n_2$.
Using the template, we can conclude that a formula
$\dots \to y \ge (y * 99) / 100$ is valid (i.e., the subtraction $y - (y * 99) / 100$ is
safe from underflow)
without calling an external SMT solver.
These templates are used before the preprocessing step;
several templates were designed to determine the validity of formulas containing
domain-specific symbols at a high level without preprocessing.
We provide more examples in Appendix~\ref{sec:template-example}.
\subsection{Validator}
\label{sec:vc}
The goal of the validator is to check whether the current candidate
invariant $(\psi, \mu)$ is inductive and strong enough to prove
safety of the queries. The input to the validator is an {\em
annotated program} $(c, \psi, \mu)$, i.e., smart contract
$c$ annotated with transaction ($\psi$) and loop ($\mu$)
invariants. The validator proceeds in three steps.
\myparagraph{Basic Path Construction}
Given an annotated
program $(c, \psi, \mu)$, we first break down the program into a
finite set of basic paths~\cite{Bradley:2007:CCD:1324777}.
A basic path is a sequence of
atomic statements that begins at the entry of a function or a loop,
and ends at the exit of a function or the entry of a loop, without
passing through other loop entries.
We represent a basic path $p$ by the five components: $((l_1,\phi_1), a_1;\dots; a_n, (l_2,\phi_2))$,
where $l_1$ is the label of the starting point (i.e., function or loop entry) of the path, $\phi_1
\in\textsf{FOL}$ is the invariant annotated at $l_1$, $a_1,\dots,a_n$ are
atomic statements, $l_2$ is the label of the end point (i.e., function exit or loop entry) of the path, and
$\phi_2 \in \textsf{FOL}$ is the invariant annotated at $l_2$.
The basic path satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $l_1$ is a function entry, $\phi_1 = \psi$ (i.e., transaction invariant). An exception: $\phi_1 = {\it true}$ if
$l_1$ is entry of constructor.
If $l_2$ is a function exit,
$\phi_2 = \psi$.
\item Otherwise, i.e., when $l_1$ and $l_2$ are labels of
loops, $\phi_1 = \mu(l_1)$ and $\phi_2 = \mu(l_2)$ (i.e., considering loop invariants).
\end{enumerate}
Note that our construction of basic paths is exhaustive as we
consider {\em all} paths of the program by summarizing the effects of transactions and loops with their invariants. The basic paths can be computed by traversing control flows of the program.
\begin{example}\label{ex:basicpaths}
\label{ex:bp}
Consider the contract in Figure~\ref{fig:simple} annotated with the transaction
invariant $\psi = n \le 100$. We do not consider loop invariants as the
contract does not have any loops. The annotated program is converted
into three basic paths:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
p_1: (({\it entry}_0, {\it true}) , n:=1 , ({\it exit}_0, n \le 100)) \\
p_2: (({\it entry}_f, n \le 100), a_1, ({\it exit}_f, n \le 100)) \\
p_3: (({\it entry}_f, n \le 100), a_2, ({\it exit}_f, n \le 100)) \\
\end{array}
\]
where $a_1 = {\it assert}(n+1\ge n); n:=n+1;
{\it assume}(n\ge 100);n:=1$ and $a_2 = {\it assert}(n+1\ge n); n:=n+1;
{\it assume}(n< 100)$.
$p_1$ represents the basic path of the constructor (whose entry and
exit labels are ${\it entry}_0$ and ${\it exit}_0$, respectively).
$p_2$ and $p_3$ represent the basic paths of the function {\tt f} that
follow the true and false branches of the conditional statement at
line 7, respectively. Note that conditional statements and loops do not appear
as they are broken into basic paths with original conditions given as ${\it assume}$ statements.
\end{example}
\myparagraph{Generation of Verification Conditions}
Let $P$ be the set of basic paths constructed from the annotated program.
We next generate verification conditions (VCs) for each basic
path.
To derive the VCs, we should be able to express
effects of program statements in $\mathsf{FOL}$.
To do so, we define a strongest postcondition
predicate transformer $\mathsf{sp}: \mathsf{stmt} \to
\textsf{FOL}\times \textsf{FOL} \to \textsf{FOL} \times \textsf{FOL}$,
which is defined in a standard way for each atomic statement as follows:
\[\small
\begin{array}{r@{\;\;}c@{\;\;}l}
\mathsf{sp}(x:=e)(\phi_1, \phi_2) &= & (x=e[x'/x] \land \phi_1[x'/x], \phi_2) \\
\mathsf{sp}(x[y]:=e) (\phi_1, \phi_2) &=& (x=x' \langle y \vartriangleleft
e[x'/x]\rangle \land \phi_1[x'/x], \phi_2) \\
\mathsf{sp}({\it assume}(e))(\phi_1, \phi_2) &=& (\phi_1 \land e, \phi_2) \\
\mathsf{sp}({\it assert}(e))(\phi_1, \phi_2) &=& (\phi_1, \phi_2 \land (\phi_1 \to e)) \\
\end{array}
\]
where unprimed variables (e.g., $x$) and primed variables (e.g., $x'$) represent the current and previous program states, respectively.
In each rule, $\phi_1$ is a precondition and $\mathsf{sp}$ transforms it into
a postcondition while accumulating the safety conditions of assertions
in $\phi_2$.
We write $x' \langle y \vartriangleleft e \rangle$ for the
modified array $x'$ that stores the value of $e$ at position $y$.
With $\mathsf{sp}$, we define the procedure $\textsc{GenVC}$ that generates the
VC of a basic path:
\[
\textsc{GenVC} (((l_1,\phi_1), a_1;\dots; a_n, (l_2,\phi_2))) =
( \phi'_1 \to \phi_2, \phi'_2)
\]
where $(\phi'_1, \phi'_2) = (\mathsf{sp}(a_n) \circ \dots \circ \mathsf{sp}(a_2)
\circ \mathsf{sp}(a_1)) (\phi_1, {\it true})$.
The generated VC consists of two parts:
$\phi'_1 \to \phi_2$ is a formula for checking that the annotated
invariants are inductive, and $\phi'_2$ is a formula for checking the
safety properties in assertions.
\begin{example}\label{ex:vc-example}
Consider the basic path $p_3$ in Example~\ref{ex:basicpaths}.
The corresponding VC is a pair of
$(n' \le 100 \land n=n'+1 \land n < 100 \to n \le 100, n \le 100 \to n + 1 \ge n)$,
both of which are valid in the bitvector theory.
\end{example}
\myparagraph{Collecting Unproven Paths}
Finally, we return a pair of the boolean variable ${\it inductive}$ and
the subset $U \subseteq P$ of basic paths whose VCs are
invalid
\[
\begin{array}{l}
({\it inductive} , U) = \\
\quad \left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{\bf if}~\exists p \in P. \textsc{GenVC}(p).1~\mbox{is invalid}~\mbox{\bf then} \\
\qquad ({\it false}, \myset{p \in P \mid \textsc{GenVC}(p).1~\mbox{is invalid}}) \\
\mbox{\bf else}~({\it true}, \myset{p \in P \mid \exists F \in \textsc{GenVC}(p).2~\mbox{is invalid}} )
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\]
$\textsc{GenVC}(p).1$ and $\textsc{GenVC}(p).2$ denote the first (i.e., the VC on inductiveness) and
the second (i.e., the VC on safety) component of $\textsc{GenVC}(p)$, respectively.
We also write $F \in \textsc{GenVC}(p).2$ for a clause
of $\textsc{GenVC}(p).2$, where $F$ corresponds to the safety
condition of a single query.
In the above procedure, we first check
whether some VCs regarding inductiveness are invalid.
If it does so (if-case),
we set ${\it inductive}$ to ${\it false}$ and
$U$ becomes the basic paths where inductiveness checking failed.
Note that, in this case, we accelerate our verification procedure by excluding from $U$
the paths where safety checking may fail.
That is, we first focus on refining invariants to be inductive and then strengthen them further to prove safety rather than trying to achieve both at the same time.
When the current candidate invariant is inductive (else-case), we set ${\it
inductive}$ to ${\it true}$ and collect the basic paths
where some queries are not proven to be safe.
To check the validity of the VCs, we use a
domain-specific solver, which will be explained in
Section~\ref{sec:solver}.
\subsection{Comparison with Sound Analyzers}
\subsection{Comparison with Verifiers}
We now compare {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~with {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18} and {\textsc{Zeus}}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ndss/KalraGDS18},
two recently-developed verifiers for smart contracts.
In particular, {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~is the ``official'' verifier for Ethereum smart contracts
developed by the
Ethereum Foundation, which is available in the Solidity compiler.
Like {\textsc{VeriSmart}}, the
primary goal of {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~is to detect arithmetic over/underflows
and division-by-zeros~\cite{DBLP:conf/isola/AltR18}.
\myparagraph{Setup}
First of all, we must admit that the comparison with {\textsc{Zeus}}~and
{\textsc{SMTChecker}}~in this subsection is rather limited, because {\textsc{Zeus}}~is not
publicly available
and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~is currently an experimental tool
that does not support the full Solidity language.
Since we cannot run {\textsc{Zeus}}~on our dataset, the only option was to use the public evaluation
data~\cite{zeus-report} provided by the {\textsc{Zeus}}~authors.
However, the public data was not detailed enough to accurately
interprete as the {\textsc{Zeus}}~authors classify each benchmark contract
simply as `safe' or `unsafe' without specific alarm information such
as line numbers.
The only objective information we could obtain from the data~\cite{zeus-report} was the fact that
{\textsc{Zeus}}~produces some (nonzero) number of false (arithmetic-overflow) alarms on 40 contracts,
and we decided to use those in our evaluation.
Starting with those 40 contracts, we removed duplicates with trivial
syntactic differences,
resulting in a total of 25 unique contracts (Table~\ref{table:zeus}).
Thus, the objective of our evaluation is to run {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~on the 25 contracts to see
how many of them can be successfully analyzed by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~without
false alarms. We ran {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~with the default setting.
\myparagraph{Results} \input{zeus-table}
Table~\ref{table:zeus} shows
the evaluation results on the {\textsc{Zeus}}~dataset. For each contract, the
table shows the number of alarms (\textsf{\#Alarm}), the number of false
positives (\textsf{\#FP}) produced by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}.
The column \textsf{Verified}
indicates whether each tool detected all bugs without false
positives (\textcolor{blue}{\ding{51}}: success, \xmark: failure).
The results show that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~successfully addresses limitations of {\textsc{Zeus}}~and {\textsc{SMTChecker}}.
The 25 contracts contain 172 arithmetic operations, where
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~pointed out 40 operations as potential bugs. We have
manually checked that 34 out of total alarms are true positives.
In benchmark \#24, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~produced 6 false positives
due to unsupported invariants (quantified invariants and compound
invariants, Section~\ref{sec:generator}), and
imprecise function call analysis.
We manually checked that the remaining 132 (=172-40) queries proven to be safe by
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~are actually true negatives.
By contrast, according to the publicly available data~\cite{zeus-report},
{\textsc{Zeus}}~produces at least one false positives for each
contract in Table~\ref{table:zeus} (i.e., $\ge 25$ false alarms in total).
{\textsc{SMTChecker}}~could only analyze 13 contracts as it
raised internal errors for the other 12 contracts, which is due to its immature support of Solidity syntax~\cite{smtchecker-error}.
Among 61 operations from 13 contracts, {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~succeeded to detect all 5 bugs in them thanks to its exhaustive verification approach.
However, it reported 55 alarms in total, of which 50 are false positives.
In terms of efficiency, {\textsc{SMTChecker}}~took about 1 second per contract and
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~took about 20 seconds per contract.
\myparagraph{Importance of Transaction Invariants}
The key enabler for high precision was the ability of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~to leverage transaction invariants.
We also ran {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~without inferring transaction invariants (i.e., using ${\it true}$ as transaction invariants);
without transaction invariants, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~fails to verify 17 out of 25 contracts
\myskip{
The results show that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~overcomes the key limitation of {\textsc{Zeus}},
as it succeeds to precisely analyze 34 contracts without
false positives among 35 contracts. One exception
case was the benchmark \#34, where {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~produced false positives
just like {\textsc{Zeus}}~({\textsc{SMTChecker}}~caused a runtime error for this benchmark).
The example code on which {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ produced a false positive is as follows:
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=none]
function uint2str(uint i) {
require(i != 0);
uint j = i;
uint len;
while (j != 0) {
len++; // Safe
j /= 10;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
To prove the safety of \texttt{len++}, we need a non-linear invariant
(e.g. $i != 0 \land len + log_{10}j == log_{10}i$), which
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~ currently cannot synthesize.
In particular, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~proved that 23 among the 35 contracts are
completely free of arithmetic bugs and found real bugs in the
remaining 12 contracts. This is much more precise information than
what can be obtained from {\textsc{Zeus}}, as it produces false alarms for
all of the 35 contracts.
}
\myskip{
Table~\ref{table:zeus} shows the benchmarks and the analysis results of
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}. Column `Contract Address' shows the address of each
contract on the Ethereum blockchain. Columns \#Q and \#A denote the number of
queries (i.e., arithmetic operations) to prove the safety and the
number of alarms reported by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~in each
contract, respectively. Column \textsf{\#FP}~reports the number of false alarms
of {\textsc{VeriSmart}}.
The results show that {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~overcomes the key limitation of {\textsc{Zeus}}, as
it succeeds to precisely analyze {\em all} queries that {\textsc{Zeus}}~failed on.
The 36 contracts contain 258 arithmetic operations, where
{\textsc{VeriSmart}}~pointed out 52 operations as potential bugs. We have
manually checked that all of these alarms are true positives,
resulting in the false positive rate of 0\%.
The remaining 206 queries were proven to be safe by {\textsc{VeriSmart}}.
We also manually confirmed that all the remaining queries are true negatives.
In total, {\textsc{VeriSmart}}~proved that 23 among the 36 contracts are
completely free of arithmetic bugs and found real bugs in the
remaining 13 contracts. This is much more precise information than
what can be obtained from {\textsc{Zeus}}, as it produces false alarms for
all of the 36 contracts.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Statement of problems and main results}\label{statement}
\begin{sloppypar}The main purpose of this paper is to establish the boundary backstepping stabilization of the higher order linear and nonlinear Schrödinger equations with a prescribed decay rate. The linear equation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{linmaineqintro}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x = 0,
\end{equation} while the higher order nonlinear Schrödinger equation (HNLS) has the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{maineqintro}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x + f(u) = 0,
\end{equation} where $\beta>0,\alpha,\delta\in \mathbb{R}$, $u$ is complex valued, and $f(u)=|u|^pu, p\in (0,4].$
\end{sloppypar}
The initial condition is given by
\begin{equation}\label{maininit}
u(x,0)=u_0(x),
\end{equation} where $u_0$ will assume various different degrees of smoothness depending on the type of problem that we study below. We will associate \eqref{linmaineqintro}-\eqref{maininit} and \eqref{maineqintro}-\eqref{maininit} with two different sets of boundary conditions. In Sections 2-4 below, we assume
\begin{equation}\label{bdryconA}
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(L,t)=0, u_x(L,t)=0,
\end{equation}whereas in Section 5, we take
\begin{equation}\label{bdryconB}
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(L,t)=0, u_{xx}(L,t)=0.
\end{equation} The left end boundary input $g_0$ denotes a backstepping feedback controller.
HNLS is used to describe the evolution of femtosecond pulse propagation in a nonlinear optical fiber \cite{koda85,Kod87}. In \eqref{linmaineqintro}, the third order term corresponds to the higher order linear dispersion. The nonlinear term in \eqref{maineqintro} is the self-phase modulation. Indeed, more general nonlinearities could be considered here to take into account self-steepening and self-frequency shift due to the stimulated Raman scattering. In the absence of the higher order dispersion, the model becomes the classical nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) which describes slowly varying wave envelopes in a dispersive medium. However, for the pulses in the femtosecond regime, the NLS equation becomes inadequate and higher order nonlinear and dispersive terms become crucial. See \cite{agrawal} for a detailed discussion on the higher order effects upon the propagation of an optical pulse. From the practical point of view, the stabilization of solutions to HNLS becomes necessary to suppress any chaotic behaviour during the transmission of optical pulses. This paper shows how this can be achieved with a prescribed speed by using a controller which acts only on the boundary of the medium. The latter is especially important in applications for which access to the medium is severely restricted and only external control mechanisms are available.
Consider for example the linearized equation \eqref{linmaineqintro} together with the initial condition \eqref{maininit} and the set of boundary conditions \eqref{bdryconA}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{heatlin}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x = 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(L,t)=0, u_x(L,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
It is not difficult to show that when $g_0\equiv 0$, the solution of \eqref{heatlin} satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|u(\cdot,t)|_2^2 = -\frac{\beta}{2}|u_x(0,t)|^2,\, t\ge 0.
\end{equation*} One can see this formally by multiplying \eqref{heatlin} by $\bar{u}$, taking the imaginary parts, and integrating over $(0,L)$. This implies that the $L^2$-norm is nonincreasing since we assume $\beta > 0$. Some solutions may decay to zero of course, but there are certainly some solutions which do not decay. Consider for instance $\beta=1, \alpha=2,\delta=8,L=\pi,$ and $u_0(x)=3-e^{4ix}-2e^{-2ix}.$ Then, $u(x,t)=u_0(x)$ is a time independent solution of \eqref{heatlin} on the interval $(0,\pi)$, whose $L^2(0,L)$-norm is conserved. In any case, what we really want is that all solutions to have an exponential decay with a prescribed large rate. This suggests inserting a fast stabilizing effect into the system correlated with the prescribed decay rate. We will achieve this by using the classical backstepping controller design, which comes with several technical challenges to overcome in the case of the current problem, explained below in more detail.
A backstepping controller acting at the left endpoint of the domain is constructed by using a transformation given by
\begin{equation}\label{backstepping}w(x,t) = (I-\Upsilon_k)u(x,t) \doteq u(x,t)- \int_x^Lk(x,y)u(y,t)dy.\end{equation}
In \eqref{backstepping} the kernel $k$ is suitably chosen so that $w$ becomes the solution of a pde model whose solution readily satisfies the exponential decay property with the prescribed decay rate constant, say $r>0$. An obvious choice is the weakly damped higher order Schrödinger equation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{target}
\begin{cases}
iw_t + i\beta w_{xxx} +\alpha w_{xx} +i\delta w_x + ir w= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
w(0,t)=0, w(L,t)=0, w_x(L,t)=0,\\
w(x,0)=w_0(x)\doteq u_0-\int_x^Lk(x,y)u_0(y)dy.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray} The solution of \eqref{target} satisfies \begin{equation}\label{targetdecay}
|w(\cdot,t)|_2\lesssim |w_0|_2e^{-rt},\,t\ge 0.
\end{equation} One can see this by multiplying \eqref{target} with $\bar{w}$, integrating over $(0,L)$ and taking the imaginary parts.
It is clear from \eqref{backstepping} and the boundary conditions $w(0,t)=0, u(0,t)=g_0(t)$ that the backstepping feedback must have the form \begin{equation}\label{controller}g_0(t)\doteq \int_0^Lk(0,y)u(y,t)dy.\end{equation}
The difficulty is generally associated with finding a suitable kernel $k$ so that one can reach at the target system \eqref{target} starting from the original plant \eqref{heatlin}. Once such kernel is found and one proves that the backstepping transformation is bounded invertible on a suitable space, then one can conclude that the same decay rate property also holds for the solution of \eqref{heatlin}.
Therefore, the problem in which we are interested can be stated as follows:\\\\
\vspace{.1in}
\noindent\fbox
\begin{varwidth}{\dimexpr\textwidth-2\fboxsep-2\fboxrule\relax}
{\textbf{Rapid stabilization:}
Given $r>0$, find a (sufficiently smooth) kernel $k$ such that the solution of \eqref{heatlin} satisfies $$|u(\cdot,t)|_2\lesssim |u_0|_2e^{-rt},t\ge 0,$$ with the feedback controller $g_0$ in \eqref{controller}.}
\end{varwidth
}
After some calculations (see Appendix \ref{kerneldeduct} for details) one can find that the solution of the original linearized problem {\eqref{heatlin}} is transformed into the solution of \eqref{target} via \eqref{backstepping} if the kernel $k=k(x,y)$ is a solution of the boundary value problem
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kernela}
\begin{cases}
k_{xxx}+k_{yyy}-i\tilde{\alpha}(k_{xx}-k_{yy})+\tilde{\delta}(k_x+k_y)+\tilde{r}k=0, \\
k(x,x)=k(x,L)=0,\\
\frac{d}{dx}k_x(x,x)=-\frac{\tilde{r}}{3},
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(x,y)$ belongs to the triangular domain $$\Delta_{x,y}\doteq\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2\,|\,x\in (0,L), y\in (x,L)\} \text{ (see Figure }\ref{fig:Deltaxy}), $$$\tilde{\alpha}=\alpha/\beta$, $\tilde{\delta}=\delta/\beta$, and $\tilde{r}=r/\beta$.
\begin{rem}
We will sometimes write $k=k(x,y;r)$ to emphasize the fact that the kernel implicitly depends on the prescribed rate constant $r$.
\end{rem}
One of the novelties of this paper is the proof of the existence and smoothness of a backstepping kernel $k$ solving \eqref{kernela}. Although the proof relies on the classical scheme of successive approximations, implementation of this technique for \eqref{kernela} requires a very delicate and rigorous series analysis at each step of the succession. We present a unified approach for solving \eqref{kernela} which can also be applied to the stabilization of various other second and higher order evolution equations.
Our main result regarding the linearized model \eqref{heatlin} is the following.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
Let $T,\beta,r>0$, $\alpha,\delta\in \mathbb{R}$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$, and $g_0(t)=g_0(u(\cdot,t))$ be as in \eqref{controller} where $k=k(x,y;r)$ is a smooth backstepping kernel solving \eqref{kernela} (constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel} below). Then \eqref{heatlin} has a unique mild solution $u\in C([0,T];L^2(0,L))\cap L^2(0,T;H^{1}(0,L))$ with $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$ and
$\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_k\left|u_0\right|_2e^{-rt}, t\ge 0,$ where $c_k \ge 0$ depending only on $k$ given by $c_k=\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2} \left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)$.
\end{thm}
Once we achieve the rapid stabilization for the linearized model, we are able to prove that small solutions of the corresponding nonlinear model below has the same decay property, where $g_0$ is the backstepping controller in \eqref{controller} with the kernel $k$ solving \eqref{kernela}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{heat}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x + |u|^pu = 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(L,t)=0, u_x(L,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
The nonlinear problem is treated via the multiplier method. Unfortunately, in this case, it turns out that the backstepping transformation spoils the monotone structure of the nonlinear power type term in the target system; see \eqref{ch414} below. We use the special multiplier $(1+x)u$ for dealing with some of the technical challenges in nonlinear estimates. However, there is another major difficulty here when $p>1$, which is the fact that the Lyapunov analysis yields a differential inequality which involves two nonlinear terms and one has to deal with the asymptotic analysis of the solution of a Chini's type differential inequality. Nevertheless, we are able to prove that the exponential decay can still be obtained for small solutions, although the situation is much better for the local wellposedness, where we prove existence of local solutions even for large data, except for $p=4$, in which case smallness is a natural condition. The following theorem states the corresponding wellposedness and stability results for the nonlinear model.
\begin{thm}\label{thm2}
Let $T,\beta,r'>0$, $\alpha,\delta\in \mathbb{R}$, $p\in (0,4]$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$ (small if $p=4$). Then, there corresponds $r>0$ and $g_0(t)=g_0(u(\cdot,t))$ as in \eqref{controller} where $k=k(x,y;r)$ is a smooth backstepping kernel solving \eqref{kernela} (constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel} below) such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] \eqref{heat} has a unique local mild solution $u \in C([0,T_0];L^2(0,L)) \cap L^2(0,T_0;H^{1}(0,L))$ for some $T_0\in (0,T]$ with $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T_0)$ and
\item[(ii)] if $|u_0|_2$ is small, then $u$ can be extended globally and it satisfies
$\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \lesssim \left|u_0\right|_2e^{-r't}, t\ge 0.$
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
If the state of a system can be measured at all times, one can construct an exponentially stabilizing
backstepping controller as we proved in Theorem \ref{thm1} and Theorem \ref{thm2}. When this is not the case, the general approach is to (i) design an observer which uses some partial information extracted from the original plant such as a boundary measurement, (ii) construct an exponentially stabilizing backstepping controller for the observer, and then (iii) prove that the same controller (which uses the observer's state) also stabilizes the original plant in a similar manner.
In the above case, we introduce the following observer (estimator) for \eqref{heatlin}:
\begin{equation}\label{observer} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
i\hat{u}_t + i\beta \hat{u}_{xxx} +\alpha \hat{u}_{xx} +i\delta \hat{u}_x \\
-p_1(x)\left(y(t)-\hat{u}_{xx}(L,t)\right)=0,\text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\hat{u}(0,t)=g_0(t),\,\hat{u}(L,t)=0,\,\hat{u}_x(L,t)=0,\text { in } (0,T),\\
\hat{u}(x,0)=\hat{u}_0(x),\text { in } (0,L),\end{array} \right.
\end{equation} where $y(t)={u}_{xx}(L,t)$ denotes the partial information extracted from the original plant through a sensor placed at the boundary point $x=L$. In this case, we set the controller to be
\begin{equation}\label{controller2}g_0(t)\doteq \int_0^Lk(0,y)\hat{u}(y,t)dy.
\end{equation}
Observe that the new feedback uses the states of the observer \eqref{observer} instead of the states of the original plant \eqref{heatlin}. The same feedback will be supplied also to the original plant \eqref{heatlin}. Our aim is to find a function $p_1 = p_1(x)$ such that $\hat{u}(t)-u(t)$ tends to zero as $t\rightarrow \infty$, desirably with a prescribed exponential decay rate, in a physically suitable norm. This can be achieved by stabilizing the error model below written with the unknown $\tilde{u}=\hat{u}-u$:
\begin{equation}\label{error} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
i\tilde{u}_t + i\beta \tilde{u}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{u}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{u}_x +p_1(x)\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)=0,\text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\tilde{u}(0,t)=0, \tilde{u}(L,t)=0,\tilde{u}_x(L,t)=0 \text { in } (0,T);\\
\tilde{u}(x,0)=\hat{u}_0(x)-u_0(x) \text { in } (0,L). \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
We will show that the error can also be controlled via backstepping, in which case $p_1\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,\cdot)$ is regarded as a feedback acting from the interior. Here we use a backstepping transformation
\begin{equation}\label{transtildew}
\tilde{u}(x,t)=\tilde{w}(x,t)-\int_x^L p(x,y)\tilde{w}(y,t)dy,
\end{equation} where $\tilde{w}$ is the solution of an exponentially decaying target system (this is written in \eqref{tildew} below) and $p$ is the corresponding kernel which solves the kernel pde model \eqref{p} below on $\Delta_{x,y}$ (see Appendix \eqref{dedkerp} for details). Once $p$ is found, it will turn out that we can set $p_1(x):=-i\beta p(x,L)$. We prove the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{obsthm}
Let $T,\beta,r>0$, $\alpha,\delta\in\mathbb{R}$, $u_0,\hat{u}_0\in H^6(0,L)$, $u_0(0)= \\\int_0^Lk(0,y)\hat{u}_0(y)dy$, $u_0(L)=0$, $\tilde{w}_0=(I-\Upsilon_p)^{-1}\tilde{u}_0$ satisfy the compatibility conditions
\begin{equation}\label{compa}\varphi(\bar{x})=- \beta \varphi'''(\bar{x}) +i\alpha \varphi''(\bar{x}) -\delta \varphi'(\bar{x})=0,\bar{x}=0,L,\end{equation} and $g_0(t)=g_0(\hat{u}(\cdot,t))$ be as in \eqref{controller2} where $k$ and $p$ are smooth solutions of \eqref{kernela} and \eqref{p}, respectively. Then the plant-observer-error system \eqref{heatlin}-\eqref{observer}-\eqref{error} has a solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde{u})\in X_T^3\times X_T^3\times X_T^6$. Moreover, for $\epsilon>0$ (small) and $r>0$, the components of the solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ satisfy
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}+c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-rt}$,
\item[(ii)] $\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}$, and
\item[(iii)] $\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t},$ respectively,
\end{itemize} where $c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}$, $c_{k,p}$, and $c_p$ are nonnegative constants depending on their sub-indices.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The function spaces $X_T^s$ $(s\ge 0)$ used in the above theorem are defined in Section \ref{secinv} below.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Extending the above result to the nonlinear model gets terribly difficult due to the technical challenges related with multiplier calculations, and therefore constructing an observer in the nonlinear case remains open.
\end{rem}
In the last section of the paper, we show that all of the above results extend to another set of boundary conditions given in \eqref{bdryconB}. Considering the linearized model
\begin{eqnarray}\label{heatlin_obc}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x = 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(L,t)=0, u_{xx}(L,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}we find that a backstepping transformation \begin{equation} \label{backstepping_obc}
w(x,t) := u(x,t) - \int_x^L \ell(x,y) u(y,t)dy
\end{equation} yields a boundary value problem for the kernel $\ell$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kernela_obc}
\begin{cases}
\ell_{xxx}+\ell_{yyy}-i\tilde{\alpha}(\ell_{xx}-\ell_{yy})+\tilde{\delta}(\ell_x+\ell_y)+\tilde{r}\ell=0, \\
\left(\ell_{yy} + i \tilde{\alpha}\ell_y+ \tilde{\delta}\ell\right)(x,L) = 0,\\
\ell(x,x) = 0, \\
\ell_x(x,x)=-\frac{\tilde{r} (L - x)}{3},
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(x,y) \in \Delta_{x,y}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}=\alpha/\beta$, $\tilde{\delta}=\delta/\beta$, $\tilde{r}=r/\beta$. In \eqref{backstepping_obc}, $w$ is assumed to satisfy the target system introduced in \eqref{target_obc} below.
In the absence of the boundary control (i.e. $g_0\equiv 0$), multiplying the main equation by $\overline{u}$, integrating over $(0,L)$ and taking the imaginary parts, one can see that the solution of \eqref{heatlin_obc} satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}|u(\cdot,t)|_2^2 = -\left(\beta |u_x(0,t)|^2 + \delta |u(L,t)|^2\right) \leq 0
\end{equation*} given that we further assume $\delta \ge 0$.
We prove the following.
\begin{thm}\label{thm3}
Let $T,\beta,r>0$, $\delta\ge 0$, $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$, and $g_0(t)=g_0(u(\cdot,t))$ be given by \begin{equation}\label{controllerell}g_0(t)\doteq \int_0^L\ell(0,y){u}(y,t)dy.\end{equation} where $\ell=\ell(x,y;r)$ is a smooth backstepping kernel solving \eqref{kernela_obc} (constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel_obc} below). Then \eqref{heatlin_obc} has a unique mild solution $u\in C([0,T];L^2(0,L))\cap L^2(0,T;H^{1}(0,L))$ with $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$ that satisfies
$\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_\ell\left|u_0\right|_2e^{-rt}, t\ge 0,$ where $c_\ell \ge 0$ depending only on $\ell$ given by \\ $c_\ell=\left|(I-\Upsilon_{\ell})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2} \left(1+\left|\ell\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)$.
\end{thm}
The corresponding nonlinear model is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{heat_obc}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i\beta u_{xxx} +\alpha u_{xx} +i\delta u_x + |u|^pu = 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(L,t)=0, u_{xx}(L,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray} We have the following theorem regarding \eqref{heat_obc}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm4}
Let $T,\beta,r'>0$, $\delta\ge 0$, $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$, $p\in (0,4]$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$ (small if $p=4$). Then, there corresponds $r>0$ and $g_0(t)=g_0(u(\cdot,t))$ as in \eqref{controllerell} where $\ell=\ell(x,y;r)$ is a smooth backstepping kernel solving \eqref{kernela_obc} (constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel_obc} below) such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] \eqref{heat_obc} has a unique local mild solution $u \in C([0,T_0];L^2(0,L)) \cap L^2(0,T_0;H^{1}(0,L))$ for some $T_0\in (0,T]$ with $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T_0)$ and
\item[(ii)] if $|u_0|_2$ is small, then $u$ can be extended globally and it satisfies
$\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \lesssim \left|u_0\right|_2e^{-r't}, t\ge 0.$
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
Regarding the observer design in the case of boundary conditions \eqref{bdryconB}, we assume that we can extract the information $y(t) = u(L,t)$ from the original plant. This motivates us to consider the following linearized observer system:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{observer_obc}
\begin{cases}
i\hat{u}_t + i\beta \hat{u}_{xxx} +\alpha \hat{u}_{xx} +i\delta u_x+p_1(x)\left(y(t)-\hat{u}(L,t)\right)=0,\text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\hat{u}(0,t)=g_0(t),\,\hat{u}_x(L,t)=0,\,\hat{u}_{xx}(L,t)=0,\text { in } (0,T),\\
\hat{u}(x,0)=\hat{u}_0(x),\text { in } (0,L),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_1(x)$, to be determined, is again intended to achieve $\tilde{u}(t)=u(t) - \hat{u}(t) \to 0$ in the sense of a suitable norm as $t \to \infty$. The error model takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{error_obc}
\begin{cases}
i\tilde{u}_t + i\beta \tilde{u}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{u}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{u}_x -p_1(x)\tilde{u}(L,t)=0,\text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\tilde{u}(0,t)=0, \tilde{u}_x(L,t)=0,\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)=0 \text { in } (0,T),\\
\tilde{u}(x,0)=u_0(x)-\hat{u}_0(x) \text { in } (0,L).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We again first focus on stabilizing the error system \eqref{error_obc} via a backstepping transformation given by \eqref{transtildew} which uses a suitable kernel $p$ that solves \eqref{p_obc} below. In this case, the correct choice of $p_1$ is given by $p_1 := -i\beta p_{yy}(\cdot,L) + \alpha p_y(\cdot,L) - i\delta p(\cdot,L).$ We have the following result.
\begin{thm}\label{obsthmobc}
Let $T,\beta,r>0$, $\delta\ge 0$, $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, $u_0,\hat{u}_0\in H^3(0,L)$, $\tilde{u}_0(0)=0$, and $g_0(t)=g_0(\hat{u}(\cdot,t))$ be given by \begin{equation}\label{controller2_obc}g_0(t)\doteq \int_0^L\ell(0,y)\hat{u}(y,t)dy.\end{equation} where $\ell=\ell(x,y;r)$ is a smooth backstepping kernel solving \eqref{kernela_obc} (constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel_obc} below). Let also $p$ be a smooth kernel solving \eqref{p_obc}. Then the plant-observer-error system \eqref{heatlin_obc}-\eqref{observer_obc}-\eqref{error_obc} has a solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde{u})\in X_T^0\times X_T^0\times X_T^3$. Moreover, for $\epsilon>0$ (small) and $r>0$, the components of the solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ satisfy
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{\ell,p})t}+c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-rt}$,
\item[(ii)] $\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,\ell,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{\ell,p})t}$, and
\item[(iii)] $\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t},$ respectively,
\end{itemize} where $c_{\epsilon,\ell,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}$, $c_{\ell,p}$, and $c_p$ are nonnegative constants depending on their sub-indices.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Note that Theorem \ref{obsthmobc} requires less smoothness and compatibility conditions compared to Theorem \ref{obsthm}. This is due to the fact that in Theorem \ref{obsthm} we are using second order trace terms in the main equation of the observer whereas in Theorem \ref{obsthmobc} we only use the Dirichlet traces.
\end{rem}
Finally, we provide numerical treatment of all of the problems studied here in Sections 4 and 5 supporting our theoretical results to the fullest extent.
\subsubsection*{Proofs of main theorems} Theorem \ref{thm1} follows from Proposition \ref{wplin} and Proposition \ref{stablin}. Theorem \ref{thm2} is a consequence of Proposition \ref{nonlinprop} and Proposition \ref{stabnonlin}. Theorem \ref{obsthm} follows from Proposition \ref{propobs} and Proposition \ref{obsprop2}. Theorem \ref{thm3} is due to Proposition \ref{obcprop1} and Proposition \ref{obcprop2}. Theorem \ref{thm4} follows from Proposition \ref{p1} and Proposition \ref{p2}. Theorem \ref{obsthmobc} can be obtained from the discussion in Section \ref{wpobc} and Proposition \ref{obcwp}.
\subsection{Literature review and motivation} The higher order nonlinear Schrödinger equation was proposed by \cite{Kod87} for modeling nonlinear propagation of pulses in optical fibers taking into account the effect of the higher order dispersion. From a mathematical point of view, researchers studied both the analysis and controllability aspects of this equation.
On the wellposedness side, we would like to refer the reader to \cite{Carvajal03}, \cite{Carvajal04}, \cite{Carvajal06}, \cite{Laurey97}, and \cite{Taka00}. Regarding the controllability aspect, the internal stabilization of the HNLS with constant coefficients was studied by \cite{chen2018} and \cite{Bis07}. A numerical treatment of this problem was given in \cite{Caval19}. The exact boundary controllability for the higher order nonlinear Schrödinger equation with constant coefficients was studied in \cite{Ceballos05}.
To the best of our knowledge there is no work yet dealing with the boundary feedback stabilization of the higher order Schrödinger equations. However, this is an important physical problem because in some physical systems access to the interior of the medium may not be available and boundary might be the only location where one can apply a feedback. One of the most effective methods for constructing a boundary feedback is the backstepping technique which was explained in detail in Section \ref{statement} above. We also suggest that the reader consult \cite{KrsBook} for a detailed review of the backstepping method and its application to the stabilization of evolution equations.
There are also some recent works on the boundary feedback stabilization of other evolution equations which involve higher order dispersion such as the Korteweg-de Vries (see e.g. \cite{BatalOzsari2019},\cite{Cerpa2013}, \cite{Cor14},\cite{BatalOzsari2018-1}) and Korteweg-de Vries Burgers (see e.g. \cite{Eda19},\cite{Balogh2000},\cite{Jia2016}, \cite{Liu2002}) equations.
The first difference of this paper compared to other authors' work on the classical Schrödinger equation or KdV equation, is the construction of the backstepping kernel. For instance, in the case of the classical Schrödinger equation, the kernel satisfies an integral equation in which the integral involves only the kernel function itself. This makes successive approximation analysis much easier so that even an exact form of the solution can be found by using a Bessell function \cite{KrsBook}. However, in the case of the higher order Schrödinger equation, corresponding integral equation for the kernel involves not only the kernel function itself but also its various partial derivatives. This makes the analysis much more difficult because each step of the succession brings a linear combination of monomials of different orders. Therefore, finding the exact form of the series which converges to the kernel function is almost impossible and thus, a careful analysis of the behavior of the coefficients in the series without actually computing them is essential. This is what we do in the construction of the kernel (see Lemma \ref{lemkernel} below) and this technique is so general that it can also be applied to kernel models associated with stabilization of other higher order PDE models. Other approaches claiming existence of backstepping kernels for higher order PDEs were given for the KdV equation in \cite{Cerpa2013} and \cite{Cor14} and for the KdV-Burgers equation in \cite{Eda19}. In \cite{Cerpa2013} and \cite{Eda19}, authors state the form of the series converging to the kernel with unknown coefficients and claim that coefficients satisfy some bound conditions without proof. In \cite{Cor14}, a backstepping kernel is constructed utilizing exact controllability properties of the KdV equation. However, this work has two differences compared to ours: (i) the sought after kernel is only $H^1$ as opposed to a $C^\infty$ kernel in this paper and (ii) the construction only applies to domains of uncritical lengths whereas our construction is independent of the domain length.
Another contribution our paper is the Lyapunov analysis of the nonlinear target systems which are obtained once the backstepping transformation is applied. This is because the power type structure of the nonlinear term is distorted (see \eqref{ch414}) and standard multipliers yield Chini's type ODE inequalities which involve more than one nonlinearities, see \eqref{yeq1} and \eqref{yeq2} below. The Lyapunov analysis given in the context of the KdV equation (see e.g., \cite{Cerpa2013} and \cite{BatalOzsari2018-1}) does not involve ODE inequalities which involve several nonlinearities. This is an intrinsic feature of the higher order Schrödinger equation and contrasts with the KdV equation. Our approach for treating this issue is based on reducing the more complicated Lyapunov analysis to a simpler one by examining the time periods in which one nonlinear term dominates the other one.
Finally, we also introduce a numerical approach for the backstepping problem which is different than numerical approaches of other authors who treated the KdV equation. For instance, in \cite{Marx18}, the authors directly solve the original model with the boundary feedback whereas in our paper we solve the target systems that have homogeneous boundary values first and then use the bounded invertibility properties of the backstepping transformation to find the solution of the original model. In this way, we can use a finite element method which suits best for homogeneous boundary value problems and not susceptible to numerical errors which might happen due to inhomogeneous and rough boundary interactions. Moreover, we do not solve the kernel PDE model numerically since it is defined on a triangular region which might create complications from the point of computational aspects. Instead, we use the idea of the proof of Lemma \ref{lemkernel} and construct a numerical kernel through the same procedure. Namely, we obtain an exact polynomial after sufficiently many iterations and use the resulting polynomial as a numerical approximation to the sought after kernel.
\subsection{Preliminaries and notation}\label{secinv}
Given $1\leq p\leq \infty $ and $u\in L^p(0,L)$, $|u|_p$ will denote its $L^p(0,L)$ norm, i.e. $|u|_p=\left(\int_0^L|u(x)|^pdx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \text{ if } p<\infty$ and $|u|_\infty=\displaystyle \esssup_{x\in(0,L)}|u(x)|.$
We will write $ A\lesssim B$ in the sense of $A\leq cB$ where the constant $c>0$ may depend on the fixed parameters of the problem under consideration which are not of interest.
We will use $X_T^s$, $(s\ge 0)$ to denote the spaces $$C([0,T];H^s(0,L)) \cap L^2(0,T;H^{s+1}(0,L)).$$
If $A$ is a linear bounded operator on $L^2(0,L)$, we will denote its operator norm on $L^2(0,L)$ by $|A|_{2\rightarrow 2}$.
The following form of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg's inequality will be quite useful in nonlinear estimates.
\begin{lem}\label{gag} Let $p\ge 2$, $\alpha=1/2-1/p$, and $u\in H^1(0,L)$. Then, $|u|_{p}\le c_1|u'|_{2}^\alpha|u|_{2}^{1-\alpha}+c_2|u|_2,$ where $c_1,c_2$ are positive constants depending only on $L$. If in addition $u\in H_0^1(0,L)$, then $c_2=0$.
\end{lem}
We will also need the following higher order Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in developing the linear theory:
\begin{lem}\label{gag2}Let $u\in H^m(0,L)$ and $\alpha=j/m\le 1$ where $j,m\in \mathbb{N}$. Then, $|u^{(j)}|_{2}\le c_1|u^{(m)}|_{2}^\alpha|u|_{2}^{1-\alpha}+c_2|u|_2,$ where $c_1,c_2$ are positive constants depending only on $L$ and $m$. If in addition $u\in H_0^1(0,L)$, then $c_2=0$.
\end{lem}
Let $\eta$ be a $C^\infty$-function and $\Upsilon_{\eta}:H^l(0,L)\rightarrow H^l(0,L)$ ($l\ge 0$) be the integral operator defined by $(\Upsilon_{\eta}\varphi)(x):=\int_x^L{\eta}(x,y)\varphi(y)dy.$ Then, $\Upsilon_{\eta}$ has the following remarkable properties.
\begin{lem}\label{inverselem}
$I-\Upsilon_{\eta}$ is invertible with a bounded inverse from $H^l(0,L)\rightarrow H^l(0,L)$ ($l\ge 0$). Moreover, $(I-\Upsilon_{\eta})^{-1}$ can be written as $I+\Phi$, where $\Phi$ is a bounded operator from $L^2(0,L)$ into $H^l(0,L)$ for $l=0,1,2$ and from $H^{l-2}(0,L)$ into $H^{l}(0,L)$ for $l> 2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof can be done as in \cite[Lemma 2.4]{Liu03} and \cite[Lemma 2.2, Remark 2.3]{BatalOzsari2018-1}, where the integral in the definition of $\Upsilon_{\eta}$ is of the form $\int_0^x$ instead of $\int_x^L$. We omit the details as the arguments are the same.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The following estimates will be useful later:
\begin{align}\label{Phiwest1}
|\Phi w|_{\infty}&\le c_\eta|w|_2, \\
\label{Phiwest2}
|\Phi w|_{2}&\le c_\eta|w|_2, \\
\label{Phiwest3}
\left|\frac{d}{dx}[\Phi w]\right|_{2}&\le c_\eta|w|_2,
\end{align}
where $c_\eta$ is a nonnegative constant depending on various norms of $\eta$, see \cite[Lemma 2.2, Remark 2.4]{BatalOzsari2018-1} for the details.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Outline of the paper} Section \ref{contsecker} is dedicated to the proof of the existence of a smooth backstepping kernel $k$ which solves \eqref{kernela}. We convert \eqref{kernela} into an integral equation and use the method of succession to solve it. Finding a solution of \eqref{kernela} relies on a subtle series analysis. In Section \ref{wpsec}, we study the wellposedness for the linearized and nonlinear models \eqref{heatlin} and \eqref{heat}, respectively. Thanks to the invertibility property of the backstepping transformation presented in Section \ref{secinv}, it is enough to deal with the wellposedness problem for the corresponding target systems. Local solutions for the nonlinear model are obtained via Banach's fixed point theorem by showing that the solution map is contractive on a suitably chosen closed ball of the solution space. This requires a gentle analysis of the nonlinear terms using Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities. We prove the decay of solutions for the linearized and nonlinear models in Section \ref{stabsec}. The multiplier $(1+x)u$ plays a crucial role here. Stabilization is proved only for small solutions in the case of the nonlinear problem due to the structure of the subsequent Lyapunov inequalities. The case $p>1$ is more difficult because then the Lyapunov inequality involves two different nonlinearities. This issue is treated case by case by analysing how one nonlinear term dominates the other one. In Section \ref{obssec}, we design an observer system assuming the second order trace $y(t)=u_{xx}(L,t)$ can be measured. We prove that the observer efficiently estimates the original plant, and most importantly its states can be used to construct a boundary feedback which also stabilizes the original plant. Here, wellposedness analysis is carried out at a higher regularity level. This is essential because the main equation of the observer involves second order traces. In Section \ref{SecNumResults}, we provide numerical experiments and the associated numerical algorithms illustrating the validity of the theoretical results mentioned above to the fullest extent. In Section \ref{obcsec}, we prove the analogues of the above results and provide the related numerical experiments for the set of boundary conditions given in \eqref{bdryconB}. Here, the observer problem is studied at a relatively lower regularity level since we are using the measurement $y(t)=u(L,t)$ instead of a second order trace. In Section 6, we give some remarks based on the comparison of the problem studied here with the dual problem where one places one or two controllers at the right hand side. Finally, we put the details of several lengthy calculations in the Appendices section not to distract the reader too much.
\section{Controller design}\label{contsec}
In this section the purpose is threefold: (i) we prove that the kernel boundary value problem \eqref{kernela} has a $C^\infty$ solution, (ii) we show that the linear plant \eqref{heatlin} is wellposed and the nonlinear plant \eqref{heat} is locally wellposed for $p\in (0,4]$, (iii) we obtain the exponential stability for the linear and nonlinear plants with the prescribed decay rate. This in particular gives the global wellposedness for the nonlinear plant.
\subsection{Backstepping kernel}\label{contsecker}
\subsubsection{Smooth kernel}
In order to prove the existence of a solution of \eqref{kernela} we first make a change of variables and write $G(s,t)\equiv k(x,y)$ with $s\equiv y-x$, $t\equiv L-y$.
We obtain the following relationships between partial derivatives of $G$ and $k$:
\begin{equation}\label{Gk1}
k_x = -G_s, k_y = -G_t+G_s,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Gk2}
k_{xx} = G_{ss}, k_{yy} = G_{tt}-2G_{ts}+G_{ss}, k_{xy} = -G_{ss} + G_{st},
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{Gk3}
k_{xxx} = - G_{sss}, k_{yyy} = -G_{ttt}+3G_{tts}-3G_{sst}+G_{sss}.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{Gk1}-\eqref{Gk3}, the main equation in \eqref{kernela} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{ktoG}
3G_{sst}-3G_{tts}+G_{ttt}+i\tilde{\alpha}(2G_{ts}-G_{tt})+\tilde{\delta}G_t-\tilde{r}G =0.
\end{equation} Moreover, the boundary conditions of $k$ translate as
\begin{align}\label{bGk1}
k(x,x) = 0 &\Leftrightarrow G(0,t) = 0, \\
\label{bGk2}
k(x,L) = 0 &\Leftrightarrow G(s,0) = 0,
\end{align} and
\begin{equation}\label{bGk3}
\frac{d}{dx}k_x(x,x) = 0 \Leftrightarrow G_{st}(0,t) = -\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}\Leftrightarrow G_{s}(0,t) = -\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}t.
\end{equation}
Note that in \eqref{bGk3}, we use the fact that $G_s(0,0)=0$, which follows from \eqref{bGk2}.
\eqref{ktoG}-\eqref{bGk3} gives the equivalent kernel pde model below in the new variables $(s,t)$.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kernelGa}
\begin{cases}
3G_{sst}-3G_{tts}+G_{ttt}+i\tilde{\alpha}(2G_{ts}-G_{tt})+\tilde{\delta }G_t-\tilde{r} G=0\\
G(0,t)=G(s,0)=0,\\
G_s(0,t)=-\frac{\tilde{r}t}{3},
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray} where $(s,t)$ belongs to the rotated triangular domain $\Delta_{s,t}\doteq\{(s,t)\in \mathbb{R}^2\,|\,s\in (0,L), t\in (0,L-s)\} \text{ (see Figure }\ref{fig:Deltaxy}).$
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [black, fill={rgb:orange,1;yellow,2;pink,5}] (0,0) -- (2.5,2.5) -- (0,2.5) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick, <->] (0,3) node[above]{$y$} -- (0,0) -- (3,0) node[right]{$x$};
\filldraw
(2.5,0) circle (1pt) node[align=center, below] {$L$};
\filldraw
(0,2.5) circle (1pt) node[align=center, left] {$L$};
\draw[dotted]
(2.5,0) -- (2.5,2.5);
\node[align=center] (title) at (1.5,-0.7) {{Triangular region $\Delta_{x,y}$}};
\node (A) at (3,1.8) {};
\node (B) at (6,1.8) {};
\draw[->,thick] (A.north) to [bend left = 30] node[above,yshift=12pt] {$s = y - x$} node[above] {$t = L - y$} (B.north);
\draw [black, fill={rgb:orange,1;yellow,2;pink,5}] (7,2.5) -- (7,0) -- (9.5,0) -- (7,2.5);
\draw [thick, <->] (7,3) node[above]{$t$} -- (7,0) -- (10,0) node[right]{$s$};
\filldraw
(9.5,0) circle (1pt) node[align=center, below] {$L$};
\filldraw
(7,2.5) circle (1pt) node[align=center, left] {$L$};
\node[align=center] (title) at (8.5,-0.7) {{Triangular region $\Delta_{s,t}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Triangular regions} \label{fig:Deltaxy}
\end{figure}
We will convert \eqref{kernelGa} into an equivalent integral equation. To this end, we first write
$$G_{sst}=DG\doteq\frac{1}{3}\left[3G_{tts}-G_{ttt}-i\tilde{\alpha}(2G_{ts}-G_{tt})-\tilde{\delta}G_t+\tilde{r}G\right].$$ Integrating the above identity in $t$ and twice in the first variable and using \eqref{bGk1}-\eqref{bGk3}
we deduce that $G$ solves
\begin{eqnarray}\label{GepsInt}G(s,t)=-\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}st+\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega[DG](\xi,\eta)d\xi d\omega d\eta\end{eqnarray} if and only if it solves \eqref{kernelGa}.
Existence of a solution of \eqref{kernelGa} will be proven by applying the successive approximations method to the integral equation \eqref{GepsInt}. Indeed, we prove the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemkernel} There exists a $C^\infty$-function ${G}$ such that ${G}$ solves the integral equation \eqref{GepsInt} as well as the boundary value problem given in \eqref{kernelGa}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Let $P$ be defined by
\begin{equation}\label{aP}
(P f)(s,t) \doteq \int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega[Df](\xi,\eta)d\xi d\omega d\eta.
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{GepsInt} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{GPG}
G(s,t)=-\frac{{\tilde{r}}}{3}st+PG(s,t).
\end{equation}
Define $G^0\equiv 0,$ $\displaystyle G^1(s,t)=-\frac{{\tilde{r}}}{3}st,$ and
$G^{n+1}=G^1+P G^n.$ Then for $n\geq 1$, $$G^{n+1}-G^{n} = P(G^{n}-G^{n-1}).$$
Defining $H^n\equiv-\frac{3}{\tilde{r}}(G^{n+1}-G^{n})$ we see that $H^0(s,t)=st$, $H^{n+1}=PH^n$ and for $j>i,$
\begin{equation}\label{aCauchy}
G^j-G^i= \sum_{n=i}^{j-1}(G^{n+1}-G^{n})=-\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}\sum_{n=i}^{j-1}H^{n}.
\end{equation}
Let us denote the supremum norm of a function in the triangle $\Delta_{s,t}$ by $| \cdot |_{\infty}$. From \eqref{aCauchy} we see that if $H^n$ (and its partial derivatives) is an absolutely summable sequence with respect to the norm $| \cdot |_{\infty}$ then $G^n$ (and its partial derivatives) is Cauchy with respect to the same norm, which implies $G^n$'s are convergent and the limit solves \eqref{GepsInt}. So let us start by writing $P$ as sum of six operators $$P= P_{2,-2}+P_{1,-1}+P_{2,-1}+P_{1,0}+P_{2,0}+P_{2,1},$$ where
\begin{align*}
P_{2,-2}f&= -\frac{1}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{ttt}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta, \\
P_{1,-1}f&=\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{tts}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta, \\
P_{2,-1}f&=\frac{i\tilde{\alpha}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{tt}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta, \\
P_{1,0}f&= -\frac{2 i\tilde{\alpha}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{ts}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta,\\
P_{2,0}f&= -\frac{\tilde{\delta}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{t}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta, \\
P_{2,1}f&= \frac{\tilde{r}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{aproduct}
H^n=P^nH^0=(P_{2,-2}+P_{1,-1}+P_{2,-1}+P_{1,0}+P_{2,0}+P_{2,1})^nst=\sum_{r=1}^{6^n}R_{r,n}st,
\end{equation}
where $R_{r,n}:=P_{i_{r,n}, j_{r,n}}P_{i_{r,n-1}, j_{r,n-1}}\cdot\cdot\cdot P_{i_{r,1},j_{r,1}}$, $i_{r,q} \in \{1,2\}$, $j_{r,q} \in \{-2,-1,0,1\}$ for $1\le q\le n$.
Note that for positive integers $m$ and nonnegative integers $k$
\begin{equation}\label{aPi}
P_{i,j}s^m t^k= c_{i,j}s^{m+i} t^{k+j}
\end{equation}
where $c_{i,j}=0$ if $j+k\leq 0$ or $i+m = 1$, and
\begin{equation}\label{acm2}
\begin{split}
c_{2,-2}&=-\frac{k(k-1)}{3(m+1)(m+2)}, \\
c_{1,-1}&=\frac{k}{(m+1)}, \\
c_{2,-1}&=\frac{i\tilde{\alpha}k}{3(m+1)(m+2)}, \\
c_{1,0}&=-\frac{2i\tilde{\alpha}}{3(m+1)}, \\
c_{2,0}&=-\frac{\tilde{\delta}}{3(m+1)(m+2)}, \\
c_{2,1}&=\frac{\tilde{r}}{3(m+1)(m+2)(k+1)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
otherwise. Let $\sigma=\sigma(n,r)\equiv\sum_{q=1}^n j_{r,q}$. From \eqref{aPi}-\eqref{acm2} one can see that for each $n$ and $r$
\begin{equation}\label{amonomials}
R_{r,n}st=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text { if } \sigma \leq-1,\\
C_{r,n}s^\beta t^{\sigma+1} & \text { if } \sigma > -1\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $n+1\leq \beta\leq 2n+1$ and $C_{r,n}$ is a constant which only depends on $n$ and $r$.
Let $M=\max\{1,|\tilde{\alpha}|,|\tilde{\delta}|,|\tilde{r}|\}$. We claim that for each $n$ and $r$,
\begin{equation}\label{aclaim}
|C_{r,n}|\leq \frac{M^n}{(n+1)!(\sigma+1)!}.
\end{equation}
Taking $m=1$, $k=1$ in \eqref{aPi}-\eqref{acm2} we see that the claim holds for $n=1$. Suppose it holds for $n=\ell-1$ and for all $r \in \{1,2,.. ,6^{\ell -1}\}$. Then for $n=\ell$ and $r^* \in \{1,2,.. ,6^{\ell}\}$, using \eqref{aPi} and \eqref{amonomials}, we get $$R_{r^*,\ell}st=P_{i,j} R_{r,\ell-1}st= C_{r,\ell-1}P_{i,j} s^\beta t^{\sigma+1}=C_{r,\ell-1}c_{i,j} s^{\beta^*} t^{\sigma^*+1}$$
for some $i\in\{1,2\}$, $j\in\{-2,-1,0,1\}$ and $r \in \{1,2,.. ,6^{\ell -1}\}$, where $\beta^*$ is either $\beta+1$ or $\beta+2$, $\sigma^*=\sigma +j$. By the induction assumption $C_{r,\ell-1}\leq \frac{M^{\ell-1}}{\ell!(\sigma+1)!}.$ Moreover using \eqref{acm2} and the fact that $\beta\geq \ell$ we see that $|c_{i,j}|\leq M\frac{\sigma+1}{\ell+1}$ for $j=-1,-2$, $|c_{i,0}| <\frac{M}{\ell+1}$, and $|c_{i,1}|< \frac{M}{(\sigma+2)(\ell+1)}$. Hence for each $i\in \{1,2\}$ and $j\in \{-2,-1,0,1\}$ we obtain $$|C_{r^*,\ell}|= |C_{r,(\ell-1)}c_{i,j}| \leq \frac{M^{\ell}}{(\ell+1)!(\sigma+j+1)!}=\frac{M^{\ell}}{(\ell+1)!(\sigma^*+1)!}$$ which proves that the claim holds for $n=\ell$ as well.
Using \eqref{aproduct}, \eqref{amonomials}, \eqref{aclaim} and the fact that $0\leq s, t \leq L$ in the triangle $\Delta_{s,t}$ we obtain \begin{equation}\label{Hnest0}|H^n|_{\infty}\leq \frac{6^n M^n L^{3n+2}}{(n+1)!}\end{equation} which shows $H^n$ is absolutely summable. On the other hand since $H^n$ is a linear combination of $6^n$ monomials of the form $s^\beta t^{\sigma+1}$ with $\beta\leq 2n+1$ and $\sigma\leq n$,
any partial derivative $\partial^a_s \partial^b_t H^n$ of $H^n$ will be absolutely less than \begin{equation}\label{Hnest}\displaystyle\frac{(2n+1)^a (n+1)^b 6^n M^nL^{3n+2-a-b}}{(n+1)!}\end{equation} which is a summable sequence.
\end{proof}
A graph and a contour plot of the kernel are given below in Figure \ref{fig:kernel} for the particular values of parameters given by $L=\pi$, $\beta = 1$, $\alpha = 2$, $\delta = 8$, and $r = 1$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{kernel_k_3d}
\label{fig:ker_contour}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{kernel_k_contour}
\label{fig:ker_x=0}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Backstepping kernel on $\Delta_{x,y}$ for $L=\pi$, $\beta = 1$, $\alpha = 2$, $\delta = 8$ and $r = 1$.}
\label{fig:kernel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Wellposedness}\label{wpsec}
\subsubsection{Linear model}
We introduce the notation $\tilde{w}(x,t)\doteq e^{rt}w(x,t)$, where $r>0$ and $w$ is the sought-after solution of the linearized target system \eqref{target}. Then $\tilde{w}$ satisfies the following pde model
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targettilde}
\begin{cases}
i\tilde{w}_t + i\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{w}_x= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(0,t)=0, \tilde{w}(L,t)=0, \tilde{w}_x(L,t)=0,\\
\tilde{w}(x,0)=\tilde{w}_0(x)\doteq w_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Regarding the above model, the following wellposedness result is known.
\begin{prop}[\cite{chen2018}]\label{wtildeprop}
Let $T>0$, $\tilde{w}_0\in L^2(0,L)$. Then \eqref{targettilde} has a unique mild solution $\tilde{w}\in X_T^0$ which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{linearestimate}
|\tilde{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |\tilde{w}|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))}\le C(1+\sqrt{T})|\tilde{w}_0|_2
\end{equation} and the trace regularity $\tilde{w}_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem} Note that the initial value problem \eqref{targettilde} can be written in the operator theoretic form $$\frac{d}{dt}\tilde{w}(t)=A\tilde{w}(t), \tilde{w}(0)=\tilde{w}_0,$$ where $A\phi = -\beta \phi'''+i\alpha \phi''-\delta \phi'$ with $D(A)\equiv \{\phi\in H^3(0,L)\,|\, \phi(0)=\phi(L)=\phi'(L)=0\}$. It is not difficult to show that $A$ generates a $C_0$-semigroup $S(t)$ in the underlying space $L^2(0,L)$. Then, for any $\tilde{w}_0\in L^2(0,L)$, $\tilde{w}(t)=S(t)\tilde{w}_0$ defines a function in the space $C([0,T];L^2(0,L))$ which is referred to as the \emph{mild} solution of \eqref{targettilde} (see e.g., \cite{Pazy}).
\end{rem}
Proposition \ref{wtildeprop} is also valid for $\tilde{w}$ replaced by $w$ since $w(x,t)=e^{-rt}\tilde{w}(x,t)$, which implies $|w(t)|_2\le |\tilde{w}(t)|_2$ and $|w_x(t)|_2\le |\tilde{w}_x(t)|_2$. The wellposedness of the original linearized plant \eqref{heatlin} can now be obtained via the bounded invertibility of the backstepping transformation given in Lemma \ref{inverselem} and we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{wplin}
Let $T>0$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$, and $g_0$ be as in \eqref{controller}, where $k$ is the backstepping kernel constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel}. Then \eqref{heatlin} has a unique mild solution $u\in X_T^0$ which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{linearestimate}
|u|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |u|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))}\le c_k(1+\sqrt{T})|u_0|_2
\end{equation} and the trace regularity $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}The proof follows from Proposition \ref{wtildeprop} (where $\tilde{w}$ replaced with $w$), Lemma \ref{inverselem}, the observations
\begin{align*}\label{uwrel1}
|u(t)|_{2} &\le |(I-\Upsilon_k)^{-1}|_{2\rightarrow 2}|w(t)|_2,\\
|u_x(t)|_{2} &\le |(I-\Upsilon_{k_x})^{-1}|_{2\rightarrow 2}|w_x(t)|_2,
\end{align*} and
\begin{equation}\label{uwrel2}
|w_0|_{2} \le |(I-\Upsilon_k)|_{2\rightarrow 2}|u_0|_2.
\end{equation}
Note that the trace regularity $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$ follows from
\begin{equation}\label{tracereg}
w_x(0,t) = u_x(0,t) - \int_0^Lk_x(0,y)u(y,t)dy.
\end{equation}
Indeed, from \eqref{tracereg}, we have
\begin{equation}
|u_x(0,\cdot)|_{L^2(0,T)} \le |w_x(0,\cdot)|_{L^2(0,T)}+\sqrt{T}\left|k_x(0,\cdot)\right|_{2}|u|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(0,L))}<\infty.\nonumber
\end{equation}\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Nonlinear model}\label{nonlinwp}
By using the backstepping transformation in \eqref{backstepping}, we obtain the following pde from \eqref{heat} and the properties of the kernel $k$:
\begin{equation}\label{ch414}
iw_t + i\beta w_{xxx} +\alpha w_{xx} +i\delta w_x + ir w
= -(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{w}+ v|^p\left({w} + v\right)]
\end{equation}
with homogeneous boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{ch414bdry}
{w}(0,t) = 0 \; , \; {w}(L,t) = 0, \quad \textrm{and} \quad {w}_{x}(L,t) = 0,
\end{equation} where $v(x,t)=[\Phi{w}](x,t)$, with $\Phi$ being the linear operator defined in Section \ref{secinv} in Lemma \ref{inverselem}. Indeed, for the nonlinear case, the right hand side of \eqref{backstepping-t} has the additional term $$-i\int_x^Lk(x,y)|u(y,t)|^pu(y,t)dy=-i\Upsilon_k[|u|^pu](x,t).$$ Moreover, we have the nonlinear analogue of \eqref{udenklin}:
\begin{multline}\label{udenknonlin}
iu_t(x,t)+i\beta u_{xxx}(x,t)+\alpha u_{xx}(x,t)+i\delta u_x(x,t) \\ =-|u(x,t)|^pu(x,t) =-I[|u|^pu](x,t).
\end{multline}
Combining these with the assumed properties of the kernel which solves \eqref{kernela}, we see that the right hand side of \eqref{wtoplam1} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{rhswtoplamnon}
\Upsilon_k[|u|^pu](x,t)-I[|u|^pu](x,t)=-(I-\Upsilon_k)[|u|^pu](x,t).
\end{equation} In order to represent the above term in $w$, we can use the fact that $w=(I-\Upsilon_k)u$, which implies $(I-\Upsilon_k)^{-1}w=(I+\Phi)w=u$. Therefore, the right hand side of \eqref{rhswtoplamnon} can be rewritten as
$$-(I-\Upsilon_k)[|w+\Phi(w)|^p(w+\Phi(w))](x,t),$$ which gives us the right hand side term in \eqref{ch414}.
In order to prove the wellposedness of \eqref{ch414}, we first consider the linear nonhomogeneous model below:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targetf}
\begin{cases}
iw_t + i\beta w_{xxx} +\alpha w_{xx} +i\delta w_x + ir w= f, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
w(0,t)=0, w(L,t)=0, w_x(L,t)=0,\\
w(x,0)=w_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}where $f\in L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))$. Again, changing variables via $\tilde{w}(x,t)\doteq e^{rt}w(x,t)$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targettildef}
\begin{cases}
i\tilde{w}_t + i\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{w}_x= \tilde{f}, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(0,t)=0, \tilde{w}(L,t)=0, \tilde{w}_x(L,t)=0,\\
\tilde{w}(x,0)=\tilde{w}_0(x)\doteq w_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray} where $\tilde{f}(x,t) =e^{rt}f(x,t)$. The following result is known.
\begin{prop}[\cite{chen2018}]\label{wtildepropf}
Let $T>0$, $\tilde{w}_0\in L^2(0,L)$, $\tilde{f}\in L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))$. Then \eqref{targettildef} has a unique mild solution $\tilde{w}\in X_T^0$ which satisfies
\begin{equation*}\label{linearestimate}
|\tilde{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |\tilde{w}|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))}\le C(1+\sqrt{T})\left(|\tilde{w}_0|_2 +|\tilde{f}|_{L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))}\right)
\end{equation*} and the trace regularity $\tilde{w}_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
\end{prop}
Again, from the relationship between $w$ and $\tilde{w}$ as well as $f$ and $\tilde{f}$, we can say that \eqref{targetf} has a unique mild solution ${w}\in X_T^0$ which satisfies
\begin{multline}
|{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |{w}|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))} \\ \le C(1+\sqrt{T})\left(|{w}_0|_2 +e^{rT}|f|_{L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))}\right) \label{linearestimate}
\end{multline} and the trace regularity ${w}_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
Assuming given initial and boundary data are smoother, one can prove that the solution is also smoother. More precisely, we have the following higher regularity result.
\begin{prop}\label{wtildehigherreg}
Let $T>0$, $\tilde{w}_0\in H^3(0,L)$, $\tilde{f}\in W^{1,1}(0,T;L^2(0,L))$. Assume further that the compatibility conditions $\tilde{w}_0(0)=\tilde{w}_0(L)=0$ hold. Then \eqref{targettildef} has a unique solution $\tilde{w}\in X_T^3$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Follows by differentiating \eqref{targettildef} in time and applying Proposition \eqref{wtildepropf} to $\tilde{w}_t.$
\end{proof}
In order to obtain the local solution of the nonlinear model \eqref{ch414}, we will use the contraction argument. To this end, we first set the space $Y_T \doteq X_T^0$ and the solution map
\begin{equation}\label{YT}
[\Gamma z](t) \doteq S(t)w_0 + \int_0^tS(t-s)Fz(s)ds,
\end{equation} where $Fz\doteq -(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{z}+ \Phi(z)|^p\left({z} + \Phi(z)\right)]$ and $S(t)w_0$ denotes the solution of the corresponding linear equation \eqref{target}.
By using the linear homogeneous and nonhomogeneous estimates, we obtain that for any $z\in Y_T$, one has
\begin{multline}\label{maptoitself}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le C(1+\sqrt{T}) \\
\times\left [|{w}_0|_2 +e^{rT}\left(\int_0^T\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{z}+ \Phi(z)|^p\left({z} + \Phi(z)\right)]\right|_{2}dt\right)\right].
\end{multline} Using Gagliardo-Nirenberg's inequality, the inequalities \eqref{Phiwest2}-\eqref{Phiwest3}, the last term at the right hand side of \eqref{maptoitself} can be estimated as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitself2}
\begin{split}
&\int_0^T\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{z}+ \Phi(z)|^p\left({z} + \Phi(z)\right)]\right|_{2}dt \\
\le& c_k\int_0^T\left||{z}+ \Phi(z)|^p\left({z} + \Phi(z)\right)]\right|_{2}dt\\
=& c_k\int_0^T\left|z+ \Phi(z)\right|_{2p+2}^{p+1}dt \\
\le& c_k\int_0^T\left(\left|z+ \Phi(z)\right|_{2}^{\frac{p+2}{2}}\left|z_x+ \partial_x\Phi(z)\right|_{2}^{\frac{p}{2}}+\left|z+ \Phi(z)\right|_{2}^{p+1}\right)dt\\
\le&c_{k}\int_0^T\left(\left|z\right|_{2}^{\frac{p+2}{2}}\left|z_x\right|_{2}^{\frac{p}{2}}+|z|_2^{p+1}\right)dt \\
\le&c_k|z|_{C([0,T];L^2(0,L))}^{\frac{p+2}{2}}\int_0^T\left|z_x\right|_{2}^{\frac{p}{2}}dt+c_kT|z|_{C([0,T];L^2(0,L))}^{p+1}\\
\le&c_{k}T^{1-\frac{p}{4}}|z|_{C([0,T];L^2(0,L))}^{\frac{p+2}{2}}|z_x|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(0,L))}^\frac{p}{2}+c_kT|z|_{Y_T}^{p+1} \\
\le& c_kT^{1-\frac{p}{4}}|z|_{Y_T}^{p+1}+c_kT|z|_{Y_T}^{p+1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{maptoitself} and \eqref{maptoitself2}, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{YTontoitself}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le C(1+\sqrt{T})\left[|{w}_0|_2+c_ke^{rT}T^{1-\frac{p}{4}}|z|_{Y_T}^{p+1}+c_kT|z|_{Y_T}^{p+1}\right]
\end{equation} for $z\in Y_T$.
Without loss of generality, we will assume that $0<T<1$ since it is enough to prove the local existence of for one sufficiently small $T$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Case (i):] If $0<p<4$, then $\theta\doteq1-\frac{p}{4}>0$, and letting $R\doteq4C|{w}_0|_2$ and $z\in B_R^T \doteq \{z\in Y_T|\,|z|_{Y_T}\le R\},$ from \eqref{YTontoitself} we get
\begin{equation}\label{Brest1}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le \frac{R}{2}+c_ke^{rT}T^{\theta}R^{p+1}+c_kTR^{p+1}.
\end{equation}
Now, we can choose $T$ small enough that $c_ke^{rT}T^{\theta}R^{p}+c_kTR^{p} < \frac{1}{2},$ so that we can guarantee $\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le R.$
\item[Case (ii):] If $p=4$, we observe that $\theta=0$. Suppose $|w_0|_{2}\le \epsilon$ and set $R=R(\epsilon)\doteq4\epsilon C$. Then, from \eqref{YTontoitself} we have
\begin{equation}\label{Brest2}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le \frac{R}{2}+c_ke^{rT}R^{p+1}+c_kTR^{p+1}.
\end{equation} Note that $\displaystyle c_ke^{rT}R^{p}+c_kTR^{p} <\frac{1}{2}$ for small $\epsilon$ and small $T>0$. Therefore, we again have $\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_T} \le R$ under a smallness condition on $w_0$.
\end{enumerate}
By cases (i)-(ii) above, we conclude that $\Gamma$ maps the closed ball $B_{R}^T$ onto itself for $p\in (0,4]$.
Next, we would like to show that $\Gamma$ is indeed a contraction on $B_{R}^T$ for sufficiently small $T$. To prove this let $z_1$ and $z_2$ be two elements in $Y_T$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{contraction}
\begin{split}
\left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_T} =& \left|\int_0^\cdot S(\cdot-s)[Fz_1(s)-Fz_2(s)]ds\right|_{Y_T} \\
\le& ce^{rT}|Fz_1-Fz_2|_{L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))} \\
\le& ce^{rT} \left( \int_0^T\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)|^p\left({z}_1 + \Phi(z_1)\right) \right.\right. \\
&\left.\left. -|{z}_2+ \Phi(z_2)|^p\left({z}_2 + \Phi(z_2)\right)]\right|_{2}dt \right) \\
\le& c_k\int_0^T\left||{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)|^p\left({z}_1 + \Phi(z_1)\right)-|{z}_2+ \Phi(z_2)|^p\left({z}_2 + \Phi(z_2)\right)]\right|_{2}dt\\
\le& c_k\int_0^T\big||{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)-z_2-\Phi(z_2)|(|{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)|^p+|{z}_2+ \Phi(z_2)|^p)\big|_{2}dt\\
\le& c_k\int_0^T|{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)-z_2-\Phi(z_2)|_{2}\big(|{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)|_{2p}^p+|{z}_2+ \Phi(z_2)|_{2p}^p\big)dt.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that due to \eqref{Phiwest2}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{zPgi12}
|{z}_1+ \Phi(z_1)-z_2-\Phi(z_2)|_{2}\le c_k|{z}_1-z_2|_{2}.
\end{equation}
We divide the analysis of the nonlinear part in two cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Case (i):] If $0<p\le 1$, then using Hölder's inequality (if $p\in (0,1)$) and \eqref{Phiwest2}, we get \begin{equation}\label{z1z2phi}
|{z}_i+ \Phi(z_i)|_{2p}^p\le c|{z}_i+ \Phi(z_i)|_2^p\le c_k|{z}_i|_2^p
\end{equation} for $i=1,2$. Applying \eqref{zPgi12} and \eqref{z1z2phi} to the right hand side of \eqref{contraction}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_T} \le& c_k\int_0^T|{z}_1-z_2|_{2}(|z_1|_2^p+|z_2|_2^p)dt\nonumber\\
\le& c_kT|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}(|z_1|_{Y_T}^p+|z_2|_{Y_T}^p)\le c_kTR^p|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}.\label{contraction2}
\end{align} For sufficiently small $T$, we can guarantee that $c_kTR^p<1$ so that $\Gamma$ becomes a contraction on $B_R^T.$
\item[Case (ii):] If $4\ge p>1$, then we use Gagliardo-Nirenberg's inequality and \eqref{Phiwest2} to get
\begin{align}
|{z}_i+ \Phi(z_i)|_{2p}^p\le& c\left(|{z}_i+ \Phi(z_i)|_2^\frac{p+1}{2}|\partial_x{z}_i+ \partial_x\Phi(z_i)|_2^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+|z_i|_2^p\right)\nonumber\\
\le& c_k\left(|{z}_i|_2^\frac{p+1}{2}|\partial_x{z}_i|_2^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+|z_i|_2^p\right)\label{z1z2phigag}
\end{align} for $i=1,2$. Applying \eqref{zPgi12} and \eqref{z1z2phigag} to the right hand side of \eqref{contraction} and using Hölder's inequality, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{contraction3}
\begin{split}
\left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_T}
\le&c_k\int_0^T|{z}_1-z_2|_{2}\left(|{z}_1|_2^\frac{p+1}{2}|\partial_x{z}_1|_2^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+|z_1|_2^p \right. \\
&\left. +|{z}_2|_2^\frac{p+1}{2}|\partial_x{z}_2|_2^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+|z_2|_2^p\right)dt\\
\le&c_k(T^{\frac{5-p}{4}}+T)|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}(|z_1|_{Y_T}^{p}+|z_2|_{Y_T}^{p}) \\
\le&c_k(T^{\frac{5-p}{4}}+T)R^p|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}.
\end{split}
\end{equation} For sufficiently small $T$, we can guarantee that $c_k(T^{\frac{5-p}{4}}+T)R^p<1$ so that $\Gamma$ becomes a contraction on $B_R^T.$
\end{enumerate}
By cases (i)-(ii) above, we conclude that $\Gamma$ is a contraction on the closed ball $B_{R}^T$, and therefore has a unique fixed point, say $w\in B_{R}^T$. By choosing $T$ small enough, we can further claim that the solution is indeed unique in $Y_T$. In order to see this, suppose to the contrary that there are two solutions $z_1=\Gamma z_1,z_2=\Gamma z_2\in Y_T$. Then in the first case where $0<p\le 1$, from \eqref{contraction2}, we see that for small enough $T$
\begin{equation}\label{contrac001}
\left|z_1-z_2\right|_{Y_T} = \left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_T} \le c_kT|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}(|z_1|_{Y_T}^p+|z_2|_{Y_T}^p)\le \frac{1}{2}|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T},
\end{equation} which can only hold if $z_1-z_2=0$. Similarly, in the second case where $1<p\le 4$, from \eqref{contraction3}, we see that for small enough $T$
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left|z_1-z_2\right|_{Y_T} =& \left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_T} \\
\le& c_k\left(T^{\frac{5-p}{4}}+T\right)|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T}(|z_1|_{Y_T}^{p}+|z_2|_{Y_T}^{p})\le \frac{1}{2}|{z}_1-z_2|_{Y_T},\label{contrac001}
\end{split}
\end{equation} which can only hold if $z_1-z_2=0$.
We have just proved the following local wellposedness result for the target system.
\begin{prop}\label{condepdat}
Let $T>0$, $p\in (0,4]$, $w_0\in L^2(0,L)$ (small if $p=4$), then \eqref{ch414}-\eqref{ch414bdry} admits a unique solution $w\in X_{T_0}^0$ for some $T_0\in (0,T]$. Moreover, the flow $w_0\mapsto w$ is continuous from $L^2(0,L)$ into $X_{T_0}^0$.
\end{prop}
Thanks to the bounded invertibility of $I-\Upsilon_k$ given in Lemma \ref{inverselem} on the $L^2$-based Sobolev spaces, we conclude that the original nonlinear plant \eqref{heat} is also locally wellposed as stated in the proposition below.
\begin{prop}\label{nonlinprop}Let $T>0$, $p\in (0,4]$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$ (small if $p=4$), and $g_0$ be as in \eqref{controller}, where $k$ is the backstepping kernel constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel}. Then \eqref{heat} admits a unique solution $u\in X_{T_0}^0$ for some $T_0\in (0,T]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
It will turn out in the next section that the local solution of the target system \eqref{ch414}-\eqref{ch414bdry} as well as the local solution of the original plant \eqref{heat} are global (i.e., $T_0=T$) and also exponentially decay in time with respect to $L^2$ norm in space provided that $|u_0|_2$ is not too large.
\end{rem}
Finally, we will need a higher regularity result to justify the multiplier calculations for local solutions of \eqref{ch414} in the next section. We prove the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{higerreg}
Let $T>0$, $p\in (0,4]$, $w_0\in H^3(0,L)$ ($|w_0|_2$ small if $p=4$) and satisfy the compatibility conditions $w_0(0)=w_0(L)=0$. Then \eqref{ch414}-\eqref{ch414bdry} admits a unique solution $w\in X_{T_0}^3$ for some $T_0\in (0,T].$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_0\in H^3(0,L)$ with $w_0(0)=w_0(L)=0$, and $w\in Y_{T_0}$ be the corresponding fixed solution of \eqref{ch414}. Now, we consider the problem
\begin{equation}\label{ch414dt}
iz_t + i\beta z_{xxx} +\alpha z_{xx} +i\delta z_x + ir z = F(w,z),
\end{equation} where
\begin{equation}\label{reg1}
\begin{split}
F(w,z)=&-(I-\Upsilon_{k})\left[\frac{p+2}{2}|{w}+ \Phi(w)|^p\left(z + \Phi(z)\right)\right.\\ &\left.+\frac{p}{2}|{w}+\Phi(w)|^{p-2}(w+\Phi(w))^2\left({\bar{z}} + \overline{\Phi(z)}\right)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation} Moreover, we associate $z$ with initial and boundary conditions given by
\begin{equation}\label{ch414initdt}
{z}(0) = z_0 = -\beta w_0''' +i\alpha w_0''-\delta w'-rw_0 +i(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|w_0+ \Phi(w_0)|^p\left(w_0 + \Phi(w_0)\right)],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{ch414bdrydt}
{z}(0,t) = 0 \; , \; {z}(L,t) = 0, \quad \textrm{and} \quad {z}_{x}(L,t) = 0.
\end{equation}
We define the solution map
\begin{equation}\label{YTdt}
[\Gamma z](t) \doteq S(t)z_0 + \int_0^tS(t-s)F(w(s),z(s))ds
\end{equation} on $Y_{T_0}$. Then, similar to \eqref{maptoitself}, we have the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitselfdt}
\begin{split}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_{T_0}} \le& C(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})\left[|{z}_0|_2 +e^{r{T_0}}|F(w,z)|_{L^1(0,{T_0};L^2(0,L))}\right] \\ =&C(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})\left[|{z}_0|_2+e^{r{T_0}}\int_0^T\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})\left[\frac{p+2}{2}|{w}+ \Phi(w)|^p\left(z + \Phi(z)\right)\right.\right.\right.\\
&\left.\left.\left.+\frac{p}{2}|{w}+ \Phi(w)|^{p-2}(w+\Phi(w))^2\left({\bar{z}} + \overline{\Phi(z)}\right)\right]\right|_{2}dt\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $0<p\le 1$, then using the same argument in \eqref{z1z2phi}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left||{w}+ \Phi(w)|^p\left(z + \Phi(z)\right)\right|_2 \le |{w}+ \Phi(w)|_{2p}^p|z + \Phi(z)|_2\le c_k|w|_2|z|_2.
\end{equation} Using this in \eqref{maptoitselfdt} and the boundedness of $I-\Upsilon_k$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitselfdt1}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_{T_0}} \le C(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})\left[|{z}_0|_2 + T_0e^{r{T_0}}|w|_{Y_{T_0}}|z|_{Y_{T_0}}\right].
\end{equation}
If $4\ge p> 1$, using the idea in \eqref{z1z2phigag}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left||{w}+ \Phi(w)|^p\left(z + \Phi(z)\right)\right|_2 \le& |{w}+ \Phi(w)|_{2p}^p|z + \Phi(z)|_2 \\
\le& c_k\left(|w|_2^\frac{p+1}{2}|\partial_xw|_2^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+|w|_2^p\right)|z|_2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*} Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitselfdt1}
\left|\Gamma z\right|_{Y_{T_0}} \le C(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})\left[|{z}_0|_2 + c_k(T_0^\frac{5-p}{4}+T_0)e^{r{T_0}}|w|_{Y_{T_0}}^p|z|_{Y_{T_0}}\right].
\end{equation}
Recalling that $w$ is fixed, the differences can be handled exactly in the same way, and
if $0<p\le 1$, then we have
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitselfdt1dif}
\left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_{T_0}} \le C(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})T_0e^{r{T_0}}|w|_{Y_{T_0}}|z_1-z_2|_{Y_{T_0}},
\end{equation} and
if $4\ge p> 1$, then we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{maptoitselfdt1dif}
\left|\Gamma z_1-\Gamma z_2\right|_{Y_{T_0}} \le c_k(1+\sqrt{{T_0}})(T_0^\frac{5-p}{4}+T_0)e^{r{T_0}}|w|_{Y_{T_0}}^p|z_1-z_2|_{Y_{T_0}}.
\end{equation}
Again we can find suitable $R$ and $T_0$, such that $\Gamma$ becomes a contraction on the closed ball $B_R^{T_0}$ of $Y_{T_0}$ which implies $z\in Y_{T_0}$. Note that $w=w_0+\int_0^tz(s)ds$, thanks to the compatibility conditions of $w_0$ and boundary conditions of $z$. In particular, $z=w_t$ and $w\in H^1(0,T_0;H^1(0,L))\subset C([0,T_0]\times [0,L]).$
Note that $$i\beta w_{xxx} = -iw_t -\alpha w_{xx} -i\delta w_x - ir w-(I-\Upsilon_{k})[|{w}+ \Phi(w)|^p\left({w} + \Phi(w)\right)].$$ Now, it follows from Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities and the boundedness properties of $I-\Upsilon_k$ and $\Phi$, that $w\in X_{T_0}^3.$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Stabilization of linear and nonlinear plants}\label{stabsec}
\subsubsection{Linearized model}
Taking $L^2(0,L)$ norms of both sides of \eqref{backstepping}, we get the following
\begin{equation}
\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2\le \left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 + \left|\int_\bullet^Lk(\cdot,y)u(y,t)dy\right|_2.\label{L2backstepping}
\end{equation}
By using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality the last term at the right hand side of \eqref{L2backstepping} is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\left|\int_\bullet^Lk(\cdot,y)u(y,t)dy\right|_2\le \left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2.\label{L2backstepping2}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{L2backstepping} and \eqref{L2backstepping2}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3}
\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le \left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2.
\end{equation}
Evaluating the above inequality at $t=0$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3init}
\left|w_0\right|_2 \le \left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|u_0\right|_2.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we know from Lemma \ref{inverselem} that
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping4}
\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 = \left|[(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}w](\cdot,t)\right|_2\le \left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2.
\end{equation}
Now, \eqref{targetdecay}, \eqref{L2backstepping3init}, and \eqref{L2backstepping4} yield
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping5}
\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le \left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}\left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|u_0\right|_2e^{-rt}
\end{equation} for $t\ge 0$.
We just proved the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{stablin}
Let $r> 0$, $k$ be the smooth backstepping kernel that solves \eqref{kernela} and $u$ be the solution of \eqref{heatlin} where the feedback controller acting at the left Dirichlet boundary condition is chosen as in \eqref{controller}. Then, $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_k\left|u_0\right|_2e^{-rt}, t\ge 0,$ where $c_k \ge 0$ depending only on $k$ given by $ c_k=\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}\left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right).$
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
The constant $c_k$ implicitly depends on $r$ since $k$ depends on $r$.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{Nonlinear model}We do this only formally. A more rigorous proof can be given in view of Proposition \ref{condepdat} and Proposition \ref{higerreg} through a density argument. More precisely, one can first work with a sequence of initial data $w_{0n}$ taken from $H^3(0,L)$ satisfying compatibility conditions $w_{0n}(0)=w_{0n}(L)=0$ such that $w_{0n}\rightarrow w_0$ in $L^2(0,L)$.
To this end, we first multiply \eqref{ch414} by $\bar{w}+x\bar{w}$, integrate over $(0,L)$, and take the imaginary parts. One can easily see that
\begin{equation} \label{xlin1iden2}
\begin{split}
\text{Im}\int_0^Liw_tx\bar{w}dx, &=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left|x^\frac{1}{2}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2, \\
\text{Im}\int_0^Li\beta w_{xxx}x\bar{w}dx &= \frac{3\beta}{2}|w_x(\cdot,t)|_2^2, \\
\text{Im}\int_0^L\alpha w_{xx}x\bar{w}dx &=-\text{Im}\int_0^L\alpha w_{x}\bar{w}dx, \\
\text{Im}\int_0^Li\delta w_xx\bar{w}dx &=-\frac{\delta}{2}|w(\cdot,t)|_2^2, \\
\text{Im}\int_0^Lir wx\bar{w}dx &=r\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{xlin1iden2} and the identities that can be obtained due to the multiplier $\bar{w}$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{nonw1iden}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\right) + (2r-\delta)\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+2r\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 \\
=&-{3\beta}|w_x(\cdot,t)|_2^2 -{\beta}|w_x(0,t)|^2 \\
&+2\text{Im}\int_0^L\alpha w_{x}\bar{w}dx-2\text{Im}\int_0^L[(I-\Upsilon_{k})|{w}+ v|^p\left({w} + v\right)](1+x)\bar{w}dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let us analyze the last term in \eqref{nonw1iden}. We can rewrite this term as
\begin{equation}\label{lastterm1a}
\begin{split}
&-2\text{Im}\int_0^L[(I-\Upsilon_{k})|{w}+ v|^p\left({w} + v\right)](1+x)\bar{w}dx \\
=& -2\text{Im}\int_0^L(1+x)|{w}+ v|^pv\bar{w}dx
+ 2\text{Im}\int_0^L\Upsilon_{k}[|{w}+ v|^p\left({w} + v\right)](1+x)\bar{w}dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The first term at the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a} is estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{lastterm1a1}
-2\text{Im}\int_0^L(1+x)|{w}+ v|^pv\bar{w}dx\le c_{p,L}\int_0^L(|w|^{p+1}|v|+|v|^{p+1}|w|)dx.
\end{equation}
The second term at the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a} is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&2\text{Im}\int_0^L\Upsilon_{k}[|{w}+ v|^p\left({w} + v\right)](1+x)\bar{w}dx\\
=&2\text{Im}\int_0^L(1+x)\bar{w}(x,t) \\
&\times\left(\int_x^Lk(x,y)|{w}(y,t)+ v(y,t)|^p\left({w}(y,t) + v(y,t)\right)dy\right)dx\\
\le& c_{L}|k|_{L^\infty(\Delta_{x,y})}\left(\int_0^L|{w}+ v|^{p+1}dx\right)\int_0^L|{w}|dx\\
\le& c_{k,p,L}\left(|w|_{p+1}^{p+1}+|v|_{p+1}^{p+1}\right)|w|_{2}\\
\le& c_{k,p,L}\left(|w|_{p+1}^{p+1}+|v|_{\infty}^{p+1}\right)|w|_{2}. \label{lastterm1a2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Case 1} ($4\ge p>1$):
In this case, we use the Gagliardo-Nirenberg's and $\epsilon-$Young's inequalities together with \eqref{Phiwest1} to find out that the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a1} can be estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{lastterm1a1c1}
\begin{split}
c_{p,L}|w|_{p+1}^{p+1}|v|_\infty+c_{p,L}|v|_\infty^{p+1}|w|_2 &\le c_{k,p,L}|w|_{2}^{\frac{p+5}{2}}|w_x|_{2}^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}\\
&\le c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}|w|_{2}^{\frac{2(p+5)}{5-p}}+\epsilon|w_x|_{2}^{2}+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation} Similarly, the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a2} can be estimated by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{lastterm1a1c1}c_{k,p,L}\left(|w|_{p+1}^{p+1}+|v|_{\infty}^{p+1}\right)|w|_{2} &\le c_{k,p,L}|w|_{2}^{\frac{p+5}{2}}|w_x|_{2}^{\frac{p-1}{2}}+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}\\
&\le c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}|w|_{2}^{\frac{2(p+5)}{5-p}}+\epsilon|w_x|_{2}^{2}+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We conclude that if $4\ge p>1$, then \eqref{nonw1iden} can be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{nonw1idenest}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\right) + (2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})\left[\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\right] \\
\le& -(\delta+c_{\alpha,\epsilon})\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+3(\epsilon- {\beta})|w_x(\cdot,t)|_2^2 \\
&-{\beta}|w_x(0,t)|^2+c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}|w|_{2}^{\frac{2(p+5)}{5-p}}+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Setting $y(t)=\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2$, for sufficiently small and fixed $\epsilon>0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{yeq1}
\frac{d}{dt}y(t)+(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})y(t)-c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}y^{\frac{p+5}{5-p}}(t)-c_{k,p,L}y^{\frac{p+2}{2}}(t)\le 0
\end{equation} for $t\ge 0$.
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{stab_lem}
If $y$ satisfies \eqref{yeq1} and $y_0:=y(0)$ is sufficiently small and $r$ is sufficiently large, then there exists some $\gamma=\gamma(r,\delta,L,\alpha,\epsilon)>0$ such that $y(t)\lesssim y_0e^{-\gamma t}$ for $t\ge 0.$ Moreover, $\gamma$ can be made arbitrarily large by choosing $r$ large enough.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We divide the proof of the lemma in two parts. At first let us consider the case \begin{equation}\label{Assm1}\displaystyle \frac{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}{2(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})}>1.\end{equation} There is no harm to assume that $y(0)\neq 0$ because if $y(0)=0$ but $y\not\equiv 0$, then there would be a time $t'>0$ s.t. $y(t')\neq 0$, and we can argue starting from time $t'$. Since $\frac{p+5}{5-p},\frac{p+2}{2}>\frac{3}{2}$, the inequality \eqref{yeq1} is satisfied also by $ay$ for any $a>1$. Therefore, without loss of generality we can further assume that $y(0)>1$. Let $t^*\equiv\inf(\{t>0 |\; y(t)=1\}\cup\{\infty\}).$ Observe that $\frac{p+5}{5-p}>\frac{p+2}{2}$ since $p>1$.
Therefore, \eqref{yeq1} implies
\begin{equation}\label{yeq1a1}
\frac{d}{dt}y(t)+(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})y(t)-(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})y^{\frac{p+5}{5-p}}(t)\le 0
\end{equation} for $0<t<t^*$ since in this interval $y(t)>1$.
Now, solving the inequality \eqref{yeq1a1} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{ayinq}
y(t)^{\frac{2p}{5-p}}\leq \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{y(0)^{\frac{2p}{5-p}}}-\frac{c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L}}{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}\right)e^{\frac{2pt(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})}{5-p}}+\frac{c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L}}{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}}
\end{equation}for $0<t<t^*$.
Assumming $y(0)< \left(\frac{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}{2(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})}\right)^{\frac{5-p}{2p}},$ \eqref{ayinq} implies
\begin{equation}
y(t)\leq 2^{\frac{5-p}{2p}}e^{-(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})t}y(0)
\end{equation}for $0<t<t^*$.
This shows that $t^*<\infty$. Since $y(t^*)=1$ and we are assuming \eqref{Assm1}, from the inequality \eqref{yeq1} we see that $y'(t^*)<0$. Hence there exists a maximal interval $(t^*,t_s)$ such that $y(t)<1$ for $t^*<t<t_s$. However \eqref{yeq1} still implies $y'(t)\leq 0$ for $t^*<t<t_s$ hence $t_s=\infty$. In other words $y(t)<1$ for all $t>t^*$. Hence \eqref{yeq1} implies
\begin{equation}\label{yeq1a2}
\frac{d}{dt}y(t)+(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})y(t)-(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})y^{\frac{p+2}{2}}\le 0
\end{equation}
for $t>t^*$. In this case solving \eqref{yeq1a2} we obtain
\begin{equation}
y(t)\leq 2^{\frac{2}{p}}e^{-(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})(t-t^*)}
\end{equation}
for $t>t^*$.
In the second case, where $\displaystyle \frac{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}{2(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})}\leq 1,$ we assume $$y(0)< \min\left\{\left(\frac{2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon}}{2(c_{k,p,L,\epsilon}+c_{k,p,L})}\right)^{\frac{2}{p}},{2^{-\frac{2}{p}}}\right\}.$$ Then $y(t)$ satisfies \eqref{yeq1a2} for $t<t^*$, which implies
\begin{equation}
y(t)\leq 2^{\frac{2}{p}}e^{-(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})t}y(0)< e^{-(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})t}
\end{equation}
for $t<t^*$. Hence $t^*=\infty$ and $y$ decays exponentially.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Case 2} ($0<p\le 1$): In this case, we use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and \eqref{Phiwest1}, and estimate the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a1} by \begin{equation}\label{lastterm1a1c2}c_{p,L}|w|_{2}^{p+1}|v|_\infty+c_{p,L}|v|_\infty^{p+1}|w|_2\le c_{p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.\end{equation} Similarly, the right hand side of \eqref{lastterm1a2} is estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{lastterm1a1c2}c_{k,p,L}|w|_{2}^{p+2}+c_{k,p,L}|v|_\infty^{p+1}|w|_2\le c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.\end{equation}
Therefore, if $0<p\le 1$, then \eqref{nonw1iden} can be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{nonw1idenest2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\right) + (2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})\left[\left|w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\right] \\ \le& -(\delta+c_{\alpha,\epsilon})\left|x^{\frac{1}{2}}w(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+(\epsilon- {3\beta})|w_x(\cdot,t)|_2^2-{\beta}|w_x(0,t)|^2+c_{k,p,L}|w|_2^{p+2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation} Then, for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{yeq2}
\frac{d}{dt}y(t)+(2r-\delta-c_{\alpha,\epsilon})y(t)-c_{k,p,L}y^{\frac{p+2}{2}}(t)\le 0
\end{equation} for $t\ge0$. It is not difficult to show that the solution \eqref{yeq2} decays exponentially for small $y(0).$
Hence, we just proved the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{stabnonlin}
Let $r'> 0$, then there corresponds some suitable $r>0$ and a smooth backstepping kernel $k$ which solves \eqref{kernela} such that the solution $u$ of \eqref{heat}, where the feedback controller acting at the left Dirichlet boundary condition is chosen as in \eqref{controller}, satisfies $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \lesssim \left|u_0\right|_2e^{-r't}, t\ge 0$ provided that $\left|u_0\right|_2$ is sufficiently small.
\end{prop}
\section{Observer design}\label{obssec} In this section, our goal is to prove the wellposedness and the exponential stabilization for each component of the observer design. The components of this system are the plant, observer, and the error system. To this end, we first choose an exponentially stable target error system given by
\begin{equation}\label{tildew} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
i\tilde{w}_t + i\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{w}_x +ir\tilde{w} = 0, \text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(0,t)=0,\,\tilde{w}(L,t)=0,\,\tilde{w}_x(L,t)=0, \text { in } (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(x,0)=\tilde{w}_0(x), \text { in } (0,L). \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Calculating the spatial and temporal derivatives of both sides of \eqref{transtildew}, integrating by parts by using the given boundary conditions, we deduce that the desired target error system \eqref{tildew} is obtained if $p_1(x):=-i\beta p(x,L)$ and $p=p(x,y)$ solves the following kernel pde model on $\Delta_{x,y}$ (see Appendix \eqref{dedkerp} for details):
\begin{equation}\label{p} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
p_{xxx}+p_{yyy}-i\tilde{\alpha}(p_{xx}-p_{yy})+\tilde{\delta}(p_x+p_y)-\tilde{r}p=0, \\
p(0,y)=0, \; p(x,x)=0, \\
\frac{d}{dx}p_x(x,x)=\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}.\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
In order to solve \eqref{p}, we change variables and write $\tilde{p}(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})\doteq p(x,y)$, where $\tilde{x}=L-y$ and $\tilde{y}=L-x$. Then, $p$ is a solution of \eqref{p} if and only if $\tilde{p}$ solves the pde model below on $\Delta_{\tilde{x},\tilde{y}}=\Delta_{x,y}$:
\begin{equation}\label{ptilde} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{p}_{\tilde{x}\tilde{x}\tilde{x}}+\tilde{p}_{\tilde{y}\tilde{y}\tilde{y}}-i\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{p}_{\tilde{x}\tilde{x}}-\tilde{p}_{\tilde{y}\tilde{y}})+\tilde{\delta}(\tilde{p}_{\tilde{x}}+\tilde{p}_{\tilde{y}})-\tilde{r}p=0, \\
\tilde{p}(\tilde{x},L)=0, \; \tilde{p}(\tilde{x},\tilde{x})=0, \\
\frac{d}{d\tilde{x}}\tilde{p}_{\tilde{x}}(\tilde{x},\tilde{x})=\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}.\end{array} \right.
\end{equation} But the solution of \eqref{ptilde} is simply $p(x,y)=\tilde{p}(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})=k(\tilde{x},\tilde{y};-r)=k(L-y,L-x;-r),$ where $k$ is the solution of \eqref{kernela} obtained in Lemma \ref{lemkernel}.
\subsection{Wellposedness of plant-observer-error system}
In order to prove the wellposedness of the plant-observer-error system, we first study the error target system \eqref{tildew} and the error system \eqref{error}. To this end, suppose $y_0\in H^3(0,L)$ and it satisfies the compatibility conditions $y_0(0)=y_0(L)=0$. Now,
consider the linear homogeneous model below:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targetfq}
\begin{cases}
iq_t + i\beta q_{xxx} +\alpha q_{xx} +i\delta q_x = 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
q(0,t)=0, q(L,t)=0, q_x(L,t)=0,\\
q(x,0)=q_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray} where $q_0\doteq-\beta y_{0}''' +i\alpha y_{0}' -\delta y_0'\in L^2(0,L)$.
Let us set $y\doteq y_0+\int_0^t qds$. Then, $y$ solves the following pde model:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targetfy}
\begin{cases}
iy_t + i\beta y_{xxx} +\alpha y_{xx} +i\delta y_x= iq+i\beta y_{0}''' +\alpha y_{0}'' +i\delta y_0'\\
+\int_0^t(i\beta q_{xxx}+\alpha q_{xx} +i\delta q_x)ds=0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
y(0,t)=0, y(L,t)=0, y_x(L,t)=0,\\
y(x,0)=y_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}where the boundary conditions are satisfied due to the compatibility conditions satisfied by $y_0$. We note that integrating the main equation in \eqref{targetfq} in $t$, we get
\begin{equation*}
iq-q_0 = iq+i\beta y_{0}''' +\alpha y_{0}'' +i\delta y_0'=-\int_0^t(i\beta q_{xxx}+\alpha q_{xx} +i\delta q_x)ds,
\end{equation*} which allows us to conclude that the right hand side of the main equation in \eqref{targetfy} is zero.
We know from Proposition \ref{wtildeprop} that $y,q\in X_{T}^0$. It follows from the main equation in \eqref{targetfy} that
\begin{equation}\label{qyrel1}
y_{xxx}=-\frac{1}{\beta} q +i\tilde{\alpha} y_{xx} -\tilde{\delta} y_x.
\end{equation}
Recall that we have the Gargliardo-Nirenberg inequalities $$|\partial_x y(t)|_{2}\lesssim |y|_2^\frac{2}{3}|\partial_x^3y|_2^\frac{1}{3}\text{ and }|\partial_x^2 y(t)|_2\lesssim |y|_2^\frac{1}{3}|\partial_x^3y|_2^\frac{2}{3}.$$
Using these estimates, we get $|\partial_x^3 y(t)|_2\lesssim |q(t)|_2+|y(t)|_2.$ By taking the sup norm with respect to the temporal variable, we deduce that $y\in C([0,T];H^3(0,L)).$
Similarly, writing out
\begin{equation}\label{qyrel2}
y_{xxxx}=-\frac{1}{\beta} q_x +i\tilde{\alpha} y_{xxx} -\tilde{\delta} y_{xx},
\end{equation} and using the fact that the right hand side belongs to $L^2(0,T;L^2(0,L))$, we conclude that $y\in L^2(0,T;H^4(0,L))$. Hence, we proved the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{H3lem}
Let $y_0\in H^3(0,L)$ and satisfy the compatibility conditions $y_0(0)=y_0(L)=0$. Then, \eqref{targetfy} has a unique solution $y\in X_{T}^3.$
\end{lem}
If $y_0\in H^6(0,L)$ and satisfies the higher order compatibility conditions \eqref{compa}, then we can differentiate \eqref{targetfy} in time and apply Lemma \ref{H3lem} to $y_t$ and infer that $y\in X_{T}^6$ and $y_t\in X_{T}^3$. Now, suppose $\tilde{u}_0\in H^6(0,L)$ such that $\tilde{w}_0=(I-\Upsilon_{p})^{-1}\tilde{u}_0$, which belongs to $H^6(0,L)$, satisfies the compatibility conditions \eqref{compa}. Choosing $y_0\doteq \tilde{w}_0$, solving \eqref{targetfy}, and setting $\tilde{w}(x,t)\doteq e^{-rt}{y}(x,t)$, we see that $\tilde{w}$ satisfies the main equation as well as the initial and boundary conditions of the error target system \eqref{tildew}. Moreover, $\tilde{w}\in X_{T}^6$ such that $\tilde{w}_t\in X_{T}^3.$ Now, the wellposedness of the error system \eqref{error} follows by the bounded invertibility Lemma \eqref{inverselem}. Hence, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}Let $\tilde{u}_0\in H^6(0,L)$ such that $\tilde{w}_0=(I-\Upsilon_{p})^{-1}\tilde{u}_0$ satisfies the compatibility conditions \eqref{compa}. Then, the error system \eqref{error} has a unique solution $\tilde{u}\in X_{T}^6.$
\end{prop}
Next, we wish to prove the wellposedness of the observer and its target model. These two models are related through the backstepping transformation $I-\Upsilon_k$, where $k$ is the kernel which solves \eqref{kernela}. Namely, we have
\begin{equation}\label{transhatw}
\hat{w}(x,t)=\hat{u}(x,t)-\int_x^L k(x,y)\hat{u}(y,t)dy.
\end{equation}
It follows that the target observer system is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targetobs}
\begin{cases}
i\hat{w}_t + i\beta \hat{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \hat{w}_{xx} +i\delta \hat{w}_x + ir \hat{w}\\
- [(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
\hat{w}(0,t)=0, \hat{w}(L,t)=0, \hat{w}_x(L,t)=0,\\
\hat{w}(x,0)=\hat{w}_0(x)\doteq \hat{u}_0-\int_x^Lk(x,y)\hat{u}_0(y)dy.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
We will first prove the wellposedness of the target observer system \eqref{targetobs} and then the wellposedness of observer system \eqref{observer}.
We observe that $f(x,t)\doteq[(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)$ defines a function that belongs to $W^{1,1}(0,T;L^2(0,L))$ because
\begin{equation}\label{fL1L2}
\begin{split}
|f|_{W^{1,1}(0,T;L^2(0,L))} \equiv& \int_0^T \left(\int_{0}^{L}\left(|f(x,t)|^2+|f_t(x,t)|^2\right)dx\right)^\frac{1}{2}dt\\
=& \left(\int_{0}^{L}\left|[(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\right|^2dx\right)^\frac{1}{2} \\
&\times\int_0^T\left(\left|\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)\right|+\left|\tilde{w}_{xxt}(L,t)\right|\right) dt\\
\le& c_k T \left(|\tilde{w}|_{C([0,T];H^3(0,L))}+|\tilde{w}_t|_{C([0,T];H^3(0,L))}\right)<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now for $\hat{w}_0\in H^3(0,L)$ satisfying the compatibility conditions $\hat{w}_0(0)=\hat{w}_0(L)=0$, the wellposedness of \eqref{targetobs} follows from Proposition \ref{wtildehigherreg}. Hence, we have $\hat{w} \in X_{T}^3.$ The wellposedness of the observer system \eqref{observer} follows thanks to the bounded invertibility Lemma \eqref{inverselem}, again. Hence, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{propobs}
Let $u_0,\hat{u}_0\in H^6(0,L)$, $u_0(0)=\int_0^Lk(0,y)\hat{u}_0(y)dy$, $u_0(L)=0$, and $\tilde{w}_0$ satisfy the compatibility in \eqref{compa}, then the plant-oberver-error system has a solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde{u})\in X_T^3\times X_T^3\times X_T^6$.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
It is important to notice that the boundary feedback controller $g_0(t)\doteq \int_0^Lk(0,y)\hat{u}(y,t)dy$ uses only the states of the observer but not states of the original plant.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Stabilization of plant-observer-error system}
We first prove the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{wtildelem}
Let $\tilde{w}$ be a sufficiently smooth solution of \eqref{tildew}, then for $t\ge 0$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2\le |\tilde{w}_0|_2e^{-rt}$,
\item[(ii)] $|\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)|+|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)}\lesssim |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(i) follows by multiplying \eqref{tildew} by $\overline{\tilde{w}}$, integrating over $(0,L)$, and taking imaginary parts. In order to prove (ii), we differentiate \eqref{tildew} in $t$, then multiply by $\overline{\tilde{w}}_{t}$, integrate over $(0,L)$, and take the imaginary parts. Using integration by parts and boundary conditions as well, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{wildetcal1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 + 2r\left|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 = -{\beta}|w_{xt}(0,t)|^2 \le 0,
\end{equation} which implies
\begin{equation}\label{wtdecay}
|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)|_{2}\leq |\tilde{w}_t(0)|_{2}e^{-rt}\leq |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}
\end{equation}
since $|\tilde{w}_t(0)|_{2}=|-\beta\tilde{w}_0'''+i\alpha\tilde{w}_0''-\delta\tilde{w}_0'+ir\tilde{w}_0|_2\leq |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}.$
On the other hand, by \eqref{tildew} we have
\begin{equation}\label{wxxxest} |\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2\leq\big(\tilde{\alpha}|\tilde{w}_{xx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\tilde{\delta}|\tilde{w}_{x}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\tilde{r}|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\frac{1}{\beta}|\tilde{w}_{t}(\cdot,t)|_2^2\big).
\end{equation}
Applying $\epsilon$-Young's inequality to the right hand side of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg type inequalities
\begin{align*}
|\tilde{w}_{x}(\cdot,t)|_2 &\lesssim |\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|^{\frac{1}{3}}_2|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|^{\frac{2}{3}}_2, \\
|\tilde{w}_{xx}(\cdot,t)|_2&\lesssim |\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|^{\frac{2}{3}}_2|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|^{\frac{1}{3}}_2,
\end{align*}
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{wxest}
\tilde{\delta}|\tilde{w}_{x}(\cdot,t)|_2^2\lesssim \epsilon |\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+c_\epsilon|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{newwxest}
\tilde{\alpha}|\tilde{w}_{xx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2\lesssim \epsilon |\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+c_\epsilon|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2
\end{equation}
for $\epsilon>0$. Combining \eqref{wxxxest}-\eqref{newwxest}, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{newwxest2}
|\tilde{w}_{xxx}(\cdot,t)|_2^2 \lesssim \frac{\tilde{r}+2\epsilon}{1-2\epsilon}|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\frac{1}{\beta(1-2\epsilon)}|\tilde{w}_{t}(\cdot,t)|_2^2
\end{equation} and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{newwxest2}
|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)} \lesssim |\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2+|\tilde{w}_{t}(\cdot,t)|_2.
\end{equation} On the other hand, from Sobolev trace theory we have
\begin{equation}\label{wxxestatL2}
|\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)| \lesssim |\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)}.
\end{equation}
Now, Lemma \ref{wtildelem}-(ii) follows from Lemma \ref{wtildelem}-(i), \eqref{wtdecay}, \eqref{newwxest2}, and \eqref{wxxestatL2}.
\end{proof}
By specially constructing $p_1$, we ensured that the term $p_1(x)\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)$ in the main equation of the error system \eqref{error} behaves like a damping. This means that the solution of the original plant and the observer system will tend to each other in the long run. The second goal is to achieve the decay of solutions of the original plant. This is equivalent to controlling the observer since the error tends to zero. Let us now show that the target observer system's solution exponentially decays to zero. Multiplying \eqref{targetobs} by $\hat{w}$, integrating on $(0,L)$, taking imaginary parts, using $\epsilon-$Young's inequality we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\frac{\beta}{2}|\hat{w}_x(0,t)|^2+r\left|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 &= \tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)\int_0^L[(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\hat{w}(x,t)dx\\
&\le \epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2^2\left|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2+c_\epsilon|\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)|^2.\label{what01}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
for $\epsilon > 0$. It follows from Lemma \ref{wtildelem}-(ii) and \eqref{what01} that
\begin{equation}\label{what02}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)|_2^2+\left(r- \epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2^2\right)\left|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2\le c_\epsilon |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}^2e^{-2r t}.
\end{equation}
for $\epsilon > 0$. Integrating the above inequality, we obtain the decay estimate
\begin{equation}\label{whatdecay}
|\hat{w}(\cdot,t)|_2\le \left(|\hat{w}_0|_2+\frac{c_\epsilon |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}}{2\epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2}\right)e^{-(r- \epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2^2)t},
\end{equation} where $\epsilon>0$ is fixed but can be arbitrarily small.
Similar to \eqref{L2backstepping4} and \eqref{L2backstepping3init}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping4hat}
\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le \left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}\left|\hat w(\cdot,t)\right|_2
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3inithat}
\left|\hat w_0\right|_2 \le \left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|\hat u_0\right|_2,
\end{equation}respectively.
From \eqref{transtildew}, we know that
\begin{equation}\label{tildew0u0}
\left|\tilde{w}_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le \left|(I-\Upsilon_{p})^{-1}\right|_{{H^3(0,L)}\rightarrow {H^3(0,L)}}\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3hat}
\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p\left|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)}.
\end{equation} It follows from \eqref{whatdecay}, \eqref{L2backstepping4hat}, \eqref{L2backstepping3inithat}, and \eqref{tildew0u0} that
\begin{equation}\label{uhatdecay}
\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2^2)t},
\end{equation} where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}
=&\left|(I-\Upsilon_{k})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}
\times\left(\left(1+\left|k\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|\hat u_0\right|_2 \right. \\
&\left. +\frac{c_\epsilon \left|(I-\Upsilon_{p})^{-1}\right|_{{H^3(0,L)}\rightarrow {H^3(0,L)}}\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}}{2\epsilon|(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1|_2}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*} Moreover, as in \eqref{L2backstepping3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3hat0}
\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le \left(1+\left|p\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)\left|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)\right|_2,
\end{equation} which implies due to Lemma \ref{wtildelem}-(i) that the error is exponentially decaying to zero at $L^2-$level with the decay rate estimate given by
\begin{equation}\label{errordecay}
\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le \left(1+\left|p\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right)|\tilde{w}_0|_2e^{-rt}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{L2backstepping3hat} and Lemma \ref{wtildelem}-(ii), we get the following decay rate estimate for the error system at $H^3-$ level
\begin{equation}\label{L2backstepping3hat2}
\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p|\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}.
\end{equation}
The following proposition follows from the discussion above.
\begin{prop}\label{obsprop2}
Let $\epsilon>0$ be fixed and small, $r>0$, and $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ be the solution of the linear plant-observer-error system. Then, the components of $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}+c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-rt}$,
\item[(ii)] $\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}$, and
\item[(iii)] $\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t},$ respectively,
\end{itemize} where $c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}$, $c_{k,p}$, and $c_p$ are nonnegative constants depending on their sub-indices.
\end{prop}
\section{Numerical results} \label{SecNumResults} In this section, we present the numerical algorithms and give several numerical experiments verifying the theoretical results found in Section 2 and Section 3.
\subsection{Controller design}
\subsubsection{Linear case} \label{SecContLin}
Our numerical scheme consists of three steps.
\begin{itemize}
\item [\textbf{Step i.}] In the first step we derive an approximation to the backstepping kernel. More precisely we solve
\begin{equation}\label{GepsIntRec}
G^{j+1}(s,t)=-\frac{r}{3\beta}st+\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega[DG^j](\xi,\eta)d\xi d\omega d\eta,
\end{equation}
for $j = 1, 2, \dotsc$ iteratively with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{GIntRec_1}
G^1(s,t) = -\frac{r}{3\beta}st.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we change variables by setting $x = L - (s + t)$, $y = L - t$ to get an approximation for $k(x,y) = G(y - x,L -y)= G(s,t)$ which is the solution of the kernel pde model \eqref{kernela}. We first observe that at each step of the iteration we get a polynomial in the variables $s$ and $t$. This is a great convenience for performing algebraic operations as well as differentiation and integration. To this end, let us express a general $n$-th degree polynomial in two variables with complex coefficients
\begin{equation} \label{PolRep}
\begin{split}
P(s,t) =& \alpha_{0,0} + \alpha_{1,0}s + \alpha_{0,1}t + \alpha_{2,0}s^2 + \alpha_{1,1} st + \alpha_{0,2} t^2 + \dotsm \\
&+ \alpha_{n,0}s^n + \alpha_{n-1,1}s^{n-1}t + \alpha_{n-2,2}s^{n-2}t^2 + \dotsm + \alpha_{0,n}t^n
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in a matrix form as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{MatRep}
\left[\mathrm{P}\right] =
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha_{0,0} & \alpha_{0,1} & \cdots & \alpha_{0,n-1} & \alpha_{0,n} \\
\alpha_{1,0} & \alpha_{1,1} & \cdots & \alpha_{1,n-1} & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} & \\
\alpha_{n-1,0} & \alpha_{n-1,1} && \mbox{\Huge 0}\\
\alpha_{n,0} & & &&
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
Considering the fact that the set of $(n +1)\times (n+1)$ square matrices form an abelian group and they satisfy multiplication with a scalar, we can perform the algebraic operations inside the integral \eqref{GepsIntRec} using the form \eqref{MatRep}. Moreover, using the elementary row and column operations, we can perform differentiation and integration. For instance, in order to differentiate $P(s,t)$ with respect to $s$, one needs to multiply $j$-th row of $\left[\mathrm{P}\right]$ by $j-1$ and write the result to the $(j-1)$-th row for each $j$, $j = 2, 3 \dotsc, n + 1$. See Algorithm \ref{alg:difs} and Algorithm \ref{alg:ints} for pseudo codes of differentiation and integration operations with respect to the variable $s$. Differentiation and integration with respect to the variable $t$ can be performed similarly by doing analogous column operations.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ coefficient matrix $C$.
\FOR{$j=2 \to n+1$}
\STATE $C(j-1,:) \gets (j-1) C(j,:)$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Differentiation with respect to $s$. }
\label{alg:difs}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $(n+2) \times (n+2)$ coefficient matrix $C$.
\FOR{$j=n+1 \to 1$}
\STATE $C(j+1,:) \gets \frac{C(j,:)}{j}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $C(1,:) \gets 0$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Integration with respect to $s$. }
\label{alg:ints}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{rem}
The above approach allows us to make only algebraic computations for computing derivatives and integrals of a given polynomial. Thus, by using the form \eqref{MatRep} and performing the iteration \eqref{GepsIntRec} sufficiently many times, we derive a nearly exact result for $G(s,t)$ quite fast. We do not use a discretization based numerical technique due to the error involved especially for higher order derivatives. We also refrain from using a symbolic toolbox because due to performance issues.
\end{rem}
\item [\textbf{Step ii.}] As a second step, we obtain a numerical solution to the weakly damped target system \eqref{target}. To this end, let $M \ge 3$ be an integer and $\left\{x_m\right\}_{m = 1}^M$ be the set of $M$ distinct nodes of $[0,L]$ given by $x_m = (m - 1) h$ where $h = \frac{L}{M - 1}$ is the uniform spatial grid spacing. Consider the vector space
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{X}^M := \left\{\mathbf{w} = [w_1 \cdots w_M]^T \in \mathbb{C}^M \right\}
\end{equation}
with the property
\begin{align}
\label{num_bc1} w_1(t) = w_M(t) &= 0, \\
\label{num_bc2} \frac{w_{M - 2}(t) - 4 w_{M - 1}(t) + 3 w_{M}(t)}{2h} &= 0
\end{align}
for $t > 0$ and with the understanding that $w_m(t)$ approximates $w(x,t)$ at the point $x = x_m$. Note that \eqref{num_bc1} corresponds to Dirichlet boundary conditions, whereas \eqref{num_bc2} is one sided second order finite difference approximation to the first order derivative at the point $x_M$ and stands for the Neumann boundary condition.
Consider the standard forward difference and backward difference operators $\mathbf{\Delta}_+ : \mathrm{X}^M \to \mathrm{X}^M$ and $\mathbf{\Delta}_-: \mathrm{X}^M \to \mathrm{X}^M$, respectively, and let us also introduce the following finite difference operators
\begin{equation} \mathbf{\Delta} := \frac{1}{2} \left(\mathbf{\Delta}_+ + \mathbf{\Delta}_-\right), \quad \mathbf{\Delta}^2 := \mathbf{\Delta}_{+} \mathbf{\Delta}_{-}, \quad \mathbf{\Delta}^3 := \mathbf{\Delta}_+ \mathbf{\Delta}_+ \mathbf{\Delta}_-.
\end{equation}
Then, the semi-discrete form is
\begin{equation} \label{targetsemidis}
\frac{d \mathbf{w}(t)}{dt} + \left\{\beta \mathbf{\Delta}^3 - i\alpha \mathbf{\Delta}^2 + \delta \mathbf{\Delta} + r \mathbf{I}^M\right\} \left[\mathbf{w}\right](t) = 0
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{I}^M$ is the identity matrix defined on $\mathrm{X}^M$.
Next, let $N$ be a positive integer and $T$ be the final time, and define the time step $k = \frac{T}{N - 1}$. Let $n = 1, \dotsc , N$ be the time index so that $t_n = (n - 1)k$. Let $\mathbf{w^n} = [w_1^n \cdots w_m^n]^T$ be an approximation of the solution at the $n$-th time step. Discretizing \eqref{targetsemidis} by the Crank-Nicolson time stepping and defining
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A} := \beta \mathbf{\Delta}^3 - i\alpha \mathbf{\Delta}^2 + \delta \mathbf{\Delta} + r \mathbf{I}^M,
\end{equation}
one obtains the following fully discrete scheme: Given $\mathbf{w}^n \in \mathrm{X}^M$,
find $\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \in \mathrm{X}^M$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1}\right] = \mathbf{F}^n_l, \quad n = 1,2, \dotsc,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$
\mathbf{F}^n_l := \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{w}^{n}\right].
$
\item [\textbf{Step iii.}] To go back to the original plant, we consider the transformation \eqref{backstepping} and substitute $u(x,t)$ by $w(x,t) + v(x,t)$ where $v(x,t) := \int_x^L k(x,y) u(y,t)dy$. Then, we end up with the following problem: Find $v(x,t)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
v(x,t) = \int_x^L k(x,y) v(y,t) dy + \int_x^L k(x,y)w(y,t) dy.
\end{eqnarray}
Here numerical results for $k(x,y)$ and $w(x,t)$ are known from the previous steps, therefore solving the above problem recursively and using the relation $u(x,t) = w(x,t) + v(x,t)$ again, we deduce the numerical solution to the original plant.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Nonlinear case.} In the nonlinear case, the first and the third steps given in the linear case remain the same, and the only difference occurs in the second step, i.e. solving the target system. Applying the same discretization given in the linear case for the nonliner target equation \eqref{ch414}, one obtains the following fully discrete form:
\begin{multline} \label{discrete_nl1}
\left(\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1}\right] - \frac{i k}{2}\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \\
\times \left[ \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right] \right]
= \mathbf{F}^n_l + \mathbf{F}^n_{nl},
\end{multline}
where
$\mathbf{F}^n_{nl} := \frac{i k}{2}\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \left[\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n} \right] \right]$
and for a given $\mathbf{w}^n$, the system is to be solved for the $(n+1)$-th time step. The matrix $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M$ is the discrete counterpart of the integral operator $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_k$. Note that this matrix can be explicitly expressed by applying a suitable numerical integration technique to the integral $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_k$. For instance applying the composite trapezoidal rule, one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{IntOp}
\mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M = h
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}k(x_1,x_1) & k(x_1,x_2) & \cdots & k(x_1,x_{M-1}) & \frac{1}{2}k(x_1,x_M) \\
0 & \frac{1}{2}k(x_2,x_2) & \cdots & k(x_2,x_{M-1}) & \frac{1}{2}k(x_2,x_M) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & \frac{1}{2}k(x_{M-1},x_{M-1}) & \frac{1}{2}k(x_{M-1},x_{M}) \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We divide the linearization of the nonlinear part in two cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Case (i):] If $p \geq 1$, then we employ the Taylor linearization method. More precisely, let $\mathbf{w}^{n,k}$, $k = 0, 1, \dotsc$ be an approximation of the unknown $\mathbf{w}^{n+1}$. We start the iteration $\mathbf{w}^{n,k+1} = \mathbf{w}^{n,k} + \mathbf{dw}$
with $\mathbf{w}^{n,0} = \mathbf{w}^{n}$ to derive a better approximation until the correction $\mathbf{dw}$ is small enough. For this purpose, we insert $\mathbf{w}^{n,k} + \mathbf{dw}$ for $\mathbf{w}^{n+1}$ in \eqref{discrete_nl1}. Then Taylor expand the $p$-th powered term, keeping only the linear terms in $\mathbf{dw}$ and therefore the nonlinear term at the left hand side of \eqref{discrete_nl1} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right] \\
=& \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} + \mathbf{dw}\right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} + \mathbf{dw}\right]\\
\approx& \left\{\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p + p \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^{p-1} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw}\right] \right\} \\
&\times\left\{\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k}\right] + \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw}\right]\right\}\\
\approx& \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1}\left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right] \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \\
& + \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1}\left[\mathbf{dw} \right] \\
& + p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k}\right] \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^{p-1} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw}\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Inserting the last expression into \eqref{discrete_nl1} gives
\begin{equation} \label{discrete_nl2_1}
\begin{split}
&\left(\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{dw}\right] - \frac{ik}{2} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \left[\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p
\right. \\
&\left.+ p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k}\right] \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^{p-1}\right] \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw} \right] \\
=& \mathbf{F}^n_l + \mathbf{F}^n_{nl} - \left\{\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right\}\left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k}\right]\\
&+ \frac{ik}{2} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \left[ \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1}\left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right] \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\item[Case (ii):] For $0 < p < 1$, we employ the Picard linearization method. To this end, we simply use the previously computed approximation $\mathbf{w}^{n,k}$ for the unknown $\mathbf{w}^{n+1}$ in the term $\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right]\right|^p$. Next, we again set
$
\mathbf{w}^{n,k+1} = \mathbf{w}^{n,k} + \mathbf{dw}, \quad \mathbf{w}^{n,0} = \mathbf{w}^n, \quad k = 0, 1, \dotsc,
$
and use for the rest of the terms which belongs to the $(n+1)$-th time step. Then, the nonlinear term becomes
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n+1} \right] \\
\approx& \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k+1} \right] \\
=& \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right] \\
&+ \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw} \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Inserting this into \eqref{discrete_nl1} yields
\begin{equation} \label{discrete_nl2_2}
\begin{split}
&\left(\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{dw}\right] - \frac{ik}{2} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \left[\left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p \right] \\
&\times \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{dw} \right] \\
=& \mathbf{F}^n_l + \mathbf{F}^n_{nl} - \left(\mathbf{I}^M + \frac{k}{2}\mathbf{A}\right)\left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k}\right]\\
&+ \frac{ik}{2} \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right) \left[ \left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1}\left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right] \left|\left(\mathbf{I}^M - \mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M\right)^{-1} \left[\mathbf{w}^{n,k} \right]\right|^p\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Observe that both \eqref{discrete_nl2_1} and \eqref{discrete_nl2_2} are linear in $\mathbf{dw}$, therefore solving these linear systems for $\mathbf{dw}$ iteratively yields the numerical solution for the target system at the $(n+1)$-th time step.
\begin{rem}
The Picard linearization method also works for the case $p \geq 1$ case. The reason we prefer the Taylor linearization method over the Picard linearization method is that the former does much better than the latter. More precisely, the first one requires less iteration at each time step. Nevertheless, for both methods, choosing sufficiently small time step size implies a better starting value for the iteration and faster convergence to the upper time step. In our numerical experiments, we choose sufficiently small time steps so that both methods require at most $3$ iterations per time step.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Observer design}
In order to solve the plant-observer-error system numerically, we perform the following steps.
\begin{itemize}
\item [\textbf{Step i.}] In this step, we derive the numerical solution for the pde model \eqref{p} first by solving \eqref{GepsIntRec} iteratively with \eqref{GIntRec_1} and then considering the change of variables $s = -x + y$, $t = x$ to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
G(s,t;-r) = G(-x+y,x;-r) = k(L-y,L-x;-r) = p(x,y).
\end{eqnarray*}
See Figure \ref{fig:kernel_p} for the contour plot of $|p(x,y)|$ and the real and imaginary parts of $p_1(x)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{kernel_p_contour}
\label{fig:ker_p}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{p1}
\label{fig:p1}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Left: Contour plot of $|p(x,y)|$ on $\Delta_{x,y}$ for $L=\pi$, $\beta = 0.5$, $\alpha = 1$, $\delta = 0.5$ and $r = 0.2$. Right: Real and imaginary parts of $p_1(x) = -i \beta p(x,L)$.}
\label{fig:kernel_p}
\end{figure}
\item [\textbf{Step ii.}] As a second step, we solve the error system \eqref{error} numerically. The discretization procedure is the same as solving the target system in Section \ref{SecContLin}. In addition, we approximate second order spatial derivative of the trace term $\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)$ by using the following one sided second order finite difference scheme:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t) \approx \frac{-\tilde{u}_{M-3}(t) + 4 \tilde{u}_{M-2}(t) - 5\tilde{u}_{M-1}(t) + 2 \tilde{u}_{M}(t)}{h^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\item [\textbf{Step iii.}] As a third step, we solve the target-observer system \eqref{targetobs} numerically. We perform the same discretization as we did in the previous step. Additionally we take $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_k^M$ as in \eqref{IntOp}. Note that taking $x = L$ in calculations given in \eqref{backstepping-x2} and using the boundary conditions $\tilde{w}(L,t) = 0$, $p(x,x) = 0$ for the corresponding pde models, we obtain $\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t) = \tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)$. Therefore, instead of writing $\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)$, we write $\tilde{u}_{xx}(L,t)$ in the numerical scheme.
\item [\textbf{Step iv.}] The next step is solving the observer system \eqref{observer}. In order to achieve this, we use the invertibility of the backstepping transformation. More precisely, for given $\hat{w}$, we find the inverse image $\hat{u}$ as we did in the third step in Section \ref{SecContLin}.
\item [\textbf{Step v.}] Finally we set
\begin{eqnarray}
u(x,t) := \hat{u}(x,t) + \tilde{u}(x,t)
\end{eqnarray}
to deduce the numerical solution of the original plant.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Numerical experiments}
In this part we give numerical simulations. The results are obtained by taking $M = 1001$ spatial nodes and $N = 5000$ time steps. The backstepping kernel is derived by performing the iteration \eqref{GepsIntRec} several times until the error goes below $10^{-12}$.
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 1:} Linear controller} Let us consider the following linear system
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i u_{xxx} + 2u_{xx} +8i u_x = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(\pi,t)=0, u_x(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
In the absence of the controller, the stationary function $\left(3 - e^{4ix} - 2e^{-2ix}\right)$, shown in Figure \ref{fig:plant_l_wo_cont}, satisfies the above system.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{1-plant_3d_l_wo_cont}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\caption{Uncontrolled solution for linear case.}
\label{fig:plant_l_wo_cont}
\end{figure}
So let us take the initial condition as
\begin{equation}
u_0(x) = 3 - e^{4ix} - 2e^{-2ix}.
\end{equation}
We choose the damping coefficient as $r = 1$. Figure \ref{fig:plant_1} represents the corresponding numerical results in the presence of the controller.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1-plant_3d_l_w_cont}
\label{fig:plant_3d_1}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1-plant_contour_l_w_cont}
\label{fig:plant_contour_1}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Numerical results for the linear controller case. Left: Time evolution of $|u(x,t)|$. Right: Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\label{fig:plant_1}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:compare} at the left, we give the plots of $L^2$-norms with respect to different values of $r$. Obviously a larger value of $r$ is required if one desires a more rapid decay of the solution. On the other hand, looking at the right hand side of Figure \ref{fig:compare}, a significant damping effect is achieved through a bigger control effort.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1-L2_l_compare}
\label{fig:L2_compare}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{1-kernel_compare}
\label{fig:kernel_compare}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Left: Time evolution of $|u(\cdot,t)|_2$ for different values of $r$. Right: Control gain $|k(0,y)|$ for different values of $r$.}
\label{fig:compare}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 2:} Nonlinear model, $p \geq 1$} Let us consider the nonlinear problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i u_{xxx} + 2u_{xx} +8i u_x + u |u|^2 = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(\pi,t)=0, u_x(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where the initial datum is chosen as in the previous example. See Figure \ref{fig:plant_2} for the uncontrolled case. In the absence of the controller, it seems numerically that the energy decays but with a slower rate.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{2-plant_3d_nl_wo_cont_1}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\caption{Uncontrolled solution for nonlinear case, $p \geq 1$}
\label{fig:plant_2}
\end{figure}
Recall that our aim is actually to gain a rapid decay. For this purpose, we choose the damping coefficient $r = 8$. This choice with the coefficients $\beta = 1$, $\alpha = 2$ and $\delta = 8$ are sufficient to gain exponential decay since these values fulfill the conditions in Lemma \ref{stab_lem}. Indeed by a detailed calculation on the coefficient $c_{\alpha,\epsilon}$ which comes from $\epsilon$-Young's inequality, one obtains $c_{\alpha,\epsilon} = \frac{\alpha^2}{\epsilon} = \frac{4}{\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon - \beta \leq 0$ or equivalently $\epsilon \leq 1$ must be satisfied in order for \eqref{yeq1} to hold.
So, one can find an $\epsilon > 0$ such that $2r - \delta - c_{\alpha,\epsilon} > 0$ holds true.
See Figure \ref{fig:plant_3} for corresponding numerical results.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2-plant_3d_nl_w_cont_1}
\label{fig:plant_3d_3}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{3d plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2-plant_contour_nl_w_cont_1}
\label{fig:plant_contour_3}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2-L2_nl_compare1}
\label{fig:L2norm_3}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Comparison of $L^2$ norms of $|u(x,t)|$ in the absence (circle) and presence (square) of control.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Numerical results of the controlled nonlinear model for $p \geq 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_3}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 3:} Nonlinear model, $0 < p < 1$.} We now consider the case $0 < p < 1$ for the nonlinear problem. We take the same parameters and initial datum as in the previous example, except that now we take $p = \frac{1}{2}$ and the damping coefficient $r = 5$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i u_{xxx} + 2u_{xx} +8i u_x + u \sqrt{|u|} = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(\pi,t)=0, u_x(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
We have again $c_{\alpha,\epsilon} = \frac{\alpha^2}{\epsilon} = \frac{4}{\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon - 3\beta \leq 0$ must hold in order for \eqref{yeq2} to be satisfied. This implies we can find an $\epsilon > 0$ such that $2r - \delta - c_{\alpha,\epsilon} > 0$ holds true. Hence, this selection of problem parameters is sufficient in order to gain exponential decay.
See Figure \ref{fig:plant_4} for corresponding numerical results.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3-plant_3d_nl_w_cont_2}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{3d plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\label{fig:plant_3d_4}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3-plant_contour_nl_w_cont_2}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\label{fig:plant_contour_4}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{3-L2_nl_w_cont_2}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{$L^2$ norm of $|u(x,t)|$ in the presence of control.}
\label{fig:L2norm_4}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Numerical results of the controlled nonlinear model for $0 < p < 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_4}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 4:} Linear observer} Let us consider the following model:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + 0.5i u_{xxx} + u_{xx} +0.5i u_x = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u(\pi,t)=0, u_x(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
We initialize the error system by setting
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{u}_0(x) = e^{-20\left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2}e^{5i \left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)},
\end{eqnarray}
and take the damping coefficient as $r = 0.2$. See Figure \ref{fig:plant_o_1} for the numerical results associated with the original plant. At the right hand side of Figure \ref{fig:plant_o_1}, we give the contour plot of the solution up to $t = 0.5$ in order to get a better intuition on the early behaviour of the evolution of the solution.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{4-plant_3d_l}
\label{fig:plant_o_3d_1}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{4-plant_contour_l}
\label{fig:plant_o_contour_1}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-15mm}
\caption{Numerical results for the observer case. Left: Time evolution of $|u(x,t)|$. Right: Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\label{fig:plant_o_1}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:L2N_plant_obs_error}, we show how graphs of $L^2$ norms of the original plant, observer model and error model behave in time.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{4-L2_plant}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Original plant.}
\label{fig:L2_p}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{4-L2_obs}
\caption{Observer model.}
\label{fig:L2_o}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{4-L2_error}
\caption{Error model.}
\label{fig:L2_e}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Time evolution of $L^2$ norms.}
\label{fig:L2N_plant_obs_error}
\end{figure}
\section{Other boundary conditions}\label{obcsec} In this section, our goal is to extend the results of Section 2, Section 3, and Section 4 to another set of boundary conditions given by \eqref{bdryconB}, where the right hand Dirichlet boundary condition is replaced by a second order boundary condition.
\subsection{Controller design} We consider the linearized model \eqref{heatlin_obc}. In order to stabilize \eqref{heatlin_obc} we follow the same strategy, that is, we use a backstepping transformation given by \eqref{backstepping_obc}, where $\ell$ satisfies a suitable pde model given in \eqref{kernela_obc} and $w$ is the solution of a pde model which is known to be exponentially stable with the given prescribed decay rate. The following is a suitable target model:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{target_obc}
\begin{cases}
iw_t + i\beta w_{xxx} +\alpha w_{xx} +i\delta w_x + ir w= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
w(0,t)=0, w_x(L,t)=0, w_{xx}(L,t)=0,\\
w(x,0)=w_0(x)\doteq u_0-\int_x^L\ell(x,y)u_0(y)dy.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying the main equation above with $\overline{w}$, integrating over $(0,L)$ and taking the imaginary parts, we get
$|w(\cdot,t)|_2\lesssim |w_0|_2e^{-rt}, t\ge 0.$
Recall that the backstepping transformation is bounded invertible and therefore, we will have the same decay rate as for the solution of the original plant once we prove the existence of a smooth kernel $\ell$ satisfying \eqref{kernela_obc}.
\subsubsection{Backstepping kernel}
We find that \eqref{heatlin_obc} implies \eqref{target_obc} if $\ell(x,y)$ satisfies \eqref{kernela_obc} (see Appendix \ref{appkernel2} for details). We have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemkernel_obc} The boundary value problem \eqref{kernela_obc} has a smooth solution.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the change of variables $s \equiv y - x$, $t \equiv L - y$, we see that $\ell$ is a solution of \eqref{kernela_obc} if $G(s,t) \equiv \ell(x,y)$ solves
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kernelGa_obc}
\begin{cases}
3G_{sst}-3G_{tts}+G_{ttt}+i\tilde{\alpha}(2G_{ts}-G_{tt})+\tilde{\delta }G_t-\tilde{r} G=0\\
\left(G_{ss}-2G_{st} + G_{tt} + i\tilde{\alpha}\left(G_s - G_t\right) + \tilde{\delta}G\right)(s,0) = 0 \\
G(0,t)=0,\\
G_s(0,t)=-\frac{\tilde{r}t}{3},
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(s,t) \in \Delta_{s,t}$.
In order to find a solution of \eqref{kernelGa_obc}, we convert it into an integral equation. To this end, we first write
\begin{equation*}
G_{sst} = DG \doteq \frac{1}{3} \left(3G_{tts} - G_{ttt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(2G_{ts} - G_{tt}\right) -\tilde{\delta} G_t + \tilde{r}G\right)
\end{equation*} using the main equation. We integrate in $t$ and use the boundary conditions to obtain
\begin{equation*}
G_{ss}(s,t) = \left(2G_{st} - G_{tt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_s - G_t\right) - \tilde{\delta} G\right)(s,0) +\int_0^t [DG](s,\eta) d\eta.
\end{equation*}
Now observing that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\left(2G_{st} - G_{tt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_s - G_t\right) - \tilde{\delta} G\right)(s,t)\Bigr|_{t = 0} \\
=& - \int_0^t \left(2G_{stt}-G_{ttt} -i\tilde{\alpha} (G_{st} -G_{tt}) - \tilde{\delta} G_t\right)(s,\eta)d\eta \\
&+ \left(2G_{st} - G_{tt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_s - G_t\right) - \tilde{\delta} G\right)(s,t),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and combining this with the previous expression, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
G_{ss}(s,t) =& \left(2G_{st} - G_{tt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_s - G_t\right) - \tilde{\delta} G\right)(s,t) \\ &+ \frac{1}{3} \int_0^t \left(-3G_{tts} + 2G_{ttt} + i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_{ts} - 2G_{tt}\right) + 2\tilde{\delta} G_t + \tilde{r}G\right)(s,\eta) d\eta.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Next we integrate the last expression with respect to $s$ and use $G(0,t) = 0$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
G_s(s,t) =& G_s(0,t) + \int_0^s \left(2G_{st} - G_{tt} - i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_s - G_t\right) - \tilde{\delta} G\right)(\xi,t)d\xi \\
&+ \frac{1}{3} \int_0^s \int_0^t \left(-3G_{tts} + 2G_{ttt} + i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_{ts} - 2G_{tt}\right) + 2\tilde{\delta} G_t + \tilde{r}G\right)(\xi,\eta) d\eta d\xi \\
=& - \frac{\tilde{r}t}{3} + \left(2G_t - i\tilde{\alpha} G\right)(s,t) + \int_0^s \left(-G_{tt} + i\tilde{\alpha} G_t -\tilde{\delta} G\right)(\xi,t)d\xi \\
&+ \frac{1}{3} \int_0^s \int_0^t \left(-3G_{tts} + 2G_{ttt} + i\tilde{\alpha} \left(G_{ts} - 2G_{tt}\right) + 2\tilde{\delta} G_t + \tilde{r}G\right)(\xi,\eta) d\eta d\xi.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Finally integrating with respect to $s$ and using $G(0,t) = 0$ we obtain that the corresponding integral equation for the pde model \eqref{kernelGa_obc} is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
G(s,t) =&-\frac{\tilde{r}}{3}st + \int_0^s \left(2G_t - i\tilde{\alpha}G\right)(\omega,t)d\omega \\
&+ \int_0^s\int_0^\omega \left(-G_{tt} + i\tilde{\alpha}G_t - \tilde{\delta}G\right)(\xi,t)d\xi d\omega \\
&+ \frac{1}{3}\int_0^s\int_0^\omega\int_0^t\left(-3G_{tts}+2G_{ttt} \right. \\
&\left.+i\tilde{\alpha}(G_{ts}-2G_{tt})+2\tilde{\delta}G_t+\tilde{r}G\right)(\xi,\eta)d\eta d\xi d\omega
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence, finding a smooth solution to the boundary value problem \eqref{kernela_obc} reduces to proving that the above integral equation has a smooth solution. The proof of the latter claim is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemkernel}. Indeed if we define the operators
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
P_{2,-2}f &= \frac{2}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{ttt}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta- \int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{tt}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega, \\
P_{1,-1}f &=-\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{tts}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta+2\int_0^s f_t(\xi,\eta) d\xi,\\
P_{2,-1}f &=-\frac{2i\tilde{\alpha}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{tt}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta+i\tilde{\alpha}\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{t}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega, \\
P_{1,0}f &= \frac{i\tilde{\alpha}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{ts}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta-i\tilde{\alpha}\int_0^s f(\xi,\eta) d\xi, \\
P_{2,0}f &= \frac{2\tilde{\delta}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f_{t}(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta-\tilde{\delta}\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega,\\
P_{2,1}f&= \frac{\tilde{r}}{3}\int_0^t\int_0^s\int_0^\omega f(\xi,\eta) d\xi d\omega d\eta,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
then the equation \eqref{GPG} is still satisfied where $G$ is replaced by the solution of the current integral equation and $P= P_{2,-2}+P_{1,-1}+P_{2,-1}+P_{1,0}+P_{2,0}+P_{2,1}.$ Moreover, equalities \eqref{aPi} still hold true up to a constant factor. So existence of the smooth solution of the current integral equation follows from the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemkernel}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Wellposedness}
Introducing the notation $\tilde{w}(x,t)\doteq e^{rt}w(x,t)$, we first investigate the wellposedness of the following model:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targettilde_obc}
\begin{cases}
i\tilde{w}_t + i\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{w}_x= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(0,t)=0, \tilde{w}_x(L,t)=0, \tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)=0,\\
\tilde{w}(x,0)=\tilde{w}_0(x)\doteq w_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
To this end, let us introduce the operator $A$ given by
$
A\varphi := -\beta \varphi^{\prime\prime\prime} + i\alpha \varphi^{\prime\prime} - \delta \varphi^\prime
$
with domain
$
D(A) = \{\varphi \in H^3(0,L): \varphi(0) = \varphi^\prime(L) = \varphi^{\prime\prime}(L) = 0\}.
$
\begin{lem} \label{A_InfGen}
$A$ generates a strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on \\ $L^2(0,L)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
$A$ is densely defined and closed. It is clear that $D(A)$ is dense in $L^2(0,L)$. To show closedness, let $A\varphi_n \to v$ in $L^2(0,L)$ with $\varphi_n \to \varphi$ in $L^2(0,L)$, $\varphi_n \in D(A)$. Then, $\varphi_n$ and $A\varphi_n$ are bounded in $L^2(0,L)$. From Gagliardo-Nirenberg's inequality (Lemma \ref{gag2}), we can bound the first and second order derivatives in terms of $L^2$ norms of $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_n'''$:
\begin{align} \label{closedgag1}
|\varphi_n^{\prime}|_{2}&\le c|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}^\frac{1}{3}|\varphi_n|_{2}^{\frac{2}{3}}+c|\varphi_n|_2, \\
\label{closedgag2}
|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime}|_{2}&\le c|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}^\frac{2}{3}|\varphi_n|_{2}^{\frac{1}{3}}+c|\varphi_n|_2.
\end{align}
Using triangle's inequality, the assumptions that $\beta,\delta>0$, and $\epsilon-$Young's inequality, we can write
$$\beta |\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_2 - |\alpha| |\varphi_n^{\prime\prime}|_2 - \delta |\varphi_n^\prime|_2\le |A\varphi_n|_2\le c<\infty,$$ which implies
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_2 \le& c+|\tilde{\alpha}| |\varphi_n^{\prime\prime}|_2 + \tilde{\delta} |\varphi_n^\prime|_2\le c+c|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}^\frac{2}{3}|\varphi_n|_{2}^{\frac{1}{3}}+c|\varphi_n|_2 + c|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}^\frac{1}{3}\\
\le& c+c_\epsilon|\varphi_n|_2+\epsilon|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}\le c_\epsilon+\epsilon|\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}|_{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
It follows from the above inequality that $\varphi_n^{\prime\prime\prime}$ is bounded in $L^2(0,L)$. This fact together with the boundedness of $\varphi_n$ in $L^2(0,L)$ and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities \eqref{closedgag1}-\eqref{closedgag2} imply that $\varphi_n^{(j)}$ is bounded in $L^2(0,L)$ for each $j=1,2,3$. Then, we can pass to a subsequence of $\varphi_n$ (still denoted same) such that $\varphi_n^{(j)}$ weakly converges to some $w_j\in L^2(0,L)$ for each $j=1,2,3$. We claim that (in the weak sense) $w_j=\varphi^{(j)}$, $j=1,2,3$. Indeed for any $\psi\in C_c^\infty(0,L)$, we have
$(\varphi_n^{(j)},\psi)_2=(-1)^{j}(\varphi_n,\psi^{(j)})_2\rightarrow (-1)^{j}(\varphi,\psi^{(j)})_2.$ On the other hand, $(\varphi_n^{(j)},\psi)_2\rightarrow (w_j,\psi)_2.$ Therefore, $(-1)^{j}(\varphi,\psi^{(j)})_2=(w_j,\psi)_2,$ which proves the claim. We just showed that in particular $\varphi\in H^3(0,L)$. It is well known that $H^{3}(0,L)$ continuously embeds in $C^2([0,L])$. This means (a subsequence of) $\varphi_n$ converges in $C^2([0,L])$ to $\varphi$ and therefore the boundary conditions $\varphi(0) = \varphi^\prime(L) = \varphi^{\prime\prime}(L) = 0$ are satisfied. Thus, $\varphi\in D(A)$. Finally, recall that $A\varphi_n$ weakly converges to $-\beta w_3 + i\alpha w_2 + \delta w_1=A\varphi.$ Since we also have $A\varphi_n\rightarrow v$ (in particular weakly), from uniqueness of weak limit, we conclude that $A\varphi=v$.
Next we show that $A$ is dissipative, that is for $\varphi \in D(A)$ we show $\text{Re} (A\varphi,\varphi) \leq 0$. Using integration by parts, we have
$
\text{Re}\int_0^L \varphi^\prime \bar{\varphi} dx = \frac{|\varphi(L)|^2}{2}
$
and
$
\text{Re}\int_0^L \varphi^{\prime\prime} \bar{\varphi} dx = - |\varphi^\prime|_2^2
$
and
$
\text{Re}\int_0^L \varphi^{\prime\prime\prime}\bar{\varphi} dx = \frac{|\varphi^\prime(0)|^2}{2}
$
which yields
$$
\text{Re} (A\varphi,\varphi) =\text{Re} \left(- \frac{\delta |\varphi(L)|^2}{2} - i\alpha|\varphi^\prime|^2_2 - \frac{\beta |\varphi^\prime(0)|^2}{2}\right) \leq 0.
$$
As a last step, we observe that $A^*$ given by
$
A^*\varphi := \beta \varphi^{\prime\prime\prime} - i\alpha \varphi^{\prime\prime} + \delta \varphi^\prime
$
with domain
$
D(A^*) = \{\varphi \in H^3: \varphi(0) = \varphi^\prime(0) = \varphi(L) = \varphi^\prime(L) = \varphi^{\prime\prime}(L)=0\}
$
is the adjoint operator of $A$. Similar calculations yield
\begin{equation*}
\text{Re} (\varphi,A^*\varphi) = \text{Re} \int_0^L \varphi\overline{\left(\beta \varphi^{\prime\prime\prime} - i\alpha \varphi^{\prime\prime} + \delta \varphi^\prime\right)} dx = \text{Re} \left(i\alpha |\varphi^\prime|^2_2\right) = 0,
\end{equation*}
so $A^*$ is dissipative. As a conclusion of \cite[Cor 4.4, pg. 15]{Pazy}, $A$ is the infinitesimal generator of a $C_0$-semigroup of contractions on $L^2(0,L)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{wtildeprop_obc}
Let $T>0$, $\tilde{w}_0\in L^2(0,L)$. Then \eqref{targettilde_obc} has a unique mild solution $\tilde{w}\in X_{T_0}^0$ which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{linearestimatetar_obc}
|\tilde{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |\tilde{w}|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))}\le C(1+\sqrt{T})|\tilde{w}_0|_2
\end{equation} and the trace regularity $\tilde{w}_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Again we show this only formally.
By Lemma \ref{A_InfGen}, \eqref{targettilde_obc} admits a unique mild solution. To see that \eqref{linearestimatetar_obc} holds, we multiply \eqref{targettilde_obc} by the conjugate of $\tilde{w}$, integrate over $(0,L) \times (0,T)$ and take the imaginary parts to obtain
\begin{multline*}
\text{Im}\int_0^T\int_0^Li\tilde{w}_t\overline{\tilde{w}}dxdt + \text{Im}\int_0^T\int_0^Li\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx}\overline{\tilde{w}}dxdt \\+\text{Im}\int_0^T\int_0^L\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx}\overline{\tilde{w}}dxdt + \text{Im}\int_0^T\int_0^Li\delta \tilde{w}_x\overline{\tilde{w}}dxdt
= 0.
\end{multline*}
After some calculations, we find
\begin{equation}\label{linearestimate1_obc}
|\tilde{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))} + |\tilde{w}_x(0,t)|_2 + |\tilde{w}(L,t)|_2 \leq C |\tilde{w}_0|_2.
\end{equation}
Now, multiplying \eqref{targettilde_obc} by $x\overline{\tilde{w}}$, integrating over $(0,L) \times (0,T)$ and taking the imaginary parts, we get
\begin{multline*}
\int_0^L x |\tilde{w}(x,T)|^2 dx + 3\beta \int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}_x|^2 dx dt + L \delta \int_0^T |\tilde{w}(L,t)|^2 dt \\
= \int_0^L x|\tilde{w}_0|^2dx + 2\alpha\text{Im}\int_0^T \int_0^L \overline{\tilde{w}}\tilde{w}_x dx dt + \delta\int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}|^2 dx dt.
\end{multline*}
Applying $\epsilon$-Young's inequality to the second term at the right hand side, we have
\begin{multline*}
\int_0^L x |\tilde{w}(x,T)|^2 dx + 3\beta \int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}_x|^2 dx dt + L \delta \int_0^T |\tilde{w}(L,t)|^2 dt \\
\leq \int_0^L x|\tilde{w}_0|^2dx + \epsilon\int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}_x|^2 dx dt + (c_\epsilon + \delta)\int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}|^2 dx dt.
\end{multline*}
We infer that
\begin{equation*}
(3\beta- \epsilon) \int_0^T \int_0^L |\tilde{w}_x|^2 dx dt
\leq \int_0^L x|\tilde{w}_0|^2dx + T(\delta + c_\epsilon)|\tilde{w}|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}^2.
\end{equation*}
Now taking $\epsilon$ small enough and using \eqref{linearestimate1_obc}, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
The wellposedness result for \eqref{heatlin_obc} follows from $w(x,t) = e^{-rt} \tilde{w}(x,t)$, the bounded invertibility of the backstepping transformation, and the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{wplin}. Thus, we have
\begin{prop}\label{obcprop1}
Let $T>0$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$, and $g_0$ be as in \eqref{controller2}, where $\ell$ is the backstepping kernel constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel_obc}. Then \eqref{heatlin_obc} has a unique mild solution $u\in X_{T_0}^0$ which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{linearestimate_obc}
|u|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(0,L))}+ |u|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))}\le c_\ell(1+\sqrt{T})|u_0|_2
\end{equation} and the trace regularity $u_x(0,\cdot)\in L^2(0,T)$.
\end{prop}
The local wellposedness of the nonlinear plant follows as in Section \ref{nonlinwp} by using a fixed point argument and the bounded invertibility of $I - \Upsilon_{\ell}$. Therefore, we have
\begin{prop}\label{p1}Let $T>0$, $p\in (0,4]$, $u_0\in L^2(0,L)$ (small if $p=4$), and $g_0$ be as in \eqref{controller2}, where $\ell$ is the backstepping kernel constructed in Lemma \ref{lemkernel_obc}. Then \eqref{heat_obc} admits a unique solution $u\in X_{T_0}^0$ for some $T_0\in (0,T]$.
\end{prop}
\subsubsection{Stability}
The proof of the following propositions are very similar to that of Proposition \ref{stablin} and Proposition \ref{stabnonlin}, respectively, and is therefore omitted.
\begin{prop}\label{obcprop2}
Let $r> 0$, $\ell$ be the smooth backstepping kernel which solves \eqref{kernela_obc} and $u$ be the solution of \eqref{heatlin_obc} where the feedback controller acting at the left Dirichlet boundary condition is chosen as in \eqref{controller2}. Then, $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_\ell\left|u_0\right|_2e^{-rt},t\ge 0,$ where $c_\ell \geq 0$ depending only on $\ell$ given by $c_\ell=\left|(I-\Upsilon_{\ell})^{-1}\right|_{2\rightarrow 2}\left(1+\left|\ell\right|_{L^2(\Delta_{x,y})}\right).$
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{p2}
Let $r'> 0$, then there corresponds some suitable $r>0$ and a smooth backstepping kernel $\ell$ which solves \eqref{kernela_obc} such that the solution $u$ of \eqref{heat_obc}, where the feedback controller acting at the left Dirichlet boundary condition is chosen as in \eqref{controller2} satisfies $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \lesssim \left|u_0\right|_2e^{-r't}$ for $t\ge 0$, provided that $\left|u_0\right|_2$ is sufficiently small.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Observer design}
We again use a backstepping transformation of the form \eqref{transtildew} and arrive at the following target error system which is exponentially stable with the desired decay rate:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tildew_obc}
\begin{cases}
i\tilde{w}_t + i\beta \tilde{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \tilde{w}_{xx} +i\delta \tilde{w}_x +ir\tilde{w} = 0, \text { in } (0,L)\times (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(0,t)=0,\,\tilde{w}_x(L,t)=0,\,\tilde{w}_{xx}(L,t)=0, \text { in } (0,T),\\
\tilde{w}(x,0)=\tilde{w}_0(x), \text { in } (0,L).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
After some calculations (see Appendix \ref{appen5}), we obtain that the error system \eqref{error_obc} transforms to the target error system \eqref{tildew_obc}, if $p_1(x) := -i\beta p_{yy}(x,L) + \alpha p_y(x,L) - i\delta p(x,L)$ and $p(x,y)$ solves the following pde model:
\begin{equation}\label{p_obc}
\begin{cases}
p_{xxx}+p_{yyy}-i\tilde{\alpha}(p_{xx}-p_{yy})+\tilde{\delta}(p_x+p_y)-\tilde{r}p=0, \\
p(0,y)=0,\\
p(x,x)=0, \\
\frac{d}{dx}p_x(x,x)=-\frac{\tilde{r}}{3} (L - x)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $(x,y) \in \Delta_{x,y}$. This is exactly the same model as we obtained in \eqref{p}. So using the same procedure, a solution of the pde model \eqref{p_obc} can be found by setting $p(x,y) = k(L- y, L - x;-r)$
where $k(x,y)$ is a solution of \eqref{kernela}.
In the current context, we choose the observer target system below that has the desired exponential stability:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{targetobs_obc}
\begin{cases}
i\hat{w}_t + i\beta \hat{w}_{xxx} +\alpha \hat{w}_{xx} +i\delta \hat{w}_x + ir \hat{w}\\
+ [(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\tilde{w}(L,t)= 0, x\in (0,L), t\in (0,T),\\
\hat{w}(0,t)=0, \hat{w}_x(L,t)=0, \hat{w}_{xx}(L,t)=0,\\
\hat{w}(x,0)=\hat{w}_0(x)\doteq \hat{u}_0-\int_x^Lk(x,y)\hat{u}_0(y)dy.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, we can transform the observer model \eqref{observer_obc} into the observer target system above by using the transformation
\begin{equation}
\hat{w}(x,t)=\hat{u}(x,t)-\int_x^L\ell(x,y)\hat{u}(x,y)dy,
\end{equation} where $\ell$ satisfies the pde model \eqref{kernela_obc}.
\subsubsection{Wellposedness of plant-observer-error system}\label{wpobc} For $\tilde{u}_0\in H^3(0,L)$ satisfying the compatibility condition $\tilde{u}_0(0)=0$, we have $\tilde{w}_0\in H^3(0,L)$ and moreover $\tilde{w}_0$ satisfies the same compatibility condition $\tilde{w}_0(0)=0$ due to the obvious relationship between $\tilde{u}_0$ and $\tilde{w}_0$ and boundary conditions of $p$. Therefore, \eqref{tildew_obc} has a solution $\tilde{w}\in X_T^3.$ Then, by using the bounded invertibility of the backstepping transformation we infer that $\tilde{u}\in X_T^3.$ Note that the function $f=f(x,t)$ defined by $f(x,t)= [(I-\Upsilon_k)p_1](x)\tilde{w}(L,t)$ belongs to $L^1(0,T;L^2(0,L))$; therefore we have $\tilde{w}\in X_T^0.$ Again by the bounded invertibility we obtain $\hat{u}\in X_T^0.$ But $u=\hat{u}+\tilde{u}$; hence we have $u\in X_T^0.$
\subsubsection{Stabilization of the plant-observer error system}
\begin{lem}\label{wtildelem_obc}
Let $\tilde{w}$ be the solution of \eqref{tildew_obc}, then (i) $|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2\le |\tilde{w}_0|_2e^{-rt}$, (ii) $|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)}\lesssim |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}$ for $t\ge 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Taking $L^2(0,L)$ inner product of \eqref{tildew_obc} with $\tilde{w}$ and looking at the imaginary parts, we obtain (i). In order to prove (ii), we differentiate \eqref{tildew_obc} with respect to $t$, take the $L^2(0,L)$ inner product with $\overline{\tilde{w}_t}$ and integrate by parts. We get
\begin{equation}\label{wildetcal1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 + 2r\left|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)\right|_2^2 = -\left({\beta}|w_{xt}(0,t)|^2 + \delta |w_{t}(L,t)|^2 \right) \le 0,
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{wtdecay_obc}
|\tilde{w}_t(\cdot,t)|_2\leq |\tilde{w_t}(\cdot,0)|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}.
\end{equation}
Now, (ii) follows from the fact that $|\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)} \lesssim |\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_2+|\tilde{w}_{t}(\cdot,t)|_2$, which can be shown as \eqref{newwxest2}, and $|\tilde{w}_t(0)|_{2}=|-\beta\tilde{w}_0'''+i\alpha\tilde{w}_0''-\delta\tilde{w}_0'+ir\tilde{w}_0|_2\leq |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{tracerem}
Using the Sobolev trace theorem and the above lemma, it follows that $|\tilde{w}(L,t)|\lesssim |\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^1(0,L)}\le |\tilde{w}(\cdot,t)|_{H^3(0,L)}\le |\tilde{w}_0|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t}.$
\end{rem}
To show the exponential decay of the solution of the target observer model, we follow same steps given in \eqref{what01}-\eqref{L2backstepping3hat2} by considering the trace estimate given in Remark \ref{tracerem}. Hence, we have the proposition below.
\begin{prop}\label{obcwp}
Let $\epsilon>0$ be fixed and small, $r>0$, and $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ be the solution of the linear plant-observer-error system. Then, components of the solution $(u,\hat{u},\tilde u)$ satisfy
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\left|u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}+c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-rt}$,
\item[(ii)] $\left|\hat u(\cdot,t)\right|_2 \le c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}e^{-(r- \epsilon c_{k,p})t}$, and
\item[(iii)] $\left|\tilde{u}(\cdot,t)\right|_{H^3(0,L)} \le c_p\left|\tilde u_0\right|_{H^3(0,L)}e^{-r t},$ respectively,
\end{itemize}
where $c_{\epsilon,k,p,\hat u_0,\tilde u_0}$, $c_{k,p}$, and $c_p$ are nonnegative constants depending on their sub-indices.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Numerical results}
In this section we will present our numerical simulations. We use the same numerical design that we give in Section \ref{SecNumResults}. But now, due to the boundary conditions, we make our numerical calculations on the space
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{X}^M := \left\{\mathbf{w} = [w_1 \cdots w_M]^T \in \mathbb{C}^M \right\}
\end{equation}
with the property that
\begin{align}
w_1(t) =& 0, \\
\frac{w_{M - 2}(t) - 4 w_{M - 1}(t) + 3 w_{M}(t)}{2h} =& 0, \\
\frac{-w_{M-3}(t) + 4 w_{M-2}(t) - 5w_{M-1}(t) + w_M(t)}{h^2} =& 0.
\end{align}
Note that the last condition is the one sided second order finite difference scheme that approximates the boundary condition $u_{xx}(L,t) = 0$.
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 1:} Linear Controller.} Consider the following linear model
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i u_{xxx} + u_{xx} +2i u_x = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(\pi,t)=0, u_{xx}(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u_0(x) = sech\left(8 \left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2\right) \exp \left(4i\left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
See Figure \ref{fig:plant_1_wo_cont_obc} for the uncontrolled solution.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{5-plant_3d_l_wo_cont}
\vspace*{-10mm}
\caption{Uncontrolled solution for the linear case.}
\label{fig:plant_1_wo_cont_obc}
\end{figure}
Choosing $r = 1$, we obtain the results shown in Figure \ref{fig:plant_1_obc}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{5-plant_3d_l_w_cont}
\label{fig:plant_3d_1_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{3d plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{5-plant_contour_l_w_cont}
\label{fig:plant_contour_1_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{5-L2_l_compare}
\label{fig:L2norm_1_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Comparison of $L^2$ norms of $|u(x,t)|$ in the absence (circle) and presence (star) of control.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Numerical results of the controlled linear model.}
\label{fig:plant_1_obc}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 2: }Nonlinear Controller, $p \geq 1$}
Consider the following lnoninear model
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + 0.5 i u_{xxx} + u_{xx} + 2 u_x + u |u|^3\sqrt{|u|} = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(\pi,t)=0, u_{xx}(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u_0(x) = 3e^{-16\left(x-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2}e^{4i\left(x-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)} + 5e^{-16\left(x-\frac{3\pi}{4}\right)^2}e^{4i\left(x-\frac{3\pi}{4}\right)}.
\end{equation}
The uncontrolled solution is shown in Figure \ref{fig:plant_2_wo_cont_obc}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{6-plant_3d_nl_wo_cont_1}
\vspace*{-10mm}
\caption{Uncontrolled solution for nonlinear case, $p \geq 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_2_wo_cont_obc}
\end{figure}
See Figure \ref{fig:plant_2_obc} for the numerical results in the controlled case. In this example, we take $r = 1.5$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{6-plant_3d_nl_w_cont_1}
\label{fig:plant_3d_2_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{3d plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{6-plant_contour_nl_w_cont_1}
\label{fig:plant_contour_2_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{6-L2_nl_compare_1}
\label{fig:L2norm_2_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Comparison of $L^2$ norms of $|u(x,t)|$ in the absence (circle) and presence (star) of control.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Numerical results of the controlled nonlinear model, $p \geq 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_2_obc}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textbf{Experiment 3:} Nonlinear Controller, $0<p<1$}
Next we consider the following nonlinear model:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
iu_t + i u_{xxx} + u_{xx} + 2i u_x + u \sqrt[4]{|u|} = 0, \quad x\in (0,\pi), t\in (0,T),\\
u(0,t)=g_0(t), u_x(\pi,t)=0, u_{xx}(\pi,t)=0,\\
u(x,0)= u_0(x).
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
with the initial condition
\begin{equation}
u_0(x) = sech\left(8\left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2\right) \exp\left(4i \left(x - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
The uncontrolled solution is shown in Figure \ref{fig:plant_3_wo_cont_obc}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{7-plant_3d_nl_wo_cont_2}
\vspace*{-10mm}
\caption{Uncontrolled solution for the nonlinear case $0 < p < 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_3_wo_cont_obc}
\end{figure}
See Figure \ref{fig:plant_3_obc} for the controlled case. We take the damping coefficient $r = 1.5$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{7-plant_3d_nl_w_cont_2}
\label{fig:plant_3d_3_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{3d plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{7-plant_contour_nl_w_cont_2}
\label{fig:plant_contour_3_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Contour plot of $|u(x,t)|$.}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{7-L2_nl_compare_2}
\label{fig:L2norm_3_obc}
\vspace{-5 mm}
\caption{Comparison of $L^2$ norms of $|u(x,t)|$ in the absence (circle) and presence (star) of control.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Numerical results of the controlled nonlinear model for $0 < p < 1$.}
\label{fig:plant_3_obc}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper, we designed the left endpoint Dirichlet backstepping boundary controller for higher order Schrödinger equations. Our setup was that two homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann or Dirichlet-second order boundary conditions were imposed at the opposite (i.e. right) endpoint of the boundary. This setup has the advantage that the boundary value problem for the backstepping kernel model becomes wellposed, and moreover the sought after kernel becomes smooth.
On the other hand, if one considers the problem of inserting a controller or two controllers at the right hand side, then it turns out that the pde model for the kernel becomes overdetermined. The same issue also occurs in other third order equations such as the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation \cite{Cerpa2013}. In addition, it is not difficult to show that such a kernel model will not have a smooth solution \cite{BatalOzsari2018-1}. This problem was first treated by \cite{Cor14} via extending the overdetermined kernel model from a triangular domain into a rectangular domain and using the exact (Neumann) boundary controllability property for the underlying dynamics. The drawback was that it only applied to domains of uncritical lengths since it relied on the exact controllability, which only holds for such domains. Most recently, the first two authors introduced another approach in \cite{BatalOzsari2018-1} which is based on using an imperfect kernel by disregarding one of the boundary conditions from the overdetermined kernel model. This approach eliminated the dependence on the type of domain, but the exponential decay rate could not be made as large as possible.
We should remind the reader that this technical issue does not occur if the controller acts from the right endpoint with two boundary conditions specified at the left; see for instance \cite{Tang2013} and \cite{Tang2015}. However, the location and type of boundary conditions are determined by the intrinsic nature of the physical model, and one in general does not
have the chance to choose the number of boundary conditions at a particular endpoint.
We leave the theory of right endpoint controllability and related numerical work to a future paper, as the length of the current text is getting too long.
|
\section{Introduction}
It has been conjectured that push-forwards, under the forward Teichm\"uller geodesic flow, of ergodic probability measures
for the unstable Teichm\"uller horocycle flow, and similarly of measures uniformly distributed on unstable horocycle arcs
or on arcs of the circle action, converge (to an $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant measure). To the best of our knowledge, W. Veech
was the first to ask this question, after his work \cite{V98} on Siegel measures (now called Siegel--Veech measures).
M.~Bainbridge, J.~Smillie and B.~Weiss have proved this conjecture for certain invariant orbifolds in the stratum $H(1,1)$ of Abelian differentials with two simple zeros on genus $2$ surfaces (see \cite{BSW}, Theorems 1.5 and 12.7).
The main purpose of this note is to prove that {\it up to removing a set of times of zero upper density} the general conjecture is in fact a corollary of results of A.~Eskin, M.~Mirzakhani and A.~Mohammadi \cite{EM}, \cite{EMM}.
Our argument is base on the idea of lifting family of (probability) measures on a compact space to measures on the space of probability measures, then derive restrictions from the well-known extremal property of ergodic probability measures with respect to the subset of all invariant measures.
The same argument applies to limits of push-forwards under the Teichm\"uller geodesic flow of the Lebesgue measure on
Teichm\"uller horocycle orbit segments or on arcs of circle orbits. In particular, our conclusion that push forwards for circle
orbits converge to an $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant measure after removing a set of times of zero upper density implies,
by the work of A.~Eskin and H.~Masur \cite{EMa}, a correspondingly improved version of the asymptotic for the counting function
derived in \cite{EMM}, \cite{EM} (see \cite{EM}, Theorem 1.7).
The first section (\S~\ref{sec:LGP}) of this note is devoted to the proof of the above mentioned results for limit of push forwards of horocycle measures, horocycle and circle arcs.
\smallskip
A similar argument gives a short proof of a weak version of the theorem of J. ~Chaika and A.~Eskin, according to which, for all points
in the moduli space of Abelian differentials, almost all directions are {\it Birkhoff generic} for the Teichm\"uller geodesic flow with respect
to the unique absolutely continuous probability affined measure on the orbifold $\overline{\SL(2, \R) x}$
(see~\cite{CE}, Theorem 1.1). We are unable to give a proof of the theorem of Chaika and Eskin. In our version, we prove convergence
of ergodic averages outside a subset of times of zero lower density. The second section (\S~\ref{sec:BG}) of this note is devoted to the proof of our partial result on {\it Birkhoff genericity} in almost all directions for general actions of $\SL(2,\R)$. The third section (\S~\ref{sec:OR}) contains a similar approach to {\it Oseledets regularity} in almost all directions for uniformly Lipschitz irreducible cocycles over $\SL(2,\R)$ actions. Finally, in the last section
(\S~\ref{sec:horospheres}) we derive
an equidistribution result for the push-forwards of an arbitrary horospherical leaf under the Teichm\"uller geodesic flow.
\smallskip
In fact, our results are in principle not limited to the action of $\SL(2,\R)$ on the moduli space of Abelian differentials
and hold more generally for general continuous actions on locally compact topological spaces.
For this reason, we present
below abstract results, which can then be applied to the action on moduli spaces thanks to the celebrated theorems of A.~Eskin, M.~Mirzakhani
and A.~Mohammadi \cite{EM}, \cite{EMM}.
\medskip Let
$$
g_t := \begin{pmatrix}e^t & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t} \end{pmatrix}\, \quad h_t := \begin{pmatrix}1 & t \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
\quad \text{ and } \quad r_\theta = \begin{pmatrix}\cos\theta & \sin\theta \\ -\sin\theta & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix}
$$
denote the diagonal subgroup (the geodesic flow), the unstable unipotent flow (the unstable horocycle flow)
and the maximal torus (circle) of $\SL(2,\R)$. For all $t, s\in \R$ we have the commutation relation
$$
g_t \circ h_s = h_{s e^{2t}} \circ g_t \,.
$$
We will consider below an arbitrary continuous (left) action of $\SL(2,\R)$ on a locally compact space $X$.
Let $\nu$ be any of the following type of Borel probability measures on $X$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a horocycle probability invariant measure, that is, a Borel probability measure invariant under the action of the unipotent
subgroup $h_\R$ on $X$;
\item a (normalized) horocycle arc, that is, a measure of the form
$$
\frac{1}{S} \int_0^S (h_s)_* (\delta_x) ds \,, \quad \text{ for some } (x,S) \in X \times \R^+;
$$
\item a (normalized) circle arc, that is, a measure of the form
$$
\frac{1}{\Theta} \int_0^\Theta ( r_\theta)_* (\delta_x) d\theta \,, \quad \text{ for some } (x,\Theta) \in X \times \R^+.
$$
\end{enumerate}
Our first result, on push-forwards of horocycle invariant measures, and of horocycle and circle arcs, can be stated as follows:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:HP} Let $\nu$ be any Borel probability measure in the above list. If the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T (g_t)_* (\nu) dt
$$
exists and is $h_\R$- ergodic, then there exists a set $Z\subset \R$ of zero upper density
such that in the weak* topology
$$
\lim_{t\not \in Z} (g_t)_* (\nu) =\mu\,.
$$
\end{theorem}
Our second result, on Birkhoff genericity, is as follows.
Let $I\subset \T$ be a compact subinterval. Let $\delta^I_\infty$ denote the Dirac mass at the point at infinity of the one-point compactification $S_I$ of the
semi-infinite cylinder $[1, +\infty) \times I$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:BG} For any sequence $(\pi_n)$ of probability measures converging to the Dirac measure $\delta^I_\infty$, the following holds.
Let us assume that in the weak* sense
$$
\mu:=\lim_{n\to+\infty} \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt d\pi_n (T, \theta)
$$
then there exists a set ${\mathcal Z }\subset [1, +\infty) \times I$ with $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\pi_n ({\mathcal Z}) =0$
such that in the weak* topology we have
$$
\lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt = \mu\,.
$$
\end{theorem}
As a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:HP} we can derive the following:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:horo_limit}
Let $\nu$ be a horocycle invariant measure, or the probability measure uniformly distributed on
a horocycle or circle arc on the moduli space. Let $\mu$ be the unique affine probability $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant
measure supported on the affine sub-orbifold $ \overline{ \SL(2, \R)(\text{\rm supp}(\nu))}$.
There exists a set $Z \subset \R$ of zero upper density such that
$$
\lim_{t\not \in Z} (g_t)_* (\nu) =\mu\,.
$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{conjecture} Corollary~\ref{cor:horo_limit} holds with exceptional set $Z=\emptyset$.
\end{conjecture}
As mentioned above this conjecture has been proven by M.~Bainbridge, J.~Smillie and B.~Weiss for certain invariant orbifolds in the stratum $H(1,1)$
of Abelian differentials with two simple zeros on genus $2$ surfaces (see \cite{BSW}, Theorems 1.5 and 12.7).
J.~Chaika, J.~Smillie and B.~Weiss have recently announced that the Teichm\"uller horocycle flow (in genus $2$) has orbits which are not contained in the support of their limit measures and orbits which have no (unique) limit measure. These results however do not contradict our conjecture.
\smallskip
By the argument of \cite{EMa}) we can also derive the following improved version
of the ``weak asymptotic formula'' for the counting function of cylinders in translation surfaces and rational billiards
(compare Theorem 1.7 in \cite{EM} or Theorem 2.12 in \cite{EMM}).
Let $Q$ be a rational polygon, and let $N(Q,T)$ denote the number of cylinders of periodic trajectories of length at most $T>0$
for the billiard flow on $Q$.
\begin{corollary} There exists a constant $C_Q$ (a Siegel-Veech constant) and a set $Z_Q\subset \R$ of zero upper density such that
$$
\lim_{t \not \in Z_Q} \frac{N(Q, e^t)}{ e^{2t}} = C_Q\,.
$$
\end{corollary}
For {\it horospherical measures} we can prove a stronger result. By a horospherical measure we mean any measure supported on a leaf of the strong stable foliation
of the Teichm\"uller geodesic flow, absolutely continuous with continuos density with respect to the canonical affine measure on the leaf, and with conditional measures along
horocycle orbits equal to one-dimensional Lebesgue measures (see Section~\ref{sec:horospheres}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:horospheres}
Let $\nu$ be any horospherical probability measure supported on the stable leaf at $x\in \mathcal H_g$ and let $\mu$ denote the
unique $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant affine ergodic probability measure supported on $\overline{\SL(2, \R) x}$. In the weak* topology, we have
$$
\lim_{t\to +\infty} (g_t)_* (\nu) = \mu\,.
$$
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:BG} has the corollaries stated below.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:BG1} Let $x\in X$ and let $I \subset \T$. If the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \frac{1}{\vert I\vert} \int_I (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)d\theta dt
$$
exists and is $g_\R$-ergodic, then for Lebesgue almost all $\theta \in I$ there exists a set $Z_\theta \subset \R$ of zero lower density
such that we have the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\not\in Z_\theta} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x) dt \,.
$$
\end{corollary}
Corollary~\ref{cor:BG1} has been recently proven by O.~Khalil (see~\cite{Kha}, Th. 1.1) in greater generality by a different, direct argument. Khalil's argument is
based on an ``adaptation of the weak-type maximal inequality and follows similar lines to the proof of the classical Birkhoff ergodic theorem''. We believe that our indirect argument can be generalized to yield a result identical to that of Khalil.
\smallskip
In the motivating case when $X={\mathcal H}_g$ is the moduli space of Abelian differentials on Riemann surfaces of genus
$g\geq 2$, the results of Eskin, Mirzakhani and Mohammadi, \cite{EM} and \cite{EMM}, prove that for every
$x \in {\mathcal H}_g$ there exists a unique probability $\SL(2, \R)$-measure, absolutely continuous on the
affine orbifold $\overline {SL(2,\R)x}$, such that the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{thm:HP} and Corollary
\ref{cor:BG1} hold (see \cite{EMM}, Theorems 2.6 and 2.10).
In this case the Birkhoff genericity in almost all directions, which corresponds to the statement of Corollary~\ref{cor:BG1} with exceptional sets
$Z_\theta= \emptyset$, for almost all $\theta\in \T$, was proved by Chaika and Eskin (see \cite{CE}, Theorem 1.1) by a different methods based
on ideas and results from~\cite{EM} and~\cite{EMM}.
\smallskip
By our method, we can establish Birkhoff genericity in almost all directions in an abstract setting only under a
stronger hypothesis.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:BG2} Let $x\in X$ and let $I \subset \T$. If the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{\pi \to \delta^I_{\infty}} \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt d\pi (T, \theta)
$$
exists as $\pi$ varies over all compactly supported, absolutely continuous probability measure on $S_I$ with smooth density,
and if $\mu$ is $g_\R$-ergodic, then for almost all $\theta \in \T$ we have the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to+\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x) dt \,.
$$
\end{corollary}
\medskip
Our results on the {\it Oseledets theorem} in the generic direction are formulated below. We consider an action the group $\SL(2, \R)$ on a continuous vector bundle in the setting of the paper by C.~Bonatti, A. Eskin and A.~Wilkinson \cite{BEW}. We recall briefly the main hypothesis of their work. Let $H \to X$ be a continuous vector bundle over a separable metric space $X$ with fiber a finite dimensional vector space.
Suppose that $\SL(2,\R)$ acts on $H$ by linear automorphisms on the fibers and a given action on the base which preserves a probability measure $\mu$ on $X$.
Assume that $H$ is equipped with a Finsler structure (that is, a continuous choice of norm $\vert \cdot \vert_x$ on the fibers of $H$). For any $g\in \SL(2, \R)$ let
$$
\Vert g \Vert_x = \sup_{ \rm v\in H_x\setminus\{0\}} \frac {\vert g(\rm v) \vert_{g(x)} }{ \vert \rm v \vert_x } \,.
$$
The cocycle is called {\it uniformly Lipschitz} with respect to the Finsler structure, if there exists a constant $K>0$ such that for $(x,t) \in X\times \R$,
$$
\log \Vert g_t \Vert_x \leq K t \,.
$$
We remark that all uniformly Lipschitz cocycles trivially satisfy the integrability condition of \cite{BEW}:
$$
\int_X \sup_{t\in [-1, 1]} \log \Vert g_t \Vert_x \, d\mu(x) \, < \,+ \infty.
$$
The cocycle is called \emph{irreducible} with respect to the $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant measure $\mu$ on $X$ if it does not admit non-trivial $\mu$-measurable
$\SL(2,\R)$-invariant sub-bundles.
Let $I\subset \T$ be a compact subinterval. Let $\delta^I_\infty$ denote the Dirac mass at the point at infinity of the one-point compactification $S_I$ of the
semi-infinite cylinder $[1, +\infty) \times I$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:OG}
Assume that the $\SL(2,\R)$ cocycle on $H$ is uniformly Lipschitz and irreducible with respect to the $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant probability ergodic measure $\mu$ on $X$. Let $\lambda_\mu$ denote
the top Lyapunov exponent of the diagonal cocycle $g^H_\R$ on $H$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ on $X$.
For any sequence $(\pi_n)$ of probability measures converging to the Dirac measure $\delta^I_\infty$, the following holds.
Let $x\in X$ be any point such that (in the weak* topology) we have
$$
\mu:=\lim_{n\to+\infty} \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt d\pi_n (T, \theta)\,.
$$
It follows that there exists a set ${\mathcal Z }\subset [1, +\infty) \times I$ with $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\pi_n ({\mathcal Z}) =0$
such that, for all ${\rm v} \in H_x\setminus \{0\}$, we have
$$
\lim_{(t,\theta) \not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} = \lambda_\mu.
$$
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:OG} has the corollaries stated below.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:OG1}
Assume that the $\SL(2,\R)$ cocycle on $H$ is uniformly Lipschitz and irreducible with respect to the $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant probability ergodic measure $\mu$ on $X$. Let $\lambda_\mu$ denote the top Lyapunov exponent of the diagonal cocycle $g^H_\R$ on $H$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ on $X$. Let $x\in X$
be any point such that (in the weak* topology) we have
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \frac{1}{\vert I\vert} \int_I (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)d\theta dt
$$
It follows that, for Lebesgue almost all $\theta \in I$, there exists a set $Z_\theta \subset \R$ of zero lower density such that,
for all ${\rm v} \in H_x\setminus \{0\}$, we have
$$
\lim_{t \not\in Z_\theta} \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} = \lambda_\mu.
$$
\end{corollary}
In the motivating case when $X={\mathcal H}_g$ is the moduli space of Abelian differentials on Riemann surfaces of genus
$g\geq 2$, Oseldets genericity in almost all directions, which corresponds for the top exponent to the statement of
Corollary~\ref{cor:OG1} with exceptional sets $Z_\theta= \emptyset$, for almost all $\theta\in \T$, was also proved by Chaika and Eskin
(see \cite{CE}, Theorems 1.2 and 1.5) by an argument based on~\cite{EM},~\cite{EMM}.
\smallskip
By our method, we can establish Oseledets regularity in almost all directions in an abstract setting only under a
stronger hypothesis.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:OG2} Let $x\in X$ and let $I \subset \T$. If the weak* limit
$$
\mu:=\lim_{\pi \to \delta^I_{\infty}} \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt d\pi (T, \theta)
$$
exists, over all compactly supported, absolutely continuous probability measure $\pi$ on $S_I$ with smooth density,
and is $g_\R$-ergodic, then for almost all $\theta \in \T$ and for all ${\rm v} \in H_x\setminus \{0\}$, we have
$$
\lim_{t \to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} = \lambda_\mu.
$$
\end{corollary}
Whenever Theorem \ref{thm:OG} and its corollaries can be applied to all exterior products of the cocycle, it implies results for all Lyapunov exponents.
In the special case of
the action of $\SL(2, \R)$ on the moduli space of Abelian differentials the theorem can indeed be applied (as in the paper by Chaika and Eskin \cite{CE}) to all exterior powers
of the Kontsevich--Zorich cocycle by reduction to the irreducible component thanks to the semi-simplicity theorem of S.~Filip \cite{Fi}. The uniform Lipschitz property of the
Kontsevich--Zorich cocycle with respect to the Hodge norm was proved by the author in \cite{Fo} (see also \cite{FMZ}).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are very grateful to Barak Weiss and Ronggang Shi for pointing out an error in the first draft of this paper. As a consequence our results on
Birkhoff genericity and Oseledets regularity have been significantly weakened. We are grateful to D.~Aulicino, A.~Brown, A.~Eskin, Carlos Matheus and
R.~Trevi\~no for several discussions about the topics of this paper. This research was supported by the
NSF grant DMS 1600687.
\section{Limits of Geodesic Push-Forwards of Horocycle measures}
\label{sec:LGP}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:HP}.
\begin{proof}
We begin explaining the argument in the case of push-forwards of horocycle invariant probability measures. The
other cases can be treated similarly, and require some additional considerations.
\smallskip
Let $B_1$ be the set of all Borel measures of total mass at most one on the one-point compactification $\hat X$ of the locally compact space $X$ and let $\mathcal N: \R \to B_1$ be the map defined as $\mathcal N(t) = (g_t)_* (\nu)$ for all $t\in \R$. The range of the map $\mathcal N$ is contained in the closed subspace of probability measures, invariant under the (unstable) horocycle
flow, since we are assuming that $\nu$ is invariant under the (unstable) horocycle flow.
The space $B_1$, endowed with the topology of the weak* convergence, is a metrizable (separable) compact space. The map
$\mathcal N: \R^+ \to B_1$ is clearly continuous. In fact, every continuous functions on $\hat X$ is bounded, and all measures
$ (g_t)_* (\nu)$ are probability measures.
\smallskip
Let $u_T$ denote the uniform measure on $[0,T]$. The push-forward $\mathcal N_* (u_T)$ defines a Borel probability measure
on the compact metric space $B_1$, that is, for any continuous function $F$ on the space $B_1$
(with respect to the weak* topology on $B_1$), we have
$$
\mathcal N_* (u_T)(F) := \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T F((g_t)_*(\nu)) dt\,.
$$
Let $U$ denote any weak* limit of $\mathcal N_* (u_T)$ as $T\to +\infty$ in the space of probability measures on the compact metric
space $B_1$.
We claim that $U$ is a delta mass $\delta_\mu$ at the probability measure $\mu \in B_1$. We remark that, as $\nu$ is horocycle invariant, since the subset of horocycle invariant probability measures is closed with respect to the weak* topology, the measure
$U$ is supported there.
For any continuous (compactly supported) function $f$ on the locally compact space $X$, the function $F_f$ defined as
$$
F_f (\nu) = \nu (f) \,, \quad \text{ \rm for all } \nu \in B_1\,,
$$
is continuous with respect to the weak* topology on $B_1$ (by definition of the weak* topology).
By our assumptions, for all functions $F_f$ we have that
$$
U(F_f) = \mu(f)\,.
$$
In fact, for every continuous function $f$ with compact support on the space $X$
we have that
$$
\mathcal N_* (u_T)(F_f) := \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T [(g_t)_*(\nu)] (f) dt \to \mu (f) \,.
$$
Since $\mu$ is ergodic with the respect to the horocycle flow and $U$ is supported on the subset of horocycle invariant
measures, from the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:convex1}
U(F_f) = \int F_f(\nu) dU(\nu) = \int \nu(f) dU(\nu) = \mu(f)\,
\end{equation}
we derive that $\nu=\mu$ for $U$-almost all $\nu \in B_1 $. This in turn implies that the probability measure $U$, as
a probability measure essentially supported on the singleton $\{\mu\} \subset B_1$, is equal to a Dirac mass $\delta_\mu$.
It follows that, for every open neighborhood $\mathcal V$ of $\mu$ in the (metric) space $B_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:zero_freq}
\limsup_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \text{ Leb} \{ t \in [0,T] : (g_t)_*(\nu) \notin \mathcal V\} =0 \,.
\end{equation}
In fact, let us assume the above statement does not hold. It follows that there exists an open neighborhood $\mathcal V$ of
$\mu$ in $B_1$ and a diverging sequence $\{T_n\}$ such that
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T_n} \text{ Leb} \{ t \in [0,T_n] : (g_t)_*(\nu) \notin \mathcal V\} =c >0\,.
$$
There exists a continuous non-negative function $F_{\mathcal V}$ on the compact metrizable space $B_1$ such that $F_{\mathcal V}\equiv 1$ on the complement of $\mathcal V$ (a closed set) and $F_{\mathcal V}(\mu)=0$. It follows that
$$
\frac{1}{T_n} \int_0^{T_n} F_{\mathcal V} ((g_t)_*(\nu)) dt \geq c >0 \,,
$$
hence, for every weak limit $U$ of the sequence of measures $\mathcal N_* (u_{T_n})$, we have $U(F_\mathcal V) \geq c>0$
while $\delta_\mu (F_{\mathcal V}) =0$, which is a contradiction.
We conclude that there exists $Z \subset \R^+$ of zero upper density such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:limit}
\lim_{ t\not \in Z} (g_t)_*(\nu) = \mu \quad \hbox {in the weak* topology}.
\end{equation}
Let $\{\mathcal V_n\}$ be a basis of neighborhoods of the measure $\mu$ in $B_1$. By formula
\eqref{eq:zero_freq} for every sequence $\{\epsilon_n\}$ of positive numbers, converging to zero, there exists a diverging,
increasing sequence $\{T_n\}$ such that
$$
\sup_{T\geq T_n} \frac{1}{T} \text{ Leb} \{ t \in [0,T] : (g_t)_*(\nu) \not\in \mathcal V_n\} \leq \epsilon_n \,.
$$
Let $Z$ be the set defined as follows:
$$
Z:= \cup_{n\in \N} \{ t \in [T_n,T_{n+1}] : (g_t)_*(\nu) \not\in \mathcal V_n\} \,.
$$
Let us find under what conditions $Z$ has zero upper density. For any $T>0$ sufficiently large there exists
$n\in \N$ such that $T \in [T_n, T_{n+1}]$. We have
$$
\begin{aligned}
\text{Leb} (Z \cap [0,T]) &\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \text{Leb} (Z \cap [T_k, T_{k+1}]) + \text{Leb} (Z \cap [T_n, T])
\\ &\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \epsilon_k T_{k+1} + \epsilon_n T \,.
\end{aligned}
$$
It is therefore enough to choose the sequences recursively so that
$$
\frac{1}{T_n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \epsilon_k T_{k+1} + \epsilon_n \to 0\,.
$$
It is clear by the definition of the set $Z\subset \R$ that formula \eqref{eq:limit} holds.
\bigskip
For the cases when $\nu$ is a probability measure supported on a horocycle arc or an arc of circle, the argument is
similar but we have to prove that any weak* limit $U$ of $\mathcal N_* (u_T)$ as $T\to +\infty$ is supported on the
subspace of horocycle invariant measures.
Let $U$ a weak* limit of the measures $\mathcal N_* (u_T)$ with support not contained in the subspace of the horocycle
invariant measures. There exists a measure $\nu_0 \in \text{supp}(U)$ which is not invariant under the (unstable) horocycle
flow, hence here exist a function $f_0\in C^0_0 (X)$ and a real number $\tau\not =0$ such that
$$
\int f_0\circ h_\tau \, d\nu_0 \not = \int f_0 \, d\nu_0 \,.
$$
Since $\nu_0\in \text{supp}(U)$ and since $B_1$ is a locally convex metrizable space, there exists a closed convex neighborhood $\mathcal C \subset B_1$ such
that $U(\mathcal C) >0$ and $U (\partial {\mathcal C}) =0$, and by continuity
$$
\int f_0\circ h_\tau \, d\nu \not = \int f_0 \, d\nu_0 \,, \quad \text{ for all } \nu \in \mathcal C\,.
$$
Let $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ denote the measure
$$
\nu_{\mathcal C} = \frac{1}{ U(\mathcal C)}\int_{\mathcal C} \nu dU(\nu) \, \in \, {\mathcal C} \,.
$$
We claim that $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ is invariant under the horocycle flow, a contradiction. In fact, since $U$ is a weak*
limit of the family $\{\mathcal N_*(u_T)\}$ there exists a diverging sequence $(T_n)$ such that
$\mathcal N_*(u_{T_n}) \to U$, and since by assumption that $U (\partial C) =0$, we have
$$
U(\mathcal C) \nu_{\mathcal C} = \lim_{n\to +\infty} \int_{\mathcal C} \nu d \mathcal N_*(u_{T_n}) (\nu) \,.
$$
Now, by construction, for all $f\in C^0_0(X)$, we have
$$
{[}\int_{\mathcal C} \nu d \mathcal N_*(u_{T_n}) (\nu){]}(f\circ h_\tau -f) =\frac{1}{T_n} \int_0^{T_n} \chi_C ( (g_t)_\ast \nu)
\nu (f\circ h_\tau -f) dt \,.
$$
It is therefore enough to prove that the RHS in the above formula converges to zero. When $\nu$ is the uniformly
distributed measure on a horocycle arc $\{ h_s (x) \vert s\in [0, S]\}$, we have, uniformly with respect to $t\in \R$,
$$
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{S} &\int_0^S (f\circ h_\tau -f) (g_t h_s x)ds =
\frac{1}{S} \int_0^S (f\circ h_\tau -f) ( h_{e^{2t}s} \circ g_t x)ds
\\& = \frac{1}{S} [\int_S^{S+ e^{-2t}\tau} f(h_{e^{2t}s} \circ g_t x) ds - \int_0^{e^{-2t}\tau} f(h_{e^{2t}s} \circ g_t x) ds]
\to 0\,.
\end{aligned}
$$
When $\nu$ is the uniformly distributed measure on a circle arc $\{ r_\theta (x) \vert \theta\in [0, \Theta]\}$, it is
a standard argument that the push-forward of a circle arc can be well approximated by a union of horocycle arcs. We include the argument for completeness.
There exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for all $\theta\in [-\pi/4, \pi/4]$ and for all $t\in \R$, we have
$$
\text{\rm dist} ( g_t \circ r_\theta, g_t \circ h_\theta) \leq C ( e^t +e^{-t}) \theta^2 \,.
$$
As a consequence, for any $\alpha \in (1/2, 2)$ we can approximate the push forward of a circle arc $\{r_\theta x \vert \theta \in [0, \Theta]\}$ by a union of at most $\Theta e^{\alpha t}$ push-forwards of horocycle arcs of length $\ell_t \in [e^{-\alpha t}, 2e^{-\alpha t}]$.
By the above estimate the error in computing the integral of a continuos function $f$, of unit Lipschitz constant with respect to the
$\SL(2,\R)$ action, will be of size
$$
4\Theta C ( e^t +e^{-t}) e^{-2\alpha t} \leq 8 C \Theta e^{(1-2\alpha)t} \to 0 \,.
$$
The claim is thus reduced to prove that for any family of intervals $\{[a_t, b_t] \}$ we have
$$
\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{1}{\ell_t } \int_{a_t}^{b_t} (f\circ h_\tau -f) (g_t h_s x ) ds =0 \quad \text{ uniformly on } x\in X\,.
$$
The proof of the above limit is straightforward since
$$
\begin{aligned}
\vert \frac{1}{\ell_t } \int_{I_t} & (f\circ h_\tau -f) (g_t h_s x ) ds \vert \\ &= \frac{1}{\ell_t } \vert \int_{b_t}^{b_t+ e^{-2t}\tau} f(h_{e^{2t}s} \circ g_t x)ds - \int_{a_t}^{a_t+ e^{-2t}\tau} f(h_{e^{2t}s} \circ g_t x) ds \vert \,,
\end{aligned}
$$
hence, as $\ell_t \geq e^{-\alpha t}$ with $\alpha <2$, it follows that for any $f\in C^0_0(X)$, the above averages converge to zero, uniformly with respect to $x \in X$.
We have thus completed the proof of the claim that $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ is in all cases invariant under the horocycle flow, and since
$\nu_{\mathcal C} \in \mathcal C$ we have reached a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Birkhoff genericity in almost all directions}
\label{sec:BG}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:BG} and Corollaries~\ref{cor:BG1} and~\ref{cor:BG2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:BG}]
Given $x\in X$, let us consider the map $G: [1, +\infty) \times I \to B_1$ the to the space of measures on $\hat X$ of total mass at most $1$,
given for every $T \geq 1$, for every $\theta \in I\subset \T$, and for every $f \in C^0(\hat X)$ by the formula
$$
G (T,\theta) (f) := \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T f (g_t r_\theta x) dt \,.
$$
For any compact interval $I \subset \T$, let us consider the family of push-forwards
$$
\{G_* ( \pi), \text{ for all probability measure } \pi \text{ on } [1, +\infty) \times I \}\,.
$$
Let $\Pi$ be any weak* limit of the above family in the following sense. There exists a sequence $(\pi_n)$
which converges in the weak* topology to the delta mass at the one-point compactification $S_I$ of the cylinder
$[1, +\infty) \times I$ such that
$$
G_* ( \pi_n) \to \Pi
$$
in the weak* topology on the space of measures on $B_1$.
We claim that $\Pi$ is a Dirac mass supported at $\mu$. By our hypotheses for all functions $F_f$ we have
$$
\Pi(F_f) = \mu (f) \,.
$$
In fact, by hypothesis we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
G_* ( \pi_n )(F_f) &= \int_1^{+\infty} \int_I F_f( G(T,\theta)) d\pi_n(T, \theta) \\&=
\int_1^{+\infty} \int_I \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T f (g_t r_\theta x) dt d\pi_n(T, \theta) \to \mu (f) \,.
\end{aligned}
$$
It the follows that, for all $f \in C^0(X)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:convex2}
\mu(f) = \Pi(F_f) = \int \nu (f) d\Pi(\nu) \,.
\end{equation}
We claim that the support of $\Pi$ is contained in the closed subspace of $B_1$ of probability measures
invariant under the geodesic flow. Let us assume that it is not the case. It follows that
there exists a measure $\nu_0 \in \text{supp}(\Pi)$ which is not invariant under the geodesic
flow. There exist a function $f_0\in C^0_0 (X)$ and a real number $\tau\not =0$ such that
$$
\int f_0\circ g_\tau \, d\nu_0 \not = \int f_0 \, d\nu_0 \,.
$$
Since $\nu_0\in \text{supp}(\Pi)$ and since $B_1$ is a locally convex metrizable space, there exists a closed convex neighborhood $\mathcal C \subset B_1$
such that $\Pi(\mathcal C) >0$ and $\Pi(\partial \mathcal C) =0$, and by continuity
$$
\int f_0\circ g_\tau \, d\nu \not = \int f_0 \, d\nu_0 \,, \quad \text{ for all } \nu \in \mathcal C\,.
$$
Let $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ denote the measure
$$
\nu_{\mathcal C} = \frac{1}{ \Pi(\mathcal C)}\int_{\mathcal C} \nu d\Pi(\nu) \, \in \, {\mathcal C} \,.
$$
We claim that $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ is invariant under the geodesic flow, a contradiction. In fact, since $\Pi$ is a weak*
limit of the family $\{G_*(\pi_n)\}$ and $\Pi(\partial \mathcal C) =0$, we have
$$
\Pi(\mathcal C) \nu_{\mathcal C} = \lim_{n\to +\infty} \int_{\mathcal C} \nu dG_*(\pi_n ) (\nu) \,.
$$
Now, by construction, for all $f\in C^0_0(X)$, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
{[}\int_{\mathcal C} &\nu dG_*(\pi_n) (\nu){]}(f\circ g_\tau -f) \\
&= \frac{1}{\vert I\vert} \int_{G^{-1}(\mathcal C)} \frac{1}{T}
(\int_0^T (f\circ g_\tau -f) (g_t r_\theta x) dt) d\pi_n(T,\theta) \\ &= \frac{1}{\vert I \vert} \int_{G^{-1}(\mathcal C)}
\frac{1}{T} (\int_{T}^{T+\tau} f (g_t r_\theta x) dt - \int_0^\tau f (g_t r_\theta x) dt) d\pi_n(T,\theta) \to 0 \,.
\end{aligned}
$$
The claim that $\nu_{\mathcal C}$ is invariant under the geodesic flow follows, and since $\nu_{\mathcal C} \in
\mathcal C$ we reached a contradiction. It follows that $\Pi$ is supported on the subspace of $g_{\R}$-invariant
measures.
\smallskip
From formula \eqref{eq:convex2} and from the ergodicity of the measure $\mu$ with respect to the geodesic
flow, it follows that $\Pi= \delta_\mu$ is a Dirac mass at $\mu$. We have thus proved that
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} G_* (\pi_n) = \delta_\mu \,.
$$
From the above conclusion we immediately derive that,
for every neighborhood $\mathcal V$ of $\mu$ in the (metric) space $B_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:measure_bound_1}
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [1, +\infty) \times I \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V\} ) =0\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\pi_n (\{\infty\})=0$, it follows that for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $T_\epsilon>1$ such that
$$
\pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [T_\epsilon, +\infty) \times I \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V\} ) < \epsilon, \quad \text{ for all }n \in\N\,.
$$
Let $(\mathcal V_k)$ be a basis of neighborhoods of $\mu$ in $B_1$ and let $(\epsilon_k)$ be any {\it summable} sequence of positive real numbers.
There exists an increasing diverging sequence $(T_k)$ such that
$$
\pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [T_k, +\infty) \times I \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_k\} ) < \epsilon_k, \quad \text{ for all }n \in\N\,.
$$
Let then $\mathcal Z$ be the set such that
$$
{\mathcal Z} \cap [T_k, T_{k+1}) = \{ (T,\theta)\in [T_k, T_{k+1}) \times I \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_k\}\,.
$$
It is clear that by construction we have
$$
\lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} G(T,\theta) = \mu\,.
$$
Finally, since $\pi_n \to \delta^I_\infty$ it follows that, for any $k\in \N$, we have
$$
\lim_{n\to+\infty} \pi_n ( [1, T_k) \times I )=0\,,
$$
while by construction, for all $n\in \N$, we have
$$
\lim_{k\to+\infty} \pi_n \left( {\mathcal Z} \cap ([T_k, +\infty) \times I)\right) \leq \lim_{k\to+\infty} \sum_{j\geq k} \epsilon_j =0 \,.
$$
The statement of the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:BG1}]
Let $(\tau_n)$ be any sequence of probability measures on $[1, +\infty)$ which converges to the Dirac mass at the point at infinity.
Let $\Theta_I$ denote the normalized Lebesgue measure on the interval $I\subset \T$ and let then $(\pi_n)$ be the sequence of probability measures
on $[1, +\infty) \times I$ defines as
$$
\pi_n := \tau_n \times \Theta_I \,, \quad \text{ for all } n\in \N\,.
$$
By the hypothesis of the corollary that
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \frac{1}{\vert I\vert} \int_I (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)d\theta dt
$$
it follows that the hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{thm:BG} holds for the sequence $(\pi_n)$. Therefore there exists a
set $\mathcal Z$ such that $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\pi_n ({\mathcal Z}) =0$
such that in the weak* topology we have
$$
\lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} G(T, \theta) = \lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)dt = \mu\,.
$$
From the above conclusion we derive that,
for every sequence of probability measure $(\tau_n)$ weakly converging to the delta mass at $+\infty\in [1, +\infty]$ and
for every neighborhood $\mathcal V$ of $\mu$ in the (metric) space $B_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Bzero_lim_measure}
\lim_{n\to +\infty} (\tau_n \times\Theta_I)(\{ (T,\theta)\in [1, +\infty) \times I \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V\} ) =0\,.
\end{equation}
We claim that for every $\mathcal V$, there exists a full measure set $\mathcal F_{\mathcal V} \subset I$ such that for all $\theta \in \mathcal F_{\mathcal V}$ we have
$$
\liminf_{\mathcal T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{\mathcal T} \text{Leb}( \{T\in [1, \mathcal T] \vert G(T, \theta)\not \in \mathcal V\} )=0\,.
$$
Otherwise there exists a positive measure set $\mathcal P_\mathcal V \subset I$ such that for all $\theta\in \mathcal P_\mathcal V $
$$
\liminf_{\mathcal T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{\mathcal T} \text{Leb}( \{T\in [1, \mathcal T] \vert G(T, \theta)\not \in \mathcal V\}) >0\,.
$$
By the Egorov theorem it follows that there exists a sequence of times $(\mathcal T_n)$ and a positive measure subset
$\mathcal P'_\mathcal V \subset \mathcal P_\mathcal V$ such that the sequence
$$
\inf_{{\mathcal T}\geq {\mathcal T}_n} \frac{1}{\mathcal T} \text{Leb}( \{T\in [1, \mathcal T] \vert G(T, \theta)\not \in \mathcal V\})
$$
converges uniformly to a continuous positive function on $\mathcal P'_\mathcal V$. It is then possible to construct a sequence $(\tau_n)$ of
probability measures on $[1, +\infty)$, weakly converging to the delta mass at $+\infty\in [1, +\infty]$, which contradicts the conclusion in
formula \eqref{eq:Bzero_lim_measure}. Hence the above claim is proved.
Let $(\mathcal V_n)$ be a basis of neighborhoods of $\mu$ in $B_1$ and let $\mathcal F_I$ denote the full measure set defined as
$$
\mathcal F_I := \bigcap_{n\in \N} \mathcal F_{\mathcal V_n}\,.
$$
From the above claim it follows that for all $\theta\in \mathcal F_I$, and for all $n\in \N$, we have
$$
\liminf_{\mathcal T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{\mathcal T} \text{Leb}( \{T\in [1, \mathcal T] \vert G(T, \theta)\not \in \mathcal V_n\} )=0\,.
$$
In particular, for any sequence $(\epsilon_n)$ of positive real numbers, converging to zero, we have that there exists an increasing diverging sequence
$({\mathcal T}_n) \subset [1, +\infty)$ such that
$$
\frac{1} { {\mathcal T}_n} \text{ Leb} \left(\{ T \in [1, {\mathcal T}_n] \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_n \}\right) < \epsilon_n\,.
$$
Such sequence can be constructed recursively as follows. For any finite increasing sequence $\{\mathcal T_k\vert k\ \leq n\}$, and for any $\mathcal T^*_{n+1} >0$
there exists $\mathcal T_{n+1}\geq \mathcal T^*_{n+1}$ such that
$$
\frac{1} { {\mathcal T}_{n+1}} \text{ Leb} \left(\{ T \in [1, {\mathcal T}_{n+1}] \vert G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_n \}\right) < \epsilon_{n+1}\,.
$$
Let $Z_\theta$ be the set defined as follows:
$$
Z_\theta:= \cup_{n\in \N} \{ T \in [{\mathcal T}_n,{\mathcal T}_{n+1}] : G(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_n\} \,.
$$
Let us find under what conditions $Z_\theta$ has zero lower density. We have
$$
\begin{aligned}
\text{Leb} (Z_\theta \cap [0,\mathcal T_n]) &\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \text{Leb} (Z_\theta \cap [{\mathcal T}_k, {\mathcal T}_{k+1}]) \leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \epsilon_{k+1} {\mathcal T}_{k+1} \,.
\end{aligned}
$$
It is therefore enough to choose the sequences recursively so that
$$
\frac{1}{\mathcal T_n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \epsilon_{k+1} \mathcal T_{k+1} + \epsilon_n \to 0\,.
$$
It is clear by the definition of the set $Z_\theta \subset \R$ that, for $\theta \in \mathcal F_I$, we have
$$
\lim_{T\not\in Z_\theta} G(T,\theta) = \mu\,.
$$
The argument is therefore complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:BG2}]
For all $(T, \theta)\in [1, +\infty) \times \T$, let $d(T,\theta)$ denote the distance from the measure $G(T,\theta)$ to $\mu$ with respect to any
metric which induces the weak* topology. Let us assume by contraposition that there exists a positive measure set $\mathcal P \subset I$
such that, for all $\theta \in \mathcal P$, we have
$$
\limsup_{T\to +\infty} \, d(T,\theta)>0\,.
$$
This implies that there exists $\epsilon >0$ and a set $\mathcal P_\epsilon$ of positive Lebesgue measure such that
for all $\theta \in \mathcal P_\epsilon$ there exists a sequence $(T_n(\theta))$ such that, for all $n\in \N$,
$$
d(T_n(\theta),\theta)\geq \epsilon\,.
$$
By a straightforward argument, for any continuous function $f\in C^0(X)$ and for any $h\in \R$, we have
$$
\vert [G(T+h,\theta) -G(T,\theta)] (f)\vert \leq 2 \frac{h}{T} \vert f \vert_{L^\infty}\,.
$$
It follows that there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for all $T\in [(1-\delta)T_n(\theta), (1+\delta)T_n(\theta)]$ we have
$$
d(T,\theta)\geq \epsilon/2 \,,
$$
hence it is possible to construct a sequence of compactly supported measures $\pi_n$ on $[1, +\infty) \times I$ with smooth bounded density and
conditional measure on $\T$ equal to the Lebesgue measure, such that
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \pi_n \left( \{ (T,\theta) / d(T, \theta) \geq \epsilon/2\} \right) >0\,.
$$
This contradicts the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm:BG}, hence the corollary is proven.
\end{proof}
\section{Oseledets regularity in almost all directions}
\label{sec:OR}
In this section we prove the Oseledets regularity result stated in Theorem \ref{thm:OG}.
\begin{proof}
Let $\Proj^1(H)$ denote the projectivization of the irreducible bundle $H$ over the separable metric space $X$. Let $x \in X$
satisfying the hypothesis with respect to the $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant measure $\mu$ on $X$.
Let us recall that there exists a sequence $\{\sigma_\ell\}$ of continuous function $\sigma_\ell: \Proj^1(H) \to \R$ such that the following holds. For any $g^H_\R$-invariant probability measure $\nu$ on $\Proj^1 (H)$ which projects to the $g_\R$-invariant probability measure $\mu$ on $X$, and for any $\ell \in \N$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exp_ineq}
\int_{\Proj^1 (H)} \sigma_\ell (\rm v) d\nu(v) \leq \lambda_\mu.
\end{equation}
If, in addition, the measure $\nu$ is supported on the Oseledets subspace of the top Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_\mu$ of $g^H_\R$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ on $X$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exp_id}
\int_{\Proj^1 (H)} \sigma_\ell (\rm v) d\nu(v) = \lambda_\mu.
\end{equation}
Finally, since the cocycle is uniformly Lipschitz, for any $x\in X$ and any ${\rm v}\in \Proj^1 (H_x)$, uniformly with respect to $T \geq 1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exp_int}
\frac{1}{T} \log \vert g^H_T ({\rm v}) \vert_{g_T(x)} = \lim_{\ell\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \sigma_\ell( g_t^H ({\rm v}) ) \, dt \,,
\end{equation}
The functions $\sigma_\ell : \Proj^1(H) \to \R$ can be defined as follows: for all $\ell \in \N$, for all $x\in X$ and all ${\rm v}\in \Proj^1(H_x)$, let
$$
\sigma_\ell (\rm v) := \ell \log \left( \frac{ \vert g^H_{1/\ell} ({\rm v})\vert_{g_{1/\ell}(x)}} { \vert {\rm v} \vert_x} \right) \,.
$$
It is immediate to verify that, for all $L\in \N$, by telescopic summation we have
$$
\log\left( \frac{\vert g^H_L ({\rm v}) \vert_{g_L(x)}}{\vert \rm v \vert_x}\right) = \frac{1}{\ell} \sum_{j=0}^{\ell L-1} \sigma_\ell ( g^H_{j/\ell} (\rm v))\,.
$$
By the uniform Lipschitz property we also have the estimate
$$
\vert \frac{1}{\ell L} \sum_{j=0}^{\ell L-1} \sigma_\ell ( g^H_{j/\ell} (\rm v)) - \frac{1}{L} \int_0^{L} \sigma_\ell ( g^H_t (\rm v))\, dt \vert \leq \frac{K}{\ell} \,.
$$
The above claims \eqref{eq:exp_ineq}, \eqref{eq:exp_id} and \eqref{eq:exp_int} follow from Birkhoff ergodic theorem and Oseledets multiplicative ergodic theorem.
\smallskip
By a result of Bonatti, Eskin and Wilkinson (see \cite{BEW}, Theorem 1.3), under the irreducibility assumption, any $P$-invariant probability measure $\nu$ on $\Proj^1 (H)$
which projects to the $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant probability measure $\mu$ on $X$ is supported on the Oseledets subspace of the top Lyapunov exponent, hence
identity \eqref{eq:exp_id} holds.
\smallskip
Let $x\in X$ be any point satisfying the assumption of the theorem. For any $ {\rm v} \in \Proj^1(H_x)$ let us consider the measures $\nu_n$ on $\Proj^1(H)$ given,
for all $f \in C^0_0(\Proj^1 (H))$ by the formula
$$
\nu_n (f) := \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T f(g^H_t(r_\theta({\rm v})) dt d\pi_n(T, \theta) \,.
$$
Let $\nu$ be any weak* limit point (along a subsequence) of the above family of measures. The measure $\nu$ is $P$-invariant
(invariant under the action of the maximal parabolic subgroup generated by the diagonal subgroup and the unstable unipotent) and, by the hypothesis on $x\in X$,
it projects to $\mu$ under the canonical projection $\Proj^1(H) \to X$, hence identity \eqref{eq:exp_id} holds.
Let us now consider the map ${\mathcal L}: I \to B_1$ from the cylinder $S_I$ to the space of measures on the compactification $\hat \Proj^1(H)$
of the bundle $\Proj^1(H)$, given for every $f \in C^0(\hat \Proj^1(H))$ by the formula
$$
{\mathcal L}(T,\theta) (f) := \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T f( g^H_t (r_\theta (\rm v)) dt \,.
$$
Let $\mathcal L_\infty$ be any weak* limit of the push-forwards ${\mathcal L}_n:= ({\mathcal L})_*(\pi_n)$ under the above maps. By construction, for all $\ell\in \N$ we have the identity
$$
\begin{aligned}
\int F_{\sigma_\ell} d{\mathcal L}_\infty &= \lim_{n\to +\infty} \int F_{\sigma_\ell} d{\mathcal L} _n \\ &= \lim_{n\to +\infty} \int_{S_I} \frac{1}{T}
\int_0^T \sigma_\ell (g^{H}_t (r_\theta (\rm v)) dt d\pi_n(T, \theta)=
\int \sigma_\ell d\nu = \lambda_\mu\,.
\end{aligned}
$$
We claim that ${\mathcal L}_\infty$ is supported on the closed subset $\mathcal C$ of $g^{H}_\R$-invariant probability measures $\nu$ on the sub-bundle $\Proj^1 (H)$
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Cset}
\int_{\Proj^1 (H)} \sigma_\ell \, d\nu = \lambda_\mu\,, \quad \text{ for all } \ell\in \N\,.
\end{equation}
In fact, by an argument similar to that of section \S \ref{sec:BG} it can be proved that ${\mathcal L}_\infty$ is supported on the set of all $g^{H}_\R$-invariant measures on $\hat \Proj^1(H)$ which project to $\mu$ under the projection $\Proj^1(H) \to X$ and, since $\lambda_\mu$ is the top Lyapunov exponent, for all such measures $\nu$ on $\Proj^1(H)$ we have the inequalities in formula \eqref{eq:exp_ineq}, that is,
$$
\int \sigma_\ell d\nu \leq \lambda_\mu\,, \quad \text{ for all } \ell\in \N\,.
$$
It follows by definition that $F_{\sigma_\ell} \leq \lambda_\mu$ on $\text{supp}({\mathcal L}_\infty)$ and, since, as proved above,
$$
\int F_{\sigma_\ell} d{\mathcal L}_\infty =\lambda_\mu \,, \quad \text{ for all } \ell\in \N\,,
$$
it follows that ${\mathcal L}_\infty$ is supported on the set $\mathcal C$, as claimed.
From the above conclusion we immediately derive that,
for every neighborhood $\mathcal V$ of the closed subset $\mathcal C$ in the (metric) space $B_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Omeasure_bound_1}
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [1, +\infty) \times I \vert {\mathcal L}(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V\} ) =0\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\pi_n (\{\infty\})=0$, it follows that for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $T_\epsilon>1$ such that
$$
\pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [T_\epsilon, +\infty) \times I \vert {\mathcal L}(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V\} ) < \epsilon, \quad \text{ for all }n \in\N\,.
$$
Let $(\mathcal V_k)$ be a basis of neighborhoods of $\mu$ in $B_1$ and let $(\epsilon_k)$ be any {\it summable} sequence of positive real numbers.
There exists an increasing diverging sequence $(T_k)$ such that
$$
\pi_n (\{ (T,\theta)\in [T_k, +\infty) \times I \vert {\mathcal L}(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_k\} ) < \epsilon_k, \quad \text{ for all }n \in\N\,.
$$
Let then $\mathcal Z$ be the set such that
$$
{\mathcal Z} \cap [T_k, T_{k+1}) = \{ (T,\theta)\in [T_k, T_{k+1}) \times I \vert {\mathcal L}(T,\theta) \not\in \mathcal V_k\}\,.
$$
It is clear that by construction all weak limits of the family $\{ {\mathcal L}(T,\theta) \vert (T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}\}$
belong to the closed set $\mathcal C$ (see its definition in formula~\eqref{eq:Cset}), hence, for all $\ell \in \N$,
$$
\lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \sigma_\ell (g_t^H r_\theta {\rm v}) dt = \lambda_\mu\,.
$$
Finally, by the uniform approximation property stated in formula~\eqref{eq:exp_int}, we have
$$
\lim_{(T,\theta)\not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{T} \log \vert g^H_T ({\rm v}) \vert_{g_T(x)} = \lambda_\mu\,.
$$
It remains to prove that the limit of the sequence $\{\pi_n(Z)\}$ is equal to zero. Since $\pi_n \to \delta^I_\infty$ it follows that, for any $k\in \N$, we have
$$
\lim_{n\to+\infty} \pi_n ( [1, T_k) \times I )=0\,,
$$
while by construction, for all $n\in \N$, we have
$$
\lim_{k\to+\infty} \pi_n \left( {\mathcal Z} \cap ([T_k, +\infty) \times I)\right) \leq \lim_{k\to+\infty} \sum_{j\geq k} \epsilon_j =0 \,.
$$
The statement of the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
We conclude the section by proving Corollaries \ref{cor:OG1} and \ref{cor:OG2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:OG1}] The argument is similar to the proof of Corollary \ref{cor:BG1}.
Let $(\tau_n)$ be any sequence of probability measures on $[1, +\infty)$ which converges to the Dirac mass at the point at infinity.
Let $\Theta_I$ denote the normalized Lebesgue measure on the interval $I\subset \T$ and let then $(\pi_n)$ be the sequence of probability measures
on $[1, +\infty) \times I$ defines as
$$
\pi_n := \tau_n \times \Theta_I \,, \quad \text{ for all } n\in \N\,.
$$
By the hypothesis of the corollary that
$$
\mu:=\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \frac{1}{\vert I\vert} \int_I (g_t\circ r_\theta)_* (\delta_x)d\theta dt
$$
it follows that the hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{thm:OG} holds for the sequence $(\pi_n)$.
Therefore there exists a set $\mathcal Z$ such that $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\pi_n ({\mathcal Z}) =0$
and such that, for all ${\rm v} \in H_x\setminus \{0\}$, we have
$$
\lim_{(t,\theta) \not\in {\mathcal Z}} \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} = \lambda_\mu.
$$
From the above conclusion we derive that,
for every sequence of probability measure $(\tau_n)$ weakly converging to the delta mass at $+\infty\in [1, +\infty]$ and
for every $\delta >0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ozero_lim_measure}
\lim_{n\to +\infty} (\tau_n \times\Theta_I)\left(\{ (t,\theta) \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta, \lambda_\mu+\delta)\} \right) =0\,.
\end{equation}
We claim that, for every $\delta>0$, there exists a full measure set $\mathcal F_{\delta} \subset I$ such that, for all $\theta \in \mathcal F_{\delta}$, we have
$$
\liminf_{T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \text{Leb}\left( \{ t\in [1, T] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta, \lambda_\mu+\delta)\} \right)=0\,.
$$
Otherwise there exists a positive measure set $\mathcal P_\delta \subset I \subset \T$ such that, for all $\theta\in \mathcal P_\delta$,
$$
\liminf_{T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \text{Leb}\left( \{ t\in [1, T] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta, \lambda_\mu+\delta)\} \right)>0\,.
$$
By the Egorov theorem it follows that there exists a sequence of times $(T_n)$ and a positive measure subset
$\mathcal P'_\delta \subset \mathcal P_\delta \subset I$ such that the sequence
$$
\frac{1}{T_n} \text{Leb}\left( \{ t\in [1, T_n] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta, \lambda_\mu+\delta)\} \right)
$$
converges uniformly to a continuous positive function on $\mathcal P'_\delta$.
It is then possible to construct a sequence $(\tau_n)$ of
probability measures on $[1, +\infty)$, weakly converging to the delta mass at $+\infty\in [1, +\infty]$, which contradicts the conclusion in
formula \eqref{eq:Ozero_lim_measure}. Hence the claim is proved.
For any (fixed) sequence $(\delta_n)$ converging to zero, let $\mathcal F_I$ denote the full measure set defined as
$$
\mathcal F_I := \bigcap_{n\in \N} \mathcal F_{\delta_n}\,.
$$
From the above claim it follows that, for all $\theta\in \mathcal F_I$ and for all $n\in \N$, we have
$$
\liminf_{\mathcal T \to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \text{Leb}\left( \{ t\in [1, T] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta_n, \lambda_\mu+\delta_n)\} \right) =0\,.
$$
In particular, for any sequence $(\epsilon_n)$ of positive real numbers, converging to zero, we have that there exist increasing diverging sequences
$(T_n) \subset [1, +\infty)$ such that
$$
\frac{1} { T_n} \text{ Leb} \left(\{ t \in [1, T_n] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta_n, \lambda_\mu+\delta_n)\} \right) < \epsilon_n\,.
$$
Such sequence can be constructed recursively as follows. For any finite increasing sequence $\{T_k\vert k\ \leq n\}$, and for any $T^*_{n+1} >0$
there exists $T_{n+1}\geq T^*_{n+1}$ such that
$$
\frac{1} { T_{n+1}} \text{ Leb} \left(\{ t \in [1, T_{n+1}] \vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta_n, \lambda_\mu+\delta_n) \}\right) < \epsilon_{n+1}\,.
$$
Let $Z_\theta$ be the set defined as follows:
$$
Z_\theta:= \cup_{n\in \N} \{ T \in [{T}_n,{T}_{n+1}] : \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} \not\in
(\lambda_\mu-\delta_n, \lambda_\mu+\delta_n)\} \,.
$$
Let us find under what conditions $Z_\theta$ has zero lower density. We have
$$
\begin{aligned}
\text{Leb} (Z_\theta \cap [0, T_n]) &\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \text{Leb} (Z_\theta \cap [{T}_k, {T}_{k+1}]) \leq
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \epsilon_{k+1} {T}_{k+1} \,.
\end{aligned}
$$
It is therefore enough to choose the sequences recursively so that
$$
\frac{1}{T_n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} \epsilon_{k+1} T_{k+1} + \epsilon_n \to 0\,.
$$
It is clear by the definition of the set $Z_\theta \subset \R$ that, for $\theta \in \mathcal F_I$, we have
$$
\lim_{t\not\in Z_\theta} \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} = \lambda_\mu\,.
$$
The argument is therefore complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:OG2}]
Let us assume by contraposition that there exists a positive measure set $\mathcal P \subset I$
such that, for all $\theta \in \mathcal P$, we have
$$
\limsup_{t\to +\infty} \, \left\vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_t (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_t (r_\theta(x))} - \lambda_\mu \right\vert \, > \, 0\,.
$$
This implies that there exists $\epsilon >0$ and a set $\mathcal P_\epsilon$ of positive Lebesgue measure such that
the following holds. For all $\theta \in \mathcal P_\epsilon$ there exists a diverging sequence $(t_n)=(t_n(\theta))$ we have, for all $n\in \N$,
$$
\left \vert \frac{1}{t_n} \log \vert g^H_{t_n} (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_{t_n} (r_\theta(x))} - \lambda_\mu \right\vert \geq \epsilon\,.
$$
Since the cocycle is by hypothesis uniformly Lipschitz, there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for all $t\in [(1-\delta)t_n(\theta), (1+\delta)t_n(\theta)]$ we have
$$
\left\vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_{t} (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_{t} (r_\theta(x))} - \lambda_\mu \right\vert \geq \epsilon/2 \,,
$$
hence it is possible to construct a sequence of compactly supported measures $\pi_n$ on $[1, +\infty) \times I$ with smooth bounded density and
conditional measure on $\T$ equal to the Lebesgue measure, such that
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \pi_n \left( \{ (T,\theta) / \left\vert \frac{1}{t} \log \vert g^H_{t} (r_\theta(\rm v) ) \vert_{g_{t} (r_\theta(x))} - \lambda_\mu \right\vert \geq \epsilon/2\} \right) >0\,.
$$
This contradicts the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thm:BG}, hence the corollary is proven.
\end{proof}
\section{Limits of geodesic push-forwards of horospherical measures}
\label{sec:horospheres}
Let $X$ be a stratum of the moduli space of Abelian differentials. Let $\mathcal H_X$ denote the set of all
compactly supported probability measures on $X$ supported on a leaf $\mathcal F^s(x)$ of the stable foliation
of the Teichm\"uller geodesic flow such that the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the measure is absolutely continuous with continuous density with respect to the canonical affine measure on $\mathcal F^s(x)$;
\item almost all of its conditional measures along the stable Teichm\"uller horocycle are restrictions of Lebesgue
measures along horocycle orbits.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, we may consider the restriction of the canonical affine measure to a compact subset of a leaf
of the stable foliation.
By the results of Eskin, Mirzakhani and Mohammadi \cite{EM}, \cite{EMM}, and by condition $(2)$ above, we can deduce
that for any horospherical probability measure $\nu \in \mathcal H_X$ there exists a unique $\SL(2, \R)$-invariant affine ergodic probability measure
$\mu$ on $X$ such that, in the weak* topology, we have
$$
\lim_{T\to +\infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T (g_t)_* (\nu) dt = \mu\,.
$$
By the argument explained in Section~\ref{sec:LGP} we can then deduce that there exists a set $Z\subset \R$
of zero upper density such that, in the weak* topology, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:horos_conv_Z}
\lim_{t\not\in Z} (g_t)_* (\nu) = \mu\,.
\end{equation}
Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:horospheres}.
Let $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{X}$ denote the Hodge norm on the tangent space $TX$ of an (affine) $\SL(2,\mathbb \R)$-invariant suborbifold $X$
of the moduli space of Abelian differentials and let $d_X:~X\times~X\to\R$ denote the corresponding distance function. Let
${\rm Lip}(X)$ denote the space of Lipschitz continuous functions with respect to the metric $d_X$ on $X$ endowed with the norm
$$
\Vert f \Vert_{\rm Lip} := \vert f \vert_{C^0(X)} + \sup_{x\not =y} \frac{ \vert f(x) -f(y)\vert}{d_X(x,y)} \,, \quad \text{ for all } f \in {\rm Lip}(X)\,.
$$
We recall that by Ascoli-Arzel\`a theorem, for any compact set $K\subset K$ a ball ${\rm Lip}(X,R)$ of radius $R>0$ in ${\rm Lip}(X)$
maps under the restriction map $R_K :C^0(X) \to C^0(K)$ into a compact subset.
Let $\mathcal F^s$ denote the strong stable foliation of the (Teichm\"uller) geodesic flow. For all $x \in X$, let $D^s(x,r) \subset \mathcal F^s(x)$ denote the
stable disk
$$
D^s(x,r) := \{ y \in \mathcal F^s (x) \vert d_X(x,y) \leq r\}\,.
$$
Let ${\mathcal I}^s_r: C^0(X) \to C^0(X)$ denote the averaging operator along the stable disks with respect to the Hodge volume $\text{vol}^s$ on stable leaves, that is,
$$
{\mathcal I}^s_r (f) (x) := \frac{1}{{\rm vol} (D^s(x,r))} \int_{D^s(x,r)} f d{\rm vol}^s \,, \quad \text{ for all } f \in C^0(X) \,.
$$
Let $\mathcal F^{wu}$ denote the weak-unstable foliation of the geodesic flow. Let ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)$ denote the space
of continuous functions which are Lipschitz along the weak-unstable foliation, that is,
$$
{\rm Lip}^{wu}(X):= \{ f\in C^0(X) \vert \sup_{x\in X}\sup_{ y\in \mathcal F^{wu}(x) } \frac{ \vert f(x) -f(y)\vert}{d_X(x,y)} < +\infty\}\,,
$$
endowed with the norm
$$
\Vert f \Vert_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} := \vert f \vert_{C^0(X)} + \sup_{x\in X}\sup_{ y\in \mathcal F^{wu}(x) } \frac{ \vert f(x) -f(y)\vert}{d_X(x,y)}
\,, \quad \text{ for all } f \in {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)\,.
$$
We have the following immediate result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:compactness}
For every $r>0$, the averaging operator ${\mathcal I}^s_r$ maps ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)$ continuously into
${\rm Lip}(X)$, hence for any compact set $K\subset X$ the composition
$$
{\mathcal I}^s_r \circ R_K : {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X) \to C^0_c(X)
$$
is a compact operator.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We can prove by an immediate estimate that the averaging map $ {\mathcal I}^s_r$ maps the Banach space ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)$
continuously to the Banach space ${\rm Lip}(X)$, and for any compact set $K\subset X$ it maps ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(K): = {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)\cap C^0(K)$
into ${\rm Lip}(K):= {\rm Lip}(X)\cap C^0(K) $. By Ascoli-Arzel\`a theorem, the embedding ${\rm Lip}(K)$ into $C^0(K)$ is a compact operator. Finally,
the composition of a continuous (bounded) operator and a compact operator is a compact operator.
\end{proof}
We finally prove the convergence of push-forwards of horospherical measures.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:horospheres}]
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:compactness} the operator ${\mathcal I}^s_r \circ R_K : {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X) \to C^0_c(X)$ is compact, hence the dual operator
$$( {\mathcal I}^s_r \circ R_K)^*: C^0(K)^* \to {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$$ from the space $ C^0_c(X)^*$ of linear
continuous functionals on $C^0_c(X)$ to the space ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$ of linear continuous functionals on ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)$ is also compact. In particular,
for any weakly converging sequence $(\nu_n) \subset \mathcal M(X)$ of probability measures on $X$, the sequence $ R^*_K ({\mathcal I}^s_r)^* (\nu_n)$
is (strongly) convergent in ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$. By construction, we have that for all $t\geq 0$ the pull-back operator
$(g_{-t})^* : {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X) \to {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)$ is a weak contraction, in the sense that
$$
\Vert f \circ g_{-t} \Vert_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} \leq \Vert f \Vert_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} \,, \quad \text{ for all } f \in {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)\,.
$$
hence the dual operator $(g_t)_* : {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^* \to {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$ defined as
$$
(g_t)_* (\nu) (f) := \nu ( f \circ g_{-t}) \,, \quad \text{ for all } \nu \in {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^* \text{ and for all } f\in {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)
$$
is also a weak contraction with respect to the dual norm $\Vert \cdot \Vert^*_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}}$ on ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$:
$$
\Vert (g_t)_*(\nu) \Vert^*_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} \leq \Vert \nu \Vert^*_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} \,, \quad \text{ for all } \nu \in {\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*\,.
$$
Let $\nu$ be any horospherical measure supported on the stable leaf $\mathcal F^s(x)$ at a point $x\in X$. Let $\mu$ denote the
unique affine probability measure supported on the orbit closure $\overline{\SL(2,\R) x}$. As we have remarked above, see formula
\eqref{eq:horos_conv_Z}, there exists a sequence $(t_n)$ such that
$$
(g_{t_n})_*(\nu) \to \mu \quad \text{ in the weak* topology}\,.
$$
Since $\nu$ is a {\it horospherical measure}, it follows that
$$
\lim_{t\to +\infty} \Vert ({\mathcal I}^s_r)^* (g_{t_n})_*(\nu) - (g_{t_n})_*(\nu) \Vert^*_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} =0\,,
$$
hence, for any compact set $K \subset X$, we have
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \Vert R^*_K (g_{t_n})_* (\nu) - R^*_K (\mu) \Vert^*_{{\rm Lip}^{wu}} = 0\,.
$$
Since $(g_t)_*$ is a weak contraction on ${\rm Lip}^{wu}(X)^*$, uniformly with respect to $t\geq 0$, we have that
$$
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \Vert (g_t)_* R^*_K (g_{t_n})_* (\nu) - R^*_K (\mu)\Vert_ {{\rm Lip}^{wu}} = 0\,.
$$
Finally, since the set of all probability measures supported on horocycle arcs is {\it tight} (see \cite{MW}, \cite{EMa})
for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a compact set $K_\epsilon$ such that
$$
\Vert (g_t)_* R^*_{K_\epsilon} (g_{t_n})_* (\nu) - (g_{t+t_n})_* (\nu)\Vert_{\mathcal M(X)} =
\Vert R^*_{K_\epsilon} (g_{t_n})_* (\nu) - (g_{t_n})_* (\nu)\Vert_{\mathcal M(X)} \leq \epsilon \,,
$$
hence the measure $\mu$ is the unique weak* limit of the set $\{(g_{t+t_n})_* (\nu)\}$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $M_n$ be an $n\times n$ complex matrix. Its \emph{singular values}, denoted by $s_k(M_n)$ for $k\in [n]$, are the eigenvalues of $\sqrt{M_{n}^{\dagger}M_{n}}$ arranged in non-decreasing order. Of particular interest are the largest and smallest singular values, which admit the following variational characterizations:
$$s_1(M_{n}):= \sup_{\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}}\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{x}\|_{2};$$
$$s_n(M_{n}):= \inf_{\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}}\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{x}\|_{2},$$
where $\|\cdot \|_{2}$ denotes the usual Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, and $\mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ denotes the set of unit vectors in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$. In this paper, we will be concerned with the following problem: for an $n\times n$ random matrix $M_n$ and a non-negative real number $\eta$, bound the probability $\Pr(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta)$ from above. This general problem captures, as special cases, many interesting and well-studied problems.\\
At one extreme, when $\eta=0$, the problem asks for an upper bound on the probability that $M_n$ is singular. Even in the case when the entries of $M_n$ are independent copies of a Rademacher random variable (i.e. a random variable which takes on the values $\pm 1$ with probability $1/2$ each), this is highly non-trivial. Considering the event that two rows or two columns of $M_n$ are equal (up to a sign) shows that $$\Pr(s_n(M_n) = 0) \geq (1+o_n(1))n^{2}2^{1-n},$$ and it has been conjectured since the 1950s that this lower bound is tight. Despite this, even showing that $\Pr(s_n(M_n) = 0) = o_n(1)$ was only accomplished in 1967 by Koml\'os \cite{komlos1967determinant}, who used the Erd\H{o}s-Littlewood-Offord anti-concentration inequality to show that $\Pr(s_n(M_n) = 0) \lesssim n^{-1/2}$.
A bound of the form
$$\Pr(s_n(M_n) = 0) \leq (c + o_n(1))^{n},$$ for some $c \in (0,1)$, was obtained much later in 1995 by Kahn, Koml\'os, and Szemer\'edi \cite{kahn1995probability}, who proved such an estimate with $c = 0.999$. Subsequently, using deep ideas from additive combinatorics, Tao and Vu \cite{tao2007singularity} obtained such an estimate with $c = 0.75$, and by refining their ideas, Bourgain, Vu, and Wood \cite{bourgain2010singularity} were able to lower this constant to $c = 1/\sqrt{2}$. Recently, in a breakthrough work, Tikhomirov \cite{tikhomirov2018singularity} (building on the geometric approach to non-asymptotic random matrix theory pioneered by Rudelson and Vershynin \cite{rudelson2008littlewood}) showed that $\Pr(s_n(M_n) = 0) \leq (1/2 + o_n(1))^{n}$, thereby settling the singularity conjecture for random Rademacher matrices up to lower order terms.\\
At the other extreme, one may ask for the order of $s_n(M_n)$ for a `typical' realization of $M_n$; in our setup, this corresponds to the largest value of $\eta$ for which one can obtain a bound of the form $\Pr(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta ) \leq 0.01$ (say). For instance, confirming (in a very strong form) a conjecture of Smale, and a speculation of von Neumann and Goldstine, Edelman \cite{edelman1988eigenvalues} showed that for $M_n$ whose entries are independent copies of the standard Gaussian,
$$\Pr(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta) \leq \sqrt{n}\eta;$$
this implies, in particular, that for i.i.d. standard Gaussian random matrices, $s_n(M_n)$ is typically $\Omega(n^{-1/2})$. Edelman's proof relied on special properties of the Gaussian distribution -- for general distributions, especially those which are allowed to have atoms, this question is much more challenging.
In this case, building on intermediate work by Rudelson \cite{rudelson2008invertibility}, and essentially confirming a conjecture of Spielman and Teng, Rudelson and Vershynin \cite{rudelson2008littlewood} showed in a landmark work that for a real random matrix $M_n$ with i.i.d. centered subgaussian entries of variance $1$,
$$\Pr\left(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta \right) \lesssim \sqrt{n}\eta + c^{n},$$
which is optimal up to the constant $c\in (0,1)$ and the overall implicit constant. In recent years, much work has gone into establishing similar tail bounds under weaker assumptions: Rebrova and Tikhomirov \cite{rebrova2018coverings} established the same estimate as Rudelson and Vershynin for i.i.d centered random variables of variance $1$ (in particular, not assuming the existence of any moments higher than the second moment), and very recently (in fact, after the first version of the current paper appeared on the arXiv), Livshyts, Tikhomirov, and Vershynin \cite{livshyts2019smallest} obtained such an estimate for real random matrices $M_n$ whose entries are independent random variables satisfying a uniform anti-concentration estimate, and such that the expected sum of the squares of the entries is $O(n^2)$. Both of these works build upon the geometric framework of Rudelson and Vershynin.\\
For many applications, one would like to study random matrices whose entries have non-zero means. Whereas the results mentioned in the previous paragraph allow non-centered entries to some extent, they are unable to handle means larger than some threshold, due to their reliance on controlling various norms of the matrix. For instance, even the case when the mean of every entry is allowed to be in $[-n,n]$ has thus far remained out of reach of the geometric methods. Hence, the geometric methods fail to provide sufficiently powerful bounds in the important setting of \emph{smoothed analysis}, which we now discuss.
\subsection{Smoothed analysis of the least singular value: }
In their work on the \emph{smoothed analysis of algorithms} \cite{spielman2009smoothed, spielman2004smoothed} in numerical linear algebra, Spielman and Teng considered random matrices of the form
$M_n:= M + N_n$, where $M$ is a fixed (possibly `large') complex matrix, and $N_n$ is a complex random matrix with i.i.d. (centered) entries of variance $1$.
Their motivation for studying this distribution on matrices was based on the following insight -- even if the desired input to an algorithmic problem is a fixed matrix $M$, it is likely that a computer will actually work with a perturbation $M+N_n$, where $N_n$ is a random matrix representing the effect of `noise' in the system. Sankar, Spielman, and Teng \cite{sankar2006smoothed} dealt with the case when the noise matrix $N_n$ has i.i.d. standard Gaussian entries, and found that such noise has a regularizing effect i.e. with high probability, the least singular value of $M_n$ is sufficiently large, even if this is not the case for $M$ itself. More precisely, they showed that for an arbitrary $n\times n$ matrix $M$,
$$
\Pr\left(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta \right) \leq 2.35\sqrt{n}\eta,
$$
which is optimal up to the constant $2.35$.\\
The proof of Sankar, Spielman, and Teng relied on special properties of the Gaussian distribution. Motivated by more realistic noise models, especially those in which the noise distribution is allowed to have atoms (for instance, this is always the case with computers, see also the discussion in \cite{tao2010smooth}), Tao and Vu \cite{taocondition, tao2010smooth} investigated the lower tail behavior of $s_n(M_n)$ for very general noise matrices $N_n$. Using the so-called inverse Littlewood-Offord theory from additive combinatorics (see the discussion in \cref{sec:counting-problem-ILO}), they showed that for any complex random variable $\xi$ with mean $0$ and variance $1$, and for any constants $A,C > 0$, there exists a constant $B>0$ (depending on $A, C, \xi$) such that for any complex matrix $M$ with $\|M\|:= s_1(M) \leq n^{C}$, if $N_n$ is a complex random matrix whose entries are i.i.d. copies of $\xi$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:TV} \Pr\left(s_n(M_n) \leq n^{-B}\right) \leq n^{-A}.
\end{equation}
Explicit dependence of $B$ on $A,C, \xi$ was given in \cite{tao2008random} and subsequently sharpened (but not optimally) in \cite{tao2010smooth}, although, for known applications of \cref{eqn:TV} in the literature, the exact dependence of $B$ on $A,C,\xi$ is not important for the analysis to go through (see the discussion in \cite{tao2010smooth}). \\
However, in applications, it \emph{is} crucial that one can allow $A$ to be any positive constant -- this allows one to obtain estimates on $s_n(M_n)$ which can survive even a polynomial-sized (in $n$) union bound. As an example, in Tao and Vu's celebrated proof of the \emph{strong circular law} \cite{tao2008random, tao2010random}, it is essential to have an estimate of the form \cref{eqn:TV} for some $A > 1$. Proving estimates of the form \cref{eqn:TV} with $A > 1$ is significantly more involved than proving such estimates for some $A > 0$, and involves a much deeper understanding of the anti-concentration properties of vectors -- in particular, a decomposition of the sphere into just `compressible' and `incompressible' vectors, as is done in \cite{rudelson2008invertibility, gotze2010circular}, is insufficient for this purpose.\\
We also emphasize that the estimate in \cref{eqn:TV} holds for \emph{any complex random variable} with mean $0$ and variance $1$. Working with complex random variables of this generality provides significant additional challenges for the geometric methods, owing to the fact that the metric entropy of the unit sphere in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is twice that of the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (see the discussion in \cite{rudelson2016no}). Consequently, works based on the geometric method have thus far imposed further conditions on the dependence between the real and imaginary parts of the complex random variable, most commonly requiring the real and imaginary parts to be independent (see, e.g. \cite{rudelson2016no, luh2018complex}) in order to deduce bounds comparable to \cref{eqn:TV}.
\subsection{Our results}
We introduce a new framework for providing estimates on the lower tail of $s_n(M_n)$ in the general setting of smoothed analysis, with a particular focus on values of $\eta$ `close' to $0$ (as opposed to obtaining the correct order of magnitude for `99 percent' of such matrices) . Our approach differs both from the geometric methods of Rudelson and Vershynin, as well as the additive combinatorial methods of Tao and Vu. Before discussing this further, we record our main result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}
Let $\xi$ be an arbitrary complex random variable with mean $0$ and variance $1$.
Let $M$ be an $n\times n$ complex matrix with $\|M\| \leq 2^{n^{0.001}}$ and let $M_n = M + N_n$, where $N_n$ is a random matrix, each of whose entries is an independent copy of $\xi$.
Then, for all $\alpha \geq 2^{-n^{0.001}}$ and for all $\eta \leq (C_{\ref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}}(\|M\|+\sqrt{n})\alpha^{-1}n^{2})^{-300\log(\alpha^{-1})/\log{n}}$,
$$\Pr\left(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta \right) \leq C_{\ref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}}\alpha,$$
where $C_{\ref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}}$ is a constant depending only on $\xi$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
(1) The choice of the upper bound $2^{n^{0.001}}$ on $\|M\|$ and $\alpha^{-1}$ is arbitrary and can certainly be improved, although we have made no attempt to do so.
(2) When $\alpha = n^{-A}$ and $\|M\| \leq n^{C}$, \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} shows that $\Pr(s_n(M_n) \leq n^{-B}) = O(n^{-A})$ for some $B$ depending on $A$ and $C$, thereby recovering the result of Tao and Vu (up to the specific dependence of $B$ on $A$ and $C$, which, as noted earlier, is typically not important for applications).
\end{remark}
\noindent \textbf{Discussion: }The main advantage of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} over \cref{eqn:TV} is that it is valid for $\alpha^{-1}, \|M\| \leq 2^{n^{0.001}}$, whereas \cref{eqn:TV} (recast in the form of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}) would provide a similar conclusion only for $\alpha^{-1}, \|M\| \leq O(\text{poly}(n))$. In particular, even in the case when $\|M\|$ is polynomially bounded in $n$ and $\xi$ is a Rademacher random variable, \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} shows that $M_n$ is singular with probability at most $2^{-n^{0.001}}$, as compared to \cref{eqn:TV}, which only gives an inverse polynomial bound.\\
As mentioned earlier, our goal is to provide bounds in which one can take $\alpha$ to be very small (for instance, this is the case of interest in the singularity problem), and not so much on the exact relationship between $\eta$ and $\alpha, \|M\|$. However, we note that the main source of degradation in the relationship between $\eta$ and $\alpha, \|M\|$ in \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} comes from a pigeonholing argument, introduced in \cite{tao2008random}. In \cite{tao2010smooth}, a better relationship between $\eta$ and $\alpha, \|M\|$ is obtained using a more involved pigeonholing scheme. By using this more involved scheme, the relationship between $\eta$ and $\alpha,\|M\|$ in \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} can be made comparable to the current best known one in \cite{tao2010smooth}, although we have not attempted to do so in order to keep the exposition simple and transparent.\\
While \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} significantly increases the range of validity of estimates like \cref{eqn:TV}, we feel that what is of greater interest are the proof techniques. Unlike the geometric methods, we make no use of net arguments (except very superficially). We also do not make any use of the inverse Littlewood--Offord theory of Tao and Vu. Instead, we utilize and extend an elementary combinatorial approach to the so-called `counting problem in inverse Littlewood--Offord theory' (see the next subsection), recently developed by Ferber, Luh, Samotij, and the author \cite{FJLS2018} -- this part of our paper may be of independent interest.\\
The benefit of this combinatorial approach to the counting problem is that it provides much better estimates than those that can be obtained from the inverse Littlewood--Offord theorems of Tao and Vu \cite{tao2010sharp}, and Nguyen and Vu \cite{nguyen2011optimal} -- this is, in part, because our approach is not hampered by the black-box application of heavy machinery from additive combinatorics. However, in contrast to the `continuous inverse Littlewood-Offord theorems' (\cite{tao2008random, nguyen2011optimal}), we do not have a genuinely `continuous version' of our counting results. This necessitates the need for additional arguments to reduce the quantitative invertibility problem to a situation where the `discrete counting theorem' we do have may directly be applied. Such an argument first appears in \cite{jain2019combinatorial}, where the author was able to use certain `rounding' arguments to avoid the need for a continuous version of the counting theorem; however, these arguments still relied on various norms of the random matrix not being too large, which is not true in the setting of smoothed analysis. Hence, the main technical challenge in the present work is to execute a version of these rounding arguments, even in the presence of large norms and heavy-tailed random variables.\\
At a high level, our work shows that for the purpose of controlling the smallest singular value of a random matrix, \emph{even in the general setting of smoothed analysis}, a good solution to the \emph{discrete counting version} of the inverse Littlewood--Offord problem (which, as we will see, is significantly easier to establish) is already sufficient. Note that a quantitatively weaker solution to this problem first appeared in the original breakthrough work of Tao and Vu on inverse Littlewood--Offord theory \cite{tao2009inverse}. However, in that work, the authors made use not just of the counting estimate, but also of the additive combinatorial structural information coming from the inverse Littlewood--Offord theorems in order to study the smallest singular value.
\subsection{The counting problem in inverse Littlewood-Offord theory}
\label{sec:counting-problem-ILO}
In its simplest form, the so-called Littlewood-Offord problem, first raised by Littlewood and Offord in \cite{littlewood1943number} asks the following question. Let $\boldsymbol{a}:= (a_1,\dotsc, a_n) \in (\mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\})^{n}$ and let $\epsilon_1,\dotsc, \epsilon_n$ be i.i.d. Rademacher random variables. Estimate the largest atom probability $\rho(\boldsymbol{a})$, which is defined by
\[
\rho(\boldsymbol{a}) := {\textstyle \sup_{x\in \mathbb{Z}}}\Pr\left(\epsilon_1 a_1 + \dotsb + \epsilon_n a_n = x\right).
\]
Littlewood and Offord showed that $\rho(\boldsymbol{a}) = O\left(n^{-1/2}\log{n}\right)$. Soon after, Erd\H{o}s~\cite{erdos1945lemma} gave an elegant combinatorial proof of the refinement $\rho(\boldsymbol{a}) \leq \binom{n}{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} / 2^{n} = O(n^{-1/2})$, which is tight, as is readily seen by taking $\boldsymbol{a}$ to be the all ones vector. These classic results of Littlewood-Offord and Erd\H{o}s generated a lot of activity around this problem in various directions: higher-dimensional generalizations e.g. \cite{katona1966conjecture, kleitman1966combinatorial}; better upper bounds on $\rho(\boldsymbol{a})$ given additional hypotheses on $\boldsymbol{a}$ e.g. \cite{erdos1947e736, halasz1977estimates, sarkozy1965problem}; and obtaining similar results with the Rademacher distribution replaced by more general distributions e.g. \cite{esseen1966kolmogorov, halasz1977estimates}.
A new view was brought to the Littlewood-Offord problem by Tao and Vu \cite{tao2009inverse, tao2008random} who, guided by inverse theorems from additive combinatorics, tried to find the underlying reason why $\rho(\boldsymbol{a})$ could be large. They used deep Freiman-type results from additive combinatorics to show that, roughly speaking, the only reason for a vector $\boldsymbol{a}$ to have $\rho(\boldsymbol{a})$ only polynomially small is that most coordinates of $\boldsymbol{a}$ belong to a generalized arithmetic progression (GAP) of `small rank' and `small volume'. Their results were subsequently sharpened by Nguyen and Vu~\cite{nguyen2011optimal}, who proved an `optimal inverse Littlewood--Offord theorem'. We refer the reader to the survey \cite{nguyen2013small} and the textbook \cite{tao2006additive} for complete definitions and statements, and much more on both forward and inverse Littlewood-Offord theory.
Recently, motivated by applications, especially those in random matrix theory such as the ones considered in the present work, the following \emph{counting variant} of the inverse Littlewood--Offord problem was isolated in work \cite{FJLS2018} of Ferber, Luh, Samotij, and the author: for \emph{how many} vectors $\boldsymbol{a}$ in a given collection $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathbb{Z}^{n}$ is the largest atom probability $\rho(\boldsymbol{a})$ greater than some prescribed value? The utility of such results is that they enable various union bound arguments, as one can control the number of terms in the relevant union/sum.
One of the main contributions of \cite{FJLS2018} was to show that one may obtain useful bounds for the counting variant of the inverse Littlewood-Offord problem directly, \emph{without} providing a precise structural characterization like Tao and Vu. Not only does this approach make certain arguments considerably simpler, it also provides better quantitative bounds for the counting problem, since it is not hampered by losses coming from the black-box application of various theorems from additive combinatorics. In \cite{FJLS2018, ferber2018singularity, jain2019combinatorial}, this work was utilized to provide quantitative improvements for several problems in combinatorial random matrix theory.\\
A natural question left open by this line of work is whether one can adapt the strategy of \cite{FJLS2018} to study the counting problem in inverse Littlewood-Offord theory with respect to general random variables as well.
We note that the inverse Littlewood-Offord theorems in \cite{nguyen2011optimal, tao2008random} are indeed applicable to these more general settings. However, since the proofs in \cite{FJLS2018} proceed by viewing (bounded) integer-valued random variables as random variables valued in $\mathbb{F}_p$ (for sufficiently large $p$), it is not clear whether the combinatorial techniques there can be extended. Here, we show (\cref{thm:counting-continuous}), that the combinatorial arguments of \cite{FJLS2018} can be used in combination with (the dual of) the Fourier-analytic arguments in \cite{tao2008random, nguyen2011optimal} to prove a counting result for very general distributions. The statement of the the following theorem uses \cref{defn:levy-conc} and \cref{defn:good-rv}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:counting-continuous}
Let $\xi$ be a $C_\xi$-good random variable. For $\rho \in (0,1)$ (possibly depending on $n$), let
$$\boldsymbol{V}_{\rho} :=\left\{\boldsymbol{v}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}: \rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \geq \rho\right\}.$$ There exists a constant $C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}} \geq 1$, depending only on $C_\xi$, for which the following holds. Let $n,s,k\in \mathbb{N}$ with $1000C_{\xi} \leq k\leq \sqrt{s}\leq s \leq n/\log{n}$. If $\rho \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\max\left\{ e^{-s/k},s^{-k/4}\right\}$ and $p$ is an odd prime such that $2^{n/s}\geq p \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\rho^{-1}$, then
$$\left|\varphi_p(\boldsymbol{V}_\rho)\right| \leq \left(\frac{5np^{2}}{s}\right)^{s} + \left(\frac{C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\rho^{-1}}{\sqrt{s/k}}\right)^{n},$$
where $\varphi_p$ denotes the natural map from $(\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\to (\mathbb{F}_p+i\mathbb{F}_p)^{n}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The inverse Littlewood-Offord theorems may be used to deduce similar statements, \emph{provided we further assume that $\rho \geq n^{-C}$ for some constant $C>0$}. The freedom of taking $\rho$ to be much smaller is the source of the quantitative improvements in \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}.
\end{remark}
\noindent {\bf Organization: }The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In \cref{sec:preliminaries}, we collect some preliminary results on anti-concentration; the main result of this section is \cref{prop:refined-diophantine}. In \cref{sec:warmup}, as a warm-up (included in lieu of an informal sketch of the proof), we provide a proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} under the additional assumption that the random variable $\xi$ is subgaussian. In \cref{sec:proof-main}, we provide a proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}; this follows essentially the same outline as in the subgaussian case, with the main difference being \cref{prop:counting} (and the supporting results required to prove it). Finally, in \cref{sec:proof-counting-continuous}, we prove \cref{thm:counting-continuous}. \\
\noindent {\bf Notation: } Throughout the paper, we will omit floors and ceilings when they make no essential difference. For convenience, we will also say `let $p = x$ be a prime', to mean that $p$ is a prime between $x$ and $2x$; again, this makes no difference to our arguments. We will use $\mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ to denote the set of unit vectors in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, $B(x,r)$ to denote the ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$, and $\Re(\boldsymbol{v}), \Im(\boldsymbol{v})$ to denote the real and imaginary parts of a complex vector $\boldsymbol{v}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$. As is standard, we will use $[n]$ to denote the discrete interval $\{1,\dots,n\}$. We will also use the asymptotic notation $\lesssim, \gtrsim, \ll, \gg$ to denote $O(\cdot), \Omega(\cdot), o(\cdot), \omega(\cdot)$ respectively. For a matrix $M$, we will use $\|M\|$ to denote its standard $\ell^{2}\to \ell^{2}$ operator norm. All logarithms are natural unless noted otherwise.\\
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements: }I am grateful to Nick Cook for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, including the suggestion to consider the complex setting. I would also like to thank Galyna Livshyts and Konstantin Tikhomirov for discussions about their recent work \cite{livshyts2019smallest}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we collect some tools and auxiliary results that will be used throughout the rest of this paper.
\subsection{Anti-concentration}
The goal of the theory of anti-concentration is to obtain upper bounds on the L\'evy concentration function, defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[L\'evy concentration function]
\label{defn:levy-conc}
Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n) \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ be a random vector and let $\boldsymbol{v}:=(v_{1},\dots,v_{n})\in\mathbb{C}^{n}$. We define the \emph{L\'evy concentration function of $\boldsymbol{v}$ at radius $r \in \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\xi}$} by $$\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{v}):=\sup_{x\in\mathbb{C}}\Pr\left(v_{1}z_{1}+\dots+v_{n}z_{n}\in B(x,r)\right).$$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
(1) In particular, note that $\rho_{r,\xi}(1) = \sup_{x\in \mathbb{C}}\Pr(\xi \in B(x,1))$. We will use this notation repeatedly.
(2) Moreover, when the components of $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ are i.i.d. copies of some random variable $\xi$, we will sometimes abuse notation by using $\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})$ to denote $\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{v})$.
(3) If $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\xi}}$ is a random vector whose distribution coincides with that of a random vector $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ conditioned on some event $\mathcal{E}$, then we will often denote $\rho_{r,\tilde{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}(\boldsymbol{v})$ by $\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{E}}(\boldsymbol{v})$.
\end{remark}
The next lemma shows that weighted sums of random variables which are not close to being a constant are also not close to being a constant.
\begin{lemma}(see, e.g., Lemma 6.3 in \cite{tao2010smooth})
\label{lemma:anticoncentration}
Let $\xi$ be a complex random variable with finite non-zero variance. Then, there exists a constant $c_{\ref{lemma:anticoncentration}} \in (0,1)$, depending only on $\xi$, such that
$$\sup_{\boldsymbol{v}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}}\rho_{c_{\ref{lemma:anticoncentration}},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq 1-c_{\ref{lemma:anticoncentration}}.$$
\end{lemma}
Combining this with the so-called tensorization lemma (see Lemma 2.2 in \cite{rudelson2008littlewood}), we get the following estimate for `invertibility with respect to a single vector'.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}
Let $\xi$ be a complex random variable with finite non-zero variance.
Let $M$ be an arbitrary $n\times n$ matrix and let $N_n$ be a random matrix each of whose entries is an independent copy of $\xi$. Then, for any fixed $\boldsymbol{v}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$,
$$\Pr\left(\|(M+N_{n})\boldsymbol{v}\|_2\leq c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}\sqrt{n}\right) \leq (1- c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}})^{n},$$
where $c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}\in (0,1)$ is a constant depending only on $\xi$.
\end{lemma}
We will also need the following simple fact, which compares the L\'evy concentration function with respect to a random vector to the L\'evy concentration function with respect to a conditioned version of the random vector.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:compare-sbp-condition}
Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ be a complex random vector, let $\mathcal{G}$ be an event depending on $\boldsymbol{\xi}$, and let $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}$ denote a random vector distributed as $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ conditioned on $\mathcal{G}$. Then, for any $\boldsymbol{v} \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ and for any $r\geq 0$,
$$\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{v}) \geq \rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}}(\boldsymbol{v})\Pr(\mathcal{G}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\epsilon > 0$ and let $x\in \mathbb{C}$ be such that
$$\Pr\left(v_1 \xi_1 + \dots + v_n \xi_n \in B(x,r) \mid \mathcal{G}\right) \geq \rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}}(\boldsymbol{v}) - \epsilon.$$
Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(v_1\xi_1+\dots+v_n \xi_n \in B(x,r)\right)
&\geq \Pr\left(v_1\xi_1+\dots+v_n \xi_n \in B(x,r) \cap \mathcal{G}\right)\\
&= \Pr\left(v_1\xi_1+\dots+v_n \xi_n \in B(x,r) \mid \mathcal{G}\right)\Pr(\mathcal{G})\\
&\geq \rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}}(\boldsymbol{v})\Pr(\mathcal{G}) - \epsilon.
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum of the left hand side over the choice of $x\in \mathbb{C}$, and then taking the limit of the right hand side as $\epsilon \to 0$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
In order to state the main assertion of this subsection (\cref{prop:refined-diophantine}), we need the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:good-rv}
We say that a random variable $\xi$ is \emph{$C$-good} if
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:assumption-on-z}
\Pr(C^{-1}\leq|\xi_{1}-\xi_{2}|\leq C)\geq C^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ denote independent copies of $\xi$.
The smallest $C\geq 1$ with respect to which $\xi$ is $C$-good will be denoted by $C_\xi$.
\end{definition}
The following lemma shows that the general random variables with which we are concerned in this paper (i.e. complex random variables with finite non-zero variance) are indeed $C$-good for some finite $C$, so that there is no loss of generality for us in imposing this additional restriction.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:non-trivial-implies-good}
Let $\xi$ be a complex random variable with variance $1$. Then, $\xi$ is $C_{\xi}$-good for some $C_{\xi} \geq 1$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\text{Var}(\xi)=1$, there must exist some $u_\xi, v_\xi \in (0,1)$ such that $\rho_{v_\xi,\xi}(1)\leq u_\xi$. Therefore, letting $\xi'$ denote an independent copy of $\xi$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(|\xi - \xi'|\leq\frac{v_\xi}{2}\right) \leq \rho_{v_\xi,\xi-\xi'}(1) \leq \rho_{v_\xi,\xi}(1) \leq u_\xi.
\end{align*}
Moreover, since $\mathbb{E}[|\xi-\xi'|^{2}]=\text{Var}(\xi-\xi') = \text{Var}(\xi) + \text{Var}(\xi') = 2$, it follows from Markov's inequality that
$$\Pr\left(|\xi-\xi'| \geq 2(1-u_{\xi})^{-1/2}\right)\leq \frac{1-u_{\xi}}{2}.$$
Combining these two bounds, we see that
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(\frac{v_{\xi}}{2}\leq |\xi - \xi'| \leq 2(1-u_{\xi})^{-1/2}\right)\geq \frac{1-u_{\xi}}{2},
\end{align*}
which gives the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
We conclude this subsection with the following proposition, which roughly states that the L\'evy concentration function of a vector with no suitable multiple sufficiently close to a Gaussian integer vector must be small. This will prove crucial in our replacement of applications of the continuous inverse Littlewood-Offord theorem by \cref{thm:counting-continuous}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:refined-diophantine}
Let $\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{n}$
be independent copies of a $C_{\xi}$-good complex random variable $\xi$.
Let $\boldsymbol{v}:=(v_{1},\dots,v_{n})\in\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}$.
Suppose the following holds: there exists some $f(n) \in (0,1)$, $g(n) \in (1,\infty)$ and $\alpha > 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\text{dist}(\eta \boldsymbol{v},(\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}) & \geq\alpha\quad \forall\eta\in \mathbb{C} \text{ such that } |\eta| \in\left[f(n),g(n)\right].
\end{align*}
Then, for any $r\geq 0$,
\[
\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})\leq C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}\exp(\pi r^{2})\left(\exp\left(-c_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}g(n)^{2}\right) + \exp\left(-c_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}\alpha^{2}\right) + f(n) \right),
\]
where $C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}>0$ are constants depending only on $C_{\xi}$.
\end{proposition}
The proof of this proposition requires the following preliminary definition and short Fourier-analytic lemmas from \cite{tao2008random}, along with a `doubling trick' appearing in \cite{jain2019b}.
\begin{definition}
Let $\xi$ be an arbitrary complex random variable. For any $w\in\mathbb{C}$, we define
$$\|w\|_{\xi}^{2}:=\mathbb{E}\|\Re\{w(\xi_{1}-\xi_{2})\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2},$$
where $\xi_{1},\xi_{2}$ denote i.i.d. copies of $z$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}$ denotes the distance to the nearest integer.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 5.2 in \cite{tao2008random}]
\label{lemma:initial-fourier-bound}
Let
$\boldsymbol{v}:=(v_{1},\dots,v_{n})\in\mathbb{C}^{n}$ and let $\xi$ be an
arbitrary complex random variable. Then,
$$\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})\le e^{\pi r^{2}}P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq e^{\pi r^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|v_{i}z\|_{\xi}^{2}/2-\pi|z|^{2}\right)dz.$$
Here,
$$P_\xi(\boldsymbol{v}) := \mathbb{E}_{x_1,\dots,x_n}\exp(-\pi|v_1 x_1 + \dots + v_n x_n|^{2}),$$
where $x_1,\dots,x_n$ are i.i.d. copies of $(\xi_1 - \xi_2)\cdot \text{Ber} (1/2)$, with $\xi_1,\xi_2$ distributed as $\xi$, and $\text{Ber}(1/2), \xi_1, \xi_2$ mutually independent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.5 (iii) in \cite{tao2008random}]
\label{lemma:doubling}
For $\boldsymbol{v}, \boldsymbol{w}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$, let $\boldsymbol{v}\boldsymbol{w} \in \mathbb{C}^{2n}$ denote the vector whose first $n$ coordinates coincide with $\boldsymbol{v}$ and last $n$ coordinates coincide with $\boldsymbol{w}$. Then,
$$P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{w}) \leq 2P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}\boldsymbol{w}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{prop:refined-diophantine}]
Let $\boldsymbol{w}\in \mathbb{C}^{2n}$ denote the vector whose first $n$ components are $\boldsymbol{v}$ and last $n$ components are $i\boldsymbol{v}$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})^{2}
&= \rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})\rho_{r,\xi}(i\boldsymbol{v})\\
&\leq \exp(2\pi r^{2})P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})P_{\xi}(i\boldsymbol{v})\\
&\leq 2\exp(2\pi r^{2})P_{\xi}(\boldsymbol{w})\\
&\leq 2\exp(2\pi r^{2})\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp\left(-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\|v_{j}z\|_{\xi}^{2} + \|i v_{j}z\|_{\xi}^{2}\right)/2 - \pi |z|^{2}\right)dz,
\end{align*}
where the first line uses $\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) = \rho_{r,\xi}(i\boldsymbol{v})$, the second line is due to \cref{lemma:initial-fourier-bound}, the third line follows from \cref{lemma:doubling}, and the last line is again due to \cref{lemma:initial-fourier-bound}.
Next, note that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\|v_j z\|_{\xi}^{2} + \|i v_j z\|_{\xi}^{2}\right)&=
\mathbb{E}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\|\Re\{v_j z (\xi_1 - \xi_2)\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2} + \|\Re\{iv_j z (\xi_1-\xi_2)\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\right)\\
&= \mathbb{E}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\|\Re\{v_j z (\xi_1 - \xi_2)\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2} + \|\Im\{v_j z (\xi_1-\xi_2)\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\right)\\
&= \mathbb{E}\left[ \text{dist}^{2}\left(\boldsymbol{v} z (\xi_1-\xi_2), (\mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\right)\right]\\
&\geq \mathbb{E}\left[ \text{dist}^{2}\left(\boldsymbol{v} z (\xi_1-\xi_2), (\mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\right) \bigg\vert |\xi_1 - \xi_2| \in [C_\xi^{-1}, C_{\xi}]\right]C_{\xi}^{-1},
\end{align*}
where the final inequality follows from the $C_\xi$-goodness of $\xi$.
Therefore, from Jensen's inequality, we get that
\begin{align}
\rho_{r,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})^{2}&
\leq 2\exp(2\pi r^{2})\mathbb{E} \left[\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp(-C_{\xi}^{-1}\text{dist}^{2}\left(\boldsymbol{v} z (\xi_1-\xi_2), (\mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\right)/2 - \pi |z|^{2})dz \bigg\vert |\xi_1 - \xi_2| \in [C_{\xi}^{-1}, C_{\xi}] \right] \nonumber \\
&\leq 2\exp(2\pi r^{2} )\sup_{|y| \in [C_\xi^{-1}, C_{\xi}]}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp(-C_{\xi}^{-1}\text{dist}^{2}\left(\boldsymbol{v} z y, (\mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\right)/2 - \pi |z|^{2})dz \nonumber \\
&\leq 2\exp(2\pi r^{2} )\sup_{|y| \in [C_\xi^{-1}, C_{\xi}]}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp(-C_{\xi}^{-1}\text{dist}^{2}\left(\boldsymbol{v} z, (\mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z})^{n}\right)/2 - \pi |z/y|^{2})\frac{dz}{y}.
\label{eqn:fourier-bound-appendix}
\end{align}
Let $A_1:=\{z \in \mathbb{C} \mid \text{dist}(z \boldsymbol{v},(\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n})\geq\alpha\}$, let $A_2:= \{z \in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| \in [0,g(n)]\}\setminus A_1$, and let $A_3:= \{z \in \mathbb{C}: |z| \in (g(n),\infty)\} \setminus A_1$.
Then, we can bound the integral on the right hand side in \cref{eqn:fourier-bound-appendix} from above by
\[
\sup_{|y|\in [C_{\xi}^{-1}, C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_1}+\sup_{|y|\in [C_{\xi}^{-1}, C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_2} + \sup_{|y|\in [C_{\xi}^{-1}, C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_3}.
\]
Let us, in turn, bound each of these three terms separately.
\begin{itemize}
\item For the first term, we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_{1}} & \leq\exp\left(-C_{\xi}^{-1}\alpha^{2}/2\right)\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp\left(-\pi\frac{|z|^{2}}{|y|^{2}}\right)\frac{dz}{y}\\
& \leq 100\exp\left(-C_{\xi}^{-1}\alpha^{2}/2\right).
\end{align*}
\item For the second term, we begin by noting that since $\{z\in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| \in [f(n), g(n)]\}\subseteq A_1$ by assumption, it follows that $A_2 = \{z\in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| \in [0,f(n)]\} \setminus A_1$. Therefore, we have the trivial estimate
\begin{align*}
\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_{2}} & \leq\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{\mathbb{C} \cap B(0,f(n))}\exp\left(-\pi \frac{|z|^{2}}{|y|^{2}}\right)\frac{dz}{y}\\
& \leq 10C_{\xi}^{2}f(n)^{2}.
\end{align*}
\item For the third term, we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{A_{3}} & \leq\sup_{|y|\in[C_{\xi}^{-1},C_{\xi}]}\int_{\mathbb{C} \setminus B(0,g(n))}\exp\left(-\pi\frac{|z|^{2}}{|y|^{2}}\right)\frac{dz}{y}\\
&\leq100\exp\left(-\frac{C_{\xi}^{-2}g(n)^{2}}{20}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Finally, summing the estimates in the previous three bullet points and taking the square root gives the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\section{Warm-up: proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} in the subgaussian case}
\label{sec:warmup}
In this section, we will discuss the proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} in the special case when the entries are further assumed to be i.i.d. subgaussian. This will allow the reader to see many of the key ideas and calculations in a simpler, less technical, setting. Our general reduction and outline follows Tao and Vu \cite{tao2008random, tao2010smooth}; as mentioned in the introduction, the main difference is the replacement of the crucial continuous inverse Littlewood-Offord theorem.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:subgaussian}
A complex random variable $\xi$ is said to be $C$-subgaussian if, for all $t>0$,
$$\Pr\left(|\xi|>t\right) \leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{C^2}\right).$$
\end{definition}
For the remainder of this section, we fix a centered $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$-subgaussian complex random variable $\xi$ with variance $1$. Our goal in this section is to prove the following subgaussian version of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-subgaussian}
Let $\xi$ be a centered $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$-subgaussian complex random variable with variance $1$. Let $M$ be an $n\times n$ complex matrix with $\|M\| \leq 2^{n^{0.001}}$ and let $M_n = M + N_n$, where $N_n$ is a random matrix, each of whose entries is an independent copy of $\xi$.
Then, for all $\alpha \geq 2^{-n^{0.001}}$ and for all $\eta \leq (C_{\ref{thm:main-subgaussian}}(\|M\|+\sqrt{n})\alpha^{-1}n^{2})^{-300\log(\alpha^{-1})/\log{n}}$,
$$\Pr\left(s_n(M_n) \leq \eta \right) \leq C_{\ref{thm:main-subgaussian}}\alpha,$$
where $C_{\ref{thm:main-subgaussian}}\geq 1$ is a constant depending only on $\xi$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Properties of subgaussian random variables}
A basic and important fact about subgaussian random variables is the so-called subgaussian concentration inequality.
\begin{lemma}[see, e.g., Proposition 5.10 in \cite{vershynin2010introduction}]
\label{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}
Let $\xi_1,\dots, \xi_n$ be independent centered $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$-subgaussian complex random variables. Then, for every $\boldsymbol{v}:=(v_1,\dots,v_n) \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ and for every $t\geq 0$, we have
$$\Pr\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_i \xi_i\right| \geq t\right) \leq 3\exp\left(-\frac{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}t^2}{\|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2}^{2}}\right),$$
where $c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}} > 0$ is a constant depending only on $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$.
\end{lemma}
The subgaussian concentration inequality allows us to show that if $\boldsymbol{a}, \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ are close in Euclidean distance, then the L\'evy concentration functions of $\boldsymbol{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{b}$ are close in a suitable sense as well. More precisely:
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian}
Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{n})$ be a complex random vector whose entries are independent centered $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$-subgaussian complex random variables. Then, for every $\boldsymbol{a}:=(a_1,\dots,a_n), \boldsymbol{b}:= (b_1,\dots,b_n) \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$, and for every $r_1,r_2\geq 0$, we have
$$\rho_{r_1+r_2, \boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{b}) \geq \rho_{r_1,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 3\exp\left(-\frac{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}r_2^{2}}{\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{2}^{2}}\right).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $r_2\geq 0$, let $\mathcal{E}_{r_2}$ denote the event that $\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}(a_i - b_i)\xi_i\right| < r_2$. By \cref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration},
$$\Pr\left(\mathcal{E}_{r_2}^{c}\right) \leq 3\exp\left(-\frac{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}r_2^{2}}{\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{2}^{2}}\right).$$
Fix $\epsilon > 0$, and let $x \in \mathbb{C}$ be such that
$$\Pr\left(a_1 \xi_1 + \dots + a_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1)\right) \geq \rho_{r_1,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - \epsilon.$$
Then,
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(b_1\xi_1 +\dots + b_n\xi_n \in B(x,r_1+r_2)\right)
& \geq \Pr\left(b_1 \xi_1 + \dots + b_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1+r_2) \cap \mathcal{E}_{r_2}\right)\\
& \geq \Pr\left(a_1 \xi_1 + \dots + a_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1) \cap \mathcal{E}_{r_2}\right)\\
& \geq \Pr\left(a_1 \xi _1 + \dots + a_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1)\right) - \Pr(\mathcal{E}_{r_2}^{c})\\
& \geq \rho_{r_1,\boldsymbol{\xi}}{(\boldsymbol{a})}-\epsilon - \Pr(\mathcal{E}_{r_2}^{c}),
\end{align*}
where the second line follows from the triangle inequality.
Taking the supremum of the left hand side over the choice of $x\in \mathbb{C}$, and then taking the limit on the right hand side as $\epsilon \to 0$ gives the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
As will be seen later, the key technical challenge in extending the proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} from the subgaussian case to the general case is the unavailability of \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian}.
\end{remark}
Finally, we need the following well-known estimate on the operator norm of a random matrix with i.i.d. subgaussian entries, which may be proved by combining the subgaussian concentration inequality with a standard epsilon-net argument.
\begin{lemma}[see, e.g., Lemma 2.4 in \cite{rudelson2008littlewood}]
\label{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}
Let $N_n$ be an $n\times n$ random matrix whose entries are i.i.d. centered $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$-subgaussian complex random variables. Then,
$$\Pr\left(\|N_{n}\| \geq C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}\right) \leq 2\exp(-n),$$
where $C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\geq 1$ depends only on $\tilde{C}_{\xi}$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Rich and poor vectors}
For the remainder of this section, we fix an $n\times n$ complex matrix $M$ and parameters $\alpha,\eta \in (0,1)$ satisfying the restrictions of the statement of \cref{thm:main-subgaussian}. Also, let $$
\beta: = \frac{\alpha}{n},\quad f(\beta) := \frac{\beta}{100C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}} \in (0,1), \quad J(\beta, n):= \frac{100\log(\beta^{-1})}{\log{n}}.$$ We may assume without loss of generality that $\|M\| \geq 2C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}$ as otherwise, an improved version of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} already follows from the main result in \cite{jain2019b}. We may also assume that $\eta \geq 2^{-n^{0.01}}$, since the statement of \cref{thm:main-subgaussian} for smaller values of $\eta$ follows from the result for $\eta = 2^{-n^{0.01}}$.
Following Tao and Vu \cite{tao2008random}, we call a unit vector $\boldsymbol{v} \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ \emph{poor} if we have
$$\rho_{2\eta\sqrt{n},\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq \beta$$
and \emph{rich} otherwise.
We use $\boldsymbol{P}(\beta)$ and $\boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$ to denote, respectively, the set of poor and rich vectors. Accordingly, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(s_n(M_n)\leq \eta\right) \leq \Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta\right) + \Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta\right).
\end{align*}
Therefore, \cref{thm:main-subgaussian} is a consequence of the following two propositions and the union bound.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:eliminate-poor-subgaussian}
$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2}\leq \eta \right) \leq n\beta$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}
$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2}\leq \eta \right) \leq C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}}\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}}n),$
where $C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}}>0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$.
\end{proposition}
The proof of \cref{prop:eliminate-poor-subgaussian} is relatively simple, and follows from a conditioning argument developed in \cite{litvak2005smallest} (see, e.g., the proof of Lemma 11.3 in \cite{tao2008random}). We omit the details here, since later in \cref{prop:eliminate-poor}, we will prove a similar (but more complicated, and with a slightly different conclusion) statement.\\
The proof of \cref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian} will occupy the remainder of this section. We begin with some preliminary results about the structure of rich vectors.\\
The first result is a simple observation due to Tao and Vu \cite{tao2008random} showing that for every rich vector, there exists a sufficiently large interval such that the L\'evy concentration function of the vector is `approximately constant' at any radius in this interval.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:pigeonhole-subgaussian}
For any $\boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$, there exists some $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ such that
$$\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j+1},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq n^{1/100}\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Compared to the trivial covering bound:
$$\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j+1},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \lesssim (2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{2}\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}),$$
the above lemma represents a tremendous saving, which will be crucial for our arguments. The factor $n^{1/100}$ in the lemma can be replaced by $n^{1/2 - \epsilon}$ at the expense of choosing different parameters in the rest of this section.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
For $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$, note that the quantities
$$\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v})$$
are increasing in $j$, and range between $\beta$ and $1$. Therefore, the pigeonhole principle gives the required conclusion.
\end{proof}
To each $\boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$, assign such an index $j$ arbitrarily, and denote the set of all vectors in $\boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$ indexed $j$ by $\boldsymbol{R}_j(\beta)$. This leads to the partition $$\boldsymbol{R}(\beta) = \sqcup_{j=0}^{J(\beta,n)}\boldsymbol{R}_{j}(\beta).$$
We further refine this partition, as in Tao and Vu \cite{tao2008random}.
\begin{definition}
For $j \in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ and $\ell\in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$, we define
$$\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta):=\{\boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{R}_j(\beta) \mid \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \in (2^{-\ell-1},2^{-\ell}]\}.$$
\end{definition}
\noindent In particular, since there are at most $200\log(\beta^{-1})^{2}$ choices of the pair $(j,\ell)$, the following suffices (by the union bound) to prove \cref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:jl-subgaussian}
For any $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ and $\ell\in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$,
$$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta \right) \leq C_{\ref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}n) ,$$
where $C_{\ref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}>0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$.
\end{proposition}
The next structural result, which is an immediate corollary of \cref{prop:refined-diophantine}, shows that every rich vector has a scale at which it can efficiently approximated by a Gaussian integer vector.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:approximate-jl-subgaussian}
Let $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$. Then, there exists some $D \in \mathbb{C}$ with $|D| \in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}]$ and some $\boldsymbol{v'}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}$ such that
$$\|\boldsymbol{v} - \boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2} \leq n^{1/20},$$
where $\boldsymbol{v}:= (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
$$g(n) = n^{1/20}, \quad \boldsymbol{w}:= (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}\boldsymbol{a}.$$ Suppose for contradiction that the desired conclusion does not hold. Then, for all $t\in \mathbb{C}$ such that $|t|\in [f(\beta),g(n)]$,
$$\text{dist}(t\boldsymbol{w},\mathbb{Z}^{n}) \geq n^{1/20}. $$
Hence, by \cref{prop:refined-diophantine},
\begin{align*}
\rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{w})
&\leq C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}\exp(\pi)\left(2\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}n^{1/10}) + f(\beta)\right)\\
&\leq 3C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}\exp(\pi)f(\beta) \leq \beta,
\end{align*}
so that
\begin{align*}
\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a})\leq \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) = \rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{w}) \leq \beta,
\end{align*}
which contradicts that $\boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$.
\end{proof}
The utility of the previous lemma is that it allows us to reduce \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian} to a statement about Gaussian integer vectors, which we then prove via a union bound. Indeed, let $\mathcal{O}$ be the event that the operator norm of $N_n$ is at most $C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}$.
By \cref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian},
$$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\right) \leq \Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{O}\right) + 2\exp(-n).$$
Suppose the event in the first term on the right occurs. Let $\boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$ be such that $\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2} \leq \eta$, and let $D \in \mathbb{C}$ with $|D|\in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}]$, $\boldsymbol{v'}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}$ be such that the conclusion of \cref{lemma:approximate-jl-subgaussian} holds for $\boldsymbol{a}, D, \boldsymbol{v'}$. Let
$$\boldsymbol{v} = (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}.$$ Then, by the triangle inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}
&\leq \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} + \|M_{n}\|\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\\
&\leq (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}|D|\eta + \left(\|M\|+C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}\right)n^{1/20}\\
&\leq |D|n^{-1/2} + \left(\|M\|+C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}\right)n^{1/20}\\
&\leq 2\left(\|M\|+C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}\right)n^{1/20}\\
&\leq 3\|M\|n^{1/20},
\end{align*}
where the fourth line holds since $|D|n^{-1/2} \leq n^{1/20}n^{-1/2} \leq 1$, and the last line holds because of the assumption that $\|M\| \geq 2C_{\ref{lemma:operator-norm-subgaussian}}\sqrt{n}$.
Hence, letting $X_i$ denote the $i^{th}$ row of $M_n$, it follows from Markov's inequality that there are at least $n':= n-n^{0.1}$ coordinates $i\in [n]$ for which
$$|X_i \cdot \boldsymbol{v'}| \leq 3\|M\|.$$
It follows that
$$\Pr\left(\|M_n \boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2} \leq 3\|M\|n^{1/10}\right) \leq \rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})^{n-n^{0.1}}.$$
To summarize, setting
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta):&=\\ \{\boldsymbol{v'}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}& \mid \exists \boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta), D\in \mathbb{C} \text{ s.t. } |D|\in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}], \|(2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq n^{1/20}\},
\end{align*}
we have proved
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:union-bound-subgaussian}
$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_n \boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\right)
\leq \sum_{\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)}\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})^{n-n^{0.1}} + 2\exp(-n).$
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Counting Gaussian integer vectors approximating scaled rich vectors}
In this subsection, we will control the size of $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$. This is essentially the only place in the argument where we use the subgaussianity of the random variable $\xi$ (via the application of \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian}).
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:counting-subgaussian}
For every $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ and $\ell\in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$,
$$\left|\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)\right| \leq C_{\ref{prop:counting-subgaussian}}\left(2^{n^{0.99}} + \left(\frac{64C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}2^{\ell}}{n^{0.10}}\right)^{n}\right),$$
where $C_{\ref{prop:counting-subgaussian}}\geq 1$ is an absolute constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The crucial part of this upper bound is the appearance of a factor of the form $n^{-\epsilon n}$ in the second term.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
We will obtain a good lower bound on $\rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})$ and then appeal to \cref{thm:counting-continuous} for a suitable choice of parameters. For the lower bound, let $\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$ and let $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$, $D\in \mathbb{C}$ with $|D|\in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}]$ be such that $\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq n^{1/20}$, where
$$\boldsymbol{v}:= (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}.$$ Then,
\begin{align*}
\rho_{2n^{0.15},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})
&\geq \rho_{n^{0.15},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) - 3\exp\left(-\frac{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.30}}{n^{0.10}}\right)\\
&\geq \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}|D|^{-1}n^{0.15},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.20}\right)\\
&\geq \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}, \xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.20}\right)\\
&\geq \frac{\rho_{2\eta\sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a})}{2},
\end{align*}
where the first inequality follows from \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian}, the third inequality follows since $|D|^{-1}n^{0.15} \geq n^{-1/20}n^{0.15}\geq 1$, and the last inequality follows from $\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) \geq \beta \gg \exp(-n^{0.1})$.
Hence, by the pigeonhole principle, we must have
$$\rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'}) \geq \frac{\rho_{2n^{0.15},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})}{(4n^{0.15})^{2}} \geq \frac{\rho_{2\eta\sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a})}{32n^{0.30}} \geq \frac{2^{-\ell}}{64n^{0.30}},$$
where the final inequality holds since $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$.
To summarize, using notation as in \cref{thm:counting-continuous}, we have shown that
$$\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)\subseteq \boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/64n^{0.30}}.$$
Applying \cref{thm:counting-continuous} with the parameters $s= n^{0.9}$, $k= n^{0.1}$, and $p = 2^{n^{0.04}}$, we find that
$$|\varphi_p(\boldsymbol{V}_{\rho})| \leq \left(5np^{2}\right)^{n^{0.9}} + \left(\frac{C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\rho^{-1}}{n^{0.4}}\right)^{n},$$
for all $\rho \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}^{-1}2^{-n^{0.04}/4}.$ In particular, since $$2^{-\ell}/64n^{0.30} \geq \beta/64n^{0.30} \gg 2^{-n^{0.01}},$$ it follows that
$$\left|\varphi_{p}\left(\boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/64n^{0.30}}\right)\right| \lesssim 2^{n^{0.99}} + \left(\frac{64C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}2^{\ell}}{n^{0.10}}\right)^{n}.$$
Finally, since
$$\|\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{\infty} \leq \|\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2} \leq (2\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}|D| + n^{1/4} \ll 2^{n^{0.04}},$$
we see that the map $\varphi_p$ is an injection on $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)\subseteq \boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/64n^{0.30}}$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}
Since we already have control on the size of $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$, in order to prove \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian} via \cref{prop:union-bound-subgaussian}, it suffices to have good control over $\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})$. This is provided by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:control-sbp-subgaussian}
For any $\boldsymbol{v'} \in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$,
$$\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'}) \leq \min\left\{1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2}, 2n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} \right\}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $4\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{J(\beta,n)+1} \leq v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}$, it follows from \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian} that (with notation as in the proof of \cref{prop:counting-subgaussian})
\begin{align*}
\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})
&\leq \rho_{4\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) + 3\exp\left(-\frac{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}\|M\|^{2}}{n^{0.10}}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{(4\eta \sqrt{n})(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}(4\|M\||D|^{-1}),\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{J(\beta,n)+1},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq 1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2},
\end{align*}
for all $n$ sufficiently large, where the third line follows from $8\|M\| |D|^{-1} \ll 2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1}$.
We also have
\begin{align*}
\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'}) &\leq \rho_{4\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) + 3\exp\left(-{c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{(2\eta \sqrt{n})(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}(4\|M\||D|^{-1}),\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j+1},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq n^{1/100}\rho_{2\eta \sqrt{n}(2\|M\|f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} + 3\exp\left(-c_{\ref{lemma:subgaussian-concentration}}n^{0.90}\right)\\
&\leq 2n^{1/100}2^{-\ell},
\end{align*}
where the fourth line follows from \cref{lemma:pigeonhole-subgaussian}, the fifth line follows since $\boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$, and the last line follows since $2^{-\ell} \geq \beta \gg \exp(-n^{0.2})$.
\end{proof}
The proof of \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian} is now immediate.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian}]
We have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_n \boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\right)
&\leq \sum_{\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)}\rho_{3\|M\|,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'})^{n-n^{0.10}} + 2\exp(-n)\\
&\leq |\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)|\left(\min\left\{1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2}, 2n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} \right\}\right)^{n-n^{0.10}} + 2\exp(-n)\\
&\leq C_{\ref{prop:counting-subgaussian}}\left(2^{n^{0.99}} + \left(\frac{64C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}2^{\ell}}{n^{0.10}}\right)^{n}\right)\left(\min\left\{1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2}, 2n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} \right\}\right)^{n-n^{0.10}}\\
& \hspace{0.5cm}+ 2\exp(-n)\\
&\leq O(\exp(-\Omega({n}))),
\end{align*}
where the first line follows from \cref{prop:union-bound-subgaussian}, the second line follows from \cref{lemma:control-sbp-subgaussian}, the third line follows from \cref{prop:counting-subgaussian}, and the last line follows since $2^{\ell} \leq \beta^{-1} \ll 2^{n^{0.02}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}}
\label{sec:proof-main}
\subsection{L\'evy concentration functions of $\ell_{\infty}$-close vectors}
As mentioned earlier, the key technical difficulty in the proof of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} compared to the proof of \cref{thm:main-subgaussian} is the unavailability of \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-subgaussian}. Instead, we have the following substitute.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:approximation-sbp-heavy}
Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n) \in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ be a complex random vector whose entries are independent copies of a complex random variable $\xi$ with mean $0$ and variance $1$. For $\epsilon \in (0,1/2)$, let $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}$ denote the event that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}|\xi_i|^{2} \leq n^{1+2\epsilon}$ and $|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi_{i}| \leq n^{(1/2) + \epsilon}$.
Then, for every $\boldsymbol{a}:=(a_1,\dots,a_n), \boldsymbol{b}:=(b_1,\dots,b_n)\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$, and for every $r_1,t \geq 0$, we have
$$\rho_{r_1+r_2, \boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{b}) \geq \rho_{r_1, \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 4\exp\left(-\frac{r_2^{2}}{256n^{1+2\epsilon}\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty}^{2}}\right),$$
where $r_2:= 2t\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty}$.
\end{proposition}
In order to prove this proposition, we will need some facts about concentration on the symmetric group. The following appears as Lemma 3.9 in \cite{rebrova2018coverings}, and is a direct application of Theorem 7.8 in \cite{milman2009asymptotic}.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 3.9 in \cite{rebrova2018coverings}]
\label{lemma:talagrand-corollary}
Let $\boldsymbol{y}:=(y_{1},\dots,y_{n})$ be a non-zero complex
vector and let $\boldsymbol{v}\in[-1,1]^{n}$. Consider the function
$h:S_{n}\to\mathbb{C}$ defined by
\[
h(\pi):=\sum_{j=1}^{n}v_{\pi(j)}y_{j}.
\]
Then, for all $t>0$,
\[
\Pr\left(\left|h(\pi)-\mathbb{E} h\right|\geq t\right)\leq4\exp\left(-\frac{t^{2}}{128\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_{2}^{2}}\right),
\]
where the probability is with respect to the uniform measure on $S_n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{rebrova2018coverings}, the above lemma is stated for $\boldsymbol{v}\in \{\pm 1\}^{n}$, but exactly the same proof shows that the conclusion also holds for any $\boldsymbol{v}\in [-1,1]^{n}$. Also, it is stated and proved (with better constants) for real vectors $\boldsymbol{y}$. However, the version above for complex vectors immediately follows from this by separately considering the real and imaginary parts of $h$ and using the union bound.
\end{remark}
We will use this lemma via the following immediate corollary.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:concentration-corollary}
Let $\boldsymbol{v}:=(v_1,\dots,v_n), \boldsymbol{w}:=(w_1,\dots,w_n) \in \mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus \{\boldsymbol{0}\}$, and let $\pi$ be a random permutation uniformly distributed on $S_n$.
Consider the function $h:S_n\to \mathbb{C}$ defined by
$$h(\pi):= \sum_{i=1}^{n}v_{\pi(i)}w_{i}.$$
Then, for all $t \geq |w_1+\dots+w_n|$,
$$\Pr\left(|h(\pi)| \geq 2t\|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty} \right) \leq 4\exp\left(-\frac{t^{2}}{128\|\boldsymbol{w}\|_{2}^{2}}\right).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, note that
\begin{align*}
\left|\mathbb{E}[h(\pi)]\right|
&= \left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_i\mathbb{E}\left[w_{\pi(i)}\right]\right| \\
&= \left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_i \frac{(w_{1}+\dots+w_{n})}{n}\right| \\
&= \left|\frac{(v_1+\dots+v_n)(w_1+\dots+w_n)}{n}\right|\\
&\leq \|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty}|w_1+\dots+w_n|.
\end{align*}
Next, let $\boldsymbol{v'}:= \|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty}^{-1}\boldsymbol{v}$. Then, $\boldsymbol{v'}\in [-1,1]^{n}$ and $h(\pi) = \|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty}g(\pi)$, where $g(\pi):= \sum_{i=1}^{n}{v'}_{\pi(i)}w_i$.
Therefore, by \cref{lemma:talagrand-corollary}, for all $t>0$,
$$\Pr\left(|g(\pi) - \mathbb{E}{g}| \geq t \right) \leq 4\exp\left(-\frac{t^{2}}{128\|\boldsymbol{w}\|_{2}^{2}}\right),$$
so that
$$\Pr\left(|h(\pi) - \mathbb{E}{h}| \geq t\|\boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty}\right) \leq 4\exp\left(-\frac{t^{2}}{128\|\boldsymbol{w}\|_{2}^{2}}\right).$$
The desired statement now follows from the triangle inequality and the estimate on $\mathbb{E}{h}$.
\end{proof}
We can now prove \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-heavy}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-heavy}]
Consider the random variable $X:= \sum_{i=1}^{n}(a_i - b_i)\xi_i$. We claim that for any $t\geq n^{(1/2)+\epsilon}$,
$$\Pr\left(|X|\geq 2t\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty} \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}\right) \leq 4\exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{128 n^{1+2\epsilon}}\right).$$
Indeed, since the distribution of the random vector $\boldsymbol{\xi}$, even after conditioning on the event $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}$, is invariant under permuting its coordinates, it suffices to show (by the law of total probability) that for any \emph{fixed} vector $\boldsymbol{w}:=(w_1,\dots,w_n)$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}|w_i|^{2} \leq n^{1+2\epsilon}$ and $|\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_i| \leq n^{(1/2)+\epsilon}$, and for any $t\geq n^{(1/2)+\epsilon}$
$$\Pr_{\pi \tilde S_n}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}(a_i-b_i)w_{\pi(i)}\right| \geq 2t\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty}\right) \leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{64 n^{1+2\epsilon}}\right).$$
Since $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(a_i - b_i) w_{\pi(i)}$ has the same distribution as $\sum_{i=1}^{n}(a - b)_{\pi(i)}w_i$, this follows immediately from \cref{lemma:concentration-corollary}.
Next, fix $\delta > 0$, and let $x\in \mathbb{C}$ be such that
$$\Pr\left(a_1 \xi_1 + \dots + a_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1) \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon} \right) \geq \rho_{r_1, \boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - \delta.$$
Then, for any $t \geq n^{(1/2)+\epsilon}$, setting $r_2:= 2t\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(b_1 \xi_1 +\dots+b_n\xi_n \in B(x,r_1 + r_2) \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon} \right)
&\geq \Pr\left(b_1 \xi_1+\dots + b_n \xi_n \in B(x,r_1+r_2) \cap \{|X| \leq r_2\} \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}\right) \\
&\geq \Pr\left(a_1\xi_1+\dots +a_n\xi_n \in B(x,r_1) \cap \{|X|\leq r_2\} \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}\right)\\
&\geq \Pr\left(a_1\xi_1+\dots +a_n\xi_n \in B(x,r_1) \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}\right) -\Pr\left(|X| \geq r_2 \mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}\right)\\
&\geq \rho_{r_1, \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a})-\delta - 4\exp\left(-\frac{r_2^{2}}{512n^{1+2\epsilon}\|\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_{\infty}^{2}}\right).
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum of the left hand side over the choice of $x\in \mathbb{C}$, and then taking the limit on the right hand side as $\delta \to 0$ gives the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Regularization of $N_n$}
In order to make use of the results of the previous subsection, we need that, with high probability, almost all of the rows of $N_n$ satisfy the event $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}$. This follows using a straightforward application of the standard Chernoff bound.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 5.3 in \cite{jain2019b}]
\label{lemma:proj_control_basic}
Let $N_n:=(a_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ complex random matrix with i.i.d. entries,
each with mean $0$ and variance $1$. For $\epsilon\in(0,1/2)$, let $I\subseteq[n]$ denote the (random) subset of coordinates
such that for each $i\in I$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:good-row-condition}
\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}|a_{ij}|^{2}\leq n^{1+2\epsilon}\right)\bigwedge\left(\left|\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{ij}\right|\leq n^{(1/2)+\epsilon}\right).
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{R}_{\epsilon}$ denote the event that $|I^{c}|\leq 2n^{1-\epsilon}$.
Then,
\[
\Pr\left(\mathcal{R}_{\epsilon}^{c}\right)\leq2\exp\left(-\frac{n^{1-\epsilon}}{4}\right).
\]
\end{lemma}
We will also need the following (trival) bound on the probability that the operator norm of $N_n$ is too large.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:operator-norm}
Let $N_n:=(a_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ complex random matrix with independent entries, each with mean $0$ and variance $1$. Then, for any $L \geq 1$,
$$\Pr\left(\|N_n\| \geq \sqrt{L}n\right) \leq L^{-1} $$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Markov's inequality, $\Pr\left(\sum_{ij}|a_{ij}|^{2} \geq Ln^{2} \right) \leq L^{-1}.$ Since $\|N_n\|^{2} \leq \|N_n\|^{2}_{F} := \sum_{ij}|a_{ij}|^{2}$, the desired conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
Henceforth, let $\mathcal{O}_{\beta}$ denote the event that $\|N_{n}\| \leq \beta^{-1/2}n$; by the above lemma, this occurs except with probability at most $\beta$. Moreover, let $S(\beta):= \|M\| + \beta^{-1/2}n$.
\subsection{Rich and poor vectors}
For the remainder of this section, we fix an $n\times n$ complex matrix $M$ and parameters $\alpha,\eta \in (0,1)$ satisfying the restrictions of the statement of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis}. Also, let $$\beta:= \frac{\alpha}{2n+1},\quad f(\beta):= \frac{\beta}{200C_{\ref{prop:refined-diophantine}}} \in (0,1), \quad J(\beta,n):= \frac{100\log(\beta^{-1})}{\log{n}}, \quad \epsilon = 0.025.$$ We may further assume that $\eta \geq 2^{-n^{0.01}}$, since the statement of \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} for smaller values of $\eta$ follows from the statement for $\eta = 2^{-n^{0.01}}$.
We call a unit vector $\boldsymbol{v}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ \emph{poor} if we have
$$\rho_{2\eta S(\beta)\sqrt{n},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq \beta$$
and \emph{rich} otherwise. We use $\boldsymbol{P}(\beta)$ and $\boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$ to denote, respectively, the set of poor and rich vectors. As before, \cref{thm:main-smoothed-analysis} follows from the following two propositions and the union bound.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:eliminate-poor}
$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta \right) \leq 2n\beta + C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-poor}}\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-poor}}n^{2/3}),$
where $C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-poor}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-poor}}>0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:eliminate-rich}
$\Pr\left(\exists \boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta \right) \leq \beta + C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich}}\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich}}n^{2/3})$,
where $C_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:eliminate-rich}} > 0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Eliminating poor vectors}
Compared to \cref{prop:eliminate-poor-subgaussian}, the proof of \cref{prop:eliminate-poor} requires more work, since we need to work with $\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v})$ instead of $\rho_{r,\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{v})$. In order to do this, we start by first eliminating `compressible' vectors.
\begin{definition}[Definition 3.2 in \cite{rudelson2008littlewood}]
Let $\delta_1 \in [0,n], \delta_2 \in (0,1/2)$.
(1) A vector $\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$
is called \emph{sparse} if $|{\bf supp}(\boldsymbol{x})| \leq \delta_1$.
(2) A vector $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$
is called
\emph{compressible} if $\boldsymbol{x}$ is within Euclidean distance $\delta_2$ from the set of all sparse vectors.
(3) A vector $x\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ is called \emph{incompressible} if it is not compressible.
The sets of sparse, compressible and incompressible vectors will be denoted by
$\textbf{Sparse}(\delta_1), \textbf{Comp}(\delta_1,\delta_2)$, and $\textbf{Incomp}(\delta_1, \delta_2)$ respectively.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:incompressible}
In particular, note that for any $x\in \textbf{Incomp}(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ and for any $I \subseteq [n]$ with $|I|\leq \delta_1 n$, there exists some $j \in I^{c}$ such that $|x_j| \geq \delta_2/\sqrt{n}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We have used the terminology of `compressible' and `incompressible' vectors mostly for convenience, and our use of these notions is rather different from that in the work of Rudelson and Vershynin. In particular, the only property of incompressible vectors we use is captured in the above remark, which is much weaker than what is used by the geometric methods.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:invertibility-compressible}
Let $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta}$ denote the event that there exists some $\boldsymbol{v}\in \textbf{Comp}(2n^{1-\epsilon}, S(\beta)^{-1})$ for which $\|\boldsymbol{v}^{T}M_{n}\| \leq \eta$. Then,
$$\Pr\left(\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta}\right) \leq \beta + C_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-compressible}}\exp(-c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-compressible}}n),$$
where $C_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-compressible}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-compressible}}>0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By losing an additive error term which is at most $\beta$, it suffices to bound $\Pr(\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta}\cap \mathcal{O}_\beta)$. Let $\boldsymbol{N}$ denote an $S(\beta)^{-1}$-net of $\textbf{Sparse}(2n^{1-\epsilon})\cap \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ of minimum cardinality; by a standard volumetric argument, $$|\boldsymbol{N}| \leq \binom{n}{2n^{1-\epsilon}}(100S(\beta))^{4n^{1-\epsilon}}.$$
Suppose that $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta} \cap \mathcal{O}_\beta$ occurs. Then, by the definition of $\textbf{Comp}(2n^{1-\epsilon},S(\beta)^{-1})$, there exist $\boldsymbol{v},\boldsymbol{v'} \in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ such that $\|\boldsymbol{v}^{T}M_{n}\|_{2} \leq \eta$, $\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq S(\beta)^{-1}$, and $\boldsymbol{v'}$ is supported on at most $2n^{1-\epsilon}$ coordinates. Moreover, by the definition of $\boldsymbol{N}$, there exists some $\boldsymbol{v''}\in \boldsymbol{N}$ such that $\|\boldsymbol{v''}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq S(\beta)^{-1}$. By the triangle inequality, we see that
\begin{align*}
\|\boldsymbol{v''}^{T}M_{n}\|_{2}
&\leq \eta + \|M_{n}^{T}\|\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v''}\|_{2}\\
&= \eta + \|M_{n}\|\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v''}\|_{2}\\
&\leq \eta + 2\|M_{n}\|S(\beta)^{-1}\\
&\leq 2+\eta.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, by \cref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}, we see that for any fixed $\boldsymbol{v''}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$,
$$\Pr\left(\|\boldsymbol{v''}^{T}M_{n}\|_{2} \leq c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}\sqrt{n}\right) \leq (1-c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}})^{n}.$$
Therefore, taking the union bound over all $\boldsymbol{v''}\in \boldsymbol{N}$, it follows that $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta}\cap \mathcal{O}_{\beta}$ occurs with probability at most
$$\binom{n}{2n^{1-\epsilon}}(100S(\beta))^{4n^{1-\epsilon}}(1-c_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}})^{n} \leq \exp(-\Omega(n)),$$
where the final inequality follows since $S(\beta)^{n^{1-\epsilon}} = O(\exp(o(n))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{prop:eliminate-poor}]
By \cref{lemma:proj_control_basic} and \cref{lemma:invertibility-compressible}, after losing an additive error term of $\beta +O(\exp(-n^{1-\epsilon}/4))$, it suffices to bound the probability of the event intersected with $\mathcal{C}_{\epsilon,\beta}^{c}\cap \mathcal{R}_\epsilon$. Moreover,
since
$$\mathcal{R}_{\epsilon} = \sqcup_{I\subseteq[n], |I| \geq n-2n^{1-\epsilon}} \mathcal{R}_{\epsilon,I},$$
where $\mathcal{R}_{\epsilon,I}$ denotes the event that the rows of $N_n$ satisfying \cref{eqn:good-row-condition} are exactly those indexed by the subset $I$, it suffices (by the law of total probability) to show that for any $I\subseteq[n], |I|\geq n-2n^{1-\epsilon}$,
$$\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{C}^{c}_{\epsilon,\beta} \mid \mathcal{R}_{\epsilon, I}\right) \leq n\beta.$$
For the remainder of the proof, fix such an $I$. By reindexing the coordinates, we may further assume that $I = [|I|]$.
Since $M_n^{\dagger}$ and $M_{n}$ have the same singular values, it follows that a necessary condition for a matrix $M_n$ to satisfy the above event is that there exists a unit vector $\boldsymbol{a'}=(a'_{1},\dots,a'_{n})$
such that $\boldsymbol{a'} \in \textbf{Incomp}(2n^{1-\epsilon}, S(\beta)^{-1})$ and $\|\boldsymbol{a'}^{T}M_{n}\|_{2}\leq \eta$. To every matrix $M_n$, associate such a vector $\boldsymbol{a'}$ arbitrarily (if one exists) and denote it by $\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}$; this leads to a partition of the space of all matrices with least singular value at most $\eta$. By \cref{rmk:incompressible}, since $|I^{c}| \leq 2n^{1-\epsilon}$, there must exist $i\in I$ such that $|(\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n})_i|\geq S(\beta)^{-1}/\sqrt{n}$. To every $\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}$, associate such an index $i\in I$ arbitrarily, and denote it by $i({M_n})$.
Then, by taking a union bound over the choice of $i \in I$, it suffices to show the following.
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:intersected-event}
\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta): \|M_n \boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta\}
\cap i({M_n})= 1 \mid \mathcal{R}_{\epsilon, [|I|]}\right) \leq \beta
\end{align}
To this end, we expose the last $n-1$ rows $X_2,\dots,X_n$ of $M_n$. Note that if there is some $\boldsymbol{v}\in\boldsymbol{P}(\beta)$ satisfying $\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2}\leq \eta$,
then there must exist a vector $\boldsymbol{y}\in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta)$, depending only on
the last $n-1$ rows $X_{2},\dots,X_{n}$, such that
\[
\left(\sum_{i=2}^{n}|X_{i}\cdot \boldsymbol{y}|^{2}\right)^{1/2}\leq \eta.
\]
In other words, once we expose the last $n-1$ rows of the matrix, either the matrix cannot be extended to one satisfying the event in \cref{eqn:intersected-event}, or there is some unit vector $\boldsymbol{y} \in \boldsymbol{P}(\beta)$, which can be chosen after looking only at the last $n-1$ rows, and which satisfies the equation above. For the rest of the proof, we condition on the last $n-1$ rows $X_2,\dots,X_{n}$ (and hence, a choice of $\boldsymbol{y}$).
For any vector $\boldsymbol{w'}\in \mathbb{S}^{2n-1}$ with $w'_1 \neq 0$, we can write
\[
X_{1}=\frac{1}{w_{1}'}\left(\boldsymbol{u}-\sum_{i=2}^{n}w_{i}'X_{i}\right),
\]
where $\boldsymbol{u}:= \boldsymbol{w'}^{T}M_n$.
Thus, restricted to the event $\{s_n(M_n) \leq \eta\}\cap \{i({M_n}) = 1\}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|X_{1}\cdot \boldsymbol{y}\right| & =\inf_{\boldsymbol{w'}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}, w'_1 \neq 0}\frac{1}{|w_{n}'|}\left|\boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{y}-\sum_{i=2}^{n}w_{i}'X_{i}\cdot \boldsymbol{y}\right|\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{|a_{1}'|}\left(\|\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}^{T}M_{n}\|_{2}\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_{2}+\|\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}\|_{2}\left(\sum_{i=2}^{n}|X_{i}\cdot \boldsymbol{y}|^{2}\right)^{1/2}\right)\\
&\leq S(\beta)\eta \sqrt{n}\left(\|\boldsymbol{y}\|_{2} + \|\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}\|_{2}\right) \leq 2S(\beta)\eta \sqrt{n},
\end{align*}
where the second line is due to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the particular choice $\boldsymbol{w'}=\boldsymbol{a'}_{M_n}$.
Since, conditioned on $\mathcal{R}_{\epsilon, [|I|]}$, the first row of $N_n$ is distributed as $\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}$, it follows that the probability in \cref{eqn:intersected-event} is bounded by
$$\rho_{2\eta S(\beta)\sqrt{n},\boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{y}) \leq \beta, $$
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Eliminating rich vectors}
Up to losing an overall additive error term of $\beta$, it suffices to bound $\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{v}\in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v}\|_{2} \leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{O}_{\beta}\right)$.
Exactly as in the proof of \cref{thm:main-subgaussian}, we obtain the decomposition
$$\boldsymbol{R}(\beta) = \sqcup_{j,\ell}\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta),$$
where $j \in \{0,1,\dots, J(\beta,n)\}, \ell \in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$, and
$$\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta):= \{\boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{R}_j(\beta) \mid \rho_{2\eta S(\beta)\sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}}(\boldsymbol{v}) \in (2^{-\ell-1}, 2^{-\ell}] \}.$$
Recall that if $\boldsymbol{v} \in \boldsymbol{R}_j(\beta)$, then
$$\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j+1},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq n^{1/100}\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{v}).$$
Since there are at most $(J(\beta,n)+1)(\log(\beta^{-1})+1)$ choices for the pair $(j,\ell)$, by the union bound, it suffices to prove the following analogue of \cref{prop:jl-subgaussian} in order to prove \cref{prop:eliminate-rich}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:jl}
For any $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ and $\ell\in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$,
$$\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{O}_\beta \right) \leq C_{\ref{prop:jl-subgaussian}}\exp(-c_{\ref{prop:jl}}n^{2/3}) ,$$
where $C_{\ref{prop:jl}}\geq 1$ and $c_{\ref{prop:jl}}>0$ are constants depending only on $\xi$. \end{proposition}
We begin with the following analogue of \cref{lemma:approximate-jl-subgaussian}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:approximate-jl}
Let $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$. Then, there exists some $D \in \mathbb{C}$ with $|D|\in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}]$ and some $\boldsymbol{v'}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}$ such that
$$\|\boldsymbol{v} - \boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2} \leq n^{1/20},$$
where $\boldsymbol{v}:= (2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2 S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $g(n) = n^{1/20}$ and $\boldsymbol{w}:= (2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2 S(\beta) f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}\boldsymbol{a}$. Suppose for contradiction that the desired conclusion does not hold. Then, the same computation as in the proof of \cref{lemma:approximate-jl-subgaussian} shows that
\begin{align*}
\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a})\leq \rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) = \rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{w}) \leq \beta/2.
\end{align*}
Finally, since $\Pr(\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}) > 1/2$ by Markov's inequality, it follows from \cref{lemma:compare-sbp-condition} that
$$\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{a}) < 2 \rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n},\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{a}) < \beta,$$
which contradicts that $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}(\beta)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proposition}[Proposition 1.1. in \cite{chatterjee2007stein}]
\label{prop:concentration-stein}
Let $\{a_{ij}\}_{1\leq i,j \leq n}$ be a collection of numbers in $[0,1]$. Let $X:=\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_{i \pi(i)}$, where $\pi$ is drawn from the uniform distribution over the set of all permutations of $[n]$. Then, for any $t\geq 0$,
$$\Pr\left(|X-\mathbb{E}[X]| \geq t\right) \leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{4\mathbb{E}[X] + 2t}\right).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Let $\{a_{ij}\}_{1\leq i,j\leq n}$ be a collection of numbers in $[-1,1]$. We may write $a_{ij} = a^{+}_{ij} - a^{-}_{ij}$ for $a^{\pm}_{ij} \in [0,1]$. Then, setting $X^{\pm} := \sum_{i=1}^{n} a^{\pm}_{i\pi(i)}$, we have that $X = X^{+} - X^{-}$. Since $E[X] = E[X^+] - E[X^-]$, it follows from \cref{prop:concentration-stein}, the triangle inequality, and the union bound that
\begin{align*}
\Pr\left(|X-\mathbb{E}[X]| \geq t\right)
&\leq \Pr\left(|X^{+} - \mathbb{E}[X^{+}]| \geq t/2\right) + \Pr\left(|X^{-} - \mathbb{E}[X^{-}]| \geq t/2|\right)
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\end{comment}
Define
\small
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)&:= \\
\{\boldsymbol{v'}\in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n} &\mid \exists \boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta), D\in \mathbb{C} \text{ s.t.} |D| \in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}], \|(2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq n^{1/20}\}.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
Then, the same computation as in the subgaussian case shows that if the event in the statement of \cref{prop:jl} occurs, then there must exist some $\boldsymbol{v'} \in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$ for which
$$\|M_{n}\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2} \leq 3S(\beta)n^{1/20}.$$
Hence, letting $X_i$ denote the $i^{th}$ row of $M_n$, it follows from Markov's inequality that, given any $I\subseteq [n]$ with $|I^{c}| \leq 2n^{1-\epsilon}$, there are at least $n-3n^{1-\epsilon}$ coordinates $i\in I$ for which
$$|X_i \cdot \boldsymbol{v'}| \leq 3S(\beta).$$
Thus, we see that for any such $I$,
$$\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{O}_\beta \mid \mathcal{R}_{\epsilon, I}\right) \leq \sum_{\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)}\rho_{3S(\beta), \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v'})^{n-3n^{1-\epsilon}},$$
so that
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:union-bound}
\Pr\left(\{\exists \boldsymbol{a} \in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta): \|M_{n}\boldsymbol{a}\|_{2}\leq \eta\} \cap \mathcal{O}_\beta \right) \leq \sum_{\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)}\rho_{3S(\beta), \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v'})^{n-3n^{1-\epsilon}} + 2\exp(-n^{1-\epsilon}/4).
\end{align}
As in \cref{lemma:control-sbp-subgaussian}, we have
\begin{lemma}
For any $\boldsymbol{v'} \in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$,
$$\rho_{3S(\beta),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v'}) \leq \min\left\{1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2}, 4n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} \right\}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $4S(\beta)\eta \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{J(\beta,n)+1} \leq v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}$, it follows from \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-heavy} that (with notation as in the proof of \cref{lemma:control-sbp-subgaussian})
\begin{align*}
\rho_{3S(\beta),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v'})
&\leq \rho_{4S(\beta),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v}) + 4\exp\left(-\frac{S(\beta)^{2}}{256n^{1+2\epsilon}n^{1/10}}\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{(2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n})(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}(4S(\beta)|D|^{-1}),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{4\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{J(\beta,n)+1},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq \Pr(\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon})^{-1}\rho_{v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}},\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq (1-2n^{-2\epsilon})^{-1}\rho_{v_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}},\boldsymbol{\xi}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq 1-\frac{u_{\ref{lemma:invertibility-single-vector}}}{2},
\end{align*}
for all $n$ sufficiently large, where the second line follows from $S(\beta)|D|^{-1} \leq S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1}$ and the third to last line follows from \cref{lemma:compare-sbp-condition}.
We also have
\begin{align*}
\rho_{3S(\beta),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v'})
&\leq \rho_{4S(\beta),\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{(2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n})(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}(4S(\beta)|D|^{-1}), \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq \rho_{4\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j+1}, \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq 2n^{1/100}\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}, \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq 2n^{1/100}2^{-\ell} + 4\exp\left(-n^{1/3}/256\right)\\
&\leq 4n^{1/100}2^{-\ell},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Given the previous lemma and \cref{eqn:union-bound}, the same calculation as in the proof of \cref{prop:eliminate-rich-subgaussian} shows that the following suffices to prove \cref{prop:jl}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:counting}
For every $j\in \{0,1,\dots,J(\beta,n)\}$ and $\ell\in \{0,1,\dots,\log(\beta^{-1})\}$,
$$\left|\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)\right| \leq C_{\ref{prop:counting}}\left(2^{2n^{0.99}} + \left(\frac{128C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}2^{\ell}}{n^{0.10}}\right)^{n}\right),$$
where $C_{\ref{prop:counting}}\geq 1$ is an absolute constant.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of \cref{prop:counting}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{prop:counting}]
Let $\boldsymbol{v'}\in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$ and let $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$, $D \in \mathbb{C}$ with $|D|\in [f(\beta),n^{1/20}]$ be such that $\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v'}\|_{2}\leq n^{1/20}$, where $\boldsymbol{v}:= (2S(\beta)\eta \sqrt{n})^{-1}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{-j}D\boldsymbol{a}$. Then, there must exist a subset $T\subseteq [n]$ with $|T^{c}| \leq n^{0.95}$ such that $|v_t - v'_t| \leq n^{-0.4}$ for all $t\in T$.
Let $\boldsymbol{v''}$ be the vector which agrees with $\boldsymbol{v'}$ on $T$ and with $\boldsymbol{v}$ on $T^{c}$. Then, $\|\boldsymbol{v''} - \boldsymbol{v}\|_{\infty} \leq n^{-0.4}$ so that
\begin{align*}
\rho_{2n^{0.15},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v''})
&\geq \rho_{n^{0.15},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v}) - 4\exp\left(-\frac{n^{0.30}}{256n^{1+2\epsilon}\cdot n^{-0.8}}\right)\\
&\geq \rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}|D|^{-1}n^{0.15},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 4\exp\left(-n^{0.10 - 2\epsilon}/256\right)\\
&\geq \rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j}, \boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a}) - 4\exp\left(-n^{0.10-2\epsilon}/256\right)\\
&\geq \frac{\rho_{2\eta S(\beta)\sqrt{n}(2S(\beta)f(\beta)^{-1})^{j},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{a})}{2},
\end{align*}
where the first inequality follows from \cref{prop:approximation-sbp-heavy}, the third inequality follows since $|D|^{-1}n^{0.15} \geq n^{-1/20}n^{0.15}\geq 1$, and the last inequality follows from $\rho_{2\eta S(\beta) \sqrt{n},\xi}(\boldsymbol{a}) \geq \beta \gg \exp(-n^{0.01})$.
Hence, by the pigeonhole principle and by \cref{lemma:compare-sbp-condition}, we must have
$$\rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v''}) \geq \frac{\rho_{1,\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v''})}{2} \geq \frac{\rho_{2n^{0.15},\boldsymbol{\xi}|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}(\boldsymbol{v''})}{64n^{0.30}} \geq \frac{2^{-\ell}}{128n^{0.30}},$$
where the final inequality holds since $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}(\beta)$. Let $\boldsymbol{v'''}$ denote the integer vector which agrees with $\boldsymbol{v''}$ (and hence, $\boldsymbol{v'}$) on $T$ and is $0$ on $T^{c}$. Then,
$$\rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v'''}) \geq \rho_{1,\xi}(\boldsymbol{v''}) \geq \frac{2^{-\ell}}{128n^{0.30}}.$$
To summarize, using notation as in \cref{thm:counting-continuous}, we have shown that for every vector
$\boldsymbol{v'} \in \widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)$, there exists some $T\subseteq[n]$ with $|T^{c}| \leq n^{0.95}$ such that $\boldsymbol{v'}$ agrees with some element of $\boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/128n^{0.30}}$ on $T$. Since each coordinate of $\boldsymbol{v''}$ is an integer with absolute value at most $\|\boldsymbol{v''}\|_{2} \leq (2\eta S(\beta)\sqrt{n})^{-1}D + n^{1/4} \ll 2^{n^{0.01}}$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\left|\widetilde{\boldsymbol{R}_{j,\ell}}(\beta)\right| \leq n\binom{n}{n^{0.95}}\left(2^{n^{0.01}}\right)^{2n^{0.95}}\left|\boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/128n^{0.30}}\right|.
\end{align*}
Finally, the calculation in the proof of \cref{prop:counting-subgaussian} shows that
$$\left|\boldsymbol{V}_{2^{-\ell}/128n^{0.30}}\right| \lesssim 2^{n^{0.99}} + \left(\frac{128C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}^{\ell}}{n^{0.10}}\right)^{n},$$
which, together with the previous equation, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of \cref{thm:counting-continuous}}
\label{sec:proof-counting-continuous}
The proof of \cref{thm:counting-continuous} consists of six steps. The first three steps are modelled after the proof of the optimal inverse Littlewood-Offord theorem of Nguyen and Vu \cite{nguyen2011optimal}, whereas the last three steps are modelled after Hal\'asz's proof of his anti-concentration inequality \cite{halasz1977estimates}. \\
\noindent \textbf{Step 1: Extracting a large sublevel set. }For each integer $1\leq m\leq M$, where $M:= 2s/k$, we define
\[
S_{m}:=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{C}:\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|v_{i}\xi\|_{z}^{2}+|\xi|^{2}\leq m\right\}.
\]
Since
\[
\int_{\mathbb{C}}\exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|v_{i}\xi\|_{z}^{2}/2-\pi|\xi|^{2}\right)d\xi\lesssim\sum_{1\leq m\leq M}\mu(S_{m})\exp(-m/2)+\exp(-M/2),
\]
it follows from \cref{lemma:initial-fourier-bound} that
\[
\rho_{1,z}(\boldsymbol{v})\lesssim\sum_{1\leq m\leq M}\mu(S_{m})\exp(-m/2)+\exp(-M/2).
\]
In particular, since it is assumed that $\rho_{1,z}(\boldsymbol{v}) \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\exp(-s/k) = C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\exp(-M/2)$, it follows that for sufficiently large $C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\geq 1$,
\begin{align*}
\rho_{1,z}(\boldsymbol{v}) & \lesssim\sum_{1\leq m\leq M}\mu(S_{m})\exp(-m/2)\\
& =\sum_{1\leq m\leq M}\mu(S_{m})\exp(-m/4)\exp(-m/4)\\
& \lesssim\sum_{1\leq m\leq M}\mu(S_{m})\exp(-m/4)c_{m},
\end{align*}
where
\[
c_{m}:=\frac{e^{-m/4}}{\sum_{m=1}^{M}e^{-m/4}}.
\]
Note that in the last line, we have used the fact that $\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}e^{-m/4}=O(1)$.
Therefore, by averaging with respect to the probability measure $\{c_{m}\}_{m=1}^{M}$,
it follows that there must exist some non-zero integer $m_{0}\in[1,M]$
for which
\[
\mu(S_{m_{0}})\gtrsim\rho_{1,z}(\boldsymbol{v})\exp(m_{0}/4).
\]\\
\textbf{Step 2: Eliminating the $z$-norm. }From here on, all implicit constants will be allowed to depend on $C_z$.
Since $S_{m_0}\subset B(0,\sqrt{m_0})$, it follows (by averaging) that there must exist some
$B(x,1/16C_{z})\subset B(0,\sqrt{m_0})$ for which
\[
\mu(S_{m_0}\cap B(x,1/16C_{z}))\gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/4)m_0^{-1} \gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/8).
\]
Moreover, for $\xi_{1},\xi_{2}\in B(x,1/16C_{z})\cap S_{m_0}$, we have
that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\xi_{1}-\xi_{2}\in B(0,1/8C_{z})$, and
\item
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|v_i(\xi_{1}-\xi_{2})\|_{z}^{2} \leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\|v_i\xi_{1}\|_{z}+\|v_i\xi_{2}\|_{z}\right)^{2}
\leq2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\|v_i\xi_{1}\|_{z}^{2}+\|v_i\xi_{2}\|_{z}^{2}\right)
\leq4m_0.$
\end{itemize}
Since for any $A\subseteq \mathbb{C}$, $\mu(A-A)\geq\mu(A)$, it follows that setting
\[
T_{m_0}:=\left\{\xi\in B(0,1/8C_{z}):\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|v_i\xi\|_{z}^{2}\leq4m_0\right\},
\]
we have that
\[
\mu(T_{m_0})\gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/8).
\]
Next, let $y:=z_{1}-z_{2}$, where $z_{1},z_{2}$ are i.i.d. copies of $z$.
Since
\[
\mathbb{E}_{y}\int_{\mathbb{C}}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \|\Re\{v_iy\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\boldsymbol{1}_{T_{m_0}}(\xi)d\xi\leq4m_0\mu(T_{m_0}),
\]
it follows that there exists some $y_0 \in \mathbb{C}$ satisfying $C_{z}^{-1}\leq |y_{0}|\leq C_{z}$ such that
\[
\int_{\mathbb{C}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_iy_{0}\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\boldsymbol{1}_{T_{m_0}}(\xi)d\xi\leq4m_0\mu(T_{m_0})\Pr\left(C_{z}^{-1}\leq |y| \leq C_z\right)^{-1} \leq 4C_z m_0\mu(T_{m_0}),
\]
where the final inequality follows from the $C_z$-goodness of $z$.
Hence, by Markov's inequality,
\[
\mu\left(\left\{\xi\in T_{m_0}:\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_i y_{0}\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq8C_zm_0\right\}\right)\geq\frac{\mu(T_{m_0})}{2}\gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/8).
\]
Since $T_{m_0} \subset B(0,1/8C_z)$, this shows that
$$\mu\left(\left\{\xi\in B(0,1/8C_z):\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_i y_{0}\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq8C_z m_0\right\}\right)\gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/8).$$
Finally, after replacing $\xi$ by $y_{0}\xi$, and noting that the change of measure factor lies in $[C_z^{-1},C_z]$, it follows that
\[
T'_{m_0}:=\left\{\xi\in B(0,1/8):\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_i\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq8C_zm_0\right\}
\]
satisfies
\[
\mu(T'_{m_0})\gtrsim\rho\exp(m_0/8).
\]\\
\noindent \textbf{Step 3: Discretization of $\xi$. }For $p$ a prime as in the statement of the theorem,
let
\[
B_{0}:=\left\{\frac{r_1}{p} + i \frac{r_2}{p}:r_1,r_2\in\mathbb{Z},-\frac{p}{8}\leq r_1,r_2\leq \frac{p}{8}\right\},
\]
and consider the random set $x+B_{0}$, where $x\in[0,1/p] + i[0,1/p]$ is a uniformly distributed random point.
Then, by linearity of expectation, we have
\[
\mathbb{E}_{x\in[0,1/p]+i[0,1/p]}\left[\left|(x+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}\right|\right]\gtrsim \mu(T'_{m_0})p^{2},
\]
so there exists some $x_{0}\in[0,1/p] + i[0,1/p]$ for which
\[
|(x_{0}+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}|\gtrsim \mu(T'_{m_0})p^{2} \gtrsim \rho\exp(m_0/8)p^{2}.
\]
Let us now `recenter' this shifted lattice. Note that for a fixed $\xi_{0}\in(x_{0}+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}$,
we have for any $\xi\in(x_{0}+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}$ that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_i(\xi-\xi_{0})\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\|\Re\{v_i\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}+\|\Re\{v_i\xi_{0}\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\right)\leq32C_zm_0.
\]
Note also that $\xi_{0}-\xi\in B_{1}:=B_{0}-B_{0}=\{(r_1/p) + i(r_2/p):r_1,r_2\in\mathbb{Z},-p/4\leq r_1,r_2\leq p/4\}$. Hence, for a fixed $\xi_{0}\in(x_{0}+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}$, setting
$$P_{m_0}:= \left\{\xi_0 - \xi: \xi\in(x_{0}+B_{0})\cap T'_{m_0}\right\}$$
gives a subset $P_{m_0} \subset B_{1}$ such that
\[
|P_{m_0}|\gtrsim \rho\exp(m_0/8)p^{2},
\]
and for all $\xi \in P_{m_0}$,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\Re\{v_i\xi\}\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq32C_zm_0.
\]\\
\noindent \textbf{Step 4: Embedding $P_{m_0}$ into $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ and the Hal\'asz trick.
}Let $V:={\bf supp}(\varphi_p(\boldsymbol{v})).$ If $|V|< s$, we proceed directly to Step 6. Otherwise, for $I\subseteq V$ such that $|I|\geq s$, we define the sets
$$P'_m(I):=\left\{r:= r_1 + ir_2\in \mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_{p}: \sum_{i\in I}\left\|\frac{\Re\{v_ir\}}{p}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\leq32C_zm \right\},$$
Note that since $v_i \in \mathbb{Z} + i\mathbb{Z}$, the map
$$r\mapsto \left\|\frac{\Re\{v_i r\}}{p}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}$$
is indeed well-defined as a map from $\mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_p$ to $[0,1]$.
Note also that, since $P_{m_0} \subset B_{1}$, the size of $P'_{m_0}(I)$ (as a subset of $\mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_p$) is atleast the size of $P_{m_0}$ (as a subset of $\frac{1}{p}\cdot (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})$) i.e. the way we have defined various objects ensures that there are no wrap-around issues. We claim that for all integers $t\geq1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:iterated-sum}
tP'_{m}(I)\subseteq P'_{t^{2}m}(I).
\end{equation}
Indeed, for $r_{1},\dots,r_{t}\in P_{m}'(I)\subseteq\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i\in I}\left\|\Re\left\{v_i\frac{(r_{1}+\dots+r_{t})}{p}\right\}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2} & =\sum_{i\in I}\left\|\frac{\Re\{v_ir_{1}\}}{p}+\dots+\frac{\Re\{v_ir_{t}\}}{p}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\\
& \leq\sum_{i\in I}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{t}\left\|\frac{\Re\{v_ir_{j}\}}{p}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}\right)^{2}\\
& \leq\sum_{i\in I} t \sum_{j=1}^{t}\left\|\frac{\Re\{v_ir_{j}\}}{p}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\\
& \leq t\sum_{j=1}^{t}\sum_{i\in I}\left\|\Re\{v_ir_{j}/p\}\right\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\\
& \leq32C_zt^{2}m,
\end{align*}
which gives the desired inclusion.
We now use the Cauchy-Davenport theorem for $\mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_p \simeq \mathbb{F}_p^{2}$ (see, e.g., \cite{eliahou2007some}), which states that every pair of nonempty $A,B\subseteq \mathbb{F}_p+i\mathbb{F}_{p}$ satisfies
$$|A+B| \geq \min\{p^{2},|A|+|B|-p\}.$$ It follows that for all integers $t\geq 1$,
$$|tP'_m(I)| \geq \min\{p^{2}, t|P'_m(I)|-tp \}.$$
Hence, by \cref{eqn:iterated-sum}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:CauchyDavenport}
|P'_{t^2 m}(I)| \geq \min\{p^{2},t|P'_m(I)|-tp\}.
\end{equation}
We also claim that $|P'_m(I)| < p^{2}$ as long as $m\leq |I|/500C_z$. Indeed, since the map $\mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_{p} \ni r(=r_1 + ir_2) \mapsto \Re\{ar\} = a_1 r_1 - a_2r_2 \in \mathbb{F}_p$ is a $p$-to-$1$ surjection for every non-zero $a:=a_1+ia_2\in \mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_{p}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{r\in \mathbb{F}_p + i\mathbb{F}_p}\sum_{i\in I}\left\|\Re\{v_i r\}/p\right\|^{2}_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}
&= |I|p\sum_{r\in \mathbb{F}_p }\|r/p\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\\
&\geq |I|p\cdot\sum_{r'=1}^{(p-1)/2}(r'/p)^{2}\\
& > \frac{|I|\cdot p^{2}}{15}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, from the definition of $P'_m(I)$,
$$\sum_{r\in \mathbb{F}_p+i\mathbb{F}_p}\sum_{i\in I}\left\|\Re\{v_i r\}/p\right\|^{2}_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}
\leq |P'_m(I)|\cdot 32C_z m + \left(p^{2}-|P'_m(I)|\right)\cdot |I|.$$
Comparing these two bounds proves the claim. Combining this claim with \cref{eqn:CauchyDavenport} along with the assumption that $k \geq 1000C_{z}$ shows that
\begin{align*}
|P'_{M}(I)|
&\gtrsim \sqrt{\frac{M}{m_0}}\left(|P'_{m_{0}}(I)|-p\right)\\
&\gtrsim \sqrt{\frac{M}{m_0}}|P'_{m_{0}}(I)|\\
&\gtrsim \sqrt{\frac{M}{m_0}}\rho \exp(m_0/8) p^{2}\\
&\gtrsim \sqrt{M}\rho \exp(m_0/16)p^{2},
\end{align*}
where the second line follows since $|P'_{m_0}(I)|\geq |P'_{m_0}| \gtrsim \rho p^{2} \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}p$ by assumption.
\begin{remark}
Whereas we have related the size of $P'_m(I)$ to the size of $P'_{t^2 m}(I)$, \cite{nguyen2011optimal} uses a similar computation to deduce information about the size of iterated sumsets of $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$. This information is then combined with Freiman-type inverse theorems to provide structural information about $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$. Thus, we see that by `dualizing' the argument in \cite{nguyen2011optimal}, one is able to bypass the need for Freiman-type theorems, as far as the counting variant of the inverse Littlewood-Offord problem is concerned.
\end{remark}
\noindent \textbf{Step 5: Passing to $R_k(\boldsymbol{v})$.
Since $\cos(2\pi x)\geq1-20\|x\|_{\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$,
it follows that
\[
P'_{M}(I)\subseteq P''_{M}(I):=\left\{r\in\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p:\sum_{i\in I}\cos(2\pi \Re\{v_ir\}/p)\geq |I|-2000C_zM\right\}.
\]
By considering the random variable $r\ni\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p\mapsto\sum_{i\in I}\cos(2\pi \Re\{v_i r\}/p)$,
we have for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ that
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:moments}
|P''_{M}(I)|(|I|-2000C_zM)^{2k} & \leq\sum_{r\in\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p}\left|\sum_{j\in I}\cos(2\pi \Re\{v_jr\}/p)\right|^{2k} \nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\sum_{r\in\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_{p}}\left(\sum_{j\in I}e^{2\pi i\Re\{v_jr\}/p}+e^{-2\pi i\Re\{v_jr\}/p}\right)^{2k} \nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\sum_{r\in\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p}\sum_{\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2k}\in\{\pm1\}}\sum_{j_{1},\dots,j_{2k}\in I}e^{2\pi i\Re\{(\epsilon_{1}v_{j_1}+\dots+\epsilon_{{2k}}v_{j_{2k}})r\}/p} \nonumber \\
= \frac{1}{2^{2k}}\sum_{r_1\in\mathbb{F}_{p}}\sum_{r_2\in \mathbb{F}_p}\sum_{\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2k}\in\{\pm1\}}\sum_{j_{1},\dots,j_{2k}\in I}&e^{2\pi i(\epsilon_{1}\Re\{v_{j_1}\}+\dots+\epsilon_{{2k}}\Re\{v_{j_{2k}}\})r_1/p}e^{-2\pi i(\epsilon_{1}\Im\{v_{j_1}\}+\dots+\epsilon_{{2k}}\Im\{v_{j_{2k}}\})r_2/p} \nonumber\\
=\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\sum_{\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2k}\in\{\pm1\}}\sum_{j_{1},\dots,j_{2k}\in I}&p^{2}\cdot\delta_{0}(\epsilon_{1}\Re\{v_{j_1}\}+\dots+\epsilon_{2k}\Re\{v_{j_{2k}}\})\cdot \delta_{0}(\epsilon_{1}\Im\{v_{j_1}\}+\dots+\epsilon_{2k}\Im\{v_{j_{2k}}\}) \nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\sum_{\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2k}\in\{\pm1\}}\sum_{j_{1},\dots,j_{2k}\in I}p^{2}\cdot\delta_{0}(\epsilon_{1}v_{j_1}+\dots+\epsilon_{2k}v_{j_{2k}}),
\end{align}
where the second last line follows again using the integrality of $\Re\{v_{1}\}, \Im\{{v_1}\}\dots,\Re\{v_{n}\},\Im\{v_n\}$.
From here on, we will use a slight modification of the results of \cite{FJLS2018} to finish the proof. We begin with the following key definition.
\begin{definition}
Suppose that $\boldsymbol{v}\in (\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_{p})^{n}$ for an integer $n$ and a prime $p$, and let $k\in \mathbb{N}$. For every $\alpha \in [-1,1]$, we define $R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v})$ to be the number of solutions to
$$\pm v_{i_1}\pm \dots \pm v_{i_{2k}} = 0 $$
that satisfy $|\{i_1,\dots,i_{2k}\}|\geq (1+\alpha)k$.
\end{definition}
The following elementary lemma from \cite{FJLS2018} shows that for `small' positive $\alpha$, $R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v})$ is not much smaller than $R_k^{-1}(\boldsymbol{v})$.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 1.6 in \cite{FJLS2018}]
For all integers $k,n$ with $k\leq n/2$, any prime $p$, vector $\boldsymbol{v}\in (\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_{p})^{n}$, and $\alpha \in [0,1]$,
$$R_k^{-1}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v}) + (40k^{1-\alpha}n^{1+\alpha})^{k}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $R_k^{-1}(\boldsymbol{v})$ is equal to $R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v})$ plus the number of solutions to $\pm v_{i_1}\pm v_{i_2}\dotsb\pm v_{i_{2k}} = 0$ that satisfy $|\{i_1, \dotsc, i_{2k}\}| < (1+\alpha)k$. The latter quantity is bounded from above by the number of sequences $(i_1, \dotsc, i_{2k}) \in [n]^{2k}$ with at most $(1+\alpha)k$ distinct entries times $2^{2k}$, the number of choices for the $\pm$ signs. Thus
\[
R_k^{-1}(\boldsymbol{v}) \leq R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v}) + \binom{n}{(1+\alpha)k} \big((1+\alpha)k\big)^{2k}2^{2k} \leq R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v}) + \left(4e^{1+\alpha}k^{1-\alpha}n^{1+\alpha}\right)^k,
\]
where the final inequality follows from the well-known bound $\binom{a}{b} \le (ea/b)^b$. Finally, noting that $4e^{1+\alpha} \leq 4e^{2} \leq 40$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Let $\boldsymbol{v}_I$ denote the $|I|$-dimensional vector obtained by restricting $\boldsymbol{v}$ to the coordinates corresponding to $I$. Recognizing the right hand side of \cref{eqn:moments} as
\[
\frac{p^{2}R_{k}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{v}_I)}{2^{2k}},
\]
it follows from \cref{eqn:moments} and the above lemma that for any $k \leq \sqrt{|I|}$ and $\alpha \in [0,1/8]$,
\begin{align*}
R_{k}^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v}_I) & \gtrsim (|I|-2000C_zM)^{2k}2^{2k}\rho\sqrt{M} - (40k^{1-\alpha}|I|^{1+\alpha})^{k}\\
& \gtrsim |I|^{2k}2^{2k}\rho\sqrt{M} - (40k^{1-\alpha}|I|^{1+\alpha})^{k}\\
&\gtrsim |I|^{2k}2^{2k}\rho\sqrt{M} - (40 |I|^{(3/2)+\alpha})^{k}\\
&\gtrsim |I|^{(3/2)k}\left(2^{2k}\sqrt{|I|}^{k}\rho \sqrt{M} - (40)^{k}|I|^{\alpha k}\right)\\
& \gtrsim |I|^{(3/2)k}\left(2^{2k}\sqrt{|I|}^{k}\rho \sqrt{M}\right)\\
&\gtrsim |I|^{2k}2^{2k}\rho \sqrt{M},
\end{align*}
where the second line follows from the assumption that $Mk\leq 2s \leq 2|I|$, the third line follows from the assumption that $k\leq \sqrt{s} \leq \sqrt{|I|}$, and the fifth line follows from the assumption that $\rho > s^{-k/4} \geq s^{-(k/2)+2\alpha k}\geq |I|^{-(k/2) + 2\alpha k}$. \\
\noindent\textbf{Step 6: Applying the counting lemma. } Let us summarize where we stand. We have proved that for any complex random variable $z$ satisfying \cref{eqn:assumption-on-z}, there exists an absolute constant $C:=C(C_z)\geq 1$ for which the following holds. If $\boldsymbol{v} \in (\mathbb{Z}+i\mathbb{Z})^{n}$ satisfies $\rho_{1,z}(\boldsymbol{v}) := \rho \geq C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\max\{e^{-s/k}, s^{-k/4}\}$ for some $1000C_{z} \leq k\leq \sqrt{s} \leq s \leq n/\log{n}$ and sufficiently large $C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}$, and if $\alpha \in [0,1/8]$, then either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|V|< s$ (where $V:={\bf supp}(\varphi_p(\boldsymbol{v}))$), or
\item for all $I\subseteq V$ with $|I|\geq s$,
\end{enumerate}
$$R_k^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{v}_I) \geq \frac{|I|^{2k}2^{2k}\rho \sqrt{M}}{C}. $$
Hence, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:size-image-decompose}
\varphi_{p}\left(\boldsymbol{V}_\rho\right)\subseteq \boldsymbol{X}_s + \bigcup_{m=s}^{n}\boldsymbol{Y}_{k,s,\rho}^{\alpha}(m),
\end{equation}
where
$$ \boldsymbol{X}_s := \left\{\boldsymbol{a}\in (\mathbb{F}_p+i\mathbb{F}_p)^{n}: |{\bf supp}(\boldsymbol{a})| < s\right\} ,$$
and
$$\boldsymbol{Y}^{\alpha}_{k,s,\rho}(m):= \left\{\boldsymbol{a} \in (\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_{p})^{n} : |{\bf supp}(\boldsymbol{a})|= m \text{ and } R^\alpha_k(\boldsymbol{a}_I)\geq \frac{2^{2k} |I|^{2k}\rho \sqrt{M}}{C} \forall I\subseteq {\bf supp}(\boldsymbol{a}) \text{ with }|I|\geq s\right\}.$$
We will bound the size of each of these pieces separately. For $|\boldsymbol{X}_s|$, the following simple bound suffices:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:size-of-x}
|\boldsymbol{X}_{s}| \leq\sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1}{n \choose \ell}(p^{2})^{\ell}
\leq s{n \choose s}p^{2s}
\leq s\left(\frac{enp^{2}}{s}\right)^{s} \leq \left(\frac{5np^{2}}{s}\right)^{s}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the desired bound on $\boldsymbol{Y}^{\alpha}_{k,s,\rho}(m)$ follows easily from a slight modification of the work in \cite{FJLS2018}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:counting-lemma}
Let $p$ be a prime, let $k,n\in \mathbb{N}$, $s\in [n]$, $t\in [p]$, and let $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Denoting
$${\boldsymbol{B}}^{\alpha}_{k,s,\geq t}(n):= \left\{\boldsymbol{v} \in (\mathbb{F}_{p}+i\mathbb{F}_p)^{n} : R^\alpha_k(\boldsymbol{v}_I)\geq t\cdot \frac{2^{2k} \cdot |I|^{2k}}{p} \text{ for every } I\subseteq [n] \text{ with }|I|\geq s\right\},$$
we have
\[
|{\boldsymbol{B}}_{k,s,\geq t}^{\alpha}(n)| \leq (\alpha t)^{s-n} p^{n+s}.
\]
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem follows easily from a slight modification of the proof of Theorem 1.7 in \cite{FJLS2018}. For the reader's convenience, we provide complete details in \cref{sec:appendix-counting-lemma}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:size-of-y}
For our choice of parameters, $|\boldsymbol{Y}_{k,s,\rho}^{\alpha}(m)| \leq \left(\frac{16C}{\rho \sqrt{M}}\right)^{n}.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
After paying an overall factor of $\binom{n}{m}$, it suffices to count only those $\boldsymbol{a}\in \boldsymbol{Y}^{\alpha}_{k,s,\rho}(m) $ for which ${\bf supp}(\boldsymbol{a}) = [m]$. The key point is that, by definition, for any such $\boldsymbol{a}$, we have
$$\boldsymbol{a}|_{[m]} \in {\boldsymbol{B}}^{\alpha}_{k,s,\geq t}(m),$$
for $t = \lfloor p\rho \sqrt{M}/C \rfloor$.
Therefore, by \cref{thm:counting-lemma}, it easily follows that
\begin{align*}
|\boldsymbol{Y}_{k,s,\rho}^{\alpha}(m)| & \leq\binom{n}{m}\left(\alpha tp\right)^{s}\left(\frac{p}{t}\right)^{m}\\
& \leq2^{n}(tp)^{s}\left(\frac{p}{t}\right)^{n}\\
& \leq2^{n}\left(p^{2}\sqrt{M}\right)^{s}\left(\frac{2Cp}{p\rho\sqrt{M}}\right)^{n}\\
& \leq(p^{2}\sqrt{M})^{s}\left(\frac{4C}{\rho\sqrt{M}}\right)^{n}\\
& \leq \left(\frac{16C}{\rho\sqrt{M}}\right)^{n},
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
From \cref{eqn:size-image-decompose,eqn:size-of-x,corollary:size-of-y}, and noting that $M=2s/k$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
|\varphi_p(\boldsymbol{V}_\rho)|
&\leq \left(\frac{5np^{2}}{s}\right)^{s} + n\cdot \left(\frac{16C\rho^{-1}}{\sqrt{s/k}}\right)^{n}\\
&\leq \left(\frac{5np^{2}}{s}\right)^{s} + \left(\frac{32C\rho^{-1}}{\sqrt{s/k}}\right)^{n}\\
&\leq \left(\frac{5np^{2}}{s}\right)^{s} + \left(\frac{C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}\rho^{-1}}{\sqrt{s/k}}\right)^{n},
\end{align*}
where the final inequality follows since we can take $C_{\ref{thm:counting-continuous}}$ larger than $32C$. This completes the proof of \cref{thm:counting-continuous}.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Stochastic optimization problems refer to optimization problems which involve random variables. They are of broad interest, with applications arising in wireless communications, business analytics, manufacturing, finance, etc.
In general, stochastic optimization problems with expectations in possibly nonconvex objective functions can be classified into three categories, namely, unconstrained stochastic problems, stochastic optimization problems with deterministic constraints, and stochastic optimization problems with expectations in constraint functions. Without loss of generality, in the following, we restrict our attention to stochastic minimization problems.
In~\cite{Bertsekas}, a stochastic gradient method is proposed to obtain a stationary point of an unconstrained stochastic optimization problem.
In~\cite{Ruszczynski,Mairal,Yang}, the stochastic gradient averaging method~\cite{Ruszczynski}, stochastic majorization-minimization (MM) method~\cite{Mairal} and stochastic successive convex approximation (SSCA) method~\cite{Yang} are proposed to obtain a stationary point of a stochastic optimization problem with deterministic convex constraints.
Stochastic optimization problems with expectations in constraint functions are more challenging, as the stochastic nature of the constraint functions may cause infeasibility at each iteration of an ordinary stochastic iterative method.
In \cite{Liu}, an SSCA method is proposed to directly tackle a general stochastic optimization problem with expectations in the constraint functions, for the first time.
Specifically, at each iteration, an approximate convex problem is solved to minimize the objective; if it is infeasible, another approximate convex problem is then solved to minimize the penalty for violating the constraints.
Using similar techniques, a parallel SSCA method is proposed for a special case of the general stochastic optimization problem with decoupled constraint functions.
Leveraging two types of approximate problems with different goals at each iteration can deal with the infeasibility issue, but may lead to decrease of convergence rate and increment of computational complexity.
In this letter, we shall address the above issue. As in~\cite{Liu}, we consider a general stochastic optimization problem with expectations in the constraint functions.
First, we obtain an equivalent stochastic optimization problem whose objective function is the weighted sum of the original objective and the penalty for violating the original constraints. Then, we propose an SSCA method that involves solving an approximate convex optimization problem which is always feasible at each iteration.
Moreover, we show that the proposed SSCA method converges to a stationary point of the equivalent stochastic optimization problem, which is also a stationary point of the original stochastic optimization problem under certain conditions.
Using similar techniques, we propose a parallel SSCA method to obtain a stationary point of a special case of the aforementioned general stochastic optimization problem which has decoupled constraint functions.
As application examples, we consider the optimal power allocation to maximize the ergodic sum-rate under the coupled and decoupled individual ergodic rate constraints, respectively, and illustrate how to apply the proposed SSCA and parallel SSCA methods to obtain their respective stationary points.
Numerical results show that the proposed SSCA and parallel SSCA methods have higher convergence rates and lower computational complexities than those in~\cite{Liu}.
The substantial gains derive from the effective balance of the minimization of the original objective and the satisfaction of the original constraints over random iterates.
\section{General Stochastic Optimization}\label{Sec:gso}
In this section, we consider a general stochastic optimization problem with expectations in both the objective and constraint functions that are possibly nonconvex.
\begin{Prob}[General Stochastic Optimization Problem]\label{prob:gen}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf{x}}\quad &f_0(\mathbf x) \triangleq\mathbb{E}\left[g_0(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)\right]\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &f_i(\mathbf x) \triangleq\mathbb{E}\left[g_i(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)\right]\leq0,\quad i=1,\dots,m,\label{eqn:f0}\\
&\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X},\label{eqn:xset}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf x\triangleq(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ is the optimization variable, $\mathcal{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\boldsymbol\xi$ is a random vector defined on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ with $\Omega$ being the sample space, $\mathcal{F}$ being the $\sigma$-algebra generated by subsets of $\Omega$, and $\mathbb{P}$ being a probability measure defined on $\mathcal{F}$, and functions $g_i: \mathcal{X}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$, $i=0,\dots,m$ are possibly nonconvex.
\end{Prob}
\begin{Asump}[Assumptions on Problem~\ref{prob:gen}~\cite{Yang,Liu}]\label{asump:gi}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{X}$ is compact and convex;
\item For any given $\boldsymbol\xi$, each $g_i(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)$ is continuously differentiable on $\mathcal{X}$, and its gradient is Lipschitz continuous.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asump}
Problem~\ref{prob:gen} is very challenging, and is not well studied. First, motivated by the feasible point pursuit method in \cite{Mehanna}, we transform Problem~\ref{prob:gen} to the following stochastic optimization problem whose objective function is the weighted sum of the original objective and the penalty for violating the original constraints.
\begin{Prob}[Equivalent Problem of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}]\label{prob:pen}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf s}\quad &f_0(\mathbf x) +\rho\sum_{i=1}^m s_i\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\eqref{eqn:xset},\nonumber\\
&f_i(\mathbf x) \leq s_i,\quad i=1,\dots,m,\label{eqn:fs}\\
&s_i\geq0,\quad i=1,\dots,m,\label{eqn:s0}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{s}\triangleq(s_i)_{i=1,\dots,m}$ are slack variables and $\rho>0$ is a penalty parameter that trades off the original objective function and the slack penalty term.
\end{Prob}
Note that Problem~\ref{prob:pen} is always feasible. The relationship between Problem~\ref{prob:gen} and Problem~\ref{prob:pen} is summarized below.
\begin{Lem}[Equivalence between Problem~\ref{prob:gen} and Problem~\ref{prob:pen}]\label{lem:eq}
If Problem~\ref{prob:gen} is feasible and Assumption~\ref{asump:gi} is satisfied, then there exists $\rho_0\geq0$ such that for all $\rho\geq\rho_0$, Problem~\ref{prob:pen} and Problem~\ref{prob:gen} have the same optimal value.
\end{Lem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
As $g_0(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)$ is continuous and $\mathcal{X}$ is compact, $g_0(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)$ is bounded on $\mathcal{X}$. Thus, the optimal value of Problem~\ref{prob:gen} is bounded if Problem~\ref{prob:gen} is feasible. Therefore, by~\cite{Phan}, we know that there exists $\rho_0\geq0$ such that for all $\rho\geq\rho_0$, Problem~\ref{prob:pen} and Problem~\ref{prob:gen} have the same optimal value.
\end{IEEEproof}
Based on Lemma~\ref{lem:eq}, we now focus on solving Problem~\ref{prob:pen}. Like Problem~\ref{prob:gen}, Problem~\ref{prob:pen} is a stochastic optimization problem with possibly nonconvex objective and constraint functions.
In the following, we propose an effective SSCA method to obtain a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:pen} using the SSCA technique~\cite{Yang}.
Later, we shall show that under certain conditions, a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:pen} is also a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}.
Specifically, at iteration $t$, we solve the following approximate convex optimization problem of Problem~\ref{prob:pen}.
\begin{Prob}[Approximate Convex Optimization Problem in $t$-th Iteration]\label{prob:app}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf s}\quad &\bar{f}^t_0(\mathbf x)+\rho\sum_{i=1}^m s_i\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\eqref{eqn:xset},\eqref{eqn:s0},\nonumber\\
&\bar{f}^t_i(\mathbf x) \leq s_i,\quad i=1,\dots,m,
\end{align}
where $\bar f^t_i(\mathbf x),i=0,\dots,m$ are convex surrogate functions of $f_i(\mathbf x),i=0,\dots,m$. Let $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t},\mathbf{s}^t)$ denote an optimal solution of Problem~\ref{prob:app}.
\end{Prob}
Problem~\ref{prob:app} is a convex optimization problem which is always feasible and can be solved with conventional convex optimization techniques.
Given $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t}$, we update $\mathbf x^t$ according to:
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{x}^{t}=(1-\gamma^{t})\mathbf{x}^{t-1}+\gamma^{t}\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t},\ t=1,2,\dots,\label{eqn:updateTm}
\end{align}
where $\gamma^{t}$ is a positive diminishing stepsize satisfying:
\begin{align}
&\gamma^{t}=0,\ \lim_{t\to\infty}\gamma^{t}=0,\ \sum_{t=1}^\infty\gamma^{t}=\infty,\ \sum_{t=1}^\infty\left(\gamma^{t}\right)^2<\infty. \label{eqn:gamma}
\end{align}
The details are summarized in Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca}.
To ensure the convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca}, the surrogate functions $\bar f^t_i(\cdot),i=0,\dots,m$ should satisfy the following assumptions.
\begin{Asump}[Assumptions on $\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{\cdot})$~\cite{Yang,Liu}]\label{asump:fi}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each $\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x})$ is uniformly strongly convex on $\mathcal{X}$;
\item Each $\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x})$ is Lipschitz continuous on $\mathcal{X}$, and for any $\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X}$, $\mathop{\lim\sup}_{t_1 t_2\to\infty}\bar{f}_i^{t_1}(\mathbf{x})-\bar{f}_i^{t_2}(\mathbf{x})\leq B\Vert\mathbf{x}^{t_1}-\mathbf{x}^{t_2}\Vert$, for some constant $B\geq0$;
\item Each $\{\nabla^{2}_{\mathbf{x}}\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x}):t=0,1,\dots\}$ is uniformly bounded;
\item $\lim_{t\to\infty}\vert\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x}^t)-{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x}^t)\vert=0$ and $\lim_{t\to\infty}\Vert\nabla\bar{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x}^t)-\nabla{f}_i^t(\mathbf{x}^t)\Vert=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asump}
A common example of surrogate functions is~\cite{Yang,Liu}:
\begin{align}
\bar{f}^t_i(\mathbf{x})=&(1-\omega^{t})\bar{f}^{t-1}_i(\mathbf{x})+\omega^{t}\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}^{t-1},\boldsymbol\xi^t),\nonumber\\
&i=0,\dots,m, \quad t=1,2,\dots,\label{eqn:updatefi}
\end{align}
where $\bar{f}^0_i(\mathbf{x})=0$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X}$,
$\omega^t$ is a positive diminishing stepsize satisfying:
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{align}
&\omega^t>0,\quad \lim_{t\to\infty}\omega^t=0,\quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty\omega^t=\infty,\nonumber\\
&\sum_{t=1}^\infty\left(\omega^t\right)^2<\infty,\quad \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\gamma^{t}}{\omega^{t}}=0, \label{eqn:omega}
\end{align}
and $\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}^t,\boldsymbol\xi^t)$ is a convex approximation of ${g}_i(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi^{t-1})$
around $\mathbf x^{t-1}$ satisfying:
$\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)={g}_i(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)$ and $\nabla\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)=\nabla{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)$, for all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$;
$\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\boldsymbol\xi)$ is strongly convex in $\mathbf x$ for all $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$;
$\hat{g}_i(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\boldsymbol\xi)$ is Lipschitz continuous in both $\mathbf x$ and $\mathbf y$ for all $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$.
It has been shown in \cite[Proposition 1]{Liu} that if the stepsizes $\{\gamma^{t}\}$ and $\{\omega^{t}\}$ satisfy \eqref{eqn:gamma} and \eqref{eqn:omega}, respectively, then the surrogate functions given by \eqref{eqn:updatefi} satisfy Assumption~\ref{asump:fi}.
Finally, we show the convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca}.
\begin{Thm}[Convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca}]\label{thm:conv-rand}
Suppose Assumption~\ref{asump:gi} and Assumption~\ref{asump:fi} are satisfied. Then $\{(\mathbf{x}^{t},\mathbf{s}^{t})\}$ generated by Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca} has a limit point, denote by $(\mathbf x^*,\mathbf s^*)$, and the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\mathbf x^*,\mathbf s^*)$ is a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:pen};
\item If $\mathbf s^*=\mathbf0$, then $\mathbf x^*$ is a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
By Assumption~\ref{asump:gi}.1, we know that $\mathbf x^t$ is bounded. As $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t},\mathbf{s}^t)$ is an optimal solution of Problem~\ref{prob:app}, it can be easily shown that $s^t_i=\bar{f}^t_i(\bar{\mathbf x}^t)$, $i=1,\dots,m$.
By Assumption~1.1 and Assumption~2.2, we know that $\bar{f}^t_i(\bar{\mathbf x}^t)$ is bounded, which implies that $\mathbf{s}^t$ is bounded. Note that Assumption~1.2, Assumption~2 and Assumption~3 in~\cite{Liu} readily follow Assumption 1.2 and Assumption~2 in this letter, and Assumption~1.1 in~\cite{Liu} is used to prove the boundedness of $\bar{f}^t_i(\bar{\mathbf x}^t)+\mathbf{s}^t$. Therefore, following the proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{Liu}, we can show the first statement.
In addition, it can be easily shown that when $\mathbf s=\mathbf 0$, the KKT conditions of Problem~\ref{prob:pen} imply those of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}.
Therefore, we can show the second statement.
\end{IEEEproof}
Note that we can run Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca} multiple times, each with a random initial point $\mathbf{x}^{0}\in\mathcal{X}$, until a stationary point $(\mathbf x^*,\mathbf s^*)$ of Problem~\ref{prob:pen} with $\mathbf s^*=\mathbf 0$, i.e., a stationary point $\mathbf x^*$ of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}, is obtained.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{SSCA}
\begin{small}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{initialization}: Set $t=1$, and choose any $\mathbf{x}^{0}\in\mathcal{X}$.\\
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\STATE \quad Obtain $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t},\mathbf{s}^{t})$ by solving Problem~\ref{prob:app} with conventional convex optimization techniques, and update $\mathbf{x}^{t}$ according to \eqref{eqn:updateTm}.
\STATE\quad Set $t=t+1$.
\STATE \textbf{until} Some convergence criteria is met.
\end{algorithmic}\label{alg:pssca}
\end{small}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Stochastic Optimization with Decoupled Constraints}\label{Sec:pd}
In this section, we consider a special case of the general stochastic optimization problem, which has decoupled constraint functions involving expectations.
\begin{Prob}[Stochastic Optimization Problem with Decoupled Constraints]\label{prob:dec-gen}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf x}\ &f_0(\mathbf x) \triangleq\mathbb{E}\left[g_0(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)\right]\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \ &f_{k,i}(\mathbf x_k) \triangleq\mathbb{E}\left[g_{k,i}(\mathbf x_k,\boldsymbol\xi)\right]\leq0,k=1,...,K,i=1,...,m_k,\\
&\mathbf x_k\in\mathcal{X}_k,\ k=1,...,K,\label{eqn:xkset}
\end{align}
where the optimization variable can be partitioned into $K$ blocks, i.e., $\mathbf x\triangleq(\mathbf x_k)^K_{k=1}$, with $\mathbf x_k$ being the variable for the $k$-th block, $\mathcal{X}_k\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n_k}$, $k=1,...,K$,
$\boldsymbol\xi$ is a random vector, and functions $g_{0}: \mathcal{X}\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ with $\mathcal{X}\triangleq\mathcal{X}_1\times\cdots\times\mathcal{X}_K\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $g_{k,i}: \mathcal{X}_k\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$, $k=1,...,K,i=1,...,m_k$ are possibly nonconvex.
\end{Prob}
\begin{Asump}[Assumptions on Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}~\cite{Liu}]\label{asump:gik}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{X}$ is compact and convex;
\item For any given $\boldsymbol\xi$, $g_{0}(\mathbf x,\boldsymbol\xi)$ and each $g_{k,i}(\mathbf x_k,\boldsymbol\xi)$ are continuously differentiable on $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{X}_k$, respectively, and their gradients are Lipschitz continuous.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asump}
Note that the constraints of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} can be separated into $K$ groups with the $k$-th group of constraints depending on the $k$-th block $\mathbf x_k$.
Similarly, we transform Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} to the following stochastic optimization problem.
\begin{Prob}[Equivalent Problem of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}]\label{prob:dec-pen}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf x,\mathbf s}\quad &f_0(\mathbf x)+\rho\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{i=1}^{m_k} s_{k,i}\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\eqref{eqn:xkset},\nonumber\\
&f_{k,i}(\mathbf x_k) \leq s_{k,i},\ k=1,\dots,K,\ i=1,\dots,m_k,\\
&s_{k,i}\geq0, \ k=1,\dots,K,\ i=1,\dots,m_k,\label{eqn:sk0}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{s}\triangleq(s_{k,i})_{i=1,\dots,m_k,k=1,\dots,K}$ are slack variables and $\rho>0$ is the penalty parameter.
\end{Prob}
Note that Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} is always feasible. The relationship between Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} and Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} is summarized below.
\begin{Lem}[Equivalence between Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} and Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen}]\label{lem:eq2}
If Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} is feasible and Assumption~\ref{asump:gik} is satisfied, then there exists $\rho_0\geq0$ such that for all $\rho\geq\rho_0$, Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} and Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} have the same optimal value.
\end{Lem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lem:eq}, and is omitted due to page limitation.
\end{IEEEproof}
Based on Lemma~\ref{lem:eq2}, we now focus on solving Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen}.
In the following, we propose an effective parallel SSCA method to obtain a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} using the parallel SSCA technique~\cite{Yang}.
Similarly, we shall show that under certain conditions, a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} is also a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}.
Specifically, at iteration $t$, we solve the following $K$ approximate convex optimization problems of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen}, one for each block.
\begin{Prob}[Approximate Convex Optimization Problem for $k$-th Block in $t$-th Iteration]\label{prob:dec-app}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{align}
\min_{\mathbf x_k,\mathbf s_k}\quad &\bar{f}^t_{k,0}(\mathbf x_k)+\rho\sum_{i=1}^{m_k} s_{k,i}\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\bar{f}^t_{k,i}(\mathbf x_k) \leq s_{k,i}, i=1,\dots,m_k,\\
&s_{k,i}\geq0, i=1,\dots,m_k,\\
&\mathbf x_k\in\mathcal{X}_k,
\end{align}
\end{Prob}
where $\mathbf s_k\triangleq(s_{k,i})_{i=1,\dots,m_k}$, $\bar f^t_{k,0}(\mathbf x)$, $\bar f^t_{k,i}(\mathbf x), i=1,\dots,m_k$ are convex surrogate functions of $f_{0}(\mathbf x)$, $f_{k,i}(\mathbf x), i=1,\dots,m_k$.\footnote{
Note that the surrogate objective function of the parallel SSCA method in this letter is more general than that in~\cite{Liu}, and can exploit block-wise structures of the objective function.
}
Let $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t}_k,\mathbf{s}^t_k)$ denote an optimal solution of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-app}.
The $K$ approximate problems can be solved in a distributed and parallel manner using conventional convex optimization techniques~\cite{Yang}.
Denote ${\mathbf{x}}^{t}\triangleq({\mathbf x}^t_k)^K_{k=1}$.
The details are summarized in Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}.
To ensure the convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}, the surrogate functions $\bar f^t_{k,i}(\cdot),i=0,\dots,m_k,k=1,\dots,K$ should satisfy the following assumptions.
\begin{Asump}[Assumptions on $\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\cdot)$~\cite{Yang,Liu}]\label{asump:fik}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each $\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k)$ is uniformly strongly convex on $\mathcal{X}_k$;
\item Each $\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k)$ is Lipschitz continuous on $\mathcal{X}_k$, and for any $\mathbf{x}_k\in\mathcal{X}_k$, $\mathop{\lim\sup}_{t_1 t_2\to\infty}\bar{f}_{k,i}^{t_1}(\mathbf{x}_k)-\bar{f}_{k,i}^{t_2}(\mathbf{x}_k)\leq B\Vert\mathbf{x}_k^{t_1}-\mathbf{x}_k^{t_2}\Vert$, for some constant $B\geq0$;
\item Each $\{\nabla^{2}_{\mathbf{x}_k}\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k):t=0,1,\dots\}$ is uniformly bounded;
\item $\lim_{t\to\infty}\vert\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k^t)-{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k^t)\vert=0$ and $\lim_{t\to\infty}\vert\nabla\bar{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k^t)-\nabla{f}_{k,i}^t(\mathbf{x}_k^t)\vert=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asump}
A common example of surrogate functions is given as follows~\cite{Yang,Liu}:
\begin{align}
&\bar{f}^t_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k)=(1-\omega^{t})\bar{f}^{t-1}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k)+\omega^{t}\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{x}^{t-1},\boldsymbol\xi^t),\nonumber\\
&i=0,\dots,m_k,\ k=1,\dots,K, \ t=1,2,\dots,\label{eqn:updatefi}
\end{align}
where $\bar{f}^0_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k)=0$ for all $\mathbf{x}_k\in\mathcal{X}_k$,
$\omega^t$ is a positive diminishing stepsize satisfying \eqref{eqn:omega},
and $\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{x}^t,\boldsymbol\xi^{t-1})$ is a convex approximation of ${g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{x}^t_{-k},\boldsymbol\xi^t)$ around $\mathbf x_k^{t-1}$ satisfying:
$\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)={g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)$ and $\nabla_{\mathbf x_k}\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)=\nabla_{\mathbf x_k}{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x},\boldsymbol\xi)$, for all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$;
$\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{y},\boldsymbol\xi)$ is strongly convex in $\mathbf x_k$ for all $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$;
$\hat{g}_{k,i}(\mathbf{x}_k,\mathbf{y},\boldsymbol\xi)$ is Lipschitz continuous in both $\mathbf x_k$ and $\mathbf y$ for all $\boldsymbol\xi\in\Omega$.
Similarly, by~\cite[Proposition 1]{Liu}, the surrogate functions given by \eqref{eqn:updatefi} satisfy Assumption~\ref{asump:fik}.
Finally, we show the convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}.
\begin{Thm}[Convergence of Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}]\label{thm:conv-rand2}
Suppose Assumption~\ref{asump:gik} and Assumption~\ref{asump:fik} are satisfied. Then $\{(\mathbf{x}^{t},\mathbf{s}^{t})\}$ generated by Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel} has a limit point, denote by $(\mathbf x^\star,\mathbf s^\star)$, and the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\mathbf x^\star,\mathbf s^\star)$ is a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen};
\item If $\mathbf s^\star=\mathbf 0$, then $\mathbf x^\star$ is a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Similarly to the proof of Theorem~\ref{alg:pssca}, we can show that $\mathbf{s}^t$ is bounded. Note that Assumption~b, Assumption~c in~\cite{Yang} readily follow Assumption 1.2 and Assumption~2 in this letter, and Assumption~a in~\cite{Yang} is used to prove the boundedness of $\bar{f}^t_i(\bar{\mathbf x}^t)+\mathbf{s}^t$, where $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^{t}\triangleq(\bar{\mathbf x}^t_k)^K_{k=1}$. Thus, following the proof of \cite[Theorem~1]{Yang}, we can show Lemma~4 in~\cite{Liu}. Then, following the proof of \cite[Theorem~1]{Liu}, we can show
the KKT conditions of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} hold. Therefore, we can show the first statement.
Similarly, when $\mathbf s=\mathbf 0$, the KKT conditions of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-pen} imply those of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}. Therefore, we can show the second statement.
\end{IEEEproof}
Similarly, we can run Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel} multiple times, each with a random initial point $\mathbf{x}^{0}\in\mathcal{X}$, until a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen} is obtained.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Parallel SSCA}
\begin{small}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{initialization}: Set $t=1$, and choose any $\mathbf{x}^{0}\in\mathcal{X}$.\\
\STATE \textbf{repeat}
\STATE \quad Obtain $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}_k^{t},\mathbf{s}_k^{t})$ by solving Problem~\ref{prob:dec-app} with conventional convex optimization techniques, for $k=1,\dots,K$, and update $\mathbf{x}^{t}$ according to \eqref{eqn:updateTm}.
\STATE\quad Set $t=t+1$.
\STATE \textbf{until} Some convergence criteria is met.
\end{algorithmic}\label{alg:parallel}
\end{small}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Application examples in interference networks}\label{sec:example}
Consider a $K$-pair frequency-selective interference channel.
Each pair includes one single-antenna transmitter and one single-antenna receiver. Let $H_{kj}$ denote the random coefficient of the channel between the $k$-th transmitter and the $j$-th receiver. Suppose $H_{kj}$, $k,j=1,\dots,K$, are independent and identically distributed according to $\mathcal{CN}(0,\delta_{kj})$, $k,j=1,\dots,K$.
Let $p_k$ denote the transmit power for the $k$-th transmitter, where
\begin{align}
0\leq p_k\leq P_k,\quad k=1,\dots,K.\label{eqn:power}
\end{align}
Here, $P_k$ represents the power limit for the $k$-th transmitter. Denote $\mathbf{p}\triangleq(p_k)_{k=1}^K$. The ergodic rate of the $k$-th pair is given by
$r_k(\mathbf{p})=\mathbb{E}\left[\log\left(1+\frac{\vert{H_{kk}}\vert^2 p_k}{\sum_{j\neq k}\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 p_j+\sigma_k^2}\right)\right]$,
where $\sigma_k$ denotes the variance of the additive complex Gaussian noise at the $k$-th receiver.
The ergodic sum-rate of the $K$ pairs is given by
$r_0(\mathbf{p})=\sum_{k=1}^K r_k(\mathbf{p})$.
The ergodic rate of the $k$-th pair satisfies:
\begin{align}
r_k(\mathbf{p})\geq R_k,\quad k=1,\dots,K,\label{eqn:ratec1}
\end{align}
where $R_k$ represents the rate requirement for the $k$-th pair.
By~\eqref{eqn:power},
$r_k(\mathbf p)\geq\mathbb{E}\left[\log(1+\frac{\vert{H_{kk}}\vert^2 p_k}{\sum_{j\neq k}\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 P_j+\sigma_k^2})\right]\triangleq r_{lb,k}(p_k).$
Thus, a stronger and decoupled version of \eqref{eqn:ratec1} is given by:
\begin{align}
r_{lb,k}(\mathbf{p})\geq R_k,\quad k=1,\dots,K. \label{eqn:ratec2}
\end{align}
We would like to optimize the transmit power $\mathbf p$ to maximize the ergodic sum-rate $r_0(\mathbf p)$, subject to the power constraints in \eqref{eqn:power} as well as the coupled and decoupled individual ergodic rate constraints in \eqref{eqn:ratec1} and \eqref{eqn:ratec2}, respectively.
\begin{Prob}[Ergodic Sum-Rate Maximization with Coupled Constraints]\label{prob:sumrate-couple}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{p}}\quad &r_0(\mathbf{p})\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\eqref{eqn:power},\eqref{eqn:ratec1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{Prob}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
&\hat{g}_{0}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}^{t-1},\mathbf{H}^t)=\sum_{k=1}^K\Big(\log({\sum_{j=1}^K\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 p_j+\sigma_k})-\log({\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\!\!\!\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 p^t_j+\sigma_k})-\frac{\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2(p_j-p^t_j)}{\sum_{{l=1,l\neq k}}^K\vert{H_{kl}}\vert^2 p^t_l+\sigma_k}\Big) \label{eqn:exg0}\\
&\hat{g}_{k}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}^{t-1},\mathbf{H}^t)=R_k-\log({\sum_{j=1}^K\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 p_j+\sigma_k})+\log({\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\!\!\!\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 p^t_j+\sigma_k})+\frac{\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2(p_j-p^t_j)}{\sum_{{l=1,l\neq k}}^K\vert{H_{kl}}\vert^2 p^t_l+\sigma_k},\ k=1,\dots,K \label{eqn:exgk}
\end{align}
\end{small}
\normalsize
\vspace{-9mm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{Prob}[Ergodic Sum-Rate Maximization with Decoupled Constraints]\label{prob:sumrate-decouple}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{p}}\quad &r_0(\mathbf{p})\nonumber\\
\text{s.t.} \quad &\eqref{eqn:power},\eqref{eqn:ratec2}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{Prob}
Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-couple} is one instance of Problem~\ref{prob:gen}. We can choose $\hat{g}_{0}$ and $\hat{g}_{k}$, given by \eqref{eqn:exg0} and \eqref{eqn:exgk}, as shown at the top of this page, and obtain a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-couple} using Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca}.
Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple} is one instance of Problem~\ref{prob:dec-gen}. We can choose $\hat{g}_{k,0}$ and $\hat{g}_{k,1}$, given by \eqref{eqn:exgk0} and \eqref{eqn:exgk1}, as shown at the top of this page,
\begin{figure*}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
&\hat{g}_{k,0}(p_k,\mathbf{p}^{t-1},\mathbf{H}^t)=\sum_{m=1}^K\Big(\log({\vert{H_{mk}}\vert^2 p_k+\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\!\!\!\vert{H_{mj}}\vert^2 p_j^t+\sigma_m})-\log({\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq m}}^K\!\!\!\vert{H_{mj}}\vert^2 p^t_j+\sigma_m})-\frac{\vert{H_{mk}}\vert^2(p_k-p^t_k)}{\sum_{{l=1,l\neq m}}^K\vert{H_{ml}}\vert^2 p^t_l+\sigma_m}\Big) \label{eqn:exgk0}\\
&\hat{g}_{k,1}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}^{t-1},\mathbf{H}^t)=R_k-\log({\vert{H_{kk}}\vert^2 p_k+\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\!\!\! \vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 P_j+\sigma_k})-\log({\!\!\!\sum_{{j=1,j\neq k}}^K\!\!\!\vert{H_{kj}}\vert^2 P_j+\sigma_k})-\frac{\vert{H_{kk}}\vert^2(p_k-p^t_k)}{\sum_{{l=1,l\neq k}}^K\vert{H_{kl}}\vert^2 P_l+\sigma_k},\ k=1,\dots,K \label{eqn:exgk1}
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}
\normalsize \hrulefill
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure*}
and obtain a stationary point of Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple} using Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}.
Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple} has a smaller optimal ergodic sum-rate than Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-couple}, but yields a parallel SSCA method with faster convergence speed. Thus, Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple} has application when the network topology changes rapidly over time.
\section{Numerical Results}
In this section, we consider the application examples in Section \ref{sec:example}, and compare
the proposed SSCA and parallel SSCA methods (i.e., Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca} and Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel}) with those in~\cite{Liu} through numerical experiments.
We set $K=5$ and $\rho=0.5$. For simplicity, we choose $P_k=100$, $\sigma^2_k=1$ and $R_k=1$ for all $k=1,\dots,K$. We choose $\delta_{kj}^2=1$ if $k=j$ and $\delta_{kj}^2=0.1$ otherwise.
We independently generate 50 sample paths of random channel coefficients according to $\mathcal{CN}(0,\delta_{kj})$, $k,j=1,\dots,K$, and evaluate the average convergence rates and computing times.
We choose $p^{0}_k=P_k$, $k=1,\dots,K$ as the initial point of the four algorithms. For each generated sample path, Alg.~\ref{alg:pssca} and the SSCA method in~\cite{Liu} for solving Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-couple} converge to the same stationary point, denoted by $\mathbf p^*$; Alg.~\ref{alg:parallel} and the parallel SSCA method in~\cite{Liu} for solving Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple} converge to the same stationary point, denoted by $\mathbf p^\star$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[\scriptsize{
Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-couple}}\label{fig:couple}]
{\resizebox{5.2cm}{!}{\includegraphics{1.eps}}}\quad
\subfigure[\scriptsize{
Problem~\ref{prob:sumrate-decouple}}\label{fig:decouple}]
{\resizebox{5.2cm}{!}{\includegraphics{2.eps}}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\small{Convergence rates and computing times.}}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{fig:appl}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:appl} illustrates the convergence rates and computing times.
Table. 1 illustrates the numbers of iterations and total computing times when certain convergence criterion are satisfied.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:appl} and Table 1, we can see that the proposed SSCA and parallel SSCA methods have higher convergence rates and shorter computing times than those in~\cite{Liu}. The gains in convergence rate come from solving a single type of approximate convex problems over all iterates.
The gains in the computational complexity stem from solving a single optimization problem per iteration.
The substantial gains demonstrate the effectiveness for balancing the objective minimization and the constraint satisfaction over random iterates.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Numbers of iterations and total computing times at $\Vert{\mathbf p^t-\mathbf p^*}\Vert_1/\Vert{\mathbf p^*}\Vert_1=\Vert{\mathbf p^t-\mathbf p^\star}\Vert_1/\Vert{\mathbf p^\star}\Vert_1=0.02$.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\scriptsize{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&Alg.~1 &SSCA [5] &Alg.~2 &PSSCA [5]\\
\hline
Number of iterations &1956 &2390 &123 &725\\
\hline
Computing time (s) &1084 &1455 &53 &378\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{parameter}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this letter, we considered the general stochastic optimization problem with expectations in both the objective and constraint functions.
We proposed a SSCA method and a parallel SSCA method to obtain stationary points of the general stochastic optimization problem and its special case with decoupled constraint functions, respectively. We provided application examples of the proposed methods and demonstrated the advantages of the proposed methods in terms of convergence rate and computational complexity.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Understanding and predicting biomolecular processes requires a basic knowledge of the electrostatic interactions possible within a molecular system \cite{Fried2017, Jurrus2018, Dolinsky2007}.
Many programs\footnote{See \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecular_graphics_systems} for a partial list of molecular visualization programs.}---such as PyMOL \cite{PyMOL}, VMD \cite{Humphrey1996}, Chimera \cite{Pettersen2004}, and UnityMol \cite{Doutreligne2014}---provide platforms for the visualization and analysis of protein systems.
However, visualization of molecular systems is currently largely completed using a variety of tools that all contain a common, and inherent limitation: three-dimensional objects are observed using a two-dimensional interface.
Using a two-dimensional interface to manipulate and understand three-dimensional objects removes an important depth component that is crucial to understanding spatial resolution within a three-dimensional object.
Furthermore, manipulation of multiple objects in a three-dimensional space is currently performed using a cumbersome combination of mouse or track-pad and keyboard interactions.
Interacting with a three-dimensional space via a two-dimensional interface is a limitation when attempting to simultaneously investigate multiple objects such as protein-protein, protein-cofactor, or enzyme-substrate interactions.
In this paper, we describe a new UnityMol-\ac{APBS} \ac{VR} platform for visualizing these three-dimensional systems.
We will show brief examples of how a student or researcher would use the \ac{APBS} and PDB2PQR tools to generate and visualize electrostatic information and describe how this use is facilitated by the \ac{VR} interface.
\subsection{Molecular visualization with UnityMol-APBS} \label{sec:UM}
Many popular platforms exist to visualize molecular systems via two-dimensional environments; e.g., PyMOL, VMD, Chimera, and UnityMol.
Several new visualization methodologies have been implemented to provide an \ac{AR} or \ac{VR} interface \cite{Sommer2018, Nanome, OConner2018, ChimeraX, Educhem, MoleculE}.
\ac{VR} interfaces---as provided by UnityMol, Chimera (see ChimeraX) \cite{Goddard2018UCSFCM}, Nanome \cite{Nanome}, and Nano Simbox \cite{OConnor2019}---allow students or researchers the ability to be completely immersed within a given molecular system, thereby facilitating insight into interactions between proteins and enzymes, small organic molecules, and synthetic organometallic complexes.
Single-user \ac{VR} software varies from viewing-only applications such as Educhem-VR \cite{Educhem} to tools that provide various degrees of user interaction both in a standard desktop environment and using a \ac{VR} interface; e.g., UnityMol-APBS and ChimeraX \cite{Goddard2018UCSFCM}.
Collaborative \ac{VR} software includes Nanome \cite{Nanome}, a collaborative \ac{VR} environment for drug discovery, and Nano Simbox \cite{OConnor2019}, a collaborative \ac{VR} environment for interacting with \ac{MD} simulations.
As noted by the team behind Nano Simbox, \ac{VR} environments have been shown to increase the rate of scientific discovery.
For example, the developers of Nano Simbox attempted to quantify the positive impact of using a virtual environment for general molecular visualizations and manipulations and found a 10-fold increase in productivity \cite{OConnor2019}.
UnityMol-APBS has been developed using the Unity game engine for both standard desktop (Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux) and \ac{VR} (Windows-only) interfaces.
A Python terminal, implemented using IronPython, has been incorporated to provide an improved user experience through additional command-line functionality.
The original UnityMol software was introduced in 2013 and was developed by Marc Baaden and his research group at CNRS in the Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology.
UnityMol is available free of charge and can be downloaded from a repository at SourceForge\footnote{UnityMol can be downloaded at \url{https://sourceforge.net/projects/unitymol}.}.
The UnityMol-APBS software described in this paper is derived from UnityMol.
\subsection{Molecular electrostatics with \ac{APBS}} \label{sec:apbs}
As discussed in our article from the previous {\textit{Tools for Protein Science}} special issue \cite{Jurrus2018}, \ac{APBS} is one of several software packages for calculating electrostatic properties of biomolecular systems\footnote{The \ac{APBS} software can be downloaded or used via the web at \url{http://www.poissonboltzmann.org}.}.
The \ac{APBS} software was developed to solve the \ac{PB} equation \cite{Fixman1979, Grochowski2008, Lamm2003} for the calculation of biomolecular solvation properties and electrostatic interactions:
\begin{equation}
-\nabla \cdot \epsilon \nabla \phi - \sum_i^M c_i q_i e^{-\beta \left(q_i \phi + V_i \right)} = \rho
\label{eqn:pbe}
\end{equation}
which is solved on a domain $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ with $\phi$ specified on the boundary of that domain.
In Eq.~\ref{eqn:pbe}, $\phi: \Omega \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is the electrostatic potential, $\epsilon: \Omega \mapsto [\varepsilon_u, \varepsilon_v]$ is a dielectric coefficient function that ranges between solute $\varepsilon_u > 0$ and solvent $\varepsilon_v > 0$ dielectric values, and $\rho: \Omega \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a charge distribution function.
For each mobile ion species, $i=1,\ldots,M$, $q_i \in \mathbb{R}$ is the charge, $c_i > 0$ is the concentration, and $V_i: \Omega \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is the steric ion-solute interaction potential.
Finally, $\beta=\left( kT \right)^{-1} > 0$ is the inverse thermal energy where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature.
The main input to \ac{APBS} is a PQR file that specifies the position in $\Omega$, charge values for $\rho$, and radii (used to construct $\epsilon$ and $V_i$) for each atom.
The PDB2PQR software was developed to expedite the preparation of input files for analysis by \ac{APBS} \cite{Dolinsky2007, Dolinsky2004}.
Functions of the PDB2PQR software includes reading a PDB file, converting to the PQR format, repairing missing heavy atoms, optimizing titration states, adding missing hydrogen atoms, assigning radius and charge parameters, and automatically preparing subsequent APBS electrostatic calculations.
\ac{APBS} and PDB2PQR can be used via command-line operations, through popular molecular visualization software (Chimera, PyMOL, VMD), or via a web-based interface.
As described in this article, \ac{APBS} and PDB2PQR tools have now also been incorporated into UnityMol-APBS with three primary goals:
\begin{itemize}
\item offer an intuitive visual interface to \ac{APBS} functionality without the requirement of compiling,
\item enable users to employ one application to calculate and immediately visualize and compare multiple results in a completely immersive virtual reality experience, and
\item provide the terminal commands, that were generated in UnityMol-APBS, to PDB2PQR and \ac{APBS} as input, in a text file for the purposes of reproducibility of results.
\end{itemize}
Installation of the integrated UnityMol-APBS and \ac{APBS} environment is straightforward: both executables should be downloaded from \url{https://github.com/Electrostatics/VR} and installed on the user system using default values\footnote{UnityMol-APBS assumes a default installation of \ac{APBS} at \texttt{C:$\backslash$APBS$\_$PDB2PQR} on Windows systems.}.
\section{Methods and results} \label{sec:methods} \label{sec:viz}
The full \ac{APBS} toolset, including PDB2PQR, was integrated with UnityMol-APBS to allow users access the functionality of this software without the requirement of manually compiling the tools and using terminal commands.
UnityMol was specifically chosen for integration with \ac{APBS} due to its high-quality visual representations, ease of interactions with multiple molecular objects, powerful tools for visual manipulations, and the ability to switch between a desktop and a virtual environment.
All \ac{APBS} tools are directly accessed from within UnityMol-APBS (see Figure~\ref{fig:ui}) and can be used from within the desktop application or a virtual environment to allow immediate comparison of many structural properties including titration states, electrostatic surface potentials, electrostatic field lines, hydrogen bonding interactions, and salt bridge formation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{UI.png}
\caption{UnityMol-APBS user interface for PDB2PQR and APBS.
(A)~The main UnityMol-APBS menu; orange box highlights the two buttons used to open the APBS and PDB2PQR tools.
(B)~The main menu for interactions with APBS and PDB2PQR.
Blue boxes show the buttons to launch PDB2PQR and APBS executables, green boxes show the location of the options used for producing the images in Figures \ref{fig:ache} and \ref{fig:lmrr-elec}, and the purple boxes highlight the two input fields required to use custom force fields and custom residue names.}
\label{fig:ui}
\end{figure}
The examples below illustrate how to visualize the properties of proteins with natural and unnatural residues.
Values and methodologies used in the examples are intended as a demonstration and are not necessarily the recommended values for all applications.
Please refer to the PDB2PQR and \ac{APBS} documentation when using APBS for your own applications.
The HTC Vive \ac{VR} system was used for the examples shown in this paper; however, several \ac{VR} systems are supported including: Oculus CV1, DK2, and Rift S.
Both the desktop and \ac{VR} environments of UnityMol-APBS save all user commands as a Python script that can be loaded later to reproduce or reuse the visualization workflow.
This greatly reduces the time required to begin working from where a researcher left off, or when a student is loading a scene that an instructor has previously prepared.
\subsection{Analyzing \ac{AChE} electrostatic surface potentials and field lines} \label{sec:ex-ache}
\textit{Torpedo californica} \ac{AChE} is an enzyme that operates incredibly fast with high selectivity, in part, due to its electrostatic properties \cite{Quinn1987}.
Catalysis occurs at an active site buried within the enzyme.
Electric fields help guide positively charged substrates from the enzyme exterior through a narrow channel to the buried active site as shown in the UnityMol-APBS visualization in Figure \ref{fig:ache}.
As such, this enzyme is a good example for exploring electrostatic surface potentials and electrostatic field lines in an immersive and virtual experience.
The instructions provided here for the \ac{AChE} analysis can be used as a template for other uses of UnityMol-APBS.
The Appendix includes step-by-step instructions for this example (Example~\ref{ex:ache-steps}) as well as the output Python code (Example~\ref{ex:ache-python}), which can be used by a user to instantly load our results.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{AChE.png}
\caption{Electrostatic surface potential and field lines of \textit{Torpedo californica} \ac{AChE} (\ac{PDB} ID 5EI5) with bound alkylene-linked bis-tacrine.
(A)~Electrostatic field lines and protein secondary structure shown with alpha helices (yellow), beta sheets (blue), and random coils (white). Residues Tyr70, Trp84, Trp279, and Phe330 are shown interacting with alkylene-linked bis-tacrine via hydrogen bonding and $\pi$-$\pi$ stacking interactions.
The red oval highlights the potential gradient.
(B)~AChE surface model with field lines and mapped electrostatic surface potentials shown with neutral, negative, and positive charges in white, red, and blue, respectively.
Field lines are calculated from a gradient (value of 0.2) and depicted with the starting points in red and the ending points in blue.
The orientation is the same in Figures A and B, where the alkylene-linked bis-tacrine can be seen occupying the catalytic gorge.
The white circle highlights the potential gradient exiting the catalytic gorge.}
\label{fig:ache}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Structural information for \textit{Torpedo californica} \ac{AChE} was obtained from \ac{PDB} entry 5EI5, via the fetch command in UnityMol-APBS.
Once loaded, the default force field parameters for AMBER \cite{Case2005} were chosen and amino acid protonation states were estimated using PROPKA at pH 7.0.
PROPKA is a heuristic method for computing p$K_a$ values by incorporating effects due to desolvation, hydrogen bonding, and charge–charge interactions \cite{Sondergaard2011}.
Figure \ref{fig:ui} highlights the options used with PDB2PQR: --chain, --apbs-input, --summary, --drop-water, --salt, and --hbond, to retain the chain information, prepare an input file for APBS, print a summary, remove water molecules, write salt bridge interactions, and write hydrogen bonding interactions, respectively.
UnityMol-APBS creates and saves all files in the destination directory \texttt{C:\textbackslash APBS\_PDB2PQR\textbackslash OutputFiles}. Upon running the PDB2PQR tools, the newly created .PQR file is immediately loaded for the user.
Hydrogen bonding and salt bridge information are written as \texttt{.hbonds} and \texttt{.salt} formatted files; this information can be read and visualized directly from within UnityMol-APBS as independent selections.
This allows users to color the interactions as desired.
Default parameters for \ac{APBS} Poisson-Boltzmann calculations were selected through the Unity\-Mol-APBS interface.
\ac{APBS} writes electrostatic potential output in OpenDX format that is directly loaded by UnityMol-APBS after completing the calculation.
The potential gradient within the OpenDX file allows UnityMol-APBS to color the molecular surface based on electrostatic potential and show the associated electrostatic field lines, Figure \ref{fig:ache}.
Highlighted in Figure 2 is the strong electric field originating in the \ac{AChE} active site channel.
Due to the confinement of the catalytic gorge, this channel is extremely challenging to explore with traditional molecular visualization methods.
Additionally, manually moving a ligand through the catalytic gorge to analyze the residues that could interact is not a task that can be completed easily in 2D visualization environments.
Completing this task in \ac{VR} is much easier as the depth component is not obscured due to the inherent limitations associated with viewing a three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional screen.
Furthermore, the virtual environment more easily allows the user to simultaneously manipulate both the enzyme and the substrate to provide optimized viewing angles.
Animated electrostatic field lines in UnityMol-APBS represent the electrostatic potential gradient and the following properties can be manipulated: movement speed of the lines, width of lines, length of the line, and the gradient used to calculate the lines.
An example of the electrostatic surface potential and electrostatic field lines of \textit{Torpedo californica} \ac{AChE} is shown in the supplementary information video, which can be accessed at \url{https://github.com/Electrostatics/VR}.
Also, included in the video is an example of a user manipulating two objects (substrate and \ac{AChE}) simultaneously in a virtual space manually traversing the substrate through the catalytic gorge of \ac{AChE}.
\subsection{Using custom force fields to analyze an artificial enzyme: Rho\-di\-um-containing Lactococcal Multidrug Resistance Regulator (Rh-LmrR*)} \label{sec:ex-lmrr}
The electrostatic field lines an electrostatic surface potentials of an artificial metalloenzyme capable of hydrogenating CO$_2$ to a liquid fuel, formate, is shown in Figure \ref{fig:lmrr-elec}~\cite{Laureanti2019}.
This system, Rh-LmrR (where LmrR is the Lactococcal multidrug resistance regulator and Rh refers to an organometallic rhodium-(bis)diphosphine complex), was chosen as the second example to illustrate the use of custom force fields with UnityMol-APBS.
The artificial metalloenzyme contains a covalently anchored Rh(bis)diphosphine cofactor that cannot be analyzed using standard force field parameters due to the non-standard rhodium and phosphorus atoms, as well as the associated ligand framework.
In this example, we show how to input externally generated force field data, analyze hydrogen bonding interactions, identify salt bridge locations, calculate the electrostatic potential at multiple atoms using the APBS \text{multivalue} tool, as well as visualize the electrostatic surface potential and electrostatic field lines.
Our methods to prepare the custom force fields, using tools outside of UnityMol-APBS, are briefly described here.
Structural data for the artificial metalloenzyme was first obtained from crystallographic data (PDB ID 6DO0) with further minimization via density functional theory (DFT) calculations and conformational sampling using MD simulations in GROMACS~\cite{Kumari2014}.
The resulting PDB file for Rh-LmrR was loaded into UnityMol-APBS and PDB2PQR was used to prepare the structure for \ac{APBS} calculations as described in the AChE example above.
The parameters for the Rh-(bis)diphosphine complex do not exist in any of the included standard libraries, therefore custom force field parameters for Rh-LmrR were explicitly input to UnityMol-APBS.
Calculations for DFT were performed in NWChem 6.5~\cite{NWChem} using the B3LYP functional~\cite{B3LYPa, B3LYPb} and 6-31G* basis set~\cite{631Ga, 631Gb} for all atoms except for Rh, which used a large-core correlation-consistent pseudopotential basis set~\cite{Martin2001}.
The geometries were optimized in the gas phase and verified as minima using Hessian calculation in a rigid-rotor, harmonic approximation.
For the charge calculation, the complex was capped with methyl groups, constrained to an overall neutral charge, and all equivalent atoms were constrained to equal values.
Charges for atoms other than Rh and P were calculated using the RESP procedure~\cite{RESP}.
The atomic point charges of the Rh center and phosphorus atoms were obtained using the Bl\"{o}chl scheme~\cite{Blochl1995}, since the RESP scheme resulted in unphysical values.
Lennard-Jones parameters for each atom were taken from the GAFF force field~\cite{GAFF}, except for Rh which used UFF~\cite{UFF}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{Rh-LmrR.jpg}
\caption{Single conformation from a \ac{MD} simulation of \ac{Rh-LmrR*} showing (A) the protein secondary structure and the immobilized Rh-complex. (B) electrostatic surface potential and field lines. Color scheme is identical to Figure \ref{fig:ache}. }
\label{fig:lmrr-elec}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
UnityMol-APBS allows custom force fields and residue names to be used by duplicating the base force field files and amending new custom force field and residue name data as described in the APBS-PDB2PQR documentation.
Once these files are prepared, the data can be loaded via the PDB2PQR menu in UnityMol-APBS.
The location of the custom force field is provided by use of the {``Find FF''} button, and the custom residue names are found by use of the {``Find FF names''} button, shown highlighted in purple in Figure \ref{fig:ui}.
When the PDB2PQR executable is launched via UnityMol-APBS (highlighted blue in Figure \ref{fig:ui}), the paths to the custom files will be automatically loaded, overriding the force field information chosen at the top of the \ac{GUI}.
After the PDB2PQR process finishes, the newly generated \texttt{.pqr} file is automatically loaded into UnityMol-APBS as a new selection.
The APBS executable (highlighted in blue, Figure \ref{fig:ui}) can then be launched to solve the Poisson-Boltzmann equations for continuum electrostatics.
The newly generated OpenDX file will be automatically loaded into UnityMol-APBS, thus facilitating visualization of the electrostatic surface potential and electrostatic field lines.
As an example of how to evaluate specific atomic potential values from within UnityMol-APBS, we used the immersive virtual reality interface to compare the electrostatic potential of the four phosphorus atoms and the Rh metal center of the organometallic complex alone in solution to the Rh complex immobilized within the protein scaffold.
In the original publication~\cite{Laureanti2019}, it was found that the Rh-complex alone in solution was not a competent catalyst for CO$_2$ hydrogenation.
However, catalytic activity was observed once the Rh complex was immobilized in the protein scaffold.
The protein scaffold imposes conformational restrictions and as this example implies, also perturbs the electrostatic potential around the Rh-P environment.
This shift in electrostatic potential was observed using the \ac{APBS} \texttt{multivalue} tool via UnityMol-APBS.
To complete this task without imposing influences from the grid, we used the following workflow
to accurately calculate potentials while removing ``self-energy'' artifacts from the grid.
First, two initial \texttt{.dx} files containing the calculated electrostatic potential map were created from the respective (\ac{APBS}) input files for the Rh-complex and the artificial enzyme using a protein dielectric (\texttt{pdie}) of 2 and a solvent dielectric (\texttt{sdie}) of 78.4.
Second, an additional \texttt{.dx} file was created for each system with a homogeneous dielectric of 2 (\texttt{pdie=sdie=2}).
Third, the data from each \texttt{.dx} file was then used to generate potential values from the \texttt{multivalue} tool by selecting the desired atoms (one Rh atom and four P atoms) of the active site.
Fourth, the reaction field potential values were calculated by subtracting the homogeneous-dielectric values (second step) from the inhomogeneous-dielectric values (first step) to remove self-energy grid artifacts in the calculation.
Fifth, the APBS \texttt{coulomb} tool was used to analytically calculate the electrostatic potential at each atom, assuming a homogeneous environment of dielectric 2.
The analytically calculated Coulomb potential results were added to the reaction field potential results to give the final potential value at each atom site.
From these results, we observed that all four phosphorus atoms were perturbed upon immobilization with an average shift of $165 \pm 15$ mV relative to the Rh-complex alone in solution.
The Rh center shifted -170 mV upon immobilization within the protein environment.
Using \ac{VR} to explore the active site of an artificial enzyme in an immersive environment is extremely helpful when trying to understand the electrostatic environment, spatial constraints, local flexibility, and potentially beneficial or inhibiting interactions of neighboring residues.
A full immersion experience allows the user to observe the protein surface from within the protein scaffold, a feature that is drastically hindered when using a standard two-dimensional interface.
As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:lmrr-hbond}, the \ac{VR} environment is particularly well-suited for measuring distances, angles, and electrostatics potentials at specific sites in the protein (e.g., the Rh metal center).
The \ac{APBS} multivalue tool can be used to identify the electrostatic potential at specific atoms selected in UnityMol-APBS and is described in further detail in the Appendix (Example~\ref{ex:lmrr-steps}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{AtomicDistance.png}
\caption{Example of using UnityMol-APBS to explore atomic distances and bond angles.
Using a virtual environment to complete this task is simpler than a two-dimensional interface.
Dihedral angles can also be shown directly using the UnityMol-APBS interface.
Distance measurement line and angle measurement line are shown as blue lines.
Grey spheres are used to highlight the selected atoms.}
\label{fig:lmrr-hbond}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this newly coupled version of UnityMol-APBS, we have provided a seamless desktop/virtual interface to provide a robust method of interaction with molecular systems.
The virtual world allows a user to easily manipulate and compare multiple three-dimensional objects in real time, a task that is very much hindered using only a standard desktop interaction.
Additionally, the virtual interface allows users to quickly prepare input files for the PDB2PQR and APBS toolset by simply reaching out and grabbing desired atoms, which are then automatically prepared by the UnityMol-APBS software and delivered to the APBS tools via command line interactions.
This dramatically reduces the time required, since the user no longer has to sift through multiple text files to prepare custom input files for the PDB2PQR and APBS toolsets.
Furthermore, the inherent need to interact with the PDB2PQR and APBS tools through direct command line interactions has been removed.
All command line inputs are setup using a helpful \ac{GUI} and delivered directly from UnityMol-APBS.
This greatly increases the availability of the PDB2PQR and APBS toolsets to undergraduate students as well as anyone entering the field of molecular visualization, as users are not required to compile the software before use, nor is there an inherent need to understand command line interactions.
\ac{APBS} has been in public use for nearly 20 years, thanks to ongoing support by the National Institutes of Health to maintain and update the codes, work with the user base to ensure access and execution of the codes, and improve performance and incorporate new features based on new algorithms and user feedback.
Any software package still in use over that span of time requires continuous updating and refinement to leverage emerging software technologies and improvements in measurement technology that affect the input data.
Therefore, \ac{APBS} has been redesigned, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:SWdev}, to ensure the continued availability of this free and scalable software package for biomolecular electrostatics, solvation, and structure assessment/preparation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.55\linewidth]{refactor}
\caption{Diagram for redesigned and refactored \ac{APBS} software to enable modular growth.} \label{fig:SWdev}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The goal of the ongoing software re-engineering effort is to unify the software development into a single code-base that can be easily deployed on desktops, servers and cloud infrastructures.
To achieve this goal, the software has been refactored as a microservices architecture to improve its extensibility and scalability.
The redeveloped software is currently under testing.
Access to this new version of \ac{APBS} will be available through \url{http://www.poissonboltzmann.org}; the underlying developmental code is available at \url{https://github.com/Electrostatics/apbs-rest}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors gratefully acknowledge NIH grant GM069702 for support of \ac{APBS} and PDB2PQR.
The development of the \ac{VR} methods was supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, \& Biosciences.
MB acknowledges support by the ``Initiative d'Excellence'' program from the French State (Grant ``DYNAMO'', ANR-11-LABX-0011, and ``CACSICE'', ANR-11-EQPX-0008).
PNNL is operated by Battelle for the U.S.\ DOE under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.
\pagebreak
|
\section{introduction}
In this paper, we consider the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NS}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_tU+U\cdot\nabla U+\nabla P-\nu\Delta U=0,\\
\na\cdot U=0,\\
U|_{t=0}=U_{in}(x,y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $U=(U^1,U^2)$ and $P$ denote the velocity and the pressure of the fluid respectively. Let $\Om=\pa_xU^2-\pa_yU^1$ be the vorticity, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vorticity}
\Om_t+U\cdot\nabla \Om-\nu\Delta \Om=0.
\end{equation}
The Couette flow $(y,0)$ is a steady solution of \eqref{eq:NS} with $\Om=-1$.
We introduce the perturbation. Let $U=(y,0)+V$ and $\Om=-1+\om$, then $\om$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NS2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\omega+y\pa_x\omega-\nu\Delta\om=-V\cdot\na \om,\\
V=\na^{\bot}(-\Delta)^{-1}\om,\\
\om|_{t=0}=\om_{in}(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
and $V$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NS3}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_tV+y\pa_xV-\nu\Delta V+\na p=-V\cdot\na V-(V_2,0),\\
\na\cdot V=0,\\
V|_{t=0}=V_{in}(x,y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
The enstrophy conservation law $\|\om(t)\|_{L^2}^2+2\nu\int_0^t\|\na\om(s)\|_{L^2}^2ds=\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}^2$ implies that the solution of \eqref{eq:NS} remains $\delta$-close in $L^2$ to the Couette flow if the initial vorticity is $\delta$-close in $L^2$ to -1. In this paper, we focus on asymptotic stability of the 2D Couette flow. For the linearized equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LNS}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\omega+y\pa_x\omega-\nu\Delta\om=0,\\
\om|_{t=0}=\om_{in}(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
it is easy to obtain that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: ED_and_ID}
\|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}e^{-c\nu t^3}\quad \text{and}\quad
\|V_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{t,x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{eqnarray}
here we use the notation $f_{\neq}(t,x,y)=f(t,x,y)-\f{1}{|\mathbb{T}|}\int_{\mathbb{T}}f(t,x,y)dx$.
The first inequality in \eqref{eq: ED_and_ID} is the enhanced dissipation and the second one is the inviscid damping.
However the nonlinear interaction may affect this linear behavior which leads to the fact that the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping are sensitive to the regularity of the perturbation and/or its smallness. Then an interesting question can be proposed in the following two ways:
1. {\it Given a norm $\|\cdot\|_{X}$($X\subset L^2$), determine a $\beta=\beta(X)$ so that for the initial vorticity $\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\ll \nu^{\beta}$ and for $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: enha-invis}
\|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{X}e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}\quad \text{and}\quad
\|V_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{t,x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{X},
\end{eqnarray}
or the weak enhanced dissipation type estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: enha-invis-weak}
\|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{t,x,y}}\leq C\nu^{-\f16}\|\om_{in}\|_{X}
\end{eqnarray}
holds for the Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eq:NS2}.}
2. {\it Given $\beta$, is there an optimal function space $X\subset L^2$ so that if the initial vorticity satisfies $\|\om_{in}\|_{X}\ll \nu^{\beta}$, then \eqref{eq: enha-invis} or \eqref{eq: enha-invis-weak} hold for the Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eq:NS2}?}
These two problems(find the smallest $\beta$ or find the largest function space $X$) are related to each other, since one can gain regularity in a short time by a standard time-weight argument if the initial perturbation is small enough.
For $\beta=0$, Bedrossian, Masmoudi and Vicol \cite{BMV2016} showed that if $X$ is taken as Gevery-$m$ with $m<2$, then \eqref{eq: enha-invis-weak} holds.
For $\beta=\f12$, Bedrossian, Vicol and Wang \cite{BVW2018} proved the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping for the perturbation of initial vorticity in $H^s, s>1$.
The problem is also related to the stability threshold problem for Couette flow. One may refer to \cite{BGM-1,BGM-2,BGM2017,BMV2016,Braz2004,BVW2018,CLWZ2018,DingLin,WZ2018} for more details.
Our main goal is to prove that the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping estimates \eqref{eq: enha-invis} hold for the nonlinear equations if the initial vorticity is $\nu^{1/2}$-close to -1 in $H^{log}_xL^2_y\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over =\big\{f:~\|f\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over =\|\ln(e+|D_x|)f\|_{L^2_{x,y}}<\infty\big\}$.
Our main result is:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: main}
Let $\om$ be a solution of \eqref{eq:NS2} with $\nu<1$. Then there exists $\epsilon_0>0$, such that if $\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}\leq \epsilon_0 \nu^{\beta}$ for $\beta\geq 1/2$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\om_{\neq}(t)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}\leq Ce^{-c\nu^{1/3}t}\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\quad \|\om_0(t)\|_{L^2_y}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\om_0(t,y)=\f{1}{|\mathbb{T}|}\int_{\mathbb{T}}\om(t,x,y)dx$ and $\om_{\neq}(t,x,y)=\om(t,x,y)-\om_0(t,y)$. \\
Moreover we have the inviscid damping type estimate,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|{V}^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\||D_x|^{\f12}{V}_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds
\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}^2.
\end{align*}
The constants $c,\, C$ are independent of $\nu$.
\end{theorem}
By the same argument, one may also get:
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\om$ be a solution of \eqref{eq:NS2} with $\nu<1$. Then for any $\ep>0$, there exists $\epsilon_0>0$, such that if $\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{\ep}_xL^2_y}\leq \epsilon_0 \nu^{\beta}$ for $\beta\geq 1/2$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\om_{\neq}(t)\|_{H^{\ep}_xL^2_y}\leq Ce^{-c\nu^{1/3}t}\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{\ep}_xL^2_y},\quad \|\om_0(t)\|_{L^2_y}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\om_0(t,y)=\f{1}{|\mathbb{T}|}\int_{\mathbb{T}}\om(t,x,y)dx$ and $\om_{\neq}(t,x,y)=\om(t,x,y)-\om_0(t,y)$. \\
Moreover we have the inviscid damping type estimate,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|{V}^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\||D_x|^{\f12}{V}_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds
\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{\ep}_xL^2_y}^2.
\end{align*}
The constants $c,\, C$ are independent of $\nu$.
\end{Corollary}
By the time weight argument, one can show that there exists $T>0$ independent of $\nu$, such that for $\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq \ep_0\nu^{\f12}/|\ln\nu|$, $\|\ln(|D|+e)\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}$ holds for $t\leq T$, which gives $\|\ln(|D|+e)\om(T)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\ln((\nu T)^{-1}+e)\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq C\ep_0\nu^{\f12}$. Details can be found in the appendix. The following corollary can be obtained by applying Theorem \ref{thm: main} for $t\geq T$.
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\om$ be a solution of \eqref{eq:NS2} with $\nu<1$. Then there exists $\epsilon_0>0$, such that if $\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \epsilon_0 \nu^{\f12}|\ln\nu|^{-1}$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\om_{\neq}(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq Ce^{-c\nu^{1/3}t}\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}},\quad \|\om_0(t)\|_{L^2_y}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\om_0(t,y)=\f{1}{|\mathbb{T}|}\int_{\mathbb{T}}\om(t,x,y)dx$ and $\om_{\neq}(t,x,y)=\om(t,x,y)-\om_0(t,y)$.\\
Moreover we have the inviscid damping type estimate,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|{V}^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\||D_x|^{\f12}{V}_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2ds
+\int_{0}^{+\infty}\|\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds
\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2.
\end{align*}
The constants $c,\, C$ are independent of $\nu$.
\end{Corollary}
It also implies that for $\beta>1/2$, the space $X$ can be taken as $L^2$ which is the largest space.
Let us now outline the main idea in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm: main}. We will show that there is a time $t\sim\nu^{-\f13}$, such that for any $\tau\geq 0$ the energy $E(\tau)$ of the nonzero mode $\om_{\neq}$ satisfies $E(t+\tau)\leq \f12E(\tau)$ and that there exists $C$ independent of $t$ and $\tau$ such that for any $s\in [\tau,t+\tau]$, $E(s)\leq CE(\tau).$
Let us start by some heuristic argument. The main difficulty is to control the nonlinear growth. There are three nonlinear terms $V_0^1\pa_x\om_{\neq}$, $V_{\neq}^2\pa_y\om_0$ and $V_{\neq}\cdot\na\om_{\neq}$. Formally, for the first term, due to the fact $V_0^1(s)$ behaves as $V_0^{1}(\tau)$ for $|\tau-s|\leq \nu^{-\f13}$ and $\pa_x\om_{\neq}(s)$ behaves as $\nu^{-\f12}(s-\tau)^{-\f32}\om_{\neq}(\tau+1)$ for $s\in [\tau+1,\tau+t]$ (due to the enhanced dissipation), the effect of the nonlinear interactions from time $\tau$ to $\tau+t$ cause $\nu^{-\f12}$ growth. For the second term, one can only obtain that $\|\pa_y\om_0(s)\|_{L^2(\tau,\tau+t)L^2_y}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|\om\|_{L^2}$ due to that fact that the initial vorticity is in $L^2_y$. Thus the effect of the nonlinear interactions also cause $\nu^{-\f12}$ growth. One can use the same argument for the third term. However, since the Sobolev embedding of $H^1$ in $L^{\infty}$ fails in dimension 2, we need to assume that the initial vorticity has some $\log$-type regularity in the $x$ direction (see \eqref{eq:V_2L2LinftyLinfty} and \eqref{eq:V_1LinftyL1Linfty} in Lemma \ref{Lem:lin-invdam}). Finally to cancel the $\nu^{-\f12}$ growth, we assume the initial perturbation is $\nu^{\f12}$ small.
\begin{remark}
The log-type regularity in the $x$ direction is not optimal. Actually by the same argument, one can replace it by $(\ln(e+|D_x|))^{\gamma}$ or $(\ln(e+|D_x|))^{\f12}(\ln\ln(e+|D_x|))^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma>\f12$ and so on.
\end{remark}
\section{Linear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping}
We consider the linearized Navier-Stokes around $(y,0)$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LNS}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\omega+y\pa_x\omega-\nu\Delta\om=0,\\
\om|_{t=0}=\om_{in}(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Taking the Fourier transform in the $x$ direction, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LNSF}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\widehat{\om}+i\al y\widehat{\om}-\nu(\pa_y^2-\al^2)\widehat{\om}=0,\\
\widehat{\om}|_{t=0}=\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Now let us introduce the key lemmas for the linearized system \eqref{eq:LNSF}. The following lemma shows the enhanced dissipation for the linearized system.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem:lin-enha}
Suppose $\om$ is a solution of the linearized Navier Stokes equation \eqref{eq:LNS} with initial data satisfying $\int_{\mathbb{T}}\om_{in}(x,y)dx=0$. Then there exist $c$ and $C$ such that for any $t\geq 0$,
\begin{align}
&\label{eq:om-Linfty}
\|{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}\leq Ce^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\ \\
&\label{eq:pa_xyomL2L2L2}
\|\na{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_{t}(H^{log}_xL^2_y)}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\\
&\label{eq:pa_xomL1L2L2}
\|\pa_x{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^1_t({H^{log}_xL^2_y})}
\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\\
&\label{eq:omL^2LinftyLinfty}
\|\ln(|D_x|+e){\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_tL^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The next lemma gives the inviscid damping for the linearized system.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem:lin-invdam}
Suppose $\om$ is a solution of the linearized Navier Stokes equation \eqref{eq:LNS} with initial data satisfying $\int_{\mathbb{T}}\om_{in}(x,y)dx=0$. Let $\psi$ be the stream function so that $V=(\pa_y\psi,-\pa_x\psi)$ and $-\Delta\psi=\om$, then for any $t\geq 0$,
\begin{align}
&\label{eq:V_2L2LinftyLinfty}
\|\pa_x\psi(t,x,y)\|_{L_t^2L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq C\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\\
&\label{eq:V_2L2L2Linfty}
\||D_x|^{1/2}\ln(|D_x|+e)\pa_x{\psi}(t,x,y)\|_{L_t^2L^2_xL^{\infty}_{y}}\leq C\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y},\\
&\label{eq:V_1L2L2L2}
\|\pa_{y}\pa_x\psi(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_{t}({H^{log}_xL^2_y})}\leq C\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}.
\end{align}
Moreover the Sobolev embedding theorem gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:V_1LinftyL1Linfty}
&\|\pa_y{\psi}(t,x,y)\|_{L_t^{\infty}L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq C\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{H^{log}_xL^2_y}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
We begin the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:lin-enha}.
\begin{proof}
Let $\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta)=\int_{\mathbf R}\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)e^{-i\eta y}dy$ be the Fourier transform of $\widehat{\om}$ in $y$.
Let $W(t,x,y)=\om(t,x+yt,y)$, then $\widehat{W}(t,\al,y)=\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)e^{i\al yt}$ and $\widetilde{W}(t,\al,\eta)=\int_{\mathbf R}\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)e^{i\al yt}e^{-i\eta y}dy=\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta-\al t)$.
It is easy to check that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pa_t\widetilde{W}+\nu(\al^2+(\eta-\al t)^2)\widetilde{W}=0,
\end{eqnarray*}
thus we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: id-W}
\widetilde{W}(t,\al,\eta)=e^{-\nu\big(\f13\al^2t^3-\eta\al t^2+\eta^2t+\al^2t\big)}\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta),
\end{eqnarray}
which gives
\begin{align*}
|\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta)|
&=e^{-\nu\big(\f13\al^2t^3+\eta\al t^2+\eta^2t+\al^2t\big)}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|\\
&=e^{-\nu\big(\f{1}{21}\al^2t^3+t(\f{\sqrt{7}}{2\sqrt{2}}\eta+\f{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{7}}\al t)^2+\f18\eta^2t+\al^2t\big)}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|\\
&\leq e^{-\f{1}{21}\al^2\nu t^3-\al^2\nu t-\f18\eta^2\nu t}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|.
\end{align*}
Thus by using Plancherel's theorem, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}\leq Ce^{-c\nu\big(\al^2t^3+\al^2t\big)}\|\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y)\|_{L^2_y},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|(\pa_y,\al)\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L_t^2L^2_y}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y)\|_{L^2_y},
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives $\|\ln(|D_x|+e)\na{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_{t,x,y}}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(|D_x|+e){\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}$.
Next we prove \eqref{eq:pa_xomL1L2L2}. We get
\begin{align*}
&\|\ln(|D_x|+e)\pa_x{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^1_tL^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq C\int_0^T\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\|\al\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}^2\right)^{\f12}dt\\
&\leq C\int_0^1\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}^2\right)^{\f12}dt\\
&\quad+C\int_1^T\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}^2\right)^{\f12}dt\\
&\leq C\left(\int_0^1\sum_{\al\neq 0}\||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\int_1^T\f{C}{t^{3/2}\nu^{1/2}}\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y)\|_{L^2_y}^2\right)^{\f12}dt\\
&\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y)\|_{l^2_{\al}L^2_y}^2.
\end{align*}
At last we prove \eqref{eq:omL^2LinftyLinfty}. Here we will use the Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$ which can be found in Section 4.1.1. Let us recall the notation that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bigtriangleup_ju=\int_{\mathbf R}\sum_{\al}\widetilde{u}(\al,\eta)\widetilde{\Phi}_j(\al,\eta)e^{i\al x+i\eta y}d\eta={\Phi}_j\ast u.
\end{eqnarray*}
Recall $W(t,x,y)=\om(t,x+yt,y)$. Then by \eqref{eq:be2D} and \eqref{eq: Schur}, we get that
\begin{align*}
&\|\om(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_tL^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq \|\om(t,x+yt,y)\|_{L^2_tL^{\infty}_{x,y}}\\
&\leq\Big\|\sum_{j\geq 0}\|\bigtriangleup_jW(t,x,y)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\Big\|_{L^2_t}
\leq C\Big\|\sum_{j\geq 0}2^{j}\|\bigtriangleup_jW(t,x,y)\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}\Big\|_{L^2_t}\\
&\leq C\Big\| \sum_{j\geq 0}2^{j}\|\widetilde{W}(t,\al,\eta)\widetilde{\Phi}_j(\al,\eta)\|_{l^{2}_{\al}L^{2}_{y}}\Big\|_{L^2_t}\\
&=C\int_0^{\infty}\sum_{j'\geq 0} \sum_{j\geq 0}2^{j'}2^{j}\|\widetilde{W}(t,\al,\eta)\widetilde{\Phi}_j(\al,\eta)\|_{l^{2}_{\al}L^{2}_{y}}(s)\|\widetilde{W}(t,\al,\eta)\widetilde{\Phi}_{j'}(\al,\eta)\|_{l^{2}_{\al}L^{2}_{y}}(s)ds\\
&\leq C\left(\nu^{-1}\sum_{j\geq 0}\sum_{j'\geq 0}\f{2^{j}2^{j'}}{2^{2j}+2^{2j'}}\|\bigtriangleup_j\widetilde{\om}_{in}\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}\|\bigtriangleup_{j'}\widetilde{\om}_{in}\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\nu^{-1/2}\|{\om}_{in}\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
The last inequality follows from the fact that the kernel $K(j,j')=\f{2^{j}2^{j'}}{2^{2j}+2^{2j'}}$ satisfies the Schur criterion,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{j'\geq 0}\sum_{j\geq 0}\f{2^{j}2^{j'}}{2^{2j}+2^{2j'}}+\sup_{j\geq 0}\sum_{j'\geq 0}\f{2^{j}2^{j'}}{2^{2j}+2^{2j'}}\leq C.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the same argument, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_tL^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq C\nu^{-1/2}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{in}\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
Next we begin the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:lin-invdam}.
\begin{proof}
Let us first prove \eqref{eq:V_2L2L2Linfty}.
By the fact that $\widetilde{\psi}(t,\al,\eta)=(\al^2+\eta^2)\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta)$ and by using \eqref{eq: id-W}, we have
\begin{align*}
|\al\widetilde{\psi}(t,\al,\eta)|\leq C\f{|\al|}{|\eta|^2+\al^2}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|.
\end{align*}
Thus we get by the Minkowski's integral inequality \eqref{eq:M} that
\begin{align*}
&\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(|D_x|+e)\pa_x\psi(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_tL^2_xL^{\infty}_y}\\
&\leq \|\al^{\f32}\ln(|\al|+e)\widetilde{\psi}(t,\al,\eta)\|_{l^2_{\al}L_t^2L^{1}_{\eta}}
\leq \|\al^{\f32}\ln(|\al|+e)\widetilde{\psi}(t,\al,\eta)\|_{l^2_{\al}L^{1}_{\eta}L_t^2}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\Big(\int_{\mathbf R}\f{|\al|^{\f32}\ln(|\al|+e)}{|\eta|^2+\al^2}\Big(\int_0^{T}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|^2dt\Big)^{\f12}d\eta\Big)^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\Big(\int_{\mathbf R}\f{|\al|\ln(|\al|+e)}{|\eta|^2+\al^2}\|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta)\|_{L^2_{\eta}}d\eta\Big)^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta)\|_{L^2_{\eta}}^2\right)^{\f12}\leq C\|\ln(|D_x|+e){\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{align*}
which implies \eqref{eq:V_2L2L2Linfty}.
The estimate \eqref{eq:V_2L2LinftyLinfty} follows from the \eqref{eq:V_2L2L2Linfty} and the following Sobolev embedding result,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|f-\f{1}{|2\pi|}\int_{\mathbb{T}}f(x)dx\right\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T})}\leq C\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(|D_x|+e)f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next we prove \eqref{eq:V_1L2L2L2}. We have,
\begin{align*}
&\||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^2_{t,\al,y}}\leq \||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widetilde{\psi}(t,\al,\eta)\|_{L^2_{t,\al,\eta}}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\int_{\mathbf R}\int_0^T\Big(\f{|\al|\ln(|\al|+e)|\eta|}{\al^2+\eta^2}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|\Big)^2dtd\eta\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{\al\neq 0}\int_{\mathbf R}\Big(\f{|\al||\eta|}{\al^2+\eta^2}\Big)^2|\al|^{-1}d\eta\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta)\|_{L^2_{\eta}}^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta)\|_{l^2_{\al}L^2_{\eta}}.
\end{align*}
Finally by the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality \eqref{eq: GN}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{L_t^{\infty}l^1_{\al}L^{\infty}_{y}}\\
&\leq C\big\|\|\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}^{\f12}\|\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{H^{1}_{y}}^{\f12}\big\|_{L_t^{\infty}l^1_{\al}}\\
&\leq C\big\||\al|^{-\f12}(\ln(|\al|+e))^{-1}\||\al|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}^{\f12}\|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{H^{1}_{y}}^{\f12}\big\|_{L_t^{\infty}l^1_{\al}}\\
&\leq C\big\|\||\al|^{-\f12}(\ln(|\al|+e))^{-1}\|_{l^2_{\al}}\|\|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}^{\f12}\|_{l^{4}_{\al}}\|\|\ln(|\al|+e)\pa_y\widehat{\psi}(t,\al,y)\|_{H^{1}_{y}}^{\f12}\|_{l^4_{\al}}\big\|_{L_t^{\infty}}\\
&\leq C\|\ln(|\al|+e)\widehat{\om}_{in}(\al,y)\|_{L^2_{\al,y}},
\end{align*}
which gives the last inequality.
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping}
In this section, we prove the nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping.
For $t> s$, let $S(t,s)f$ solve
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t\om+y\pa_x{\om}-\nu\Delta{\om}=0,\\
\om|_{t=s}=f(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\int_{\mathbb{T}}f(x,y)dx=0$.
We now consider the nonlinear equation,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NSomneq0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t{\om}_{\neq}+y\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}-\nu\Delta{\om}_{\neq}
=-\mathcal{N}_1-\mathcal{N}_2-\mathcal{N}_3,\\
\om_{\neq}|_{t=0}=P_{\neq0}\om_{in}(x,y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{N}_1=({V}^1_{\neq}\pa_x{\om}_{\neq})_{\neq}(t,x,y)+({V}^2_{\neq}\pa_y{\om}_{\neq})_{\neq}(t,x,y),
\end{eqnarray*}
$\mathcal{N}_2={V}_0^1(t,y)\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}(t,x,y)$ and
$\mathcal{N}_3={V}_{\neq}^2(t,x,y)\pa_y{\om}_0(t,y)$,
where ${\om}_0(t,y)$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NSom0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t{\om}_{0}-\nu\pa_y^2{\om}_{0}=-({V}^1_{\neq}\pa_x{\om}_{\neq})_{0}(t,y)-({V}^2_{\neq}\pa_y{\om}_{\neq})_0(t,y),\\
\om_{0}|_{t=0}=P_{0}\om_{in}(y),
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
and ${V}_0^1(t,y)$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:V_0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\pa_t{V}_0^1-\nu\pa_y^2 {V}_0^1=-({V}^1_{\neq}\pa_x{V}^1_{\neq})_0(t,y)-({V}^2_{\neq}\pa_y{V}^1_{\neq})_0(t,y),\\
V_0^1|_{t=0}=P_0V_{in}^1(y).
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
We get by the enstrophy conservation law that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basic energy}
\|{\om}(t)\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}^2+2\nu\int_0^t\|\na{\om}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds=\|{\om}_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2,
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:NAom}
\int_0^t\|\pa_y{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds+\int_0^t\|\pa_y{\om}_0(s)\|_{L^2_{y}}^2ds\leq \f{1}{2\nu}\|\om(0)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
We also have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|e^{t\nu\pa_y^2}f\|_{L^2}\leq \|f\|_{L^2}, \quad
\int_s^{\infty}\|\pa_ye^{(t-s)\nu\pa_y^2}f\|_{L^2}^2dt\leq \f{1}{\nu}\|f\|_{L^2}^2,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{align*}
{V}_0^1(t,y)=&{V}_{in}^1(y)
-\int_0^te^{(t-s)\nu\pa_y^2}\Big(({V}^1_{\neq}\pa_x{V}^1_{\neq})_0(s,y)+({V}^2_{\neq}\pa_y{V}^1_{\neq})_0(s,y)\Big)ds,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\om_{\neq}(t+\tau,\al,y)\\
&=S(t,0)\om_{\neq}(\tau,\al,y)-\int_{0}^tS(t,s)\big(\mathcal{N}_1+\mathcal{N}_2+\mathcal{N}_3\big)(s+\tau)ds.
\end{align*}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm: main} is based on a bootstrap argument.
Suppose $\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \epsilon_0\nu^{\b}$ and for any $\tau, t+\tau\in [0,T]$ with $t\geq 0$, the following inequalities hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1. ]Uniform bound of $V_0^1$
\begin{equation}
\|{V}^1_0(\tau)\|_{L^2_{y}}\leq 8C_0\epsilon_0\nu^{\b}; \label{btsp:V^1_0}
\end{equation}
\item[2. ]Enhanced dissipation
\begin{align}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(t+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}&\leq 8{C}_1e^{-c_1\nu^{\f13}t}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\label{btsp:om-point}\\
\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\na{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}&\leq 8{C}_2\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\label{btsp:pa_xyomL2L2L2}\\
\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}ds&\leq 8{C}_3\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\label{btsp:pa_xomL1L2L2}\\
\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}&\leq 8{C}_4\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\label{btsp:omL2L1Linfty}
\end{align}
\item[3. ]Inviscid damping
\begin{align}
\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|V^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}
&\leq 8{C}_5\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},\label{btsp:V_2L2LinftyLinfty}\\
\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|)V_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L_x^2L^{\infty}_{y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}
&\leq 8{C}_6\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},\label{btsp:V_2L2L2Linfty}\\
\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
&\leq 8{C}_7\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}};\label{btsp:V_1L2L2L2}
\end{align}
\item[4. ]Uniform bound of $V_{\neq}^1$
\begin{equation}
\sup_{s\in[\tau,T)}\|V_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}
\leq 8{C}_8\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.\label{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The constants $c_1,\ep_0$, and ${C}_k\geq 1$, $k=0,1,2,...,8$, will be determined later.
By choosing $t=\tau$ and $\tau=0$ in \eqref{btsp:om-point}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lem:tau-0}
\|{\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq 8C_1\ep_0\nu^{\b}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:btsp}
Let $\beta\geq 1/2$. Assume that $\|\om_{in}\|_{H^{log}_{x}L^2_{y}}+\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \epsilon_0\nu^{\b}$ and that for some $T>0$, the estimate \eqref{btsp:V^1_0}-\eqref{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty} hold on $[0,T]$. Then there exists $\nu_0$ so that for $\nu<\nu_0$ and $\ep_0$ sufficiently small depending only on $c_1$ and $C_k(k=0,...,8)$ (in particular, independent of $T$), these same estimates hold with all the occurrences of $8$ on the right-hand side replaced by $4$.
\end{proposition}
This proposition implies Theorem \ref{thm: main} by the standard bootstrap argument.
Now we begin the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop:btsp}. We need the following lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:V_0}
Under the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V^1_0} and \eqref{btsp:om-point}, there is a constant $M_1$ independent of $C_1,c_1$ and $\epsilon_0,\nu$ so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|V_0^1(t)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}
\leq M_1\|V_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+M_1\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\epsilon_0\nu^{\b-1/3}C_1/c_1.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
\|{V}_0^1(t)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}
&\leq \|e^{t\nu\pa_y^2}{V}_{in}^1(0)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}
+\left\|\int_0^te^{(t-s)\nu\pa_y^2}\Big(\big({V}^1_{\neq}\pa_x{V}^1_{\neq}\big)_0+\big({V}^2_{\neq}\pa_y{V}^1_{\neq}\big)_0\Big)ds\right\|_{L^2_y}\\
&\leq C\|{V}_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
+\left\|({V}_{\neq}\cdot\na{V}^1_{\neq})_0\right\|_{L^1_tL^2_y}.
\end{align*}
By the fact that
\begin{align*}
\|(V_{\neq}\na V^1_{\neq})_0\|_{L^2_y}\leq \|V_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x}L^{\infty}_y}\|\na V^1_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
\leq \|\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2,
\end{align*}
and the bootstrap assumption \eqref{btsp:om-point}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\left\|({V}_{\neq}\cdot\na{V}^1_{\neq})_0\right\|_{L^1_tL^2_y}
\leq C\int_0^t\|\om_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\\
&\leq C{C}_1\int_0^t e^{-c_1\nu^{1/3}s}ds\|{\om}_{\neq}(0)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2
\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^{2}_{x,y}}\epsilon_0\nu^{\b-1/3}C_1/c_1.
\end{align*}
Here we also used the enstrophy conservation law \eqref{eq:basic energy}.
This gives the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem: nonlinear-est}
Under the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V^1_0}-\eqref{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty}, there is a constant $M_2$ independent of $C_k,\ (k=0,...,8)$ and $\epsilon_0,\nu$ so that for any $t,\tau>0$ and $t+\tau<T$, it holds that
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{k=1}^3\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_k(s+\tau)\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq M_2\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}C_1(C_2C_5+C_6C_2+C_2C_0^{\f12}+C_4C_7+C_3C_8)\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us fist recall the Littlewood-Paley theory and the Bony's decomposition on $\mathbb{T}$ which can be found in Section 4.1.2.
According to the Bony's decomposition, we divide $\mathcal{N}_1=V^1_{\neq}\pa_x\om_{\neq}+V^2_{\neq}\pa_y\om_{\neq}$ into four terms
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{N}_1=T_{\pa_x\om_{\neq}}{V^1_{\neq}}+T^*_{V^1_{\neq}}{\pa_x\om_{\neq}}+T^*_{V^2_{\neq}}{\pa_y\om_{\neq}}+T_{\pa_y\om_{\neq}}{V^2_{\neq}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we have
\begin{align*}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_1(s+\tau)\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}
&=\int_0^t\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_1(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}ds\\
&\leq C\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_{\pa_x\om_{\neq}}{V^1_{\neq}}\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\quad+C\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T^*_{V^1_{\neq}}{\pa_x\om_{\neq}}\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\quad+C\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T^*_{V^2_{\neq}}{\pa_y\om_{\neq}}\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\quad+C\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_{\pa_y\om_{\neq}}{V^2_{\neq}}\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&=N_{1,1}+N_{1,2}+N_{1,3}+N_{1,4}.
\end{align*}
By the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V_1L2L2L2}, \eqref{btsp:omL2L1Linfty} and using \eqref{lem:tau-0} and \eqref{eq: Ber3}, we have
\begin{align*}
N_{1,1}&\leq C\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{V}^1_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_s([0,t], L^2_{x,y})}\|{\om}_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^{\infty}_{x,y})}\\
&\leq CC_7C_4\nu^{-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2\\
&\leq CC_1C_7C_4\ep_0\nu^{\b-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
By the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty} and \eqref{btsp:pa_xomL1L2L2} and using \eqref{eq: Ber1}, we have
\begin{align*}
N_{1,2}&\leq C\|{V}^1_{\neq}(s+\tau,\b,y)\|_{L^{\infty}_sL^{\infty}_{x,y}}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C\ep_0\nu^{\b-\f12}C_1C_8C_3\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
By the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V_2L2LinftyLinfty} and \eqref{btsp:pa_xyomL2L2L2} and using \eqref{eq: Ber1}, we have
\begin{align*}
N_{1,3}&\leq C\|\widehat{V}_{\neq}^2(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^{\infty}_{x,y})}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_y{\om}_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C\ep_0\nu^{\b-\f12}C_1C_5C_2\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
By the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V_2L2L2Linfty} and \eqref{btsp:pa_xyomL2L2L2} and using \eqref{eq: Ber2}, we have
\begin{align*}
N_{1,4}&\leq C\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|)V_{\neq}^2(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_xL^{\infty}_y)}\|\pa_y\om_{\neq}\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C\ep_0\nu^{\b-\f12}C_1C_6C_2\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
We need the $log$-type regularity only in the estimates of $N_{1,2}$ and $N_{1,3}$, which are due to the fact that $V_{\neq}$ is in lower frequency in $x$, so we need to use $L^{\infty}_{x,y}$ estimate on $V_{\neq}$. For $N_{1,2}$ we use the enhanced dissipation and to treat $N_{1,3}$ we use inviscid damping.
Thus we have finished the estimate of $\mathcal{N}_1$. \\
Now we deal with $\mathcal{N}_2$.
By the fact that $\|{\om}_0(t,y)\|_{L^2_y}\leq \|{\om}(t,x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \|{\om}(\tau,x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}$ for any $\tau<t$ the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V^1_0} and \eqref{btsp:pa_xomL1L2L2}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_2(s+\tau)\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C\int_0^t\|{V}_0^1(s+\tau,y)\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x\om_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}ds\\
&\leq C\|{V}_0^1(\tau,y)\|_{L^2}^{\f12}\|{\om}_{in}(x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^{\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x\om_{\neq}(s+\tau,\al,\cdot)\|_{L_s^1([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq CC_0^{\f12}C_2\epsilon_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau,\al,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
At last we deal with $\mathcal{N}_3$. By the bootstrap assumption \eqref{btsp:V_2L2L2Linfty} and the fact that
$$
\|\pa_y{\om}_0(s+\tau,\cdot)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_y)}\leq \|\pa_y{\om}(s+\tau,x,y)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\leq C\nu^{-\f12}\|\widehat{\om}(\tau,x,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
$$
we have
\begin{align*}
&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_3(s+\tau)\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C\|\ln(e+|D_x|){V}^2_{\neq}(s+\tau,x,y)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2_xL_y^{\infty})}\|\pa_y{\om}_0(s+\tau,y)\|_{L^2_s([0,t],L^2)}\\
&\leq CC_6\epsilon\nu^{\beta-\f12}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\om_{\neq}(\tau,\al,y)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now we are in a position to prove Proposition \ref{Prop:btsp}.
\begin{proof}
Under the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{btsp:V^1_0}-\eqref{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty}, there is a constant $M$ independent of $C_k,\ (k=0,...,8)$ and $\epsilon_0,\nu$ so that for any $t,\tau>0$ and $t+\tau<T$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
\begin{split}
&\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(t+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq Me^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\quad+MC_1\big(\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}(C_2C_5+C_2C_6+C_2C_0^{\f12}+C_4C_7+C_3C_8)\big)
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq M\big(e^{-c\nu^{\f13}t}+5C_1\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}X^2\big)\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $X=\max\{C_0,C_2,C_3,C_4,C_5,C_6,C_7,C_8\}$.
By \eqref{eq:om-Linfty}-\eqref{eq:V_1LinftyL1Linfty} and Lemma \ref{lem: nonlinear-est}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\nu^{\f12}\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\na{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
+\nu^{\f12}\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}ds\\
&\quad+\nu^{\f12}\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|{V}^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|){V}_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\sup_{s\in[\tau,T]}\|{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\\
&\leq \nu^{\f12}\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\na S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2dt
+\nu^{\f12}\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_xS(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}dt\\
&\quad+\nu^{\f12}\left(\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\|S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}dt\right)^{\f12}
+\left(\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\|\pa_x(-\Delta)^{-1}S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\left(\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x(-\Delta)^{-1}S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\left(\int_{\tau}^{\infty}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x\pa_y(-\Delta)^{-1}S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\sup_{t\in[s,\infty)}\|\pa_y(-\Delta)^{-1}S(t,\tau)\om_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}
+\sum_{k=1}^3\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\mathcal{N}_k\|_{L^1_s([0,t],L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq M_3\big(1+\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}C_1(C_2C_5+C_2C_6+C_2C_0^{\f12}+C_4C_7+C_3C_8)\big)
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq M_3\big(1+5\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}C_1X^2\big)
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{align*}
where $X=\max\{C_0,C_2,C_3,C_4,C_5,C_6,C_7,C_8\}$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:V_0}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:V_0-btsp-proof}
\|V_0^1(t)\|_{L^{2}_{y}}
\leq M_1(1+\epsilon_0\nu^{\b-1/3}C_1/c_1)\ep_0\nu^{\b}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here without loss of generality, we assume $M_1\leq M_3$.
At last we will determine those constants in the bootstrap assumption.
The proposition holds if we choose the constants $C_k\, (k=0,1,...,8)$ and $\ep_0$, $c_1$ in the following way.
\begin{align*}
&C_k=\max\{M_3,1\}=X,\quad k=0,2,...,8,\\
&C_1=5\max\{M,1\},\quad c_1=\f{c\ln 2}{\ln 4M},\\
&\ep_0=10^{-2}(\max\{M_3,1\})^{-2}(\max\{M,1\})^{-2}c,
\end{align*}
where $M$ is the constant in \eqref{eq:1}.
Actually we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq: proof-btsp-3-9}
\begin{split}
&\nu^{\f12}\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\na{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}\\
&+\nu^{\f12}\int_{\tau}^T\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}ds\\
&\quad+\nu^{\f12}\left(\int_{\tau}^T\|{\om}_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|{V}^2_{\neq}(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}^2dt\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|){V}_{\neq}^2(s)\|_{L^2_xL^{\infty}_y}^2ds\right)^{\f12}\\
&+\left(\int_{\tau}^{T}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_x{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}^2ds\right)^{\f12}
+\sup_{s\in[\tau,T]}\|{V}_{\neq}^1(s)\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\\
&\leq M_3\big(1+5\ep_0\nu^{\beta-\f12}C_1X^2\big)
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq 4X\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus \eqref{btsp:pa_xyomL2L2L2}-\eqref{btsp:V_1LinftyL1Linfty} hold with all the occurrences of $8$ on the right-hand side replaced by $4$.
Then we get by \eqref{eq:1} that there exists $t_0=(\ln 4M)(c\nu^{\f13})^{-1}$, so that for any $\tau,\tau+t_0\in[0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: it-om}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau+t_0)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \f12\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{eqnarray}
and for any $0< s\leq t_0$ and $\tau,\tau+s\in[0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: it-om2}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau+s)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq 2M\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray}
For any $t+\tau,\tau\in [0,T]$ with $t\geq0 $, let $t=nt_0+s$ with $n=[t/t_0]\geq 0$ and $s\in (0,t_0]$. Therefore, by \eqref{eq: it-om}, we get for any $t+\tau,\tau\in [0,T]$ with $t\geq0$,
\begin{align*}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(t+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
&=\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(nt_0+s+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq \f{1}{2}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}((n-1)t_0+s+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq \f{1}{2^{[t/t_0]}}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(s+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{align*}
Then by \eqref{eq: it-om2}, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: proof-bt-om}
\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(t+\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
\leq 2Me^{-(\ln2)t/t_0+1}\|\ln(e+|D_x|){\om}_{\neq}(\tau)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{equation}
According to the definition of $c_1$, $C_1$, we get for any $t>0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
2Me^{-(\ln2)t/t_0+1}\leq 4{C_1}e^{-c_1\nu^{\f13}t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus \eqref{eq: proof-bt-om} implies that \eqref{btsp:om-point} holds with the occurrence of $8$ on the right-hand side replaced by $4$.
At last we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_1+M_1\epsilon_0\nu^{\b-1/3}C_1/c_1\leq 4C_0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by \eqref{eq:V_0-btsp-proof}, we proved that \eqref{btsp:V^1_0} holds with the occurrence of $8$ on the right-hand side replaced by $4$.
Thus we proved the proposition.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Littlewood-Paley theory}
In this subsection, we recall some basic facts about the Littlewood-Paley theory.
\subsubsection{Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$}
Let us first recall some basic facts about the Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$. Let $\Phi(x,y)$ and $\Phi_0(x,y)$ be two functions in $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R)$ such that their Fourier transform satisfy $\mathrm{supp}\, \widetilde{\Phi}\subset\left\{\xi=(\al,\eta):\, \f34\leq |\xi|\leq \f83\right\}$, $\mathrm{supp}\, \widetilde{\Phi}_0\subset\left\{\xi=(\al,\eta):\, |\xi|\leq \f43\right\}$ and $\widetilde{\Phi}_0(\xi)+\sum_{j\geq 1}\widetilde{\Phi}_j(\xi)=1$ with $\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(\xi)=\widetilde{\Phi}(2^{-(j-1)}\xi)$, $j=1,2,...$.
The Littlewood-Paley operators $\bigtriangleup_j\, (j\geq 0)$ on $\mathbb{T}\times \mathbf R$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bigtriangleup_ju=\int_{\mathbf R}\sum_{\al}\widetilde{u}(\al,\eta)\widetilde{\Phi}_j(\al,\eta)e^{i\al x+i\eta y}d\eta={\Phi}_j\ast u.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then the Berstein's inequality gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:be2D}
\|\bigtriangleup_ju\|_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\leq \|{\Phi}_j\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\sum_{|k-j|\leq 2}\|\bigtriangleup_ku\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C2^j\sum_{|k-j|\leq 2}\|\bigtriangleup_ku\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}$}
Let us recall some basic facts about the Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}$. Let $\phi$ and $\phi_0$ be two functions in $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T})$ such that $\mathrm{supp}\, \widehat{\phi}\subset\{\f34\leq |\xi|\leq \f83\}$, $\mathrm{supp}\, \widehat{\chi}\subset\{|\xi|\leq \f43\}$ and $\widehat{\chi}(\xi)+\sum_{j\geq 0}\widehat{\phi}(2^{-j}\xi)=1$.
Then the Littlewood-Paley operators $\bigtriangleup_j, S_j, (j\geq 0)$ on $\mathbb{T}$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\bigtriangleup_ju=(\phi_j\ast u)(x)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\phi_j(x-x_1)u(x_1)dx_1,\quad j\geq 0\\
&&S_ju=\sum_{\ell=-1}^{j-1}\bigtriangleup_\ell u=(\chi_j\ast u)(x),\quad \bigtriangleup_{-1}u=(\chi\ast u)(x)
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\phi_j(x)=2^j\phi(2^jx)$ and $\|\chi_j\|_{L^2}\leq C2^{\f12j}$.
Furthermore, we have the Bony's decomposition: $T_fg=\sum_{j\geq 1}S_{j-1}f\bigtriangleup_jg$ and $T^*_gf=fg-T_fg$.
The following Berstein type inequalities will be used.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq: Ber1}&&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_fg\|_{L^2_x}+\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T^*_fg\|_{L^2_x}\leq C\|f\|_{L^{\infty}_x}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)g\|_{L^2_x},\\
\label{eq: Ber2}&&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_fg\|_{L^2_x}\leq C\|f\|_{L^{2}_x}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|)g\|_{L^2_x},\\
\label{eq: Ber3}&&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_{\pa_xf}g\|_{L^2_x}\leq C\|f\|_{L^{\infty}_x}\|\ln(e+|D_x|)\pa_xg\|_{L^2_x}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we show the proof of \eqref{eq: Ber2}, \eqref{eq: Ber1} and \eqref{eq: Ber3} can be obtained by the same argument. Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
&\|\ln(e+|D_x|)T_fg\|_{L^2_x}
=\|\ln(e+|D_x|)(\sum_{j\geq 1}S_{j-1}f\bigtriangleup_jg)\|_{L^2_x}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{k\geq -1}\|\langle k\rangle\bigtriangleup_k(\sum_{j\geq 1}S_{j-1}f\bigtriangleup_jg)\|_{L^2_x}^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{k\geq -1}\langle k\rangle\sum_{|j-k|\leq 2}\sup_{j\leq k+2}\|S_{j-1}f\|_{L^{\infty}}^2\|\bigtriangleup_jg\|_{L^2_x}^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\left(\sum_{k\geq -1}\langle k\rangle\sum_{|j-k|\leq 2}2^j\sup_{j\leq k+2}\|S_{j-1}f\|_{L^{2}}^2\|\bigtriangleup_jg\|_{L^2_x}^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\leq C\|f\|_{L^2}\left(\sum_{k\geq -1}\langle k\rangle2^k\|\bigtriangleup_kg\|_{L^2_x}^2\right)^{\f12}
\leq C\|f\|_{L^{2}_x}\||D_x|^{\f12}\ln(e+|D_x|)g\|_{L^2_x}.
\end{align*}
Details of the Littlewood-Paley theory on $\mathbb{T}$ or $\mathbb{T}\times\mathbf R$ as well as the Bony's decomposition can be found in \cite{BCD-book, Chemin-book, Danchin-note}.
\subsection{Functional inequalities}
In this subsection, we introduce some basic functional inequalities which are used in the proof. We start with the well-known Gagliardo-Nirenberg on $\mathbf R$ inequality (see \cite{Nirenberg}). Suppose $u\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbf R)$, then there exists a constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: GN}
\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbf R)}\leq C\|u\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf R)}^{\f12}\|\pa_yu\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf R)}^{\f12}.
\end{equation}
We also introduce the Minkowski's integral inequality (see \cite{Stein}). Suppose that $(S_1,\mu_1)$ and $(S_2,\mu_2)$ are two $\sigma$-finite measure spaces and $F(x,y):\, S_1\times S_2\to \mathbf R$ is measurable. Then it holds for $p>1$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M}
\begin{split}
\|F\|_{L^p(d\mu_2, L^1(d\mu_1))}
&\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over =\left(\int_{S_2}\left|\int_{S_1}F(x,y)d\mu_1(x)\right|^pd\mu_2(y)\right)^{\f1p}\\
&\leq \int_{S_1}\left(\int_{S_2}\left|F(x,y)\right|^pd\mu_2(y)\right)^{\f1p}d\mu_1(x)\buildrel\hbox{\footnotesize def}\over = \|F\|_{L^1(d\mu_1, L^p(d\mu_2))}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We end this subsection by introducing the discrete Schur test. Let $K(j,j')$ be the non-negative function defined on $\mathbb{N}^2$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
T(f)(j)=\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')f(j').
\end{eqnarray*}
Then if there exists a constant $C>0$ such that the kernel $K(j,j')$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{j\geq 0}\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\leq C,
\quad \sup_{j'\geq 0}\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\leq C.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it holds that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: Schur}
\left|\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}} T(f)(j)g(j)\right|\leq C\|f\|_{l^2}\|g\|_{l^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
We only need to prove that $\|T(f)\|_{l^2}\leq C\|f\|_{l^2}$. Using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
|T(f)(j)|^2=\left|\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')f(j')\right|^2
\leq \left(\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\right)\left(\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')f(j')^2\right),
\end{align*}
and then by the Fubini's theorem, we get
\begin{align*}
\|T(f)\|_{l^2}^2
&\leq \sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}}\left(\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\right)\left(\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')f(j')^2\right)\\
&\leq \left(\sup_{j\in \mathbb{N}}\sum_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\right)\left(\sup_{j'\in \mathbb{N}}\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}}K(j,j')\right)\|f\|_{l^2}^2\leq C\|f\|_{l^2}^2.
\end{align*}
Thus we proved \eqref{eq: Schur}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Regularization estimate}
In this subsection, we show the local in time estimates and regularization of the viscosity term.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\beta=\f12+\f12\ep$ with $\ep>0$.
Let $\om$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:NS3} with initial data $\om_{in}$ satisfying $\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq \nu^{\beta}$, then there exist $T>0$ independent $\nu$ such that for any $t\leq T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\||D|^{\ep}\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C(t\nu)^{-\ep/2}\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that from the linearized equation, we get
\begin{align*}
|\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta)|
\leq e^{-c\al^2\nu t^3-c\al^2\nu t-c\eta^2\nu t}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|,
\end{align*}
which gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\nu^{\f12}\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\na\om(t)\|_{L^2([0,\infty),L^2_{x,y})}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\om(t)=\widetilde{S}(t,0)\om_{in}-\int_0^t\widetilde{S}(t,s)(V\cdot\na \om)(s)ds,
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\widetilde{S}(t,s)f\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
\leq C\|f\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore by using the fact that $\nu^{\f12}\|\na \om\|_{L^2_tL^2}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}$, we get,
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq C\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\widetilde{S}(t,0)\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
+C\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\int_0^t\|V\na\om(s)\|_{L^2}ds\\
&\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}+\Big(\int_0^T(s\nu)^{-\ep}ds\Big)^{\f12}\|\na \om(s)\|_{L^2_sL^2}\sup_{s\in[0,T]}\|\om(s)\|_{H^{\ep}}(s\nu)^{\ep/2}\\
&\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\left(1+T^{\f12-\f{\ep}{2}}\nu^{-\f{\ep}{2}}\nu^{-1/2}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\right).
\end{align*}
By the assumption $\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq \nu^{\f{1+\ep}{2}}$, we get that there is $T>0$, so that $CT^{\f12-\f{\ep}{2}}\leq \f12$ and then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|(t\nu|D|^2)^{\ep/2}\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\om$ be the solution of \eqref{eq:NS3} with initial data $\om_{in}$ satisfying $\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq \f{\nu^{1/2}}{|\ln\nu|}$, then there exist $T>0$ independent $\nu$ such that for any $t\leq T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\ln(|D|+e)\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C|\ln ((\nu t)^{-1}+e)|\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that from the linearized equation, we get
\begin{align*}
|\widetilde{\om}(t,\al,\eta)|
\leq e^{-c\al^2\nu t^3-c\al^2\nu t-c\eta^2\nu t}|\widetilde{\om}_{in}(\al,\eta+\al t)|.
\end{align*}
Let $\chi$ be the smooth function support in $|\al|\leq (\nu t)^{-1}$,
then we get
\begin{align*}
\|\ln(|D|+e)\chi(D)\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\nu^{\f12}\|\ln(|D|+e)\chi(D)\na\om(t)\|_{L^2([0,\infty),L^2_{x,y})}\leq C|\ln\nu|\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left\|{\ln(|D|+e)}(1-\chi(D))\om(t)\right\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\quad+\nu^{\f12}\|\ln(|D|+e)(1-\chi(D))\na\om(t)\|_{L^2([0,\infty),L^2_{x,y})}\\
&\leq C{\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)}\bigg(\left(\sum_{\al}\left\|\f{\ln(|\al|+e)}{\ln((t\nu)^{-1}+e)}(1-\chi(\al))e^{-\nu\al^2t}\widetilde{\om}_{in}\right\|_{L^2_{\eta}}^2\right)^{\f12}\\
&\quad+\left(\sum_{\al}\left\|\f{\ln(|\al|+e)}{\ln((t\nu)^{-1}+e)}(1-\chi(\al))\nu^{\f12}(|\al|+|\eta|)e^{-\nu\al^2t-\nu\eta^2 t}\widetilde{\om}_{in}\right\|_{L^2_{\eta}L^2_t}^2\right)^{\f12}\bigg)
\end{align*}
by the fact that $\f{\ln(|\al|+e)}{\ln((t\nu)^{-1}+e)}(1-\chi(\al))e^{-\nu\al^2t}\leq C\al e^{-\al}\leq C$ for $\nu t\geq \al^{-1}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\ln(|D|+e)\om(t)\|_{L^2_{x,y}}+\nu^{\f12}\|\ln(|D|+e)\na\om(t)\|_{L^2([0,\infty),L^2_{x,y})}\leq C\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}},
\end{eqnarray*}
for the solution of the linearized equation.
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\om(t)=\widetilde{S}(t,0)\om_{in}-\int_0^t\widetilde{S}(t,s)(V\cdot\na \om)(s)ds,
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\f{\ln(|D|+e)}{\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)}\widetilde{S}(t,s)f\right\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
\leq C\|f\|_{L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore by using the fact that $\nu^{\f12}\|\na \om\|_{L^2_tL^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2_{x,y}}$, we get,
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left\|\f{\ln(|D|+e)}{\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)}\om(t)\right\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\\
&\leq C\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left\|\f{\ln(|D|+e)}{\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)}\widetilde{S}(t,0)\om_{in}\right\|_{L^2_{x,y}}
+C\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\int_0^t\|V\na\om(s)\|_{L^2}ds\\
&\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}+\|V\|_{L^2L^{\infty}}\|\na\om\|_{L^2L^2}\\
&\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}+C\nu^{-\f12}\|(\ln(|D|+e))\om(s)\|_{L^2_tL^2_{x,y}}\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\\
&\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}+C\nu^{-\f12}T^{\f12}\ln((\nu T)^{-1}+e))\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}^2
\end{align*}
By the assumption $\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}\leq \f{\nu^{1/2}}{|\ln\nu|}$, we get that there is $T>0$, so that $CT^{\f12}\f{\ln((\nu T)^{-1}+e))}{\ln(\nu^{-1}+e))}\leq \f12$ and then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left\|\f{\ln(|D|+e)}{\ln((\nu t)^{-1}+e)}\om(t)\right\|_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq C\|\om_{in}\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we proved the lemma.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sect1}
\IEEEPARstart{M}{atching} power generation and consumption is the fundamental problem of the power grid \cite{el2004optimal}, this issue is widely known to be made worse by volatile renewable power generation and hourly variations of urban power demand due to the time-correlation of the usage of domestic electric appliances for water heating, air conditioning, cooking etc. This problem may be ameliorated by increasing the flexibility of electric power demand to reduce short term urban electric load variations. To do so, a future vision of the power system that leverages Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to implement advanced control strategies to improve the flexibility and the efficiency of the DSM strategy is required ~\cite{deng2015survey,sabbah2014survey}.
About $40\%$ of total electric power demand in the US in 2017 was due to residential power consumption according to US Department of Energy \cite{DoE}. According to the same source, the largest share of residential power consumption is due to electric heating and cooling usually achieved by the so called Thermostatically Controlled Loads (TCLs) such as water heaters, freezers, boilers, radiators, and air conditioners. This data varies greatly depending on the country, city and cost and availability of electricity with respect to natural gas or other fossil fuels. These appliances are controlled by a thermostat and therefore are characterized by a simple ON/OFF power consumption dynamics which can be modulated to act as energy storage devices to provide ancillary services to the smart grid, see \cite{Hao2015189,Tindemans15,Grammatico2015,franceschelli2016coordination,ecc18}. Thus, large populations of actively controlled TCLs can effectively add some flexibility to modulate the urban electric power demand.
Some promising methods for electric Demand Side Management (DSM) that focus on controlling TCLs can be found in \cite{Braslavsky13,Xing20145439,Grammatico2015}. There, centralized strategies and distributed decision making methods supported by a centralized information aggregator are exploited to address the problem.
In the electric demand side management community the keyword "distributed control" and "multi-agent" is associated to distributed decision making by smart homes or devices which interact with a centralized aggregator of information which collects data and updates reference set-points or price signals. In fact, real-time pricing strategies could be seen as a form of distributed decision making where a feedback loop on the system is closed by the energy provider that measures the power demand and broadcasts a unique time-varying price signal. This kind of control architecture may present issues with the privacy of the users or be vulnerable to DoS cyber-attacks on the information aggregator.
In this paper we propose a different framework where smart devices (agents), TCLs in particular, cooperate within a peer-to-peer network autonomously and anonymously with a small set of neighboring agents with the network graph.
The proposed method aims to exploit only local and asynchronous anonymous interactions among the agents to optimize trough their emergent behavior a global objective function defined by their power consumption. In particular, we chose an objective function which incentivises the shaving of peak power consumption and reduction of electric load variations by the network of TCLs. Through the proposed framework, the power consumption of the network can be modulated, thus enabling the shaping of the electric load profile without any direct control action on any device or the sharing of power consumption information with a centralized coordinator.
The proposed method is paired with a multi-agent control architecture which is intended to exploit the cheapest possible hardware to enable cooperation among devices, i.e., a smart power socket, suitable to retrofit existing TCLs such as domestic water heaters, thus greatly reducing the cost of the infrastructure needed for the electric demand side management (DSM) program and therefore significantly reducing the cost of adoption by the users. This design choice makes the control problem more challenging because on each device the identification of the TCL dynamics, the estimation of its state on its control has to be carried out with only power consumption measurements and ON/OFF control capability. For instance, in \cite{ParIdenti2012} the problem of identifying the dynamics of the TCL was addressed by either considering its internal temperature measurable or at least assuming that the temperature range of the thermostat (maximum and minimum temperature) was known in absolute terms. In this paper, we only exploit power consumption measurement to develop a real plug-and-play approach which does not require any system configuration by the user.
Furthermore, since we assume each agent in the network as being representative of a SPS connected to a TCL, we consider in fact agents modeled by a hybrid systems. The multi-agent coordination problem that we formulate in this paper consists in the online optimization (or cooperative model predictive control) of an objective function which is not separable and subject to non-convex local constraints on each agent due its hybrid dynamics. Nonetheless, despite the difficulty of the considered problem we provide a heuristic approach which converges up to a local minimum of the considered objective. Experimental observations and results indicate that the amount of modelling uncertainty and disturbances that affect each single system in the large scale network considered is significant and therefore there is little advantage on computing optimal control solutions (even if there were a method to compute them with our current working assumption) with respect to heuristic solutions.
\textbf{Literature review:}
In \cite{Braslavsky13} the authors propose a feedback control scheme for TCLs (Air conditioners), as opposed to open-loop and model-free strategies, where broadcasts of thermostat set-points offset changes to the ACs. This scheme requires readings from a common power distribution connection point where total aggregate demand is measured, furthermore the authors assume to be able to change the reference temperature of local thermostat. Among many other differences with our work, we consider the local temperature reference of the TCL to be unknown and not accessible, in order to enable a cheap retrofit of existing devices by exploiting only SPSs.
In \cite{Xing20145439}, the authors propose a distributed algorithm to control a network of thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs) to match, in real time, the aggregated power consumption of a population of TCLs with the predicted power supply. The algorithm is a consensus-based optimization of an objective function which represents the sum of temperature differences with respect to a desired reference. In their work, the authors assume that each device runs an instance of a consensus algorithm to estimate the average power consumption in the network at each iteration. Based on this information and on a centralized forecast of power consumption, the desired power consumption is assigned to each device. Among many other differences, in our work we deal with actual devices which are not supposed to be tailored for the DSM tasks, and therefore algorithms of the kind of \cite{Xing20145439} can not be implemented without ad-hoc hardware. Furthermore, we consider an online optimization process which is based on local asynchronous optimizations and is robust to changes in the network during execution.
In \cite{Grammatico2015} an elegant approach based on mean-field control theory is proposed for the control of large populations of TCLs. The authors consider a quadratic cost objective function of the temperature profiles of the TCLs to be optimized. The approach considers local decision making by the TCLs and a centralized aggregator of information that computes the average state values to be used as feedback and proves convergence of the strategy to a fixed point by exploiting the theory of contraction mappings and mean fields. In \cite{Grammatico20163315} the same authors generalize and extend the approach to consider also local convex constraints and several additional applications. In our scenario, apart from considering a different objective for the network of TCLs, the internal temperature of the TCL is not accessible and the TCLs are controlled by SPS, thus their dynamics is hybrid and is modeled by mixed integer local constraints. Furthermore we also deal with the issues of identification and estimation required to make our approach implementable in a real scenario with our proposed experimental testbed.
In \cite{hadjicostis6426665} the problem of optimally dispatching a set of energy resources is considered. The authors formulate a convex optimization problem and propose the so-called \emph{ratio-consensus} algorithm to enable the distributed decision making process to occur in an unbalanced directed graph.
In \cite{notarnicola2016duality,Notarnicola8472154} a distributed optimization method to solve min-max problems characterized by an objective function which is not separable and with local convex constraints is presented. The considered optimization problem is motivated by the peak-to-average ratio minimization problem in a network of TCLs. In oue setting, we consider a different objective function, non-convex local constraints due the modeling of the TCLs and SPSs and different control variables.
Finally, our method and architecture exploits a dynamic average consensus algorithm to enable the distributed estimation of the average planned power consumption of the whole network of TCLs. The dynamic consensus problem is an agreement problem, or consensus problem, where the agents aim to agree on the current average value of their inputs or reference signals, as opposed to their initial state value as commonly considered in the literature. The reader is referred to \cite{SolmazTutorial,spanos2005dynamic,Zhu2010322,Kia2015112,Cortes2015,FraGas2016,Franceschelli201969} for a comprehensive overview on the dynamic average consensus problem.
Summarizing, the \textbf{main contributions} of this paper are:
\begin{itemize}
\item A multi-agent DSM control architecture for the coordination of anonymous networks of thermostatically controlled loads via smart power sockets;
\item A method for power consumption model identification for TCLs based only on power consumption measurements;
\item An hybrid observer for the estimation of the TCL internal state based only on power consumption measurements;
\item A distributed and randomized online optimization method for the cooperative constrained optimization of the power consumption by the network of TCLs controlled by smart power sockets
\item A low-cost experimental testbed based on off-the-shelf hardware and purpuse-built software;
\item An experimental validation of the proposed method.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Advantages of our multi-agent control architecture:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{User privacy:} there is no information aggregator or centralized supervisor, information is exchanged only locally by small sets of anonymous users which possibly change over time.
\item \textbf{Plug-and-play architecture:} the proposed architecture is based on smart power sockets which seeminglessly identify and observe the dynamics of the TCL they are connected to.
\item \textbf{Retrofit on existing devices:} smart power sockets are intended to coordinate existing devices, thus greatly reducing the cost of the DSM infrastructure by allowing users to keep their existing domestic appliances.
\item \textbf{Randomized and asynchronous coordination:} The proposed method exploits randomized local updates of the ON/OFF state of SPSs, thus the method can be implemented in large-scale networks without the need for network wide time-synchronization of state updates.
\item \textbf{Robustness to practical implementation issues:} The proposed method exploits a dynamic consensus algorithm for the distributed estimation of the average planned power consumption by the network and randomized local state updates. Therefore, it inherits the robustness properties of dynamic consensus algorithms versus time-varying topologies, communication failures, agent failure, time-delays, changes in the network size. Randomization of state updates prevents the failure of a single agent to disrupt the emergent behavior of the whole network.
\item \textbf{Robustness against Denial of Service (DoS) cyber-attacks:} Since the architecture is based on the anonymous local interactions among devices in an unstructured peer-to-peer network, there is no single computing element that can be attacked to disrupt the network behavior. To deny cooperation among the devices a large-fraction of the large-scale network of devices needs to be attacked, thus increasing significantly the cost and scale of DoS attacks on the network. Furthermore, even disconnecting the network does not prevent the connected components to continue their cooperation to optimize their behavior.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Structure of the paper:} In Section \ref{sect:modeling} an approximate dynamical model of the generic TCL and SPS device is presented together with the adopted notation. In Section \ref{sect:pr_statement} the global objective function optimized by the proposed method is presented. In Section \ref{sect:architecture} the Multi-agent Control Architecture is presented, in its subsections the proposed methods for system identification, state estimation, Mixed Logic Dynamical (MLD) modelling of the TCL-plus-SPS system and dynamic consensus algorithms for distribtued estimation are described in detail. In Section \ref{subsect:heuristic} the proposed online distributed optimization method is presented and some of its convergence properties are characterized.
In Section \ref{sect:simulation} a novel low-cost experimental testbed is presented and the proposed online optimization method is validated both numerically and experimentally with real domestic TCLs. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concluding remarks and possible future improvements are discussed.
\section{Modelling of Thermostatically Controlled Loads and Smart Power Sockets}
\label{sect:modeling}
Consider a multi-agent system (MAS) consisting of a population $\mathbfcal{V}=\lbrace 1,\dots,n\rbrace$ of TCLs whose power outlet is plugged into an off-the-shelf SPS adapter. SPSs are provided with a sensor to measure power consumption, processing capability, WiFi communication, and an ON/OFF power switch for either autonomous or remote actuation purposes. Each SPS is connected to a peer-to-peer network over the internet.
Let $\mathbfcal{E}(t_k)\subseteq \left\{\mathbfcal{V}\times\mathbfcal{V}\right\}$ be the set of active communication links among agents, i.e., TCL-plus-SPS systems, at time $t_k$, and let graph $\mathbfcal{G}=(\mathbfcal{V},\mathbfcal{E})$ represent the peer-to-peer network topology. According to \cite{Hao2015189,perfumo2012load}, the dynamics of the $i$-th TCL can be well approximated at discrete time instants $t_1<t_2<\ldots<t_k$, with $k\in \mathbb{N}$, as follows
\begin{equation}\small
\begin{array}{ccl}
T^{i}(t_{k+1})&=&T^{i}(t_k)\cdot e^{-\alpha^i \Delta \tau}+\\
&& \left(1-e^{-\alpha^i \Delta \tau}\right)\left(T_\infty^i+\frac{q^i}{\alpha^i}u^i(t_k)+w(t_k)\right),
\end{array}
\label{eqn:dyn_TCL}
\end{equation}
where: $\Delta \tau=t_{k+1}-t_k$ is a constant sampling interval; \mbox{$T^{i}(t_k)\in \mathbb{R}^+$} is the thermostatically controlled temperature of the TCL; $\alpha^i>0$ denotes the heat exchange coefficient with the operating environment, whose temperature is $T^i_{\infty}$; \mbox{$u^i:\mathbb{R}^+ \rightarrow\left\{0,1\right\}$} is the $\lbrace \mathrm{OFF},\mathrm{ON}\rbrace$ control signal; $q^i>0$ is the heat generated by the electric heating element. Finally, $w:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ models unknown disturbances, e.g., if we consider an electric water heater, it may represent the temperature drop due to the refill process with cold water of the tank after a water drawing event generated by the user. Let $s^i(t_k):\mathbb{R}^+ \rightarrow \left\{0,1\right\}$ be the binary state associated with the SPS's power switch; since the SPS is connected in series with the TCL's power outlet, follows that $u^i$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation} \small
u^i(t_k)=s^i(t_k)\cdot h^i(t_{k}),
\label{eqn:ui}
\end{equation}
where $h^i:\mathbb{R}^+ \rightarrow\left\{0,1\right\}$ is the state of TCL's heater element whose value is updated according to the next thermostatic control rule
\begin{equation} \small h^i(t_{k+1}) :
\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
0 &
\text{if} & T^i(t_k)\geq T_{\mathrm{max}}^i\\
h^i(t_{k}) &
\text{if} & T^i(t_k)\in \left(T_{\mathrm{min}}^i,T_{\mathrm{max}}^i\right)\\
1 & \text{if} & T^i(t_k)\leq T_{\mathrm{min}}^i
\end{array}\right.\label{eqn:u_hyst}
\end{equation}
such that the TCL's temperature remains within the operating range, i.e. $T^i\in\left[T_{\mathrm{min}}^i, T_{\mathrm{max}}^i\right]$. From \eqref{eqn:ui} follows that necessary condition to have $u^i=1$ is that $s^i=1$, but not vice versa.
Let $\mathrm{p}^i>0$ be the nominal amount of power absorbed by the $i$-th TCL in the ON state ($u^i=1$). Since its power consumption is approximately either $0$ or $\mathrm{p}^i$ watts, in the reminder we model the absorbed power profile $p^i(t_k)$ sensed by the SPS, as follows
\begin{equation}\small
p^i(t_k)= \mathrm{p}^i\cdot u^i(t_k)=\mathrm{p}^i\cdot \left(s^i(t_k)\cdot h^i(t_{k})\right).
\label{eqn:pi}
\end{equation}
Thus, the global instantaneous power consumption by the network at time $t_k$ is given by
\begin{equation} \small
P(t_k)=\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} p^i(t_k)=\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}^i\cdot u^i(t_k)=\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}^i\cdot \left(s^i(t_k)\cdot h^i(t_{k})\right)
\label{eqn:Total_Power}
\end{equation}
\section{Coordination Objective for the Multi-Agent System (MAS)}\label{sect:pr_statement}
In this paper we formulate our TCL-plus-SPS control problem described in the introduction as a multi-agent cooperative control problem where the objective is to optimize a globally coupled quadratic cost function over a receding horizon time window which penalizes the peaks of power consumption. Agents are hybrid systems, thus the constraints on their dynamics are local and non-convex. To preserve privacy
each agent has only access to information on the state of a small set of anonymous neighboring agents, and the timing and order of their state updates is randomized. The P2P network that connects the agents is unstructured and modeled by a connected graph, which is unknown to the agents and possibly time-varying. Cooperation occurs by the distributed estimation of average planned power consumption over the network thorough a dynamic consensus algorithm. The network may be affected by communication failures, changes in topology and size as long as the chosen dynamic consensus algorithm provides bounded tracking error despite these features.
Let us now formalize the coordination objective of our the problem.
According to \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}-\eqref{eqn:pi}, each agent, at time $t_k$, plans its own power consumption within a receding horizon time-window $\mathcal{\tau}(t_k)=\left[t_{k}+ \Delta \tau,t_k+L \Delta \tau\right]$ of length $L \Delta \tau$, which is a schedule vector of $L$ entries, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{s}^i(t_k)=\left[s^i_{1}\cdots s_\ell^i\cdots s_L^i\right]^\intercal =
\left[s^i(t_{k+1})\cdots s^i(t_{k+L})\right]^\intercal
\in\lbrace0,1\rbrace^L
\label{eqn:s_vector}
\end{equation}
each entry denotes the state that should be actuated by the $i$-th SPS's power switch at the future instants of time $t_{k+\ell}=t_k+\ell \Delta \tau$, $\ell=1,\dots,L$.
Clearly, \eqref{eqn:s_vector} provides $L$ degrees of freedom to each agent to satisfy its own local constraints on its dynamics while optimizing a global objective function
In accordance with \eqref{eqn:Total_Power} and the notation in \eqref{eqn:s_vector}, we denote the prediction at time $t_k$ of the planned power consumption by the network at a future time $t_{k+\ell}=t_k+\ell \Delta \tau$ as
\begin{equation}
\small
P_\ell(t_k)=\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}^i \cdot u^i_{\ell}(t_k)=\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}^i\cdot\left( s^i_{\ell}(t_k)h^i_{\ell}(t_k)\right).\label{eqn:Pell}
\end{equation}
The MAS aims to optimize online through local interactions the next global objective function
\begin{equation}\small \label{eqn:globalObjective}
J(t_k)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(P_\ell(t_k)\right)^2=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}_i \cdot u^i_{\ell}(t_k)\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Notice that, since \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} is a sum over the receding horizon time-window of the squared power consumption expected by the TCLs, it penalizes the peaks power consumption over the window $\tau(t_k)=\left[t_k,t_k+L \Delta \tau\right)$ of length $L \Delta \tau$. Since the total power consumption of the network is squared at each interval, we further point out that $J(t_k)$ is not separable and since the total power consumption of the network is unknown to the agents, the current value of the objective function in \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} is unknown to the agents too.
An intuitive and qualitative way to interpret the objective~\eqref{eqn:globalObjective} is to consider a scenario where an energy provider changes the prices of electricity in an urban area proportionally to the current expected power consumption in a short term horizon in real time, to smooth and shave off peaks in the power demand. If we denote the cost, predicted at time $t_k$, for the electricity at the future time $t_{k+\ell}$ as $c_{\ell}(t_k)=c \cdot P_\ell(t_k)$, $c>0$, then the objective \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} can be reduced
to
\begin{equation}\small
J(t_k)=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} c_{\ell}(t_k) P_\ell(t_k).
\label{eqn:J_tot_example}
\end{equation}
Notice that, since each TCL abides to an embedded constraint to keep its internal temperature at a given threshold, the averaged power demand by the network is not allowed to change significantly. Therefore, by the optimization of function~\eqref{eqn:globalObjective} it is expected, as a byproduct, a reduction in the Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR) of the power consumption in the network, a metric which is widely accepted as indicating how efficiently the power grid can serve a generic electric load profile \cite{mohsenian2010autonomous,notarnicola2016duality}.
To shape indirectly the electric load profile generated by the MAS to shave the peak load of the corresponding grid network, we introduce "virtual agents" (or virtual loads) which interact with other agents to add a fictitious, possibly large, power consumption to the network at the desired time, forcing the MAS to cooperatively shift the power consumption of each agent away from the considered peak hours. This operation, as opposed to other common approaches to DSM, keeps the agents anonymous, no direct commands are issued by a centralized entity to switch off single systems and the local constraints of operation of each TCL are satisfied, i.e., no TCL is forced to lower its temperature lower than its desired threshold.
Thus said, at each time $t_k$, the generic agent $i$ actuates the plan of its SPS according to the value of $s^i_{1}(t_{k})$ of \eqref{eqn:s_vector}, then it computes a new plan $\mathbf{s}^i$, where from now on we omit the dependence of the planning vector from time $t_k$ for the sake of readability and with no loss of generality.
In addition, it should be noticed that the objective given in \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} is not a separable function, thus its distributed optimization is more challenging. Furthermore, it should also be noticed that every agent is subject to a set of local constraints, denoted as $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$, which are generally non-convex as they involve mixed integer linear constraints (as it will be discussed in detail in Section \ref{subsect:mld}). This implies that the considered optimization is NP-hard in general. Accordingly, in this paper we propose an heuristic to approximate the optimal solution of the considered problem in a real scenario.
\section{Proposed Multi-agent Control Architecture}\label{sect:architecture}
In this section, we describe the proposed multi-agent control architecture enabled by Smart Power Sockets which add measurement, processing and communication capabilities to traditional domestic TCLs such as electric water heater or electric radiators. In particular, we provide methods for system identification, state observation and Mixed Logic Dynamical (MLD) modeling of the agents representing the combination of the dynamics of a TCL actuated by a SPS.
\subsection{Method for TCL Power Consumption Model Identification\label{subsubsect:Sys_Id}}
A simple method to identify the TCL system parameters would be to measure the internal and external temperature of the device and, by knowing the desired temperature range $[T_{min},T_{max}]$, use any of the the standard system identification methods to approximate the dynamics as a first order system, see \cite{shad2017identification} for the specific case of TCL parameter identification. However, since in our plug-and-play scenario we do not have access to the internal (or external) temperature of the TCL, and the desired temperature range $[T_{min},T_{max}]$ is considered unknown, these methods can not be applied.
Furthermore, by exploiting only power consumption measurements it is not possible to estimate directly neither the absolute temperature $T^i(t_k)$ controlled by the TCL nor the maximum and minimum desired temperature $T^i_{\mathrm{min}}$, $T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ or the ambient temperature $T^i_\infty$. However, by observing the instants of time in which power consumption turns on and off, in accordance with~\eqref{eqn:u_hyst}, the falling (resp. raising) edges on $p^i(t_k)$ in \eqref{eqn:pi} informs us that the temperature $T^i(t_k)$ reached the value of $T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ (resp. $T^i_{\mathrm{min}}$).
Since our objective is to approximate the dynamics of the power consumption of the TCL and not its temperature, by performing a coordinate change in the TCL model we define a so-called ``virtual temperature'', denoted as $y^i(t_k)$, as follows
\begin{equation}\small
y^i(t_k)=\beta^i\cdot \left(T^i(t_k)-T^i_\infty\right),
\label{eqn:yi_change_of_variable}
\end{equation}
where $\beta^i>0$ is an unknown parameter that linearly maps $T^i(t_k)\in\left[T_\infty^i,T_{\mathrm{max}}^i\right]$ to $y^i(t_k)\in\left[y_\infty^i=0,y_{\mathrm{max}}^i=1\right]$.
In our system identification procedure we consider the TCL as operating in retention mode, i.e., with no significant temperature drops due to exogenous disturbances, i.e. $w^i\equiv 0$ in \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}, and $s^i(t_k)=1$ $\forall$ $t_k\geq0$. By substituting \eqref{eqn:yi_change_of_variable} into \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}, with $w^i\equiv0$, it yields our power consumption model
\begin{equation} \small
y^i(t_{k+1})=y^i(t_k) \cdot e^{-\alpha^i \Delta \tau}+\frac{\beta^i q^i}{\alpha^i}\left(1-e^{-\alpha^i \Delta \tau}\right) u^i(t_k).
\label{eqn:dyn_y}
\end{equation}
Let us now define ${\Delta T}^i_{\mathrm{off}}$ (resp. ${\Delta T}^i_{\mathrm{on}}$) as the discharge (resp. charge) interval of time to be waited in order to bring $T^i$ from $T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ (resp. $T^i_{\mathrm{min}}$) to $T^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ (resp. $T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$) when $w^i(t_k)=0$, $\forall$ $t_k\geq0$.
If $T^i(t_k)=T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ (i.e. \mbox{$y^i(t_k)=1$}) at $t_k=0$, from \eqref{eqn:dyn_y} it results
\begin{equation}\small
\small y^i(\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}})=y^i_{\mathrm{max}}\cdot e^{-\alpha^i \Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}}=y^i_{\mathrm{min}}\rightarrow \alpha^i=\frac{-ln\left(y^i_{\mathrm{min}}\right)}{\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}}.
\label{eqn:alpha_i}
\end{equation}
On the contrary, if $T^i(t_k)=T^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ at $t_k=0$, from \eqref{eqn:u_hyst} it yields
\begin{equation}
\small y^i(\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}})=y^i_{\mathrm{min}}\cdot e^{-\alpha^i \Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}+\frac{\beta^i q^i}{\alpha^i}\left(1-e^{-\alpha^i \Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}\right)=y^i_{\mathrm{max}}.
\label{eqn:y_charge}
\end{equation}
Then, by substituting \eqref{eqn:alpha_i} into \eqref{eqn:y_charge}, with $y^i_{\mathrm{max}}=1$, we have
\begin{equation}\small
\frac{\beta^i q^i}{\alpha^i}=\frac{1 - y^i_{\mathrm{min}}\cdot e^{-\alpha^i\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}}{1 - e^{-\alpha^i\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}}=\frac{1 - y^i_{\mathrm{min}}\cdot e^{ln(y^i_{\mathrm{min}})\frac{\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}{\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}}}}{1 - e^{ln(y^i_{\mathrm{min}})\frac{\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}}{\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}}}}
\label{eqn:K_i}
\end{equation}
The intervals of time $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}$ and $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}$ can be easily measured by the SPS power measurements. On the other hand, parameter $y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ is neither known nor available from measurements, and the solution of \eqref{eqn:alpha_i}, \eqref{eqn:K_i} is not unique. However, $y_{\mathrm{min}}$ can be tuned experimentally within the open domain $(y^i_{\infty},y^i_{\mathrm{max}})\equiv(0,1)$ {should we reverse $y^i_{\infty},y^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ here?} to get the best approximation of the TCL power consumption dynamics. In our model $y_{\mathrm{min}}$ is a free choice parameter. By its choice the other parameters of our model are computed. In our numerical and experimental validation we choose $y_{\mathrm{min}}=0.5$ and identify the other parameters in the model accordingly.
To properly evaluate $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}$ and $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on}}$ from the SPS's power measurements, due to the time-varying behaviour of the ambient temperature $T^i_{\infty}$ during the day, as well due to unmodeled dynamics or disturbances, a single charge-discharge cycle is not sufficient to get a statistically robust information on these quantities. Experimental tests indicate that a period of time including four or five charge-discharge cycles is enough to obtain a good statistical information. In this regard, on the top of Figure~\ref{fig:identification} a ten hours power consumption profile from a real electric water heater acquired during the night hours, where no water drawing events occur, is shown. In particular, let $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on},k}$ and $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off},k}$ be the $k$-th charge and discharge time intervals of the identification data-set of power measurement, we considered the median value of the dataset
\begin{equation}\small
\begin{bmatrix}
{\Delta T}^i_{\mathrm{on}}\\
{\Delta T}^i_{\mathrm{off}}
\end{bmatrix}=\mathrm{Median}
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on},1}&\cdots& \Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on},k}& \cdots&\\
\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on},1}&\cdots& \Delta T^i_{\mathrm{on},k}& \cdots&
\end{bmatrix}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eqn:charge_discharge_intervals}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{fig_identification4.eps}
\caption{ Top: Power consumption of a domestic electric water heater used for experimental tests during ten hours of operation, at night. Bottom: Output of model \eqref{eqn:dyn_y} corresponding to the power consumption shown on top, with the parameters estimated with two different choices of $y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$.}
\label{fig:identification}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[!tbp]
\caption{Description of discrete events of the hybrid virtual temperature observer depicted in Figure \ref{fig:hybrid_obs}}
\label{tab:observerEvents}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\toprule
\textbf{Events} & \textbf{Triggering conditions} & \textbf{Effects on continuous states}\\
\midrule
$\mathrm{E_{off}}$ & $\left( s^i(t_{k-2})=1 \right)\ \wedge \ \left( s^i(t_{k-1})=1\right) \wedge \left( s^i(t_{k})=1\right) \wedge \ \left( u^i(t_{k-1})=1\right) \wedge \left( u^i(t_{k})=0\right)$ & $\left(y^i(t_k):=y^i_{\mathrm{max}}~,~T_r^i:=0\right)$ \\
\midrule
$\mathrm{E_{on}}$ & $\left( s^i(t_{k-2})=1\right) \wedge \left( s^i(t_{k-1})=1 \right)\wedge \left( s^i(t_{k})=1 \right)\wedge \left( u^i(t_{k-1})=0\right) \wedge \left( u^i(t_{k})=1\right)$ & $\left(y^i(t_k):=y^i_{\mathrm{min}}~,~T_r^i:=0\right)$ \\
\midrule
Timeout & $T_r^i\geq \bar{T}^i_r$ & \text{none} \\
\midrule
Out of Bound 1 & $y^i(t_k)< \beta_1\cdot y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ & $y^i(t_k):=\beta_1\cdot y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ \\
\midrule
Out of Bound 2 & $y^i(t_k)> \beta_2\cdot y^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ & $y^i(t_k):=\beta_2\cdot y^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=20pc]{HybridVirtualObserver2.eps}
\caption{Local hybrid virtual temperature observer.}
\label{fig:hybrid_obs}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Experimental Validation:
On the bottom of Figure~\ref{fig:identification} it is shown the force response of model \eqref{eqn:dyn_y} with input corresponding to the measured power consumption shown on top of Figure~\ref{fig:identification}, with the parameters estimated with \eqref{eqn:charge_discharge_intervals} by considering $5$ charge/discharge cycles,\eqref{eqn:alpha_i}, \eqref{eqn:K_i}, and for two different values of $y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$. It can be seen that the method is sufficiently accurate for our purposes. It can be further noted that the choice of $y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ does not affect the duration of the charge-discharge cycle. It follows that the estimation of the virtual temperature may be used to predict the future power consumption of the device. {\hfill $\blacksquare$}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\subsection{Hybrid Virtual Temperature Observer\label{subsubsect:Observer}}
We now consider the problem of estimating the virtual temperature $y^i(t_k)$ in \eqref{eqn:yi_change_of_variable} by exploiting only the SPS measurements. The discrete state of the power switch of the SPS is known and is denoted by $s^i(t_k)$, the state of the heater element in the TCL, $u^i(t_k)=s^i(t_k)h^i(t_{k})$ , can be evaluated by applying a threshold to the measurement on the current power consumption as follows
\begin{equation}\small
u^i(t_k) : \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \mathrm{if}~ p^i(t_k)>\epsilon^i_{\mathrm{n}} \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:ui_threashold}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\mathrm{n}}^i>0$ denotes the noise measurement level on $p^i(t_k)$.
The block diagram of the proposed observer is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:hybrid_obs}. It is a hybrid system with a continuous state $y^i(t_k)$ representing the estimated virtual temperature, a timer $T_r^i(t_k)$ and two discrete states, referred as the ``Unreliable Estimation state'' (UE) and ``Reliable Estimation state'' (RE). Table~\ref{tab:observerEvents} lists the events that trigger the transition between the discrete states and their set and reset effects on $y^i(t_k)$ and $T_r^i$. The symbol $\wedge$ denotes the ``and'' logical connective operator.
The UE states denote the case in which no reliable prediction on $y^i(t_k)$ can be done due to the uncertainties on model~\eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}, and the presence of exogenous unpredictable disturbances $w^i(t_k)$.The RE state denotes the case where the estimation on $y^i(t_k)$ is sufficiently accurate to be used to predict the behavior of the TCL with a small error. At inizialization, the observer is set to the UE state.
By \eqref{eqn:ui} and \eqref{eqn:u_hyst}, whenever the TCL control logic autonomously changes state from $u^i(t_{k-1})=1$ to $u^i(t_{k})=0$, it can be inferred that its controlled temperature $T^i(t_k)$ has reached its upper limit $T^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ which corresponds to a virtual temperature of $y^i(t_k)=1$. Similarly, we can gather useful information when the control input changes from $u^i(t_{k-1})=0$ to $u^i(t_{k})=1$, i.e., $y^i(t_k)=y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$.
In accordance with Table~\ref{tab:observerEvents} we refer to these events, resp., as ``$\mathrm{E_{off}}$'' and ``$\mathrm{E_{on}}$''. It is worth to point out that, whenever these events are triggered the estimated virtual temperature is set to the corresponding correct value, thus resetting any error due to uncertainties or disturbances. We thus refer to these events also as ``synchronization events''.
{From the UE state, whenever ``$\mathrm{E_{off}}$'' is triggered, i.e., the SPS is ON and the device autonomously switches from the ON state with $u^i(t_k)=1$ to OFF with $u^i(t_k)=0$, we are able to guarantee that the current estimation is reliable and will remain so until a ``Timeout'' or an ``Out of Bound'' event occurs.
The ``Timeout'' event is triggered whenever the clock variable $T_r^i$ measures that an interval of time greater than $\bar{T}_r^i$ has passed since the last synchronization event. The ``Timeout'' event is needed because in between synchronization events the estimation of the virtual temperature is open loop, thus we set the observer to the UE state if no synchronization events occur within a maximum time window due to an expected large estimation error. In accordance with the notation in Figure~\ref{fig:identification}, $\bar{T}_r^i$ is experimentally set equal to three times the maximum $\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off},k}$ recorded during the TCL parameter identification procedure.
The ``Out of Bound'' event is triggered whenever the estimated virtual temperature exceeds its expected bounds by certain percentage. The occurrence of this event is an indication that either a significant temperature drop is occurred (e.g. due to the refill process with cold water of a boiler after an water drain event) or that model uncertainties were become significant that the current estimation is no more reliable.
Finally, we notice that when the event ``$\mathrm{E_{on}}$'' is triggered from the UE state, we do not consider the new value of the estimated virtual temperature to be reliable.
This is because strong exogenous disturbances, such as drawing hot water from the TCL, might have brought its controlled temperature much lower than $T^i_{min}$ and therefore the autonomous switching to the ON state does guarantee by itself that the the TCL temperature corresponds to $T^i_{min}$ in that particular instant of time.
{\textbf{Experimental Validation:}}
An experimental validation of the proposed hybrid observer is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:real_TCL}, the test was performed with a real domestic water heater with parameters identified in accordance with Subsection~\ref{subsubsect:Sys_Id} with $\epsilon^i_{\mathrm{n}}=5$W, $\beta_1=0.8$ and $\beta_2=1.2$ and affected by disturbances in the form of water drawing events and model uncertainties. In the test the SPS was always in the ON state. We can observe that the virtual temperature estimation is accurate, and thus reliable, from the first falling edge on $u^i(t_k)$ up to $\approx210$min, and from $350$min to the end of the test, since a sufficient number of synchronization events ``$\mathrm{E_{on}}$'' and ``$\mathrm{E_{on}}$'' occurs and we do not see large errors in the estimated temperature profile. On the contrary, at around $210$min the observer detects an ``Out of Bound 2'' event, due to the drawing of hot water from the water heater. Because of that, the observer sets itself to the UE state while saturating $y^i(t_k)$ at its maximum admissible value. Then, at $250$min, a ``$\mathrm{E_{off}}$'' event is triggered and the observer sets itself back to the RE state. From $\approx250$ min to $\approx350$ min, the observer is on the RE state, in this case estimation errors seems higher since $u^i(t_k)$ switches ON earlier than the expected time ($\approx\Delta T^i_{\mathrm{off}}$). This is due to cold water refilling the tank and heat exchange in fluids occurring by convection currents \cite{kakacc1991boilers}, not modeled in neither \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL} nor in \eqref{eqn:dyn_y}. However, despite model uncertainties, since the synchronization events reset $y^i(t_k)$ to the correct value, the estimation error is kept small and bounded in an actual real scenario.
Finally, in Figure \ref{fig:real_TCL2} it is shown the evolution of the observer state during the execution of the TCL cooperation protocol for a real TCL during the experimental test described in Section \ref{sect:simulation}. It can be seen that, despite model uncertainties and disturbances, the occurrence of synchronization events keeps estimation errors bounded.
{\hfill $\blacksquare$}}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=20pc]{fig_paper_002franc_042dip_vert2-mauro3.eps}
\caption{Experimental validation of the hybrid observer with a real water heater. Top: evolution of the discrete state of the observer and the TCL heating element. Bottom: evolution of estimated virtual temperature.}
\label{fig:real_TCL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=42pc]{fig_paper_002franc_042dip_vert2-cooperative-Mauro3.eps}
\caption{Experimental validation of the hybrid observer with a real water heater. Top: evolution of the discrete state of the observer and the TCL heating element and SPS state during the execution of the TCL cooperation protocol. Bottom: evolution of estimated virtual temperature.}
\label{fig:real_TCL2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Mixed Logic Dynamical modeling of TCL-plus-SPS agents}\label{subsect:mld}
{To enable the cooperative optimization among networked TCL-plus-SPS agents,
we model the local hybrid dynamic \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}-\eqref{eqn:u_hyst} as a Mixed Logic Dynamical (MLD) system, see \cite{bemporad1999control} for an overview on the modelling methodology.
Briefly, MLD exploits propositional calculus to identify a set of linear integer constraints that characterize the dynamical behavior of a hybrid system and enables the implementation of model predictive control by linear programming.
We now translate the operative constraints \eqref{eqn:dyn_TCL}-\eqref{eqn:u_hyst} of the generic agent $i$ at time $t_k$, into a set of mixed integer linear constraints denoted as $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$.
A model of the normalized virtual temperature ${y^i(t_k)\in[0,1]}$, as defined in Section~\ref{subsubsect:Sys_Id}, is exploited instead of the physical temperature $T^i(t_k)\in[T_{\infty}^i, T_{\mathrm{max}}]$ because the considered SPS can measure only the electric power absorbed by the TCL while its internal temperature can not be measured.
However, it is worth to remark that if $T^i(t_k)$ were available, then the following MLD characterization of the TCL-plus-SPS system would still hold without changes, by simply considering $T^i(t_k)$ in place of $y^i(t_k)$.
Thus, let us consider the dynamics of the virtual temperature \eqref{eqn:dyn_y} of the $i$-th TCL, and let \mbox{$A_i= e^{-\alpha^i\Delta \tau}$} and \mbox{$B_i=\frac{\beta^i q^i}{\alpha^i}(1-e^{-\alpha^i\Delta \tau})$}.} Similarly, following the notation in \eqref{eqn:s_vector}, { let us further define}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:u_vector}
{\small
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)&=\left[u^i_{1}\cdots u_\ell^i\cdots u_L^i\right]^\intercal \\
&=\left[u^i(t_{k+1}) \cdots u^i(t_{k+\ell}) \cdots u^i(t_{k+L})\right]^\intercal,\\
\end{array}
}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:s_vector}
{\small
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{y}^i(t_k)&=\left[y^i_{1}\cdots y_\ell^i\cdots y_L^i\right]^\intercal \\
&=\left[y^i(t_{k+1})\cdots y^i(t_{k+\ell}) \cdots y^i(t_{k+L})\right]^\intercal,
\end{array}
}
\end{equation}
whose entries denote the control input and the virtual temperature over the prediction horizon from time $t_{k+1}$ to $t_{k+L}$.
From \eqref{eqn:dyn_y} it yields $y^i_1={A}_i y^i(t_k)+{B}_i u^i(t_k)$, thus the predicted profile of the virtual temperature from time $t_{k+2}$ to time $t_{k+L}$, evaluated at time $t_k$ as function of $\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)$, is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:y_update_big}
\renewcommand*{\arraycolsep}{1pt}
\small
{
\begin{bmatrix} \small
y_{2}^i \\
y_{3}^i\\
\vdots \\
y_{L}^i
\end{bmatrix}
}
=
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix} \small
{B}_i & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
{A}_i{B}_i & {B}_i & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & & \ddots\\
{A}^{L-{ 2}}_i{B}_i & {A}^{L-{3}}_i{B}_i & \cdots & {B}_i
\end{bmatrix}
}_{ \mathbf{F}^i}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix} \small
u_{1}^i \\
u_{2}^i\\
\vdots \\
u_{L}^i
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)}
+\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix} \small
{A}_i \\
{A}^{2}_i\\
\vdots \\
{A}^{L{ -1}}_i
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\mathbf{G}^i} {\small y^{i}_1}.
\end{equation}
For completeness sake, by noting that $y^i_{1}$ is fully determined by $u^i(t_k)$ and $y^i(t_k)$ which are not decision variables in the interval $\left[t_k,t_k+\Delta \tau\right)$, according to \eqref{eqn:y_update_big}, it holds
{
\begin{equation}\small
\mathbf{y}^i(t_k)=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \bm{0}\\
\bm{0} & \mathbf{F}^i
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)
\end{bmatrix}+
\begin{bmatrix}
1\\
\mathbf{G}^i
\end{bmatrix}({B}_i u^i(t_k)+ {A}_i y^i(t_k)).
\label{eq:y_vector_set}
\end{equation}}
Let us now discuss how to model the hybrid behaviour of the TCL-plus-SPS system \eqref{eqn:ui}-\eqref{eqn:u_hyst} into a set of linear integer constraints. First, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:f_g}\small
\begin{aligned}
g_{\ell}^i &\triangleq y_{\ell}^i - y_{\min}^i,\\
f_{\ell}^i &\triangleq y_{\ell}^i - y_{\max}^i.\\
\end{aligned
\end{equation}
Clearly, $g_{\ell}^i\geq 0$ implies $y_{\ell}^i\geq y_{\min}^i$ and $f_{\ell}^i\geq 0$ implies $y_{\ell}^i\geq y_{\max}^i$. Let us define the logical \emph{connectives} ``$\wedge$'' (and), ``$\vee$'' (or), ``$\sim$'' (not), $\rightarrow$ (implies) and $\leftrightarrow$ (if and only if).
We associate two dummy binary variables $\delta_{1,\ell}^i$, $\delta_{2,\ell}^i \in\left\{0,1\right\}$ for each $\ell$, to the next inequalities
\begin{gather}
\small
[\delta^i_{1,\ell}=1] \leftrightarrow [g^i_{\ell}\leq 0], \label{eqn:delta1}\\
\small[\delta^i_{2,\ell}=1] \leftrightarrow [f_{\ell}^i \leq 0].
\label{eqn:delta2}
\end{gather}
If, for instance, $y_{\ell}^i\in \left(y^i_{min},y^i_{max}\right]$ then $\delta^i_{1,\ell}=0$ and $\delta_{2,\ell}^i=1$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{.8}{
\begin{karnaugh-map}[4][4][1][\large $s_{\ell}^i,u_{\ell-1}^i$][\large $\delta^i_{1,\ell-1},\delta^i_{2,\ell-1}$]
\manualterms{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1}
\implicant{0}{9}
\implicantedge{0}{4}{2}{6}
\implicant{0}{2}
\implicant{7}{15}
\implicant{15}{10}
\end{karnaugh-map}}
\caption{Karnaugh map of $u_{\ell}^i$ as function of $u_{\ell-1}^i$, $s_{\ell}^i$, $\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}$ and $\delta^i_{2,\ell-1}$. }\label{fig:map_table}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:map_table} we compute the Karnaugh map of the boolean variable $u^i_{\ell}$ based on the control logic \eqref{eqn:ui}-\eqref{eqn:u_hyst}, and the values of $u_{\ell-1}^i$ , $s^i_{\ell}$ and $\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}$, $\delta^i_{2,\ell-1}$. Notice that the knowledge of $y^i_{\ell}$, in accordance with \eqref{eqn:delta1}-\eqref{eqn:delta2}, provides an unique correspondence to $\delta^i_{1,\ell}$ and $\delta^i_{2,\ell}$. For the sake of clarity, we write the equivalent logical statements associated with Figure~\ref{fig:map_table}, as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\small [s^i_{\ell}=0] \rightarrow [u^i_{\ell}=0] , \label{eqn:constraint_1}}\\
{\small [\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=0] \wedge [u^i_{\ell-1}=0] \rightarrow [u^i_{\ell}=0],\label{eqn:constraint_2}}\\
{\small [\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=0] \wedge [\delta^i_{2,\ell-1}=0] \rightarrow [u^i_{\ell}=0],\label{eqn:constraint_3}}\\
{\small [s^i_{\ell}=1] \wedge [u^i_{\ell-1}=1] \wedge [\delta^i_{2,\ell-1}=1] \rightarrow [u^i_{\ell}=1],
\label{eqn:constraint_4}}\\
{\small [s^i_{\ell}=1] \wedge [\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=1] \rightarrow [u^i_{\ell}=1].\label{eqn:constraint_5}}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, \eqref{eqn:constraint_1} is derived from \eqref{eqn:ui}, and it states that $s^i_{\ell}=0$ implies $u^i_{\ell}=0$, but not viceversa. This implication is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:map_table}, associated to the $\mathrm{4\times 2}$ implicant highlighted in red. Statement \eqref{eqn:constraint_2} is derived from \eqref{eqn:u_hyst}, it states that $u^i_{\ell}=0$ if $u^i_{\ell-1}=0$, and $y_{\ell-1}^i>y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ (thus $\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=0$);
in Figure~\ref{fig:map_table}, \eqref{eqn:constraint_2} is associated to the quadratic green implicant. Similarly, \eqref{eqn:constraint_3} states that $u^i_{\ell}=0$ if $y^i_{\ell-1}>y^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ (thus $\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=\delta_{2,\ell-1}^i=0$); in Figure~\ref{fig:map_table}, \eqref{eqn:constraint_3} is associated to the $\mathrm{1\times 4}$ implicant highlighted in yellow. Finally the statements \eqref{eqn:constraint_4} and \eqref{eqn:constraint_5} are associated to, resp., the $\mathrm{2\times 1}$ cyan and $\mathrm{2\times 2}$ violet implications. In particular, they state that $u^i_{\ell}=1$ if $s^i_{\ell}=1$, $u^i_{\ell-1}=1$ (thus $h_{\ell-1}^i(t_k)=1$, i.e., the heating is ON)), $y^i_{\ell-1}\leq y^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ (thus $\delta_{2,\ell}^i(t_k)=1$), or resp., $s^i_{\ell}=1$ and $y^i_{\ell-1}<y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ (thus $\delta_{1,\ell-1}^i=1$)).
Although \eqref{eqn:constraint_4} and \eqref{eqn:constraint_5} require the TCL to be ON, $u^i_{\ell}=1$, whenever $y^i_{\ell-1}<y^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ (thus $\delta_{1,\ell-1}^i=1$), we have to include a further constraint to force the SPS to be ON, $s^i_{\ell}=1$, and thus allow the TCL to switch ON whenever necessary, as follows
\begin{align}\small
[\delta^i_{1,\ell-1}=1] \rightarrow [s^i_{\ell}=1].
\label{eqn:constraint_6}
\end{align}
Let us now translate \eqref{eqn:delta1}-\eqref{eqn:constraint_6} to a set of mixed-integer linear inequalities, according to the MLD paradigm, which can be solved by Mixed-Integer linear Programming. Firstly, note that the virtual temperature vector $\mathbf{y}^i(t_k)$ is bounded element-wise, thus \eqref{eqn:f_g} admits minimum and maximum points defined as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:max_min_f_g}\small
\begin{array}{c}
m_{f}^i = \min\limits_{\ell=1,\ldots,L}\;f_{\ell}^i, \quad\quad m_{g}^i = \min\limits_{\ell=1,\ldots,L}\;g_{\ell}^i,\\
M_{f}^i = \max\limits_{\ell=1,\ldots,L}\;f_{\ell}^i, \quad\quad M_{g}^i = \max\limits_{\ell=1,\ldots,L}\;g_{\ell}^i.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, by invoking \cite[\mbox{Properties (2d) and (4e)}]{bemporad1999control}, the logical implications in \eqref{eqn:delta1}-\eqref{eqn:constraint_6} can be formulated as the next set of linear mixed inequalities for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$
\begin{align}\label{eqn:X_relay:eq1_X1}
\eqref{eqn:delta1}~\equiv~&{\small \left\lbrace\begin{array}{rcl}
g^i_{\ell}&\leq& M_g^i\cdot(1-\delta_{1,\ell}^i) \\
g^i_{\ell}&\geq& m_g^i\cdot \delta_{1,\ell}^i
\end{array}\right.}\\
\label{eqn:X_relay:eq3_X1}
\eqref{eqn:delta2}~\equiv~&{\small\left\lbrace\begin{array}{rcl}
f^i_{\ell}&\leq& M_f^i\cdot(1-\delta_{2,\ell})\\
f^i_{\ell}&\geq& m_f^i\cdot \delta_{2,\ell}\\
\end{array}\right.}\\
\label{eq19}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_1}~\equiv~&{\small s^i_{\ell}} \geq u^i_{\ell}\\
\label{eq21}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_2}~\equiv~&{\small u^i_{\ell}\geq \delta_{1,\ell-1}+u^i_{\ell-1}}\\
\label{eq20}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_3}~\equiv~&{\small u^i_{\ell}\geq \delta_{1,\ell-1}+\delta_{2,\ell-1}}\\
\label{eq17}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_4}~\equiv~&{\small u^i_{\ell}\geq s^i_{\ell}+u^i_{\ell-1}+\delta_{2,\ell-1}-2}\\
\label{eq18}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_5}~\equiv~&{\small u^i_{\ell}\geq s^i_{\ell}+\delta_{1,\ell-1}-1}\\
\label{eq22}
\eqref{eqn:constraint_6}~\equiv~&{\small s^i_{\ell}\geq \delta_{1,\ell-1}}.
\end{align}
Now, experimental tests have shown that the performance of the proposed hybrid observer is greater if the SPS is ON most of the time. Thus, we introduce a constraint which forces the SPS to be ON for at least a minimum fraction $S^i_{\mathrm{\%,on}}$, of the receding horizon time-window $\tau(t_k)$. In particular, let $S^i_{\mathrm{\%,on}}=\frac{r}{L}$ where $r\in \left[1,L\right]$ is an integer, then
\begin{equation}
\small
\sum_{\ell=1}^L s^i_{\ell}\geq L \cdot {S}^i_{\mathrm{\%,on}}
\label{eqn:s_limit_off}
\end{equation}
Thanks to \eqref{eqn:s_limit_off}, the number of occurrences of synchronization events $\mathrm{E_{on}}$ and $\mathrm{E_{off}}$ in the hybrid observer during the experiments has been greater and thus its corresponding estimation is reliable more often, improving the performance of the overall control architecture.
Finally, by combining \eqref{eqn:y_update_big}, and \eqref{eqn:X_relay:eq1_X1}-\eqref{eqn:s_limit_off} with $\ell=1,\ldots,L$, we get the set of local MLD constraints $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$ associated to each agent $i$ in the DSM optimization problem of the functional \eqref{eqn:globalObjective}.
\begin{definition}[Local constraint set $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$] \label{constraintDefinition}
The SPS control action by each agent $i$ is constrained by a set of linear mixed inequalities denoted as $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$, which includes inequalities from \eqref{eqn:X_relay:eq1_X1} to \eqref{eqn:s_limit_off} and the equality \eqref{eqn:y_update_big}
with the addition of $\mathbf{s}^{i}_{\ell}, \mathbf{u}^{i}_{\ell}, \mathbf{\delta}_{1,\ell}^{i}, \mathbf{\delta}_{2,\ell}^{i} \in \left\{0,1\right\}$ and $y^i_{\ell}\in \mathbb{R}^+$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{definition}
\medskip
Note that set $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$ consists of $11\cdot L+1$ linear inequalities and $5L$ variables but
only the $L$ elements of vector $\mathbf{s}^{i}(t_k)$ correspond to actual decision variables. Indeed, if the SPS control actions $\mathbf{s}^{i}(t_k)$ as defined in \eqref{eqn:s_vector} are given, all other variables are uniquely defined by~$\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$.
\subsection{Protocols for Dynamic Average Consensus}\label{subsect:dyn_consensus}
One of the key ideas of the proposed architecture is to exploit local interaction protocols for dynamic average consensus to enable each agent to estimate online the profile of the time-varying future planned global average power consumption $P_\ell$ in \eqref{eqn:Pell} of the TCLs. The estimation computed at time $t_k$ of the average power consumption at time $t_{k+\ell}=t_{k}+\ell \Delta \tau$, is
\begin{equation}\small
\bar{P}_{\ell}(t_k)=\frac{1}{n}\cdot P_\ell(t_k)
=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} p^i_\ell(t_k)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}}\mathrm{p}^i\cdot u^i_{\ell},~\ell=1,\dots,n,
\label{eqn:Pell_bar}
\end{equation}
where $p^i_\ell(t_k)=\mathrm{p}^i\cdot{u}_{\ell}^i(t_k)$ is the power consumption plan of the $i$-th agent, available at time $t_k$.
In the reminder ${p}^i_\ell(t_k)$ is considered as the local time-varying reference input of each agent that executes the dynamic consensus algorithm.
In particular, let $\bar{P}^i_\ell(t_k)$ be the estimation computed at time $t_k$ of the average power consumption $\bar{P}_\ell$ \eqref{eqn:Pell_bar} at time $t_{k+\ell}=t_{k}+\ell \Delta \tau$. To estimate the power consumption profile in the receding horizon window $\tau(t_k)$ we use $L$ instances of the dynamic average consensus algorithm, one for each $t_{k+\ell}$. Due to space limitations, we do not discuss here the details of dynamic consensus algorithms. The reader is referred to \cite{SolmazTutorial} for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The local interaction protocol of a dynamic consensus algorithm can stated as
\begin{equation}\small
\bar{P}^i_{\ell}(t+dt)=\mathrm{D\_Consensus\_Update}(\bar{P}^j_{\ell}(t)|_{j\in\mathbfcal{N}^i},\bar{P}^i_{\ell}(t),p^i_\ell(t_k)).
\label{eqn:dyn_consensus}
\end{equation}
where ${dt}$ is time required to execute one iteration of the dynamic consensus protocol \eqref{eqn:dyn_consensus} according to the capabilities of the network. Local auxiliary variables of dynamic consensus algorithms are omitted here. Each agent updates its local estimation $\bar{P}^i_\ell$ through local interactions among its neighborhood $\mathbfcal{N}^i$, by exchanging their local estimation $\bar{P}^j_\ell$. Thus, preserving the agents' privacy since their own schedule plans $p^j_\ell(t_k)$ are note delivered to others. Due to the space limitation, details and notation of dynamic consensus algorithms are omitted.
We point out that among the many dynamic consensus algorithms available in the literature, see e.g. \cite{spanos2005dynamic}-\cite{Franceschelli201969,Montijano20143131,Freeman2015},
for we decided to adopt the solution proposed in \cite{Franceschelli201969} for the following main reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item it can be easily tuned to achieve a desired trade-off between steady error and maximum tracking error;
\item it is robust to re-initialization due to changes in the network topology or size;
\item it can be implemented with randomized asynchronous state updates, thus it is resilient against communication failures or agent logout during the algorithm execution.
\end{itemize}
At this point, we recall that the performances of a dynamic consensus algorithm can be evaluated in terms of: a) the maximum tracking error of the estimated average of the time-varying reference signals
\begin{equation}\small
e_{\mathrm{track}}(t)=\max_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} \left|\bar{P}^i_{\ell}(t)-\bar{P}_{\ell}(t)\right|=\max_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}}|\xi^i_{\ell}|,
\label{eqn:e_tracking}
\end{equation}
b) the steady-state error for constant references
\begin{equation}\small
e_{\mathrm{steady}}=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \max_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} \left|\bar{P}^i_{\ell}(t)-\bar{P}_{\ell}\right|,
\label{eqn:e_steady}
\end{equation}
and c) the convergence rate, which dictates how many iterations of the local state updates are required to achieve the steady-state error performance. Since in the proposed application the timescale $d t$ of the iterations of the dynamic consensus is in the range of the milliseconds, the timescale $\Delta t$ of the asychronous local optimizations executed by the SPS is in the range of the seconds, and a time-slot $\Delta \tau $ in the receding-horizon time window is in the range of minutes, most dynamic consensus algorithm in the literature are able to achieve their steady-state performance for all practical purposes.
In our framework, to comply with typical assumptions of the dynamic consensus literature, we assume the connectedness of graph $\mathbfcal{G}$. Furthermore we assume that the maximum tracking error $\max_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}}|\xi^i_{\ell}|\leq \xi$ is bounded at all times.
\section{TCL Cooperation Control Protocol}\label{subsect:heuristic}
{
We now present the TCL Cooperation Control Protocol, detailed in Algorithm \ref{mainalgo}, which enables cooperation among the TCL by minimizing the global objective function \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} under the integer linear local constraints $\chi^i(t_k)$ derived in subsection~\ref{subsect:mld}. These constraints uniquely determine $u^i_{\ell}$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$ as function of the only decision variable, i.e., the SPS state $s^i_{\ell}$, based on the current estimation of the virtual temperature $y^i_{\ell}$ obtained by the local observer, the current ON/OFF discrete state of the TCL, the system parameters identified in subsection \ref{subsubsect:Sys_Id}, the MLD modeling of the TCL plus SPS hybrid system and the average TCL power consumption profile of the network predicted via dynamic consensus. The considered global objective function is thus
\begin{equation}\label{globalObjective}
\min_{s^i\in \chi^i(t_k), i \in \mathbfcal{V}} J(t_k)
=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} \mathrm{p}_i \cdot u^i_{\ell}(t_k)\right)^2.
\end{equation}
}
\begin{algorithm}[ht!]
\begin{algorithmic}[0]\small
\Statex \textbf{ Algorithm's Parameters}:
{ $dt$: Maximum execution time of a dynamic consensus update;}
{ $\Delta t$: Maximum execution time of the local optimization;}
{ $\Delta \tau$: Time length of an optimization time-slot};
{$L$: Number of time slots of the time window horizon;}
{$\tau(t_k)=L\cdot \Delta \tau$: Optimization's receding horizon time window;}
$\xi$: maximum tracking error of dynamic consensus algorithm;
$\epsilon$: small positive constant;
$\mu_i$: probability of execution of a local optimization;
\Statex \textbf{ Algorithm Inputs}:
{ $y^i(t_k)$: Estimated virtual temperature;}
{ $\mathrm{Obs\_State}(t_k)=\lbrace{\mathrm{UR}, \mathrm{RE}}\rbrace$: Observer discrete state;}
\Statex \textbf{Algorithm Outputs}:
{ $\mathbf{s}^i(t_k)=[s_1^i\cdots s_L^i]^\intercal\in\lbrace 0,1 \rbrace^L$: Scheduling plan of SPS $i$;}
{ $\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)=[u_1^i \cdots u_L^i]^\intercal\in\lbrace 0,1 \rbrace^L$: Predicted scheduling of power consumption of TCL $i$;}
{ $\mathbf{p}^i(t_k)=\mathrm{p}^i\cdot\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)$: Expected power consumption of TCL $i$;}
\\
\Statex \textbf{Initialize counter}: $k=0$;
\Statex \textbf{Execute in parallel the next tasks:}
\\
\Statex $\bullet$ \textbf{Task a.} Every $dt$ seconds:
\Statex \quad $1.$ Gather $\bar{P}_{\ell}^j$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$, from neighbors $j \in \mathbfcal{N}^i(t_k)$;
\Statex \quad $2.$ Update state variables $\bar{P}_{\ell}^i$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$, according to the \textbf{dynamic consensus algorithm} in \eqref{eqn:dyn_consensus};
\\
\Statex $\bullet$ \textbf{Task b.} Every $\Delta t$ seconds:
\Statex \quad $1.$ Measure power consumption;
\Statex \quad $2.$ Update the state of the virtual temperature observer and collect the virtual temperature $y_i(t_k)$;
\Statex \quad $3.$ \textbf{If} $\mathrm{Obs\_State}(t_k)=\lbrace{\mathrm{RE}}\rbrace$, i.e., the local observer is in state "Reliable" \textbf{then}, with probability $\mu_i$ update the ON/OFF scheduling according to an approximate solution of the next problem by a time-constrained ($\Delta t$) heuristic:
\begin{equation}\small \label{localOptproblem}
[\mathbf{s}^{i,\star},\mathbf{u}^{i,\star}]=\mathop{\operatorname{argmin}}_{\mathbf{s}^i\in \mathcal{\chi}(t_k)} \quad J^{i}(t_k)= \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^L {P}_{\ell}^i p_i u^i_{\ell},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\small \label{localoptimalsol}
J^{i,\star}= \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^L {P}_{\ell}^i p_i u^{i,\star}_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
\Statex \quad \quad \textbf{If} a solution $[\mathbf{s}^{i,\star},\mathbf{u}^{i,\star}]$ is found within $\Delta t$ seconds and
\begin{equation}\tiny
|J^{i}(t_k)-J^{i,\star}|=\gamma_i \geq \frac{\xi p_i}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} | u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^{i}_{\ell}|+\varepsilon,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\Statex \quad \quad \textbf{then} set $\mathbf{s}^i(t_k):=\mathbf{s}^{i,\star}$, $\mathbf{u}^{i}(t_k):=\mathbf{u}^{i,\star}$
\Statex \quad \quad \textbf{endif}
\Statex \quad \textbf{else} $\mathbf{s}^i(t_k):=\mathbf{s}^i(t_{k})$, $\mathbf{u}^{i}(t_k):=\mathbf{u}^{i}(t_k)$, i.e., do nothing.
\Statex \quad \textbf{Endif}
{ \Statex $\bullet$ \textbf{Task c.} Every $\Delta \tau$ seconds:}
{ \Statex \quad $1.$ Set the current SPS state equal to: $$\small s^i(t_{k+1}):=s^i_{1}(t_k);$$}
{\Statex \quad $2.$ Shift the receding horizon time window by $\Delta \tau$:
$$\small\mathbf{u}^i(t_{k+1}):=\begin{bmatrix}u^i_{2}(t_k) & \cdots & u^i_\ell(t_k) & \cdots & u^i_{L-1}(t_k) & 1\end{bmatrix}^\intercal;$$}
{ \Statex \quad $3.$ Shift SPS scheduling by $\Delta \tau$:
$$\small\mathbf{s}^i(t_{k+1}):=\begin{bmatrix}s^i_{2}(t_k) & \cdots & s^i_\ell(t_k) & \cdots & s^i_{L-1}(t_k) & 1\end{bmatrix}^\intercal;$$}
\Statex Let $k:=k+1$
\Statex \textbf{Endif}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{TCL Cooperation Protocol}
\label{mainalgo}
\end{algorithm}
The ``TCL Cooperation Protocol'', consists of a local state update rule executed by each agent indefinitely. Each agent owns a local prediction of the future average TCL power consumption of the network over the horizon $\mathcal{\tau}(t_k)$. To update this prediction each agent executes the multi-stage dynamic consensus algorithm proposed in~\cite{FraGas2016,Franceschelli201969}. In particular, at each iteration each agent attempts to minimize, with probability $\mu$, a local objective function which consists in the agents ON/OFF SPS scheduling weighted by the predicted average TCL power consumption of the network over the receding horizon time-window, subject to the local MLD constraints $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$ illustrated in subsection~\ref{subsect:mld}.
Notice that, the local constraints of each agent $\mathcal{\chi}^i(t_k)$ are time-varying because they depend upon the current state of the TCL at the time the optimization takes place.
Although the optimization problem in \eqref{localOptproblem} is in general NP-hard, as it involves mixed integer linear programming, in our setting for each agent~$i$, the number of variables to be optimized is relatively small as only local constraints over a short time horizon $\mathcal{\tau}(t_k)$ are involved. For example, about $20$/$60$ steps into the future may account for $30$ minutes to two-three hours of operations, depending on the tuning of the algorithm. Thus, the complexity of the proposed method does not increase with the size of the network, but only with respect to the size of the time horizon $L$. This can be shown by noticing that the local optimization executed by each agent involves only its own state and its own prediction of the network average power consumption while cooperation with other agents is achieved only through the execution of the dynamic consensus protocol which is designed for large scale networks.
Furthermore, it should be noticed that approximate solutions to local optimization problems are sufficient to execute the heuristic. In particular, we exploit a standard branch and bound solver with a limited maximum execution time. Finally, if an approximate solution does not improve on the current scheduling of operation of the generic agent, it is simply discarded and the existing scheduling is kept out until a better one is found in future iterations. In section \ref{sect:simulation} we provide a detailed discussion of numerical simulations and experimental tests carried out for our case study.
\subsection{Convergence analysis}
Next, we prove that a feasible solution to the local optimization problem in \eqref{localOptproblem} always exists.
\begin{propo} [Local problem feasibility]
There exist at least one feasible solution to the local optimization Problem \eqref{localOptproblem} for all $t_k\geq 0$.
The solution is $s^i(t_{k+\ell})=1$, for $\ell=1,\ldots,L,$ which corresponds to an SPS always ON.
\end{propo}
\begin{proof}
We now show that by construction the list of constraints included in set $\chi^i(t_k)$ as in Definition \ref{constraintDefinition} is always satisfied by a solution with $s^i(t_{k+\ell})=1$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L,$.
First, the equality in constraint \eqref{eqn:y_update_big} represents the linear dynamics of the TCL virtual temperature, as such for any choice of control $\mathbf{u}^i(t_k)$ and initial virtual temperature $y^i_{1}$ the predicted virtual temperature vector $\mathbf{y}^i(t_k)$ exists and is uniquely defined.
Constraints \eqref{eqn:X_relay:eq1_X1} and \eqref{eqn:X_relay:eq3_X1} define the value of the boolean auxiliary variables $\delta^i_{1,\ell}$ and $\delta^i_{2,\ell}$ which represent the conditions $\delta^i_{1,\ell}=1 \leftrightarrow y^i_{\ell}\leq y^i_{min}$ and $\delta^i_{2,\ell}=1 \leftrightarrow y^i_{\ell}\leq y^i_{max}$. Therefore, given vector $\mathbf{y}^i(t_k)$ it follows that $\delta^i_{1,\ell}$ and $\delta^i_{2,\ell}$ are uniquely defined for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$.
Constraint \eqref{eq19} is trivially satisfied by $s^i_{\ell}=1$.
If we substitute for $s^i_{\ell}=1$ in constraints \eqref{eq21}, \eqref{eq20}, \eqref{eq17}, \eqref{eq18} and \eqref{eq22} we obtain the thermostatic control logic in \eqref{eqn:u_hyst} modeled via MLD, thus for all possible values of virtual temperature and TCL state there is a corresponding (always feasible) control input.
Finally, constraints \eqref{eq22} and \eqref{eqn:s_limit_off} are trivially satisfied by $s^i(t_{k+\ell})=1$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{proof}
Next, we present a characterization of the convergence properties of Algorithm \ref{mainalgo}, i.e., if at each iteration the dynamic consensus algorithm has bounded tracking error than the proposed TCL cooperation protocol optimizes online the global objective function \eqref{globalObjective}.
Let $J^+(t_k)$ be the value of the global objective $J(t_k)$ \eqref{globalObjective} after one agent updates its own local control action $\mathbf{s}^i(t_{k})$ during the execution of Task (b) of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:online_opt}[Online Optimization]
Consider a network of agents that executes Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}. If the dynamic consensus algorithm executed as part of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo} in Task (a) has maximum tracking error less than $\xi$ and it holds
$$\small
|J^{i}(t_k)-J^{i,\star}|=\gamma_i \geq \frac{\xi p_i}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} |u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^i_{\ell}|+\varepsilon,
$$
where $J^{i,\star}$ is the approximation of the optimal local solution computed by agent $i$ at step $3$ of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}, then the global objective value decreases and it holds
\begin{equation}\small
J^+(t_k) \leq J(t_k)-n\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon$ is a small positive constant and $n$ is the number of agents.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The global objective to be optimized online is
\begin{equation}\label{equazione01}\small
J(t_k)=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} p_i u^i_{\ell}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Now, the average power consumption estimated by each agent with the dynamic consensus algorithm has, in general, a time-varying estimation error $\xi^i_{\ell}$ with respect to the real average power consumption $\bar{P}_{\ell}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{equazione06}\small
\bar{P}_{\ell}=\frac{\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} p_i u^i_{\ell}}{n}=\bar{P}^i_{\ell}+\xi^i_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
Thus, we can rewrite \eqref{equazione01} as
\begin{equation}\label{equazione02}\small
\begin{array}{ll}
J(t_k)& =\frac{1}{L} \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\left(\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} p_i u^i_{\ell}\right) \left( \sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} p_i u^i_{\ell}\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{L} \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} n \bar{P}_{\ell} \left(\sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} p_i u^i_{\ell}\right)\\
& = \frac{1}{L} \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}}n \bar{P}_{\ell} p_i u^i_{\ell} \\
& = \displaystyle n \sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} \frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(\bar{P}^i_{\ell}+\xi^i_{\ell} \right) p_i u^i_{\ell}(t_k). \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Now, we first notice that
\begin{equation}\label{equazione03}\small
J(t_k)=\displaystyle n \sum_{i\in \mathbfcal{V}} J^i(t_{k}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{equazione04}\small
J^i(t_{k})=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \left(\bar{P}^i_{\ell}+\xi^i_{\ell} \right) \mathrm{p}_i u^i_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, if exact knowledge of $\bar{P}_{\ell}=\bar{P}^i_{\ell}+\xi^i_{\ell}$ were available to each agent, we could guarantee the optimization of the global objective function over the non-convex set of constraints (up to a local minimum) by updating the local ON/OFF scheduling as
\begin{equation}\small
[\mathbf{s}^{i,\star},\mathbf{u}^{i,\star}]=\mathop{\operatorname{argmin}}_{\mathbf{s}^i\in \mathcal{\chi}(t_k)}\quad \displaystyle \frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^L \bar{P}_{\ell} \mathrm{p}^i u^i_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
Instead, since the agents do not have access to global information regarding the network, i.e., they do not have access to the updated values of $\bar{P}_{\ell}$ during the iterations, an estimation of $\bar{P}_{\ell}$ is employed.
Since we consider a dynamic consensus process which has bounded tracking error less than $\xi$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{equazione7}\small
\max_{i\in\mathbfcal{V}} |\bar{P}^i_{\ell}-\bar{P}_\ell|\leq \xi, \quad \forall i\in \mathbfcal{V}, \quad \ell=1,\ldots,L.
\end{equation}
During the execution of task (b) of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}, each agent optimizes its local objective function based on its local estimation of the predicted average power consumption in the network $\bar{P}^i_{\ell}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{equazione10}\small
\tilde{J}^i(t_k)=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \bar{P}^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}^i u^i_{\ell}=J^i(t_k)+\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \xi^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}^i u^i_{\ell}.
\end{equation}
Thus, let
\begin{equation}\small
[\mathbf{s}^{i,\star},\mathbf{u}^{i,\star}]=\mathop{\operatorname{argmin}}_{\mathbf{s}^i\in \mathcal{\chi}_i(t_k)} \tilde{J}^i(t_k)=\mathop{\operatorname{argmin}}_{\mathbf{s}^i\in \mathcal{\chi}_i(t_k)} \displaystyle \frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^L \bar{P}_{\ell}^i \mathrm{p}^i u^i_{\ell},
\end{equation}
and
$$
\tilde{J}^{i,\star}=\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \bar{P}^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}^i u^{i,\star}_{\ell}.
$$
Let us now denote with $\gamma_i$ the computed decrement of the local objective function affected by estimation errors
\begin{equation}\label{equazione05}\small
\tilde{J}^{i,\star}-\tilde{J}^i(t_k)= -\gamma_i.
\end{equation}
We now compute a sufficient value of $\gamma_i$ which guarantees the optimization of the global objective function despite persistent estimation errors.
An actual decremet of the local objective function after one agent executes task (b) of Algorithm \ref{mainalgo} is obtained if
\begin{equation}\label{decrement}
J^{i,\star}(t_k)-J^i(t_k)< -\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
By rewriting \eqref{equazione05} and substituting $\tilde{J}^i(t_k)$ by exploiting \eqref{equazione10}, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{decrement2}
J^{i,\star}(t_k)-J^i(t_k)
= -\gamma_i+\frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \xi^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}_i (u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^i_{\ell}).
\end{equation}
Then, by putting together the inequalities in~\eqref{decrement} and in~\eqref{decrement2}, it follows that to ensure~\eqref{decrement}, it suffices that
\begin{equation}
- \gamma_i + \frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \xi^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}_i (u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^i_{\ell}) < -\varepsilon
\end{equation}
Thus, a decrement occurs if
\begin{equation}\label{decrement3}
\gamma_i > \frac{1}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \xi^i_{\ell} \mathrm{p}_i (u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^i_{\ell}) +\varepsilon
\end{equation}
By considering an upper bound to the estimation error $\xi^i_{\ell}$ by exploiting \eqref{equazione7}, it holds $|\xi^i_{\ell}|\leq \xi$ for all $\ell=1,\ldots,L$, and for all $i\in \mathbfcal{V}$. Thus, we can rewrite \eqref{decrement3} as the next inequality
\begin{equation} \label{equazione16}\small
\gamma_i>\frac{\xi \mathrm{p}_i}{L} \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} |u^{i,\star}_{\ell}-u^i_{\ell}|+\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Therefore, if \eqref{equazione16} holds, the value of the global objective function $J^+(t_k)$ after one agent executes task (b) is
\begin{equation}\small
\begin{array}{ll}
J^{+}(t_k)&= \displaystyle n \left(\left(\sum_{j\in \mathbfcal{V}\setminus{i} } J^j(t_{k})\right)+J^{i,\star}\right)\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and decreases, with respect to its value before the local update, by at least
\begin{equation}\label{equazione18}\small
\begin{array}{ll}
J^{+}(t_k)&< \displaystyle n \left(\left(\sum_{j\in \mathbfcal{V}\setminus{i} } J^j(t_{k})\right)+J^i(t_k)-\varepsilon\right)\\
& =J(t_k)-n\varepsilon
\end{array}
\end{equation}
thus proving the statement of this theorem. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\section{Description of the testbed and experimental validation}\label{sect:simulation}
Here, we firstly describe the low-cost experimental test-bed
developed to validate the proposed multi-agent DSM control architecture. Then, we propose an experimental validation of the proposed method involving domestic TCL appliances such as water heaters and radiators located in private homes of a set of volunteers participating in the pilot. Furthermore, to validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework on a larger scale while keeping the experimental complexity manageable, we also decided to introduce in the network of cooperating devices some virtual TCLs, i.e., TCLs that are numerically simulated. \\
\subsection{Description of the CoNetDomeSys experimental testbed}
A significant contribution presented in this paper is the "CoNetDomeSys" testbed, short for ``Cooperative Network of Domestic Systems'', a low cost IoT-oriented experimental demonstrator for fast prototyping and testing of DSM algorithms on large populations of domestic appliances controlled and monitored by smart power sockets.
The testbed is designed around off-the-shelf low-cost hardware components. In particular, the core component of the testbed is the WeMo$^\circledR$ Insight Switch \cite{wemo} smart power socket. The choice of this particular SPS was dictated by availability of Open-APIs to integrate purpose-built software, thus enabling remote monitoring and control. A WeMo$^\circledR$ Insight Switch is provided with
\begin{itemize}
\item a power consumption sensing unit with a resolution of $1\mathrm{mW}$ and tested maximum sampling frequency of $1\mathrm{Hz}$;
\item a switch to remotely power ON and OFF the appliance plugged in;
\item a microcontroller and WiFi communication capability.
\end{itemize}
A number of SPS were delivered to voluteers in the city of Cagliari who agreed to participate to the experimental validation of the proposed architecture. In each domestic environment a Raspberry Pi Zero W \cite{raspPi0w} was installed, connected to the same WiFi LAN of the SPS. Each SPS has been connected to a domestic TCL.
The software developed for our testbed consists in two Java\texttrademark applications: one installed in each Raspberry Pi Zero W, that implements a client-server communication and control infrastructure over the Telnet protocol for domestic appliances; and one installed in a workstation.
The application running on the Raspberries manages the local monitoring and control of each SPS, i.e., the power absorbed by the load $p^i(t_k)$ with an associated time-stamp and the discrete state of the SPS $s^i(t_k)$. Furthermore, it forwards measurements and receives control commands from a workstation with public IP address.
The application running on the workstation collects data from the large population of SPSs, manages a database and sends actuation commands. A Matlab interfaces has been integrated with the software for the fast prototyping of distributed coordination algorithms. To each agent is associated a real SPS, tested communication delays are below $1$ sec.
A network topology is assigned to the agents and each can only share information anonymously with its neighbors. The topology and size of the network is unknown to the agents.
The workstation used for the experimental validation of our approach is a Dell Precision t5810 workstation equipped with an Intel$^\circledR$ Xeon$^\circledR$ E5-1620 v3 (10M Cache, 3.50 GHz), 64GB of RAM, Windows 10 Pro.
The processing carried out by the testbed is centralized and takes place in a single workstation. Therefore, the testbed validates experimentaly the sensing and actuation of the SPS and TCLs while to enable fast algorithm protoyping and testing in the MATLAB$^\circledR$ environment the processing and communications among agents are simulated via software.
Technical details concerning the hardware and software architecture for implementing the proposed multi-agent control architecture on SPSs can be found in a patent filed to the Italian Patent and Trademark Office \cite{patentCoNetDomesys}.
\subsection{Parameters and setting of the experimental scenario}
\begin{table}[!tbp]
\caption{Test parameters}
\label{tab:TCLparam}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\toprule
$\#$ &\textbf{TCL} & $\alpha^i~\mathrm{[s^{-1}]}$ & $\beta^i\cdot q^i/\alpha^i~\mathrm{[-]}$ & $\mathrm{p}^i~\mathrm{[kW]}$\\
\midrule
$12$ & Water Heater & $\left(0.3\div5.3\right)\times10^{-4}$ & $6.17\div48.25$& $1.2\div1.5$\\
\midrule
$3$ & Radiator & $\left(1.5\div3.5\right)\times10^{-3}$ & $1.6\div5.5$& $1.2,2.0$\\
\midrule
$85$ & Simulated TCL& $\left(1.3\div2.4\right)\times10^{-4}$ & $21\div25$& $1.0\div2.0$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
{To validate the proposed approach on the CoNetDomeSys testbed a small scale scenario involving domestic TCL appliances located in a set of private homes of volunteers has been considered. To limit the number of volunteers required to carry out the test and execute the TCL cooperation protocol on a network of at least $100$ agents we also considered a set of numerically simulated TCLs and SPS. In particular, in the present scenario we had access to 12 electric water heaters and 3 electric radiators in $10$ different locations in the city of Cagliari, Italy.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9pc]{scaldabagno_1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8.87pc]{socket_pi0_1.eps}
\caption{Left: An electric water heater plugged into a smart power socket. Right: A Raspberry Pi Zero W and a WeMo$^\circledR$ Insight Switch.
}
\label{fig:testbed}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{figuraTestbed21.eps}
\caption{Example of physical/communication topology of the CoNetDomeSys Testbed.}
\label{fig:testbed}
\end{figure}
We introduced $85$ numerically simulated SPS and TCLs with parameters identified from other real TCLs involved in the experiment, thus yielding a total population of \mbox{$n=100$} agents.
On the left side of Figure~\ref{fig:testbed} one of the electric water heater under test and Raspberry Pi Zero W and a WeMo$^\circledR$ Insight Switch are shown.} The parameters of each TCL were identified with the method described in subsection \ref{subsubsect:Sys_Id} and by choosing parameter ``$y^i_{\mathrm{min}}=0.5$'' for all agents.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{fig_desincronizzazione3-mauro2.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the power consumption of $8$ simulated TCLs in autonomous operation (autonomous case) and when executing the TCL cooperation protocol (cooperative case). The power consumption of each TCL is detailed with a different color.}
\label{fig:de-synchronization}
\end{figure}
In our scenario we considered a peer-to-peer network topology represented by a random undirected Erd\"os-R\'enyi graph $\mathbfcal{G}(\mathbfcal{V},\mathbfcal{E})$, with edge existence probability $3\log(n)/n$. Tests were carried out in real-time and in accordance with the notation in Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo} the time-related parameters were set as
\begin{itemize}
\item Dynamic consensus (task a): $dt=10\mathrm{msec}$;
\item Local optimization (task b): $\Delta t=1\mathrm{sec}$;
\item SPS actuation time slots (task c): $\Delta \tau=1\mathrm{min}$.
\end{itemize}
A receding horizon time window $\tau(t_k)$ of $40\mathrm{min}$ was chosen, thus $L=40$ time slots with length $\Delta \tau = 1 min$ each. The probability of executing the local optimization every $\Delta t$ on each device was set to $\mu^i=1/30$ for all agents.
The expected number of local optimization rounds (see \eqref{localOptproblem}) executed by each agent in one time-slot $\Delta \tau$, is $\frac{\mu^i\Delta \tau}{\Delta t}=2$. Local optimization problems were solved by the MATLAB$^\circledR$ Mixed Integer Linear Programming solver ({\tt intlinprog}) with time limit of $5$ sec. The solver uses a time-constrained ``Branch and Bound'', in our scenario the average execution time of each optimization was about $0.03\mathrm{sec}$, exact optimal solutions were found within the time limit in the large majority of cases.
It should be noticed that, according to the update rule given at step 3 of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}, only solutions which improve the current local objective function by a minimum amount are exploited to update the ON/OFF scheduling of the SPS. Indeed, this ensures that the online optimization of the global objective function is carried out despite estimation errors.
In our test with $100$ agents we considered a time span of $550\mathrm{min}$ ($\approx$~9 hours).
Numerically simulated TCLs and SPS were given random initial conditions with virtual temperature in the interval $[0.5,0.7]$. This ensured a scenario where about $\mathrm{90\%}$ of virtual TCLs would need to turn ON the heating within the first $25\mathrm{min}$ of the experimentation, thus leading to a scenario where the network of TCLs would tend to be synchronized and induce a significant peak of power consumption.
In Figure~\ref{fig:de-synchronization} the detail of the power consumption profile of $8$ simulated TCLs is shown. It can be seen that the discrete state of each TCL switches with increased frequency in the cooperative case.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{fig_desincronizzazione1-temp-mauro.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the power consumption of $100$ TCLs in autonomous operation (autonomous case) and when executing the TCL cooperation protocol (cooperative case) in the mixed scenario ($16$ real TCLs).}
\label{fig:de-synchronization1-mauro}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimental validation}\label{subsec:validation}
In Figure~\ref{fig:de-synchronization1-mauro} it is shown a comparison between the power consumption profile by the considered network of $100$ mixed TCLs ($15$ real and $85$ simulated TCLs) during autonomous operation (autonomous case) and when executing the TCL cooperation protocol (cooperative case). The numerically simulated TCLs have been set with the same initial conditions as for the autonomous case, the real TCL had different and arbitrary initial conditions.
It is evident that the cooperation among TCLs promotes the desynchronization of their power consumption, thus reducing peak power demand.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{cooperative_evolution_temperature2.eps}
\caption{Evolution of virtual temperature $y^i(t_k)$, SPS state $s^i(t_k)$, and TCL state $u^i(t_k)$ of one agent during the execution Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}.}
\label{fig:virtual_TCL}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:virtual_TCL} it is shown a detail of the evolution of the discrete state of the SPS and TCL with the corresponding virtual temperature for one agent that is executing the TCL cooperation protocol. It can be seen that the SPS is most often in the ON state, thus there is no significant issue with excessive power switching that might otherwise shorten the lifespan of the device. Furthermore, it can be noticed that to modulate the state of the TCL while cooperating with others, the average temperature of the TCL seldom reaches the upper limit $T^i_{max}$ of the desired temperature range, as opposed to the standard thermostat control logic which reaches $T^i_{max}$ during every ON/OFF cycle, thus realizing some limited energy savings as a by product.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{opt_cycle1-mauro.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the predicted average power consumption $\bar{P}^i_{\ell}$ by agent $i=1$, $\ell=1,\dots,40$, at time $t_1$ and time $t_1+\Delta \tau$.}
\label{fig:dyn_consensus}
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{opt_cycle5-mauro.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the predicted average power consumption $\bar{P}^i_{\ell}(t_k)$ by agent $i=1$, $\ell=1,\dots,40$, at time $t_5$ and time $t_5+\Delta \tau$. }
\label{fig:dyn_consensus2}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:dyn_consensus} it is shown a comparison between the predicted average power consumption $\bar{P}^i_\ell$ in \eqref{eqn:dyn_consensus} for $\ell=1,\dots,40$ estimated with the dynamic consensus algorithm by agent $1$ at two different instants of time, evaluated at $t_1=1\mathrm{min}$ and at $t_1+\Delta \tau=2\mathrm{min}$. The same comparison is also evaluated at $t_5=5\mathrm{min}$ and at $t_5+\Delta \tau=6\mathrm{min}$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dyn_consensus2}. It can be seen that major changes in the predicted power consumption by the network occur mostly during the transient behavior when the TCL cooperation protocol is initialized (Figure~\ref{fig:dyn_consensus}). After the time-window $\tau(t_k)$ recedes by a few time-slots, the network reaches a steady state (Figure~\ref{fig:dyn_consensus2}) where only small changes occur to the predicted average power consumption and therefore small changes are triggered to the ON/OFF schedules of the SPS by local optimizations.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{J_global_cost_decaying-Mauro-prova2.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the global objective function during the execution of the TCL cooperation protocol at different intervals of time $t_k$.}
\label{fig:J_global_cost_decaying}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{fig_energia_assorbita_kWh-Mauro-prova.eps}
\caption{
Comparison between the energy consumption profiles, integrated within a $150$ min time window, with the TCLs in autonomous operation and during the execution of the TCL cooperation protocol.}
\label{fig:energy_saving}
\end{figure}
The experimental test shows that even a few iterations of task (b) the TCL cooperation protocol are sufficient to significantly improve the global objective, i.e., reduce peak demand and load variations. Since the approach is real-time and based on feedback, errors due to local TCL parameter uncertainty and estimation errors are mitigated and averaged within the whole network, thus providing robustness.
Figure~\ref{fig:J_global_cost_decaying} is a validation of the result in Theorem~\ref{theo:online_opt}, it shows the executing of the TCL cooperation protocol with randomized local optimizations, i.e., task (b), provides a decrement on the global objective $J(t_k)$ \eqref{eqn:globalObjective} despite estimation errors and real dynamical evolution of the TCLs.
Finally, in Figure~\ref{fig:energy_saving} it is shown a comparison between the energy consumption profiles, integrated within a $150$ min time window, with the TCLs in autonomous operation and during the execution of the TCL cooperation protocol. It can be seen that as a by product of the proposed cooperation strategy, also total power consumption by the network is reduced, thus realizing energy savings. This occurs because the modulation of the ON/OFF state of the TCLs forces their temperature to be closer to the lower limit of the desired temperature range $[T^i_{min},T^i_{max}]$ thus reducing thermal losses with respect to the ambient temperature.{\hfill $\blacksquare$}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=22pc]{Power_Profile_with_VPL-Mauro-prova.eps}
\caption{Temporal behaviour of the actual absorbed power of the network of TCL-plus-SPS systems without (left) and with (right) the proposed DSMscheme, in the presence of a VPL agent.}
\label{fig:vpl_test}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimental validation with virtual load}\label{subsec:virtualload}
Finally, we provide an experimental validation of indirect shaping of the collective power consumption profile~\eqref{eqn:Total_Power} for DSM purposes. The method consists in introducing one agent, denoted as Virtual Power Load (VPL), which executes the TCL cooperation protocol with a pre-defined power consumption profile which is fictitious. Such pre-defined power consumption profile consists in the amout of power demad that we wish to reduce in a given interval of time. This VPL cooperates with other agents only via dynamic consensus, i.e., task $a$ of Algorithm~\ref{mainalgo}. In this experiment we consider the case where during daily peak demand in an urban environment we wish to reduce to zero the power consumption of the network of TCLs for $5$ minutes.
To do so we design the VPL power consumption profile as large
in the interval $t\in[30\div35]\mathrm{min}$, in particular equal to $100\mathrm{kW}$, and zero otherwise. The agent representing the VPL is connected to randomly and anonymously to other agents in the network.
The result of the test is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:vpl_test}. Since the VPL power consumption is greater than that of the network, by the online optimization of the proposed global objective function the emergent behavior of the TCL cooperation protocol shifts the power consumption of the real devices away from that of the VPL. We remark that this task is achieved without direct control of the load and preserving anonimity of the actual TCLs that shift their power consumption and while preserving the operating temperature range of each device, i.e., no disservice is caused to the users as a consequence of the DSM scheme.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we presented a multi-agent DSM control architecture for the coordination of anonymous networks of thermostatically controlled loads via smart power sockets able to measure power consumption. We proposed: i) a method for parameter identification of a power consumption model; ii) an observer for the local estimation of the internal state of each TCL; iii) an MLD model of the TCL-plus-SPS hybrid system which enables numerical optimization of control inputs and prediction of power consumption; iv) A distributed and randomized online optimization method which enables the SPSs to cooperate autonomously and anonymously to optimize a constrained global objective function to enable demand side management; v) a low cost experimental testbed based on off-the-shelf hardware an purpouse built software which we make available to the research community; vi) An experimental validation of the proposed method and architecture.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section*{\refname}} ho commentato questa riga nella revised version
\begin{document}
\title{Nearly-Linear Uncertainty Measures}
\author[1]{Chiara Corsato\thanks{<EMAIL>}}
\author[1]{Renato Pelessoni\thanks{<EMAIL>}}
\author[1]{Paolo Vicig\thanks{<EMAIL>}}
\affil[1]{DEAMS ``B. de Finetti''\\
University of Trieste\\
Piazzale Europa~1\\
I-34127 Trieste\\
Italy}
\renewcommand\Authands{ and }
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Several easy to understand and computationally tractable imprecise probability models, like the Pari-Mutuel model, are derived from a given probability measure $P_0$. In this paper we investigate a family of such models, called Nearly-Linear (NL). They generalise a number of well-known models, while preserving a simple mathematical structure. In fact, they are linear affine transformations of $P_0$ as long as the transformation returns a value in $[0,1]$. We study the properties of NL measures that are (at least) capacities, and show that they can be partitioned into three major subfamilies. We investigate their consistency, which ranges from 2-coherence, the minimal condition satisfied by all, to coherence,
and the kind of beliefs they can represent. There is a variety of different situations that NL models can incorporate, from generalisations of the Pari-Mutuel model, the $\varepsilon$-contamination model and other models to conflicting attitudes of an agent towards low/high $P_0$-probability events (both prudential and imprudent at the same time), or to symmetry judgments. The consistency properties vary with the beliefs represented, but not strictly: some conflicting and partly irrational moods may be compatible with coherence. In a final part, we compare NL models with their closest, but only partly overlapping, models, neo-additive capacities and probability intervals.
\smallskip
\noindent \textbf{Keywords.}
Nearly-Linear models,
Pari-Mutuel model,
2-coherent imprecise probabilities,
coherent imprecise probabilities,
probability intervals
\end{abstract}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
*NOTICE: This is the authors' version of a work that was accepted for publication in International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,
vol. 114, November~2019, pages 1–-28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2019.08.001 $\copyright$ Copyright Elsevier
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2019.08.001
\vspace{0.3cm}
$\copyright$ 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2cm]{cclogolarge.png}
\includegraphics[width=2cm]{byncndsmall3.png}
\end{center}
\section{Introduction}
A great number of different models is nowadays available to represent uncertainty and imprecision in real-world knowledge. They range from very general ones like lower and upper previsions to special cases like probability intervals, $p$-boxes, possibility/necessity measures, and others. When it is reasonable to adopt it, the advantage of a special model is that it is a simplified and easier to understand uncertainty representation.
In this paper, we introduce and investigate a family of such simplified models, to be called \emph{Nearly-Linear} (NL) models. Formally, NL models are \emph{neighbourhood models} (cf. \cite[Chapter 4.7]{book}), being obtained from a given probability measure $P_0$. The probability $P_0$ may represent an assessor's first approach evaluation, or a `true' probability that has to be modified for some reason. For instance, $P_0(A)$ is not a bookmaker's realistic selling price\footnote{When the bookmaker sells event $A$, s/he then pays to the buyer 1 if $A$ occurs, 0 otherwise.} for an event $A$: being a fair price, it does not ensure a positive gain in the long run, nor does it incorporate the bookmaker's costs and commissions. Thus, in the Pari-Mutuel model, a well-known neighbourhood model born in the world of horse betting \cite{MMD18,PVZ,W}, $P_0(A)$ is replaced by the upper probability $\overline P_{\rm PMM}(A)=\min\{(1+\delta)P_0(A),1\}$, $\delta>0$, as a more credible selling price for $A$. Note however that $\overline P_{\rm PMM}(A)\downarrow 0$ as $P_0(A)\downarrow 0$, which again might not correspond to reality: a bookie may stand some fixed cost $c>0$, irrespective of how unlikely $A$ is. If $(1+\delta)P_0(A)$ is smaller than $c$, after deducting all costs $c$ the bookmaker's net gain from selling $A$ for $\overline P_{\rm PMM}(A)$ is negative, no matter whether $A$ occurs or not. This problem is solved by the NL model, generalising the Pari-Mutuel model, studied in the later Section \ref{vertical}.
The idea behind the definition of NL models is rather simple: $\mu$ is a NL uncertainty measure if it is a linear affine transformation of $P_0$, as long as this makes sense, i.e., as long as $\mu\in[0,1]$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{mu_linear}
\mu(A)=bP_0(A)+a, \quad \text{if }bP_0(A)+a\in[0,1].
\end{equation}
The main goals of our investigation of the NL models are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] Determine the general properties of NL models and classify them into exhaustive families of submodels.
\item[$(b)$] Detect the consistency properties of each submodel.
\item[$(c)$] Establish which beliefs they may elicit.
\item[$(d)$] Compare the NL models with their closest uncertainty models.
\end{itemize}
In detail, after recalling some essential preliminary notions in Section \ref{section_prel}, item $(a)$ is tackled in Section \ref{NL_models}. After observing that requiring $b>0$ in \eqref{mu_linear} guarantees that $\mu$ (defined precisely by the later Equation \eqref{def_mu_NL}) is a capacity, we prove that NL models are closed with respect to conjugacy (Proposition \ref{conjugate}). Thus every NL model corresponds to a couple of conjugate capacities; by establishing a condition for a lower probability $\PPP$ in a NL model to be 2-coherent, Propositions \ref{prop_2coherence} and \ref{prop_sopra2coherence} let us interpret this couple as a lower and an upper probability. From these results, and taking the Pari-Mutuel model as a starting point, NL models can be partitioned into three submodels. The first, the Vertical Barrier Model (VBM) studied in Section \ref{vertical}, is always coherent and extends various well-known models, including the Pari-Mutuel model, the $\varepsilon$-contamination model, and the vacuous imprecise probability. In Section \ref{horizontal} we investigate the Horizontal Barrier Model (HBM). It is always 2-coherent, and may express an assessor's conflicting attitude (prudential towards some events, imprudent towards other ones). Perhaps surprisingly, this may be compatible with coherence too, under additional conditions. We prove in Proposition \ref{characterise_coherence} that the upper probability in this model is coherent if and only if it is subadditive, and in Section \ref{coherent_uplow_HB} we detail the rather restrictive conditions imposed by subadditivity. Some of these models may even be precise probabilities, as discussed in Section \ref{section_precise_HBM}. Section \ref{sub_RRM} studies the third NL model, the Restricted Range Model. It does not generalise the Pari-Mutuel model, may still elicit conflicting moods for an assessor, is always 2-coherent, but coherent only in marginal situations. In Section \ref{HZ} we explore items $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ for a degenerate NL model, the Hurwicz capacity corresponding to $b=0$ in \eqref{mu_linear}. Item $(d)$ is addressed in Section \ref{sec_compare}: preliminarily, we study in Section \ref{NU} how properties of the sets of events of $\mu$-measure 0 and 1 depend on the kind of consistency of $\mu$. This analysis is useful to compare, in Section \ref{NL_neo}, NL models with neo-additive capacities, introduced in \cite{CEG} in a decision theoretical framework. Although making use of \eqref{mu_linear} too, neo-additive capacities require additional (and, in our opinion, overly restrictive) constraints on the sets of $\mu$-measure 0 and 1. These constraints, among other issues, differentiate them from NL models. A parallel between NL models and probability intervals is also of interest, given that the Pari-Mutuel model is, in a \emph{finite} setting, an instance of probability interval \cite{MMD18}. This comparison is done in Section \ref{sec_intervals}. Its final results (Propositions \ref{prop_characterise_intervals}, \ref{prop_HBM_intervals}) show that a VBM is (the natural extension of) a probability interval in very special instances only, while a HBM is so (always in a finite setting) if it is coherent, which is still a rather special situation. Finally, Section \ref{sec_conclusions} concludes the paper. This work is an extended version, with proofs and additional material, of the contribution \cite{CPV18} presented at the SMPS 2018 conference. Proofs of results are gathered in the Appendix.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{section_prel}
\subsection{Describing uncertainty}
\label{describe_uncertain}
Quite commonly, uncertainty evaluations are made after fixing a \emph{partition} (also termed space or universe of discourse) $\PP$, i.e., a set of pairwise disjoint events whose logical sum is the sure event $\Omega$. The evaluations concern the set $\mathcal A(\PP)$ of events logically dependent on $\PP$ (the powerset of $\PP$, in set-theoretic language).
In principle, however, one may well think of evaluating the events of an \emph{arbitrary} non-empty set $\mathcal D$, without requiring a priori any structure or constraint on $\mathcal D$. This is customary in de Finetti's approach to Subjective Probability Theory \cite{deF74}, and was to some extent inherited in Imprecise Probability Theory \cite{W}. In this paper we shall quite often put $\mathcal D=\mathcal A(\PP)$, but general definitions and some later development will refer to generic domains $\mathcal D$.
The two approaches are linked as follows: given a set of events $\mathcal D=\{A_i\}_{i\in I}$, with $I$ an arbitrary (non-empty) index set, we obtain the so-called \emph{partition generated} by $\mathcal D$, $\PP_G=\{\bigwedge_{i\in I} A_i'\}$, where $A_i'$ may be replaced by either $A_i$ or its negation $\neg A_i$, in all possible ways for $i\in I$. The properties of $\PP_G$ are:
$(a)$ any event in $\mathcal D$ belongs to $\mathcal A(\PP_G)$, and
$(b)$ $\PP_G$ is the coarsest partition with the property $(a)$.
When computing $\PP_G$, several events $\bigwedge_{i\in I}A_i'$ may be impossible ($\bigwedge_{i\in I} A_i'=\emptyset$), depending on the relationships among the events in $\mathcal D$. Clearly, what interests is the partition $\PP_G\setminus\{\emptyset\}$. More generally, we assume that the partitions in the sequel are all made of non-impossible events or \emph{atoms}, i.e., $\omega\in\PP$ implies also $\omega\neq \emptyset$.
\subsection{Measuring uncertainty}
In this paper, we shall encounter several kinds of uncertainty measures, starting with capacities which, given a partition $\PP$, are commonly defined on the set $\mathcal A(\PP)$.
\begin{Def}
\label{def_capac}
An uncertainty measure $\mu:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ is a normalised capacity, or simply a \emph{capacity}, if $\mu(\emptyset)=0$, $\mu(\Omega)=1$ (normalisation), and for any $A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP)$ such that $A\Rightarrow B$, it holds that $\mu(A)\le \mu(B)$ (monotonicity).
\end{Def}
Capacities are quite common in several kinds of applications (see, e.g., \cite{G16}). A capacity is sometimes named \emph{fuzzy measure}, although this term is often reserved for capacities with additional continuity or at least semicontinuity properties, which we do not require here.
The properties of capacities as uncertainty measures are really minimal. At the other extreme, we find (precise) probabilities. They may be thought of as special imprecise probability assessments where the lower probability $\PPP:\DD\to\RR$ and the upper probability $\overline P:\DD\to\RR$ coincide for any event in $\DD$: $\PPP=\overline P=P$, and satisfy some consistency conditions (see Lemma \ref{zero} later on) \cite{W}. As for upper and lower probabilities, in a first approach, common in the literature (see e.g. \cite[p. 61]{W}), they are formally both maps from $\mathcal D$ into $\RR$. However, what matters to let them represent reasonable assessments is which consistency criterion they satisfy, and here the definitions, within the same criterion, are different for lower or for upper probabilities. See e.g. the later Definition \ref{def_all} $(a)$ and Definition \ref{def_upper_coherence} in the case of coherence.
It is also customary to assume \emph{conjugacy} of $\PPP$ and $\overline P$, which amounts to the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{conju}
\overline P(\neg A)=1-\PPP(A), \quad \forall A\in\mathcal \D
\end{equation}
and lets us refer to lower or alternatively upper probabilities only (if $\PPP$ is defined on $\DD$, its conjugate $\overline P$ is defined on $\{\neg A:A\in\DD\}$).
Lower/upper probabilities may satisfy consistency criteria of different strength, and whose properties deviate by various degrees from those of precise probabilities. We group here the ones concerning lower probabilities recalled in the sequel:
\begin{Def}\cite{ PV03, PV16, W}
\label{def_all}
Let $\PPP:\DD\to\RR$ be given, and $\NN$ be the set of natural numbers (including 0).
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\PPP$ is a \emph{coherent lower probability} on $\DD$ iff, $\forall n\in\NN$, $\forall s_i\ge 0$, $\forall A_i\in\DD$, $i=0,1,\dots,n$, defining
$$
\underline G=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i\big(I_{A_i}-\PPP(A_i)\big) - s_0\big(I_{A_0}-\PPP(A_0)\big),
$$
it holds that $\max \underline G\ge 0$.
\item[$(b)$] $\PPP$ is a \emph{convex lower probability} on $\DD$ iff $(a)$ holds with the additional convexity constraint $\sum_{i=1}^ns_i=s_0=1$.
$\PPP$ is centered convex or \emph{C-convex} iff it is convex, $\emptyset\in\DD$ and $\PPP(\emptyset)=0$.
\item[$(c)$] $\PPP$ \emph{avoids sure loss} on $\DD$ iff $(a)$ holds with $s_0=0$.
\item[$(d)$] $\PPP$ is \emph{2-coherent} on $\DD$ iff, $\forall s_1\ge 0$, $\forall s_0\in\RR$, $\forall A_0,A_1\in\DD$, defining
$\underline G_2=s_1\big(I_{A_1}-\PPP(A_1)\big) - s_0\big(I_{A_0}-\PPP(A_0)\big)$, it holds that $\max \underline G_2\ge 0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Def}
Although Definition \ref{def_all} is axiomatical (and as such would not require further explanations), it implements the customary interpretation of a lower probability $\PPP(A)$ as an assessor's supremum buying price for $A$ (or for its indicator $I_A$) \cite{book,TdC,W}, while an upper probability $\overline P(A)$ is viewed as an infimum selling price for $A$.\footnote{The assessor is also termed subject, agent, or bettor in the literature. We shall use these terms as synonyms, and with reference to the betting interpretation recalled here.} In fact, a subject paying $\underline P(A)$ for $A$ achieves a(n elementary) random gain $I_A-\PPP(A)$. The consistency notions in Definition~\ref{def_all} require that no finite linear combination of elementary gains, with certain requirements on the coefficients or stakes $s_i$ that vary with the specific notion $(a)$, $(b)$, $(c)$ or $(d)$, is negative, meaning that the overall gain ($\underline G$ or $\underline G_2$) cannot result in a sure loss for the assessor/bettor.
In this interpretation, Definition \ref{def_all} operates a \emph{betting scheme} with variants as for the allowed stakes. We emphasise that the betting scheme is primarily a(n abstract) device for eliciting and graduating an assessor's uncertainty evaluation.
Coherence, a fundamental notion in the approach of \cite{W}, is the strongest among these consistency notions and implies all the other ones.
The corresponding consistency concepts for upper probabilities may be derived from the definitions above and conjugacy \eqref{conju}. We recall explicitly coherence:
\begin{Def}
\label{def_upper_coherence}
$\overline P:\DD\to\RR$ is a \emph{coherent upper probability} on $\DD$ iff, $\forall n\in\NN$, $\forall s_i\ge 0$, $\forall A_i\in\DD$, $i=0,1,\dots,n$, defining
$$
\overline G=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i\big(\overline P(A_i) - I_{A_i}\big) - s_0\big(\overline P(A_0) - I_{A_0}\big),
$$
it holds that $\max \overline G\ge 0$.
\end{Def}
Again, Definition \ref{def_upper_coherence} requires that the gain $\overline G$ from any combination of bets at $\overline P$-prices, with non-negative coefficients but for at most one, is not always negative.
Some necessary conditions for coherence are (whenever the relevant lower/\\upper probabilities are defined) \cite[Section 2.7.4]{W}:
\begin{align}
\label{subadd}
\overline P(A\vee B) & \le \overline P(A) + \overline P(B) & \text{(\emph{subadditivity})},\\
\label{superadd}
\PPP(A\vee B) & \ge \PPP(A) + \PPP(B), \quad \text{if }A\wedge B=\emptyset & \text{(\emph{superadditivity})},\\
\label{quasi_superadd}
1 + \PPP(A\wedge B) & \ge \PPP(A) + \PPP(B). &
\end{align}
The definitions of coherence for lower and upper probabilities both weaken de Finetti's coherence definition for (precise) probabilities \cite{deF74}, also called dF-coherence:
\begin{Def}
\label{def_nuova}
Let $P:\mathcal D\to \RR$ be given. $P$ is a (precise) \emph{probability} \emph{dF-coherent} on $\mathcal D$ iff, $\forall n\in\NN$, $\forall s_i\in\RR$, $\forall A_i\in\mathcal D$, $i=1,\dots,n$, defining
$$
G=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i\big(I_{A_i} - P(A_i)\big),
$$
it holds that $\max G\ge 0$.
\end{Def}
Note that also dF-coherent probabilities are defined on an \emph{arbitrary} set of events $\mathcal D$. In this paper, we shall use the term (precise) probability to mean dF-coherent probability.
It is possible to characterise (precise) probabilities as follows \cite[Section 2.8.8]{W}.
\begin{Lemma}
\label{zero}
$P$ is a probability on a set $\mathcal{D}$ closed under negation ($A\in\mathcal{D}\Rightarrow \neg A\in \mathcal{D}$) iff $P$ avoids sure loss (as a lower probability) and $P(A)+P(\neg A)=1$, $\forall A\in \mathcal{D}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Rem}
\label{rem_zero}
We recall for later applications of this lemma that a coherent lower/upper probability also avoids sure loss, and that if $\PPP=\overline P=P$ and $\PPP,\overline P$ are conjugate, then necessarily $P(A)+P(\neg A)=1$, $\forall A\in\mathcal{D}$.
\end{Rem}
A lower probability $\PPP$ is \emph{2-monotone} on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ if
\begin{equation}
\label{2monot}
\PPP(A\vee B)\ge \PPP(A) + \PPP(B) - \PPP(A\wedge B), \quad \forall A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP),
\end{equation}
while an upper probability $\overline P$ is \emph{2-alternating} on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ if the reverse inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{2altern}
\overline P(A\vee B)\le \overline P(A) + \overline P(B) - \overline P(A\wedge B), \quad \forall A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP).
\end{equation}
2-monotonicity is not implied by coherence: if $\PPP$ is coherent it need not satisfy \eqref{2monot} but only the weaker condition \eqref{quasi_superadd}. Conversely, 2-monotonicity of $\PPP$ implies its coherence if further $\PPP(\emptyset)=0$, $\PPP(\Omega)=1$ (otherwise it may not: $\PPP(A)=c\in\RR, \,\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$, is 2-monotone but not coherent) \cite[Corollary 6.16]{TdC}. In the theory of Imprecise Probabilities, the importance of 2-monotonicity is essentially computational \cite[Section 4.3]{book}: it simplifies an important inferential procedure termed natural extension, allowing its computation by means of the Choquet integral \cite[Theorem 6.14]{TdC}. Further, in a finite environment, 2-monotonicity reduces the search of the vertexes of the set of all precise probabilities dominating $\PPP$ (the credal set) to the simpler task of finding the so-called Weber set, see e.g. \cite[Section 5.3]{MMV18}. A behavioural interpretation of 2-monotonicity is available for gambles: it is related to comonotone additivity \cite[Theorem 6.22]{TdC}, an important property in many fields, including risk measurement \cite[Section 2.2.3.6]{DDGK05}.
It can be easily seen that, given $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ that are conjugate, $\overline P$ has the same degree of consistency as $\PPP$: it is coherent (2-coherent, $\dots$) iff $\PPP$ is so, and satisfies \eqref{2altern} iff $\PPP$ satisfies \eqref{2monot}.
Among the coherent models, the Pari-Mutuel model will play a basic role in the sequel. It was originally devised for betting with horse racing, and studied in the framework of imprecise probabilities by \cite{MMD18, PVZ,W}, among others.
\begin{Def}
\label{def_PMM}
$\underline{P}_{\rm PMM}:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ is a \emph{Pari-Mutuel lower probability} if \mbox{$\underline{P}_{\rm PMM}(A)=\max\{(1+\delta)P_0(A) - \delta,0\},\, \forall A\in\ \mathcal A(\PP)$,} where $P_0$ is a given probability and $\delta\in \RR^+$. Its conjugate upper probability is $\overline{P}_{\rm PMM}(A)=\min\{(1+\delta)P_0(A),1\}$. $(\underline{P}_{\rm PMM},\overline{P}_{\rm PMM})$ constitute a \emph{Pari-Mutuel Model} (PMM).
\end{Def}
In the PMM, $\PPP_{\rm PMM}$ is 2-monotone, $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$ is 2-alternating. As for $P_0$, we may think that it is a known or `true' probability, but that does not express a subject's own buying/selling prices. And in fact, in real-world situations a bookie does not sell $A$ for what s/he believes is its \emph{fair} price $P_0(A)$, but for a higher amount $\overline P(A)$. This is indeed necessary, at least to cover the bookie's costs, and further to guarantee a profit in the long run.
Some of the concepts we have recalled can be approached alternatively, by means of Envelope Theorems \cite{PV03,W}.
\begin{Thm}[Envelope Theorems]
\label{env_thm}
\hspace{1pt}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\PPP:\DD\to\RR$ is coherent on $\DD$ iff there is a non-empty set $\mathcal M$ of precise probabilities such that
$$
\PPP(A)=\min\{P(A):P\in\mathcal M\}, \quad \forall A\in \DD.
$$
\item[$(b)$] $\overline P:\DD\to\RR$ is coherent on $\DD$ iff there is a non-empty set $\mathcal M$ of precise probabilities such that
$$
\overline P(A)=\max\{P(A):P\in\mathcal M\}, \quad \forall A\in \DD.
$$
\item[$(c)$] $\PPP:\DD\to\RR$ is convex on $\DD$ iff there exist a non-empty set $\mathcal M$ of precise probabilities and a function $\alpha:\mathcal M\to\RR$ such that
$$
\PPP(A)=\min\{P(A)+\alpha(P):P\in\mathcal M\}, \quad \forall A\in \DD.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
Envelope theorems justify a further interpretation of coherent lower probabilities, historically arising from statistical robustness arguments \cite{H81}: if we are uncertain about which is the `true' probability in a set $\mathcal M$, we may prudentially obtain an evaluation $\PPP$ by taking the lower envelope in $\mathcal M$. The probabilities in $\mathcal M$ may also be given by different experts. In the case of convex probabilities, the function $\alpha(P)$ lets us modify/correct the opinion of any single expert.\footnote{A further important motivation for introducing convex probabilities, or previsions when referring to gambles, is their one-to-one correspondence with convex risk measures, see \cite{FS02, PV03} for more information.}
As for 2-coherent lower probabilities, the following characterisation, proven in \cite[Proposition 4]{PVMM16}, will turn to be useful later on.
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_character_2coherence}
Let $\PPP:\DD\to\RR^+\cup\{0\}$, with $\DD$ negation-invariant ($A\in\DD\Rightarrow \neg A\in\DD$). Then $\PPP$ is 2-coherent iff it satisfies the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] $\forall A,B\in\DD,$ $A\Rightarrow B$ implies $\PPP(A)\le \PPP(B)$,
\item[$(ii)$] $\forall A\in\DD$, $\PPP(A) + \PPP(\neg A)\le 1$,
\item[$(iii)$] if $\emptyset \in\DD$, $\PPP(\emptyset)=0$, $\PPP(\Omega)=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
\begin{Rem}
\label{nuovo}
If $\mathcal D=\mathcal A(\PP)$, by Proposition \ref{prop_character_2coherence} a $2$-coherent $\PPP$ is a capacity with the additional property $(ii)$. Using $(ii)$ and \eqref{conju}, the conjugate $\overline P$ is such that
$$
\overline P(A)=1-\PPP(\neg A)\ge \PPP(A),\quad \forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP).
$$
In other words, 2-coherence is a minimal consistency concept that guarantees the natural inequality $\overline P\ge \PPP$ for conjugate $\PPP,\overline P$.
Formally, 2-coherence is a special case of $n$-coherence, defined in \cite[Appendix B]{W}. Its properties are studied, also in a desirability approach, in the more general framework of conditional gambles in \cite{PV16}.
\end{Rem}
\section{Nearly-Linear Models}
\label{NL_models}
In this section Nearly-Linear (NL) models are defined, and their basic properties are established.
Let for this $\mu:\mathcal A(\mathbb P)\to \mathbb R$ be either a lower or an upper probability.
\begin{Def}
\label{NL_IP}
$\mu:\mathcal{A}(\PP)\to\RR$ is a \emph{Nearly-Linear (NL)} imprecise probability iff $\mu(\emptyset)=0$, $\mu(\Omega)=1$ and, given a probability $P_0$ on $\mathcal{A}(\PP)$, $a\in\RR$, $b> 0$, $\forall A\in\mathcal{A}(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{def_mu_NL}
\mu(A)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\min\{\max\{bP_0(A) + a,0\},1\}\big(=\max\{\min\{bP_0(A) + a,1\},0\}\big).
\end{equation}
\end{Def}
Thus, a NL imprecise probability is a linear affine transformation with barriers of the probability $P_0$. The barriers prevent the transformation from taking values outside the interval $[0,1]$.
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lemma_capacity}
A NL $\mu$ is a capacity.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Rem}
\label{b_neg}
The case $b<0$ is ruled out from Definition \ref{NL_IP} to ensure monotonicity of $\mu$ without further, overly restrictive requirements. In fact, if $b<0$ and $A\Rightarrow B$, it is $\mu(A)>\mu(B)$ whenever $\mu(A)=bP_0(A) + a>0$ and either $0<P_0(A)<P_0(B)$ or $P_0(A)=0<P_0(B),\, b>-\frac{a}{P_0(B)}$, but it is also possible that $\mu(A)=1>\mu(B)$, for appropriate values of $P_0,a,b$.
By contrast, $\mu$ is a capacity when $b=0$ if further $0\le a\le 1$.
We did not include this special situation in Definition \ref{NL_IP}, but shall discuss it in Section \ref{HZ}.
\end{Rem}
If $\mu$ is given by Definition \ref{NL_IP}, we shall say shortly that $\mu$ is NL$(a,b)$.
An interesting feature of the family of NL models is that it is \emph{closed with respect to conjugacy}: if $\mu$ is NL$(a,b)$, also its conjugate $\mu^c(A)=1-\mu(\neg A)$, $\forall A\in\mathcal{A}(\PP)$, is NL$(c,b)$:
\begin{Prop}
\label{conjugate}
If $\mu$ is NL$(a,b)$, then $\mu^c$ is NL$(c,b)$, with
\begin{equation}
\label{c}
c=1-(a+b)
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}
By Proposition \ref{conjugate}, a NL model is made of a couple of conjugate capacities. As we shall see as a follow-up of the next propositions (see especially the comment after Proposition \ref{prop_sopra2coherence} and the conclusions in item $(i)$, Section \ref{NL_sub}), they can be interpreted as a lower and its conjugate upper probability, and $\PPP\le\overline P$. We start by preliminarily fixing the notation in the following
\begin{Def}
\label{NL_mod}
A \emph{Nearly-Linear Model} is a couple $(\PPP,\overline P)$ of conjugate lower and upper probabilities on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ where $\PPP$ (hence also $\overline P$, by Proposition \ref{conjugate}) is a NL imprecise probability, usually denoted by NL$(a,b)$, while $\overline P$ is NL$(c,b)$, with $c$ given by \eqref{c}.
\end{Def}
\begin{Ex}
\label{ex_PMM}
In the PMM, $\underline P_{\rm PMM}$ is NL$(-\delta,1+\delta)$, $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$ is NL$(0,1+\delta)$. Here $a=-\delta, \, b=1+\delta,$ and $c=0$, corresponding to $a+b=1$.
\end{Ex}
Given a couple $(\mu,\mu^c)$, Definition \ref{NL_mod} is uninformative as to which between $\mu$ and $\mu^c$ should be regarded as a lower probability. Clearly, when, say, $\mu$ includes a known model $\mu^*$ as a special case, such as for instance the lower probability of a PMM, $\mu$ will be a lower or upper probability if $\mu^*$ is so. More generally, the \emph{maximum consistency principle} may be applied: $\mu$ is a lower probability if it determines a model with a higher degree of consistency than interpreting $\mu$ as an upper probability.
Applying the maximum consistency principle makes sense because the consistency properties of a NL $\mu$ may vary, depending on the choice of the parameters $a,b$. This appears already in the following Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}. Prior to it, we define the sets $\NNN_{\mu},\UUU_{\mu},\EEE_{\mu}$, of, respectively, \emph{null, universal, essential} events according to $\mu$ (following the terminology in \cite{CEG}).
\begin{Def}
Given an uncertainty measure $\mu$, define:
\begin{align*}
\NNN_{\mu} & = \{A\in\mathcal A(\PP): \mu(A)=0\},\\
\UUU_{\mu} & = \{A\in\mathcal A(\PP): \mu(A)=1\},\\
\EEE_{\mu} & = \mathcal A(\PP)\setminus(\NNN_{\mu}\cup \UUU_{\mu}).
\end{align*}
\end{Def}
When $\mu$ is NL$(a,b)$, we can easily describe these sets in terms of $a,b$, using \eqref{def_mu_NL}:
\begin{align}
\label{N}
\NNN_{\mu} & = \big\{A\in\mathcal A(\PP): P_0(A)\le -\tfrac{a}{b}\big\}\cup \{\emptyset\},\\
\label{U}
\UUU_{\mu} & = \big\{A\in\mathcal A(\PP): P_0(A)\ge \tfrac{1-a}{b}\big\}\cup \{\Omega\},\\
\label{Eext}
\EEE_{\mu} & = \big\{A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}: -\tfrac{a}{b}<P_0(A)< \tfrac{1-a}{b}\big\}.
\end{align}
Since a NL model typically gives extreme evaluations to a number of events whose probability $P_0$ is strictly between 0 and 1, determining $\NNN_{\mu}, \UUU_{\mu}, \EEE_{\mu}$ informs us more precisely on this aspect. We shall discuss the structure of $\NNN_{\mu}$ and $\UUU_{\mu}$ in a more general context, in Section \ref{NU}.
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_2coherence}
Let $\PPP$ be a NL$(a,b)$ lower probability on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. Then $\PPP$ is 2-coherent if
\begin{equation}
\label{2coherence}
b+2a\le 1.
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}
The results in the next lemma are related to Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}:
\begin{Lemma}
\label{lemma_link_sottosopraNL}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a NL model. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $b+2a\le 1$ iff $b+2c\ge 1$.
\item[$(b)$] $\forall A\in \EEE_{\PPP}\cap \EEE_{\overline P}$, $\overline P(A)- \PPP(A)=1-(b+2a)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Immediate, using \eqref{c} for $(a)$, and \eqref{conju}, \eqref{def_mu_NL} for $(b)$.
\end{proof}
Recalling that the conjugate $\mu^c$ of $\mu$ has the same consistency properties of $\mu$, by Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(a)$ we get the upper probability version of Proposition~\ref{prop_2coherence}:
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_sopra2coherence}
Let $\overline P$ be a NL$(c,b)$ upper probability on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. Then $\overline P$ is 2-coherent if $b+2c\ge 1$.
\end{Prop}
\emph{Comment.} As for Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(b)$, it tells us that the \emph{imprecision} $\overline P(A) -\PPP(A)$ of a NL model is constant on $\EEE_{\PPP}\cap \EEE_{\overline P}$. Clearly, when we speak of imprecision in these terms it is understood that $\overline P\ge \PPP$. In Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(b)$, this is true for $A\in \EEE_{\PPP}\cap \EEE_{\overline P}$ iff \eqref{2coherence} holds. More generally, if \eqref{2coherence} holds, then $\overline P(A)\ge\PPP(A)$ for any $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$ is implied by 2-coherence of $\PPP$, see Remark \ref{nuovo}. By contrast, $\overline P\ge \PPP$ is not guaranteed if $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is a generic couple of conjugate measures. However, we shall see later on in the paper that all NL measures can be given an interpretation as either lower or upper probabilities that are (at least) 2-coherent.
The equality $b+2a=1$ is a limiting situation in Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}. The next proposition and comments provide more insight for this case.
\begin{Prop}
\label{equiv_sotto=sopra}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a NL model (Definition \ref{NL_mod}).
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] If $b+2a=1$, then
$\PPP=\overline P$.
\item[$(b)$] If $b+2a\neq 1$ and $\PPP=\overline P=P$, then $P$ is 0-1 valued.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
From a first glance at Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra} $(a)$ one might be tempted to infer that condition $b+2a=1$ is enough to obtain NL models where $\PPP=\overline P=P$ is a precise probability. Yet, this is very often not the case. Just think for this that $\PPP$ may distort $P_0$ so that there exist $k$ pairwise disjoint events $A_1,\dots,A_k$ such that $\PPP(A_i)=0$, $i=1,\dots, k$, while $\PPP
\bigvee_{i=1}^k A_i)>0$, which makes $\PPP$ non-additive. For instance, take (with $0<-a<b$) $P_0(A_i)\in\,]-\tfrac{a}{kb},-\tfrac{a}{b}[$, $i=1,\dots,k$. Then \eqref{N} ensures that $\PPP(A_i)=0$, $\forall i$, while $\PPP(\bigvee_{i=1}^k A_i)>0$ since $P_0(\bigvee_{i=1}^k A_i)>-\tfrac{a}{kb}k=-\tfrac{a}{b}$. For a result pointing out the constraints to obtain a probability $P$, see the later Proposition \ref{prop_N}.
On the other hand, we may obtain a probability $P$ also when $b+2a\neq 1$, but then $P$ is necessarily 0-1 valued by Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra} $(b)$. Thus $P$ is concentrated on a single atom of $\PP$, when $\PP$ is finite, while it is possible that $P(\omega)=0$, $\forall \omega\in\PP$, when $\PP$ is infinite.
We remark that $\PPP=\overline P$ may also be 0-1 valued but not a precise probability, while $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ may or may not be coherent as imprecise probabilities (cf. the later Example \ref{01_not_coherent}).
In general, the role of precise probabilities within NL models is essentially marginal, as we shall also see when studying the various NL submodels.
\subsection{Nearly-Linear submodels}
\label{NL_sub}
In the next sections we shall investigate the submodels forming the family of NL models. Our previous results are useful for determining such submodels. In fact, consider a generic NL measure $\mu(p_{ac},b)$, where the parameter $p_{ac}$ can be either $a$ (when we interpret $\mu$ as a lower probability) or $c$ (when $\mu$ is an upper probability). Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] Propositions \ref{prop_2coherence}, \ref{prop_sopra2coherence} and Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(a)$ suggest that $\mu$ should be regarded as a lower or upper probability according to whether, respectively, $b+2p_{ac}<1$ or $b+2p_{ac}>1$ ($\mu=\overline P=\PPP$ when $b+2p_{ac}=1$, by Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra}). This ensures 2-coherence of $\mu$, $\mu^c$, and hence the very desirable property $\overline P\ge \PPP$.
\item[$(ii)$] Example \ref{ex_PMM} shows that the PMM is a relevant special case of NL model, with $a+b=1$. This suggests modifying this equality to either $a+b\le 1$ or $a+b\ge 1$ (while keeping throughout $b>0$ by Remark \ref{b_neg}), in order to classify NL models that generalise the PMM.
\item[$(iii)$] In the PMM, $a<0$ and $c=0$. Thus we have to consider the relaxations $a\ge 0$, $c\neq 0$. Note that, by \eqref{c}, $c>0, c=0, c<0$ iff, respectively, $a+b<1,a+b=1,a+b>1$. Therefore, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ require checking whether $a+b<1,a+b=1,a+b>1$, and the sign of $a$.
\end{itemize}
Thus, given $\mu(p_{ac},b)$, we may first fix $p_{ac}=a$ if $b+2p_{ac}<1$, $p_{ac}=c$ if $b+2p_{ac}>1$, then check whether $p_{ac}>0,p_{ac}<0$ and $b+p_{ac}>1,b+p_{ac}<1$. If $p_{ac}=a$, then conditions $p_{ac}>0$ and $p_{ac} +b >1$ become respectively $a>0$, $a+b>1$; if $p_{ac}=c$, they reduce to, respectively, $a+b<1$, $a<0$. Given that we are exploring three alternatives, following $(i)$, $(ii)$, $(iii)$ (we omit for the moment the limit situations such as $b+2a=1$ - they are treated within the submodel study in the next sections), there are at most 8 distinct cases. Actually, they give rise to three NL (sub)models. We list them in Table \ref{NLmodels}.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
Case & Parameter constraints & $\mu$ & $p_{ac}$ & Model\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
1 & $b+ 2p_{ac}<1, \, p_{ac}<0,\, p_{ac} + b<1$ & $\PPP$ & $a$ & VBM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
2 & $b+ 2p_{ac}>1, \, p_{ac}>0,\, p_{ac} + b>1$ & $\overline P$ & $c$ & VBM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
3 & $b+ 2p_{ac}<1, \, p_{ac}<0,\, p_{ac} + b>1$ & $\PPP$ & $a$ & HBM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
4,5 & $b+ 2p_{ac}>1, \, p_{ac}<0,\, p_{ac} + b
\neq 1$ & $\overline P$ & $c$ & HBM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
6 & $b+ 2p_{ac}<1, \, p_{ac}>0,\, p_{ac} + b<1$ & $\PPP$ & $a$ & RRM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
7 & $b+ 2p_{ac}>1, \, p_{ac}>0,\, p_{ac} + b<1$ & $\overline P$ & $c$ & RRM\\
&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&\\[-1em]
8 & $b+ 2p_{ac}<1, \, p_{ac}>0,\, p_{ac} + b>1$ & $-$ & $-$ & Impossible \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
The Nearly-Linear (sub)models. For each model, the parameter constraints for its lower and upper probability are described in two consecutive lines (limit situations are omitted here). See Section \ref{vertical} for the Vertical Barrier Model (VBM), Section \ref{horizontal} for the Horizontal Barrier Model (HBM), Section \ref{sub_RRM} for the Restricted Range Model (RRM).}
\label{NLmodels}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluating Uncertainty with NL Models}
A NL model is a neighbourhood model, meaning that it obtains an uncertainty evaluation from a given probability $P_0$ by modifying it. Often, $P_0$ may be a reliable uncertainty assessment, possibly given by some expert or arising from symmetry judgements. Thus, why should $P_0$ be altered to obtain $\overline P$, $\PPP$ from it? The reason is that, in a betting scheme, $P_0$ is unfit as a selling price, because, being a fair price, it does not ensure an expected positive gain to the seller \cite{deF74}. A symmetric argument may be brought forth for introducing $\PPP$. In both cases, the betting scheme aims to model real situations, from the world of betting but not only: for instance, the role of `bookie' might be that of an insurer, a broker, and so on. We have already recalled in the Introduction a motivation of this kind for using the PMM. In the next sections, we shall see that NL models offer various ways of modifying $P_0$, that may correspond to an assessor's different beliefs and attitudes, in particular towards events of extreme or nearly $P_0$-probability, and that some of them may be conflicting.
\section{The Vertical Barrier Model}
\label{vertical}
In this section we introduce a first family of NL models. We require that $\mu$ is a NL$(a,b)$ measure such that
\begin{equation}
\label{ab_VB}
0\le a+b\le 1,\quad a\le 0.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that conditions \eqref{ab_VB} may be obtained from Case 1 in Table \ref{NLmodels}, relaxing the strict inequalities there.
Recalling $(ii)$ in Section \ref{NL_sub}, conditions \eqref{ab_VB} provide a relaxation of the PMM parameters. In fact, when $a+b=1$ and $a=-\delta<0$, hence $b=1+\delta>0$, $\mu$ is the lower probability of a PMM (Example \ref{ex_PMM}).\footnote{When $a=0,\,b=1$, $\mu$ is the probability $P_0$. We shall hereafter neglect this subcase.}
Further, putting $a=0,\, b=\varepsilon<1$, we obtain the lower probability of the \emph{$\varepsilon$-contamination model} (also termed linear-vacuous mixture in \cite{W}):
$$
\underline P(A)=\varepsilon P_0(A), \quad \forall A\in\mathcal{A}(\PP)\setminus\{\Omega\}, \quad \underline P(\Omega)=1.
$$
Lastly, when $a+b=0$, from \eqref{N} it is $\NNN_{\mu}=\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\Omega\}$, i.e., $\mu$ is the \emph{vacuous lower probability} $\PPP_V$, equal to 0, $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\Omega\}$. It is easily seen that allowing $a+b$ to be negative would make us obtain again only $\PPP_V$, hence we canceled this choice for $a,b$.
Thus, it is clear that $\mu$ is a lower probability.
It is also immediate to recognise that $\PPP$ (hence $\overline P$) is 2-coherent, by Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}: Equation \eqref{ab_VB} implies that $b+2a\le 1$.
Since $bP_0(A)+a\le a+b\le 1$, for all $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$, Equation \eqref{def_mu_NL} simplifies to
$$
\mu(A)=\max\{bP_0(A) + a,0\}, \quad \forall A\in \mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\Omega\}
$$
(note that $\mu(\emptyset)$ is also computed with this formula).
The conjugate upper probability is easily obtained using \eqref{c}. Summing up, we define
\begin{Def}
\label{VBM}
A \emph{Vertical Barrier Model (VBM)} is a NL model where $\underline P$ and its conjugate $\overline P$ are given by:
\begin{align}
\label{lower_VBM}
\PPP(A) & =\max\{bP_0(A)+a,0\}, & \forall A & \in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\Omega\}, & \PPP(\Omega)=1,\\
\label{upper_VBM}
\overline P(A) & =\min\{bP_0(A)+c,1\}, & \forall A & \in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset\}, & \overline P(\emptyset)=0,
\end{align}
with $a,b$ satisfying \eqref{ab_VB} and $c$ given by \eqref{c}.
\end{Def}
A VBM satisfies stronger consistency properties than 2-coherence:
\begin{Prop}
\label{VBM_coherent}
In a VBM, $\underline P$ and $\overline P$ are coherent. Further, $\underline P$ is 2-monotone, $\overline P$ is 2-alternating.
\end{Prop}
In the next proposition, we explore how $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ are related to $P_0$ in a VBM. It can be easily proven, see also \cite[Section 4]{CPV18}.
\begin{Prop}
\label{properties_VB}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a VBM. Then, concerning $\overline P$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] $\overline P(A)\ge P_0(A),\forall A$;
\item[$ii)$] $\overline P(A)\downarrow c \ge 0$ as $P_0(A)\downarrow 0$;
\item[$iii)$] $\overline P(A)=1$ iff $P_0(A)\ge \frac{1-c}{b}=\frac{b+a}{b}$.
\end{itemize}
Correspondingly, for $\PPP$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i')$] $\underline P(A)\le P_0(A),\, \forall A$;
\item[$ii')$] $\underline P(A)\uparrow a+b\le 1$ as $P_0(A)\uparrow 1$;
\item[$iii')$] $\underline P(A)=0$ iff $P_0(A)\le -\frac{a}{b}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
Firstly let us discuss $\overline P$, comparing it with its special case $c=0$, i.e., $a+b=1$ (and $b>1$), which specialises $\overline P(A)$ into $\overline P_{\rm PMM}(A)=\min\{bP_0(A),1\}$.
In the betting interpretation, a subject assessing either $\overline P$ or $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$ is essentially unwilling to sell events whose reference or `true' probability $P_0$ is too high, by $iii)$, and in any case her/his selling price is not less than the `fair' price $P_0$, by $i)$. Unlike $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$, $\overline P$ adds a further barrier regarding low probability events: by $ii)$, if $c>0$ the $\overline P$-agent is not willing to sell (too) low probability events for less than $c$. We may deduce that, \emph{ceteris paribus}, the $\overline P$-agent is, loosely speaking, greedier than the $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$-agent. This can be easily justified in real-world situations: if the agent is, for instance, a bookmaker or an insurer, $c>0$ may take account of the agent's fixed costs in managing any bet/contract.
A representation in the $(P_0, \overline P)$ plane is helpful to visualise the above facts. In Figure \ref{fig_VBM}, 1), a VBM $\overline P(c,b)$, with $c<1$, is drawn with a continuous bold line. It is compared with a PMM upper probability (dashed bold line) $\overline P_{{\rm{PMM}}}(A)=\min\{b'P_0(A),1\}$. Choosing $b'=\frac{b}{1-c}$ emphasises at best the core difference between $\overline P$ and $\overline P_{{\rm {PMM}}}$: while the horizontal barrier on the line $\overline P=1$ is in this case the same for both models, the VBM originates the vertical barrier of length $c$ on the $\overline P$ axis (dotted segment), not existing with any $\overline P_{\rm PMM}$.
In general, while $c$ measures the agent's advantage at $P_0=0$, $b$ determines how it varies with $P_0$ growing. In fact, the advantage is unchanged, decreasing or increasing according to whether it is, respectively, $b=1, \, b<1, \, b>1$.
Turning to the interpretation of $\PPP$ in the VBM, now the $\PPP$-agent acts as a buyer, but by $ii')$ does not want to pay more than $a+b$ for any event, even those whose probability $P_0$ is very high. If $a+b<1$, this ensures that the agent's gain from the transaction, $\underline G=I_A-\PPP(A)$, has a positive maximum (achieved when $A$ occurs): $\max \underline G=1-\PPP(A)\ge 1-(a+b)>0$. By contrast, $\max \underline G\to 0$ as $P_0(A)\to 1$ if $a+b=1$, as in the PMM. Thus, $\underline P$ in the typical VBM (i.e., such that $a+b<1$) introduces an additional vertical barrier with respect to $\underline P_{\rm PMM}$: the dotted segment in the $P_0=1$ line of Figure \ref{fig_VBM}, $2)$. The parameters $a,b$ jointly influence the barrier width $1-(a+b)$. The ratio $-\frac{a}{b}$ is the supremum probability $P_0(A)$ such that the agent is not willing to buy $A$ unless for free. If $-\frac{a}{b}\ge \frac{1}{2}$, the agent's attitude is \emph{over-prudential}: an event $A$ is bought only if its probability $P_0$ is higher than that of its negation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VB-PMM.png}
\caption{$1)$ Plots of $\overline P(c,b)$ (continuous bold line) and $\overline P_{\rm PMM}(0,b')$ (dashed bold line), with $b'=\frac{b}{1-c}$, against $P_0$ ($\overline P,\overline P_{\rm PMM}$ overlap at the line $\overline P=\overline P_{\rm PMM}=1$). $2)$ Plots of $\overline P$ (continuous bold line) and its conjugate $\PPP$ (dashed bold line) against $P_0$.}
\label{fig_VBM}
\end{figure}
\begin{Rem}
The representations in the $(P_0,\PPP)$ or $(P_0,\overline P)$ plane do not imply that $\PPP$ or $\overline P$ is always a function of $P_0$. For instance, take the VBM with $a+b<1$: when $P_0=1$, $\PPP$ may take the value $a+b$ but also (at $\Omega$) the value 1.
\end{Rem}
As for the existence of precise probabilities within the VBM, from Proposition \ref{properties_VB} $i),i')$, any such probability $P=\PPP=\overline P$ coincides with $P_0$, which is then the only precise probability within this model.
\section{The Horizontal Barrier Model}
\label{horizontal}
To introduce a second family of NL models, let now $\mu$ be a NL$(a,b)$ measure, with the conditions
\begin{equation}
\label{cond_HB}
a+b\ge 1, \quad b+2a\le 1.
\end{equation}
While the VBM relaxes the PMM equality $a+b=1$ to $a+b\le 1$, now the opposite generalisation $a+b\ge 1$ is made. Further, the VBM condition $a\le 0$ in \eqref{ab_VB} ensures that $b+2a\le 1$ there, while here this is explicitly required in \eqref{cond_HB}. Conditions \eqref{cond_HB} are also straightforwardly obtained from $\mu(p_{ac},b)$ satisfying the (relaxed) parameter constraints of Case 3 in Table \ref{NLmodels}.
Again, $a+b=1$ implies $a\le 0$ and thus we reobtain the PMM. For the sequel, we modify \eqref{cond_HB} to
\begin{equation}
\label{strict_cond_HB}
a+b>1,\quad b+2a\le 1,
\end{equation}
to focus on the models in this family that are not PMMs.
Note that conditions \eqref{strict_cond_HB} imply easily that
\begin{equation}
\label{sign_ab}
a<0, \quad b>1.
\end{equation}
\begin{Prop}
\label{HB_2coherent}
Let $\mu(a,b):\mathcal A(\PP)\to \RR$ be a NL measure satisfying \eqref{strict_cond_HB}. Then $\mu$ is a 2-coherent lower probability, and its conjugate $\mu^c(c,b)$ is a 2-coherent upper probability.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Follows directly from Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}, Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(a)$ and Proposition \ref{prop_sopra2coherence}.
\end{proof}
From Proposition \ref{HB_2coherent}, $\mu \, (\mu^c)$ is conveniently viewed as a lower (an upper) probability. We define then:
\begin{Def}
\label{HBM_mod}
A \emph{Horizontal Barrier Model (HBM)} is a NL model where $a,b$ are as in \eqref{strict_cond_HB} (as in \eqref{cond_HB} if we wanted to include PMMs), $c=1-(a+b)<0$ and, $\forall A\in\mathcal{A}(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$,
\begin{align}
\label{lower_HBM}
\PPP(A) & =\min\{\max\{bP_0(A) + a,0\},1\},\\
\label{upper_HBM}
\overline P(A) & =\max\{\min\{bP_0(A) + c,1\},0\}.
\end{align}
\end{Def}
\subsection{Beliefs elicited by a HBM}
To clarify what sort of beliefs are conveyed by a HBM, let us first state some properties of these models. They are easily established.
\begin{Prop}
\label{link_HB_P0}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a HBM. Then, concerning $\PPP$
\begin{itemize}
\item[$j)$]
$\PPP(A)> P_0(A)$ iff $1>P_0(A)> -\frac{a}{b-1};$
\item[$jj)$] $\PPP(A)=0$ iff $P_0(A)\le -\frac{a}{b}; \quad \NNN_{P_0}\subset \NNN_{\PPP}$;
\item[$jjj)$] $\PPP(A)=1$ iff $P_0(A)\ge\frac{1-a}{b}; \quad \UUU_{P_0}\subset \UUU_{\PPP}$.
\end{itemize}
As for $\overline P$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$j')$]
$\overline P(A)<P_0(A)$ iff $0<P_0(A)< -\frac{c}{b-1};$
\item[$jj')$] $\overline P(A)=0$ iff $P_0(A)\le -\frac{c}{b}; \quad \NNN_{P_0}\subset \NNN_{\overline P}$;
\item[$jjj')$] $\overline P(A)=1$ iff $P_0(A)\ge\frac{1-c}{b}; \quad \UUU_{P_0}\subset \UUU_{\overline P}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
It is also easy to see (using \eqref{strict_cond_HB}, \eqref{sign_ab}) that the conditions in Proposition \ref{link_HB_P0} are not vacuous, i.e., may be satisfied by some event \cite{CPV18}.
Conditions $j),jj),jjj)$ point out an interesting feature of $\PPP$ in the HBM: the beliefs it represents may be conflicting and, partly, irrational. In fact, assuming again that $P_0$ is the `true' probability for the events in $\mathcal A(\PP)$, by $j)$ the assessor is willing to buy some events for less, others for more than their probability $P_0$. In the extreme situations, by $jj)$ and $jjj)$, the assessor would not buy events whose probability is too low, whilst would certainly buy a high probability event $A$ at the price of 1, gaining from the transaction at most 0 (if $A$ occurs). Thus the assessor underestimates the potential losses of a transaction regarding high probability events, but overestimates them with low probability events. Note also that $\PPP$ broadens, with respect to $P_0$, both the set of null events ($\NNN_{P_0}\subset \NNN_{\PPP}$) and the set of universal events ($\UUU_{P_0}\subset \UUU_{\PPP}$).
It is then natural to wonder whether the model limits somehow its non-prudential side, or which of the conflicting moods prevails. In some sense, the prudential one.
In fact, while the assessor's behaviour can be more prudential than $P_0$ suggests on both $A$ and its negation $\neg A$, s/he cannot offer a higher price than $P_0$ for both. If, for instance, s/he does so for $A$, so that $\PPP(A)>P_0(A)$, then necessarily $\PPP(\neg A)<P_0(\neg A)$: if not, $\PPP(A) + \PPP(\neg A)>P_0(A) + P_0(\neg A)=1$, a contradiction by Proposition \ref{prop_character_2coherence} $(ii)$, since $\PPP$ is 2-coherent.
Secondly, note that by $jj)$ and $jjj)$ the HBM sets up two horizontal barriers in the $(P_0,\underline P)$ plane (cf. Figure \ref{fig_HBM}, $1)$). The lower (prudential) barrier is a segment with measure $-\frac{a}{b}$, the upper barrier (in the imprudent area) a segment measuring $1-\frac{1-a}{b}$. Outside the limit situation $b+2a=1$, the upper barrier is narrower: $-\frac{a}{b}>1-\frac{1-a}{b}$ iff $b+2a<1$, true by \eqref{strict_cond_HB}. Similarly, the boundary probability $P_0$ between the opposite attitudes is set at $-\frac{a}{b-1}$, larger or at worst equal to $\frac{1}{2}$, by \eqref{strict_cond_HB}. Although these properties have a partly qualitative flavour, being uninformative about how many events $A$ are such that $\PPP(A)>P_0(A)$ and about their `measure of imprudence' $\PPP(A)-P_0(A),$ they nevertheless represent a restriction to the imprudent attitude.
To guarantee that there may be events $A$ such that $\PPP(A)>P_0(A)$, the condition $a+b>1$ (not holding with the PMM and the VBM) is essential: in fact it is equivalent in the HBM to $-\frac{a}{b-1}<1$, ensuring that the graph of $\PPP$ intersects the line $\PPP=P_0$ for $P_0\in\,]0,1[$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HB-PMM.png}
\caption{Plots of $\PPP,\overline P$ against $P_0$ in the HBM. $\overline P$ and $\PPP$ are dashed bold in their prudential part, continuous bold otherwise. $1)$ $\PPP$ against $P_0$. $2)$ Its conjugate $\overline P$ against $P_0$.}
\label{fig_HBM}
\end{figure}
Turning to $\overline P$, we get to specular conclusions. Again the $\overline P$-assessor is subject to conflicting moods: s/he is unwilling to sell high probability events, but would give away for free low probability events. The lower barrier represents now the imprudent behaviour at its utmost degree. Its length $-\frac{c}{b}$ is smaller or at worst equal to the length $1-\frac{1-c}{b}$ of the upper barrier, because $b+2c\ge 1$ by Lemma \ref{lemma_link_sottosopraNL} $(a)$ (equality holds iff $b+2c=1$). The upper barrier emphasises now the cautious attitude. See also Figure \ref{fig_HBM}, 2) for a graphical illustration.
From the discussion above, one would probably guess that the HBM can be no more than 2-coherent, thus crediting the partly irrational beliefs it represents with lack of coherence. Perhaps surprisingly, while this is true for the `typical' HBM, coherence is compatible with some HBM. Even more, there are instances of $\PPP$ (and $\overline P$) which are precise probabilities, as in the following example.
\begin{Ex}
\label{ex_HB_precise}
Given $\PP=\{\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3\}$, define the probability $P_0$ as in Table \ref{ex_precise0}. Choosing $b=1.25, \,a=-0.15,$ Equation \eqref{strict_cond_HB} holds, with $b+2a=0.95\neq 1$, while $c=-0.10$. Thus $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is a HBM, and $\PPP,\overline P$ may be computed with \eqref{lower_HBM}, \eqref{upper_HBM}. The results are displayed in Table \ref{ex_precise0}, and $\PPP=\overline P=P$, with $P$ a precise probability (concentrated on $\omega_3$).
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& $\omega_1$ & $\omega_2$ & $\omega_3$ & $\omega_1\vee\omega_2$ & $\omega_1\vee\omega_3$ & $\omega_2\vee\omega_3$ & $\emptyset$ & $\Omega$\\
&&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_0$ & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.96 & 0.04 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\PPP$ & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\overline P$ & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $P_0,\,\PPP,\,\overline P$ in Example \ref{ex_HB_precise}.}
\label{ex_precise0}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\end{Ex}
In the next subsection, we investigate more closely coherent HBMs.
\subsection{Coherent upper/lower probabilities within HBMs}
\label{coherent_uplow_HB}
In order to study the properties of coherent imprecise probabilities within HBMs, it is convenient to suppose first that $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is defined on $\mathcal A(\PP)$, with $\PP$ a \emph{finite} partition.
The following proposition is a first result, which is instrumental in the proofs of later propositions:
\begin{Prop}
\label{Psup_sub_implies}
Let $\overline P:\mathcal A(\PP)\to \RR$ be an upper probability satisfying monotonicity and subadditivity (i.e., condition \eqref{subadd}). Suppose that $\PP=\{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n\}$.
Then, for any $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $A\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$ iff $\displaystyle A=\bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}$, with $\omega_{j_i}\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$, $i=1,\dots,k$ (if $k=0$, $\displaystyle \bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}=\emptyset$).
\end{itemize}
Suppose further that $\overline P$ is the upper probability of a HBM. Then also:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(b)$] $A\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$ iff $\displaystyle A=\omega^+\vee \bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}$, with $\omega^+\in \mathcal E_{\overline P}\, (\omega^+\in\PP), \, \omega_{j_i}\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}, \, P_0(\omega_{j_i})=0$, $i=1,\dots,k$ (if $k=0$, $\displaystyle \bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}=\emptyset$);
\item[$(c)$] if $A\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, there exists $\omega^*\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}\cup\mathcal U_{\overline P}$ ($\omega^*\in\PP$), $\omega^*\neq \omega^+$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{+*}
bP_0(\omega^+)+ c + bP_0(\omega^*) + c \ge 1.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
\begin{Cor}
\label{unico_e}
In the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies}, $\forall A\in \mathcal E_{\overline P}$, there exists one and only one $\omega^+\in\PP$ such that $\overline P(A)=\overline P(\omega^+)$.
\end{Cor}
Although its proof is essentially contained in that of Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies}, Corollary \ref{unico_e} highlights an important hindrance of subadditivity, hence also of coherence, of $\overline P$ in the HBM.
In fact, if $\overline P$ is subadditive (or coherent) in Definition \ref{HBM_mod}, then necessarily \emph{any} event $A$ whose upper probability is non-trivial ($\overline P(A)\in\,]0,1[$) is made of a certain number of atoms of $\PP$, \emph{only one} of which, $\omega^+$, has positive upper probability, and $\overline P(A)=\overline P(\omega^+)$. In other words, the remaining atoms are irrelevant for forming the upper probability $\overline P(A)$. Immediate follow-ups of Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ and Corollary \ref{unico_e} are also, for a subadditive $\overline P$, putting $n\stackrel{\rm def}{=}|\PP|$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] The number of distinct values of $\overline P$ on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ is at most $n+2$.
\item[$ii)$] If it is exactly $n+2$, these are the upper probabilities of $\emptyset, \Omega$, and of the $n$ atoms of $\PP$. If $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus (\PP\cup\{\emptyset\})$, then, since $\NNN_{\overline P}=\{\emptyset\}$, $\overline P(A)=1$, i.e., $\overline P$ is vacuous on all non-atomic events (because any such event is implied by at least two atoms in $\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, and Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ applies).
\end{itemize}
Note that $ii)$ is a more restrictive constraint than the maxitivity condition $\displaystyle \overline P(A)=$ $\displaystyle\max_{\omega \Rightarrow A}\overline P(\omega)$ satisfied by \emph{possibility measures}, which are already rather special kinds of coherent upper probabilities \cite[Section 4.6.1]{book}. This does not, however, imply that any coherent $\overline P$ in a HBM is a possibility measure: in fact, possibilities require that there exists $\omega^*\in\PP$ such that $\overline P(\omega^*)=1$, while $\overline P$ mail fail to satisfy this condition.
A less immediate consequence of subadditivity is a steepening effect on the parameter $b$, implied by the following result.
\begin{Prop}
\label{cond_sub_HB}
In a HBM, let $\overline P:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ be subadditive. If $\PP$ is finite and $|\mathcal E_{\overline P}\cap \PP|\ge 2m>0$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{bound_b}
b>\max\bigg\{m,\max_{\substack{\omega_i,\omega_j\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}\\i\neq j}}\frac{1}{\overline P(\omega_i) + \overline P(\omega_j)}\bigg\}.
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}
Thus, a higher number of atoms in $\mathcal E_{\overline P}$ requires a larger $b$ in a subadditive $\overline P$. In Figure \ref{fig_HBM}, $2)$, this makes steeper the non-horizontal plot of $\overline P$ against $P_0$, a segment on the line $\overline P=bP_0 + c$.
On its turn, a larger $b$ increases the width $-\frac{c}{b}=\frac{a+b-1}{b}$ of the lower barrier, which seems contradictory, since the barrier is in the risk-seeking area for $\overline P$. This fact is counterbalanced by the increase in the number of events of $\mathcal A(\PP)$ in the risk-averse area (because they are given $\overline P=1$).
The restrictions pointed out for a coherent $\overline P$ in the HBM all depend on its subadditivity. As a matter of fact, subadditivity turns out to be equivalent to coherence of $\overline P$, even with arbitrary (infinite) partitions $\PP$.
\begin{Prop}
\label{characterise_coherence}
Let $\overline P:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ be the upper probability of a HBM, with $\PP$ an arbitrary (finite or not) partition. Then $\overline P$ is coherent if and only if it is subadditive.
\end{Prop}
It is easy to check that $\overline P$ is subadditive if and only if its conjugate $\PPP$ satisfies property \eqref{quasi_superadd}. Thus Proposition \ref{characterise_coherence} has the following, slightly less straightforward, correspondent for lower probabilities:
\begin{Prop}
\label{characterise_lower_coherence_gen}
A lower probability $\PPP:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ in a HBM is coherent if and only if $\PPP(A) + \PPP(B)\le 1+ \PPP(A\wedge B)$, $\forall A,B\in \mathcal A(\PP)$.
\end{Prop}
Interestingly, even though superadditivity is not, so to say, the conjugate property for lower probabilities of subadditivity, it nevertheless holds for any lower probability in the HBM, even those that are 2-coherent but not coherent:
\begin{Prop}
\label{Pinf_HB_super}
Given a HBM, its lower probability $\PPP$ is superadditive, i.e., satisfies \eqref{superadd}.
\end{Prop}
It is easy to see that the conjugate $\overline P$ of a superadditive $\PPP$ satisfies the following property \cite[Section 2.7.4, $(f)$]{W}:
\begin{equation}
\label{superadd_P sup}
\overline P(A) + \overline P(B)\ge 1+\overline P(A\wedge B), \quad \text{if }A\vee B=\Omega.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the result corresponding to Proposition \ref{Pinf_HB_super} holds:
\begin{Prop}
In a HBM, its upper probability $\overline P$ satisfies property \eqref{superadd_P sup}.
\end{Prop}
Finally, we prove the following remarkable result for coherent lower/upper probabilities in the HBM:
\begin{Prop}
\label{HBM_coh_implies_alter}
If, in a HBM, $\overline P$ ($\PPP$) is coherent, then it is 2-alternating (2-monotone).
\end{Prop}
\subsection{Precise probabilities within HBMs}
\label{section_precise_HBM}
The HBM is the only NL submodel offering a certain variety of precise probabilities as its special cases. In Example \ref{ex_HB_precise}, the assumptions of Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra} $(b)$ are satisfied, and $P$ is in fact 0-1 valued. Furthermore, it is also a precise probability.
If $P_0$ is 0-1 valued, the HBM transforms $P_0$ into itself, i.e., $\PPP=\overline P=P_0$. This ensues from Proposition \ref{link_HB_P0}: taking for instance $\PPP$, from $jj)$, $jjj)$ we have $\mathcal A(\PP)=\NNN_{P_0}\cup \UUU_{P_0}\subset \NNN_{\PPP}\cup \UUU_{\PPP}$, implying $\EEE_{\PPP}=\emptyset$ (note that with the VBM instead, in general the inclusion $\NNN_{P_0}\subset \NNN_{\PPP}$ is false).
We remark that there are 0-1 valued lower/upper probabilities in the HBM that are not precise probabilities, when $b+2a\neq 1$, and that may or may not be coherent, as in the next example.
\begin{Ex}
\label{01_not_coherent}
Let $\PP=\{\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3\}$. In Table \ref{table_01_not_coherent}, $\PPP=\overline P$ is obtained from the uniform probability $P_0$ by \eqref{lower_HBM}, \eqref{upper_HBM}, with $a=-4,\, b=8.5$. $\overline P$ (hence $\PPP$) is not coherent by Proposition \ref{characterise_coherence}, being not subadditive: $\overline P(\omega_1)+\overline P(\omega_2)<\overline P(\omega_1\vee\omega_2)$.
In the same Table \ref{table_01_not_coherent}, $\PPP'$ and its conjugate $\overline P'$ are given by \eqref{lower_HBM}, \eqref{upper_HBM} from $P_0'$, with $a=-4,\,b=6$. Using Propositions \ref{characterise_coherence} or \ref{characterise_lower_coherence_gen}, it may be checked that $\PPP',\,\overline P'$ are coherent (but they are not probability measures).
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
&&&&&&&\\[-1em] & $\omega_1$ & $\omega_2$ & $\omega_3$ & $\omega_1\vee\omega_2$ & $\omega_1\vee\omega_3$ & $\omega_2\vee\omega_3$ & $\emptyset$ & $\Omega$\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_0$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\PPP=\overline P$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_0'$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{29}{60}$ & $\frac{1}{60}$ & $\frac{59}{60}$ & $\frac{31}{60}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\PPP'$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
&&&&&&&\\[-1em]\hline &&&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\overline P'$ & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values for Example \ref{01_not_coherent}.}
\label{table_01_not_coherent}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\end{Ex}
There are also precise probabilities within the HBM that are not necessarily 0-1 valued, if $b+2a=1$. These measures must satisfy severe constraints.
A general question is when $\PPP,\overline P$ in a HBM coincide and are a precise probability. The next result gives an answer in the finite case, showing explicitly how special this situation is. The later Proposition \ref{N+1} is more general, but less meaningful in letting us evaluate the rarity of the precise probabilities.
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_N}
Let $\PPP,\overline P$ in a HBM be coherent on $\mathcal A(\PP)$, $\PP$ a finite partition. Then $\PPP=\overline P=P(\neq P_0)$, $P$ probability, if and only if one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\exists \omega^+\in\PP:$ $\PPP(\omega^+)=\overline P(\omega^+)=1$, and $\PPP(\omega)=\overline P(\omega)=0$, $\forall \omega\in\PP\setminus\{\omega^+\}$;
\item[$(b)$] $a=c<0$, and $|\mathcal E_P\cap \PP|=2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
It is interesting to point out that while a coherent $\overline P$ in a HBM may assume at most $|\PP|+2$ distinct values on $\mathcal A(\PP)$, as seen in Section \ref{coherent_uplow_HB}, Proposition \ref{prop_N} implies that $\overline P$, as a probability, may take at most 4 values. This gives a clear idea of how restrictive precision is within HBMs.
In Example \ref{ex_HB_precise} we have already encountered a HBM probability $P$ meeting case $(a)$ of Proposition \ref{prop_N}. In the next example $P$ satisfies case $(b)$ of the same Proposition \ref{prop_N}.
\begin{Ex}
\label{dF}
Let again $\PP=\{\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3\}$. Take $a=-0.125,\,b=1.25$ (hence $b+2a=1$), and define
$$
P_0(\omega_1)=0.3,\quad P_0(\omega_2)=0.7,\quad P_0(\omega_3)=0.
$$
Using \eqref{lower_HBM} or \eqref{upper_HBM}, we obtain $(\PPP=\overline P=)P$ given by:
\begin{align*}
P(\omega_1) =P(\omega_1\vee\omega_3) & =0.25, &
P(\omega_2) =P(\omega_2\vee\omega_3) & =0.75, \\
P(\omega_1\vee\omega_2) & =P(\Omega)=1, &
P(\omega_3) & = 0.
\end{align*}
$P$ is a precise probability.
\end{Ex}
\begin{Prop}
\label{N+1}
In a HBM, it is $\PPP=\overline P=P$, $P$ a probability measure, if and only if, $\forall A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP)$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\PPP(A\vee B)\le \PPP(A) + \PPP(B)$;
\item[$(b)$] $\PPP(A)+\PPP(B)\le 1 + \PPP(A\wedge B)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
\section{Other Nearly-Linear Models}
We investigate in this section the third NL model arising from the classification of Table \ref{NLmodels}, and discuss an extreme model that can be accommodated into the framework of NL models.
\subsection{The Restricted Range Model}
\label{sub_RRM}
A look at Table \ref{NLmodels} suggests that there is just one family of lower probabilities still missing in our analysis of NL models, identified by the parameter constraints of Case 6 (roughly: some strict inequalities might be relaxed, admitting the equality). Correspondingly, from the starting point of the PMM, we have so far seen the cases $a+b\le 1$ and $a+b\ge 1$, while keeping the PMM constraint $a\le 0$. Thus, it remains to explore the case of a positive $a$. From these considerations, we introduce in this section $\mu$, a NL$(a,b)$ measure, with the constraints
\begin{equation}
\label{ab_RRM}
b+2a\le 1, \quad a>0.
\end{equation}
In principle, $a=0$ could be allowed too. This corresponds to the lower probability of the $\varepsilon$-contamination model, included also in the VBM. We prefer to rule out this case, to avoid overlapping with the VBM.
From inequalities \eqref{ab_RRM}, it follows straightforwardly that
\begin{equation*}
a+b< 1, \quad b<1.
\end{equation*}
Clearly, $\mu$ is a lower probability, and since $0<a\le bP_0(A) + a\le b+a<1$, Equation \eqref{def_mu_NL}
simplifies to
$$
\mu(A)=bP_0(A) + a, \quad \forall A\in \mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}.
$$
Using \eqref{c} for the conjugate $\mu^c$, we have:
\begin{Def}
A \emph{Restricted Range Model (RRM)} is a NL Model with $\PPP$ and its conjugate $\overline P$ given by, $\forall A\in \mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$
\begin{align}
\label{lower_RRM}
\PPP(A) & =bP_0(A) + a,\\
\label{upper_RRM}
\overline P(A) & = bP_0(A) +c,
\end{align}
with $a,b$ satisfying \eqref{ab_RRM}, $c$ given by \eqref{c}, and $\PPP(\emptyset)=\overline P(\emptyset)=0$, $\PPP(\Omega)=\overline P(\Omega)=1$.
\end{Def}
The consistency properties of a RRM are easy to fix:
\begin{Prop}
\label{consistency_RRM}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a RRM. Then $\PPP,\overline P$ are 2-coherent, and coherent iff $|\PP|=2$.
\end{Prop}
Thus, a RRM is 2-coherent, but typically not coherent. Proposition \ref{consistency_RRM} lets us deduce also the following interesting result.
\begin{Prop}
\label{coherence_implies_2monotonicity}
In a NL model, if $\PPP$ ($\overline P$) is coherent, then it is 2-monotone (2-alternating).
\end{Prop}
To clarify which beliefs may be supported by a RRM, we state its following elementary properties:
\begin{Prop}
\label{properties}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a RRM, $A\in \mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$. Then, concerning $\PPP$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[$k)$] $\PPP(A)>P_0(A)$ iff $P_0(A)<\frac{a}{1-b}$;
\item[$kk)$] $\PPP(A)\in [a,a+b]$.
\end{itemize}
As for $\overline P,$
\begin{itemize}
\item[$k')$] $\overline P(A)<P_0(A)$ iff $P_0(A)>\frac{c}{1-b}$;
\item[$kk')$] $\overline P(A)\in[c,b+c]=[1-(a+b),1-a]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
Properties $kk)$, $kk')$ justify the name Restricted Range Model: the values of $\PPP,\overline P$ on non-trivial events belong to proper subsets of the interval $[0,1]$, distinct unless $\PPP=\overline P$, but both having the same width $b$. Thus $b$ measures the range of the admissible $\PPP$- and $\overline P$-evaluations for any non-trivial event.
Now take $\PPP$, whose plot against $P_0$ is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig_RRM}, 1).
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{RRM.png}
\caption{Plots of $\PPP,\overline P$ against $P_0$ in the RRM. $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ are dashed bold in their prudential part, continuous bold elsewhere. $1)$ $\PPP$ against $P_0$. $2)$ Its conjugate $\overline P$ against $P_0$.}
\label{fig_RRM}
\end{figure}
By property $k)$, the evaluation of a $\PPP$-assessor is imprudent for low probability events (low meaning $P_0<\frac{a}{1-b}$), prudential otherwise. Interpreting again $P_0(A)$ as the `true' probability for event $A$, the $\PPP$-assessor overestimates low probability events, while underestimates high probability event, which s/he buys for no more than $a+b<1$. Here $a$ measures the assessor's imprudence: her/his buying price for any non-impossible event is at least $a$.
So far, the RRM looks very similar to the HBM, as both can represent an assessor's conflicting attitudes. At a closer look, a difference is that the $\PPP$-assessor is imprudent with high probability events, using the HBM, with low probability events, by the RRM. Further, in the prudential area, the agent is more cautious with the HBM: there are events (those $A$ such that $P_0(A)<-\frac{a}{b}$) which s/he does not buy, unless they are given away for nothing. On the contrary, in the RRM the assessor is willing to buy \emph{any} event paying at least $a$. The opposite holds in the imprudent area.
Probabilities play a negligible role within RRMs: as a consequence of Proposition \ref{consistency_RRM}, $\PPP=\overline P=P$ is a probability iff $|\PP|=2$.
In the whole, we may say that the RRM is the least consistent among the NL models, and (correspondingly) the one which deviates more from the PMM.
\subsectio
{Degenerate NL models}
\label{HZ}
Define $\mu_h$ as $\mu_h(A)=a\in[0,1]$, $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$, and $\mu_h(\emptyset)=0,\mu_h(\Omega)=1$. This is a special \emph{Hurwicz capacity}, following \cite{CEG}.
So far, we supposed $b>0$ in Definition \ref{NL_mod} of a NL model; this assumption has been useful in previous computations, to prevent dividing by zero. However, allowing $b=0$, the Hurwicz capacity $\mu_h$ can be formally computed by Equation \eqref{def_mu_NL}, as well as its conjugate $\mu_h^c$ given by $\mu_h^c(A)=1-a$, $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$.
Thinking of the couple $(\mu_h,\mu_h^c)$, we term $a$ the smaller between $\mu_h(A)$, $\mu_h^c(A)$, i.e., with the notation used so far, $a\le 1-a$. Consequently, $\mu_h\le\mu_h^c$, so $\mu_h$ ($\mu_h^c$) is a lower (upper) probability. Summing up:
\begin{Def}
A \emph{Degenerate NL Model} is a couple $(\PPP_h,\overline P_h)$, with $\PPP_h$ NL$(a,0)$, $\overline P_h$ NL$(1-a,0)$, $a\in [0,\frac{1}{2}]$.
\end{Def}
Despite its simplicity, a degenerate NL model may be compatible with different degrees of consistency, as the following proposition points out referring to $\PPP_h$ (conjugacy ensures the same properties for $\overline P_h$).
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_deg_mod}
Let $(\PPP_h,\overline P_h)$ be a degenerate NL model.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\PPP_h:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ is 2-coherent.
\item[$(b)$] The restriction of $\PPP_h$ on $\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$ is convex.
\item[$(c)$] If $\PP$ is finite, $\PP=\{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n\}$, $\PPP_h$ is C-convex on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ iff $a\le \frac{1}{n}$ iff $\PPP_h$ avoids sure loss on $\mathcal A(\PP)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
Behaviourally, $\PPP_h$ expresses willingness to buy any non-trivial event in $\mathcal A(\PP)$ at the same price. If $a=0$, $\PPP_h$ coincides with the vacuous lower probability and is coherent. In general, $\PPP_h$ is not coherent: already its restriction on $\PP$ is incoherent, if $\PP$ is infinite and $a>0$.
Still referring to the restriction of $\PPP_h$ on $\PP$, note that it expresses a symmetry judgement over the atoms of $\PP$. With coherence, this may be acceptable for $a>0$ only if $\PP$ is finite, and then with the constraint $a\le \frac{1}{|\PP|}$. With precise probabilities, it is even required that $a=\frac{1}{|\PP|}$; this corresponds to the uniform probability. By Proposition \ref{prop_deg_mod}, 2-coherence and convexity are instead compatible with a symmetry or indifference judgement on even larger sets: the whole $\mathcal A(\PP)$ with 2-coherence, $\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$ with convexity, again $\mathcal A(\PP)$, but only if $\PP$ is finite, assuming C-convexity (or equivalently the condition of avoiding sure loss).
\begin{Rem}
In general, neither between 2-coherence and convexity implies the other one, while a lower prevision \emph{defined on a real vector space} of gambles is 2-coherent and convex if and only if it is coherent \cite[Proposition 13]{PV16}. The results in this section show that this equivalence is not general. In fact, a Hurwicz capacity $\PPP_h$ defined on $\PP$ (or also on $\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$) is both 2-coherent and convex, by Proposition \ref{prop_deg_mod} $(a)$, $(b)$, but not coherent if $a>0$ and $\PP$ is infinite.
\end{Rem}
\section{Comparisons with Other Models}
\label{sec_compare}
In this section we compare NL models with other models proposed in the literature that are to a certain extent overlapping with them. Prior to this, we discuss in the next subsection how the properties of the sets $\NNN_{\mu},\UUU_{\mu}$ of, respectively, null and universal events for a measure $\mu$ may vary with the degree of consistency required to $\mu$. The topic is of interest in itself, although our primary aim is to exploit it while comparing NL models and neo-additive capacities in Section \ref{NL_neo}.
\subsection{Null and universal events with different consistency notions}
\label{NU}
Let $\mu$ be an uncertainty measure on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. Recall that a set of events $\mathcal F\subset \mathcal A(\PP)$ is a \emph{filter} if:
$$
\Omega\in\mathcal F, \, \emptyset \notin\mathcal F; \quad A,B\in\mathcal F \Rightarrow A\wedge B\in\mathcal F; \quad \text{if }A\in \mathcal F, A\Rightarrow B \text{ then } B\in\mathcal F.
$$
A set of events $\mathcal I\subset \mathcal A(\PP)$ is an \emph{ideal} if
$$
\emptyset \in\mathcal I, \, \Omega\notin\mathcal I; \quad A,B\in\mathcal I \Rightarrow A\vee B\in\mathcal I; \quad \text{if }A\in \mathcal I, B\Rightarrow A \text{ then } B\in\mathcal I.
$$
When $\mu=P$, a probability, it is well-known that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] $\UUU_P$ is a filter, while $\NNN_P$ is an ideal.
\item[$ii)$] $A\in\UUU_P$ iff $\neg A\in\NNN_P$.
\end{itemize}
When $\mu$ is an imprecise probability, these properties are only partly retained, and the way $\mu$ deviates from them depends on its exact type of consistency. We present significant cases for lower probabilities in the next result.
\begin{Prop}
\label{ideals_and_others}
Let $\PPP:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ be a lower probability.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] If $\PPP$ is coherent, then $\UUU_{\PPP}$ is a filter, but $\NNN_{\PPP}$ may not be an ideal. Further, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\label{U_implies_N}
A\in\UUU_{\PPP}\Rightarrow \neg A\in\NNN_{\PPP}.
\end{equation}
\item[$(b)$] If $\PPP$ is 2-coherent, $\UUU_{\PPP}$ may not be a filter: in particular, it is possible that $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=1$, $A\wedge B\neq \emptyset$, but $\PPP(A\wedge B)=0$. Equation \eqref{U_implies_N} holds.
\item[$(c)$] If $\PPP$ is convex, $\UUU_{\PPP}$ may not be a filter, but if $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=1$, $A\wedge B\neq \emptyset$, then $\PPP(A\wedge B)\ge \frac{1}{2}$ (the bound is tight). Equation \eqref{U_implies_N} does not necessarily hold; it does if $\PPP$ is C-convex.
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
We may conclude that, in particular, condition $A\in\UUU_{\mu}\Leftrightarrow \neg A\in\NNN_{\mu}$ cannot be expected to hold with imprecise probabilities, while its weakened form \eqref{U_implies_N} does for several common consistency requirements.
\subsection{NL models and other capacities}
\label{NL_neo}
Since $\PPP,\overline P$ in any NL model are (also) capacities, NL models overlap to some extent with certain models exploiting specific capacities for various purposes.
To the best of our knowledge, the oldest reference of this kind is a paper by Rieder \cite{R} focused on statistical robustness. In \cite{R}, Rieder introduces a specific VBM and proves the 2-monotonicity of its $\underline P$. His model is a special case of ours, since he requires (using our parametrisation) the extra condition $a\ge -1$.
The comparison is more complex with \emph{neo-additive capacities} (NACs)\footnote{Neo-additive is the acronym for Non-Extreme Outcomes additive.} introduced in \cite{CEG}, and \emph{Generalised neo-additive capacities} (GNACs) introduced in \cite{EGL12}. These types of capacities, originally devised within utility theory, were also studied and characterised in an abstract measure setting in \cite{GH16}.
In these papers, a probability $P_0$ is given, and the capacity $\mu$ is a linear affine transformation of $P_0$ on the set $\EEE$ of essential events, i.e., $\mu(A)=bP_0(A) +a $, $\forall A\in\EEE$. However, with NL models we derive the sets $\NNN_{\mu},\UUU_{\mu}$ \emph{a posteriori}, after defining $\mu$ by \eqref{def_mu_NL} and using \eqref{N}, \eqref{U}, while $\mathcal E_{\mu}$ is the difference $\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus(\mathcal N_{\mu}\cup \mathcal U_{\mu})$. By contrast,
in this approach a set $\NNN$ of events which \emph{must} have $\mu$-measure 0 is fixed \emph{a priori}, requiring further that $\NNN$ is an ideal and that
\begin{equation}
\label{N_implies_U}
A\in\UUU\Leftrightarrow \neg A\in\NNN.
\end{equation}
Then $\mu$ is defined on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ by:
\begin{equation}
\label{neo}
\mu(A)=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }A\in\NNN\\
bP_0(A) + a & \text{if }A\in\EEE\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus(\NNN\cup\UUU)\\
1 &\text{if } A\in\UUU
\end{cases}
.
\end{equation}
Thus, $\mathcal N$ does not necessarily coincide with what we defined as $\mathcal N_{\mu}$: there may be $A\in\mathcal E$ having $\mu(A)=0$ (if $bP_0(A) + a=0$).
Unlike NL models, neo-additive capacities require that $a,b\in[0,1]$,\footnote{This is seen after a relabelling in \cite[Definition 3.2]{CEG}, originally defining NACs as a mixture of $P_0$ and a Hurwicz capacity.} $0\le bP_0(A) + a\le 1$\, $\forall A\in\EEE$, and that $\NNN_{P_0}\supset \NNN$. GNACs require $b\ge 0$, $a\in\RR$ as in the NL models, but with the additional condition that $\PP$ is finite. Also, the set $\NNN$ still has to be an ideal, and might be determined on the basis of utility theory considerations.
In general, the sets $\NNN_{\PPP},\NNN_{\overline P}$ in the NL models cannot be taken as $\NNN$: they are typically not ideals,
while $\mathcal N_{\PPP},\mathcal U_{\PPP}$ may not satisfy \eqref{N_implies_U}. For them the implication \eqref{U_implies_N} holds instead
under coherence or 2-coherence, as we have seen in Section \ref{NU}.
Nor can $\EEE$ be identified with $\EEE_{\PPP}$ or $\EEE_{\overline P}$: it is possible in \eqref{neo} that $A\in\EEE$ and $\mu(A)=0$ or $\mu(A)=1$. Note also that, if one wishes for whatever reason to impose that certain events belong to $\NNN$, then most NL models are unfit for this purpose. For instance, take $\PPP_{\rm PMM}$: here $\UUU_{\PPP_{\rm PMM}}=\{\Omega\}$, hence to satisfy \eqref{N_implies_U} and \eqref{neo} it is necessary that $\NNN=\{\emptyset\}$. Similarly with the RRM.
There are further differences with NL models:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] It is not distinguished whether any $\mu$ is a lower or an upper probability.
\item[-] The consistency properties of NACs and GNACs (coherence, 2-coherence) are not investigated, even though some special cases of GNACs are studied in \cite{EGL12}. 2-monotone or 2-alternating capacities (termed convex or concave, respectively) are especially considered.
\end{itemize}
An analogy lies instead in the motivations for introducing these models, which are to represent coexistence of both optimism and pessimism towards uncertainty or ambiguity. This is closed to the interpretation in terms of the assessor's prudential or non-prudential attitude in NL models.
\subsection{NL models and probability intervals}
\label{sec_intervals}
Given a \emph{finite} partition $\PP=\{\omega_1,\dots, \omega_n\}$, a \emph{probability interval} $\II=(l,u)$ on $\PP$ is an $n$-tuple of intervals $[l_i,u_i]$, $0\le l_i\le u_i\le 1$, $i=1,\dots,n$ \cite{CHM94}.
It may be viewed
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] as a lower and upper probability assignment on $\PP$,
or equivalently
\item[$ii)$] as a lower probability assignment on $\PP\cup\{A_i:\neg A_i\in \PP\}$, where, for $i=1,\dots,n$, $\PPP(\omega_i)=l_i$,
$\PPP(A_i)=1-\overline P(\neg A_i)=1-u_i$ if $\neg A_i=\omega_i$.
\end{itemize}
It is well-known \cite{book,MMD18,CHM94} that a probability interval $\II$ is coherent (reachable in the terminology of \cite{CHM94}) on $\PP$ iff
$$
u_i + \sum_{j\neq i}l_j \le 1, \quad l_i + \sum_{j\neq i} u_j\ge 1, \quad i=1,\dots,n,
$$
and that if $\II$ is coherent on $\PP$ it has a \emph{least-committal} extension (or natural extension \cite{W}) on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ given by, $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$,
\begin{align}
\label{extended_lower}
l(A) & = \max\bigg\{\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i, 1- \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A} u_i\bigg\}, \\
\label{extended_upper}
u(A) & = 1-l(\neg A)= \min\bigg\{\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} u_i, 1- \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A} l_i\bigg\}.
\end{align}
Moreover, $l(\cdot)\, (u(\cdot))$ is coherent and 2-monotone (2-alternating) on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. Least-committal means that if $\PPP$ is any coherent extension of $\II$ on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ and $\overline P$ is its conjugate, then $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$
\begin{equation}
\label{N2}
(0\le)\, l(A)\le\PPP(A)\le\overline P(A)\le u(A)\, (\le 1).
\end{equation}
For a better understanding, we call \emph{extended probability interval}, $\II_E$, the least-committal extension \eqref{extended_lower}, \eqref{extended_upper} on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ of a coherent $\II$.
A reason for comparing NL models and probability intervals is that, as has recently been proven \cite{MMD18}, any PMM in a finite setting is an extended probability interval. It is therefore of interest to establish whether this property holds for more general NL models.
We start with VBMs. It appears already from the following result that they are usually not extended probability intervals.
\begin{Prop}
\label{characterisation_extended}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a VBM on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ (Definition \ref{VBM}), $|\PP|=n$, and define $\II=(\PPP|_{\PP},\overline P|_{\PP})$. Then $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is the extended probability interval $\II_E$ of $\II$ if and only if one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $a=0$,
\item[$(b)$] $a+b=1$,
\item[$(c)$] $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset,\Omega\}$, $A$ satisfies one of the following conditions (the condition may vary with $A$):
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(c1)$] $\PPP(A)=0$,
\item[$(c2)$] $a<0$, $\PPP(A)>0$, $\displaystyle A=\omega^+\vee \bigvee_{j=1}^k \omega_{i_j}$, $k\in\{0,\dots,n-1\}$, $\PPP(\omega^+)>0$, $P_0(\omega_{i_j})=0$, $j=1,\dots,k$,
\item[$(c3)$] $\PPP(A)>0$ and $\neg A\in\PP$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
We may restate Proposition \ref{characterisation_extended} in a more expressive way, on the grounds of the following considerations.
Its conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ require, respectively, that $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is an $\varepsilon$-contami\-nation model or a Pari-Mutuel model.
As for condition $(c)$, it is easy to realise that it is always satisfied when $|\PP|=n\le 3$.
When $n>3$, $(c)$ can only hold if
\begin{equation}
\label{ppiu}
|\mathcal P^+|=|\{\omega\in\PP: \PPP(\omega)>0\}|\le 1.
\end{equation}
In fact, suppose that $(c)$ holds, let $\PPP(\omega^+)>0$, and take any $\omega\neq \omega^+$. Then $\PPP(\omega)=0$, or else $A=\omega^+\vee \omega$ satisfies
none of the subcriteria $(c1)$, $(c2)$, $(c3)$. Since $\omega$ is arbitrary in $\PP\setminus\{\omega^+\}$, \eqref{ppiu} holds.
Let us see in detail the two possible situations compatible with \eqref{ppiu}.
\begin{itemize}
\item $|\mathcal P^+|=1$. Then $\exists!\ \omega^+:\PPP(\omega^+)>0$. Taking any $\omega\neq \omega^+$, the event $A=\omega^+\vee \omega$ can only satisfy $(c2)$, but this requires $P_0(\omega)=0$. Thus $P_0$ must be concentrated in $\omega^+$ ($P_0(\omega^+)=1$), which is on the other hand also sufficient for $(c)$.
In fact, since $P_0\ge \PPP$, it must be $\PPP(A)=0$ for any $A$ such that $\omega^+\wedge A=\emptyset$. Therefore, if $\omega^+\wedge A=\emptyset$, $A$ satisfies $(c1)$, while if $\omega^+\wedge A=\omega^+$, $A$ satisfies $(c2)$ (if $\omega\Rightarrow A$, $\omega\neq \omega^+$, $\PPP(\omega)=P_0(\omega)=0$).
\item
$|\mathcal P^+|=0$. Then, $(c2)$ does not apply. To satisfy $(c)$, either $\PPP$ is the vacuous lower probability, or those events $A$ with $\PPP(A)>0$ are made of $n-1$ atoms of $\PP$.
\end{itemize}
Summarising, we have
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_characterise_intervals}
Let $(\PPP,\overline P)$ be a VBM on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is the extended probability interval of its restriction on $\PP$ iff one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is an $\varepsilon$-contamination model,
\item[$(b)$] $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is a PMM,
\item[$(c)$] $|\PP|\le 3$,
\item[$(d)$] $|\PP|>3$ and one the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $P_0$ is concentrated on one atom of $\PP$,
\item[$\bullet$] $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is the vacuous imprecise probability,
\item[$\bullet$] if $\PPP(A)>0$ then $A$ is made of $n - 1$ atoms.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{Prop}
Turning to the other NL models, there is little to say about RRMs: they are extended probability intervals iff $|\PP|=2$. As for HBMs, when they are coherent (which, as seen in Section \ref{coherent_uplow_HB}, is not the rule), they are also extended probability intervals:
\begin{Prop}
\label{prop_HBM_intervals}
If in a HBM, $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ are coherent on $\mathcal A(\PP)$, $|\PP|=n$, then $(\PPP,\overline P)$ is the extended probability interval of $\II=(\PPP|_{\PP},\overline P|_{\PP})$.
\end{Prop}
We conclude that NL models are extended probability intervals in very special instances only.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_conclusions}
In this paper, we have introduced Nearly-Linear models, investigating the consistency properties of their subfamilies and the beliefs they can represent. We have shown that they may range from coherent models (even precise probabilities, in very special instances) to 2-coherent ones, and that they can represent more or less rational ways of assessing uncertainty evaluations. The least rational beliefs elicit ways of thinking of possibly inexperienced or irrational assessors, but are not uncommon in practice. Similar attitudes have been observed also in other areas, like Decision Theory and Behavioural Economics, although models developed in these realms for these purposes only partly overlap with NL models, as we have noticed. It is therefore important to clarify which are the connections between these convictions and the degree of consistency of the model representing them. In the whole, we find a surprising variety of situations. At one end, the VBM is a cautious generalisation of the PMM; it is a sound model, as it is coherent and corrects a possible practical shortcoming of the PMM, its neglecting fixed costs in the making of a selling price of an event. At the other end, the HBM and the RRM both convey a subject's conflicting attitudes. These are especially patent with tail events: the $\PPP,\overline P$ evaluations of high (low) $P_0$ probability events are even higher (lower) in the HBM, while they move in the opposite way in the RRM, flattening the $\PPP,\overline P$ values of all non-trivial events in a range narrower than 1. This latter behaviour is less consistent than the former: RRMs are 2-coherent, but not coherent (unless $|\PP|=2$), whilst a HBM may be coherent in some specific circumstances. Both a HBM and a RRM should therefore be regarded as simple ways of explaining certain behaviours, rather than ideal models for assessing uncertainty.
The major open question regarding NL models is how to make inferences, or conditioning, with them. In the case of the VBM, we deem likely that the results obtained for the PMM in \cite{PVZ} can be generalised. Extending the remaining 2-coherent models may be more complex, even though some results for the 2-coherent natural extension in \cite{PV16} could be applied.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Enrique Miranda for fruitful discussions and suggestions and to the referees for some helpful suggestions.
\section*{Appendix: Proofs}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma_capacity}.}
Recalling Definition \ref{def_capac},
only monotonicity has to be checked. Take for this $A,B\in \mathcal A(\PP)$, $A \Rightarrow B$, and let $\mu$ be defined by \eqref{def_mu_NL}. Hence $\mu(\cdot)\in [0,1]$, and, if $\mu(A)=0$, it is obviously $\mu(A)\le \mu(B)$. If $\mu(A)>0$, using \eqref{def_mu_NL}, $b>0$ and monotonicity of $P_0$, we obtain
$$
\mu(A)=\min\{bP_0(A) + a,1\}\le \min\{bP_0(B) + a,1\}=\mu(B).
$$
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{conjugate}.}
$\mu^c(A)$ satisfies Definition \ref{NL_IP} for $A=\emptyset,A=\Omega$. For any $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset, \Omega\}$, we have by \eqref{def_mu_NL}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mu^c(A)
& = 1- \mu(\neg A)=1-\min\{\max\{bP_0(\neg A) + a,0\},1\}\\
& = 1 + \max\{-\max \{b(1-P_0(A)) + a,0\},-1\}\\
& = 1 + \max\{\min \{bP_0(A) - (a+b),0\},-1\}\\
& = \max\{\min \{bP_0(A) - (a+b),0\} + 1,0\}\\
& = \max\{\min \{bP_0(A) +1 - (a+b),1\},0\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
From the second equality in \eqref{def_mu_NL} and the last expression, we derive that $\mu^c$ is NL$(1-(a+b),b)$, which is the thesis.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}.}
Since $\mathcal A(\PP)$ is negation-invariant, we may apply Proposition \ref{prop_character_2coherence}. Taking account of Lemma \ref{lemma_capacity}, there remains to check that,
\begin{equation}
\label{equiv_2coherence}
\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP), \quad \PPP(A) + \PPP(\neg A)\le 1.
\end{equation}
We distinguish the following, exhaustive cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] If $A\in \NNN_{\PPP}$, then $\PPP(A) + \PPP(\neg A)=\PPP(\neg A)\le 1$.
\item[$(b)$] If $A\in \UUU_{\PPP}$, then $\neg A\in \NNN_{\PPP}$. This is trivially true if $A=\Omega$. Otherwise, $A\in\UUU_{\PPP}$ implies $bP_0(A) + a\ge 1$, equivalent to $b(1-P_0(\neg A)) + a\ge 1$ and to $bP_0(\neg A) +a\le b+2a -1 \le 0$, using \eqref{2coherence} at the last inequality. Hence $\neg A\in \mathcal N_{\PPP}$ and \eqref{equiv_2coherence} holds by $(a)$.
\item[$(c)$] If $A\in\EEE_{\PPP}$, then $\neg A\notin \UUU_{\PPP}$ (by $(b)$: $\neg A \in \UUU_{\PPP}$ would imply $A\in\NNN_{\PPP}$). If $\neg A\in\NNN_{\PPP}$, we obtain case $(a)$; if $\neg A\in\EEE_{\PPP}$,
$$
\PPP(A)+\PPP(\neg A)=bP_0(A) + a + bP_0(\neg A) + a =b + 2a\le 1.
$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$]
If $b+2a=1$, then $c=1-(a+b)=a$. Hence, $\PPP$ and $\overline P$ are both NL$(a,b)$, so $\overline P=\PPP$, applying Definition \ref{NL_mod}.
\item[$(b)$] Consider any event $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)$. Since $\PPP=\overline P=P$, we obtain from \eqref{conju}
\begin{equation}
\label{negazione}
P(A)+P(\neg A)=1.
\end{equation}
It is then not possible that both $A$ and $\neg A$ belong to $\mathcal E_{P}$: otherwise, by \eqref{negazione}, we would get $bP_0(A) + a=P(A)=1-P(\neg A)=1-(bP_0(\neg A) + a)$, equivalent to $b+2a=1$, against the assumption. Hence, at least one between $A$ or $\neg A$ belongs to $\mathcal N_{P}\cup \mathcal U_{P}$, and its probability $P(A)$ is either 0 or 1. But then the probability of its negation is either 1 or 0, respectively, by \eqref{negazione}.
Thus $\mathcal E_P=\emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{VBM_coherent}.}
It is sufficient to prove the thesis for $\PPP$. For this, we prove first that $\PPP$ is 2-monotone, i.e., that Equation \eqref{2monot} holds for $\PPP$. Observe for this that:
\begin{itemize}
\item Equation \eqref{2monot} holds trivially either when at least one between events $A$ and $B$ is $\Omega$, or when $\PPP(A)\cdot\PPP(B)=0$ (implying by monotonicity of $\PPP$ that $\PPP(A\wedge B)=0$, $\PPP(A\vee B)\ge \max\{\PPP(A),\PPP(B)\}$).
\item Suppose then $A\neq \Omega,B\neq \Omega,\PPP(A)\cdot\PPP(B)>0$. Equation \eqref{2monot} holds, because
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\PPP(A) + \PPP(B)
& =bP_0(A) + a+ bP_0(B) +a \\
& =bP_0(A\vee B) + a + bP_0(A\wedge B) +a\\
& \le \PPP(A\vee B) + \max\{bP_0(A\wedge B) + a,0\}\\
& =\PPP(A\vee B) + \PPP(A\wedge B).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Hence, $\PPP$ is 2-monotone, and $\PPP(\emptyset)=0$, $\PPP(\Omega)=1$. Therefore $\PPP$ is coherent \cite[Corollary 6.16]{TdC}.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies}.}
\emph{Proof of $(a)$.} ($\Rightarrow$) If $A=\emptyset$, the equality is true for $k=0$. Otherwise, $\displaystyle A=\bigvee_{\omega \Rightarrow A, \, \omega \in \PP} \omega$, and, for any such $\omega$ implying $A$, $\overline P(\omega)\le \overline P(A)=0$ by monotonicity of $\overline P$, hence $\overline P(\omega)=0$.
($\Leftarrow$) Let $\displaystyle A=\bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}$, with $\omega_{j_i}\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$, $i=1,\dots,k$. Using subadditivity of $\overline P$, it is $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^k \overline P(\omega_{j_i})=0\ge \overline P(A)\ge 0$, thus $\overline P(A)=0$, i.e., $A\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$.
\emph{Proof of $(b)$.} ($\Leftarrow$) Let $\displaystyle A=\omega^+\vee \bigvee_{i=1}^k \omega_{j_i}$, with $\omega^+\in \PP\cap \mathcal E_{\overline P},\,\omega_{j_i}\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$,
$i=1,\dots,k$. Let $k>0$ (otherwise the thesis is trivial). It holds that
\begin{equation}
\label{A_omega+}
1>\overline P(\omega^+)=\overline P(\omega^+) + \sum_{i=1}^k \overline P(\omega_{j_i})\ge \overline P(A)\ge \overline P(\omega^+)>0,
\end{equation}
using subadditivity of $\overline P$ at the first weak inequality, its monotonicity at the second. Hence, $\overline P(A)=\overline P(\omega^+)\in\,]0,1[$, meaning that $A\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$.
($\Rightarrow$) Since $A\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, for any $\omega\in\PP$ implying $A$ it is
$0\le \overline P(\omega)\le \overline P(A)<1$. Thus $\omega\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}\cup\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, and $A$ may be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
\label{decomposition}
A=\bigvee_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\, \omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P}} \omega \vee \bigvee_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\, \omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}}\omega.
\end{equation}
Applying subadditivity of $\overline P$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P}} \overline P(\omega)
& + \sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}} \overline P(\omega) \\
& =\sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}} \Big(bP_0(\omega) + c\Big)\ge \overline P(A)=bP_0(A) + c \\
& = b\Big(\sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P}}P_0(\omega) + \sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}} P_0(\omega)\Big) + c.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Name $m$ the cardinality of the set $\{\omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}\cap \PP:\omega\Rightarrow A \}$. Then, comparing in the derivation above $\sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal E_{\overline P}} (bP_0(\omega) + c)$ with the last row term, we obtain
$$
mc\ge b\sum_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P}} P_0(\omega) +c \ge c.
$$
Since $c<0$, it is either $m=1$, $P_0(\omega)=0$, $\forall \omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P},$ $\omega\Rightarrow A$, or, alternatively, $m=0$. Assuming $m=0$, by \eqref{decomposition} $A=\bigvee_{\omega\Rightarrow A,\,\omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P}} \omega$, and by $(a)$ of this proposition $A\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$, a contradiction.
Therefore $m=1$, $P_0(\omega)=0$, $\forall \omega \in \mathcal N_{\overline P},$ $\omega\Rightarrow A$, which is the thesis.
\emph{Proof of $(c)$.} Two alternatives may occur:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] $\PP \cap \mathcal U_{\overline P}\neq \emptyset$. Then there is $\omega^*\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}$ such that $bP_0(\omega^*) + c\ge 1$, and \eqref{+*} holds, since $bP_0(\omega^+) + c>0$;
\item[$ii)$] $\PP \cap \mathcal U_{\overline P} = \emptyset$.
Note that, using subadditivity of $\overline P$,
\begin{multline}
\label{ge1}
1 =\overline P(\Omega)=\overline P\Big(\bigvee_{\omega\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}} \omega \vee \bigvee_{\omega\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}} \omega
\Big)\\
\le \sum_{\omega\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}} \overline P(\omega) + \sum_{\omega\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}} \overline P(\omega)
= \sum_{\omega\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}} \Big(bP_0(\omega) + c\Big).
\end{multline}
Then, by \eqref{ge1}, since $bP_0(\omega^+)+c<1,$ there exists $\omega^*\in\PP\cap\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, $\omega^*\neq \omega^+$.
Since $\omega^+\vee \omega^*\notin\mathcal N_{\overline P}$ (by $(a)$) and $\omega^+\vee \omega^*\notin \mathcal E_{\overline P}$ (by $(b)$), necessarily $\omega^+\vee\omega^*\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}$, which implies \eqref{+*}, together with subadditivity:
$$
bP_0(\omega^+)+ c + bP_0(\omega^*) + c =\overline P(\omega^+) + \overline P(\omega^*)\ge \overline P(\omega^+\vee \omega^*)= 1.
$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Corollary \ref{unico_e}.}
Event $A$ can be decomposed as in Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$. Assuming that decomposition, it is derived from Equation \eqref{A_omega+} in the proof of Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ that $\overline P(A)=\overline P(\omega^+)$.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{cond_sub_HB}.}
Take any two distinct $\omega_i,\omega_j\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$. By Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies},
$\overline P(\omega_i\vee \omega_j)=1$, implying that
$$
b\big(P_0(\omega_i) + P_0(\omega_j)\big) + c\ge 1.
$$
It ensues that ($c<0$):
$
P_0(\omega_i) + P_0(\omega_j) \ge \frac{1-c}{b}>\frac{1}{b},
$
or also ($P_0(\omega_i)P_0(\omega_j)>0$ from \eqref{upper_HBM})
\begin{equation}
\label{bound1_b}
b>\frac{1}{P_0(\omega_i) + P_0(\omega_j)},
\end{equation}
which justifies the internal maximum in Equation \eqref{bound_b}.
To complete the proof, since $|\PP|\ge 2m$ and assuming for notational simplicity that the first $2m$ elements of $\PP\cap \EEE_{\overline P}$ are $\omega_1,\dots, \omega_{2m}$,
we have
$$
1=P_0(\Omega)\ge \sum_{i=1}^m \Big(P_0(\omega_{2i-1}) + P_0(\omega_{2i})\Big) >\frac{m}{b},
$$
applying the reciprocal of \eqref{bound1_b} at the strict inequality. The inequality $b>m$ follows.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{characterise_coherence}.}
We distinguish two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] Let $\PP$ be finite.
If $\overline P$ is coherent, it is necessarily subadditive (cf. \eqref{subadd}).
Conversely, suppose that $\overline P$ is subadditive. By Theorem \ref{env_thm} $(b)$, $\overline P$ is coherent if we prove that
$$
\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP), \quad \exists P_A:P_A(A)=\overline P(A), \quad P_A(B)\le \overline P(B), \quad \forall B\in\mathcal A(\PP),
$$
with $P_A:\mathcal A(\PP)\to\RR$ precise probability. We distinguish three exhaustive alternatives. Prior to this, define the function
$$
\delta(\omega \Rightarrow B)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if }\omega \Rightarrow B\\
0 & \text{if }\omega \not\Rightarrow B
\end{cases}
$$
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $A\in \mathcal E_{\overline P}$.
Define $P_A(\omega)$ on $\PP$ as follows:
$$
P_A(\omega)=
\begin{cases}
bP_0(\omega^+) + c & \text{if }\omega=\omega^+\\
1-P_A(\omega^+) & \text{if }\omega=\omega^*\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$$
where $\omega^*,\omega^+$ are the atoms in Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ and $(c)$. Then extend $P_A$ on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ putting, $\forall B\in \mathcal A(\PP),$
\begin{equation}
\label{PA}
P_A(B)=\delta(\omega^+\Rightarrow B)P_A(\omega^+) + \delta (\omega^*\Rightarrow B)P_A(\omega^*).
\end{equation}
Clearly, $P_A$ is a probability on $\mathcal A(\PP)$. Let us see that, $\forall B\in \mathcal A(\PP),$ $P_A(B)\le \overline P(B)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$i)$] if $B\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}$, then $P_A(B)\le 1=\overline P(B)$;
\item[$ii)$] if $B\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$, then $\omega^+\not\Rightarrow B$, $\omega^*\not\Rightarrow B$, by Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(a)$. From Equation \eqref{PA}, $P_A(B)=0=\overline P(B)$;
\item[$iii)$] if $B\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, by Corollary \ref{unico_e} there is one and only one $\omega_B\in\PP \cap \mathcal E_{\overline P}$ such that $\overline P(B)=\overline P(\omega_B)$.
If $\omega_B=\omega^+$, or $\omega_B=\omega^*$, then by \eqref{PA} $P_A(B)=P_A(\omega^+)=\overline P(B)$, or $P_A(B)=P_A(\omega^*)=\overline P(B)$, respectively.
If $\omega_B\neq \omega^+$, $\omega_B\neq \omega^*$, by \eqref{PA} $P_A(B)=0<\overline P(B)$.
\end{itemize}
Hence $P_A(B)\le \overline P(B)$ in any case, and, when $B=A$, $P_A(A)=\overline P(A)$: $B=A$ is included into the subcase $\omega_B=\omega^+$ of $iii)$ above.
\item[$(b)$] $A\in \mathcal U_{\overline P}$.
By Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies}, two alternatives may occur:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$j)$] $\exists \omega^{(1)}\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}: \omega^{(1)}\Rightarrow A$.
Define
$$
P_A(B)=\delta\big(\omega^{(1)}\Rightarrow B\big), \quad \forall B\in \mathcal A(\PP).
$$
Since $\omega^{(1)}\not\Rightarrow B$ if either $B\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$ (Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(a)$) or $B\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$ (Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$), $P_A(B)=0\le \overline P(B)$ for $B\in \mathcal N_{\overline P} \cup \mathcal E_{\overline P}$. If $B\in \mathcal U_{\overline P}$, $P_A(B)\le 1=\overline P(B)$. Hence it is always $P_A\le \overline P$, and in particular $P_A(A)=1=\overline P(A)$.
\item[$jj)$] $\exists \omega',\omega''\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}:\omega'\Rightarrow A,\omega''\Rightarrow A, \omega'\neq \omega''$.
Define the following probability:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
P_A(\omega) & =
\begin{cases}
bP_0(\omega') + c & \text{if }\omega=\omega'\\
1-P_A(\omega') & \text{if }\omega=\omega''\\
0 & \text{if }\omega\notin\{\omega',\omega''\}
\end{cases}
&
\\
\label{PA2}
P_A(B) & =\delta (\omega'\Rightarrow B)P_A(\omega') + \delta (\omega''\Rightarrow B)P_A(\omega''), & \forall B\in \mathcal A(\PP).
\end{align}
To prove that $P_A(B)\le \overline P(B)$, $\forall B\in \mathcal A(\PP)$, note that if $B\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}$ or $B\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$, the argument parallels that of $i),ii)$, respectively, item $(a)$.
There remains the case $B\in\mathcal E_{\overline P}$, where, by Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$, $\displaystyle B=\omega^+ \vee \bigvee_{i=1}^k\omega_{j_i}$, $\omega^+ \in\PP\cap \mathcal E_{\overline P}$, $\omega_{j_i}\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$, $P_0(\omega_{j_i})=0, \, i=1,\dots, k$. Three subcases may occur (use \eqref{PA2} to compute $P_A$):
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] if $\omega^+\neq \omega', \,\omega^+\neq \omega'',$ then $P_A(B)=0<\overline P(B)$;
\item[$\bullet$] if $\omega^+=\omega'$, then $P_A(B)=bP_0(\omega') + c=bP_0(\omega^+) + c=\overline P(B)$,
with the last equality arising from Corollary \ref{unico_e};
\item[$\bullet$] If $\omega^+=\omega''$, by Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ $\omega'\vee\omega''\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}$. This fact and subadditivity imply that
$$
bP_0(\omega') + c + bP_0(\omega'') + c=\overline P(\omega') + \overline P(\omega'')\ge \overline P(\omega'\vee\omega'')=1.
$$
From the inequality above and Corollary \ref{unico_e},
\begin{align*}
P_A(B)
& =P_A(\omega'')=1-P_A(\omega')\\
& =1-\big(bP_0(\omega') + c\big)\le bP_0(\omega'') + c=\overline P(B).
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Finally, $P_A(A)=P_{A}(\omega')+ P_A(\omega'')=1=\overline P(A)$.
\end{itemize}
\item[$(c)$] $A\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$.
For any $A\in\mathcal U_{\overline P}\cup \mathcal E_{\overline P}\supset\{\Omega\}$, the corresponding $P_A$ obtained in $(a)$ and $(b)$ is equal to $0=\overline P(B)$, $\forall B\in\mathcal N_{\overline P}$. Thus, no further $P_A$ has to be added for $A\in \mathcal N_{\overline P}$: $\overline P$ is the upper envelope of the probabilities obtained in the previous two steps.
\end{itemize}
\item[2)] Let $\PP$ be infinite.
To prove coherence of $\overline P$, we have to ensure that for the generic gain $\overline G$ in Definition \ref{def_upper_coherence} it holds that $\max \overline G\ge 0$.
If we consider the \emph{finite} partition $\PP_{G}$ generated by $A_i$, $i=0,1,\dots,n$
(cf. Section \ref{describe_uncertain}),
we note that the gamble $\overline G$ is defined on $\PP_{G}$, and that, for $i=0,1,\dots,n$, $A_i\in \mathcal A(\PP_{G})$, \emph{which is finite too}. Therefore $\overline G$ is also obtained from checking coherence of the restriction of $\overline P$ on $\mathcal A(\PP_{G})$, $\overline P|_{\mathcal A(\PP_{G})}$. But since $\overline P|_{\mathcal A(\PP_{G})}(A\vee B)\le \overline P|_{\mathcal A(\PP_{G})}(A) + \overline P|_{\mathcal A(\PP_{G})}(B)$, $\forall A,B\in \mathcal A(\PP_{G})$, $\overline P|_{\mathcal A(\PP_{G})}$ is coherent by Part 1), hence $\max \overline G\ge 0$. Since the argument applies to any generic gain concerning $\overline P$, $\overline P$ is coherent too.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{Pinf_HB_super}.}
We prove \eqref{superadd} in all cases but the symmetric ones, obtained exchanging $A$ and $B$. Let then $A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP)$ with $A\wedge B=\emptyset$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $A\in\mathcal N_{\PPP}$, \eqref{superadd} boils down to
$\PPP(A\vee B)\ge \PPP(B),$ true by monotonicity of $\PPP$.
\item If $A,B\in\mathcal E_{\PPP}$, $\PPP(A) + \PPP(B)=bP_0(A)+ bP_0(B) + 2a=bP_0(A\vee B) + 2a$.
Given this,
\begin{itemize}
\item[] if $A\vee B\in\mathcal E_{\PPP}$, $\PPP(A) + \PPP(B)=\PPP(A\vee B)+a<\PPP(A\vee B)$ (using \eqref{sign_ab});
\item[] if $A\vee B\in\mathcal U_{\PPP}$, $\PPP(A) + \PPP(B)\le b+2a\le 1=\PPP(A\vee B)$ (using \eqref{strict_cond_HB}).
\end{itemize}
\item It cannot occur that $A\in\mathcal E_{\PPP}\cup \mathcal U_{\PPP}$, $B\in\mathcal U_{\PPP}$: since $A\Rightarrow \neg B$, this would imply
$1<\PPP(A) + 1 \le \PPP(\neg B) + \PPP(B)$, which conflicts with Proposition \ref{prop_character_2coherence} $(ii)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{HBM_coh_implies_alter}.}
It suffices by conjugacy to prove that $\overline P$ is 2-alternating, checking \eqref{2altern}. Given $E\in\mathcal A(\PP)$, define
$$
\mathcal P^E=\{\omega\in\PP:\omega\Rightarrow E,\overline P(\omega)>0\}.
$$
Recall from Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ and Corollary \ref{unico_e} that $\overline P(E)=1$ if $|\mathcal P^E|\ge 2$. Now let $\overline P$ be coherent, take any two $A,B\in\mathcal A(\PP)$, and consider $\mathcal P^{A\vee B}$. The following alternatives may occur:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $|\mathcal P^{A\vee B}|=0$. Then \eqref{2altern} trivially holds, in the form $0=0$.
\item[$(b)$] $|\mathcal P^{A\vee B}|\ge 1$ and $|\mathcal P^{A\wedge B}|=0$. Then $\overline P(A\wedge B)=0$, and \eqref{2altern} boils down to $\overline P(A\vee B)\le \overline P(A) + \overline P(B)$, true by subadditivity of $\overline P$.
\item[$(c)$] Either $|\mathcal P^{A\vee B}|=|\mathcal P^{A\wedge B}|=1$, or $|\mathcal P^{A\vee B}|\ge 2$ and at least 2 atoms in $\mathcal P^{A\vee B}$ imply $A\wedge B$.
Then all the upper probabilities are identical in \eqref{2altern}, which holds with equality.
\item[$(d)$] $|\mathcal P^{A\vee B}|\ge 2$ and exactly one $\omega \in \mathcal P^{A\vee B}$ implies $A\wedge B$.
Then $\overline P(A\vee B)=1$, and the following subcases arise:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] All atoms in $\mathcal P^{A\vee B}\setminus\{\omega\}(\neq \emptyset)$ imply $A\wedge \neg B$. Then $\overline P(A)=1$
and \eqref{2altern} reduces to $\overline P(B) - \overline P(A\wedge B)\ge 0$, true by monotonicity of $\overline P$.
\item[-] All atoms in $\mathcal P^{A\vee B}\setminus\{\omega\}$ imply $\neg A\wedge B$: analogous argument as above.
\item[-] In $\mathcal P^{A\vee B}\setminus\{\omega\}$, at least one atom implies $A\wedge \neg B$, and at least another one implies $\neg A \wedge B$. Then $\overline P(A)=1=\overline P(B)$, and \eqref{2altern} becomes the true inequality $\overline P(A\wedge B)\le 1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_N}.}
Suppose first that $\PPP=\overline P=P$, $P$ probability ($P\neq P_0$). Two alternatives are possible:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] $\exists \omega^+\in\PP:P(\omega^+)=1$.
Then clearly, since $P$ is a probability, $P(\omega)=0$, $\forall \omega\in\PP\setminus\{\omega^+\}$.
\item[$(ii)$] $\forall \omega\in\PP$, $P(\omega)<1$.
Then $\mathcal E_P\cap \PP\neq\emptyset$ (since $\sum_{\omega\in\PP} P(\omega)=1$).
Take $\omega^*\in\mathcal E_P\cap\PP$: from $\PPP(\omega^*)=bP_0(\omega^*) + a=\overline P(\omega^*)=bP_0(\omega^*) +c$ we immediately obtain $a=c$ ($c<0$, since $P\neq P_0)$.
It is not possible that $|\mathcal E_P\cap \PP|\ge 3$: if, say, $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3\in \mathcal E_P\cap \PP$, then $P(\omega_1\vee\omega_2)=1$, by Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ (thinking of $P$ as a coherent, hence monotone and subadditive, upper probability). This implies $P(\omega_3)=0$, contradicting $\omega_3 \in\mathcal E_P$.
Since $\PP$ is finite, it is also $|\mathcal E_P \cap \PP|\neq 1$. Thus $|\EEE_P\cap \PP|=2$.
\end{itemize}
Conversely, assume now that either $(a)$ or $(b)$ hold.
If $(a)$ holds, $\PPP=\overline P=P$ is trivially a probability.
If $(b)$ holds, $a=c$ (that is, $b+2a=1$) ensures that $\PPP=\overline P=P$ (Proposition \ref{equiv_sotto=sopra} $(a)$). $P$ is a probability, by Lemma \ref{zero} (cf. also Remark \ref{rem_zero}).
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{N+1}.}
If $\PPP=\overline P=P$ is a probability measure, then since $P$ is coherent as both a lower and an upper probability, $(a)$ and $(b)$ necessarily hold (cf. Equations \eqref{subadd}, \eqref{quasi_superadd}).
Conversely, let $(a)$, $(b)$ hold. Then, $\forall S\in \mathcal A(\PP)$, it is
$$
1=\PPP(\Omega)=\PPP(S\vee\neg S)\le \PPP(S) + \PPP(\neg S)\le 1 + \PPP(S\wedge \neg S)=1,
$$
implying that $\PPP(S)=1-\PPP(\neg S)=\overline P(S)$. Thus $\PPP=\overline P=P$. Moreover, $\PPP,\overline P$ are coherent lower, respectively upper, probabilities, from Propositions \ref{characterise_coherence}, \ref{characterise_lower_coherence_gen}. Therefore, $P$ is a probability (Lemma \ref{zero} and Remark \ref{rem_zero}).
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{consistency_RRM}.}
It suffices to consider $\PPP$. $\PPP$ is 2-coherent by \eqref{ab_RRM} and Proposition \ref{prop_2coherence}.
$\PPP$ is not coherent if $|\PP|\ge 3$. In fact, then there are distinct $\omega_1,\omega_2\in\PP$, such that $\omega_1\vee \omega_2\neq \Omega$. By \eqref{lower_RRM}, \eqref{ab_RRM}:
\begin{multline*}
\PPP(\omega_1)+\PPP(\omega_2)=b\big(P_0(\omega_1) + P_0(\omega_2)\big) +2a \\
= bP_0(\omega_1\vee \omega_2) + 2a=\PPP(\omega_1\vee\omega_2)+ a >\PPP(\omega_1\vee\omega_2).
\end{multline*}
Hence $\PPP$ is incoherent, being not superadditive (cf. \eqref{superadd}).
$\PPP$ is coherent, if $|\PP|=2$. In fact, then $\PP=\{\omega,\neg \omega\}$ and, by \eqref{lower_RRM}, \eqref{ab_RRM}:
$$
\PPP(\omega)+\PPP(\neg \omega)=b\big(P_0(\omega) + P_0(\neg \omega)\big) +2a=b+2a\le 1=\PPP(\Omega).
$$
From this inequality, $\PPP$ is coherent on $\mathcal A(\PP)$, being the lower envelope of $\{P_1,P_2\}$, with $P_1(\omega)=\PPP(\omega), \, P_1(\neg \omega)=1-\PPP(\omega)$, $P_2(\omega)=1-\PPP(\neg\omega), \, P_2(\neg \omega)\linebreak =\PPP(\neg \omega)$.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{coherence_implies_2monotonicity}.}
Follows from: Proposition \ref{consistency_RRM}, recalling that any coherent $\PPP$ ($\overline P$) on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ is 2-monotone (2-alternating) if $|\PP|\le 3$ \cite[Proposition 6.9]{TdC}, Proposition \ref{VBM_coherent}, Proposition \ref{HBM_coh_implies_alter}.
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_deg_mod}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] It is simple to verify that $\PPP_h$ obeys the conditions $(i),(ii),(iii)$ in Proposition \ref{prop_character_2coherence}, hence it is 2-coherent.
\item[$(b)$] We prove that Definition \ref{def_all} $(b)$ applies to $\PPP_h|_{\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset, \Omega\}}$. Considering a generic $\underline G_{C}$, recalling that $\sum_{i=1}^ns_i=1$ there,
$$
\underline G_{C}=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i\big(I_{A_i} - a\big) - \big(I_{A_0} - a\big)= \sum_{i=1}^n s_i \, I_{A_i} - I_{A_0},
$$
there is $\omega^*\in\PP$ such that $\omega^*\wedge A_0=\emptyset$ (since $A_0$ cannot be $\Omega$). It follows that
$$
\max \underline G_C\ge \underline G_C(\omega^*)=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i \, I_{A_i}(\omega^*) - I_{A_0}(\omega^*)=\sum_{i=1}^n s_i \, I_{A_i}(\omega^*)\ge 0.
$$
\item[$(c)$] We prove $(c)$ by means of the following chain of implications: if $\PP$ is finite,
$$
\PPP_h \text{ is C-convex} \Rightarrow \PPP_h \text{ avoids sure loss} \Rightarrow a\le \tfrac{1}{n} \Rightarrow \PPP_h \text{ is C-convex.}
$$
In fact, the first implication is a property of C-convex probabilities \cite{PV03}.
To prove the second implication, let $\PPP_h$ avoid sure loss. Applying Definition \ref{def_all} $(c)$, it must hold that $$
\max \underline G_{\rm ASL}=\max \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{n}(I_{\omega_i} - a)\ge 0.
$$
Since, $\forall \omega_i\in\PP$, $\underline G_{\rm ASL}(\omega_i)=\frac{1}{n}(1-a)+ \frac{n-1}{n}(-a)=\frac{1}{n} - a$, it is $\max \underline G_{\rm ASL}\ge 0$ iff $a\le \frac{1}{n}$.
For the third implication, let $a\le \frac{1}{n}$. We prove that $\PPP$ is convex applying Theorem \ref{env_thm} $(c)$, with $\mathcal M=\{P_0,P_1,\dots, P_n\}$ and $\alpha:\mathcal M\to\RR$ defined as follows: $\forall i,j=1,\dots,n,$
\begin{align*}
P_0(\omega_i) & = \frac{1}{n},
& \alpha_0=\alpha(P_0)=0,\\
P_i(\omega_j) & =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if }\omega_j=\omega_i\\
0 & \text{ if } \omega_j\neq \omega_i
\end{cases},
& \alpha_i=\alpha(P_i)=a.
\end{align*}
In fact, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\label{appl_env}
\PPP_h(A)=\min\{P_0(A),P_1(A)+\alpha_1,\dots,P_n(A) + \alpha_n\}, \quad \forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP).
\end{equation}
To see this, note that, for $i=1,\dots,n$ and for all $A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset, \Omega\}$, we have
\begin{align*}
P_i(A) +\alpha_i & = 1+a >a=\PPP_h(A) & \text{if }\omega_i\Rightarrow A,\\
P_i(A) +\alpha_i & = a =\PPP_h(A) & \text{if }\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A,
\end{align*}
while for $A=\emptyset$, $i=1,\dots,n$,
$$
P_i(\emptyset)+\alpha_i=a>0, \quad P_0(\emptyset)+\alpha_0=0=\PPP_h(\emptyset),
$$
and for $A=\Omega$, $i=1,\dots,n$,
$$
P_i(\Omega)+\alpha_i=1+a>1, \quad P_0(\Omega)+\alpha_0=1=\PPP_h(\Omega).
$$
Lastly, we have $\forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP)\setminus\{\emptyset, \Omega\}$,
$$
P_0(A)\ge P_0(\bar \omega)=\frac{1}{n}\ge a=\PPP_h(A),
$$
where $\bar\omega\in\PP,\,\bar\omega\Rightarrow A$.
Thus, any of $P_0,P_i+\alpha_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, is not smaller than $\PPP_h$ at any event $A$, with equality achieved by $P_0$ if $A=\emptyset,\, A=\Omega$, by a convenient $P_i+\alpha_i$ (such that $\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A$) otherwise. This means that \eqref{appl_env} holds, and that $\PPP_h$ is convex. Since $\PPP_h(\emptyset)=0$, it is also C-convex.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{ideals_and_others}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] The proof that $\UUU_{\PPP}$ is a filter is given in \cite[Section 2.9.8]{W} with reference to a 0-1 valued lower probability, but applies without modifications to a generic coherent $\PPP$. $\NNN_{\PPP}$ is generally not an ideal, since $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=0$ does not imply $\PPP(A\vee B)=0$.
Equation \eqref{U_implies_N} holds, as a consequence of $\PPP(A)+\PPP(\neg A)\le 1$ and of non-negativity of $\PPP$, both necessary conditions for 2-coherence, hence for coherence.
\item[$(b)$] It may be checked, by inspecting all admissible gains in Definition \ref{def_all} $(d)$, that the assignment $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=1$, $\PPP(A\wedge B)=1-\varepsilon$, is 2-coherent on $\mathcal D=\{A,B,A\wedge B\}\subset \mathcal A(\PP)$, $\forall \varepsilon\in [0,1]$. Whatever $\varepsilon$ is chosen, $\PPP$ admits a 2-coherent extension on $\mathcal A(\PP)$ \cite{PV16}. In particular this holds for $\varepsilon=1$, i.e., $\PPP(A\wedge B)=0$. Equation \eqref{U_implies_N} holds for the reasons elicited in $(a)$.
\item[$(c)$] To show that $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=1$ implies $\PPP(A\wedge B)\ge \frac{1}{2}$ ($A\wedge B\neq \emptyset$), take $\PPP:\mathcal D\to\RR$ as in $(b)$ (in particular, $\PPP(A\wedge B)=1-\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon\ge 0$) and the related following gain $\underline G$, admissible by Definition \ref{def_all} $(b)$ (where $s_1=s_2=\frac{1}{2}$):
$$
\underline G=\tfrac{1}{2}\big(I_{A}-1\big)+ \tfrac{1}{2} \big(I_{B}-1\big)-\big(I_{A\wedge B}-(1-\varepsilon)\big)=\tfrac{1}{2}\big(I_A + I_B\big)-I_{A\wedge B}-\varepsilon.
$$
Since $\underline G(A\wedge B)=\underline G(\neg A\wedge \neg B)=-\varepsilon\le 0$, $\underline G(A\wedge \neg B)=\underline G(\neg A\wedge B)=\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon$, when $\varepsilon>0$ it is $\max \underline G\ge 0$ iff $\varepsilon\le \frac{1}{2}$.
Thus, necessarily, $\PPP(A\wedge B)\ge \frac{1}{2}$.
The bound $\PPP(A\wedge B)=\frac{1}{2}$ may be achieved, for instance by $\PPP$ in Table \ref{convex_P}. $\PPP$ is convex because it is the lower envelope of $P_1+\alpha_1$, $P_2+\alpha_2$, with $\alpha_1=\alpha(P_1)=0$, $\alpha_2=\alpha(P_2)=\frac{1}{2}$ (Theorem \ref{env_thm} $(c)$).
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\label{ex_precise}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
&&&&&&\\[-1em] & $A\wedge B$ & $\neg A\wedge B$ & $A\wedge \neg B$ & $\neg A\wedge \neg B$ & $A$ & $B$ \\
&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_1=P_1+\alpha_1$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_2$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ \\
&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&\\[-1em]
$P_2+\alpha_2$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
&&&&&&\\[-1em] \hline &&&&&&\\[-1em]
\hline &&&&&&\\[-1em]
$\PPP$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $1$
\end{tabular}
\caption{A convex lower probability with $\PPP(A)=\PPP(B)=1,$ $\PPP(A\wedge B)=\frac{1}{2}$.}
\label{convex_P}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Finally, \eqref{U_implies_N} may not hold. It does not, for instance, for $\PPP'=P_2+\alpha_2$ (which is convex, as a lower envelope of itself) in Table \ref{convex_P}: $\PPP'(A\wedge \neg B)=1$, but $\PPP'(\neg (A\wedge \neg B)
=1$.
Equation \eqref{U_implies_N} anyway applies, if $\PPP$ is C-convex. In fact, $\PPP$ then also avoids sure loss \cite[Proposition 3.5 $(e)$]{PV03}, and as such satisfies $\PPP(A)+\PPP(\neg A)\le 1$, while $\PPP$ is non-negative by C-convexity.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{characterisation_extended}.}
Obviously, $\II$ is coherent, being the restriction of the coherent $(\PPP,\overline P)$ on $\PP$. Therefore, its extended probability interval $\II_E$ is given by \eqref{extended_lower}, \eqref{extended_upper}, with
$$
l_i=\PPP(\omega_i), \quad u_i=\overline P(\omega_i), \quad i=1,\dots,n.
$$
Note that by conjugacy (of both $\PPP, \overline P$ and $l,u$) it is enough to establish that
\begin{equation}
\label{Pl}
\PPP(A)=l(A), \quad \forall A\in \mathcal A(\PP)
\end{equation}
iff $(a), (b)$ or $(c)$ hold.
Equality \eqref{Pl} is certainly true if $A=\Omega$, by coherence of $\PPP,l$: $\PPP(\Omega)=l(\Omega)=1$, and, if $\PPP(A)=0$, using also \eqref{N}: $\PPP(A)=l(A)=0$.
Therefore, it remains to check when
$$
\PPP(A)=\max\bigg\{\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i, 1- \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A} u_i\bigg\}
$$
for those events $A$ such that $\PPP(A)>0$, $A\neq \Omega$.
Since by \eqref{N2} $l(A)\le \PPP(A)$, this is equivalent to check when $\displaystyle \PPP(A)=\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i$ or $\displaystyle \PPP(A)=1- \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A} u_i$.
Taking then one such $A$, we investigate first when $\displaystyle \PPP(A)=\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i$.
Defining
\begin{align*}
\nonumber
\mathcal P_A^+ & =\{\omega_i\in\PP:\omega_i\Rightarrow A,\PPP(\omega_i)>0\}=\big\{\omega_i\in\PP:\omega_i\Rightarrow A,P_0(\omega_i)>-\tfrac{a}{b}\big\},\\
\mathcal P_A^0 & =\{\omega_i\in\PP:\omega_i\Rightarrow A,\PPP(\omega_i)=0\}=\big\{\omega_i\in\PP:\omega_i\Rightarrow A,P_0(\omega_i)\le -\tfrac{a}{b}\big\},
\end{align*}
observe that, by \eqref{lower_VBM} and letting $|\mathcal P_A^+|=m$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{let}
\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A}l_i
& =
\sum_{\omega_i\in \mathcal P_A^0} \PPP(\omega_i) + \sum_{\omega_i\in \mathcal P_A^+}\PPP(\omega_i) \\
& =\sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} \Big(bP_0(\omega_i)+a\Big)
= ma + b \sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} P_0(\omega_i).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus, recalling again \eqref{lower_VBM}, $\displaystyle\PPP(A)=\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{Pl2}
\PPP(A)=bP_0(A)+a= b\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A}P_0(\omega_i) + a = ma + b \sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} P_0(\omega_i)=\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i.
\end{equation}
Note that \eqref{Pl2} is false when $m=0$: in fact, it is $\PPP(A)>0=\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} l_i$.
Thus, the equality \eqref{Pl2} holds iff one of the following two cases applies:
\begin{itemize}
\item $a=0$ (case $(a)$).
In fact, then $\PPP(\cdot)=b P_0(\cdot)$, which implies that $P_0(\omega_i)>0$ iff $\PPP(\omega_i)>0$. Using this fact at the second next equality and \eqref{let} at the third,
$$
\PPP(A)=b\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A, P_0(\omega_i)>0} P_0(\omega_i)=b\sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} P_0(\omega_i)=\sum_{\omega_i \Rightarrow A} l_i.
$$
\item $a<0$, $\displaystyle A=\omega^+\vee \bigvee_{j=1}^k \omega_{i_j}$, $k\in \{0,\dots,n-1\}$, $\PPP(\omega^+)>0$, $P_0(\omega_{i_j})=0$, $j=1,\dots,k$ (case $(c2)$).
To see this, note that it is $\displaystyle\sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} P_0(\omega_i)\le \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} P_0(\omega_i)$, and that $ma<a$ for $m\ge 2$, since $a<0$. Thus, for $a<0$ we need to require $\displaystyle m=1, \, \sum_{\omega_i\in\mathcal P_A^+} P_0(\omega_i) = \sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A} P_0(\omega_i)$ for \eqref{Pl2} to hold. These conditions can be equivalently restated in the form of case $(c2)$.
\end{itemize}
To establish now when $\displaystyle \PPP(A)=1-\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A}u_i$, note first that $\PPP(A)>0$ iff $\overline P(\neg A)<1$, so that, since here $\PPP(A)>0$, we have by \eqref{upper_VBM} that
\begin{equation}
\label{overP}
\overline P(\omega_i)=bP_0(\omega_i) + c<1, \quad \forall \omega_i\in\PP: \omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{overP}, we may write
\begin{equation}
\label{1meno}
1-\sum_{\omega_i \Rightarrow \neg A} u_i=1-\sum_{\omega_i \Rightarrow \neg A} \big(bP_0(\omega_i) + c\big) = 1- rc-b\sum_{\omega_i \Rightarrow \neg A}P_0(\omega_i),
\end{equation}
where $r=|\{\omega_i\in\PP: \omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A\}|$.
On the other hand, still using \eqref{upper_VBM}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{overP2}
\PPP(A)=1-\overline P(\neg A)=1-c-bP_0(\neg A)=1-c-b\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A}P_0(\omega_i).
\end{equation}
Comparing \eqref{1meno} and \eqref{overP2} (recall that $c\ge 0$), it is now easy to see that $\displaystyle\PPP(A)=1-\sum_{\omega_i \Rightarrow \neg A} u_i$ if and only if one of the following applies:
\begin{itemize}
\item $c=0$ (which is case $(b)$, $a+b=1$),
\item $r=1$, equivalent to $\neg A\in \PP$ (case $(c3)$).
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop_HBM_intervals}.}
$\II$ is coherent for the same reasons as at the beginning of the proof of Proposition \ref{characterisation_extended}, and (again by conjugacy) it suffices to prove that
$$
\overline P(A)=u(A), \quad \forall A\in\mathcal A(\PP),
$$
with $u(A)$ given by \eqref{extended_upper}, $u_i=\overline P(\omega_i)$, $l_i=\PPP(\omega_i)$, $i=1,\dots, n$.
The following exhaustive alternatives are to be considered:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline P(A)=1$.
From \eqref{N2} and coherence of $\overline P$, $u$, we get $\overline P(A)=u(A)=1$.
\item $\overline P(A)=0$.
If $A=\emptyset$, it is $\overline P(\emptyset)=u(\emptyset)=0$, by coherence.
If $A\neq \emptyset$, also $\overline P(\omega_i)=0$, $\forall \omega_i\in\PP, \, \omega_i\Rightarrow A$. Therefore $\displaystyle\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A}u_i=0$ and
$$
0\le u(A)=\min\bigg\{0,1-\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A} l_i\bigg\}=0=\overline P(A),
$$
thus $\overline P(A)=u(A)=0$.
\item $0<\overline P(A)<1$.
Exploiting \eqref{N2} at the first inequality, Corollary \ref{unico_e} at the first equality ($\omega^+$ is such that $\overline P(\omega^+)>0$, $\omega^+\Rightarrow A$) and Proposition \ref{Psup_sub_implies} $(b)$ at the second, we obtain:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u(A)
& \ge \overline P(A)=\overline P(\omega^+)\\
& =\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A}\overline P(\omega_i)\ge \min\bigg\{\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow A}\overline P(\omega_i),1-\sum_{\omega_i\Rightarrow \neg A}l_i\bigg\}=u(A),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
which implies $\overline P(A)=u(A)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{flushright}
$\blacksquare$
\end{flushright}
\bibliographystyle{apa}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{Purpose}\label{sec:purpose}
Singular cohomology is a functor between the categories
\[\{\text{topological spaces},\text{continuous maps}\} \to
\{\text{graded algebras}, \text{homomorphisms}\}.\]
The cohomology functor links the geometry of Grassmannians to symmetric functions and Young tableaux. However,
this does not take into account the large torus action on the Grassmannian.
A similar functor for topological spaces with continuous group actions is equivariant cohomology.
\begin{quotation}
\emph{What are equivariant analogues for these centerpieces of algebraic combinatorics?}
\end{quotation}
We posit a comprehensive answer, with applications, and future perspectives.
\subsection{Schubert calculus}\label{sec:1.2} Let $X={\sf Gr}_k({\mathbb C}^n)$ be the Grassmannian of $k$-dimensional planes in ${\mathbb C}^n$. The group ${\sf GL}_n$
of invertible $n\times n$ matrices acts transitively on $X$ by change of basis. Let ${\sf B}_{-}\subset {\sf GL}_n$ be a opposite Borel subgroup of lower triangular
matrices. ${\sf B}_{-}$ acts on $X$ with finitely many orbits $X_{\lambda}^{\circ}$ where
$\lambda$ is a partition (identified with its Young diagram, in English notation) that is contained in the $k\times (n-k)$ rectangle $\Lambda$.
These \emph{Schubert cells} satisfy $X_{\lambda}^{\circ}\cong {\mathbb C}^{k(n-k)-|\lambda|}$ where
$|\lambda|=\sum_i {\lambda_i}$. Their closures, the \emph{Schubert varieties}, satisfy
\[X_{\lambda}:=\overline{X_{\lambda}^{\circ}}=\coprod_{\mu\supseteq \lambda}X_{\mu}^{\circ}.\]
Let $\nu^{\vee}$ be the $180^\circ$-rotation of $k\times (n-k)\setminus \nu$.
Suppose $|\lambda|+|\mu|+|\nu^{\vee}|=k(n-k)=\dim X$. By Kleiman transversality \cite{Kleiman}, there is a dense open
${\mathcal O}\subset {\sf GL}_n\times {\sf GL}_n \times {\sf GL}_n$ such that
\[c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}:=\#\{g_1 \cdot X_{\lambda} \cap g_2 \cdot X_{\mu}\cap g_3\cdot X_{\nu^{\vee}}\}\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}\]
is independent of $(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in {\mathcal O}$. Each $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is called a \emph{Littlewood-Richardson coefficient}. Modern Schubert calculus is concerned with these coefficients, as well as their generalizations/analogues (from varying the space $X$ or cohomology theory).
Let $\sigma_{\lambda}\in H^{2|\lambda|}(X)$ be the Poincar\'e dual to $X_{\lambda}$. These \emph{Schubert
classes} form a ${\mathbb Z}$-linear basis of $H^{*}(X)$ and
\[\sigma_{\lambda}\smallsmile \sigma_{\mu}=\sum_{\nu\subseteq \Lambda} c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\sigma_{\nu}.\]
The \emph{Schur function} $s_{\lambda}$ is the generating
series
$s_{\lambda}=\sum_{T}x^T$
for semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$, \emph{i.e.}, row weakly increasing and column strictly increasing fillings of $\lambda$ with elements of ${\mathbb N}$.
The weight of $T$ is $x^T:=\prod_i x_i^{\#i\in T}$. For example, if $\lambda=(2,1)$, the semistandard tableaux
are
\[\tableauS{1&1\\2} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&2\\2} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&3\\2} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&1\\3} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&2\\3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&3\\3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{2&2\\3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{2&3\\3} \ \ \ \ \cdots \]
Hence $s_{(2,1)}=x_1^2 x_2 +x_1 x_2^2 +x_1 x_2 x_3 +x_1^2 x_3 +x_1 x_2 x_3 +x_1 x_3^2 +x_2^2 x_3 +x_2 x_3^2+\cdots$.
Schur functions form a ${\mathbb Z}$-linear basis of ${\sf Sym}$, the ring of symmetric functions in infinitely many variables.
The map $\sigma_{\lambda}\mapsto s_{\lambda}$ induces a ring isomorphism
\[H^{*}(X)\cong {\sf Sym}/I\]
where $I$ is the ideal $\langle s_{\lambda}:\lambda\not\subseteq \Lambda\rangle$. Therefore in ${\sf Sym}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Schurprod}
s_{\lambda}\cdot s_{\mu}=\sum_{\nu} c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} s_{\nu}.
\end{equation}
To compute Schubert calculus of $X$, it suffices to determine (\ref{eqn:Schurprod}) by working with Schur \emph{polynomials} in only finitely many variables $x_1,\ldots,x_k$. Better yet,
the \emph{jeu de taquin} theory of Young tableaux, introduced by M.-P.~Sch\"utzenberger \cite{Schutzenberger} gives a combinatorial rule for
computing $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$; this is summarized in Section~\ref{sec:Young}.
What we have discussed thus far constitutes textbook material on Schubert calculus; see, \emph{e.g.}, W.~Fulton's \cite{Fulton:YT}.
\subsection{Overview} This chapter describes an equivariant analogue of M.-P.~Sch\"utzenberger's theory, due to
H.~Thomas and the third author; in short, one replaces Young tableaux with \emph{edge labeled tableaux}. Now, we hasten to offer an \emph{apologia}: such tableaux are not the only combinatorial model to compute equivariant Schubert calculus. For example, one has work of A.~Molev-B.~Sagan \cite{Molev.Sagan:99} and
the \emph{puzzles} of A.~Knutson-T.~Tao \cite{Knutson.Tao}. The latter has had important recent followup, see, \emph{e.g.}, A.~Knutson-P.~Zinn-Justin's \cite{KnutsonZinn} and the references
therein. One also has the tableaux of V.~Kreiman \cite{Kreiman} or A.~Molev \cite{Molev}.
That said, we wish to argue how the edge labeled model is a handy and flexible viewpoint. It
has been applied to obtain equivariant analogues of a number of theorems (delineated in Section~\ref{sec:Young} and~\ref{sec:Horn}).
Another application, due to O.~Pechenik and the third author \cite{Pechenik.Yong}, is to Schubert calculus for the
equivariant $K$-theory of $X$. Translating the combinatorics into puzzle language allowed for a proof (of a correction) of a conjecture of A.~Knutson-R.~Vakil about the same structure constants \cite{Pechenik.Yong:compositio}. However, as we wish to restrict to equivariant cohomology proper, this direction is not part of our discussion.
There is an important frontier to cross, that is,
the still unsolved problem of finding a combinatorial rule for equivariant Schubert calculus of maximal orthogonal and
Lagrangian Grassmannians. The non-equivariant story is explained in Section~\ref{sec:PQstuff}. We explain the problem in Section~\ref{sec:YZ} together with some recent developments of C.~Monical \cite{Monical} and of the authors \cite{RYY}. The latter work shows that the combinatorial problems concerning the two spaces are essentially equivalent.
This brings us to the principal new announcement of this work (Section~\ref{sec:shiftededge}):
the notion of \emph{shifted edge labeled tableaux}. We define an analogue of \emph{jeu de taquin} and use this to conjecturally define an associative ring (which we prove to also be commutative). The introduction of this ring is stimulated by recent work of D.~Anderson-W.~Fulton (see Section~\ref{sec:AndersonFultonstuff}) who define a ring connected to the equivariant cohomology of Lagrangian Grassmannians. Conjecturally, the two rings are isomorphic. This provides our strongest evidence to date of the applicability
of the edge labeled approach to the aforementioned open problem; we know of no similar results using other combinatorial models.
As this work is partially expository and partly an announcement, we limited the number of complete proofs in order to keep the focus on the
high-level research objectives. Where possible, we have sketched arguments (with references) and indicated those results which may be taken as
an exercise for the interested reader. These exercises are warmups for the conjectures and open problems contained herein.
\section{Equivariant cohomology of Grassmannians}\label{sec:Equiv}
\subsection{Generalities}\label{sec:Equivgen} We recall some general notions about equivariant cohomology. References that we consulted are L.~Tu's synopsis \cite{Tu}, J.~Tymoczko's exposition \cite{Tymoczko.eq} and A.~Knutson-T.~Tao's \cite[Section~2]{Knutson.Tao}.
Let ${\mathcal M}$ be a topological space with the continuous action of a topological group $\G$. If $\G$ acts freely on
${\mathcal M}$, then in fact the equivariant cohomology ring $H_{\G}^{*}({\mathcal M})$ is $H^{*}({\mathcal M}/\G)$, see \cite[Proposition 2.1]{Tymoczko.eq}.
However, in general the action is not free, and ${\mathcal M}/\G$ might be, \emph{e.g.}, non-Hausdorff.
Borel's \emph{mixing space construction} introduces a contractible space
${\sf EG}$ on which $\G$ acts freely. Thus $\G$'s diagonal action on ${\sf EG}\times {\mathcal M}$ is free and
\[H_{\G}^{*}({\mathcal M}):=H^{*}({\sf EG}\times {\mathcal M}/\G).\]
The space ${\sf EG}$ is the total space
of the \emph{universal principle $\G$-bundle} $\pi:{\sf EG}\to {\sf BG}$ where ${\sf BG}={\sf EG}/{\sf G}$ is the classifying space of ${\sf G}$. Here, universality means that if $\rho:P\to {\mathcal M}$ is any $\G$-bundle, there exists a unique map
$f:{\mathcal M}\to {\sf BG}$ (up to homotopy) such that $P\cong f^*({\sf EG})$. By functoriality, the constant map $c:{\mathcal M}\to \{pt\}$ induces a homomorphism
$c^{*}:H^*_{\G}(pt)\to H^*_{\G}({\mathcal M})$. Hence $H^{*}_{\G}({\mathcal M})$ is a module over $H^{*}_{\G}(pt)$ by $\beta\cdot \kappa:=c^*(\beta)\kappa$ for
$\beta\in H^{*}_{\G}(pt)$ and $\kappa\in H^{*}_{\G}({\mathcal M})$. While ordinary (singular) cohomology of a point is $\mathbb Z$,
$H_{\G}^{*}(pt)$ is \emph{big}. For instance, if $\G={\sf T}$ is an $n$ torus $(S^1)^n$, then $H_{{\sf T}}^{*}(pt)={\mathbb Z}[t_1,\ldots,t_n]$.
If we presume $\G$ is a algebraic group acting on a smooth algebraic variety $M$,
these notions have versions in the algebraic category; see, \emph{e.g.}, D.~Anderson's \cite{Dave.eq}.
\subsection{The Grassmannian}
Concretely, if $\lambda=(\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq \ldots \geq \lambda_k\geq 0)$ then
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:concrete}
X_{\lambda}=\{V\in X| \dim(V\cap F^{n-k+i-\lambda_i})\geq i, 1\leq i\leq k\},
\end{equation}
where $F^d={\rm span}(e_n,e_{n-1},\ldots, e_{n-d+1})$ and $e_i$ is the $i$-th standard basis vector; see \cite[Section~9.4]{Fulton} for details.
Let ${\sf T}\subset {\sf GL}_n$ be the torus of invertible diagonal matrices. Then from (\ref{eqn:concrete}), $X_{\lambda}$
is ${\sf T}$-stable. Therefore, $X_{\lambda}$ admits an equivariant Schubert class $\xi_{\lambda}$
in the ${\sf T}$-equivariant
cohomology ring $H^{*}_{\sf T}(X)$. By what we have recounted in Section~\ref{sec:Equivgen}, $H^{*}_{\sf T}(X)$ is a module over
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:HT}
H^{*}_{\sf T}(pt):={\mathbb Z}[t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n].
\end{equation}
The equivariant
Schubert classes form a $H_{\sf T}^*(pt)$-module basis of $H_{\sf T}^*(X)$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:HTexp}
\xi_{\lambda}\cdot \xi_{\mu} =\sum_{\nu\subseteq \Lambda} C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \xi_{\nu},
\end{equation}
where $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\in H_{\sf T}^{*}(pt)$. For more details about equivariant cohomology specific to flag varieties we point the reader to
\cite{Dave.eq}
and S.~Kumar's textbook \cite[Chapter~XI]{Kumar}.
Let $\beta_i:=t_i-t_{i+1}$. D.~Peterson conjectured, and W.~Graham \cite{Graham} proved\begin{theorem}[Equivariant positivity \cite{Graham}]\label{thm:Graham}
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}[\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_{n-1}]$.\footnote{Actually, W.~Graham proved that for any
generalized flag variety ${\sf H}/{\sf B}$, the equivariant Schubert structure constant is expressible as a nonnegative integer polynomial in the simple roots of the (complex, semisimple) Lie group ${\sf H}$.}
\end{theorem}
In fact, $\deg C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} = |\lambda|+|\mu|-|\nu|$
and $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=0$
unless $|\lambda|+|\mu|\geq |\nu|$. In the case $|\lambda|+|\mu|=|\nu|$,
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient of Section~\ref{sec:intro}.
Fix
a grid with $n$ rows and $m \geq n + \lambda_1 - 1$ columns. The \emph{initial diagram} places $\lambda$ in the northwest corner of this grid.
For example,
if $\lambda=(3,2,0,0)$, the
initial diagram for $\lambda$ is the first
of the three below.
\[\left[\begin{matrix}
+ & + & + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
+ & + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{matrix}\right] \ \ \
\left[\begin{matrix}
+ & + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
+ & \cdot & \cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot
\end{matrix}\right] \ \ \
\left[\begin{matrix}
+ & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
\cdot & \cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot & + & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot
\end{matrix}\right]
\]
A \emph{local move} is a change of any $2\times 2$ subsquare of the form
\[
\begin{matrix}
+ & \cdot\\
\cdot & \cdot
\end{matrix}\ \ \ \ \
\mapsto \ \ \ \ \
\begin{matrix}
\cdot & \cdot\\
\cdot & +
\end{matrix}\]
A \emph{plus diagram} is any configuration of $+$'s in the grid resulting from some number of local moves starting from the initial diagram for $\lambda$. We have given two more examples of plus diagrams for $\lambda=(3,2,0,0)$.
Let ${\sf Plus}(\lambda)$ denote the set of plus diagrams for $\lambda$. If $P\in {\sf Plus}(\lambda)$, let
\[{\sf wt}_x(P)=x_1^{\alpha_1} x_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots x_n^{\alpha_n}.\]
Here, $\alpha_i$ is the number of $+$'s in the $i$th row of $P$.
For instance, if $P$ is the rightmost diagram shown above, ${\sf wt}_x(P)=x_1 x_2 x_3^2 x_4$.
A more refined statistic is
\[{\sf wt }_{x,y}(P)=\prod_{(i,j)}x_i-y_j.\]
The product is over those $(i,j)$ with a $+$ in row $i$ and column $j$ of $P$. For the same $P$,
\[{\sf wt}_{x,y}(P)=
(x_1-y_1)(x_2-y_3)(x_3-y_2)(x_3-y_5)(x_4-y_4).\]
Let $X=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$ and $Y=\{y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_{n + \lambda_1 - 1}\}$ be two collections of indeterminates. The \emph{factorial Schur function} is
\[s_{\lambda}(X; Y)=\sum_{P\in {\sf Plus}(\lambda)} {\sf wt}_{x,y}(P).\]
This description arises in, \emph{e.g.}, \cite{KMY}. Moreover, it is an exercise to show
\[s_{\lambda}(X)=\sum_{P\in {\sf Plus}(\lambda)} {\sf wt}_x(P)=s_{\lambda}(X;0,0,\ldots).\]
The factorial Schur polynomials form a
${\mathbb Z}[Y]$-linear basis of ${\sf Sym} \otimes_{\mathbb Q} {\mathbb Z}[Y]$. In addition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:factorialprod}
s_{\lambda}(X; Y)s_{\mu}(X; Y)=\sum_{\nu}C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \ s_{\nu}(X; Y).
\end{equation}
For example, one checks that
\[s_{(1,0)}(x_1,x_2;Y)^2=s_{(2,0)}(x_1,x_2;Y)
+s_{(1,1)}(x_1,x_2;Y)+(y_3-y_2)s_{(1,0)}(x_1,x_2;Y).\]
In view of (\ref{eqn:HT}), the definition of $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ in terms of (\ref{eqn:factorialprod}) gives a definition of $H_{\sf T}^{*}({\sf X})$ that suffices
for our combinatorial ends.
\subsection{Equivariant restriction}\label{subsection:GKM} We may further assume $\G$ is an algebraic
$n$-torus ${\sf T}$ which acts on ${\mathcal M}$ with finitely many isolated fixed points ${\mathcal M}^{\sf T}$. A feature of equivariant cohomology is that the inclusion ${\mathcal M}^{\sf T}$ into ${\mathcal M}$
induces an module \emph{injection}
\[H_{\sf T}^{*}({\mathcal M})\hookrightarrow H_{\sf T}^{*}({\mathcal M}^{\sf T})\cong \bigoplus_{{\mathcal M}^{\sf T}}H_{{\sf T}}^{*}(pt)\cong \bigoplus_{{\mathcal M}^{\sf T}}{\mathbb Z}[t_1,\ldots,t_n].\]
For each ${\sf T}$-invariant cycle $Y$ in ${\mathcal M}$, one has an equivariant cohomology class $[Y]_{\sf T}\in H_{\sf T}^{*}({\mathcal M})$. This injection says that this class is a $\#\{{\mathcal M}^{\sf T}\}$-tuple of polynomials $[Y]|_x$ where $x\in {\mathcal M}^{\sf T}$. Each polynomial $[Y]|_x$ is an \emph{equivariant restriction}. Under certain assumptions on ${\mathcal M}$, which cover all generalized flag manifolds (such as Grassmannians), one has a divisibility condition on the restrictions. This alludes to the
general and influential package of ideas contained in Goresky-Kottwitz-MacPherson (``GKM'') theory; we refer to \cite{GKM} as well as J.~Tymoczko's survey \cite{Tymoczko.eq}.
One has more precise results (predating \cite{GKM}) for any generalized flag variety. Work of B.~Kostant-S.~Kumar \cite{KostantKumar} combined with a formula of
H.~Anderson-J.~Jantzen-W.~Soergel \cite{AJS} describes $[Y]|_x$ where $Y$ is a Schubert variety and $x$ is one of the ${\sf T}$-fixed points. For restriction formulas
specific to the Grassmannian $M={\sf Gr}_{k}({\mathbb C}^n)$, see the formula of T.~Ikeda-H.~Naruse \cite[Section~3]{Ikeda.Naruse} in terms of \emph{excited Young diagrams}.\footnote{One can give another formula in terms of certain
specializations of the factorial Schur polynomial; see, \emph{e.g.}, \cite[Theorem~5.4]{Ikeda.Naruse} and the associated references.} From either formula, one
sees immediately that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:subsetabc124}
\xi_{\lambda}|_{\mu}=0 \text{\ unless $\lambda\subseteq \mu$},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:gghe}
\xi_{\mu}|_{\mu}\neq 0.
\end{equation}
The central difference between this picture of equivariant cohomology
of Grassmannians and the Borel-type presentation (due to A.~Arabia \cite{Arabia}) is that multiplication can be done \emph{without relations} and computed by
pointwise multiplication of the restriction polynomials. In particular, each instance of (\ref{eqn:HTexp}) gives rise to $\binom{n}{k}$ many
polynomial identities. For example, combining (\ref{eqn:HTexp}) and (\ref{eqn:subsetabc124}) gives
\[\xi_{\lambda}|_{\mu}\cdot \xi_{\mu}|_{\mu}=C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\mu}\xi_{\mu}|_{\mu}.\]
By (\ref{eqn:gghe}), this implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Arabia}
\xi_{\lambda}|_{\mu}=C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\mu},
\end{equation}
which is a fact first noted (for generalized flag varieties) by A.~Arabia \cite{Arabia}.
It follows that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:equivpieriabc}
\xi_{\lambda}\cdot \xi_{(1)}=\xi_{\lambda}|_{(1)} \xi_{\lambda}+\sum_{\lambda^+} \xi_{\lambda^+},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda^+$ is obtained by adding a box to $\lambda$; see, \emph{e.g.}, \cite[Proposition~2]{Knutson.Tao}. Alternatively, it is an exercise to derive it from a vast generalization due to C.~Lenart-A.~Postnikov's \cite[Corollary~1.2]{Lenart.Postnikov}.
Since $H_{\sf T}^{*}(X)$ is an associative ring, one has
\[ (\xi_{\lambda} \cdot \xi_{\mu}) \cdot \xi_{(1)}= \xi_{\lambda}\cdot ( \xi_{\mu}\cdot \xi_{(1)}),\]
which when expanded using (\ref{eqn:HTexp}) and (\ref{eqn:equivpieriabc}) gives a recurrence that uniquely determines the structure coefficients; we call this
the \emph{associativity recurrence}. Since we will not explicitly need it
in this chapter we leave it as an exercise (see \cite[Lemma~3.3]{Thomas.Yong} and the references therein).\footnote{We give an analogue (\ref{eqn:Brec}) of the associativity
recurrence in our proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:typeBCpower2}.}
\section{Young tableaux and jeu de taquin}\label{sec:Young}
There are several combinatorial rules for the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$. The one whose theme will pervade this chapter is the \emph{jeu de taquin} rule, which, moreover is the first \emph{proved} rule for the coefficients \cite{Schutzenberger}.
Let $\nu/\lambda$ be a skew shape. A \emph{standard tableau} $T$ of shape $\nu/\lambda$ is a bijective filling of $\nu/\lambda$ with $1,2,\ldots,|\nu/\lambda|$
such that the rows and columns are increasing. Let ${\sf SYT}(\nu/\lambda)$ be the set of all such tableaux.
An \emph{inner corner} ${\sf c}$ of $\lambda/\mu$ is a maximally southeast box of $\mu$. For $T \in {\sf SYT}(\lambda/\mu)$, a
\emph{jeu de taquin slide} ${\sf jdt}_{\sf c}(T)$
is obtained as follows. Initially place $\bullet$ in ${\sf c}$, and apply one of the following \emph{slides}, according how $T$ looks near ${\sf c}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(J1)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{b & a\\ \bullet }$ (if $b<a$, or $a$ does not exist)
\smallskip
\item[(J2)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{a & \bullet\\ b}$ (if $a<b$, or $b$ does not exist)
\end{itemize}
Repeat application of (J1) or (J2) on the new box ${\sf c}'$ where $\bullet$ arrives at. End when $\bullet$ arrives at a box ${\sf d}$
of $\lambda$ that has no labels
south or east of it. Then ${\sf jdt}_{\sf c}(T)$ is obtained by erasing $\bullet$.
A \emph{rectification} of $T\in {\sf SYT}(\lambda/\mu)$ is defined iteratively. Pick an inner corner ${\sf c}_0$ of $\lambda/\mu$ and compute
$T_1:={\sf jdt}_{{\sf c}_0}(T) \in {\sf SYT}(\lambda^{(1)}/\mu^{(1)})$. Let ${\sf c}_1$ be an inner corner of $\lambda^{(1)}/\mu^{(1)}$ and compute
$T_2:={\sf jdt}_{{\sf c}_1}(T_1)\in {\sf SYT}(\lambda^{(2)}/\mu^{(2)})$. Repeat $|\mu|$ times, arriving at a standard tableau of straight (\emph{i.e.}, partition) shape. Let ${\sf Rect}_{\{{\sf c}_i\}}(T)$ be the result.
\begin{theorem}[First fundamental theorem of jeu de taquin]\label{thm:firstjdt}
${\sf Rect}_{\{{\sf c}_i\}}(T)$ is independent of the choice of sequence of successive inner corners $\{{\sf c}_i\}$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:firstjdt} permits one to speak of \emph{the} rectification ${\sf Rect}(T)$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:rectWellDef} For instance, here are two different rectification orders for a tableau $T$.
\[
\begin{picture}(400,120)
\put(0,105){$\tableauS{{\ }&{\bullet }&{ 1}\\{\ }&{2}&{3}\\{ \ }\\{4}}$}
\put(60,95){$\mapsto$}
\put(90,105){$\tableauS{{\ }&{1 }&{ 3}\\{\ }&{2}\\{\bullet }\\{4}}$}
\put(150,95){$\mapsto$}
\put(180,105){$\tableauS{{\ }&{1 }&{ 3}\\{\bullet }&{2}\\{4}\\}$}
\put(240,95){$\mapsto$}
\put(270,105){$\tableauS{{\bullet }&{1 }&{ 3}\\{2 }\\{4}}$}
\put(330,95){$\mapsto$}
\put(360,105){$\tableauS{{1 }&{3 }\\{2 }\\{4}}$}
\put(0,35){$\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1}\\{\ }&{2}&{3}\\{\bullet }\\{4 }}$}
\put(60,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(90,35){$\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1}\\{\bullet }&{2}&{3}\\{4 }}$}
\put(150,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(180,35){$\tableauS{{\ }&{\bullet }&{ 1}\\{2 }&{3}\\{4 }}$}
\put(240,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(270,35){$\tableauS{{\bullet }&{1 }\\{2 }&{3}\\{4 }}$}
\put(330,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(360,35){$\tableauS{{1 }&{3 }\\{2 }\\{4 }}$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}[Second fundamental theorem of jeu de taquin]\label{thm:secondjdt}
The cardinality
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:secondcard}
\#\{T\in {\sf SYT}(\nu/\lambda): {\sf Rect}(T)=U\}
\end{equation}
is independent of the choice of $U\in {\sf SYT}(\mu)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:anyTabMu} Below are the tableaux $T\in{\sf SYT}((3,2,1)/(2,1))$ such that ${\sf Rect}(T)=U\in{\sf SYT}((2,1))$. Of the tableaux below, $T_1,T_2$ rectify to $U_1$ and $T_3,T_4$ rectify to $U_2$.
\begin{gather*}
T_1=\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 2}\\{\ }&{1}\\{3 }}
\qquad
T_2=\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 2}\\{\ }&{3}\\{1 }}
\qquad
T_3=\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1}\\{\ }&{3}\\{2 }}
\qquad
T_4=\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{ 3}\\{\ }&{1}\\{2 }}
\\
U_1=\tableauS{{1} &{2} \\ {3}}
\qquad
U_2=\tableauS{{1} &{3} \\ {2}}
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
For proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:firstjdt} and~\ref{thm:secondjdt} we recommend the self-contained argument found in M.~Haiman's \cite{Haiman}, which
is based on his theory of \emph{dual equivalence}.
\begin{theorem}[Jeu de taquin computes the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient]\label{thm:thirdjdt}
Fix $U\in {\sf SYT}(\mu)$. Then $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ equals the number (\ref{eqn:secondcard}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:LRcountTab} Continuing Example \ref{ex:anyTabMu}, fix $U:=U_1$. Then
$c_{(2,1),(2,1)}^{(3,2,1)}=2=\#\{T_1,T_2\}$.\qed
\end{example}
It is convenient to fix a choice of tableau $U$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:thirdjdt}. Namely, let
$U=S_{\mu}$ be the superstandard tableau of shape $\mu$, which is obtained by filling the boxes of $\mu$ in English reading order
with $1,2,3,\ldots$. This is the choice made in Example~\ref{ex:LRcountTab}. A larger instance is
\[S_{(5,3,1)}=\tableauS{1&2&3&4&5\\ 6&7&8\\ 9}.\]
There are a number of ways to prove a Littlewood-Richardson rule such as Theorem~\ref{thm:thirdjdt}. We describe the two
that we will refer to in this chapter:
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{``Bijective argument'':}
In terms of (\ref{eqn:Schurprod}), the most direct is to establish a bijection between pairs $(A,B)$ of semistandard tableau of shape
$\lambda$ and $\mu$ respectively and pairs $(C,D)$ where $C\in {\sf SYT}(\nu/\lambda)$ such that ${\sf Rect}(C)=S_{\mu}$
and $D$ is a semistandard tableau of shape $\nu$. This can be achieved using the \emph{Robinson-Schensted correspondence}.
\noindent
$\bullet$ \emph{``Associativity argument'':}
This was used by A.~Knutson-T.~Tao-C.~Woodward \cite{KTW} and A.~Buch-A.~Kresch-H.~Tamvakis \cite{BKT}. Define a
putative ring $(R,+,\star)$ with additive basis $\{[\lambda]:\lambda\subseteq \Lambda\}$
and product
\[[\lambda]\star[\mu]:=\sum_{\nu\subseteq \Lambda} {\overline c}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}[\nu],\]
where ${\overline c}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is a collection of nonnegative integers.
Assume one can prove $\star$ is commutative and associative and moreover agrees with Pieri's rule, \emph{i.e.},
${\overline c}_{\lambda,(p)}^{\nu}=0$ unless $\nu/\lambda$ is a horizontal strip of size $p$, and equals $1$ otherwise. Then it follows that
$c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}={\overline c}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$. One can apply this to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:thirdjdt}. The proofs of commutativity and associativity use Theorem~\ref{thm:firstjdt}. Typically, the hard step is the proof of associativity, which explains the nomenclature for this
proof technique. \qed
Another formulation of the Littlewood-Richardson rule is in terms of semistandard Young tableaux of shape
$\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$. These are fillings $T$ of $\nu/\lambda$ with $\mu_i$ many $i$'s, and such that the rows are
weakly increasing and columns and strictly increasing. The \emph{row reading word} is obtained by reading the entries of $T$
along rows, from right to left and from top to bottom. Such a word $(w_1,w_2,\ldots,w_{|\nu/\lambda|})$
is \emph{ballot} if for every fixed $i,k\geq 1$,
\[\#\{j\leq k: w_j=i\}\geq \#\{j\leq k: w_j=i+1\}.\]
A tableau is ballot if its reading word is ballot.
\begin{theorem}[Ballot version of the Littlewood-Richardson rule]\label{thm:LRsemi}
$c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ equals the number of semistandard tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$ that are ballot.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:LRballotTab}
Suppose $\lambda=(3,2,1),\mu=(3,2,1),\nu=(4,4,3,1)$. Below are the $3$ semistandard tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ and content $\mu$ that are ballot.
\begin{gather*}
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1}\\{\ }&{\ }&{1}&{2}\\{\ }&{1}&{2}\\{3}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1}\\{\ }&{\ }&{1}&{2}\\{\ }&{1}&{3}\\{2}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1}\\{\ }&{\ }&{1}&{2}\\{\ }&{2}&{3}\\{1}&}
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
\noindent
\emph{Proof sketch for Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi}:} Given a semistandard
tableau $T$, one creates a standard tableau $T'$ of the same shape by replacing all $\mu_1$ many $1$'s by $1,2,3,\ldots,\mu_1$ from left to right
and then replacing the (original) $\mu_2$ many $2$'s by $\mu_1+1,\mu_1+2,\ldots,\mu_1+\mu_2$ etc. This process is called
\emph{standardization}. Standardizing the tableaux in Example~\ref{ex:LRballotTab} respectively gives:
\begin{gather*}
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\{\ }&{\ }&{2}&{5}\\{\ }&{1}&{4}\\{6}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\{\ }&{\ }&{2}&{5}\\{\ }&{1}&{6}\\{4}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\{\ }&{\ }&{2}&{5}\\{\ }&{4}&{6}\\{1}&}
\end{gather*}
We claim standardization induces a bijection between the rules of Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi} and Theorem~\ref{thm:thirdjdt}. More precisely,
if $T$ is furthermore ballot, then $T'$ satisfies ${\sf rect}(T')=S_{\mu}$. We leave it as an exercise to establish this, \emph{e.g.}, by induction on $|\lambda|$.
\qed
There is a polytopal description of the Littlewood-Richardson rule derivable from Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi}. We first learned this
from a preprint version of \cite{Mulmuley}. Suppose $T$ is a semistandard tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$.
Set
\[r_k^i=r_k^i(T)=\#\{\text{$k'$s in the $i$th row of $T$}\}.\]
Let $\ell(\mu)$ be the number of nonzero parts of $\mu$. By convention, let
$r_{\ell(\mu)+1}^i =0, r_k^{\ell(\nu)+1} = 0$.
Now consider the following linear inequalities, constructed to describe the tableaux from Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi} that are counted by
$c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A)] Non-negativity: $r_{k}^{i}\geq0, \ \ \forall i,k$.
\item[(B)] Shape constraints: $\lambda_i + \sum_{k}r_{k}^{i}=\nu_i, \ \ \forall i $.
\item[(C)] Content constraints:
$\sum_{i}r_{k}^{i}=\mu_k, \ \ \forall k.$
\item[(D)] Tableau constraints: $\lambda_{i+1} + \sum_{j\leq k}r_{j}^{i+1}\leq\lambda_{i} + \sum_{j'<k}r_{j'}^{i}, \ \ \forall i $.
\item[(E)] Ballot constraints: $\sum_{i'<i} r_k^{i'} \geq r_{k+1}^i + \sum_{i'<i} r_{k+1}^{i'}, \ \ \forall i,k.$
\end{itemize}
Define a polytope
\[{\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=\{(r_k^i): \text{(A)--(E)}\}\subseteq {\mathbb R}^{\ell(\nu)\cdot\ell(\mu)}.\]
The following is a straightforward exercise, once one assumes Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi}:
\begin{theorem}[Polytopal Littlewood-Richardson rule]\label{thm:polytopalLR}
$c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ counts the number of integer lattice points in ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:LRpolytope}
Using $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ as in Example \ref{ex:LRballotTab}, ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ has $3$ integer lattice points
$R(T_j)=(r(T_j)_{ik})=(r_k^i(T_j))$ below. Each $r_k^i(T_j)=\#\{\text{$k'$s in the $i$th row of $T_j$}\}$, where the $T_j$ are as in Example \ref{ex:LRballotTab}.
\[R(T_1)=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0& 0 \\
1 & 1& 0 \\
1 & 1& 0 \\
0 & 0& 1
\end{pmatrix}\qquad
R(T_2)=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0& 0 \\
1 & 1& 0 \\
1 & 0& 1 \\
0 & 1& 0
\end{pmatrix}\qquad
R(T_3)=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0& 0 \\
1 & 1& 0 \\
0 & 1& 1 \\
1 & 0& 0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
\end{example}
Another conversation concerns ${\sf LR}_r=\{(\lambda,\mu,\nu): \ell(\lambda),\ell(\mu),\ell(\nu)\leq r: c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0\}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:LRsemigroup}
${\sf LR}_r$ is a semigroup, \emph{i.e.}, if $(\lambda,\mu,\nu), (\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\in {\sf LR}_r$, then $(\lambda+\alpha,\mu+\beta,\nu+\gamma)\in {\sf LR}_r$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $(\lambda,\mu,\nu), (\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\in {\sf LR}_r$, by Theorem~\ref{thm:polytopalLR} there exists lattice points
$(r_{k}^i)\in {\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ and $({\overline r}_{k}^i)\in {\mathcal P}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma}$. By examination
of the inequalities (A)-(E), clearly $(r_{i}^k+\overline{r}_i^k)$ is a lattice point in ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda+\alpha,\mu+\beta}^{\nu+\gamma}$,
and we are done by another application of Theorem~\ref{thm:polytopalLR}.
\end{proof}
This \emph{Littlewood-Richardson semigroup} ${\sf LR}_r$ is discussed in A.~Zelevinsky's article \cite{Zelevinsky}. That
work concerns the
Horn and saturation conjectures (we will discuss these in Section~\ref{sec:Horn}). The point that a polytopal rule for $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$
implies the semigroup property already appears in \emph{ibid.} It is also true that ${\sf LR}_r$ is \emph{finitely generated}.
This is proved in A.~Elashvili's \cite{Elashvili}, who credits the argument to M.~Brion-F.~Knop from ``August-September, 1989''. This argument
(which applies more generally to tensor product multiplicities of any reductive Lie group) is not combinatorial. For another demonstration, see the proof
of Proposition~\ref{prop:EqLRfinite}. Despite subsequent advances
in understanding Littlewood-Richardson coefficients, the following remains open:
\begin{problem}[\emph{cf.} Problems A and C of \cite{Zelevinsky}]\label{problem:zelev}
Explicitly give a finite (minimal) list of generators of ${\sf LR}_r$.
\end{problem}
In connection to the work of Section~\ref{sec:Horn}, a closely related problem has been solved by P.~Belkale
\cite{Belkale:rays}. His paper determines the extremal rays of the rational polyhedral cone defined by the points
of ${\sf LR}_r$.
\section{Edge labeled tableaux and jeu de taquin}\label{sec:ejdt}
The history of the combinatorics of $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is interesting in its own right.
The first combinatorial rule for $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is due to A.~Molev-B.~Sagan \cite{Molev.Sagan:99}, who solved an even more
general problem. Under the obvious specialization, this rule is not positive in the sense of
Theorem~\ref{thm:Graham}. The first such rule, in terms of \emph{puzzles}, was found by A.~Knutson and T.~Tao \cite{Knutson.Tao}. Subsequently,
visibly equivalent tableaux rules were independently found by V.~Kreiman \cite{Kreiman} and A.~Molev \cite{Molev}. Later, P.~Zinn-Justin \cite{ZinnJustin}
studied the puzzle rule of \cite{Knutson.Tao} based on the quantum integrability of the tiling model that underlies puzzles. Coming full circle,
a point
made in \cite[Section 6.5]{ZinnJustin} is that the rule of \cite{Molev.Sagan:99} \emph{does} provide a positive rule after all, under the ``curious
identity'' of \cite[Section 6.4]{ZinnJustin}.
This work takes a different view. It is about the \emph{edge labeled tableaux} introduced by H.~Thomas and the third author \cite{Thomas.Yong}.
A \emph{horizontal edge} of $\nu/\lambda$ is an east-west line segment which either lies along the lower or
upper boundary of $\nu/\lambda$, or which separates two boxes of $\nu/\lambda$.
An \emph{equivariant filling} of $\nu/\lambda$ is an assignment of elements of $[N]:=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ to
the boxes of $\nu/\lambda$ or to a horizontal edge of $\nu/\lambda$. While every box contains a single label,
each horizontal edge holds an element of $2^{[N]}$.
An equivariant filling is \emph{standard} if every label in $[N]$ appears exactly once and moreover any label is:
\begin{itemize}
\item strictly smaller than any label in its southern edge and the label in the
box immediately below it;
\item strictly larger than any label in its northern edge and the label in the box
immediately above it; and
\item weakly smaller than the label in the box immediately to its right.
\end{itemize}
(No condition is placed on the labels of adjacent edges.) Let ${\sf EqSYT}(\nu/\lambda,\ell)$ be the set of equivariant standard tableaux with entries from
$[N]$.
\begin{example}
\label{exa:June25abc}
Let $\nu/\lambda=(4,3,2)/(3,2,1)\subseteq \Lambda=3\times 4$ and
\[\begin{picture}(100,50)
\put(0,35){$T=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ \ }&{5}\\{\ }&{ \ }&{4}\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(32,-7){$3$}
\put(63,31){$1,2$}
\end{picture}\]
Then $T\in {\sf EqSYT}(\nu/\lambda,6)$.\qed
\end{example}
Given an inner corner ${\sf c}$ and $T\in {\sf EqSYT}(\nu/\lambda,N)$, if none of the following possibilities
applies, terminate. Otherwise use the unique applicable case (below ${\sf c}$ contains the $\bullet$):
\begin{itemize}
\item[(J1)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{b & a\\ \bullet }$ (if $b<a$, or $a$ does not exist)
\medskip
\item[(J2)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{a & \bullet\\ b}$ (if $a<b$, or $b$ does not exist)
\item[(J3)] $\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{\bullet & a}$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture} \mapsto
\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{a & \bullet }$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture}$ (if $a<\min(S)$)
\item[(J4)] $\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{\bullet & a}$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture} \mapsto
\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{s & a }$}
\put(3,-5){$S'$}
\end{picture}$ (if $s:=\min(S)<a$ and $S':=S\setminus \{s\}$)
\end{itemize}
This \emph{equivariant jeu de taquin slide} into ${\sf c}$ is denoted by
${\sf Ejdt}_{{\sf c}}(T)$. Clearly,
${\sf Ejdt}_{{\sf c}}(T)$ is also a standard equivariant filling.
\emph{The} rectification of $T$, denoted ${\sf Erect}(T)$,
is the result of successively using ${\sf Ejdt}_{{\sf c}}$ by choosing ${\sf c}$ that is
eastmost among all choices of inner corners at each stage.
\begin{example}
\label{exa:1.1}
Continuing Example~\ref{exa:June25abc},
we use ``$\bullet$'' to indicate the boxes that are moved into during
${\sf Erect}(T)$. The rectification of the third column is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ex1.1.1}
\begin{picture}(150,50)
\put(0,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ \bullet }&{5}\\{\ }&{ \ }&{4}\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(5,-7){$3$}
\put(39,31){$1,2$}
\put(110,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1 }&{5}\\{\ }&{ \ }&{4}\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(115,-7){$3$}
\put(155,31){$2$}
\put(90,35){$\mapsto$}
\end{picture}
\end{equation}
The rectification of the second column given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ex1.1.2}
\begin{picture}(400,50)
\put(0,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1 }&{5}\\{\ }&{ \bullet }&{4}\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(5,-7){$3$}
\put(45,31){$2$}
\put(90,35){$\mapsto$}
\put(110,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\bullet }&{ 1 }&{5}\\{\ }&{ 4 }\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(115,-7){$3$}
\put(155,31){$2$}
\put(190,35){$\mapsto$}
\put(210,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{1 }&{ \bullet }&{5}\\{\ }&{ 4 }\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(215,-7){$3$}
\put(255,31){$2$}
\put(290,35){$\mapsto$}
\put(310,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{1 }&{ 2 }&{5}\\{\ }&{ 4 }\\{\ }&{6}}$}
\put(315,-7){$3$}
\end{picture}
\end{equation}
and finally the rectification of the first column given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ex1.1.3}
\begin{picture}(450,55)
\put(5,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{1 }&{ 2 }&{5}\\{\ }&{ 4 }\\{\bullet }&{6}}$}
\put(10,-7){$3$}
\put(85,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(100,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{1 }&{ 2 }&{5}\\{\bullet }&{ 4 }\\{ 3 }&{6}}$}
\put(180,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(195,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{1 }&{ 2 }&{5}\\{3 }&{ 4 }\\{ \bullet }&{6}}$}
\put(275,25){$\mapsto$}
\put(290,35){$\tableauL{{\bullet }&{1 }&{ 2 }&{5}\\{3 }&{ 4 }\\{ 6 }}$}
\put(350,25){$\mapsto\cdots\mapsto$}
\put(400,35){$\tableauL{{1 }&{2 }&{ 5 }\\{3 }&{ 4 }\\{ 6 }}$}
\end{picture}
\end{equation}
Here the ``$\mapsto\cdots\mapsto$'' refers to slides moving the
$\bullet$ right in the first row.\qed
\end{example}
We now define ${\sf Ejdtwt}(T)\in {\mathbb Z}[t_1,\ldots,t_n]$
for a standard tableau $T$.
Each box $x$ in $\Lambda$ has a (Manhattan) \emph{distance} from the lower-left box: suppose $x$ has matrix coordinates
$(i,j)$, then
\[{\sf dist}(x) := k+j-i.\]
Next, assign $x\in\Lambda$ the weight $\beta(x)=t_{{\sf dist}(x)}-t_{{\sf dist}(x)+1}$.
\emph{If after rectification of a column, the label ${\mathfrak l}$
still remains an edge label, ${\sf Ejdtfactor}({\mathfrak l})$ is declared to be zero.} Otherwise, suppose
an edge label ${\mathfrak l}$ \emph{passes} through a box
$x$ if it occupies $x$ during the equivariant rectification of the column
of $T$ in which
${\mathfrak l}$ begins. Let the boxes passed be
$x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_s$. Also, when the rectification of a column is
complete, suppose the filled boxes strictly to the right of $x_s$ are
$y_1,\ldots,y_t$. Set
\[{\sf Ejdtfactor}({\mathfrak l})=(\beta(x_1)+\beta(x_2)+\cdots+\beta(x_s))+
(\beta(y_1)+\beta(y_2)+\cdots+\beta(y_t)).\]
Notice that since the boxes $x_1,\ldots,x_s, y_1,\ldots, y_t$
form a hook inside $\nu$, ${\sf Ejdtfactor}(i)=t_e-t_f$ with $e<f$. Now define
\[{\sf Ejdtwt}(T):=\prod_{{\mathfrak l}} {\sf Ejdtfactor}({\mathfrak l}),\]
where the product is over all edge labels ${\mathfrak l}$ of $T$.
\begin{theorem}[Edge labeled jeu de taquin rule \cite{Thomas.Yong}]
\label{thm:mainequiv}
\[C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=\sum_T {\sf Ejdtwt}(T),\]
where the sum is over all $T\in {\sf EqSYT}(\nu/\lambda,|\mu|)$ such that
${\sf Erect}(T)=S_{\mu}$.
\end{theorem}
Since each ${\sf Ejdtfactor}({\mathfrak l})$ is a positive sum of the
indeterminates $\beta_i=t_{i}-t_{i+1}$, Theorem~\ref{thm:mainequiv}
expresses $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ as a polynomial with positive
coefficients in the $\beta_i$'s, in agreement with Theorem~\ref{thm:Graham}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:eqLRcountTab}
Below each $x\in\Lambda=2\times 3$ is filled with $\beta(x)$:
\[\ytableausetup
{boxsize=2em}\begin{ytableau}
\scriptscriptstyle t_2-t_3 & \scriptscriptstyle t_3-t_4 & \scriptscriptstyle t_4-t_5 \\
\scriptscriptstyle t_1-t_2 & \scriptscriptstyle t_2-t_3 & \scriptscriptstyle t_3-t_4
\end{ytableau}\]
$T_1,T_2$ below are those $T\in {\sf EqSYT}((3,3)/(2,2),3)$ such that
${\sf Erect}(T)=S_{(2,1)}$ with nonzero weight: \[
\begin{picture}(350,50)
\put(0,25){$T_1=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 2 }\\{\ }&{ \ }&{3}}$}
\put(33,3){$1$}
\put(125,25){$T_2=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 2 }\\{\ }&{ \ }&{3}}$}
\put(180,3){$1$}
\put(250,25){$T_3=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1 }\\{\ }&{ \ }&{3}}$}
\put(322,21){$2$}
\end{picture}
\]
While $T_3$ also satisfies
${\sf Erect}(T)=S_{(2,1)}$, it has weight zero since there is an edge label when one
has completed rectifying the third column.
Theorem \ref{thm:mainequiv} asserts
\begin{align*}
C_{(2,2),(2,1)}^{(3,3)}&={\sf Ejdtwt}(T_1)+{\sf Ejdtwt}(T_2)\\
&=
[((t_1-t_2)+(t_2-t_3))+(t_3-t_4)]+[((t_2-t_3)+(t_3-t_4))+(t_4-t_5)]\\
&=(t_2-t_5)+(t_1-t_4).
\end{align*}
\end{example}
In order to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:mainequiv}, one wishes to adapt the general strategy indicated at the end of Section~\ref{subsection:GKM}.
If we define ${\overline C}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}:=\sum_T {\sf Ejdtwt}(T)$ (as in Theorem~\ref{thm:mainequiv}) and show this collection of numbers
satisfies the associativity recurrence, one shows $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}={\overline C}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, as desired.\footnote{It would be quite interesting
to give a ``bijective argument'' (in the sense of Section~\ref{sec:Young}) using the combinatorial description of the factorial Schur polynomials.}
The rule of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainequiv} appears to be too ``rigid'' to carry out this strategy. Instead, in \cite{Thomas.Yong}, a more ``flexible
version'' in terms of semistandard edge labeled tableaux is introduced, together with a corresponding collection of jeu de taquin slides.
While we do not wish to revisit the rather technical list of slide rules here, one of the consequences is a ballot rule for $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$,
generalizing Theorem~\ref{thm:LRsemi}, which we explain now.
An equivariant
tableau is \emph{semistandard} if the box labels weakly increase along rows (left to right), and all labels strictly increase down
columns. A single edge may be labeled by a \emph{set} of integers, without repeats; the smallest of them must be strictly greater than the
label of the box above, and the largest must be strictly less than the label of the box below.
\begin{example} Below is an equivariant semistandard Young tableau on $(4,2,2)/(2,1)$.
\[
\begin{picture}(100,60)
\put(20,40){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{1 }&{1 }\\{ \ }&{1}\\{2}&{3}}$}
\put(60,37){$2,3$}
\put(83,37){$2$}
\end{picture}
\]
The content of this tableau is $(3,3,2)$.
\qed
\end{example}
Let ${{\sf EqSSYT}}(\nu/\lambda)$ be the set of all equivariant semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$.
A tableau $T\in {{\sf EqSSYT}}(\nu/\lambda)$ is \emph{ballot} if, for every column $c$ and every label $\ell$,
\[
(\#\text{ $\ell$'s weakly right of column }c ) \geq (\#\text{$(\ell+1)$'s weakly right of column }c ).
\]
Given a tableau $T\in {\sf EqSSYT}(\nu/\lambda)$, a (box or edge) label $\ell$ is \emph{too high} if it appears weakly above the upper edge of
a box in row $\ell$. In the above example, all edge labels are too high. (When there are no edge labels, the semistandard and lattice
conditions imply no box label is too high, but in general the three conditions are independent.)
Suppose an edge label $\ell$ lies on the bottom edge of a box $x$ in row $i$. Let $\rho_\ell(x)$ be the number of times $\ell$
appears as a (box or edge) label strictly to the right of $x$. We define
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:apfactor}
{\sf Eballotfactor}(\ell,x) = t_{{{\sf dist}}(x)} - t_{{{\sf dist}}(x)+i-\ell+1+\rho_\ell(x)}.
\end{equation}
When the edge label is not too high, this is always of the form $t_p-t_q$, for $p<q$. (In particular, it is nonzero.) Finally, define
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:apwt}
{\sf Eballotwt}(T) = \prod {\sf Eballotfactor}(\ell,x),
\end{equation}
the product being over all edge labels $\ell$.
\begin{theorem}[Edge labeled ballot rule {\cite[Theorem~3.1]{Thomas.Yong}}] \label{thm:ty}
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu = \sum_T {\sf Eballotwt}(T)$,
where the sum is over all $T\in {{\sf EqSSYT}}(\nu/\lambda)$
of content $\mu$ that are lattice and have no label which is too high.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:eqLRcountLat} In Example \ref{ex:eqLRcountTab}, we saw
$C_{(2,2),(2,1)}^{(3,3)}=(t_2-t_5)+(t_1-t_4)$.
Below has $x\in\Lambda$ is filled with ${{\sf dist}}(x)$.
\[\tableauS{{2 }&{3 }&{ 4 }\\{1 }&{2 }&{ 3 }}\]
We see $T_1,T_2$ below are those $T\in {{\sf EqSSYT}}((3,3)/(2,2))$
of content $(2,1)$ that are lattice and have no label which is too high.
\[
\begin{picture}(200,50)
\put(0,25){$T_1=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1 }\\{\ }&{ \ }&{2}}$}
\put(33,3){$1$}
\put(125,25){$T_2=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{ 1 }\\{\ }&{ \ }&{2}}$}
\put(180,3){$1$}
\end{picture}
\]
Thus we see as Theorem \ref{thm:mainequiv} states, since for both cases $p_\ell(x)=p_1(x)=1$,
\begin{align*}
C_{(2,2),(2,1)}^{(3,3)}&={\sf Eballotwt}(T_1)+{\sf Eballotwt}(T_2)\\
&=
{\sf Eballotfactor}(1,(2,1))+{\sf Eballotfactor}(1,(2,2))\\
&=(t_1-t_{1+2-1+1+1})+(t_2-t_{2+2-1+1+1})\\
&=(t_1-t_4)+(t_2-t_5),
\end{align*}
so this rule agrees.
\end{example}
\section{Nonvanishing of Littlewood-Richardson coefficients, Saturation and Horn inequalities}\label{sec:Horn}
\begin{center}
\emph{For which triples of partitions $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)$ does $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$?}
\end{center}
The importance of this question
comes from a striking equivalence to a 19th century question about linear algebra. This equivalence was first suggested as a question by R.~C.~Thompson
in the 1970s; see R.~Bhatia's survey \cite[pg.~308]{Bhatia}
(another survey on this topic is W.~Fulton's \cite{Fultona}). Suppose $A,B,C$ are three $r\times r$ Hermitian matrices and $\lambda,\mu,\nu\in {\mathbb R}^r$ are the respective
lists of eigenvalues (written in decreasing order). The \emph{eigenvalue problem for Hermitian matrices} asks
\begin{center}
\emph{Which eigenvalues $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)$ can occur if $A+B=C$?}
\end{center}
After work of H.~Weyl, K.~Fan, V.~B.~Lidskii-H.~Weilandt and others, A.~Horn recursively defined a list of inequalities on triples $(\lambda,\mu,\nu) \in {\mathbb R}^{3r}$.
He conjectured that these give a complete solution to the eigenvalue problem \cite{Horn}. That these inequalities (or equivalent ones) are necessary
has been proved by several authors, including B.~Totaro \cite{Totaro} and A.~Klyachko \cite{Klyachko}. A.~Klyachko also established that his list of inequalities is sufficient, giving the first solution to the eigenvalue problem.
Also, A.~Kylachko showed that his inequalities give an asymptotic solution to the problem of which Littlewood-Richardson coefficients $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ are nonzero. That is, suppose $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ are partitions with at most $r$ parts. A.~Klyachko proved that if $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$, then
$(\lambda,\mu,\nu)\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}^{3r}$ satisfies his inequalities. Conversely, he showed that if
$(\lambda,\mu,\nu)\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}^{3r}$ satisfy his inequalities then
$c_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}\neq 0$ for some $N\in {\mathbb N}$. (Here, $N\lambda$ is the partition with each part of $\lambda$ stretched by a factor of $N$.)
Subsequently, A.~Knutson-T.~Tao \cite{Knutson.Tao:99} sharpened the last statement, and established:
\begin{theorem}[Saturation theorem]\label{thm:usualsat} $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ if and only if
$c_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}\neq 0$ for any $N\in {\mathbb N}$.
\end{theorem}
Combined with \cite{Klyachko}, it follows that A.~Klyachko's
solution agrees with A.~Horn's conjectured solution.\footnote{The proof in a preprint version of \cite{Knutson.Tao:99} used the polytopal
Littlewood-Richardson rule of Bernstein-Zelevinsky; we refer to the survey of A.~Buch \cite{Buch:after}. The published proof is formulated in terms of the \emph{Honeycomb model}. It is an easy exercise to prove
the ``$\Rightarrow$'' of the equivalence using either of the Littlewood-Richardson rules found in Section~\ref{sec:Young}. A proof of the converse
using such rules would be surprising. Another solution, due to H.~Derksen-J.~Weyman \cite{DW} was given in the
setting of \emph{semi-invariants of quivers}.}
Let $[r]:=\{1,2,\ldots r\}$. For any
\[I=\{i_1<i_2< \cdots<i_d\}\subseteq [r]\]
define the partition
\[
\itop(I):=(i_d-d\geq \cdots\geq i_2-2 \geq i_1-1).
\]
This bijects subsets of $[r]$ of cardinality $d$ with partitions whose Young
diagrams are contained in a $d\times(r-d)$ rectangle. The following combines the main
results of \cite{Klyachko, Knutson.Tao:99}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:classicalHorn}(\cite{Klyachko}, \cite{Knutson.Tao:99})
Let $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ be partitions with at most $r$ parts such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:classicalcond}
|\lambda|+|\mu|=|\nu|.
\end{equation}
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
\item For every $d<r$, and every triple of subsets $I,J,K\subseteq [r]$ of cardinality $d$ such that $c_{\itop(I),
\itop(J)}^{\itop(K)}\neq 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ineq}\sum_{i\in
I}\lambda_i+\sum_{j\in J}\mu_j\geq \sum_{k\in K}\nu_k.\end{equation}
\item There exist $r\times r$ Hermitian matrices $A,B,C$ with eigenvalues $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ such that $A+B=C.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{Horn:converse}
The logic of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} in \cite{Knutson.Tao:99} is to show Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat}.
In fact, Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat} also follows from the equivalence (1)$\iff$(2) of
Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn}. This is since the Horn inequalities from (2) are homogeneous. This point seems to have been first noted
in P.~Belkale's \cite{Belkale} which moreover gives a geometric proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn}. \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:LRsemigroup}
The equivalence (1)$\iff$(2) immediately implies the semigroup property of ${\sf LR}_r$ (Corollary~\ref{cor:LRsemigroup}). \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:minimal}
P.~Belkale's doctoral thesis \cite{Belkale:thesis} (published in \cite{Belkale:thesispub}) shows that a much smaller list of inequalities than
those in Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn}(2) suffice. Namely, replace the condition ``$c_{\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)}^{\tau(\nu)}\neq 0$''
with ``$c_{\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)}^{\tau(\nu)}\neq 1$''. A.~Knutson-T.~Tao-C.~Woodward \cite{KTW:JAMSII} showed that
the inequalities in this shorter list are minimal, \emph{i.e.}, none can be dispensed with. \qed
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:LRfg} Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} gives a different proof that ${\sf LR}_r$ is finitely generated as a semigroup.
We will give the argument in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:EqLRfinite}, below.
\end{remark}
While Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} characterizes nonvanishing of $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, the inequalities
are recursive and non-transparent to work with. The Littlewood-Richardson rules of Section~\ref{sec:Young}
require one to search for a valid tableau in a possibly large search space.
K.~Purbhoo \cite{Purbhoo:root} (see also \cite{Purbhoo:rootgeneral}) developed a general and intriguing \emph{root game}, which
in the case of Grassmannians can be ``won'' if and only if $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat} permits a determination of the
\emph{formal} computational
complexity of the nonvanishing decision problem ``$c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$'' (in the bit length of the input $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)$, where
one assumes arithmetic operations take constant time). This was resolved independently by T.~McAllister-J.~De Loera \cite{DM}
and K.~D.~Mulmuley-H.~Narayanan-M.~Sohoni, \cite{Mulmuley}, by a neat argument that combines Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat} with celebrated
developments in linear programming:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:LRinP}
The decision problem of determining if $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ is in the class ${\sf P}$ of polynomial problems.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:polytopalLR}, $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ if and only if the polytope ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ has a lattice point.
Clearly, if ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq \emptyset$, it has a rational vertex. In this case, a dilation $N{\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ contains a lattice point. One checks from the definitions that
$N{\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}={\mathcal P}_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}$,
which means $c_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}\neq 0$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat},
\[c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0\iff c_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}\neq 0 \iff
{\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq \emptyset.\]
To determine if ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq \emptyset$, one
needs to decide feasiblity of any linear programming problem involving ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$. One appeals to ellipsoid/interior point methods for polynomiality.\footnote{The Klee-Minty cube shows that the practically efficient simplex method has
exponential worst-case complexity.} Actually,
our inequalities are of the form
$A{\bf x}\leq {\bf b}$ where the vector ${\bf b}$ is integral and
the entries of $A$ are from $\{-1,0,1\}$.
Hence our polytope is \emph{combinatorial} and so one achieves a
strongly polynomial time complexity using \'E.~Tardos' algorithm; see
\cite{anothertardos, Tardos}.
\end{proof}
In contrast, H.~Narayanan \cite{Narayanan} proved that counting $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is a $\#${\sf P}-complete problem in L.~Valiant's complexity theory
of counting problems \cite{Valiant}. In particular, this means that no polynomial time algorithm for computing $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ can exist unless
${\sf P}={\sf NP}$ (it is widely expected that ${\sf P}\neq {\sf NP}$). It is curious that the counting problem is (presumably) hard, whereas the nonzeroness version is polynomial time. This already
occurs for the original $\#{\sf P}$-complete problem from \cite{Valiant}, \emph{i.e.}, to compute the permanent of an $n\times n$ matrix $M=(m_{ij})$ where
$m_{ij}\in \{0,1\}$. Now, determining if ${\rm per}(M)>0$ is equivalent to deciding the existence of matching in a bipartite graph that has incidence matrix $M$;
the algorithm of J.~Edmonds-R.~Karp provides the polynomial-time algorithm.
\section{Equivariant nonvanishing, saturation, and Friedland's inequalities}\label{sec:Friedland}
We now turn to the equivariant analogues of results from the previous section.
\begin{center}
\emph{For which triples of partitions $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)$ does $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$?}
\end{center}
In \cite{ARY} it was shown that this Schubert calculus question is also essentially equivalent to an eigenvalue problem. Recall that a Hermitian matrix $M$ \emph{majorizes} another Hermitian matrix $M'$ if $M-M'$ is positive semidefinite (its eigenvalues are all nonnegative). In this case, we write $M\geq M'$. S.~Friedland \cite{Friedland} studied the following question:
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\mbox{\emph{Which eigenvalues $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)$ can occur if $A+B \geq C$?}}
\end{equation}
His solution, given as linear inequalities, includes Klyachko's inequalities, a trace
inequality and some extra inequalities. Later, W.~Fulton \cite{Fulton} proved the extra
inequalities are unnecessary, leading to a natural extension of the equivalence (2)$\iff$(3) of Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn}.
One would like an extension of the equivalence with (1) of Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} as well. Now, D.~Anderson, E.~Richmond and the third author \cite{ARY} proved:
\begin{theorem}[Equivariant saturation]
\label{claim:mainARY}
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ if and only if $C_{N\lambda,N\mu}^{N\nu}\neq 0$ for any $N\in {\mathbb N}$.\footnote{In our notation, $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$
depends on the indices $k$ and $n$ of the Grassmannian ${\sf Gr}_{k}({\mathbb C}^n)$. However, the edge labeled rule of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainequiv} has the property that
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is that for fixed $k$, the polynomial is independent of the choice of $n$ provided both
are sufficiently large so that $\lambda,\mu,\nu\subseteq k\times (n-k)$. Indeed, the coefficients $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ for such values are the structure constants for
the Schubert basis in the graded inverse limit of equivariant cohomology rings under the standard embedding $\iota: {\sf Gr}_k({\mathbb C}^n)\hookrightarrow {\sf Gr}_{k}({\mathbb C}^{n+1})$; see \cite[Section~1.2]{ARY}.}
\end{theorem}
Actually, Theorem~\ref{claim:mainARY} is proved by establishing the the equivalence (1)$\iff$(2) below.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{ARY}, \cite{Friedland}, \cite{Fulton}]\label{thm:equivHorn}Let $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ be partitions with at most $r$ parts such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:EqHorncond}
|\lambda|+|\mu|\geq |\nu| \mbox{\ and \ }\max\{\lambda_i,\mu_i\}\leq \nu_i \mbox{\ for all $i\leq r$.}
\end{equation}
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
\item For every $d<r$, and every triple of subsets $I,J,K\subseteq [r]$ of cardinality $d$ such that $c_{\itop(I),
\itop(J)}^{\itop(K)}\neq 0$, we have $$\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i+\sum_{j\in J}\mu_j\geq \sum_{k\in
K}\nu_k.$$
\item There exist $r\times r$ Hermitian matrices $A,B,C$ with eigenvalues $\lambda,\mu,\nu$ such that $A+B\geq C$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:equivHorn} states that the main inequalities controlling nonvanishing of $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ are just Horn's inequalities (\ref{eq:ineq}).
\begin{Remark}\label{remark:secondcond} The second condition in (\ref{eqn:EqHorncond}) is
unnecessary in Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} since it is already implied by
(\ref{eqn:classicalcond}) combined with \eqref{eq:ineq}. The condition is not required for the equivalence (2)$\iff$(3). However it is needed
for the equivalence with (1). For example, the $1\times 1$ matrices $A=[1], B=[1], C=[0]$ satisfy $A+B\geq C$, but $C_{(1),(1)}^{(0)}=0$.
This is not in contradiction with Theorem~\ref{thm:equivHorn} since $\max\{1,1\}\leq 0$ is violated.\qed
\end{Remark}
Just as in Remark~\ref{Horn:converse}, the equivalence (1)$\iff$(2) and the homogeneity of the Friedland-Fulton inequalities
implies Theorem~\ref{claim:mainARY}. On the other hand the equivalence (1)$\iff$(2) relies on the classical Horn theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn})
and the edge labeled ballot tableau rule Theorem~\ref{thm:ty}. To give the reader a sense of the proof we now provide:
\noindent
\emph{Sketch of proof that (1)$\implies$(2):} Using Theorem~\ref{thm:ty}, it is an exercise to show that
\begin{claim}\label{claim:goingdown} If $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ and $|\nu|<|\lambda|+|\mu|$, then for any $s$ such that $|\nu|-|\lambda|\leq s<|\mu|$, there is a
$\mu^{\downarrow}\subset \mu$ with $|\mu^{\downarrow}|=s$ and $C_{\lambda,\mu^{\downarrow}}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
\end{claim}
Since $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$, by the claim (and induction) there exists $\lambda^{\downarrow}\subseteq \lambda$ such that $|\lambda^{\downarrow}|+|\mu|=|\nu|$ and $C_{\lambda^{\downarrow},\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$. This latter number is a classical Littlewood-Richardson coefficient, we can apply Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} to conclude that for any triple $(I,J,K)$ with $c_{\tau(I),\tau(J)}^{\tau(K)}\neq 0$ one has
\[\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i^{\downarrow}+\sum_{i\in J}\mu_j\geq \sum_{k\in K}\nu_k.\]
Now we are done since $\sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i\geq \sum_{i\in I}\lambda_i^{\downarrow}$.\qed
The converse (2)$\implies$(1) uses another exercise that can be proved using Theorem~\ref{thm:ty}:
\begin{claim}\label{claim:goingup}
If $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ then $C_{\lambda,\mu^{\uparrow}}^{\nu}\neq 0$ for any $\mu\subset \mu^{\uparrow}\subseteq \nu$
\end{claim}
See \cite[Section~2]{ARY} for proofs of Claim~\ref{claim:goingdown} and Claim~\ref{claim:goingup}.
\begin{remark}
Just as with Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn}, the list of inequalities in Theorem~\ref{thm:equivHorn}(2) contain redundancies.
Building from the results discussed in Remark~\ref{remark:minimal}, W.~Fulton~\cite{Fulton} shows that one can also replace the
``$c_{\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)}^{\tau(\nu)}\neq 0$'' with ``$c_{\tau(\lambda),\tau(\mu)}^{\tau(\nu)}=1$''. W.~Fulton's work shows
that if the second condition in (\ref{eqn:EqHorncond}) is ignored, the inequalities are minimal for the equivalence
(2)$\iff$(3).
\qed
\end{remark}
Let ${\sf EqLR}_r=\{(\lambda,\mu,\nu):\ell(\lambda),\ell(\mu),\ell(\nu)\leq r, C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0\}$.
\begin{corollary}
${\sf EqLR}_r$ is a semigroup.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Just as Corollary~\ref{cor:LRsemigroup} clearly follows from the first two equivalences of Theorem~\ref{thm:classicalHorn} (Remark~\ref{remark:LRsemigroup}), the present claim holds by the first two equivalences of Theorem~\ref{thm:equivHorn}. However,
we can also prove this directly from Claims~\ref{claim:goingdown} and~\ref{claim:goingup}: By applying Claim~\ref{claim:goingdown} there exists $\lambda^\circ\subseteq \lambda$ and $\alpha^{\circ}\subseteq \alpha$ such that
$C_{\lambda^{\circ},\mu}^{\nu}=c_{\lambda^{\circ},\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ and
$C_{\alpha^\circ,\beta}^{\gamma}=c_{\alpha^{\circ},\beta}^{\gamma}\neq 0$. By Corollary~\ref{cor:LRsemigroup},
$(\lambda^\circ+\alpha^{\circ},\mu+\beta,\nu+\gamma)\in {\sf LR}_r$. Now, since $\lambda^{\circ}+\alpha^{\circ}\subseteq \lambda+\alpha\subseteq
\nu+\gamma$, we can apply Claim~\ref{claim:goingup} to conclude $(\lambda+\alpha,\mu+\beta,\nu+\gamma)\in {\sf EqLR}_r$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:EqLRfinite}
${\sf EqLR}_r$ is finitely generated.
\end{proposition}
The argument we give is based on discussion with S.~Fomin and A.~Knutson. It applies \emph{mutatis mutandis} to
prove that ${\sf LR}_r$ is finitely generated:
\begin{proof}
Since the inequalities from Theorem~\ref{thm:equivHorn} are finite in number, and each inequality has its bounding hyperplane
containing the origin, the set ${\mathcal C}\subseteq {\mathbb R}^{3r}$ they define is a polyhedral cone. Since the inequalities
have rational coefficients, by definition, ${\mathcal C}$ is rational. Moreover, ${\mathcal C}$ is also clearly pointed, \emph{i.e.},
${\mathcal C}\cap -{\mathcal C}=\{{\bf 0}\}$. Now apply \cite[Theorem~16.4]{Schrijver}.
\end{proof}
Naturally, one would like a solution for the generalization of Problem~\ref{problem:zelev} to ${\sf EqLR}_r$.
Theorem~\ref{claim:mainARY} together with Theorem~\ref{thm:ty}, A.~Adve together with the first and third authors \cite{ARY} prove a generalization of Theorem~\ref{thm:LRinP}:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{ARY}]
\label{thm:equivLRinP}
The decision problem of determining $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ is in the class ${\sf P}$ of polynomial problems.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
\emph{Sketch of proof:} Using Theorem~\ref{thm:LRinP} one can construct a polytope ${\mathcal Q}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ analogous to ${\mathcal P}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$. The main property is that $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ if and only if ${\mathcal Q}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ contains a lattice point (in particular,
in contrast to Theorem~\ref{thm:polytopalLR}, the \emph{number} of lattice points of ${\mathcal Q}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is not well-understood). The remainder
of the proof proceeds exactly as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:LRinP}, except that we use Theorem~\ref{claim:mainARY} in place of
Theorem~\ref{thm:usualsat}.\qed
For the remainder of this section, assume $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is expressed (uniquely) as a polynomial in the variables $\beta_i:=t_{i}-t_{i+1}$. We now state
a few open problems/conjectures introduced in \cite{RYY}, for the special case of Grassmannians.
A refinement of the nonvanishing question is:
\begin{question}\label{question:refinednonvanishing}
What is the computational complexity of determining if $[\beta_1^{i_1}\cdots \beta_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}]C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$?
\end{question}
This question concerns the Newton polytope of $C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$.
Recall, the \emph{Newton polytope} of
\[f=\sum_{(n_1,\ldots,n_r)\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}^r} c_{n_1,\ldots,n_r}\prod_{j=1}^r \alpha_j^{n_j}\in {\mathbb R}[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r]\]
is ${\sf Newton}(f):={\sf conv}\{(n_1,\ldots,n_r): c_{n_1,\ldots,n_r}\neq 0\}\subseteq {\mathbb R}^r$.
$f$ has \emph{saturated Newton polytope} (SNP) \cite{MTY} if
$c_{n_1,\ldots,n_r}\neq 0 \iff (n_1,\ldots,n_r)\in {\sf Newton}(f)$.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:SNP}
$C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ has SNP.
\end{conjecture}
This raises the question:
\begin{problem}
\label{prob:halfspace}
Give a half space description of ${\sf Newton}(C_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu})$.
\end{problem}
A proof of Conjecture~\ref{conj:SNP} together with any reasonable solution to
Problem~\ref{prob:halfspace} would imply that the decision problem in Question~\ref{question:refinednonvanishing}
is in the computational complexity class ${\sf NP}\cap {\sf coNP}$. This would strongly suggest that the decision problem is not
{\sf NP}-{\sf complete}, and in fact suggest the problem is in {\sf P}. We refer the reader to \cite[Section~1]{Anshul.Robichaux.Yong}
for elaboration on these points.
\section{Maximal orthogonal and Lagrangian Grassmannians}\label{sec:PQstuff}
\subsection{Goals in the sequel} Beyond Grassmannians ${\sf Gr}_k({\mathbb C}^n)$,
the \emph{maximal orthogonal Grassmannians} and \emph{Lagrangian Grassmannians} have been of significant interest. Their classical (non-equivariant)
Schubert calculus shares many analogies with the Grassmannian case. They concern the $Q$-Schur polynomials
of I.~Schur \cite{Schur}, and the tableau combinatorics of D.~Worley \cite{Worley}, B.~Sagan \cite{Sagan} and J.~Stembridge \cite{Stembridge}.
Although these combinatorial results were originally developed to study projective representations of symmetric group, the connection to Schubert calculus of these
spaces was established by P.~Pragacz \cite{Pragacz}.
It is therefore natural to seek extensions of the results from Sections~1-6. Discussion of efforts toward this goal occupy the remainder of this work.
\subsection{Definition of the spaces}
Consider the two classical Lie groups of non-simply laced type: ${\sf G}={\sf SO}_{2n+1}({\mathbb C})$ and ${\sf G}={\sf Sp}_{2n}({\mathbb C})$. These are the automorphism groups of a non-degenerate bilinear form $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$. In the former case, $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is symmetric, and on $W={\mathbb C}^{2n+1}$.
In the latter case, $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is skew-symmetric, and on $W={\mathbb C}^{2n}$. A subspace $V\subseteq W$ is called \emph{isotropic} if $\langle v_1,v_2\rangle=0$ for all $v_1,v_2\in V$. The maximum dimension of an isotropic subspace of $W$ is $n$.
Let $Y={\sf OG}(n,2n+1)$ be the \emph{maximal orthogonal Grassmannian} of $n$-dimensional isotropic subspaces of ${\mathbb C}^{2n+1}$; this space has an action of ${\sf G}={\sf SO}_{2n+1}({\mathbb C})$. Similarly, let $Z={\sf LG}(n,2n)$
be the \emph{Lagrangian Grassmannian} of $n$-dimensional isotropic subspaces of ${\mathbb C}^{2n}$. In either case,
the (opposite) Borel subgroup ${\sf B}_{-}\leq {\sf G}$ consists of the lower triangular matrices in ${\sf G}$.
The maximal torus ${\sf T}$ are the diagonal matrices in ${\sf G}$.
Just as in the case of the Grassmannian, the corresponding ${\sf B}_{-}$ acts on $Y$ (resp.~$Z$) with finitely
many orbits $Y_{\lambda}^{\circ}$ (resp.~$Z_{\lambda}^{\circ}$); these are the \emph{Schubert cells}.
In both cases, the Schubert cells and thus Schubert varieties $Y_{\lambda}=\overline{Y_{\lambda}^{\circ}}$ (resp.~$Z_{\lambda}=\overline{Z_{\lambda}^{\circ}}$) are indexed by strict partitions fitting inside the shifted staircase
\[\rho_n=(n,n-1,n-2,\ldots,3,2,1).\]
A \emph{strict partition} is an integer partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1>\lambda_2>\ldots > \lambda_{\ell}>0)$. Identify $\lambda$ with its shifted shape,
which is the usual Young diagram (in English notation) but where the $i$-th row from the top is indented $i-1$ many spaces. We refer to, \emph{e.g.}, \cite[Section~6]{Ikeda.Naruse} and the references therein for additional details.
Let $\sigma_{\lambda}(Y)\in H^{2|\lambda|}(Y)$ be the Poincar\'e dual to $Y_{\lambda}$. These \emph{Schubert
classes} form a ${\mathbb Z}$-linear basis of $H^{*}(Y)$, and we define the structure constants by
\[\sigma_{\lambda}(Y)\smallsmile \sigma_{\mu}(Y)=\sum_{\nu\subseteq \rho_n} o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\sigma_{\nu}(Y).\]
Similarly, the Schubert classes $\sigma_{\lambda}(Z)$ form a ${\mathbb Z}$-linear basis of $H^{*}(Z)$, and
\[\sigma_{\lambda}(Z)\smallsmile \sigma_{\mu}(Z)=\sum_{\nu\subseteq \rho_n} l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \sigma_{\nu}(Z).\]
\subsection{Schur $P-$ and $Q-$ functions; P.~Pragacz's theorem}
Let
\[q_r(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=2\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^r\prod_{i\neq j}\frac{x_i+x_j}{x_i-x_j}.\]
This is clearly symmetric and in fact a polynomial. Next, set
\[Q_{(r,s)}=q_r q_s+2\sum_{i=1}^s (-1)^i q_{r+i}q_{s-i}.\]
Recall that the \emph{Pfaffian} of a $2t\times 2t$ skew-symmetric matrix $M=(m_{ij})$ is
\[{\sf Pf}(M)=\sum_{\sigma\in {\mathfrak S}_{2t}} {\sf sgn}(\sigma)\prod_{i=1}^{t} m_{\sigma(2i-1), \sigma(2i)},\]
where $\sigma$ satisfies $\sigma(2i-1)<\sigma(2i)$ for $1\leq i \leq m$ and $\sigma(1)<\sigma(3)<\ldots<\sigma(2i-3)<\sigma(2t-1)$.
Then for $\lambda=(\lambda_1>\lambda_2>\ldots>\lambda_{\ell}>0)$, the \emph{Schur $Q-$ function} \cite{Schur} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Qpfaff}
Q_{\lambda}={\sf Pf}(Q_{(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)}).
\end{equation}
If $\ell(\lambda)$ is odd, we add a $0$ at the end. The Schur $Q-$ functions linearly span the subalgebra $\Gamma\subset {\sf Sym}$ generated by the $q_i$'s. In fact, $Q_{(i)}=q_i$.
The \emph{Schur $P-$ function} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:PQ}
P_{\lambda}:=2^{-\ell(\lambda)}Q_{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
P.~Pragacz \cite{Pragacz} proved that the Schur $P-$ and Schur $Q-$ polynomials represent the Schubert classes of $Y$ and $Z$ respectively.
That is,
\[H^{*}(Y)\cong \Gamma/J,\]
where $J$ is the ideal $\langle P_{\lambda}:\lambda\not\subseteq \rho_n\rangle$, and
$\sigma_{\lambda}(Y)$ maps to $P_{\lambda}+J$ under this isomorphism. Moreover,
\[P_{\lambda} P_{\mu}=\sum_{\nu} o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}P_{\nu}.\]
Similarly,
\[Q_{\lambda} Q_{\mu}=\sum_{\nu} l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} Q_{\nu}.\]
J.~R.~Stembridge \cite{Stembridge} proved
\[P_{\lambda}=\sum_T x^T,\]
where the sum is over semistandard fillings of the shifted shape $\lambda$. That is, fill each box of $\lambda$ with a label
from the ordered set $1'<1<2'<2<3'<3<\ldots$ such that the rows and columns are weakly increasing, two $i'$-s cannot appear in the same row and two $i$-s cannot appear in the same column. Moreover, there are no primed entries on the main diagonal. For example, if $\lambda=(2,1)$, the shifted semistandard tableaux are
\[\tableauS{1&1\\& 2} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&2'\\&2} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&1\\&3} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&2'\\&3} \ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&2\\&3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{1&3'\\&3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{2&2\\&3}\ \ \ \ \tableauS{2&3'\\&3} \ \ \ \ \cdots \]
Hence $P_{(2,1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=x_1 x_2^2 +x_1 x_2^2 +x_1^2 x_3 +x_1 x_2 x_3 +x_1 x_2 x_3 +x_1 x_3^2 +x_2^2 x_3 +x_2 x_3^2 + \cdots $.
If we allow primed entries on the diagonal, we get the Schur $Q-$ function. It is easy to see that this definition satisfies (\ref{eqn:PQ}).
\subsection{Shifted Littlewood-Richardson rules}
D.~Worley \cite{Worley} introduced a \emph{jeu de taquin} theory for shifted shapes. A standard tableau $T$ of shifted skew shape $\nu/\lambda$ is a filling
of $\lambda$ with the labels $1,2,3,\ldots,|\nu/\lambda|$ that is increasing along rows and columns. Let ${\sf shSYT}(\nu/\lambda)$ denote the set of these tableaux. The notions of slides and rectification
are just as in the unshifted case, using (J1) and (J2). With this, the exact analogues of Theorems~\ref{thm:firstjdt} and~\ref{thm:secondjdt}
hold and one can define ${\sf ShEjdt}$ and ${\sf shRect}$ etc, in the obvious manner. Indeed, one has the following combinatorial rule for $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$:
\begin{theorem}[Shifted jeu de taquin Littlewood-Richardson rule]
\label{thm:shiftedjdt}
Fix $U\in {\sf shSYT}(\mu)$. Then
\[o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=\#\{T\in {\sf shSYT}(\nu/\lambda):{\sf shRect}(T)=U\}.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:LRshiftedTab}
Let $\lambda=(3,1),\mu=(3,1),\nu=(4,3,1)$. The following are the $2$ shifted tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ that rectify to $U = \tableauS{{1}&{2}&{3}\\ &{4}} $. Thus, $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=2$.
\begin{gather*}
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1}\\ & {\ }&{2}&{3}&\\ & &{4}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\ }&{1}&{4}&\\ & &{2}&}
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
Define the {\it reading word} of a (possibly skew) shifted tableaux $T$ to be the word obtained by reading the rows of $T$ from left to right starting with the bottom row. For a word $w=w_1 w_2 \ldots w_n$, define
${\sf JS}_i(j)$ for $1\leq j\leq 2n, i\geq 1$, depending on $w$:
\[{\sf JS}_i(j):=\text{number of occurrences of $i$ among $w_{n-j+1},\ldots,w_n$}, \ 0\leq j\leq n,\]
and
\[{\sf JS}_i(n+j):={\sf JS}_i(n)+\text{number of occurrences of $i'$ among $w_1,\ldots,w_j$}, \ 0<j\leq n.\]
The word $w$ is {\it proto-ballot} if, when ${\sf JS}_i(j)={\sf JS}_{i-1}(j)$, both of these statements hold:
\begin{center}
$w_{n-j}\neq i,i'$, \ if $0\leq j<n;$\\
$w_{j-n+1}\neq i-1,i'$, \ if $n\leq j <2n$.
\end{center}
Let $|w|$ be the word obtained from $w$ by removing all primes. Now, $w$ is {\it ballot} if it is {\it proto-ballot} and the leftmost $i$ of $|w|$ is unprimed in $w$ for all $i$. In his work on projective representation theory of symmetric groups, J.~Stembridge \cite[Theorem 8.3]{Stembridge} gave the following semistandard analogue of Theorem~\ref{thm:shiftedjdt}.
\begin{theorem}[Shifted ballot Littlewood-Richardson rule]\label{thm:jrsrule}
$o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ counts the number of shifted semistandard tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ of content $\mu$
that are ballot.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}\label{ex:ShLRballotTab}
Let $\lambda=(3,1),\mu=(3,1),\nu=(4,3,1)$, then the following are the only $2$ shifted semistandard tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ of content $\mu$
that are ballot.
\begin{gather*}
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1'}\\ & {\ }&{1}&{1}&\\ & &{2}&}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{1}\\ & {\ }&{1'}&{2}&\\ & &{1}&}
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
It follows from (\ref{eqn:PQ}) that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:PQAug11}
l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
Thus the above rules give a rule to compute $l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ in a manifestly positive manner, as well.
\subsection{Nonvanishing} K.~Purbhoo-F.~Sottile \cite{PS:FPSAC, Purbhoo.Sottile} gave an extension of the Horn recursion to describe when $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ (or equivalently $l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$) is nonzero. Fix $n$ and $r$. Suppose $\alpha$ is a (ordinary) partition whose (unshifted) Young diagram is contained in $r\times (n-r)$. Let
\[I_{n}(\alpha):=\{n-r+1-\alpha_1,n-r+2-\alpha_2,\ldots,n-\alpha_r\}.\]
Index the corners of $\rho_n$ top to bottom from $1$ to $n$. For $\lambda\subseteq \rho_n$, $0<r<n$ and $\alpha\subseteq r\times (n-r)$ let $[\lambda]_{\alpha}$
be the number of boxes of $\lambda$ that survive after crossing the rows to the right and columns above the corners indexed by
$I_{n}(\alpha)$. Define $\lambda^c$ to be the complement of $\lambda$
in $\rho_n$ (after reflecting), whereas $\alpha^c=\alpha^{\vee}$ is the rotation of the complement of $\alpha$ in $r\times (n-r)$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:PurbhooSottile}
Suppose that $n=6,r=3$ and $\alpha=(3,2,1)$. Then $$I_n(\alpha)=\{6-3+1-3,6-3+2-2,6-3+3-1\} = \{1,3,5\}.$$
Suppose $\lambda=(6,4,3,1)\subseteq \rho_n$. In the figure below, yellow boxes are the ones that are crossed out. Thus, $[\lambda]_{\alpha}=3$.
\begin{gather*}
\ytableausetup
{boxsize=1.1em}\begin{ytableau}
*(yellow) \newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon \\
\none & \newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon &\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & \\
\none & \none & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow)\newmoon & *(yellow) \newmoon& *(yellow) \\
\none & \none & \none &\newmoon & *(yellow) & \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & *(yellow) & *(yellow) \\
\none & \none & \none & \none & \none &
\end{ytableau}
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}[K.~Purbhoo-F.~Sottile's theorem]\label{thm:PurbhooSottile}
For $\lambda, \mu,\nu\subseteq \rho_n$,
$o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^c}\neq 0$ if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item $|\lambda|+|\mu|+|\nu|=\dim Y=\binom{n+1}{2}$, and
\item for all $0<r<n$ and all $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\subset r\times (n-r)$ such that $c_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma^c}\neq 0$, one has
$[\lambda]_{\alpha}+[\mu]_{\beta}+[\nu]_{\gamma}\leq \binom{n+1-r}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{Remark}\label{remark:nosaturation}
The obvious analogue of saturation does \emph{not} hold. For example, take $\lambda=(2,1),\mu=(2),\nu=(3,2)$. Then $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \neq 0$, but $o_{2\lambda,2\mu}^{2\nu}=o_{(4,2),(4)}^{(6,4)}=0$. \qed
\end{Remark}
Inspired by the complexity results concerning $c_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, we take this opportunity to pose:
\begin{problem}
Is the decision problem of determining if $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ in the class ${\sf P}$ of polynomial time problems?
\end{problem}
Remark~\ref{remark:nosaturation} implies that the argument used in the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:LRinP} and~\ref{thm:equivLRinP}
cannot work.
\begin{problem}
Is counting $o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is in the class of $\#${\sf P}-complete problems?
\end{problem}
\section{Equivariant Schubert calculus of $Y$ and $Z$}\label{sec:YZ}
One is interested in the equivariant cohomology of $Y$ and $Z$.
As with Grassmannians (Section~\ref{sec:Equiv}) , one has structure constants with respect to the Schubert basis,
\[ \xi_{\lambda}(Y)\cdot \xi_{\mu}(Y)=\sum_{\nu\subseteq \rho_n} O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \xi_{\nu}(Y)
\text{ \ and \ $ \xi_{\lambda}(Z) \cdot \xi_{\mu}(Z) = \sum_{\nu\subseteq \rho_n} L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \xi_{\nu}(Z)$.}\]
If $|\lambda|+|\mu|=|\nu|$ then $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=o_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ and $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=l_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$. For sake of brevity,
we refer to \cite{Ikeda.Naruse} and the references therein.
Suppose that $H_{\sf T}^{*}(pt)=\mathbb{Z}[t_1,\ldots,t_n]$. The general form of
Theorem~\ref{thm:Graham} (see the attached footnote to that result) states that if $\gamma_1=t_1$ and for $i>1$, $\gamma_i=t_i-t_{i-1}$, then
\[O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}[\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_{n}].\]
Similarly, if $\alpha_1=2{t}_1,\alpha_2={t}_2-{t}_1 \ldots,\alpha_{n}={t}_n-{t}_{n-1}$ then
\[L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\in {\mathbb Z}_{\geq 0}[\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_{n}].\]
\begin{problem}\label{problem:OG}
Give a combinatorial rule for $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ and/or $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$.
\end{problem}
Naturally, we desire a rule in terms of shifted edge labeled tableaux. Such a rule (or any combinatorial rule) has eluded us.
The reader wishing to give Problem~\ref{problem:OG} a try might find Table~\ref{tab:prod} useful.
\begin{table}[t]\label{tabel:eqTypeBC}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
$\lambda$ & $\mu$ & $\nu$ & $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ & $ L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ \\
\hline\hline
$[1]$ & $[1]$ & $[1]$ & $\gamma_{1}$ & $\alpha_{1}$ \\
$[1]$ & $[1]$ & $[1]$ & $\gamma_{1}$ & $\alpha_{1}$ \\
$[1]$ & $[1]$ & $[2]$ & $1$ & $2$\\
$[1]$ & $[2]$ & $[2]$ & $\gamma_{1} + \gamma_{2}$ & $\alpha_{1} + 2 \alpha_{2}$\\
$[2]$ & $[1]$ & $[2]$ & $\gamma_{1} + \gamma_{2}$ & $\alpha_{1} + 2 \alpha_{2}$ \\
$[2]$ & $[2]$ & $[2]$ & $\gamma_{1} \gamma_{2} + \alpha_{2}^2$ & $\alpha_{1} \alpha_{2} + 2 \alpha_{2}^2$ \\
$[1]$ & $[2]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$[1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1} + \gamma_{2}$ & $2\alpha_{1} + 2\alpha_{2}$ \\
$[2]$ & $[1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
$[2]$ & $[2]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1} + 2\gamma_{2}$ & $\alpha_{1} + 2\alpha_{2}$ \\
$[2]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1}^2 + 3\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2} + \gamma_{2}^2$ & $\alpha_{1}^2 + 3\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2} + 2\alpha_{2}^2$ \\
$[2, 1]$ & $[1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1} + \gamma_{2}$ & $2\alpha_{1} + 2\alpha_{2}$ \\
$[2, 1]$ & $[2]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1}^2 + 3\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2} + \gamma_{2}^2$ & $\alpha_{1}^2 + 3\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2} + 2\alpha_{2}^2$ \\
$[2, 1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2\gamma_{1}^3 + 3\gamma_{1}^2\gamma_{2} + \gamma_{1}\gamma_{2}^2$ & $\alpha_{1}^3 + 3\alpha_{1}^2\alpha_{2} + 2\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}^2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table of products for $n=2$ \label{tab:prod}}
\end{table}
Let $\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ be the polynomial obtained from $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ after substitions $\alpha_1 \mapsto 2\gamma_1$ and $\alpha_i \mapsto \gamma_i$ for $i>1$.
The following is a refinement of (\ref{eqn:PQAug11}):
\begin{theorem}[\emph{cf.} Theorem~1.1 of \cite{RYY}]\label{thm:typeBCpower2}
$O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} = 2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)} \tilde{L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$
\end{theorem}
Thus, the $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ and $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ versions of Problem~\ref{problem:OG}
are essentially equivalent.
Theorem~\ref{thm:typeBCpower2} was stated in a weaker form as a conjecture in
C.~Monical's doctoral thesis \cite[Conjecture~5.1]{Monical}. A proof of a generalization was given in \cite[Theorem~1.1]{RYY}. Below, we offer another proof
that uses a variation of the associativity recurrence alluded to at the end of Section~\ref{subsection:GKM}. This recurrence should be useful
to prove any guessed rule for $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ or $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, so we wish to explicate it here.
\begin{proof}
This will serve as the base case of the associativity recurrence below:
\begin{lemma}
$O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}=2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)} \tilde{L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the same reasoning as the derivation of (\ref{eqn:Arabia}), we have $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}=\xi_{\mu}(Z)|_{\lambda}$ and $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}=\xi_{\mu}(Y)|_{\lambda}$. The lemma this holds since, by \cite[Theorem 3]{Ikeda.Naruse}, $\xi_{\mu}(Y)|_{\lambda}=2^{-\ell(\mu)} \xi_{\mu}(Z)|_{\lambda}$.
\end{proof}
Assign weights to each box of the staircase $\rho_n$ as follows. For $Y$, the boxes on the main diagonal are assigned
weight $\gamma_1$. The boxes on the next diagonal are assigned $\gamma_2$, etc. For $Z$, the boxes on the main diagonal
are assigned $\alpha_1$ whereas the boxes on the second diagonal are assigned $2\alpha_2$, and the third diagonal $2\alpha_3$, etc.
Let $\beta_Y:=\rho_n\to \{\gamma_i\}$ and $\beta_Z:\rho_n\to \{\alpha_1,2\alpha_2,\ldots, 2\alpha_n\}$ be
these two assignments.
Thus, when $n=3$ the assignment is
\[\tableauL{\gamma_1 & \gamma_2 & \gamma_3\\ & \gamma_1 & \gamma_2 \\ & & \gamma_1} \text{\ \ \ (for $Y$) \ \ \ and \ \ \ }
\tableauL{\alpha_1 & 2\alpha_2 & 2\alpha_3\\ & \alpha_1 & 2\alpha_2 \\ & & \alpha_1} \text{\ \ \ (for $Z$).}
\]
For a straight shape $\lambda\subseteq \rho_n$, define
\[{\tt wt}_{Y}(\lambda)=\sum_{x\in\lambda} \beta_Y(x).\]
For a skew shape $\nu/\lambda\subseteq \rho_n$,
\[{\tt wt}_{Y}(\nu/\lambda):={\tt wt}_Y(\nu)-{\tt wt}_Y(\lambda).\]
Similarly, one defines ${\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)$.
Let $\lambda^+$ be $\lambda$ with a box added. Also let $\nu^{-}$ be $\nu$ with a box removed. We claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Brec}
\sum_{\lambda^+} O_{\lambda^+,\mu}^{\nu}=O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}{\tt wt}_Y(\nu/\lambda)+\sum_{\nu^-} O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^-}.
\end{equation}
This is proved by the considering the associativity relation
\[(\xi_{\lambda}(Y) \cdot \xi_{(1)}(Y))\cdot \xi_{\mu}(Y)=\xi_{\lambda}(Y) \cdot (\xi_{(1)}(Y)\cdot \xi_{\mu}(Y)),\]
and using the Pieri rule for $Y$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:PieriBbox}
\xi_{(1)}(Y) \cdot \xi_{\lambda}(Y) = {\tt wt}_Y(\lambda)\xi_{\lambda}(Y)+\sum_{\lambda^+} \xi_{\lambda^+}(Y).
\end{equation}
The proof of (\ref{eqn:PieriBbox}) can be obtained starting with the same reasoning as the derivation of (\ref{eqn:equivpieriabc}). Alternatively, it can be
deduced by specializing more general formulas such as C.~Lenart-A.~Postnikov's \cite[Corollary~1.2]{Lenart.Postnikov}.
Similarly, the Pieri rule for $Z$ reads
\[\xi_{(1)}(Z) \cdot \xi_{\lambda}(Z)={\tt wt}_Z(\lambda)\xi_{\lambda}(Z)+\sum_{\lambda^+} 2^{\ell(\lambda)+1-\ell(\lambda^+)} \xi_{\lambda^+}(Z).\]
Consequently, by the same reasoning we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Crec}
\sum_{\lambda^+} L_{\lambda^+,\mu}^{\nu}2^{\ell(\lambda)+1-\ell(\lambda^+)}=L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}{\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)+\sum_{\nu^-} L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^-}2^{\ell(\nu^-)+1-\ell(\nu)}.
\end{equation}
Now, to complete the proof by induction we start from (\ref{eqn:Crec}). This is an identity of polynomials and remains so after
the substitution $\alpha_1\mapsto 2\gamma_1$ and $\alpha_i\mapsto \gamma_i$ for $i>1$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Crec'}
\sum_{\lambda^+} {\widetilde L}_{\lambda^+,\mu}^{\nu}2^{\ell(\lambda)+1-\ell(\lambda^+)}={\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}{\widetilde {\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)}+\sum_{\nu^-} {\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^-}2^{\ell(\nu^-)+1-\ell(\nu)},
\end{equation}
where ${\widetilde {\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)}$ is ${\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)$ with the same substitution. Note that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:halfabc}
\frac{1}{2}{\widetilde {\tt wt}_Z(\nu/\lambda)}={\tt wt}_Y(\nu/\lambda).
\end{equation}
Now multiply both sides of (\ref{eqn:Crec'}) by $\frac{1}{2}\times 2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}$. This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Crec''}
\sum_{\lambda^+} {\widetilde L}_{\lambda^+,\mu}^{\nu}2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda^+)-\ell(\mu)}=2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}{\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}{\tt wt}_Y(\nu/\lambda)+\sum_{\nu^-} {\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^-}2^{\ell(\nu^-)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}.
\end{equation}
By induction,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Crec'''}
\sum_{\lambda^+} {O}_{\lambda^+,\mu}^{\nu}=2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}{\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}{\tt wt}_Y(\nu/\lambda)+\sum_{\nu^-} {O}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^-}.
\end{equation}
Comparing (\ref{eqn:Crec'''}) and (\ref{eqn:Brec}) we deduce that
$O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=2^{\ell(\nu)-\ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)}{\widetilde L}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, as needed.
\end{proof}
Turning to nonvanishing, clearly:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:Aug8abc}
$[\gamma_1^{i_1}\cdots \gamma_n^{i_n}]O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0 \iff [\alpha_1^{i_1}\cdots \alpha_n^{i_n}]L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$; in particular
$O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0 \iff L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
\end{corollary}
Moreover, C.~Monical \cite{Monical} gave a conjectural equivariant extension of Theorem~\ref{thm:PurbhooSottile}.
\begin{conjecture}[C.~Monical's Horn-type conjecture]\label{conj:Monical}
For $\lambda,\mu,\nu\subseteq \rho_n$ (and not a smaller staircase), $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^c}\neq 0$ if and only if
for $k=|\lambda|+|\mu|+|\nu|-\binom{n+1}{2}$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $k\geq 0$, and
\item for all $0<r<n$ and all $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\subseteq r\times (n-r)$ with $|\alpha|+|\beta|+|\gamma|=r(n-r)$ and
$c_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma^c}\neq 0$ we have $[\lambda]_{\alpha}+[\mu]_{\beta}+[\nu]_{\gamma}-k\leq \binom{n+1-r}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{conjecture}
In \emph{loc.~cit.}, C.~Monical reports checking this conjecture for all $\lambda,\mu,\nu\subseteq \rho_5$. Now,
from Corollary~\ref{cor:Aug8abc} we obtain:
\begin{corollary}[\emph{cf.} Conjecture~5.3 of \cite{Monical}]
C.~Monical's inequalities characterize $O_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$ if and only if they characterize $L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\neq 0$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Shifted edge labeled tableaux}\label{sec:shiftededge}
In this section, we define \emph{shifted edge labeled tableaux}. At present, we do not know a good theory when edge labels are permitted
on arbitrary horizontal edges. However, our central new idea is to \emph{restrict edge labels to diagonal boxes}.
This restriction gives rise to a combinatorial
rule which defines a commutative and (conjecturally) associative ring.
\subsection{Main definitions} If $\mu\subseteq \lambda$, then $\lambda/\mu$ is the skew-shape consisting of boxes
of $\lambda$ not in $\mu$. The boxes in matrix position $(i,i)$ are the \emph{diagonal boxes}. A \emph{diagonal edge} of $\lambda/\mu$
refers to the southern edge of a diagonal box of $\lambda$. If $\mu=\emptyset$, we call $\lambda=\lambda/\mu$ a \emph{straight shape}.
For example if $\lambda=(6,3,1)$ and $\mu=(3,1)$, the shape $\lambda/\mu$ consists of the six unmarked boxes shown below
\[\tableauS{X & X &X & \ & \ &\ \\ & X &\ &\ \\ & & \ }.\]
This has one diagonal box but three diagonal edges.
A \emph{shifted edge labeled tableau} of shape $\lambda/\mu$ is a filling of the boxes of $\lambda/\mu$ and southern edges of the diagonal boxes with the labels $[N]=\{1,2,3,\ldots,N\}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(S1)] Every box of $\lambda/\mu$ is filled.
\item[(S2)] Each \emph{diagonal} edge contains a (possibly empty) subset of $[N]$.
\item[(S3)] $1,2,\ldots,N$ appears exactly once.
\item[(S4)] The labels strictly increase left to right along rows and top to bottom along columns. In particular, each label of a diagonal edge is strictly larger
than the box labels in the same column.
\end{itemize}
These conditions imply that $N\geq |\lambda/\mu|$. Let ${\sf eqShSYT}(\lambda/\mu,N)$ be the set of
all such tableaux. If we restrict to tableaux satisfying only (S1), (S3) and (S4), then $N=|\lambda/\mu|$ and we obtain the
notion of shifted standard Young tableaux from Section~\ref{sec:PQstuff}.
An \emph{inner corner} ${\sf c}$ of $\lambda/\mu$ is a maximally southeast box of $\mu$. For $T \in {\sf eqShSYT}(\lambda/\mu,N)$, we define a \emph{(shifted, edge labeled) jeu de taquin slide} ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(T)$, obtained as follows. Initially place $\bullet$ in ${\sf c}$, and apply one of the following \emph{slides}, depending on what $T$ looks like locally around ${\sf c}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(J1)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{b & a\\ \bullet }$ (if $b<a$, or $a$ does not exist)
\smallskip
\item[(J2)] $\tableauS{\bullet & a\\ b}\mapsto \tableauS{a & \bullet\\ b}$ (if $a<b$, or $b$ does not exist)
\smallskip
\item[(J3')] $\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{\bullet & a}$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture} \mapsto
\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{a & \bullet }$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture}$ (if ${\sf c}$ is a \emph{diagonal} box and $a<\min(S)$)
\item[(J4')] $\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{\bullet & a}$}
\put(3,-5){$S$}
\end{picture} \mapsto
\begin{picture}(40,30)\put(0,0){$\tableauS{s & a }$}
\put(3,-5){$S'$}
\end{picture}$ (if ${\sf c}$ is a \emph{diagonal} box, $s:=\min(S)<a$ and $S':=S\setminus \{s\}$)
\end{itemize}
Repeat the above sliding procedure on the new box ${\sf c}'$ containing the new position $\bullet$ until $\bullet$ arrives at a box or diagonal edge ${\sf d}$
of $\lambda$ that has no labels immediately south or east of it. Then ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(T)$ is obtained by erasing $\bullet$.
A \emph{rectification} of $T\in {\sf eqShSYT}(\lambda/\mu,N)$ is defined as usual: Choose an inner corner ${\sf c}_0$ of $\lambda/\mu$ and compute
$T_1:={\sf shEjdt}_{{\sf c}_0}(T)$, which has shape $\lambda^{(1)}/\mu^{(1)}$. Now let ${\sf c}_1$ be an inner corner of $\lambda^{(1)}/\mu^{(1)}$ and compute
$T_2:={\sf shEjdt}_{{\sf c}_1}(T_1)$. Repeat $|\mu|$ times, arriving at a standard tableau of straight shape. Let ${\sf shEqRect}_{\{{\sf c}_i\}}(T)$ be this tableau.
In general, ${\sf shEqRect}$ is not independent of rectification order, when $N>|\lambda/\mu|$:
\begin{example}
The reader can check that if one uses column rectification order
(picking the rightmost inner corner at each step) then
\[\begin{picture}(100,50)
\put(5,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }&{1} \\ & & {2}}$}
\put(50,-8){$3$}
\end{picture}\]
rectifies to $\tableauS{1 & 2 & 3}$ while row rectification (choosing the southmost inner corner at each step) gives $\tableauS{1 &2\\ &3}$. \qed
\end{example}
We will define ${\sf shEqRect}(T)$ to be the rectification under row rectification order.
\subsection{A (putative) commutative ring structure}
Let $S_{\mu}$ be the superstandard tableau of shifted shape $\mu$, which is obtained by filling the boxes of $\mu$ in English reading order
with $1,2,3,\ldots$. For example,
\[S_{(5,3,1)}=\tableauS{1&2&3&4&5\\ &6&7&8\\ & & 9}.\]
Define
\[d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}:=\#\{T\in {\sf eqShSYT}(\nu/\lambda,|\mu|): {\sf shEqRect}(T)=S_{\mu}\}.\]
Let
\[\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu):=|\lambda|+|\mu|-|\nu|
\text{ \ and $L(\nu;\lambda,\mu):=\ell(\lambda)+\ell(\mu)-\ell(\nu)$.}\]
Introduce an indeterminate $z$ and set
\[D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}:=2^{L(\nu;\lambda,\mu)-\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)}z^{\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)}d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}.\]
Next we define formal symbols $[\lambda]$ for each $\lambda\subseteq \rho_n$. Let $R_n$ be the free ${\mathbb Z}[z]$-module generated by these.
We declare a product structure on $R_n$ by
\[[\lambda]\star [\mu] = \sum_{\nu} D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} [\nu].\]
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| }
\hline
$\lambda$ & $\mu$ & $\lambda \star \mu $ \\
\hline\hline
$[1]$ & $[1]$ & $z[1] + 2[2]$\\
$[1]$ & $[2]$ & $z[2] + [2,1] + 2[3]$\\
$[1]$ & $[2, 1]$ & $2z[2,1] + 2[3,1]$\\
$[1]$ & $[3]$ & $z[3] + [3,1] $\\
$[1]$ & $[3, 1]$ & $2z[3,1] + 2[3,2]$\\
$[1]$ & $[3, 2]$ & $2z[3,2] + [3,2,1]$\\
$[1]$ & $[3, 2, 1]$ & $3z[3,2,1] $\\
$[2]$ & $[2]$ & $z[2,1] + z[3] + 2[3,1]$\\
$[2]$ & $[2,1]$ & $ z^2[2,1] + 3z[3,1] + 2[3,2]$\\
$[2]$ & $[3]$ & $z[3,1] + [3,2]$\\
$[2]$ & $[3,1]$ & $z^2[3,1] + 3z[3,2] + [3,2,1]$ \\
$[2]$ & $[3, 2]$ & $z^2[3,2] + 2z[3,2,1]$\\
$[2]$ & $[3, 2, 1]$ & $3z^2[3,2,1]$\\
$[2,1]$ & $[2,1]$ & $z^3[2,1] + 3z^2[3,1] + 6z[3,2] $ \\
$[2,1]$ & $[3]$ & $z^2[3,1] + z[3,2] + [3,2,1]$\\
$[2,1]$ & $[3,1]$ & $z^3[3,1] + 3z^2[3,2] + 3z[3,2,1]$ \\
$[2,1]$ & $[3,2]$ & $z^3[3,2] + 3z^2[3,2,1]$\\
$[2,1]$ & $[3,2,1]$ & $4z^3[3,2,1]$\\
$[3]$ & $[3]$ & $z[3,2]$\\
$[3]$ & $[3,1]$ & $ z^2[3,2] + z[3,2,1]$ \\
$[3]$ & $[3, 2]$ & $z^2[3,2,1]$\\
$[3]$ & $[3,2,1]$ & $z^3[3,2,1]$\\
$[3,1]$ & $[3,1]$ & $z^3[3,2] + 3z^2[3,2,1]$\\
$[3,1]$ & $[3,2]$ & $2z^3[3,2,1]$ \\
$[3,1]$ & $[3,2,1]$ & $2z^4[3,2,1]$\\
$[3,2]$ & $[3,2]$ & $z^4[3,2,1]$\\
$[3,2]$ & $[3,2,1]$ & $z^5[3,2,1]$\\
$[3,2,1]$ & $[3,2,1]$ & $z^6[3,2,1]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table of products for $n=3$}
\end{table}
While positivity of $D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is immediate from the definition, the following is not:
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:integral}
$D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} \in \mathbb{Z}[z]$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{example}
Suppose that $\lambda=(2,1), \mu=(3,1), \nu=(3,1)$. Then $\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)=3+4-4=3$,
$L(\nu;\lambda,\mu)=2+2-2=2$. Also, $d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} = 2$ because the following are the only $2$ shifted edge labeled tableaux which rectify to $S_{\mu}$.
\[\begin{picture}(300,50)
\put(-50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\bullet}}$}
\put(-42,31){$1$}
\put(-27,12){$24$}
\put(20,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\bullet}&{3}\\ & {2 }}$}
\put(58,31){$1$}
\put(75,12){$4$}
\put(120,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(150,35){$\tableauL{{\bullet }&{2}&{3}\\ & {4}}$}
\put(158,31){$1$}
\put(220,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(250,35){$\tableauL{{1}&{2}&{3}\\ & {4}}$}
\end{picture}\]
\[\begin{picture}(300,50)
\put(-50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\bullet}}$}
\put(-30,12){$124$}
\put(20,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\bullet}&{3}\\ & {1}}$}
\put(74,12){$24$}
\put(120,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(150,35){$\tableauL{{\bullet }&{1}&{3}\\ & {2}}$}
\put(175,12){$4$}
\put(220,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(250,35){$\tableauL{{1}&{2}&{3}\\ & {4}}$}
\end{picture}\]
Thus $D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=2^{2-3}\times z^{3}\times 2 = z^3$. \qed
\end{example}
In the previous example, $2^{L(\nu;\lambda,\mu)-\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)}=2^{-1}$. Further, in the tableaux counting $d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, only the edge labels differed. In the case that $L(\nu;\lambda,\mu)-\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)=-k<0$ one might wonder if the tableaux counting $d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$, namely
\[F(\lambda,\mu;\nu) = \{T\in {\sf shEqSYT}(\nu/\lambda,|\mu|): {\sf shEqRect}(T)=S_{\mu}\}\]
can be sorted into equivalence classes of size $2^k$ by ignoring edge labels. The following example shows this is false in general:
\begin{example} Suppose that $\lambda=(3), \mu=(3,2,1), \nu=(4,2,1)$. Then $\Delta(\nu;\lambda,\mu)=3+6-7=2$ and
$L(\nu;\lambda,\mu)=1+3-3=1$, so $k=1$. Below a $T\in F_{(3),(3,2,1);(4,2,1)}$. Any $
T'\in {\sf eqShSYT}((4,2,1)/(3),6)$ formed by moving the edge labels of $T$ is not in $F_{(3),(3,2,1);(4,2,1)}$.
\[\begin{picture}(100,60)
\put(0,45){$T=\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {1}& {2}\\ & & {4}}$}
\put(67,2){$56$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
While Conjecture~\ref{conj:integral} is a purely combinatorial question, it
would also follow from a conjectural connection to equivariant
Schubert calculus, through work of D.~Anderson-W.~Fulton presented in Section~\ref{sec:AndersonFultonstuff}.
The next result gives a further consistency check of our combinatorics. It was suggested by
H.~Thomas (private communication):
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:commutative}
$R_n$ is commutative, \emph{i.e.}, $D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=D_{\mu,\lambda}^{\nu}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The argument is based on a variation of S.~Fomin's \emph{growth diagram} formulation of \emph{jeu de taquin}; see, \emph{e.g.},
\cite[Appendix~1]{ECII}.
Given a tableau $T\in {\sf eqShSYT}(\lambda/\theta,n)$, define the corresponding \emph{e-partition} (e for ``edge'') to be ${\sf epart}(T):=(\lambda_{1}^{i_1},\lambda_{2}^{i_2}, \ldots )$ where $i_k = $number of edge labels on the $k^{th}$ diagonal edge.
Each such $T$ can be encoded as a sequence of e-partitions starting with the (usual) partition $\theta = (\theta_{1}^{0}, \theta_{2}^{0}, \ldots)$: If $1$ appears in a box in row $i$ then the next e-partition has an extra box in this position, \emph{i.e.}, we replace $\theta_{i}^{0}$ with ${(\theta_i+1)}^{0}$. Otherwise $1$ appears on the edge of a diagonal box in row $i$, in which case, the one-larger e-partition has $\theta_{i}^{0}$ replaced by $\theta_i^{1}$. Repeat this process by looking at the position of $2$ in $T$ \emph{etc.}
Evidently, such an encoding of $T$ is unique.
\begin{example}
\[\begin{picture}(300,50)
\put(-70,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(-62,31){$1$}
\put(-47,12){$24$}
\put(-58,-5){$(3^1,1^2)$}
\put(-5,30){$\leftrightarrow$}
\put(15,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(15,-5){$(2^0,1^0)$}
\put(65,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(85,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(93,31){$1$}
\put(88,-5){$(2^1,1^0)$}
\put(135,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(155,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(163,31){$1$}
\put(181,12){$2$}
\put(158,-5){$(2^1,1^1)$}
\put(205,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(225,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(233,31){$1$}
\put(251,12){$2$}
\put(235,-5){$(3^1,1^1)$}
\put(290,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(310,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\ }}$}
\put(318,31){$1$}
\put(333,12){$24$}
\put(320,-5){$(3^1,1^1)$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
Rectifying the left tableau above:
\[\begin{picture}(300,60)
\put(-50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\ }&{3}\\ & {\bullet}}$}
\put(-42,31){$1$}
\put(-27,12){$24$}
\put(20,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(50,35){$\tableauL{{\ }&{\bullet}&{3}\\ & {2 }}$}
\put(58,31){$1$}
\put(75,12){$4$}
\put(120,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(150,35){$\tableauL{{\bullet }&{2}&{3}\\ & {4}}$}
\put(158,31){$1$}
\put(220,30){$\rightarrow$}
\put(250,35){$\tableauL{{1}&{2}&{3}\\ & {4}}$}
\end{picture} \]
Each of these four tableaux also has an associated sequence of e-partitions. Place these atop of one another as below.
The result is a \emph{tableau rectification diagram}:
\bgroup
\def1.5{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
$(2^0,1^0)$ & $(2^1,1^0)$ & $(2^1,1^1)$ & $(3^1,1^1)$ & $(3^1,1^2)$ \\
\hline
$(2^0)$ & $(2^1)$ & $(2^1,1^0)$ & $(3^1,1^0)$ & $(3^1,1^1)$ \\
\hline
$(1^0)$ & $(1^1)$ & $(2^1)$ & $(3^1)$ & $(3^1,1^0)$ \\
\hline
$\emptyset$ & $(1^0)$ & $(2^0)$ & $(3^0)$ & $(3^0,1^0)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\egroup
Given two e-partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_{1}^{i_1}, \lambda_{2}^{i_2}, \ldots)$ and $\mu = (\mu_{1}^{j_1}, \mu_{2}^{j_2}, \ldots)$, we will say $\mu$ \emph{covers} $\lambda$ if:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] there exists unique $m$ such that $\lambda_m + 1= \mu_m$ and $\lambda_k= \mu_k$ for $k\neq m$, and $i_k=j_k$ for all $k$; or
\item[(ii)] $\lambda_k=\mu_k$ for all $k$ and there exists a unique $m$ such that $i_m+1=j_m$ and $i_k= j_k$ for $k\neq m$.
\end{itemize}
In the case that $\mu$ covers $\lambda$ we define $\mu/\lambda$ to be the extra box added in row $m$ (if in cases (i) above), or
the $m^{th}$ diagonal edge (in case (ii)).
If $x$ is a diagonal edge, \emph{define} ${\sf shEjdt}_x(T)=T$.
For two e-partitions, $\lambda=(\lambda_{1}^{i_1}, \lambda_{2}^{i_2}, \ldots)$ and
$\mu = (\mu_{1}^{j_1}, \mu_{2}^{j_2}, \ldots)$,
let
\[\lambda \vee \mu =
({\sf max}{\{\lambda_1,\mu_1\}}^{i_1+j_1},
{\sf max} {\{\lambda_2,\mu_2\}}^{i_2+j_2}, \ldots).\]
Consider the following local conditions on any $2 \times 2$ subsquare $\tableauS{{\alpha}&{\beta}\\{\gamma}&{\delta}}$ on a grid of e-partitions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(G1)] Each e-partition covers the e-partition immediately to its left or below.
\item[(G2)] $\delta = \gamma \vee {\sf epart}({\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T))$, where $T$ is the filling of $\beta/\alpha$ by $1$. Similarly $\alpha = \gamma \vee {\sf epart}({\sf shEjdt}_{\delta/\gamma}(T))$ where $T$ is the filling of $\beta/\delta$ by $1$.
\end{itemize}
Call any rectangular table of e-partitions satisfying (G1) and (G2) a \emph{growth diagram}. By the symmetry in the
definition of (G1) and (G2), if $\mathcal{G}$ is a growth diagram, then so is $\mathcal{G}$ reflected about its antidiagonal. The following is
straightforward from the definitions:
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:growth1}
If $\tableauS{{\alpha}&{\beta}\\{\gamma}&{\delta}}$ is a $2 \times 2$ square in the tableau rectification diagram, then (G1) and (G2) hold.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix any two rows of the tableau rectification diagram; call this $2\times (n+1)$ subdiagram ${\mathcal R}$. The higher of the two row corresponds to some shifted edge labeled tableau $U$ and
the other row corresponds to ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U)$ where ${\sf c}$ is a box (determined by the shapes in the leftmost column). Now $U$ is filled by $1,2,\ldots,n$. Notice that if we consider the submatrix ${\mathcal R}'$ of ${\mathcal R}$ consisting of the leftmost $k+1$ columns, then ${\mathcal R}'$ corresponds to the
computation of ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U')$ where $U'$ is $U$ with labels $k+1,k+2,\ldots,n$ removed. The upshot is that it suffices to prove the claim for the rightmost
$2\times 2$ square in ${\mathcal R}$, which we will label with shapes $\tableauS{{\alpha}&{\beta}\\{\gamma}&{\delta}}$. Let $U_{\beta}$ be the tableau
associated to the chain of e-partitions ending at $\beta$. Similarly define $U_{\alpha}$. As well we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Aug19abc}
U_{\gamma}={\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\alpha})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Aug19xyz}
U_{\delta}={\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\beta}).
\end{equation}
Insofar as (G1) is concerned, it is obvious that $\beta$ covers $\alpha$ and $\delta$ covers $\gamma$. That $\beta$ covers $\delta$ follows from
(\ref{eqn:Aug19xyz}). Similarly, $\alpha$ covers $\gamma$ because of (\ref{eqn:Aug19abc}).
Now we turn to the proof of the first sentence of (G2).
Suppose that $S\in {\sf eqShSYT}(\lambda/\theta,n)$. Define $\bar{S}$ to be the tableau obtained by forgetting the entries $1,2,\ldots n-1$ in $S$ and replacing the $n$ by $1$. Also define $\tilde{S}$ to be the tableau obtained by forgetting the entry $n$ in $S$. Then, it is clear that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:epart}
{\sf epart}(S)= {\sf epart}(\tilde{S})\vee {\sf epart}(\bar{S})
\end{equation}
By definition, $\tilde{U_{\delta}}=U_{\gamma}$. This combined with (\ref{eqn:epart}) applied to $S=U_{\delta}$ shows that to prove the claim it suffices to show that ${\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T)=\bar{U_{\delta}}$.
\noindent {\sf Case 1:} ($\alpha$ covers $\gamma$ by (i))
In the computation of ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\alpha})$, the
$\bullet$ (that starts at ${\sf c}$) arrives at the outer corner \emph{box} $\alpha/\gamma$.
By definition, $U_\beta$ contains $n$ at $\beta/\alpha$. Therefore, if $\alpha/\gamma$ is not adjacent to $\beta/\alpha$, clearly
$U_{\delta}$ is $U_{\gamma}$ with $n$ adjoined at $\beta/\alpha$. Thus, ${\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T) = \bar{U_{\delta}}$
as desired.
Otherwise $\alpha/\gamma$ is adjacent to $\beta/\alpha$. Then by the definition of ${\sf shEjdt}$, the position of $1$ in ${\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T)$ is the same as the position of $n$ in $U_{\delta}$. Thus, ${\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T) = \bar{U_{\delta}}$.
\noindent {\sf Case 2:} ($\alpha$ covers $\gamma$ by (ii))
Then in the computation of ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\alpha})$, the
$\bullet$ must have arrived at a diagonal box, and $k(<n)$ is the smallest edge label of this same box, resulting in a (J4') slide. Now regardless of where $n$ is placed
in $U_{\beta}$, it is clear that $U_{\delta}$ is $U_{\gamma}$ with $n$ adjoined in the same place as $n$'s place in $U_\beta$, \emph{i.e.}, $\beta/\alpha$. In other words, ${\sf shEjdt}_{\alpha/\gamma}(T) = \bar{U_{\delta}}$.
Proof of the second sentence of (G2):
For a pair of e-partitions $\lambda$, $\mu$ with $\mu$ covering $\lambda$, define $U_{\mu/\lambda}$ to be the tableau with $1$ placed in the location $\mu/\lambda$ in $\mu$. Clearly, $\alpha={\sf epart}(U_{\alpha})= {\sf epart}(U_{\gamma}) \vee {\sf epart}(U_{\alpha/\gamma})$ Thus, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:growAlpha}
{\sf shEjdt}_{\delta/\gamma}(T)=U_{\alpha/\gamma}.
\end{equation}
\noindent {\sf Case 1:}($\delta$ covers $\gamma$ by (i))
Then in $U_{\delta}$, $n$ occupies box $\delta/\gamma$.
If $\delta/\gamma$ is not adjacent to $\beta/\delta$, it is clear that $U_{\beta}$ and $U_{\delta}$ have $n$ in the same place, \emph{i.e.}, $\delta/\gamma$. Thus $\beta/\delta$ and $\alpha/\gamma$ are the same box or edge position.
Thus Equation (\ref{eqn:growAlpha}) follows.
Otherwise $\delta/\gamma$ is adjacent to $\beta/\delta$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Aug22abc}
{\sf shEjdt}_{\delta/\gamma}(T) = U_{\delta/\gamma}.
\end{equation}
By the definition of ${\sf shEjdt}$, it follows that in the computation of ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\alpha})$, the $\bullet$ arrived at an outer corner $\alpha/\gamma$. This combined with the fact that $\delta/\gamma$ is adjacent to $\beta/\delta$, we conclude that $\alpha/\gamma$ is a box that is in the same
position as the box
$\delta/\gamma$. Now (\ref{eqn:Aug22abc}) is precisely (\ref{eqn:growAlpha}).
\noindent {\sf Case 2:} ($\delta$ covers $\gamma$ by (ii))
Then $\delta/\gamma$ is an edge, so $n$ occupies an edge in $U_{\delta}$. Thus in ${\sf shEjdt}_{\sf c}(U_{\beta})$, $n$ is never moved.
So, $\beta/\delta=\alpha/\gamma$. Since $\delta/\gamma$ is a diagonal edge, ${\sf shEjdt}_{\delta/\gamma}(T)= T:= U_{\beta/\delta}= U_{\alpha/\gamma}$.
\end{proof}
Let ${\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$ be the set of growth diagrams such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the leftmost column encodes the superstandard tableau of shape $\lambda$;
\item the bottom-most row encodes the superstandard tableau of shape $\mu$;
\item the shape of the e-partition in the top right corner is $\nu$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:growth2}
$\#{\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)=\#F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Given $T\in F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$, form the tableau rectification diagram ${\mathcal G}(T)$. Notice that since we are using row rectification order, the
left side of the diagram will be the sequence for $S_{\lambda}$. Since $T$ is assumed to rectify to $S_{\mu}$, the bottom row of the
diagram will be the sequence for $S_{\mu}$. Hence by Claim~\ref{claim:growth1}, ${\mathcal G}(T)\in{\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$, and thus
$T\mapsto {\mathcal G}(T)$ is an injection implying $\#F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)\leq \#{\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$.
For the reverse inequality,
given any $\mathcal{G} \in {\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$, by (G1), the top row defines $T({\mathcal G})\in {\sf eqShSYT}(\nu/\lambda,|\mu|)$. Then $T(\mathcal G)$ has a
tableau rectification diagram ${\mathcal G}'$. By Claim~\ref{claim:growth1}, ${\mathcal G}'$ is uniquely determined by its left and top borders together with (G2). Thus, since ${\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathcal G}'$ share the same left and top borders and both satisfy (G2),
${\mathcal G}={\mathcal G}'$. In particular, $T({\mathcal G})\in F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$. Thus, ${\mathcal G}\mapsto T(\mathcal G)$ is an
injection proving $\#{\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)\leq \#F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$.
\end{proof}
To conclude, we must show that $d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu} = d_{\mu,\lambda}^{\nu}$. Since
\[d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=\#F(\lambda,\mu;\nu)=\#{\sf Growth} (\lambda,\mu ;\nu),\]
it suffices to show that $\#{\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu) = \#{\sf Growth}(\mu,\lambda;\nu)$. Reflecting along the antidiagonal defines a bijection between ${\sf Growth}(\lambda,\mu;\nu)$ and ${\sf Growth}(\mu,\lambda;\nu)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Under column rectification, Theorem~\ref{theorem:commutative} is false.
Suppose $\lambda=(4,3)$, $\mu=(3,2,1)$ and $\nu=(4,3,2,1)$. The number of tableaux of shape $\nu/\lambda$ that column rectify to $S_{\mu}$ is $20$ while the number of those with shape $\nu/\mu$ column rectifying to $S_{\lambda}$ is $16$.\qed
\end{example}
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:associative}
$(R_n,\star)$ is an associative ring.
\end{conjecture}
Additional support for Conjecture~\ref{conj:associative} comes from a conjectural connection to a commutative, associative ring studied by
D.~Anderson-W.~Fulton, as described in the next section.
\section{Conjectural connection to work of W.~Fulton-D.~Anderson and equivariant Schubert calculus}\label{sec:AndersonFultonstuff}
\subsection{Results of W.~Fulton-D.~Anderson}
For a strict shape
$\lambda\subseteq \rho_n$, let $\sigma_{\lambda}={\sf Pf}(c_{\lambda_i,\lambda_j})$ where
\[c_{p,q}=\displaystyle\sum_{0\leq a\leq b \leq q}(-1)^b\left(\binom{b}{a}+\binom{b-1}{a}\right)z^a c_{p+b-a} c_{q-b}.\]
If $\ell = \ell(\lambda)$ is odd, define $\lambda_{\ell+1}=0$ so that the matrix becomes even ordered.
Recently, D.~Anderson-W.~Fulton have studied a ${\mathbb Z}[z]$-algebra
\[{\mathfrak{P}}=\mathbb{Z}[z,c_1,c_2,\ldots]/(c_{p,p}=0, \forall p>0)\]
and shown it has a basis over ${\mathbb Z}[z]$ of $\sigma_{\lambda}$. Define structure constants by
\[\sigma_{\lambda}\cdot \sigma_{\mu} =\sum_{\nu\subseteq \rho_n} \FA_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}\sigma_{\nu}.\]
Also let
\[{\mathfrak d}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}:=\frac{\FA_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}}{2^{L(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)-\Delta(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)}z^{\Delta(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)}}.\]
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:C=D}
There is a ring isomorphism $\phi:R_n\to \mathfrak{P}$ that sends $[\lambda]\mapsto \sigma_{\lambda}$. Therefore,
$\FA_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=D_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ (equivalently ${\mathfrak d}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}=d_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$).
\end{conjecture}
We have exhaustively checked Conjecture~\ref{conj:C=D} for all $n\leq 4$ and many $n=5$ cases.
D.~Anderson-W.~Fulton (private communication) connected the above ring to equivariant Schubert calculus of $Z$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:FultonAndersonconnect}
L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}(\alpha_1\mapsto z, \alpha_2\mapsto 0,\ldots,\alpha_n\mapsto 0)={\mathfrak D}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:C=D}$\implies$ Conjecture~\ref{conj:integral}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Graham},
$L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu}$ is a nonnegative integer polynomial in
$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$, the simples of the type $C$ root system. Now apply (\ref{eqn:FultonAndersonconnect}).
\end{proof}
In turn, Conjecture~\ref{conj:C=D} should follow from a proof that $D_{\lambda,(p)}^{\nu}=\FA_{\lambda,(p)}^{\nu}$,
together with Conjecture~\ref{conj:associative}, by a variation of the ``associativity argument'' of Section~\ref{sec:Young}.
\subsection{Two numerologically nice cases of Conjecture~\ref{conj:C=D}}
\begin{theorem}
$d_{\lambda,(p)}^{\lambda}=\binom{\ell(\lambda)}{p}2^{p-1}={\mathfrak d}_{\lambda,(p)}^{\lambda}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will use some results of T.~Ikeda-H.~Naruse \cite{Ikeda.Naruse} that we now recall.
For a strict partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1 > \ldots > \lambda_r>0)$, let $D_{\lambda}$ denote the associated shifted shape. Explicitly,
\[D_{\lambda} = \{(i,j)\in \mathbb{Z}^2| 1\leq i\leq r, i\leq j <\lambda_i +i \}.\]
For instance, $D_{(3,1)}=\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }}$. Given an arbitrary subset $C\subset D_{\lambda}$, if a box $x\in C$ satisfies either of the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)] $x=(i,i)$ and $(i,i+1), (i+1,i+1) \in D_{\lambda} \setminus C$
\item[(II)] $x=(i,j), j\neq i$ and $(i+1,i), (i,i+1), (i+1,i+1) \in D_{\lambda} \setminus C$
\end{enumerate}
then set
$C'=C\cup \{ x+(1,1)\} \backslash \{x\}$.
The procedure $C\rightarrow C'$ is called an \emph{elementary excitation occuring} at $x \in C$. Any subset $C'\subset D_{\lambda}$ obtained from $C$ by an application of successive elementary excitations is called
an \emph{excited Young diagram} (EYD) of $C$.
Denote by $\mathcal{E}_{\lambda}(\mu)$ the set of all EYDs of $D_{\mu}$ contained in $D_{\lambda}$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:Eyd1}
Suppose $\lambda=(4,2,1), \mu=(2)$, then $\mathcal{E}_{\lambda}(\mu)$ consists of the following EYDs
\begin{gather*}
\tableauS{{+}&{+}&{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }&{\ }\\ & & {\ }}
\qquad
\tableauS{{+ }&{\ }&{\ }&{\ }\\ & {\ }&{+}\\ & & {\ }}
\qquad
\tableauS{{\ }&{\ }&{\ }&{\ }\\ & {+ }&{+ }\\ & & {\ }}.
\end{gather*}
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Aug10abc}
$\FA_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda} = \#\mathcal{E}_{\rho_{\ell(\lambda)}}(\mu)\times z^{|\mu|}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Theorem~3]{Ikeda.Naruse} which gives a formula for $\xi_{\lambda}(Z)|_{\mu}=L_{\lambda,\mu}^{\mu}$
in terms of EYDs, combined with (\ref{eqn:FultonAndersonconnect}). We omit the details, which amount mostly to translating
from the appropriate Weyl group elements to the associated partitions.
\end{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:Aug10abc},
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:loc_eyd}
{\mathfrak{d}}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}= \frac{\FA_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}}{2^{L(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)-\Delta(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)}z^{\Delta(\lambda;\lambda,\mu)}}=
\frac{ \#\mathcal{E}_{\rho_{\ell(\lambda)}}(\mu) \times z^{|\mu|}}{ 2^{\ell(\mu)-|\mu|}z^{|\mu|}} =
\#\mathcal{E}_{\rho_{\ell(\lambda)}}(\mu)\times 2^{|\mu|-\ell(\mu)} .
\end{equation}
As all boxes in $D_{(p)}$ are in distinct columns, they stay in distinct columns even after the application of the excitation moves (I) and (II). Therefore, $\mathcal{E}_{\rho_{\ell(\lambda)}}((p))$ contains at most $\binom{\ell(\lambda)}{p}$ elements, since, there are $\ell(\lambda)$ columns in $D_{\rho_{\ell(\lambda)}}$. It is not
hard to see from (I) and (II) this upper bound is an equality. This proves the second equality of the theorem.
Let $N=\ell(\lambda)$; we now prove the first equality of the theorem statement by induction on $N+p$. When $N+p\leq 1$ the claim is obvious. When $N+p=2$, there is one case, namely, $\lambda=(1)$, $p=1$ and $d_{\lambda,(p)}^{\lambda}=1=\binom{1}{1}2^{1-1}$, as desired. Now suppose $N+p=k>2$ and the claim holds for smaller
$N+p$.
Let $F(\lambda,(p);\lambda)$ be the tableaux enumerated by $d_{\lambda,(p)}^{\lambda}$. If $T\in F(\lambda,(p);\lambda)$ we say that a label $q$ \emph{appears in} row $r$ if $q$ is an edge label on the southern edge of the diagonal box in row $r$.
Let $\overline{T}$ be $T$ with the first row removed, this is of shape $\overline\lambda$. There are three disjoint cases that $T$ can
fall into:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ($1$ does not appear in row $1$ of $T$ and $\overline{T}\in F({\overline\lambda,(p);\overline\lambda})$:
Then there are $d_{\overline\lambda,(p)}^{\overline\lambda}$ many such choices; this equals $\binom{N-1}{p}2^{p-1}$, by induction.
\item ($1$ does not appear in row $1$ of $T$ and $\overline{T}\not\in F({\overline\lambda,(p);\overline\lambda})$): Then it is
straightforward to check (from the assumption that $T\in F(\lambda,(p);\lambda)$) that ${\overline T}$ row rectifies to ${\overline S}$ of shape $(p-1)$ where the first row consists of
box labels $1,3,4,\ldots, p-1$ and has a $2$ in the south edge of the first box. Notice that the choices for ${\overline T}$ are in bijection
with $F({\overline\lambda},(p-1);{\overline\lambda})$ where the map is to remove the edge label $2$ and shift the labels $3,4,5\ldots,p$ down by one. This, combined with induction asserts that there are $d_{\overline\lambda,(p-1)}^{\overline\lambda}=
\binom{N-1}{p-1}2^{p-2}$ many choices.
\item ($1$ appears in row $1$): No other label appears in row $1$ of $T$. Let $U$ be $\overline T$ with every entry decremented by one.
It is straightforward that $U\in
F({\overline\lambda},(p-1);\overline\lambda)$, and that the map $T\mapsto U$ is bijective. Thus, there are
$d_{\overline\lambda,(p-1)}^{\overline\lambda}=\binom{N-1}{p-1}2^{p-2}$ many tableaux in this case, by induction.
\end{enumerate}
By Pascal's identity,
\[\binom{N}{p}2^{p-1} = \binom{N-1}{p}2^{p-1} + \binom{N-1}{p-1}2^{p-2} + \binom{N-1}{p-1}2^{p-2}.\]
This, combined with cases (1)-(3), completes the induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:locCoeff}
$d_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}=2^{\binom{n}{2}}={\mathfrak d}_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}$
\end{theorem}
\noindent
\emph{Proof sketch:}
In the special case when $\ell(\lambda) = \ell(\mu)$, it is easy to observe that $|\mathcal{E}_{\mu}^{\lambda}| = 1$. Thus in this case,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:localization}
{\mathfrak d}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\lambda}= 2^{|\mu|-\ell(\mu)}
\end{equation}
Further when $\mu=\lambda=\rho_n$,
\[{\mathfrak d}_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}= 2^{|\mu|-\ell(\mu)}=2^{\binom{n}{2}}.\]
This proves the rightmost equality.
For the remaining equality, consider $T\in {\sf shEqSYT}(\rho_n/\rho_n,N)$ where $N=|\rho_n|=\binom{n+1}{2}$.
For $1\leq i\leq n$, let \[E_i(T)=\{k \ | \ k \mbox{ lies on the } i \mbox{th diagonal edge of } T\}.\]
For $T\in {\sf shSYT}(\nu/\lambda)$, let $T(i,j)$ be the entry in box $(i,j)$ (in matrix coordinates).
Define $U_n\in{\sf shEqSYT}(\rho_n/\rho_n,N)$ by the requirement that
$E_i(U_n)=\bigcup_{r=1}^i S_{\rho_n}(r,i)$. That is, the labels on the $i$th diagonal edge of $U_n$
are precisely the labels appearing in column $i$ of $S_{\rho_n}$.
For $T\in {\sf shEqSYT}(\rho_n/\rho_n,N)$ and $I \subseteq E_i(T)$ for some $i\in[n-1]$, define the \emph{$I$-slide} of $T$,
${\sf Sl}_{I}(T)\in{\sf shEqSYT}(\rho_n/\rho_n,N)$, by
\[E_k({\sf Sl}_{I}(T)):=\begin{cases}
E_k(T) &\text{if } k\in [n]\setminus\{i,i+1\},\\
E_k(T)\setminus {I} &\text{if } k=i,\\
E_k(T)\cup {I} &\mbox{if } k=i+1.
\end{cases}\]
\begin{example}
Let $n=4$. Taking $I=\{6\}\subseteq E_3(U_4)=\{3,6,8\}$, below we illustrate ${\sf Sl}_{\{6\}}(U_4)$.
\[\begin{picture}(450,90)
\put(0,65){$S_{\rho_4}=\tableauL{ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ & 5 & 6 & 7 &\\ & & 8 &9 \\ & & & 10 }$
}
\put(150,65){$U_4=\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(185,63){$1$}
\put(200,43){$2 5$}
\put(217,23){$3 6 8$}
\put(233,03){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(300,65){${\sf Sl}_{\{6\}}(U_4)=\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(365,63){$1$}
\put(383,43){$2 5$}
\put(400,23){$3 8$}
\put(408,03){$4 6 7 9 10$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
For $T\in {\sf shSYT}(\nu/\lambda)$, let \[{\sf row}_k(T)=\{\text{entries in row } k \text{ of } T \}.\]
Say $I\subseteq E_{i}(T)$ is \emph{$n$-slidable} if $1\leq i<n$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:n-slidable}
I\subseteq \bigcup_{k=1}^i\{\min (E_{i}(T)\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_n}))\},
\end{equation}
and for $i< k\leq n$, $E_k(T)=E_k(U_n)$.
\begin{example} Consider $T$ below and $i=3$. Then to the right we have $S_{\rho_4}$ with
\[\bigcup_{k=1}^3\{\min (E_{3}(T)\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_4}))\}=\bigcup_{k=1}^3\{\min (\{1,3,5,6,8\}\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_4}))\}=\{1,5,8\}\] shaded yellow and the remainder of entries of $E_{3}(T)$ shaded gray. Thus any $I\subseteq \{1,5,8\}$ is $4$-slidable, so $\{1,8\}$ is $4$-slidable but $\{1,3,8\}$ is not.
\[\begin{picture}(300,90)
\put(0,65){$T=\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(47,43){$2$}
\put(56,23){$1 3 5 6 8$}
\put(80,03){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(165,65){$\ytableausetup
{boxsize=1.6em}\begin{ytableau}
*(yellow)1 & 2 & *(lightgray)3 & 4 \\
\none & *(yellow)5 & *(lightgray)6 & 7\\
\none & \none & *(yellow)8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
The proof of this claim is lengthy and will appear elsewhere:
\begin{claim}\label{lemma:scIFF}
Fix $T\in {\sf shEqSYT}(\rho_n/\rho_n,N)$. Then
${\sf shEqRect}(T)=S_{\rho_n}$ if and only if $T={\sf Sl}_{I_{n-1}}\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_{n-2}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_n)$ where each $I_i\subseteq E_{i}({\sf Sl}_{I_{i-1}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_n))$ is $n$-slidable.
\end{claim}
By Claim \ref{lemma:scIFF}, $d_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}$ equals the number of sequences $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^{n-1}$ where
\[I_i\subseteq E_{i}({\sf Sl}_{I_{i-1}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_n))\]
is $n$-slidable.
We assert that \[i=\#\bigcup_{k=1}^i\{\min (E_{i}({\sf Sl}_{I_{i-1}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_n))\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_n}))\}.\]
Indeed, to see this, note that $i=\#\bigcup_{k=1}^i \min(E_i(U_n)\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_n}))\}$ and, by definition of $I$-slidable,
$E_i({\sf Sl}_{I_{i-1}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_n))\supseteq E_i(U_n)$. Hence,
by (\ref{eqn:n-slidable}),
there are $2^i$ choices for each $n$-slidable $I_i$,
so $d_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}=2^{\binom{n}{2}}$, as desired.
\qed
We illustrate Claim \ref{lemma:scIFF} with the following example:
\begin{example}\label{ex:slideIllustration} Below is $T={\sf Sl}_{I_{3}}\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_{2}}\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_4)$ with the choices of $I_i$ given above each arrow. Beneath each arrow, entries in
$\bigcup_{k=1}^i\{\min(E_{i}({\sf Sl}_{I_{i-1}}\circ\ldots\circ{\sf Sl}_{I_1}(U_4))\cap {\sf row}_k(S_{\rho_n}))\}$ are shaded yellow in $S_{\rho_4}$ and the remaining entries of $E_i(T)$ are shaded gray. Thus $I_i$ is $4$-slidable if and only if all entries of $I_i$ are yellow. Thus in the example below, $I_1,I_2,$ and $I_3$ are all $4$-slidable. Therefore by Lemma \ref{lemma:scIFF}, ${\sf shEqRect}(T)=S_{\rho_4}$.
\[\begin{picture}(500,120)
\put(0,75){$U_4=$}
\put(10,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(15,93){$1$}
\put(32,73){$2 5$}
\put(49,53){$3 6 8$}
\put(62,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(95,75){$\xrightarrow{I_1=\emptyset}$}
\put(100,35){$\ytableausetup
{boxsize=0.8em}\begin{ytableau}
*(yellow)1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
\none & 5 & 6 & 7\\
\none & \none & 8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(125,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(130,93){$1$}
\put(147,73){$2 5$}
\put(165,53){$3 6 8$}
\put(175,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(210,75){$\xrightarrow{I_2=\{5\}}$}
\put(215,35){$\begin{ytableau}
1 & *(yellow)2 & 3 & 4 \\
\none & *(yellow)5 & 6 & 7\\
\none & \none & 8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(255,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(260,93){$1$}
\put(280,73){$2$}
\put(288,53){$3 5 6 8$}
\put(303,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(335,75){$\xrightarrow{I_3=\{3\}}$ \ $T=$}
\put(345,35){$\begin{ytableau}
1 & 2 & *(yellow)3 & 4 \\
\none & *(yellow)5 & *(lightgray)6 & 7\\
\none & \none & *(yellow)8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(390,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(395,93){$1$}
\put(415,73){$2$}
\put(428,53){$5 6 8$}
\put(436,33){$3 4 7 9 10$}
\end{picture}\]
However, in the example below, $I'_1,I'_2$ are $4$-slidable, but $I'_3$ is not. Thus by Claim \ref{lemma:scIFF}, ${\sf shEqRect}(T')\neq S_{\rho_4}$.
\[\begin{picture}(500,120)
\put(0,75){$U_4=$}
\put(10,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(15,93){$1$}
\put(32,73){$2 5$}
\put(47,53){$3 6 8$}
\put(62,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(95,75){$\xrightarrow{I'_1=\emptyset}$}
\put(100,35){$\ytableausetup
{boxsize=0.8em}\begin{ytableau}
*(yellow)1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
\none & 5 & 6 & 7\\
\none & \none & 8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(125,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(130,93){$1$}
\put(147,73){$2 5$}
\put(162,53){$3 6 8$}
\put(175,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(210,75){$\xrightarrow{I'_2=\{2,5\}}$}
\put(215,35){$\begin{ytableau}
1 & *(yellow)2 & 3 & 4 \\
\none & *(yellow)5 & 6 & 7\\
\none & \none & 8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(255,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(260,93){$1$}
\put(285,53){$2 3 5 6 8$}
\put(303,33){$4 7 9 10$}
\put(335,75){$\xrightarrow{I'_3=\{3\}}$ \ $T'=$}
\put(345,35){$\begin{ytableau}
1 & *(yellow)2 & *(lightgray)3 & 4 \\
\none & *(yellow)5 & *(lightgray)6 & 7\\
\none & \none & *(yellow)8 & 9\\
\none & \none & \none & 10
\end{ytableau}$}
\put(390,95){$\tableauL{ \ & \ & \ & \ \\ & \ & \ & \ \ &\\ & & \ &\ \\ & & & \ }$}
\put(395,93){$1$}
\put(425,53){$2 5 6 8$}
\put(436,33){$3 4 7 9 10$}
\end{picture}\]
\end{example}
While $2^{\binom{n}{2}}$ is the number of labeled graphs on $n$ vertices, consulting
the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences \cite{oeis}, one also finds that it counts the number of
\begin{itemize}
\item perfect matchings of order $n$ Aztec diamond \cite{Speyer},
\item Gelfand-Zeitlin patterns with bottom row $[1,2,3,...,n]$ \cite{Zeilberger}, and
\item certain domino tilings \cite[A006125]{oeis}
\end{itemize}
among other things.
We end with a problem of enumerative combinatorics:
\begin{problem}
Give bijections between the shifted edge labeled tableaux counted by $d_{\rho_n,\rho_n}^{\rho_n}$
and the equinumerous objects above.
\end{problem}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
AY's thanks to Bill Fulton goes back to 1999. In May 2018, the authors attended a conference on Schubert calculus held at Ohio State University where
Bill kindly shared the fine points of his ongoing work with David Anderson. This was the stimulus for this chapter. We also thank David Anderson, Soojin Cho, Sergey Fomin, Allen Knutson, Gidon Orelowitz, John Stembridge, Hugh Thomas and Brian Shin for helpful remarks. We thank Anshul Adve, David Anderson, Cara Monical, Oliver Pechenik, Ed Richmond, and Hugh Thomas for their contributions reported here. AY was partially supported by an NSF grant, a UIUC Campus research board grant, and a Simons Collaboration Grant. This material is based upon work of CR supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE -- 1746047.
|
\section{Introduction}
Black holes and neutron stars are the final stages of the evolution of massive
stars, and they are typically born in supernova explosions or, less frequently,
in binary neutron star mergers. Neutron stars are of particular interest since
they allow for the study of matter properties under extreme density and
temperature conditions that cannot be reached in any terrestrial laboratory,
e.g., \cite{Lattimer:2012nd, Lattimer:2015nhk, Abbott:2018exr, Perego:2019adq,
Fischer+2011}. These matter properties, however, leave an imprint in the
post-merger gravitational wave signal (at kHz frequencies) that will be
accessible to ground-based gravitational wave detectors of the next generation,
e.g, \cite{Punturo:2010zz,Sathyaprakash:2019yqt}.
Moreover, these properties impact also the post-merger
neutrino and electromagnetic signals \cite{Abbot+2017PRL, Abbot+2017ApJL,
Coulter+2017, Burrows1988}.
Stationary rotating equilibrium configurations are often used as
idealizations of the post-merger remnant or as initial conditions
for long-term evolutions and explorations of the parameter space
\cite[e.g.,][]{Bonazzola+1993, Goussard+1997,
Bucciantini+Del_Zanna2011, Pili+2014, Camelio+2018}.
Thermal effects are in such studies included by
assuming that all thermodynamical quantities, including the
temperature, are functions of only one independent variable,
e.g.\@ the pressure. This leads to ``effective barotropic'' or simply
``barotropic'' stellar models which are particularly convenient
because they allow to write the Euler equation as a potential.
The barotropic assumption is also commonly used to model Newtonian
(e.g., main sequence) stars. In the context of Newtonian stars, however,
non-barotropic stellar models (also called ``baroclinic'') have been computed
both perturbatively \cite{Roxburgh+Strittmatter1966, Clement1969, Monaghan1971,
Sharp+1977} and non-perturbatively \cite{Uryu+Eriguchi1994, Roxburgh2006, Espinosa_Lara+Rieutord2007,
Espinosa_Lara+Rieutord2013, Yasutake+2015, Fujisawa2015}, and even
for Newtonian accretion disks with an analytic procedure \cite{Amendt+1989, Razdoburdin2017}.
In a non-barotropic star, the thermodynamical quantities depend on
more than one independent variable, for example on the pressure and
the temperature, and the Euler equation needs to be solved numerically.
While baroclinic stationary stars are known and studied in Newtonian theory,
they have not yet been addressed in a General Relativity
context\footnote{\citet{Bardeen1970} explicitly considers a
general entropy distribution in the formulation of his variational principle,
but does not compute any stellar structure.}. This is
probably due by the difficulty of solving the Euler equation in differential
form and the fact that thermal effects influence the neutron star structure
only for the first few tens of seconds and are negligible thereafter.
Nevertheless, since post-merger and post-supernova remnants
are not barotropic \cite[e.g.,][]{Perego:2019adq,Fischer+2011}, or,
more generally, since the lack of non-barotropic models in General Relativity
represents a serious gap in the theory of stellar structure, we want to address this
topic here. We address the non-barotropicity of relativistic neutron stars,
both theoretically and with stationary and dynamical numerical codes.
The novelty of our work is twofold: on the one hand this is the first study
in General Relativity of stationary, differentially rotating, non-barotropic stars;
on the other hand we demonstrate that also in the non-barotropic case
the Euler equation can be cast in the form of a potential. The latter result is
novel even in the Newtonian context.
The paper is organized as follow. We discuss in Sec.~\ref{sec:literature} how thermal effects
are commonly included in barotropic neutron star models. Sec.~\ref{sec:non-barotropic}
describes our novel approach and its numerical implementation is explained
in Sec.~\ref{sec:numeric}. The new approach is validated in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} and Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion} discusses
some of its implications. We finally summarize and conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}. In three
appendices we describe the Newtonian limit of the (relativistic) Euler equation
(Appendix~\ref{app:newton}) and the non-barotropic (Appendix~\ref{app:eos}) and the effective barotropic
(Appendix~\ref{app:baro}) equations of state adopted.
\section{Rotating stars in General Relativity}
\label{sec:literature}
Unless stated otherwise, we use $\mathrm c=\mathrm G=\mathrm M_\odot=k_\mathrm{B}=1$,
which are also our code units.
Useful conversions to this unit system are
$\unit{km}\simeq0.677$,
$\unit{ms}\simeq203$, and
$\rho_n\simeq4.34\times10^{-4}$,
where $\rho_n$ is the nuclear saturation rest mass density ($\rho_n\simeq\unit[2.68\times10^{14}]{g/cm^3}$).
In this work we are interested in solutions of stationary rotating stars in General Relativity.
We will assume axisymmetry, since non-axisymmetric rotating
bodies radiate gravitational waves and therefore are not stationary.
We will further assume a circular spacetime, which implies the assumption
that meridional currents and convection are negligible.
Under these assumptions, the spacetime shaped by the rotating neutron star
in quasi-isotropic coordinates reads~\cite{Stergioulas2003}:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:quasi-isotropic-metric}
\mathrm d\tau^2 = -\alpha^2\mathrm dt^2 + A^2(\mathrm dr^2 + r^2 \mathrm d\theta^2)\\
+ B^2r^2\sin^2\theta(\mathrm d\phi - \omega\mathrm dt)^2,
\end{multline}
where $\tau$ is the proper time, $t,r,\theta,\phi$ are the coordinate time, radius,
polar angle, and azimuth angle, respectively, and $\alpha,A,B,\omega$ are metric fields
that depend only on $r,\theta$ due to the stationarity and axisymmetry condition.
$\alpha$ is the lapse and $\omega$ is the angular velocity of the zero angular
momentum observer (ZAMO) as measured by an observer at infinity \cite{Bardeen1970}.
It is useful to define the cylindrical radius (which in General Relativity
has not cylindrical isosurfaces):
\begin{equation}
R(r,\theta) = B(r,\theta)r\sin\theta.
\end{equation}
With these assumptions, the Einstein equations reduce to four equations for the
metric fields $\alpha, A,B,\omega$. Let us assume that the stellar matter is
described by a perfect fluid,
with energy-momentum tensor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tmunu}
T^{\mu\nu}= \mathcalligra{h}\,\, u^\mu u^\nu + p g^{\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
where $u^\mu$ is the 4-velocity, $p$ is the pressure, and $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ is the total
enthalpy per volume. The Euler equation can be derived from the vanishing
of the covariant divergence of the energy-momentum tensor as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:iomes}
\frac{\partial_i p}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,} + \partial_i{\ln\frac \alpha \gamma}
+F \partial_i \Omega =0,
\end{equation}
where $i = \{r,\theta\}$ [see Appendix~\ref{app:newton}
for the Newtonian limit of Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes}].
$\gamma$ and $\Omega$ are respectively the Lorentz factor with respect to the ZAMO
and the matter angular speed seen at infinity,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lorentz}
\gamma={}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (Rv^\phi)^2}},\\
\label{eq:vphi}
\Omega ={}& \alpha v^\phi + \omega,
\end{align}
where $v^\phi$ is the contravariant matter 3-velocity with respect to the ZAMO,
and $F$ is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fdef}
F = u^t u_\phi = \frac{R^2(\Omega-\omega)}{\alpha^2 - R^2(\Omega-\omega)^2}.
\end{equation}
The specific (per unit energy) angular momentum of a fluid element is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l}
\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=-\frac{u_\phi}{u_t}=\frac{R^2(\Omega-\omega)}{\alpha^2 + R^2\omega(\Omega - \omega)},
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fandl}
F=\frac{\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,}{1-\Omega\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,}.
\end{equation}
Since for axisymmetry and stationarity $F=F(r,\theta)$, it follows that in
general $\Omega=\Omega(r,\theta)$ and $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,(r,\theta)$.
Stationary numerical solutions of the structure of relativistic rotating stars
can be obtained by iteratively solving the metric and matter equations~\cite{Stergioulas2003}.
In the following sections, we will discuss the equations for matter fields.
This
means in particular that the metric fields $\alpha,A,B,\omega$ are known and
fixed from the previous iteration.
\subsection{Isentropic EOS and rigid rotation}
\label{ssec:cr}
Considering an equation of state (EOS) depending on two variables with a thermal part,
the first law of thermodynamics for the specific enthalpy reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h1}
\mathrm dh = \frac {\mathrm dp}{\rho} + \frac{T}{m_n}\mathrm ds,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the rest-mass density,
$h$ the specific total enthalpy ($h=\mathcalligra{h}\,\,/\rho$), $T$ is the temperature, $m_n$
the nucleon mass, and $s$ the entropy per baryon.
Since one can get $\rho$ and $T$ from partial differentiation of $h$ with
respect to $p$ and $s$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:p_maxwell}
\frac1\rho ={}& \left.\frac{\partial h}{\partial p}\right|_s,\\
\label{eq:t_maxwell}
T={}& m_n\left.\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\right|_p,
\end{align}
it is natural to use the pair $p,s$ as independent variables for the enthalpy
and its derived quantities,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h2}
\mathrm dh(p,s) = \frac {\mathrm dp}{\rho(p,s)} + \frac{T(p,s)}{m_n}\mathrm ds.
\end{equation}
If the entropy is uniform in the star, then $\mathrm ds=0$ and\footnote{For
simplicity we use in this work the same symbol for functions that represent the
same physical quantity but depend on different independent variables, even if
mathematically they differ since they are defined on different domains. We
will always specify the independent variables if they are not clear from the
context.} $h=h(p)$, namely
the EOS is barotropic (i.e., 1D), and the first law of
thermodynamics reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h3}
\mathrm d\ln h = \frac{\mathrm dp}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,}.
\end{equation}
In rigid rotation $\partial_i\Omega=0$, and thanks to Eq.~\eqref{eq:h3},
we can write Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes} as
\begin{equation}
\partial_i\ln h + \partial_i \ln\frac\alpha \gamma = 0,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IOMEs_cold_rigid}
\ln h(p) + \ln\frac{\alpha}{\gamma} = \mbox{const},
\end{equation}
where we can determine the constant from the known central values
of the enthalpy $h_0$ and the lapse $\alpha_0$ (on the axis $Rv^\phi=0$ and therefore $\gamma=1$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:const_cold_rigid}
\mathrm{const}=\ln(h_0\alpha_0).
\end{equation}
From Eqs.~\eqref{eq:IOMEs_cold_rigid}--\eqref{eq:const_cold_rigid} and fixing the uniform
angular velocity $\Omega=\Omega_0$ one can easily get $h$ and from it $p$
and the other EOS quantities.
The most common example of neutron stars studied in the literature
are cold stars (i.e., uniform vanishing entropy per baryon).
An example of cold, rigidly rotating neutron star is marked as ``CR''
in this paper.
\subsection{Barotropic EOS and differential rotation}
\label{ssec:baro-diff}
Under the assumption that the entropy per baryon depends only on the pressure
$s=\tilde s(p)$, a hot EOS depends on pressure alone, i.e.\@ it becomes an
effective barotrope:
\begin{equation}
h(p)=h\big(p,\tilde s(p)\big).
\end{equation}
This can be observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:s}, where we show the entropy per baryon as a
function of the rest-mass density in the interior of a neutron star. The black
lines correspond to the effective barotropic assumption, while the red regions
are obtained by dropping this assumption as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:non-barotropic}.
It is convenient to define the ``heat function''
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:heatdef}
H(p) = \int_{p_0}^{p}\frac{\mathrm dp'}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,(p')},
\end{equation}
where $p_0$ is the given central pressure,
from which we obtain
\begin{equation}
\partial_i H(p)= \frac{\partial_i p}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,}.
\end{equation}
Additionally, if we assume that $F$ depends only on $\Omega$, we have analogously:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fintegral}
\mathcal F(\Omega) ={}& \int_{\Omega_0}^{\Omega} F(\Omega')\mathrm d\Omega',\\
\label{eq:fderiv}
\partial_i \mathcal F(\Omega)={}& F(\Omega)\partial_i \Omega,
\end{align}
where $\Omega_0$ is the given angular frequency on the symmetry axis
and $\mathcal F(\Omega)$ is called ``differential-rotation law''.
Using Eqs.~\eqref{eq:heatdef}-\eqref{eq:fderiv},
Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IOMEs_hot_differential}
H(p) + \ln\frac\alpha \gamma + \mathcal F(\Omega) = \ln \alpha_0.
\end{equation}
One can determine the matter properties in every point $(r,\theta)$
by determining $\Omega$ from the relation $\mathcal F'(\Omega)=F(\Omega,r,\theta)$,
where we show explicitly the dependence on the yet-to-be-determined $\Omega$,
and then $p$ from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:heatdef} and
\eqref{eq:IOMEs_hot_differential}. The other EOS quantities are easily
determined because the EOS is effectively barotropic.
For an isentropic star it is $H(p)=\ln h(p) - \ln h_0$, and if in addition the star
is in rigid rotation,
one recovers Eq.~\eqref{eq:h3}, as expected.
One can assume an analytic form for the differential-rotation law, for example
by adopting the ``j-const'' law that is commonly used in literature (\cite{Komatsu+1989a},
see also \cite{Uryu+2017, Witzany+Jefremov2018}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:f_law}
\mathcal F(\Omega)= -\frac{R_0^2}2(\Omega - \Omega_0)^2,
\end{equation}
where $R_0$ has the dimension of a length and sets the scale of the
differential rotation, that is, $\Omega\simeq\Omega_0/2$ at $R=R_0$
\cite{Villain+2004}. Rigid rotation cannot be described by a
differential-rotation law because $\Omega$ is constant, but $F$ is not. Therefore,
it can only be recovered in the limit $R_0\to\infty$.
To model rigid rotation, one can just fix $\Omega=\Omega_0$ and drop the
$\mathcal F$ term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:IOMEs_hot_differential}; however in Sec.~\ref{ssec:leg}
we show how it is possible to cleanly unify the description of rigidly and differentially
rotating stars.
The assumption $F=F(\Omega)$ is equivalent to requiring that $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,(\Omega)$
[cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:fandl}], namely it is equivalent
to dropping any dependence on the metric and the coordinates in the relation between the
specific angular momentum and the angular speed. This can be seen in Fig~\ref{fig:el},
where we show the specific angular momentum as a function of the angular velocity
in the interior of a neutron star. The black line corresponds to the case discussed
in this section, where the specific angular momentum is in a one-to-one correspondence
with the angular velocity, while the red region
is obtained by dropping this assumption as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:non-barotropic}.
\section{Non-barotropic thermal profile}
\label{sec:non-barotropic}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig01.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:s}Entropy per baryon $s$ as a function of rest-mass density $\rho$
for 2 barotropic (black lines) and 2 non-barotropic (red regions) models considered
in this paper, cf.~Table~\ref{tab:abb}.
The upper/lower edge of the red regions
corresponds to the entropy along the
equatorial plane/rotational axis of the non-barotropic neutron star, respectively.
Similar plots obtained from dynamical simulations are e.g.\@ Fig.~1 of
\citet{Fischer+2011} and Figs.~3--8 of
\citet{Perego:2019adq}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig02.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:el}Angular momentum per unit energy $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,$ as a function of
angular velocity $\Omega$ for a barotropic (black line) and a non-barotropic
(red region) model considered in this paper, cf.~Tab.~\ref{tab:abb}. The upper/lower
edge of the red region corresponds to the specific angular momentum along the
equatorial plane/stellar border, respectively. Non-convective models behave
similarly.}
\end{figure}
The big problem of the method described in the previous section is that
one is limited to an effective barotropic EOS, i.e.\@ the EOS
is actually a function of one independent variable only, even in presence of thermal effects.
Similarly, one enforces $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,(\Omega)$, dropping any dependence on
the metric, see black lines in
Figs.~\ref{fig:s} and \ref{fig:el}.
However, dynamical core-collapse supernova and binary neutron star merger simulations
show that realistic newly-born neutron stars are non-barotropic \cite[e.g.,][]{Fischer+2011,
Perego:2019adq}.
In this section we show how it is possible to overcome these limitations in
a rigorous way.
\subsection{The generalization}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig03.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:coord}Sketch of the coordinate grid in $p,\Omega$ (left,
red) and in $r,\theta$ (right, blue). The $p$ coordinate is elliptic-like
while the $\Omega$ coordinate is parabolic-like, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:xns}.
Note that the planar symmetric A and B points have different $\theta$
coordinate but the same $p,\Omega$ coordinates.}
\end{figure}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IOMEs_standard}
\frac{\mathrm dp}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,} + F\mathrm d\Omega + \mathrm d \ln\frac\alpha \gamma = 0,
\end{equation}
to stress that when $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,= \mathcalligra{h}\,\,(p)$ and $F=F(\Omega)$ it is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm d\left( H(p) + \mathcal F(\Omega) + \ln\frac\alpha \gamma\right)=0,
\end{equation}
namely the Euler equation implies the existence of a conserved quantity and
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhoh_maxwell}
\frac 1{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,} ={}& \frac{\mathrm d H(p)}{\mathrm d p},\\
\label{eq:F_maxwell}
F ={}& \frac{\mathrm d\mathcal F(\Omega)}{\mathrm d \Omega}.
\end{align}
In other words, we are casting the Euler equation in a
potential form similar to Thermodynamics.
However, comparing the
thermodynamical case [e.g., Eqs.~\eqref{eq:p_maxwell}--\eqref{eq:t_maxwell}] with the stellar case
[i.e., Eqs.~\eqref{eq:rhoh_maxwell}--\eqref{eq:F_maxwell}], one notes that in contrast to the former, in
the latter we are determining the derived quantities with total derivatives of two potentials
instead of partial derivatives of one potential.
\emph{Here we push the similarity with Thermodynamics one
step further.}
Let us pursue this intuition:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:i_lnaw}
Q(p,\Omega)={}& -\ln\frac\alpha \gamma,\\
\label{eq:new_iomes}
\partial_i Q(p,\Omega)={}& \frac{\partial_ip}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,(p,\Omega)} + F(p,\Omega)\partial_i\Omega,\\
\label{eq:oneoverhden}
\frac{1}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,(p,\Omega)} ={}& \left.\frac{\partial Q(p,\Omega)}{\partial p}\right|_\Omega,\\
F(p,\Omega) ={}& \left.\frac{\partial Q(p,\Omega)}{\partial \Omega}\right|_p,
\end{align}
where we defined the potential $Q$ and
all quantities depend on $p,\Omega$ because these are the natural variables for
the same reason $p$ and $s$ are the natural variables for the thermodynamical case, namely because the
other quantities ($\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ and $F$ in the stellar case, $\rho$ and
$T$ in the thermodynamical case) can be determined from partial differentiation
with respect to those.
Note that Eq.~\eqref{eq:new_iomes} is exactly the Euler equation [Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes}]
and that it mirrors the equivalent thermodynamical equation [after substituting the exact
differential with partial differentiation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:h2}].
We should be careful because for axisymmetry and stationarity it is also
$Q=Q(r,\theta)$, $p=p(r,\theta)$, and $F=F(r,\theta)$: given
the pair $p$ and $\Omega$, we must be able to determine the pair $r$ and $\theta$.
However, this change of coordinates is not bijective, that is, each pair
$p$ and $\Omega$ corresponds to two pairs $r$ and $\theta$, one in the northern hemisphere
and one in the southern hemisphere, and therefore to two potentials: $Q_+(p,\Omega)$
and $Q_-(p,\Omega)$, that are identical in the planar case $Q_+=Q-$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:coord} we show how the interior of a star is mapped with
$r$ and $\theta$ coordinates (on the right) and with $p$ and $\Omega$ coordinates (on the left).
The key point here is that the additional dependence of $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ on $\Omega$
[as opposed to a dependence only on $p$, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:oneoverhden}]
``breaks'' the barotropicity because, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:coord},
$\Omega$ is not in a one-to-one correspondence with $p$.
This additional dependence is made possible by allowing for
$\partial_p\partial_\Omega Q\neq 0$.
It is worth noting that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The standard case described in Sec.~\ref{ssec:baro-diff} is
equivalent to the following potential:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:q_std}
Q(p,\Omega) = H(p) + \mathcal F(\Omega) -\ln\alpha_0.
\end{equation}
\item Since we rewrote Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes} in terms of a potential,
the difference of pressure and angular speed between two stellar points
does not depend on the integration path but only on the initial and final points.
\item From the Schwarz's theorem we get the Maxwell-like relation
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{\partial \mathcalligra{h}\,\,^{-1}}{\partial \Omega}\right|_p
=
\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}\right|_\Omega.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{A simple non-barotropic model}
Assuming that the analytic form of $Q(p,\Omega)$ is known,
but that we do not know the pressure and angular velocity profiles
$p(r,\theta)$ and $\Omega(r,\theta)$,
we have to solve the following system of equations
in every point:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sys1}
Q(p,\Omega) ={}& -\ln\frac{\alpha(r,\theta)}{\gamma(r,\theta,\Omega)},\\
\label{eq:sys2}
\partial_\Omega Q(p,\Omega)={}& F(r,\theta,\Omega),\\
\label{eq:sys3}
\partial_pQ(p,\Omega) ={}& \frac1{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,\big(p,s(r,\theta)\big)}.
\end{align}
In Eqs.~\eqref{eq:sys1}-\eqref{eq:sys3} we have made explicit the dependence of
every quantity on the position
in the star $(r,\theta)$ and on the yet-to-be-determined quantities $(p,\Omega)$.
Given a point in the star $(r,\theta)$ and the entropy in that point
$s(r,\theta)$, this is a system of 3 equations in 2 variables ($p,\Omega$), that in general
has no solution.
On the other hand, if we leave $s(r,\theta)$ undetermined, given $(r,\theta)$ we can first
determine $(p,\Omega)$ solving Eqs.~\eqref{eq:sys1}--\eqref{eq:sys2}, and then
determine $s(r,\theta)$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:sys3}.
Let us now consider a simple\footnote{Note that this is not the only
potential that generalizes the standard case; for example another valid choice
is obtained by substituting $Q_0\to0$ and $H(p)\to
H(p)-\ln\alpha_0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:case_c}, which gives a different but still consistent
solution.} non-trivial case:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:case_c}
Q(p,\Omega) = Q_0 + H(p) + \mathcal F(\Omega) + bH(p) \mathcal F(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $b$ is a ``barotropic'' parameter and the constant $Q_0$ is
determined from the condition
$Q_0=Q(p_0,\Omega_0)=-\ln\alpha_0$.
The standard case of Eq.~\eqref{eq:q_std} is re-obtained for $b=0$.
$H$ and $\mathcal F$ are formally defined as in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:heatdef} and \eqref{eq:fintegral}, but have not the same
physical meaning. In particular, the arbitrary barotropic function $\tilde s(p)$
that enters in the definition of $H(p)$
does not correspond to a physical entropy unless $b=0$ (this is the reason we defined it with a tilde).
The potential $Q$ in this form is particularly convenient, because we can
factor out the dependence on $p$ and therefore we have to solve only
one equation to determine $\Omega$. In fact, Eq.~\eqref{eq:sys2} reads
\begin{equation}
\mathcal F'(\Omega)\big(1 + b H(p)\big) = F(r,\theta,\Omega),
\end{equation}
and using the definition~\eqref{eq:case_c} we get
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:root_omega}
\mathcal F'(\Omega)\left(1 + bQ(r,\theta,\Omega)
- bQ_0\right)\\
= F(r,\theta,\Omega)\big(1 + b\mathcal F(\Omega)\big),
\end{multline}
that can be solved for $\Omega$ with a 1D root finding
[$Q(r,\theta,\Omega)$ is the RHS of Eq.~\eqref{eq:sys1}].
Knowing $\Omega$, one can first determine $H(p)$ and then $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ from
\begin{align}
\label{eq:heat_from_p}
H(p)={}& \frac{Q(r,\theta,\Omega)-Q_0 - \mathcal F(\Omega)}{1+b\mathcal F(\Omega)},\\
\label{eq:hden}
\mathcalligra{h}\,\,(p,\Omega)={}& \frac 1{H'(p) \big(1 + b\mathcal F(\Omega)\big)},
\end{align}
where
$H'(p)$ is the total derivative of $H(p)$.
Knowing $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ and $p$ [obtained from the inversion of $H(p)$] one can use
them to invert the EOS, that in the case considered here depends on two independent
variables (we discuss in Sec.~\ref{ssec:eos3d} how to generalize the procedure
to an EOS that depends on more than two independent variables).
It is useful at this point to recap what we have accomplished.
We have first defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:case_c} a function $Q(p,\Omega)$ and then enforced
with Eqs.~\eqref{eq:sys1}--\eqref{eq:sys3} that this function acts as a potential for the Euler equation.
In this way both the matter and the rotational profiles of the star
are uniquely determined from the potential $Q$
and are function in general of more than one independent variable, therefore breaking the stellar barotropicity.
In Sec.~\ref{ssec:s} we show how, in principle, one can use the freedom in the
definition of $Q$ to tune the thermodynamical and rotational profiles.
Note that for the non-barotropic models in Figs.~\ref{fig:s} and \ref{fig:el}
(red filled contours) the relations $s=s(\rho)$ and $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,(\Omega)$ do not hold anymore.
\section{Numerical implementation}
\label{sec:numeric}
\subsection{XNS code}
\label{ssec:xns}
The XNSv2 code \cite{Bucciantini+Del_Zanna2011, Pili+2014} determines the stationary structure
of a rotating neutron star in the eXtended Conformal Flatness Condition (XCFC)
approximation \cite{Cordero-Carrion+2009}.
The metric equations are solved with a spherical
harmonics decomposition on the angular direction and with finite
differences along the radial direction.
In the XCFC approximation the
metric equations are simpler and hierarchically decoupled; this approximation
is equivalent to enforce in Eq.~\eqref{eq:quasi-isotropic-metric}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:XCFC}
A(r,\theta)\equiv B(r,\theta)\equiv \psi^2(r,\theta),
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is called conformal factor, and it is justified because the maximal
relative difference between the $A$ and $B$ metric functions is of the order of
$10^{-3}$ \cite{Gourgoulhon2010}.
The XCFC approximation yields results of excellent accuracy
for rotating neutron stars \cite[e.g.,][]{Camelio+2018}, while has been showed to degrade
for differentially rotating neutron stars \cite{Iosif+Stergioulas2014}.
Using the diagnostic formula of Eq.~(20) of \citet{Iosif+Stergioulas2014},
we estimate for the configurations studied in this paper a maximal error for
local quantities (e.g., the angular velocity at the equator) within 2\% and a
much smaller error for global quantities (e.g., the gravitational mass).
The estimated error is adequate for a good description of the rotating
neutron star and its spacetime.
In any case, we emphasize that the non-barotropic theory, which we develop in this paper, does
not depend in any way on the use of the XCFC approximation.
In this paper we use our modified version \cite{Camelio+2018} of XNSv2
and simply refer to it as XNS in
the following. In \citet{Camelio+2018} we described and validated it
against the RNS code \cite{Stergioulas+Friedman1995}
that solves the stationary configuration of rotating neutron stars in general
relativity without
approximations. We refer the reader to \cite{Cordero-Carrion+2009,
Bucciantini+Del_Zanna2011, Pili+2014, Camelio+2018} for the general structure
of XNS and the XCFC equations and just describe the
main modifications with respect to \cite{Camelio+2018}.
To determine the solution of a rotating star, XNS iterates between the solution
of the metric and the matter equations
until convergence. When the matter quantities ($\mathcalligra{h}\,\,,p,v^\phi$) are
updated, the metric quantities ($\alpha,\psi,\omega$) are kept fixed,
and vice versa.
To update the matter quantities, the following procedure is repeated
for each grid point $r_i,\theta_j$ (we start from the center, $r_i=r_1$,
and increase $i$ outward):
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the star is rigidly rotating, set $\Omega=\Omega_0$.\\
Otherwise, determine $\Omega$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:root_omega}.
\item Find $H(p)$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:heat_from_p}.
\item Find $p$ inverting $H(p)$.
\item If $p<p_s$ ($p_s$ being a fixed value of the surface pressure), go to step 8.
\item If the star is non-barotropic:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:hden}.
\item If the pair $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,,p$ is not physical (e.g., $\mathcalligra{h}\,\, \le p$), go to step 8.
\end{enumerate}
\item All independent quantities have been computed. Solve the EOS from $p$
(if barotropic) or $p,\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ (if non barotropic). Determine $v^\phi$ from $\Omega$.
\item Go to step 1 with the next $r_i$.
\item The point is outside the surface. Set to zero all matter quantities in $r\ge r_i$
and go to step 1 with $r_i=r_1$ and the next $\theta_j$.
\end{enumerate}
We adopt a rectangular non-evenly spaced grid in $r,\theta$ \cite{Camelio+2018}.
Our radial grid is divided in two regions: the inner part has 2000 evenly spaced points from
$r=0$ excluded to $r=15$ and the outer part has 2000 increasingly spaced points from $r=15$
to $r=1000$. The angular grid ($0<\theta<\pi$) contains 501 points on the
Legendre knots. We used 50 angular harmonics in the pseudo-spectral expansion and
we consider the result converged when the maximal absolute variation of the rest-mass density
between two iterations is smaller than $10^{-12}$. The surface pressure is set to $p_s=10^{-40}$
in code units ($c=G=M_\odot=1$).
\subsection{BAM code}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig04.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:res}
BAM evolution of the central rest-mass density of the stellar model CR for different resolutions.}
\end{figure}
We also study the dynamical evolution of the XNS configurations with the
BAM code~\cite{Bruegmann:2003aw,Brugmann:2008zz,Thierfelder:2011yi,Dietrich:2015iva,
Bernuzzi:2016pie,Dietrich:2018bvi}.
BAM employs a simple mesh refinement scheme where the grid is composed of nested
Cartesian boxes.
The grid setup is controlled by the resolution $\Delta x$ in the
finest levels. The outer levels are constructed by progressively coarsening the
resolution by factors of two. We solve the Einstein Equations using the
Z4c evolution scheme~\cite{Bernuzzi:2009ex,Weyhausen:2011cg,Hilditch:2012fp} and employ fourth order finite-difference stencils.
The equations of general relativistic hydrodynamics employ a finite-volume
shock-capturing method and the hydrodynamical flux is computed with the Local Lax-Friedrichs scheme
using the WENOZ limiter~\cite{Borges:2008a, Bernuzzi:2016pie}.
The evolution equation system is closed with the EOS,
for which we assume an ideal gas with a cold and a thermal contribution:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ideal_gas}
p(\rho,u_\mathrm{th})= K\rho^\Gamma + (\Gamma_\mathrm{th} - 1)\rho u_\mathrm{th},
\end{equation}
where $u_\mathrm{th}$ is the specific thermal energy and $K,\Gamma,\Gamma_\mathrm{th}$ are
EOS-dependent parameters, cf.~Appendix~\ref{app:eos} and Tables~\ref{tab:abb} and \ref{tab:models}.
To proof the robustness of our numerical scheme, we show the central rest-mass density evolution of the
CR model, i.e., of a cold, rigid rotating neutron star, in Fig.~\ref{fig:res};
we refer the interested reader to~\cite{Bernuzzi:2011aq,Dietrich:2015iva,
Bernuzzi:2016pie,Dietrich:2018upm,Dietrich:2018phi} for additional tests and convergence analyses.
We increase the BAM resolution by factors of two,
where for the low resolution (blue line) the minimum grid resolution in the finest level is $0.1875$,
the medium resolution (red line) has a minimum grid spacing of $0.09375$,
and the high resolution (black line) has a minimum grid spacing of $0.046875$.
This is compatible to the highest resolved binary neutron star
simulations performed for gravitational wave model development to date~\cite{Dietrich:2019kaq,Kiuchi:2017pte}.
We save computational costs by simulating only a single quadrant
of the numerical domain making use of the axisymmetry of the spacetime and
the planar symmetry of the models.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:res}, we conclude that the changes in the central density decrease
with increasing resolution. In particular, the central density decrease, which is present in the low resolution case,
is small for the medium and high resolution.
The remaining density oscillations of the order of $\sim 0.25\%$ seems
negligible for the studies discussed in the following\footnote{We remark that the
remaining density oscillations is likely to be related to the XCFC
approximation of XNS, since it is absent or smaller if the XCFC approximation
is not employed; cf.~Fig.~2 of~\cite{Bernuzzi:2016pie} for single star evolutions
and the supplementary material of~\cite{Dietrich:2018phi} for studies in binary
neutron star configurations.}. If not otherwise stated, we will show the results for
the high resolution grid configuration, but all models have been
simulated with the low, medium, and high grid resolutions to test the correctness of our results.
\subsection{Models}
\label{ssec:models}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\hline
\hline
name & configuration\\
\hline
CR & Cold, Rigidly rotating \\
BC & differentially rotating, Barotropic, Convective \\
NC & differentially rotating, Non-barotropic, Convective \\
C$\Omega$ & Control with $b=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:root_omega} \\
C$p$ & Control with $b=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hden} \\
BN & differentially rotating, Barotropic, Non-convective \\
NN & differentially rotating, Non-barotropic, Non-convective \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Abbreviated names of the stellar configuration studied in this work.}
\label{tab:abb}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig05.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:mrho}Gravitational mass as a function of the central density for the EOS
adopted in this paper with causality enforced at $\rho>\rho_{c_s}=5.95\rho_n$.
The lower black line corresponds to non-rotating cold models and the upper black line to cold models that rotate rigidly
at the Keplerian limit.
$M_\mathrm{max}=2.22$ is the maximal non-rotating mass corresponding to $\rho_\mathrm{max}=6.90\rho_n$
(red cross)
and $\rho_c=4.60\rho_n$ is the critical density for inverting the non-barotropic EOS (see
Appendix~\ref{app:eos}).
The thick red line marks the region of central density and gravitational (Komar) mass of the models
considered in this paper ($\rho_0=4\rho_n$).}
\end{figure}
To minimize additional code changes in BAM and XNS, we use throughout this work
an EOS such that the total energy density is given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon(\rho,s)= \rho + k_1 \rho^\Gamma + k_2s^2 \rho^{\Gamma_\mathrm{th}},
\end{equation}
where $k_1,k_2,\Gamma,\Gamma_\mathrm{th}$ are parameters specified in
Table~\ref{tab:models}. With our parameter choice this EOS has a
maximal cold, non-rotating neutron star mass of $\unit[2.22]{M_\odot}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mrho}, and
can be straightforwardly included in BAM, since
it is equivalent to an ideal gas EOS with $K=(\Gamma - 1)k_1$ (Appendix~\ref{app:eos}).
We fix the barotropic function by setting $\tilde s(\tilde \rho)$.
We remark that with our choice of the potential $Q$, $\tilde \rho$
and $\tilde s$ are physical rest-mass density and entropy per baryon also when $b\neq0$
only on the rotational axis, since there
$\mathcal F(\Omega_0)=0$. For this reason, there is no ambiguity in using the central quantities
in Table~\ref{tab:models}.
We consider 7 models, all shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xns} and described in Tables~\ref{tab:abb} and \ref{tab:models}.
We remark that if two quantities have parallel level contours means that they are in
a one-to-one correspondence, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:xns}.
The control
configurations C$\Omega$ and C$p$ have been obtained with the same procedure as NC, but for
C$\Omega$ we set $b=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:root_omega} and for C$p$ we
set $b=0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hden}. For this reason, $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,=\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,(\Omega)$
for C$\Omega$ and $s=s(p)$ for C$p$. Since the potential $Q$ has not been
solved consistently, C$\Omega$ and C$p$ are expected not to be true stationary
solutions and are therefore our control models against which we will judge the
quality of the theory.
The parameters of the EOS and of the potential $Q$ that completely determine the stellar models
are shown in Table~\ref{tab:models}.
The values of parameters $R_0$ and $b$ have been chosen to emphasize differential
rotation and non-barotropicity,
while the choice of the other parameter values is discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:eos}.
All models are stable against dynamical instabilities, i.e., they do not collapse
(Appendix~\ref{app:eos}),
but some models are unstable against convection (Appendix~\ref{app:baro}).
Note that the obtained central temperatures $T_0$ are reasonable
for proto-neutron stars and for post-merged neutron stars.
More details on the EOS and the rationale behind our choices are provided in
Appendices~\ref{app:eos} and \ref{app:baro}.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig06.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:xns}Stationary stellar models obtained with XNS.
For each model, the color filled contours refer to the pressure $p$ (red scale, left)
and the angular velocity $\Omega$ (blue scale, right), while the thick black and white contours
to the entropy per baryon $s$ (left)
and the specific angular momentum $\mathcalligra{l}\,\,\,$ (right).
See text for details.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
name & $\Gamma$ & $k_1$ & $K$ & $\Gamma_\mathrm{th}$ & $k_2$ &
$\rho_0$ & $\tilde s(\tilde\rho)$ & $\Omega_0$ & $R_0$ & $b$ & $M$
& $\left<\log|\delta_r|\right>$ & $\left<\log|\delta_\theta|\right>$ &
$T_0\,[\unit{MeV/k_B}]$\\
\hline
CR & 3 & $5\!\times\!10^4$ & $10^5$ & 1.75 & 1.5 & $4\rho_n$ & 0 &
0.035 & $\infty$ & 0 & 2.17 & -7.0 & -7.6 & 0 \\
BC & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & $2(\tilde \rho/\rho_0)^{5/8}$ &
'' & $\unit[15]{km}$ & 0 & 2.12 & -7.0 & -7.4 & 48\\
NC & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' &
'' & '' & $-2$ & 2.15 & -7.0 & -7.4 & '' \\
C$\Omega$ & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' &
'' & '' & $-2^\ast$ & 2.16 & -4.2 & -4.1 & '' \\
C$p$ & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' &
'' & '' & $-2^\ast$ & 2.15 & -4.6 & -5.6 & '' \\
BN & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & $2-\tilde \rho/\rho_0$ & '' &
'' & 0 & 2.09 & -7.0 & -7.2 & 24 \\
NN & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' & '' &
'' & '' & $-2$ & 2.12 & -6.9 & -7.1 & '' \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters and properties of the stellar models considered in this work.
The first column is the name of the model (see Sec.~\ref{ssec:models}),
columns 2--6 are the EOS
parameters, columns 7--11 are the parameters of the potential $Q$, and
columns 12--15 are model properties.
Symbol ` '' ' means ``same as above'' and the asterisk means that $b$ was included
in a non-consistent way in C$\Omega$ and C$p$.
See text for details.}
\label{tab:models}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Test 1: barotropic limit}
We checked that, using the non-barotropic inversion of the EOS (namely steps
5.a--5.b in Sec.~\ref{ssec:xns}), we obtain the same stationary results for
the cold, rigid rotating model CR (having drop the $\mathcal F$ term) and for the
barotropic, differentially rotating models BC and BN.
\subsection{Test 2: first integral residual}
We define the residuals of the Euler equation as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:res}
\delta_i(r,\theta)= \partial_iQ(r,\theta)
- \frac{\partial_ip(r,\theta)}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,(r,\theta)}
- F(r,\theta)\partial_i\Omega(r,\theta),
\end{equation}
where $i={r,\theta}$ is the direction of differentiation.
To quantify how well Eq.~\eqref{eq:iomes} is solved in the star we
use the averaged logarithm of the residuals:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:avglogres}
\left<\log\left|\delta_i\right|\right>=\frac{\sum_j\log_{10}\left|\delta_i(r_j,\theta_j)\right|}N,
\end{equation}
where $j$ is the index that identifies a point inside the star and $N$
is the total number of points inside the star.
These quantities
should be compared with the potential $Q$ which is in the range
$0.3\lesssim Q\lesssim 0.8$. We report the residuals in
Table~\ref{tab:models}. As expected, the Euler equation has in average a much
worse residual (2-3 orders of magnitude) in the control configurations
than in the consistently determined ones, thus corroborating our theory.
\subsection{Test 3: stellar oscillations}
As a final check, we evolved the XNS models with BAM to see whether
the configurations are indeed in equilibrium.
In particular, we want to compare the amplitude of the
oscillations that are artificially triggered by numerical inaccuracies
and by the use of the XCFC approximation for the initial setup. In Fig.~\ref{fig:osc}
we show the central rest mass density evolution, and in Fig.~\ref{fig:bam} we
compare the initial configuration with a snapshot close to the maximum of the
final oscillation (marked with crosses in Fig.~\ref{fig:osc}), in such a way to maximize deviations. Indeed,
control configurations diverge much more than the consistently
determined ones.
However, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:baro}, models BC and NC are
unstable against convection (note the convective patterns in the velocity field for these configurations in Fig.~\ref{fig:bam}).
Moreover, the convective timescale
is comparable with the evolution time (Appendix~\ref{app:baro}), and therefore
also these consistently determined stellar configurations deviate from the
initial ones.
We thus evolved 2
models that are stable against convection, BN
and NN. These configurations have small oscillations
comparable to that of the cold rigidly rotating model CR, thus verifying
our theory.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:con} we compare the evolution of the non-barotropic setup
for the convective and non-convective star. Convection begins at the stellar
surface, where the convective timescale is shorter (Appendix~\ref{app:baro}),
and propagates to the interior, destroying the non-barotropic pattern and
flattening the entropy profile.
We have also simulated the evolution of a low resolution NC setup for a much longer
time. This low resolution simulation reproduces the
qualitative patterns of the high resolution one and in it the convective cells disappear
after $t\simeq\unit[10]{ms}$, in line with the qualitative estimates of the convective
timescale made in
Appendix~\ref{app:baro}\footnote{We note the larger entropy at the star's surface for the low resolution NC model.
This entropy production is caused by the surface as discussed, e.g., in~\citet{Guercilena:2016fdl}.
The entropy production decreases with an increasing resolution and its origin lies in the high-resolution
shock-capturing schemes and the use of an artificial atmosphere surrounding the star.}.
As final remarks, we point out that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The control models too are unstable against convection;
however the non-consistency of the initial configurations has a much larger
destabilizing effect, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:osc}.
\item It is possible to obtain equilibrium models of neutron stars that are
unstable against convection as it is possible to obtain
equilibrium models that are dynamically unstable (i.e., that collapse \cite{Camelio+2018}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig07.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:osc}Time dependence of the central rest mass density in the BAM evolution
for the models considered in this paper. The cold, rigidly rotating model CR
is plotted in all panels as reference. The crosses mark the snapshots shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bam} and the
gray horizontal lines mark the initial central density.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig08.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:bam}BAM evolution. For each model,
we plot the density $\rho$ (red scale, left)
and the orthogonal velocity $v^\perp=r\sin(\theta)v^\phi$ (blue scale, right).
The initial configurations are shown in color filled contours delimited by thin gray contours
while the configurations marked in Fig.~\ref{fig:osc} are shown in black thick contours
with the parallel velocity $v^\parallel=v^r\mathbf e_r + rv^\theta\mathbf
e_\theta$ shown as a vector field. Any deviance from stationarity during
the evolution is due to
convection and/or to the non consistency of the initial setup.
See text for details.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig09.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:con} Convection in the BAM evolution. Each row refers to a
different stellar model and each column to a different time snapshot. The
entropy per baryon $s$ is shown as color filled contours and the parallel
velocity $v^\parallel=v^r\mathbf e_r + rv^\theta\mathbf e_\theta$
as a vector field. See text for details.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Consequences}
In the following we list some general results that can be directly derived with our novel approach:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Schwarz's theorem implies that if $F=F(\Omega)$, then $s=s(p)$,
namely the EOS is an effective barotrope. The vice versa is also true.
\item The Schwarz's theorem implies that a stationary neutron star with a non-barotropic thermal
profile must also be differentially rotating.
\item On the
symmetry axis $F$ vanishes; then if the star is barotropic [namely $\Omega=\Omega(F)$]
the angular velocity is uniform on the symmetry axis. However, this is not true
in general for a non-barotropic star (but it is for the non-barotropic cases considered in this
work) \cite{Clement1969, Monaghan1971, Uryu+Eriguchi1994,
Espinosa_Lara+Rieutord2007, Espinosa_Lara+Rieutord2013, Fujisawa2015}.
\item
An interesting point that emerges from Sec.~\ref{sec:non-barotropic} is that
there are only two EOS quantities that can be directly determined from
the Euler equation without solving the EOS, namely $p$ and $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$.
This should not be a surprise because $p$ and $\mathcalligra{h}\,\,$ are the only EOS quantities
that appear in the definition of the energy-momentum tensor, Eq.~\eqref{eq:tmunu}.
When other quantities like $\ln h$ and $s$ appear in the equations, they correspond
to physical quantities only in some limits, e.g., for isentropic stars in the
case of $\ln h$ and for barotropic stars in the case of $s$.
\item As already pointed out, the method we developed to obtain non-barotropic configurations
does not depend on the XCFC approximation and can be easily adapted to
the full stationary metric (even without the circularity assumption) or to Newtonian gravity (see Appendix~\ref{app:newton}).
All that is really needed to have non-barotropicity is that the potential
$Q$ depends on more than just the pressure [e.g., $Q(p,x)$], that the second free variable $x$
has a spatial distribution different from $p$, and that the cross partial derivative
of the potential $\partial_p\partial_x Q$ is not null. In this paper we chose the second variable
to be the angular velocity, $x = \Omega$, and we therefore consider differentially rotating neutron
stars, but in principle we could as well have used the magnetic field or meridional
currents \cite{Birkl+2011} instead (or in addition).
\item It is known that the numerical solution of the Euler equation for a
Newtonian non-barotropic star shows a degeneracy in the profile of $\Omega$
that can be lift by e.g.\@ including viscosity
\cite{Espinosa_Lara+Rieutord2013}. This degeneracy does not arise in our
method because we fix the potential $Q(p,\Omega)$
and therefore we implicitly fix the profile of $\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that points 1 and 2 are a reformulation of the relativistic von Zeipel's theorem
\cite{Zeipel1924, Abramowicz1971}.
\subsection{General entropy profile}
\label{ssec:s}
In principle, it is possible to use the formalism
developed in this paper to determine the rotating profile of a
hot neutron star given its 2D thermal profile $s=s(r,\theta)$.
Let us assume a potential that further generalizes $Q(p,\Omega)$ in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:case_c}, for example
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:i_par}
Q(p,\Omega) = \sum_{l,m} a_{lm} H^l(p)\mathcal F^m(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $a_{lm}$ are parameters and $H$ and $\mathcal F$ are formally defined as
before.
Now, given a choice of $a_{lm}$, we obtain a unique profile $s(r,\theta)$ from the
solution of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:sys1}--\eqref{eq:sys3}. To ensure that the entropy in a given
point within the star takes a specified value,
$s(r',\theta')=s'$, one can modify the potential free parameters, e.g.,
$a_{l'm'}$. If we want to fix the entropy in two points, we must tweak two
free parameters, and so on. In principle we can fix the entropy in all grid
points by adjusting an equal number of parameters.
In practice, the procedure described above may be cumbersome if one wants to fix
the entropy in more than a few points and we discussed it only as a proof of principle.
Moreover, this procedure works only for \emph{planar} configurations, namely
$s(r,\theta)=s(r,\pi-\theta)$. To obtain a non-planar configuration one should
define two potentials $Q_-$ and $Q_+$ that coincide together with their first
and second partial derivatives along a given curve $\big(p(z),\Omega(z)\big)$,
where $z$ is the curve parameter.
We remark that this procedure would work also if one wants
to fix the rotational profile $\Omega=\Omega(r,\theta)$ instead of the
entropy one.
\subsection{Multi-dimensional equation of state}
\label{ssec:eos3d}
Let us consider an EOS that depends
on $N>2$ independent variables, e.g.\@ $h=h(p,s,Y)$, where $Y$
is the proton number fraction.
In this case one should solve Eqs.~\eqref{eq:sys1}--\eqref{eq:sys2} as for the
non-barotropic case of the EOS with two independent variables. The difference
is that Eq.~\eqref{eq:sys3} now becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sys3bis}
\partial_p Q(p,\Omega)= \frac{1}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,\big(p,s(r,\theta),Y(r,\theta)\big)}.
\end{equation}
At this point, one can fix $Y(r,\theta)$
and invert the EOS
to determine $s(r,\theta)$. Another way to look at this is that
the 3D EOS is equivalent to a parameterized 2D EOS:
$\mathcalligra{h}\,\,\big(p,s,Y(r,\theta)\big)=\mathcalligra{h}\,\,_{Y(r,\theta)}(p,s)$.
We remark that:
\begin{itemize}
\item It is possible to fix $s(r,\theta)$ instead of $Y(r,\theta)$, but
not both profiles at the same time, unless one uses the
procedure discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:s}.
\item The results discussed above would stay valid when $s$ and/or $Y$ do not
explicitly depend on $(r,\theta)$ but on $(p,\Omega)$,
since all these quantities are known when one solves Eq.~\eqref{eq:sys3bis}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Legendre transformation}
\label{ssec:leg}
In thermodynamics, different choices of free variables imply the use of different
thermodynamical potentials, that are related to each other
by Legendre transformations.
What if we take the Legendre transformation of the potential $Q$?
First, we define the following transformed potential
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:leg_q}
\mathcal Q(p,F) = Q\big(p,\Omega(p,F)\big) - \Omega(p,F) F,
\end{equation}
where the independent variables are $p,F$ and therefore the angular velocity
is written as $\Omega=\Omega(p,F)$, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:leg_h}.
The differential of Eq.~\eqref{eq:leg_q} yields
\begin{align}
\mathrm d\mathcal Q={}& \frac{\mathrm dp}{\mathcalligra{h}\,\,} - \Omega \mathrm d F,\\
\mathcalligra{h}\,\,^{-1}={}& \left.\frac{\partial\mathcal Q}{\partial p}\right|_F,\\
\Omega={}& -\left.\frac{\partial \mathcal Q}{\partial F}\right|_p,
\end{align}
where all quantities depend on $(p,F)$.
In order to re-obtain the barotropic, differentially rotating model
we assume that the EOS is an effective barotrope and that $\Omega=\Omega(F)$.
Similarly to what was done in Sec.~\ref{ssec:baro-diff}, we can define a function
$\mathcal G=\mathcal G(F)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:der_o}
\Omega(F)= -\frac{\mathrm d \mathcal G(F)}{\mathrm dF}.
\end{equation}
The j-const differential-rotation law is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:o_law}
\mathcal G(F)= \left(\frac{\sigma^2}{2}F-\Omega_0\right)F,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma=1/R_0$ is a parameter.
The barotropic potential of Eq.~\eqref{eq:case_c} is equivalent to the following barotropic transformed potential:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal Q(p,F)= H(p) + \mathcal G (F) - \ln\alpha_0.
\end{equation}
An advantage of this formulation is that it unifies rigidly and differentially
rotating stars. Indeed, the rigid rotation limit $R_0\to\infty$ corresponds to
$\sigma=0$ and therefore $\Omega(F)\equiv \Omega_0$ is well defined. It
also simplifies the inclusion of differential rotation laws where $F(\Omega)$ is
not monotonic \cite{Uryu+2017}, which are a more realistic description of post-merged neutron stars.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper we have studied, for the first time, a stationary, differentially rotating,
non-barotropic neutron star
in General Relativity. In doing so, we have shown with theoretical
arguments and with stationary and dynamical numerical simulations how the
Euler equation can be cast in a potential form also in the non-barotropic
case.
This is a novel results even in the context of Newtonian stars.
To test our approach, we have first generated stationary configurations using
the XNS code \cite{Bucciantini+Del_Zanna2011,
Pili+2014, Camelio+2018}, that determines the neutron star
structure and spacetime in the eXtended Conformal Flatness
Condition approximation \cite{Cordero-Carrion+2009}.
We have then taken the stationary configurations as initial
condition for dynamical evolutions performed with
the general relativistic hydrodynamics code
BAM~\cite{Brugmann:2008zz,Thierfelder:2011yi}. We considered consistently
determined configurations of barotropic and non-barotropic rotating neutron
stars and compared them with non-consistent ``control'' configuration to gauge the quality
of our models. We considered both convectively stable
and unstable models.
We used our formalism to demonstrate some properties of non-barotropic
stars, most notably that a non-barotropic star must be differentially rotating
\cite{Zeipel1924, Abramowicz1971}
and that in a non-barotropic star the specific angular momentum and the entropy must
depend on both pressure and angular velocity.\\
Possible outlooks of this work are the following.
One can use the final snapshots of dynamical evolutions to model the
Euler equation potential of (i) post merged neutron stars, (ii) proto neutron stars (post core collapse),
and (iii) post hadron phase transition quark stars. Then, one can quickly explore the
parameter space of the hot rotating remnant with a stationary code like XNS
to study e.g.\@ the dynamical stability, the maximal mass, the gravitational wave signal from stellar
quasi-periodic oscillations, etc.
The most interesting configurations can then be selected to be further explored with
dynamical codes like BAM, using the XNS output as completely consistent initial data \cite[e.g.,][]{Camelio+2018}.
In Sec.~\ref{ssec:s} we showed how in principle is possible to use our
potential formalism to determine a general entropy profile.
But another, maybe simpler, method would be to import the techniques developed in the
context of Newtonian baroclinic stars to include a general thermal profile.
In this way one can study the long term (on the order of minutes), neutrino-driven,
quasi-stationary evolution of the hot and rotating remnant of cases (i--iii) \cite{Burrows+Lattimer1986,
Keil+Janka1995, Pons+1999, Villain+2004, Roberts2012, Camelio+2016}.
This is important because a huge amount of energy (up to tenths of solar masses)
is expected to be radiated through neutrinos in the first phase of the neutron star life.
However, this phase is too long to be fully explored with dynamical codes, while
using a quasi-stationary evolution would allow to employ stationary, fast codes like XNS.
Again, in this way one can quickly study the parameter space and select
the most interesting configurations to be further explored with dynamical
codes, and even study the time dependent gravitational wave signal from
this phase \cite{Ferrari+2003, Camelio+2017} and assess the role of physical processes such as
viscosity.
Finally, one can apply our potential formalism to the study of non-barotropicity in accretion disks
\cite{Amendt+1989, Razdoburdin2017, Witzany+Jefremov2018}, in neutron stars with
magnetic field \cite{Chatterjee+2015} and with meridional currents
\cite{Birkl+2011}, and in Newtonian stars.
|
\section{Introduction}
Graphene nanoribbons offer an interesting playground to study mesoscopic physics at the nanoscale combining size confinement effects and the Dirac fermion nature of electrons in graphene \cite{Nakada1996,Brey2006,Son2006}.
Especially electron-electron interaction in graphene nanoribbons has been studied theoretically to quite some extend \cite{SDutta2008,AAShylau2010,AAShylau2011,VNKotov2012,SIhnatsenka2013,ADGuclu2013,SKahnoj2014}.
In particular, the presence of a magnetic field should give rise to a number of transport phenomena unique to the Dirac fermions. For example, high quality graphene has already revealed anomalous patterns in the magnetoconductance called Hofstadter's butterfly due to the moir\'{e} superlattice of graphene/hBN heterostructures \cite{CRDean2013,LAPonomarenko2013} or quantum Hall ferromagnetism at the Dirac point \cite{Skach09,Bolo09,Young12,Amet13}. The latter has also been realized in high mobility suspended graphene nanoribbons \cite{Ki12} but these suffer from the limited control in the fabrication process and gate tunability \cite{Mosera09}.
So far, in substrate supported graphene nanostructures the disordered potential landscape dictates the transport properties \cite{Stam09,Todd09,Liu09,Gallagher10,Oostinga10,Han10,BischoffRev15}.
An alternative way to achieve very high electronic quality is placing graphene on hexagonal boron nitride which can significantly reduce the disorder potential \cite{Dean10,Xue11,Wang13,Lee15,Borz16}. However, in nanostructures the contribution of edge disorder to the overall disorder remains significant \cite{Bischoff12,Eng13}.
Besides the remaining substrate and edge induced disorder, surface contaminations, e.g lithography residues, have to be taken into account \cite{Herr16}. A step towards further reducing this type of disorder is to encapsulate graphene in hBN \cite{Wang13}, which prevents process-induced contaminations on the graphene flake, although the edges are still exposed. This results in substrate-supported devices with reproducibly high electronic quality and enables the observation of quantum phenomena like quantized conductance in sub-micron structured graphene constrictions ~\cite{Terr16,Soma17}.
In this work we apply the technique to study nanostructured graphene ribbons with a width of $ 35 $ and $40$~nm. These nanoribbons have a length of $ 100 $~nm and $ 150 $~nm and are fabricated from hBN/graphene/hBN heterostructures. At first, the devices are characterized at zero magnetic field revealing a transport gap small compared to graphene on SiO$_2$ or hBN due to the reduced disorder.
Within the transport gap, we see statistical Coulomb blockade. At moderate magnetic fields ($B\approx$ $ 1 $ T) the Coulomb blockade is strongly suppressed due to the increasing density of states around zero energy as the electrons condense into Landau levels. Further increasing the magnetic field leads to the formation of an insulating state around the charge neutrality point, which creates an energy gap of up to $30$~meV. This insulating state is related to the valley symmetry breaking induced by the perpendicular magnetic field, similar to what has been observed in high mobility graphene~\cite{Skach09,Bolo09,Young12,Amet13} but with a considerably larger energy gap most likely due to enhanced electron-electron interaction in size-confined systems.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\includegraphics*[width=\linewidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Schematic of the heterostructure including one-dimensional contact and the highly doped silicon BG. (b) Illustration of the measurement configuration. The chemical potential is locally adjusted by the lateral gate (LG) while the Fermi level of the whole sample is tuned by the back gate (BG). (c) Source-drain current I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ as a function of back gate voltage V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ for a fixed bias V$_\mathrm{{bias}}=1~$mV of a nanoribbon with a width of 40 nm and length of 150 nm. (d) I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ as a function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and the lateral (side) gate voltage V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$ of the same device. The transport gap (dark region) can be tuned by V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$. The source/drain regions are only influenced by the back gate while the region of the nanoribbon is tuned by both gates (see white dashed lines). All data are from device D2.
}
\label{Figure1}
\end{figure}
\section{Fabrication}
The device fabrication is based on mechanical exfoliation of graphene and encapsulating it between two exfoliated hBN flakes via a well-established dry transfer method \cite{Wang13} preventing the graphene from getting into contact with resist or organic solvents.
The heterostructures are deposited on Si$^{++}$/SiO$_2$ substrate providing the devices a back gate (BG) (see Fig. 1(a) and 1(b)). To ensure a high quality of the samples with a low amount of strain fluctuations \cite{Neu15}, each transferred heterostructure is investigated by spatially-resolved Raman spectroscopy prior to the structuring. Areas with a small ($<20 ~\text{cm}^{-1}$) full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Raman 2D line and low variance are chosen for the device (spectra not shown). In comparison, the FWHM of the 2D line on SiO$_2$ is typically above 30 cm$^{-1}$ \cite{Forster13}. Electron beam lithography (EBL), deposition of an aluminum hardmask ($ 20 $~nm) and reactive ion etching with a SF$_6$/O$_2$ plasma are used to structure the hetrostructure into the desired shape. The resulting nanoribbons are then contacted in a second EBL step and a subsequent metal evaporation of Cr/Au ($ 5 $~nm/$ 75 $~nm). We investigate two devices (D1 and D2) based on nanoribbons with a width of around $35$~nm (device D1) and $40$~nm (device D2) and a length of $ 100 $~nm and $ 150 $~nm, respectively. Fig. 1(b) shows an illustration of the measurement geometry. We perform two-terminal conductance measurements where the bias voltage is applied between the source (S) and drain (D) contacts.
The charge carrier density can locally be tuned by a lateral gate (LG) based on graphene, which has a distance of around 10 nm to the nanoribbon. Globally, the Fermi level can be adjusted by the back gate (BG). All transport measurements have been performed at $T\approx30$~mK.
\section{Device characterization}
In Fig.~1(c) we show the source-drain current I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ as a function of the applied back gate voltage V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ through device D2 for a fixed bias V$_{\mathrm{bias}}=1~$mV and a lateral gate voltage of $0~$V. The region of suppressed current, commonly called transport gap $\mathrm{\Delta V_{BG}}$, is estimated by the distance between the intersection points of a linear approximation of the back gate characteristic outside the gap region with zero I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ as depicted in Fig.~1(c). The transport gap arises due to statistical Coulomb blockade in the nanoribbon~\cite{Stam09}. With the described method, we extract $\mathrm{\Delta V_{BG}} = 4.5~$V, which is smaller than what has been reported for graphene nanoribbons with a similar size on $ \text{SiO}_2 $ \cite{Guett09,Guett10,Volk13,Daub14} or on hBN \cite{Eng13}. Additionally, the charge neutrality point is close to V$_\mathrm{{BG}} = 0~$V.
Both results indicate a low residual doping of the sample and a reduced amount of disorder compared to such small structures fabricated on SiO$_2$ or without encapsulation in hBN.
Device D1 shows a very similar behavior. Fixing V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ inside the transport gap
enables us to observe Coulomb peaks due to resonant tunneling through a network of charge islands~\cite{Stam09} (see e.g. the $B = 0$~T trace in Fig.~2(d)). In order to study the characteristic of the device in more detail we investigate the dependence of I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ on the lateral gate with respect to V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$. In Fig. 1(d) we show I$_\mathrm{{SD}}$ as a function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$ at fixed V$_{\mathrm{bias}}=1~$mV. The dark region denotes the transport gap which can be tuned by both the back gate and (partly) by the lateral gate. Two different slopes marked by the white dashed lines can be identified originating from tuning different regions of the device. The nanoribbon region is tuned by both gates whereas the leads (source/drain contacts) are mostly independent on the voltage applied to the lateral gate. Similar measurements are performed for both devices and result in a typical relative lever arm of $\alpha_{BG/LG}\approx0.9$ to tune the transport gap, which is comparable to previous studies~\cite{Stam09}.
\begin{figure}[t]%
\includegraphics*[width=\linewidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Transconductance $\mathrm{d}G\mathrm{/dV_{BG}}$ of the 40 nm wide ribbon as function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and the magnetic field with V$_\mathrm{{LG}}=0~$V. The white dashed lines correspond to a cyclotron radius of $r_c = 20$ nm. (b) Close-up of the transport gap region as function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and B-field B with V$_\mathrm{{LG}}=0~$V. The white dashed lines mark a region of suppressed conductance which evolves with increasing magnetic field. (c) Conductance G$_\text{{corrected}}$ corrected by an estimated contact resistance as a function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ between $B = 7$ and $9$ T in steps of 50 mT. (d) G as a function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ for $B = 0, 2, 4, 6$ and $8~$T between V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=1~$V and V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=3.5~$V. Each trace is offset by $0.1~ e^2/h$ for clarity. All data are from device D2.
}
\label{Figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]%
\includegraphics*[width=\linewidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Conductance $G$ as a function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ for $B = 0, 1, 3.5, 7$ and $9~$T between V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=-4~$V and V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=6.5~$V. Each trace is offset by $0.15~ e^2/h$ for clarity. (b) Averaged conductance $ \left\langle G\right\rangle $ between V$_\mathrm{{BG}}= -1~\text{and}~4~ $V as a function of magnetic field. All data from device D1.}
\label{Figure3}
\end{figure}
\section{Magnetotransport}
So far, we have shown that our devices behave qualitatively very similar to etched graphene nanoribbons on SiO$_2$ or hBN, although the transport gap is considerably smaller. We now focus on magnetotransport properties. In Fig.~2(a) we show the transconductance $\mathrm{d}G\mathrm{/dV_{BG}}$ of device D2 as function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ and the perpendicular magnetic field with V$_\mathrm{{LG}} = 0~$V. Outside the transport gap, we observe features, which move linearly with increasing B-field and which can be related to the formation of Landau levels. Consistently, these features are only visible once the cyclotron radius is below half of the nanoribbon width ($r_c < w/2$, white dashed lines in Fig.~2(a)), which corresponds to the requirement for having edge channel transport through the nanoribbon.
The cyclotron radius is given by $r_c = \hbar \sqrt{\pi n}/(eB)$, where $n= \alpha ($V$_\mathrm{{BG}}-$V$_\mathrm{{BG}}^0)$ is the charge carrier density,
$\alpha$ the lever arm (see below) and V$_\mathrm{{BG}}^0$ the charge neutrality point.
A quantum Hall plateau can for example be seen on the electron side above 6~T. The quantum Hall plateau becomes more apparent in Fig.~2(c) where we show the conductance G as function of V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ for magnetic fields between 7 and 9~T in steps of 50~mT. Above V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=6$~V the traces form a nearly perfect plateau. Due to the two-terminal configuration we can only assume a filling factor of $\nu = 2$ which would correspond a lever arm of $\alpha= 1\times10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ V$^{-1}$. This is slightly larger than the lever arm estimated for a parallel plate capacitor model of $7.4\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ V$^{-1}$ but well in agreement with an enhanced lever arm due to electrostatic fringe fields, also seen in a similar study on graphene ribbons~\cite{Ki12,Terr16}.
\begin{figure*}[tb]\centering
\includegraphics*{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Finite bias spectroscopy measurements at $B = 0~$T as function of V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$ in the center of the transport gap at V$_\mathrm{{BG}}= 1.5~$V exhibiting statistical Coulomb diamonds with a charging energy $E_g$ around $ 14 $ meV. (b) Finite bias spectroscopy measurements at $B= 2.25~$T still exhibiting statistical Coulomb diamonds with $E_g$ around $ 6 $ meV. (c) Finite bias spectroscopy measurements at $B= 6.75~$T. A extended diamond-like feature indicated by the white dashed lines emerges around V$_\mathrm{{LG}}=-1~$V where all transport is suppressed. (d) Finite bias spectroscopy measurements at $B= 9~$T. The diamond-like feature increased with the increased magnetic field and exhibits a maximum of $ 20~ $meV. All data are from device D1.
}
\label{Figure4}
\end{figure*}
The region of suppressed conductance around V$_\mathrm{{BG}}=3-4~$V is also heavily influenced by the magnetic field (see Fig.~2(b)). At $B = 0$~T, the region of suppressed conductance is dominated by statistical Coulomb blockade (see also Fig.~2(d)). For increasing magnetic field we still observe Coulomb peaks inside the gap region although the transport gap decreases in size while the average conductance increases with a maximum around 2~T. Above $ 2~$T a new region evolves where the conductance is completely suppressed and no Coulomb peaks can be observed at all. With further increasing the B-field this region rapidly increases suppressing all conductance at $ 9~$T from around V$_\mathrm{{BG}} = 1~$V up to nearly V$_\mathrm{{BG}} = 2.7~$V. In Fig. 2(d) we show the conductance as a function V$_\mathrm{{BG}}$ for different magnetic field values.
Similar measurements are also performed on the smaller (35~nm) nanoribbon device (see Fig.~3(a)).
The change in conductance with respect to the magnetic field becomes even more pronounced when averaging $G$ in the regime of the suppressed transport. Fig.~3(b) shows $ \left\langle G\right\rangle $ from V$_\mathrm{{BG}} = -1~$V to V$_\mathrm{{BG}} = 4~$V as a function of B-field for device D1. From $B = 0 $ to slightly below $2~$T $ \left\langle G\right\rangle $ increases by a factor of five due to (i) an increase of density of states around zero energy because of the formation of Landau levels and (ii) due to an increase of the average mode transmission as, from a semi-classical point of view, straight trajectories ($B = 0$ T) are less likely to enter the nanoribbon than curved once ($ B > 0~$T). Between $B = 1.8 $ and $2.8~$T, $ \left\langle G\right\rangle $ stays roughly constant,
most likely because of smearing out the condition to enter the quantum Hall regime ($r_c(n) < w/2$, see white dashed line in Fig.~2(a)) due to charge carrier inhomogeneities.
This is obviously most pronounced around the charge neutrality point and the shifted transition point to enter the quantum Hall regime for a
$n^*$ between $1\times10^{11}$ and $2\times10^{11}$ $ \text{cm}^{-2} $ is indicated by the black dashed lines in Fig.~3(b).
Above $B = 3~ $T, $ \left\langle G\right\rangle $ decreases strongly. This suppression of transport with increasing magnetic field has already been seen in studies with high mobility suspended graphene \cite{Skach09,Bolo09,Young12,Ki12} or dual-gated graphene flakes supported on hBN \cite{Amet13} but, so far, not on substrate supported nanoribbons.
To investigate the related energy gap in more detail, we perform bias spectroscopy measurements in dependency of the lateral gate voltage V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$ for different magnetic fields. In Fig. 4(a) we show the differential conductance $\mathrm{dI_{SD}/dV}_\mathrm{{bias}}$ at $ B = 0$~T as function of V$_\mathrm{{bias}}$ and V$_\mathrm{{LG}}$ in the center of the transport gap at V$_\mathrm{{BG}}= 1.5~$V, which shows the typical behavior of a nanoribbon dominated by statistical Coulomb blockade between V$_\mathrm{{LG}}= -5~$V and V$_\mathrm{{LG}}= 2.5~$V. We determine an effective energy gap of $E_g\approx 14~$meV (at $B = 0$~T) by estimating the maximum extent of suppressed current in bias voltage direction. The estimated $E_g$ is a factor of two to three smaller than what has been reported for similar sized nanoribbons on SiO$_{2}$ \cite{Daub14,Mol10}. At $ 2.25$~T (see Fig. 4(b)) the effective energy gap is reduced considerably ($E_g\approx6~$meV) due to the elevated transmission transparency. At $ 6 $ and $ 9$~T (see Fig. 4(c) and 4(d)) the statistical Coulomb blockade is strongly suppressed and we observe extended regions of completely blocked transport between V$_\mathrm{{LG}}= -3~$V and V$_\mathrm{{LG}}= 5~$V.
The energy gap increases with magnetic field and exhibits a maximum of $ 20~ $meV at 9 T around the charge neutrality point of the nanoribbon (see white dashed line). In order to investigate the B-field dependency in more detail we perform finite bias spectroscopy measurements as function of magnetic field (see Fig. 5(a)) at V$_\mathrm{{LG}}=-1~$V. Between $B = 0$ and $3.5~$T we observe statistical Coulomb blockade of a disordered system which gets suppressed with increasing magnetic field as the density of states increases with magnetic field. Up to $B = 0.5~$T the effective energy gap of the Coulomb blockade varies around 10~meV and a non-linear I-V characteristic can be seen (see the blue trace in Fig.~5(b)). When further increasing the B-field, $E_g$ nearly shrinks to zero with an almost linear I-V characteristic (see 1T-trace in Fig.~5(b)) consistent with the large increase in average conductance seen in Fig.~3(c). In contrast, between $B = 3.5~$T and $9~$T we see a second type of energy gap, which increases with a slope of roughly $ 3~ $meV/T up to $ 20~ $meV at $ 9~ $T (see also high B-field traces in Fig. 5(b)). A very similar behavior is seen in our wider nanoribbon (device D2) where the energy gap evolves roughly with a slope of $ 3.75~ $meV/T (see Fig.~6).
\begin{figure}[b]%
\includegraphics*[width=\linewidth]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Finite bias spectroscopy as function of B-field with $V_{BG}=1.5~$V, $V_{LG}=-1~$V. Between $B = 3.5 ~\text{and} ~9~$T a V-shaped insulating state with an energy gap increasing with roughly $ 3~ $meV/T up to $ 20 $ meV is visible. (b) I-V characteristic at $B=0, 1, 3.5, 7$ and $9~$T. All data are from device D1.
}
\label{Figure5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]%
\includegraphics*[width=\linewidth]{Fig6.pdf}
\caption{%
(a) Finite bias spectroscopy as function of B-field with $V_{BG}=1.5~$V and $V_{LG}=0~$V. Between $B = 2 ~\text{and} ~9~$T a V-shaped insulating state with an energy gap increasing with roughly $ 3.75~ $meV/T up to $ 30 $ meV is visible. (b) I-V characteristic at $B=0, 1, 3, 6$ and $9~$T. All data are from device D2.
}
\label{Figure6}
\end{figure}
Previous studies have proposed that the increasing magnetic field breaks the valley symmetry and opens up an electron-electron interaction induced $\nu=0$ energy gap \cite{Bolo09,Young12,Amet13}. Remarkably, in all studies this $\nu=0$ state scales linearly with magnetic field. Most simply, we can estimate the electron-electron interaction strength by the Coulomb energy $E_{c}=e^2/(\epsilon_0 \epsilon_r l_B)$ \cite{Young12,Amet13}, where $l_B$ is the magnetic length $l_B=\sqrt{(\hbar /eB)}$ and $\epsilon_r=4$ (due to hBN). Thus, $E_c$ scales with $ \sqrt{B}$ and can not explain the observed linear dependence.
However, taking into account valley symmetry breaking terms of higher order given by $\delta E_{c}=(a/l_B)E_{c}$ \cite{Young12,Amet13}, where $a$ is the carbon-carbon bond length, the observed linear dependency ($\delta E_{c} \propto B$)can be explained. Estimating this higher order contribution yields a gap of $\delta E_{c}\approx 1$ meV/T~\cite{Amet13}. For extended graphene this approximation shows good agreement with experimental values~\cite{Amet13} but it is roughly three to four times smaller compared to the value we extract for the graphene nanoribbon devices, indicating that size-confinement effects are playing a crucial role.
In summary, we present an investigation of encapsulated graphene nanoribbons with a width around $35$ and $40$ nm. The measurements at zero magnetic field show disorder dominated transport similar to what has been observed in nanoconstrictions on $ \text{SiO}_2 $ and hBN. However, our fully encapsulated devices exhibit a smaller transport and effective energy gap. Interestingly, the magnetotransport is similar to high mobility suspended extended graphene sheets \cite{Skach09,Bolo09,Young12} and nanoconstrictions \cite{Ki12} or larger dual-gated graphene sheets on hBN \cite{Amet13}.
At magnetic fields around $B\approx1~$T we observe a crossover from the Coulomb blockade regime to a regime of elevated average conductance due an increase of density of states at zero energy as the electrons condense into Landau levels. At moderate magnetic fields of $B\approx2.5$ to $3.5$ T the transport starts to be dominated by an energy gap due to electron-electron interaction, which completely prevents transport and the gap increases considerably with a slope of roughly $ 3~ $meV/T up to $ 20~$meV and $ 3.75~ $meV/T up to $ 30~$meV at $ 9~ $T. The linear increase of this $\nu=0$ energy gap points toward a valley symmetry breaking induced by the magnetic field.
Compared to extended graphene on hBN \cite{Amet13}, our observed slope is a factor of three to four larger, potentially due to an enhancement of the electron-electron interaction due to the spatial confinement.
\section{acknowledgement}
This project has received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 785219, the ERC (GA-Nr. 280140), the Helmholtz Nano Facility \cite{HNF}, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation). Growth of hexagonal boron nitride crystals was supported by the Elemental Strategy Initiative conducted by the MEXT, Japan, A3 Foresight by JSPS and the CREST(JPMJCR15F3), JST.
|
\section{Abstract}
Transmission through a benzene ring, connected by sulfur contact atoms to gold leads, is calculated by a tight-binding
model by means of the renormalization method.
Attention is focused on the parameters associated with the contact atoms, namely their site energy
and their bond energies with the ring and the leads.
These parameters are found to have significant effects on the transmission probability function.
\section{Introduction}
Benzene is an important molecule for many reasons, among which is its potential applicability to
electron transport in single-molecule devices, either in its own right or as a tool to understanding more
complicated systems, such as those involving aromatic hydrocarbons \cite{ref1}, graphene \cite{ref2},
carbon nanotubes, etc.
Thus, an understanding of its electron-transmission properties is a basis for exploring much of molecular electronics.
One relevant study was that by Kucharczyk and Davison \cite{ref3}, who used a renormalization method \cite{ref4, ref5}
(which is also used in the current paper)
to calculate the local density of states over a benzene molecule attached to polymeric chains,
with attention paid to the differences among the para, meta and ortho configurations. (see Figure \ref{fig1}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure1}
\caption{Benzene molecule showing para, meta and ortho connections to leads.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
One analytical approach was by Hansen {\it et al} \cite{ref6},
who used the L\"{o}wdin partitioning technique to derive the Green's function for a benzene ring.
The coupling of the molecule to metallic leads was then described using first-order
perturbation theory, whence the transmission probability $T(E)$, as a function of energy $E$, could be calculated.
Another analytical approach was by Dias and Peres \cite{ref7}, who used the Green's function method, within
the tight-binding approximation, to derive an expression for the transmission function $T(E)$
through a para-benzene ring.
Our studies of benzene systems utilise the afore-mentioned renormalization method \cite{ref4, ref5}
to calculate Green's functions within the tight-binding approximation.
The transmission function is then evaluated via the Lippmann-Schwinger equation.
The foundational paper of this group \cite{ref8} details the methodology, and considers transmission through
a single benzene ring in para, meta and ortho configurations, as well as these rings assembled into series and
parallel circuits.
The method was extended \cite{ref9} to include overlap effects, which were seen to be considerable, and in
particular, had the effect of breaking the symmetry in the $T(E)$ curves.
Another study \cite{ref10} found analytic formulas for the transmission functions $T(E)$ of single benzene
molecules, and was shown to be in agreement with other work \cite{ref6, ref7}.
In the current work, we extend and fine-tune our previous work on single benzene rings, by modelling
the ring as being attached to sulfur contacts, which in turn connect to gold leads.
We concentrate on how the transmission $T(E)$ depends on the contact parameters, and the
effect on transmission of varying these parameters.
In this way, we can gauge, to some extent, the sensitivity of the transmission through benzene upon the
specifics of the ring's connection to its leads.
\section{Model}
The model under consideration is shown in Figure \ref{fig2}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure2}
\caption{Benzene molecule (showing C atoms only), with S contacts connected to Au chain leads.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The benzene molecule considers carbon atoms only within the tight-binding approximation, with site energy
$\alpha$ and bond energy $\beta$.
Two of the carbon atoms, depending on the specific configuration, are attached to sulfur atoms by bonds $\beta_C$.
The sulfur atoms have site energy $\alpha_S$, and are in turn attached to gold atoms by bonds $\beta_S$.
One-dimensional chains of gold atoms serve as the leads, with the gold atoms having site energy $\alpha_{Au}$
and bond energy $\beta_{Au}$.
As we wish to investigate the effects of the contacts, the parameters $\alpha_S$, $\beta_C$ and $\beta_S$
are of primary interest, so we look at how variation in their values affects the $T(E)$ curves.
For ``standard'' parameter values, we use \cite{ref11, ref12} $\alpha=-6.553$ eV, $\beta=-2.734$ eV, $\alpha_{Au}=-8.43$ eV,
$\beta_{Au}=-1.325$ eV, $\alpha_S=-6.553$ eV, $\beta_C=-2.1872$ eV and $\beta_S=-1.325$ eV.
Our starting point is a brief summary of the relevant results from \cite{ref8} for transmission
through a single benzene molecule, without specialized contacts;
for complete details, we refer the reader to \cite{ref8}.
The basic method therein was to use the Lippmann-Schwinger equation to derive the
transmission probability for an electron through a one-dimensional tight-binding chain,
containing a double impurity, as shown in Figure \ref{fig3}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure3}
\caption{Semi-infinite Au chain leads attached to a dimer, with rescaled site energies $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$ and rescaled
bond energy $\beta_{01}$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Subsequently, this allows benzene (and indeed, a wide variety of systems) to be studied,
by using the renormalization technique to reduce the molecule to a dimer, with rescaled
energy-dependent parameters, which then plays the role of the double impurity.
The main mathematical result is that the transmission-energy probability function has the
form
\begin{equation}
T(X(E))= {{(1+2\gamma)^2 (4-X^2)} \over {(1-2Q)^2 (4-X^2) + 4(P-QX)^2}} ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
P = z_0+z_1 ~,~ Q = z_0 z_1 - \gamma -\gamma^2 ,
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
z_{0,1} = ({\alpha}_{0,1} - \alpha_{Au})/ 2\beta_{Au} ~,~ \gamma = ({\beta}_{01} -\beta_{Au})/ 2\beta_{Au} ,
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
and the reduced dimensionless energy is
\begin{equation}
X= (E - \alpha_{Au})/\beta_{Au}.
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
In the above, $\alpha_{Au}$ and $\beta_{Au}$ are the site and bond energies, respectively, for
the gold atoms in the leads, while $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$ and
$\beta_{01}$ are the rescaled parameters for the dimer.
In general situations, the dimer may be asymmetric resulting in $\alpha_0 \ne \alpha_1$, but
for the cases considered here, the dimers are all symmetric, so that
$\alpha_0 = \alpha_1$, and hence $z_0=z_1$ in (\ref{eq3}).
The strength and flexibility of the renormalization method lies in its ability to reduce quite complicated molecules, atom by atom,
to dimers with rescaled parameters, whose transmission function is then given by (\ref{eq1}).
In comparing the current model shown in Figure \ref{fig2} to the general situation of Figure \ref{fig3}, we see that we must
use renormalization to reduce the benzene molecule plus the contacts plus the adjoining gold atoms to a dimer,
in order to utilize (\ref{eq1}).
We refer again to \cite{ref8}, where the (symmetric) dimers for the three benzene configurations were calculated.
On letting
\begin{equation}
Y = (E-\alpha)/\beta ,
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
the results are as follows.
For para-benzene,
\begin{equation}
\bar{\alpha}_p = \alpha + \bar{\beta}_p Y ,
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\beta}_p = 2 \beta (Y^2-1)^{-1} .
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
For meta-benzene,
\begin{equation}
\bar{\alpha}_m = \alpha + \beta Y^{-1} + \bar{\beta}_m ,
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\beta}_m = \beta Y^{-1} (Y^2-1) (Y^2-2)^{-1}.
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
For ortho-benzene,
\begin{equation}
\bar{\alpha}_o = \alpha + \beta (Y^2-2) (Y^2-Y-1)^{-1} - \bar{\beta}_o ,
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\beta}_o = \beta (Y^2-1) (Y^2-2) [(Y^2-1)^2-Y^2]^{-1}.
\label{eq11}
\end{equation}
With the benzene ring now replaced by a dimer in the chain of Figure \ref{fig2}, the process is now to use the renormalization
method to reduce that dimer, its sulfur contacts, and the immediately-adjacent gold atoms (because they are connected to sulfur atoms
by $\beta_S$ not $\beta_{Au}$) to a new dimer, embedded within a chain of gold atoms, of site energy $\alpha_{Au}$ and bond
energy $\beta_{Au}$, matching the set-up of Figure \ref{fig3}.
Then equation (\ref{eq1}) is applicable to calculate $T(E)$.
The renormalization method acts to reduce this part of the chain to a dimer, by decimating an atom from the chain while rescaling
the site and bond parameters on the adjacent atoms.
It proceeds atom-by-atom, first on each sulfur contact atom, and then on each gold atom at the end of a lead.
Specifically, the renormalization equations to remove the atom at site ``$n$'' are \cite{ref8}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\alpha}_{n-1} =\alpha_{n-1}+ { {\beta}_{n-1,n}^2 \over {E-\alpha_n}},
\label{eq12}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\alpha}_{n+1} =\alpha_{n+1}+ { {\beta}_{n,n+1}^2 \over {E-\alpha_n}},
\label{eq13}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\beta}_{n-1,n+1} = {{\beta_{n-1,n} \beta_{n,n+1}} \over {E-\alpha_n}}.
\label{eq14}
\end{equation}
After repetitive application of these equations to the 4 atoms to be removed, the resulting dimer has rescaled parameters
\begin{equation}
\alpha_0 = \alpha_1 = \alpha_{Au}+ { \beta_S^2 [(E-\bar{\alpha})^2-\bar{\beta}^2]
\{ (E-\alpha_S) [(E-\bar{\alpha})^2-\bar{\beta}^2] - \beta_C^2(E-\bar{\alpha}) \} \over
{\{(E-\alpha_S) [(E-\bar{\alpha})^2-\bar{\beta}^2] - \beta_C^2(E-\bar{\alpha})\}^2-\beta_C^4 \bar{\beta}^2}},
\label{eq15}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\beta_{01} = {{\beta_S^2 \beta_C^2 \bar{\beta}^2 [(E-\bar{\alpha})^2-\bar{\beta}^2] } \over
{\{(E-\alpha_S) [(E-\bar{\alpha})^2-\bar{\beta}^2] - \beta_C^2(E-\bar{\alpha})\}^2-\beta_C^4 \bar{\beta}^2}}.
\label{eq16}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq15}) and (\ref{eq16}), $\bar{\alpha}$ and $\bar{\beta}$ can be subscripted by $p$, $m$ or $o$, as desired,
and the corresponding results of (\ref{eq6})-(\ref{eq11}) utilised,
to produce the para, meta or ortho configuration, respectively.
\section{Results and Discussion}
In this section, we look at a selection of $T(E)$ curves, calculated via (\ref{eq1}), based on the ``standard'' parameters given at the
beginnning of section 3.
Specifically, we take as fixed the parameters $\alpha=-6.553$ and $\beta=-2.734$ for the C atoms in the benzene ring, and
$\alpha_{Au}=-8.43$ and $\beta_{Au}=-1.325$ for the Au atoms in the leads.
As it is the effect of the S contacts that we wish to examine, the relevant parameters $\alpha_S=-6.553$, $\beta_C=-2.1872$
and $\beta_S=-1.325$ are allowed to vary, in turn, from their standard values, for each of the three benzene configurations.
In each of the figures presented in the following subsections, the green solid curve of (a) uses the standard parameters, while
the other curves (b)-(d) are for varying values of the parameter being considered.
\subsection{Para-benzene}
We start by looking at para-benzene, and the dependence of its $T(E)$ curve on the contact parameters.
Figure \ref{fig4}(a) displays the $T(E)$ curve for the standard value of $\alpha_S=-6.553$, in which case the curve
is almost symmetric, with a local minimum of $T \approx 0.2$ near the band center, flanked by a pair of resonances
(for which $T=1$) close to the band edges.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure4}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for para-benzene, with $\alpha_S=$ (a) $-6.553$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-5.5$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-7.5$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-8.5$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
At the band edges themselves, and only there, the transmission $T=0$ exactly (for all parameter values considered in this subsection).
When $\alpha_S$ is raised, as exemplified in Figure \ref{fig4}(b) with $\alpha_S=-5.5$, the local minimum persists and indeed
goes lower, but the upper resonance disappears with the peak becoming progressively smaller as $\alpha_S$ increases.
Meanwhile the lower resonance survives, albeit at slightly higher $E$, but becomes increasingly narrow and eventually approaches
a $\delta$-function with further increases in $\alpha_S$.
So in this case, transmission at lower energies is clearly preferred.
On the other hand, lowering $\alpha_S$ to $-7.5$ (Figure \ref{fig4}(c)) maintains both resonances and broadens both, especially
the upper one, and correspondingly raises the local minimum, thus enhancing transmission significantly across most of the band.
Further lowering of $\alpha_S$ to $-8.5$ (Figure \ref{fig4}(d)), which is very close to $\alpha_{Au}$, produces a very different
curve, with the local minimum completely gone and replaced by a single resonance, with broad width.
As $\alpha_S$ is lowered further still (not shown), the single resonance splits back into two resonances separated by a local
minimum, very similar to the curves shown in (a) and (b).
Thus there is a quite noticeable effect of having the site bond $\alpha_S$ of the contact atom being very different from that
of the chain atoms.
Turning next to the effect of $\beta_C$, we start again from the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, including
$\beta_C=-2.1872$, shown earlier in Figure \ref{fig4}(a) and reproduced in Figure \ref{fig5}(a).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure5}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for para-benzene, with $\beta_C=$ (a) $-2.1872$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-1.0$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-3.0$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-4.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Again this curve is dominated by the two resonances separated by a local minimum.
Lowering $|\beta_C|$ towards 0 (i.e., increasing $\beta_C$), as shown in Figure \ref{fig5}(b), has the overall effect
of inhibiting transmission.
In particular, the upper resonance is drastically reduced, becoming merely a small peak near the upper band edge.
The exception is the lower resonance, which persists at a somewhat higher energy and with significant narrowing.
Further reductions in $|\beta_C|$ (not shown) continue these effects, reducing transmission to virtually 0 at all energies
except near the lower resonance, which further narrows into a near $\delta$-function at energy at around $-9.3$.
Increasing $|\beta_C|$ has a very different (and opposite) effect however.
Taking $\beta_C=-3.0$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig5}(c), greatly diminishes the {\it lower} resonance while maintaining
and broadening the upper one, albeit at a slightly lower energy.
This effect is enhanced by further lowering of $\beta_C$ to $-4.0$ (see Figure \ref{fig5}(d)) with the one-time lower resonance
no longer distinguishable but the upper resonance further broadened.
This results in generally stronger transmission except at the lower energies.
Next, we look at the variation of $T(E)$ with $\beta_S$, with reference to Figure \ref{fig6}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure6}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for para-benzene, with $\beta_S=$ (a) $-1.325$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-0.75$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-1.75$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-2.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
As before, the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, where $\beta_S=-1.325$, is shown in Figure \ref{fig6}(a)
(same as in Figures \ref{fig4}(a) and \ref{fig5}(a)), as a starting point.
Increasing $\beta_S$ to $-0.75$ (thus weakening the bond), as shown in Figure \ref{fig6}(b),
produces a somewhat similar curve but with some
noticeable differences, such as a lowering of the local minimum.
The lower peak remains at almost the same energy, while becoming much narrower.
The upper resonance is more drastically changed.
Although it remains resonant, it is shifted to a significantly lower energy, while at its upper-energy side, a noticeable bump has
appeared.
As $\beta_S$ is further increased (not shown), the bump becomes more pronounced and eventually becomes a new resonance
separated from its ``parent'' by a deep local minimum.
As $\beta_S$ tends to 0, this pair of resonances as well as the original lower resonance all tend towards $\delta$-functions,
with $T=0$ at all other energies.
On decreasing $\beta_S$ from its initial value of $-1.325$ to $-1.75$ (see Figure \ref{fig6}(c)), the opposite trend occurs, with
the lower resonance being maintained and indeed broadened, while the upper resonance is destroyed and diminished to a much
smaller height, while shifting to a slightly higher energy.
Further decrement of $\beta_S$ to $-2.0$ (see Figure \ref{fig6}(d)) exacerbates the destruction of the former resonance, with it
now appearing as merely a slightly heightened peak near the upper band edge.
Meanwhile, the lower resonance is beginning to split into a pair of resonances separated by a very shallow minimum.
Further decreases of $\beta_S$ indicate a continuation of these trends (not shown), and in particular, the splitting of the lower
resonance becomes more pronounced.
\subsection{Meta-benzene}
We now turn to the case of meta-benzene.
As with para-benzene, we use as a reference point the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, which is shown as
the green solid curve (a) in each of the figures.
Starting with the dependence on $\alpha_S$, Figure \ref{fig7} shows the variation for the indicated values.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure7}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for meta-benzene, with $\alpha_S=$ (a) $-6.553$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-5.5$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-7.5$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-8.5$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
As mentioned, Figure \ref{fig7}(a) displays the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, which include $\alpha_S=-6.553$.
The shape of the curve is generally controlled by a pair of anti-resonances, located at $\alpha=-6.553$ and
$\alpha+\beta=-9.287$, for which $T=0$.
In general, the meta-benzene molecule allows as many as 4 anti-resonances \cite{ref10}, whose energies are determined solely by the C parameters
$\alpha$ and $\beta$, but their existence depends on their alignment with the energy band of the Au leads, which is
determined by its parameters $\alpha_{Au}$ and $\beta_{Au}$.
Thus the anti-resonances are pinned in energy with respect to the contact parameters ($\alpha_S$, $\beta_C$
and $\beta_S$) under consideration here.
(The transmission is also always 0 at the band edges.)
The anti-resonances divide the band in Figure \ref{fig7}(a) into 3 sub-bands, for which the lowest one is clearly the one in
which transmittivity is concentrated.
In that lowest band, transmission is dominated by a pair of resonances, separated by a moderate local minimum.
Transmission is suppressed to near-zero values throughout the middle and upper sub-bands, except for a near-resonance
at the upper band edge.
When $\alpha_S$ is raised (to $-5.5$ as in Figure \ref{fig7}(b)), transmission is decreased to virtually 0 throughout the middle
and upper sub-bands, including at the upper band edge.
Meanwhile, the lower sub-band looks much the same as in (a), with the resonances shifting somewhat in energy and the local
minimum becoming deeper.
As $\alpha_S$ is further increased, the local minimum further deepens, and the two resonances tend towards a pair of
$\delta$-functions, with $T=0$ at all other energies.
When $\alpha_S$ is lowered to $-7.5$ (see Figure \ref{fig7}(c)), the resonances diverge somewhat while their separating
minimum becomes shallower, but still with only modest shifts in energy.
Transmission in the middle sub-band is actually enhanced somewhat, while that in the upper sub-band is again deeply suppressed.
Further lowering of $\alpha_S$ to $-8.5$ (Figure \ref{fig7}(d)) continues these trends, with transmission in the upper sub-band
completely suppressed while that in the middle sub-band is visibly enhanced, to a maximum of $T \approx 0.2$.
In the lower sub-band, the local minimum has disappeared, causing the two resonances to merge into a single one, which
persists and shifts to lower energies with further decreases in $\alpha_S$.
We turn now to the dependence of meta-benzene on parameter $\beta_C$, shown in Figure \ref{fig8}, with as usual (a) reproducing
the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters (including $\beta_C=-2.1872$) from Figure \ref{fig7}(a).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure8}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for meta-benzene, with $\beta_C=$ (a) $-2.1872$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-1.0$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-3.0$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-4.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
Decreasing $|\beta_C|$, for a weaker bond, causes the 2 resonances in the lower sub-band to move closer together, while
raising their adjoining minimum, as in Figure \ref{fig8}(b), until they eventually coalesce into a single resonance, which then
tends towards a $\delta$-function as $\beta_C$ moves closer to 0.
Meanwhile, in the other two sub-bands, transmission is reduced to effectively 0.
Increasing $|\beta_C|$ to make a stronger bond, as in Figure \ref{fig8}(c), has little effect on the middle sub-band, with
$T$ remaining non-zero but very low.
In the upper sub-band, the peak in $T$ near the upper band edge is enhanced and broadened into a resonance.
The lower sub-band remains the region of greatest transmittivity, with the 2 resonances further separating with a deepening
of the local minimum, and the lower resonance moving close to the lower band edge.
Further strengthening of that bond (to $\beta_C=-4.0$ in Figure \ref{fig8}(d)) has the effect of shifting the resonances to
lower energies, so much so that the one at the lower band edge vanishes by being shifted below the band.
Meanwhile, the peak near the upper band edge undergoes sufficient broadening that it loses resonance ($T<1$) and is shifted to
a somewhat lower energy, while transmission in the middle sub-band remains negligible.
Lastly for this subsection, we look at the dependence of the transmission on $\beta_S$ in Figure \ref{fig9}, with (a) showing
the curve for the standard parameters, including $\beta_S=-1.325$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure9}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for meta-benzene, with $\beta_S=$ (a) $-1.325$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-0.75$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-1.75$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-2.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
Raising $\beta_S$ to $-0.75$, as in Figure \ref{fig9}(b), reduces to 0 the transmittivity in the middle sub-band and greatly
diminishes it in the upper sub-band (maximum $T \approx 0.1$).
The pair of resonances in the lower sub-band persist, but are narrower and separated by a deeper minimum, which as
$\beta_S$ increases further towards 0, tend towards a pair of $\delta$-functions, the sole regions of transmission in the band.
Decreasing $\beta_S$ to create a stronger bond, however, has the effect in the lower sub-band of coalescing the two resonances into one peak with $T$
slightly less than 1 (Figure \ref{fig9}(c)) while marginally enhancing transmission in the middle sub-band and diminishing it to virtually 0
in the upper one.
Further decreases in $\beta_S$ (Figure \ref{fig9}(d)) continue these trends in the middle and upper sub-bands, while in the lower
one, the peak is shifted to a lower energy, close to the lower band edge with a side peak emerging near the anti-resonance at $E=-9.287$.
This side peak in the lower sub-band appears to be contributing, in a sense, to the enhancement of transmission in the middle sub-band, albeit despite the interference caused by the pinned anti-resonance between them.
\subsection{Ortho-benzene}
Lastly, we consider the case of ortho-benzene.
Figure \ref{fig10}(a) shows the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, which as usual, is used as a reference point
when varying the parameters.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure10}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for ortho-benzene, with $\alpha_S=$ (a) $-6.553$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-5.5$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-7.5$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-8.5$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
Similarly to meta-benzene, ortho-benzene in principle admits as many as 4 anti-resonances \cite{ref10}, depending on the specific values of
$\alpha$, $\beta$, $\alpha_{Au}$ and $\beta_{Au}$, but independent of the contact parameters $\alpha_S$, $\beta_C$
and $\beta_S$.
For the parameters adopted here, there are only 2 anti-resonances, which are pinned at $\alpha+\beta=-9.287$ and
$\alpha+ \sqrt2 \beta=-10.419$, so $T=0$ at these energies, for all cases considered here.
(The transmission is also always 0 at the 2 band edges.)
The anti-resonances thus divide the band into 3 sub-bands as in Figure \ref{fig10}(a).
The lowest sub-band shows near-zero transmission throughout, while the middle sub-band shows a peak of $T \approx 0.92$ at
$E=-9.8$ and the upper one is dominated by a resonance of $T=1$ at $E=-6.2$.
On raising $\alpha_S$ to $-5.5$ (Figure \ref{fig10}(b)), the transmission in the lowest sub-band remains virtually 0.
In the middle sub-band, the peak is actually heightened and split into a pair of resonances, separated by a very slight minimum,
and shifted to slightly higher energies.
Meanwhile, in the upper sub-band, its resonance is noticeably suppressed with maximum $T \approx 0.3$ and the peak shifted
almost to the upper band edge.
Lowering $\alpha_S$ to $-7.5$ (Figure \ref{fig10}(c)) produces some very modest increase in $T$ in the lowest sub-band.
The peak in the middle sub-band is substantially diminished, and shifted to a slightly lower energy, so transmission is suppressed.
In the upper sub-band, the resonance is maintained but substantially broadened, at a slightly lower energy, resulting in significant
enhancement of transmission across this region.
These trends are generally continued with further lowering of $\alpha_S$, although transmission in the lowest sub-band becomes
clearly greater than in the middle one, and the peak in the upper sub-band is no longer resonant but still high enough
(maximum $T \approx 0.94$) to ensure strong transmission there.
Next we turn to the dependence of ortho-benzene on $\beta_C$, exhibited in Figure \ref{fig11}, and with Figure \ref{fig11}(a)
reproducing (from Figure \ref{fig10}(a)) the reference $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters (for which $\beta_C=-2.1872$).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure11}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for ortho-benzene, with $\beta_C=$ (a) $-2.1872$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-1.0$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-3.0$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-4.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
Weakening the bond by changing $\beta_C$ to $-1.0$, shown in Figure \ref{fig11}(b), retains transmission in the lowest sub-band
at negligible levels, and dramatically reduces it in the upper one so that $T < 0.12$.
Meanwhile in the middle sub-band, the dominant peak is heightened and narrowed into a resonance at $E \approx -9.4$, providing only
this small region of significant transmission in the entire band.
Continued reduction in $|\beta_C|$ towards $0$ (not shown) tends this resonance towards a $\delta$-function, with very low
transmission in the upper sub-band, and effectively none in the lower one.
On the other hand, strengthening the bond by changing $\beta_C$ to $-3.0$ (Figure \ref{fig11}(c)) noticeably increases
transmission in the lowest sub-band, but only to a maximum of $T \approx 0.065$.
The peak in the middle sub-band is reduced in height by about half, with a modest shift in energy.
The resonance in the upper sub-band is maintained, but shifted to a lower energy while being broadened, thus enabling generally
stronger transmission in that region.
Further strengthening of the bond (Figure \ref{fig11}(d) where $\beta_C = -4.0$) mostly continues these effects, with the resonance
in the upper sub-band shifting to a still lower energy, and the peak in the middle one diminished to an extremely low level.
The most dramatic change is in the lowest sub-band where transmission is substantially increased, with the $T(E)$ curve now displaying
a pair of resonances, separated by a shallow minimum, so that region enjoys high transmission.
Lastly, we examine ortho-benzene and its dependence on $\beta_S$, with results shown in Figure \ref{fig12}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Figure12}
\caption{Transmission $T$ versus energy $E$ for ortho-benzene, with $\beta_S=$ (a) $-1.325$ (green solid curve),
(b) $-0.75$ (red long-dashed), (c) $-1.75$ (blue dash-dotted), (d) $-2.0$ (purple short-dashed). }
\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig12}(a) reproduces the $T(E)$ curve for the standard parameters, which include $\beta_S=-1.325$, already
seen in Figures \ref{fig10}(a) and \ref{fig11}(a).
When $\beta_S$ is raised to $-0.75$ to weaken the bond (see Figure \ref{fig12}(b)), the transmission in the lowest sub-band
remains effectively 0, while that in the upper one remains dominated by the resonance, now shifted to $E \approx -6.9$, with
just a bit of a ``bump'' visible near the upper band edge.
The peak in the middle sub-band has split into a pair of narrow neighbouring resonances, separated by a deep local minimum.
As $\beta_S$ is raised further towards 0 (not shown), these two resonances tend towards $\delta$-functions, as does the resonance
in the upper sub-band, while the ``bump'' resolves itself into a fourth resonance that also tends to a $\delta$-function.
These 4 $\delta$-functions are the only regions of non-zero transmission in the small-$|\beta_S|$ weak-bond regime.
Conversely, decreasing $\beta_S$, first to $-1.75$ (shown in Figure \ref{fig12}(c)) has very different effects.
The upper sub-band resonance is greatly reduced in height, so that the maximum $T$ is approximately $0.57$, while the
curve increases in the lower part of that sub-band, to produce more uniform if modest transmission in that region.
Meanwhile, the peak in the central sub-band persists but is greatly reduced in height, while some noticeable transmission
appears in the lower sub-band.
All of these trends continue with further decreases in $\beta_S$ ($=-2.0$ in Figure \ref{fig12}(d)).
The transmission improves to a modest maximum of approximately $0.21$ in the lowest sub-band, it is further reduced
in the middle one, and becomes even more uniform in the upper one.
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, we have looked at how transmission through a benzene ring depends on the parameters of the contact
atoms between the ring and the leads.
Specifically, these are the site energy $\alpha_S$ of the contact atom, and its bond energies $\beta_C$ and $\beta_S$
with the nearest atoms of the ring and the leads, respectively.
For all three of the benzene configurations, these parameters are seen to play important roles in determining the
transmission properties of the system.
In comparing the three configurations, it generally appears that para-benzene is the most sensitive to the parameter values,
due to the lack of anti-resonances within the band, which allows for greater variation of the $T(E)$ curve as a parameter is changed.
Although the meta and ortho configurations each admit two anti-resonances, pinned in energy,
their more equal spacing in meta-benzene would seem to make it the less sensitive of the two to parameter values.
(Compare the degree of variation in Figure \ref{fig4} versus Figure \ref{fig7} versus Figure \ref{fig10}.)
In considering the relative importance of the three parameters, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, as all three
play significant roles.
Nonetheless, based on our figures, it is suggestive that $\beta_S$ has less dramatic effects than the other two parameters.
This might be expected in light of the fact that $\beta_S$ is the bond energy between the contact atom and the chain, but
not directly connecting to the benzene ring itself.
\section{Keywords}
benzene, electron transmission, parameters, renormalization method
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
It can be safely stated that, despite the explosion of interest it has witnessed in the last decades, plenty of questions pertaining to sub-Riemannian geometry remain elusive even among the foundational ones. One of them is surely the so-called Sard problem, that is presently unsolved even in rich structures such as Carnot groups. In this paper we intend to give a contribution to this problem, as we now explain.
Remember that a {\em Carnot group} $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $r$ and step $s$ is a connected, simply connected and nilpotent Lie group whose Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, here identified with the tangent at the group identity $e$, admits a stratification of the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stratification}
\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus \dots \oplus \mathfrak{g}_s,
\end{equation}
with $\mathfrak{g}_{i+1}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}_i]$ for $1\le i\le s-1$, $[\mathfrak g,\mathfrak g_s]=\{0\}$ and $\dim(\mathfrak{g}_1)=r$. A Carnot group can be naturally endowed with a sub-Riemannian structure by declaring the first layer $\mathfrak g_1$ of the Lie algebra to be the horizontal space. Actually, Carnot groups are infinitesimal models for sub-Riemannian manifolds (that we do not introduce here, see \cite{ABB,JeanLibro,Montgomery,RiffordLibro}). Denoting by $L_g$ the left-translation on $\mathbb{G}$ by an element $g\in\mathbb{G}$, we consider the {\em endpoint map}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:endpoint_intro}
\begin{aligned}
F_e: L^1([0,1],\mathfrak{g}_1)&\to \mathbb{G},\\
u&\mapsto \gamma_u(1),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we denoted by $\gamma_u:[0,1]\to \mathbb{G}$ the absolutely continuous curve issuing from $e$, whose derivative is given by $(dL_{\gamma_u(t)})_eu(t)$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. Any such curve $\gamma_u$ is called {\em horizontal}.
\begin{defi}\label{defi:abnormal_set}
Given a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$, we denote by $\abn{}\subset \mathbb{G}$ the set of the {\em singular values} of $F_e$. In particular, a point $g\in \mathbb{G}$ belongs to $\abn{}$ if and only if there exists a horizontal curve $\gamma_u$ joining $e$ and $g$ that is associated with a critical value $u$ of the differential $dF_e$.
\noindent As a matter of terminology, we call $u$ a {\em singular control} and $\gamma_u$ the associated {\em singular} (or, equivalently, {\em abnormal}) {\em curve}.
\end{defi}
As explained for instance in~\cite{AgrSomeOpen} and~\cite[Section 10.2]{Montgomery}, the {\em Sard} (or {\em Morse-Sard}) {\em problem} concerns the following question: is it true that the singular set $\abn{}$ is negligible in $\mathbb{G}$? More generally, how large can it be? Remember that the Morse-Sard theorem for a smooth map defined on a finite dimensional manifold states that the set of critical values of the map has zero measure. However, this is no longer true in case the domain manifold is infinite-dimensional. The relevance of the Sard problem in sub-Riemannian geometry stems from the well-known influence that singular curves have on the regularity of geodesics, the regularity of the distance and of its spheres, the heat diffusion, the analytic-hypoellipticity of sub-Laplacians, etc.
Answers to the Sard problem are at the moment only partial. Building on techniques by L.~Rifford and E.~Tr\'elat~\cite{RiffTre}, A.~Agrachev \cite{AgraAny} proved that, for general sub-Riemannian manifolds, singular curves that are also length-minimizing are contained in a closed nowhere dense set. A similar result has been obtained in \cite{Boa_Bar} by D.~Barilari and the first author in the more general case of control systems that are {\em affine} in the control, i.e., admitting a drift. In \cite{Vit_Sard}, the authors prove the negligibility of $\abn{}$ in Carnot groups of step 2 as well as in some other cases, some of which will be mentioned below. A detailed study of the singular set has been carried out in \cite{BelottoRifford,BelottoFPR} for 3-dimensional analytic sub-Riemannian manifolds with 2-dimensional analytic horizontal distributions: it turns out that such a set has Hausdorff dimension 1 and, actually, it is a semi-analytic curve. Other partial or related results are contained in \cite{ZZ,RiffTre,LLMV_GAFA,LLMV_CAG,Gent_Hor,OttaVitto}. Different approaches to study singular curves are found e.g. in \cite{Chit_06, Chit_08,Bon_Kupka,Boa_Sig}, where the authors establish some regularity results that hold for the {\em generic} control system. Another line of investigation is pursued e.g. in \cite{ABL, Gent_Hor, BL_Hor}, where singular curves are analyzed through a topological viewpoint, building on variational methods \`a la Morse.
The main results of the present paper are the following theorems.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:S_r2_s4}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a Carnot group of rank $2$ and step $4$. Then, $\abn{}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:S_r3_s3}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a Carnot group of rank $3$ and step $3$. Then, $\abn{}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $1$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:S_r2_s4} was proved in \cite{LLMV_CAG} for the {\em free} Carnot group of rank 2 and step 4, see also \cite[Section 5.1]{Vit_Sard}. Recall that a Carnot group is free if the only relations imposed on its Lie algebra are those generated by the skew-symmetry and Jacobi's identity. Also Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3} is known for the free group of rank 3 and step 3, see \cite[Section 5.1]{Vit_Sard}. We however believe that the main novelty does not lie in the results {\em per se}, but rather in the techniques we exploit. The proofs given in \cite{LLMV_CAG,Vit_Sard} are purely algebraic and both rely on the so-called Tanaka prolongation of the Lie algebra of $\mathbb{G}$. In order for the strategy in \cite{LLMV_CAG,Vit_Sard} to work, it is necessary that the prolongation is long enough and, as a matter of fact, this does not happen in general. On the contrary, our dynamical-systems oriented approach can in principle be pursued in any Carnot group. Let us describe it.
Recall that each singular control $u$ is associated with a covector $\lambda\in\mathfrak g^*$ in such a way that $\lambda$ annihilates the image of $dF_e(u)$; since this image always contains $\mathfrak g_1$ (see~\eqref{eq:inclusion}), we actually have $\lambda\in\mathfrak g_1^\perp$. We use the necessary condition given by Proposition~\ref{prop:criterion_abnormal} below to show that the primitive $w$ (see Definition~\ref{defi:primitive}) of the control $u$ is a concatenation (Definition~\ref{defi:concatenation}) of trajectories of a suitable dynamical system in $\mathbb{R}^r\equiv \mathfrak g_1$; $w$ can switch between different trajectories only at the equilibrium points of the dynamical system. When the group $\mathbb{G}$ is either as in Theorem \ref{thm:S_r2_s4} or as in Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3}, the dynamical system is linear and, since the primitive has to start at the origin, one can classify all the singular curves associated with $\lambda$. The dynamical systems, of course, depend on $\lambda\in \mathfrak g_1^\perp$: an important part of our work consists in stratifying $\mathfrak g_1^\perp$ as the finite union of sub-varieties $\Lambda_i$ in such a way that the dynamical systems associated with elements of each (fixed) $\Lambda_i$ are all conjugate. Eventually, the set $\abn{\Lambda_i}$ made by the union of all singular curves associated with elements of $\Lambda_i$ is sub-analytic, and its codimension can be explicitly bounded. In particular, this codimension is at least 1 provided the codimension (in $\mathfrak g^*$) of $\Lambda_i$ is strictly greater than the dimension, in $\mathbb{G}$, of the set that can be reached by (lifts to $\mathbb{G}$ of) concatenations of trajectories of the dynamical system, associated with any $\lambda\in\Lambda_i$, that start at the origin.
We believe that, in Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3}, the bound 1 on the codimension of $\abn{}$ can be improved and we conjecture that it holds with a lower bound 3 (see \cite{OttaVitto} for an analogous open question in step 2 Carnot groups). We are able to prove our conjecture at least when $\mathbb{G}$ is the free Carnot group of rank 3 and step 3.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:S_r3_s3free}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be the free Carnot group of rank $3$ and step $3$. Then, $\abn{}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{thm}
The computation of a better bound on the codimension of $\abn{}$ reduces to the computation of the codimension of each $\abn{\Lambda_i}$ and is in principle possible with our techniques. It requires some extra algebraic work and, since we were not interested in obtaining better bounds on the codimension of $\abn{}$, we completed this task for the free group only.
Another interesting feature of our approach is that it allows for a classification of singular curves revealing also their very shapes and their possible singularities. In particular, we recover many of the most exotic known examples of singular curves, see Remarks~\ref{rem:GoleKaridi} and~\ref{rem:ex1}, as well as new ones as in Remarks~\ref{rem:ex2} and~\ref{rem:ex3}.
When the rank $r$ and step $s$ of $\mathbb{G}$ satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r=2$ and $s\geq 5$
\item or $r=3$ and $s\geq 4$
\item or $r\geq 4$ and $s\geq 3$
\end{itemize}
the Sard problem is open. One can nevertheless set up our approach and see that singular curves are again concatenations of trajectories of suitable dynamical systems; however, such systems are polynomial with degree two or more, and their study gets much harder. In Section \ref{sec:r2s5} we briefly discuss the situation in the case of Carnot groups of rank 2 and step 5, where the involved dynamical systems are quadratic. Notice that a dynamical-systems approach appears, although for different purposes, also in \cite{BCJPS}.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:preliminari} we discuss the preliminary material and we show how to derive the dynamical systems involved in our analysis; as an introductory warming up, we also use our dynamical approach to study the Sard problem in Carnot groups of rank 2 and step 3, see Section~\ref{sec:CG_r2_s3}. Theorems~\ref{thm:S_r2_s4} and~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3} are proved, respectively, in Sections~\ref{sec:CGr2s4} and~\ref{sec:r3s3}, while Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3free} is demonstrated in Section~\ref{sec:proof_free}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:r2s5} contains some musings about Carnot groups of rank 2 and step 5.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminari}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a Carnot group as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:intro}. We consider on $\mathbb{G}$ the exponential map $\exp:\mathfrak{g}\to \mathbb{G}$, which is a real analytic diffeomorphism by, e.g, \cite[Theorem 1.2.1]{Corw_Greenleaf}. We also denote by $\cdot$ the group law in $\mathbb{G}$ and we define, given $g\in \mathbb{G}$, the left-translation map $L_g:\mathbb{G}\to \mathbb{G}$ by $L_g(h)=g\cdot h$.
Let $n:=\dim(\mathbb{G})$ and let $X_1,\dots, X_n$ be a basis of $\mathfrak{g}$ such that $X_1,\dots, X_r$ is a basis of $\mathfrak{g}_1$. When necessary, we tacitly identify $\mathfrak g_1$ and $ (dL_{g})_e\mathfrak g_1$, $g\in\mathbb{G}$, so that the elements $X_j$'s can be thought of as left-invariant vector fields on $\mathbb{G}$.
We define a sub-Riemannian structure on $\mathbb{G}$ considering on $\mathfrak{g}_1$ the Riemannian metric that makes $X_1,\dots,X_r$ an orthonormal system.
\begin{defi}\label{defi:defi_adm_curves}
Let $\gamma:[0,1]\to\mathbb{G}$ be absolutely continuous and such that $\gamma(0)=e$. We say that $\gamma$ is an admissible curve if $\dot{\gamma}(t)\in \mathfrak{g}_1$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ and $\mathrm{length}(\gamma):=\int_0^1|\dot{\gamma}(t)|dt<+\infty$, where we denoted by $|\cdot|$ the norm on $\mathfrak{g}_1$ induced by the fixed Riemannian metric.
\end{defi}
Let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathfrak{g}_1)$ and let $\gamma_u:[0,1]\to \mathbb{G}$ be the curve solving a.e. on $[0,1]$ the ODE:
\begin{equation}\label{ed:ODE_admcurves}
\dot{\gamma}(t)=(dL_{\gamma(t)})_eu(t),\ \ \gamma(0)=e.
\end{equation}
Then $\gamma_u$ is admissible. Conversely if $\gamma:[0,1]\to \mathbb{G}$ is an absolutely continuous curve satisfying \eqref{ed:ODE_admcurves} for some element $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathfrak{g}_1)$, then $\gamma$ is admissible and $u$ is its associated control. In coordinates, i.e. identifying $\mathfrak{g}_1$ with $\mathbb{R}^r=\mathrm{span}_\mathbb{R}\{X_1,\dots,X_r\}$, admissible curves are parametrized a.e. on $[0,1]$ by the integral curves of the ODE:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:contr_sys}
\dot{\gamma}(t)=u_1(t)X_1(\gamma(t))+\dots+u_r(t)X_r(\gamma(t)),\ \ \gamma(0)=e,
\end{equation}
where $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$.
The notion of primitive of a control will play a basic role in the rest of the paper; we state it here.
\begin{defi}\label{defi:primitive}
Let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$. We call primitive of $u$ the function $w\in AC([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
w(t):=\int_0^t u(\tau)d\tau
\end{equation}
for every $t\in [0,1]$. If we denote by $\pi_{\mathfrak{g}_1}$ the projection of $\mathfrak{g}$ onto $\mathfrak{g}_1$, we see that $w(t)=\pi_{\mathfrak{g}_1}(\exp^{-1}(\gamma(t)))$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. In particular, once the function $w$ is known, $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ is determined integrating \eqref{eq:contr_sys} with $u=\dot w$.
\end{defi}
\subsection{Elements of chronological calculus}
Singular curves are introduced in terms of the differential of the endpoint map in \eqref{eq:endpoint_intro}: in this section we introduce the formalism of the chronological calculus needed for its study. Chronological calculus is in essence an operatorial calculus introduced in \cite{Ag_Chron}, whose main properties we now recall. We identify points $g\in \mathbb{G}$ with homomorphisms of $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$ onto $\mathbb{R}$ by the formula $gf:=f(g)$, while we identify diffeomorphisms $P$ of $\mathbb{G}$ with automorphisms of $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$, i.e. with maps $f\mapsto Pf:=f(P(\cdot))\in C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$. Tangent vectors at $g\in\mathbb{G}$ are identified with linear functionals on $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$ that satisfy the Leibniz rule: if $v\in T_g\mathbb{G}$ and $g(t)$ is a curve on $\mathbb{G}$ such that $g(0)=g$ and $\dot{g}(0)=v$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
v:C^\infty(\mathbb{G})&\to \mathbb{R},\\
vf&:=\frac{d}{dt} f(g(t))\bigg|_{t=0}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Finally, we treat a smooth vector field $V$ as the derivation of the algebra $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$ given by $f\mapsto Vf$ for every $f\in C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$. We denote by $\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{G})$ the set of all smooth vector fields on $\mathbb{G}$. Given $t_I,t_F\in \mathbb{R}$, a non-autonomous vector field on $\mathbb{G}$, or simply a vector field on $\mathbb{G}$, is a measurable and locally bounded family $t\mapsto V_t$ for $t\in [t_I,t_F]$ and $V_t\in \mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{G})$ for every $t\in [t_I,t_F]$. We also agree that, in chronological notations, compositions are indicated by $\circ$ and are read from left to right. For more details, we refer the interested reader to \cite[Chapter 2]{Ag_Book} and to \cite{KipkaL}.
Let $t_0\in [t_I,t_F]$. The flow of a vector field $V_t$ is a family of diffeomorphisms $(P^t_{t_0})$ on $\mathbb{G}$, $t\in [t_I,t_F]$, defined by the Cauchy problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C_P}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dt}P^t_{t_0}(g_0)=V_t(P^t_{t_0}(g_0)),\\
&P^{t_0}_{t_0}(g_0)=g_0
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
for every $g_0\in \mathbb{G}$. The assumptions on the family $(V_t)_{t\in [t_I,t_F]}$ imply that the solution to \eqref{eq:C_P} exists and is unique, at least locally.
\begin{defi}\label{defi:right_chron_exp}
Given $t_0\in [t_I,t_F]$ and a vector field $(V_t)_{t\in [t_I,t_F]}$, we define the (time-$t$ right) chronological exponential $\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{t_0}^t V_\tau d\tau$ of $V$ as the diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{G}$ given by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{NUMO}
\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{t_0}^t V_\tau d\tau:=P_{t_0}^t,
\end{equation}
where $P^t_{t_0}$ is defined as in \eqref{eq:C_P}.
\end{defi}
Notice that $P^t_{t_0}$ solves the Cauchy problem $\frac{d}{dt} P^t_{t_0}=P^t_{t_0}\circ V_t$ on the space of operators on $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$, and that, if we want to include the initial datum $g_0\in \mathbb{G}$, in the formalism of chronological calculus we write $\frac{d}{dt}\left(g_0\circ P^t_{t_0}\right)=g_0\circ P^t_{t_0}\circ V_t$. Integrating iteratively the differential equation in \eqref{NUMO}, we may formally expand $P^t_{t_0}$
in the following Volterra series:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rightcronexp}
\begin{aligned}
P^t_{t_0} &=\mathrm{Id}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_{\Sigma_k(t_0,t)} V_{\tau_k}\circ \dots \circ V_{\tau_1}d\tau_k\dots d\tau_1,\ \ &t\ge t_0,\\
P^t_{t_0} &=\mathrm{Id}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty(-1)^k \int_{\Xi_k(t,t_0)} V_{\tau_k}\circ \dots \circ V_{\tau_1}d\tau_k\dots d\tau_1,\ \ &t< t_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_k(t_0,t):=\{(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_k)\in\mathbb{R}^k\mid t_0\le\tau_k\le\dots\le\tau_1\le t\}&\ \ &\text{if }t\geq t_0,\\
\Xi_k(t,t_0):=\{(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_k)\in\mathbb{R}^k\mid t\le\tau_1\le\dots\le\tau_k\le t_0\}&\ \ &\text{if }t< t_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We also agree that $\Sigma_k(t):=\Sigma_k(0,t) $, $\Xi_k(t):=\Xi_k(t,0)$ and $\Sigma_k:=\Sigma_k(1)$,
that is the $k$-th dimensional simplex.
\begin{remark}
The equations in \eqref{eq:rightcronexp} are to be read as formal Volterra series. Indeed, as a consequence of Borel's Lemma \cite[Theorem 1.2.6]{Hor_Diff_Op}, these series are never convergent on $C^\infty(\mathbb{G})$ in the weak sense unless $V_t\equiv 0$. This causes no harm to the rigour of our arguments, since we will only deal with finitely many terms in these expansions.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:infinite}
We will need to deal in the paper with vector fields $t\mapsto V_t$ well-defined for all times $t\in \mathbb{R}\cup \{\pm \infty\}$ and, accordingly, with chronological exponentials where either $t$ or $t_0$ is equal to $\pm \infty$. In these cases, denoting by $P_{t_0}^t$ the flow of $V_t$ as in~\eqref{NUMO}, one should read
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{t_0}^{\pm\infty}V_\tau d\tau:=\lim_{t\to\pm\infty}P_{t_0}^t, \ \ \ \ \overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{\pm\infty}^{t_0}V_\tau d\tau:=\lim_{t\to\pm\infty} (P_{t_0}^{t})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
Let $B$ be a diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{G}$. The tangent map $B_*$ acts on vectors $v\in T_g\mathbb{G}$ as a composition $B_*v=v\circ B\in T_{B(g)}\mathbb{G}$. Then, if $V\in\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{G})$, the action of $B_*$ on $V$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diff_chron_calc}
B_*V=B^{-1}\circ V\circ B,
\end{equation}
that is, $B_*V$ is the standard push-forward map. The vector field $(\mathrm{Ad}B)V$ is defined by the formula
\begin{equation}
(\mathrm{Ad}B)V=B\circ V\circ B^{-1}
\end{equation}
and we have the identity $\mathrm{Ad}(B^{-1})=B_*$.
Given a flow $P^t_{t_0}:=\overrightarrow{\exp}\int^t_{t_0} V_\tau d\tau$, we want to write down an ODE describing the evolution of $\mathrm{Ad}P^t_{t_0}$. This differential equation is meant at the level of operators on the Lie algebra of the smooth vector fields on $\mathbb{G}$.
For every $X\in\mathrm{Vec}(\mathbb{G})$ we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ad_operator}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{Ad}P^t_{t_0}X=P^t_{t_0}\circ \left(V_t\circ X-X\circ V_t\right)\circ P^{-t}_{t_0}=(\mathrm{Ad}P^t_{t_0})[V_t,X]=(\mathrm{Ad}P^t_{t_0})\mathrm{ad}V_tX,
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{ad}$ denotes the standard left Lie multiplication. By the arguments in \cite[\S 2.5]{Ag_Book} we see that $\mathrm{Ad}P^t_{t_0}$ is the unique solution to the Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} A^t_{t_0}=A^t_{t_0}\circ \mathrm{ad} V_t, \ \ A_{t_0}^{t_0}=\mathrm{Id},
\end{equation}
and this allows for the definition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:id_Ad_ad}
\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{t_0}^t\mathrm{ad}V_\tau d\tau:=\mathrm{Ad}\left(\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_{t_0}^t V_\tau d\tau\right).
\end{equation}
\subsection{The differential of the endpoint map}
Given $v\in \mathbb{R}^r$, we introduce the short-hand notation $X_{v}:=\sum_{i=1}^rv_i X_i\in \mathfrak{g}_1$.
\begin{defi}
For every $t\in [0,1]$, we define the map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:endp_t}
\begin{aligned}
F_e^t:L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)&\to \mathbb{G}\\
u &\mapsto \gamma_u(t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
The endpoint map $F_e$ in \eqref{eq:endpoint_intro} coincides with $F_e^1$, and for every $t\in [0,1]$ the map $F^t_e$ is given by the formula:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:endp}
F_e^t(u)=e\circ\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^t X_{u(\tau)}d\tau.
\end{equation}
Let $v\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$. We compute $F_{e}(u+v)$ as a perturbation of $F_{e}(u)$. By \eqref{eq:id_Ad_ad} we define, for $t\in [0,1]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gut}
\begin{aligned}
g^{u,t}_{v(t)}:&=\mathrm{Ad}\left(\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^t X_{u(\tau)}d\tau \right)X_{v(t)}
=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^t\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau)}d\tau\right) X_{v(t)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and by the variations' formula in \cite[Section 2.7]{Ag_Book} we write:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:var_for_exp}\begin{aligned}
F_{e}(u+v)&=e\circ\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^1X_{u(t)}+X_{v(t)}dt
\\& = e\circ \overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^1 \mathrm{Ad}\left(\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^t
X_{u(\tau)}d\tau \right)X_{v(t)}dt \circ \overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 X_{u(t)}dt
\\&=e\circ \overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^1 g^{u,t}_{v(t)}dt \circ \overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 X_{u(t)}dt.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
The derivative $d_uF_e(v)$ is given by the first-order term in the series expansion with respect to $v$ of \eqref{eq:var_for_exp}, that is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dif_var_for}
d_uF_e(v)=e\circ \int_0^1g^{u,t}_{v(t)}dt\circ \overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 X_{u(t)}dt.
\end{equation}
Notice that, in the classical formalism of differential geometry this means that
\begin{equation}
d_uF_e(v)=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 X_{u(t)}dt\right)_*\left(\int_0^1g^{u,t}_{v(t)}dt(e)\right),
\end{equation}
so that $d_uF_e(v)$ is nothing but the push-forward, via the tangent map $(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 X_{u(t)}dt)_*$, of the tangent vector $\int_0^1g^{u,t}_{v(t)}dt(e)\in \mathfrak{g}$.
The image of the differential $d_uF_e$ is then described, up to a diffeomorphism, by the mapping
\begin{equation}\label{eq:differential}\begin{aligned}
G_e^u:L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)&\to \mathfrak{g}, \\
v&\mapsto \int_0^1g^{u,t}_{v(t)}dt(e),
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
and it follows by construction that the differential $d_uF_e$ is surjective if and only if $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)=\mathfrak{g}$. Owing to \eqref{eq:gut} and \cite[equation (2.23)]{Ag_Book}, $G_e^u(v)$ admits the expansion:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G_e^u}
G_e^u(v)=\sum_{j=1}^s\int_{\Sigma_j}\left(\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_j)}\circ\dots\circ \mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_2)} \right)X_{v(\tau_1)}d\tau_j\dots d\tau_1(e),
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over a finite number of indices because $\mathfrak{g}$ is nilpotent of step $s$, and the first term in \eqref{eq:G_e^u} is to be intended as $\int_0^1X_{v(\tau_1)}d\tau_1(e)$. A useful characterization of the image of $G_e^u$ is provided in the next proposition (compare with \cite[Proposition 2.3]{Vit_Sard}).
\begin{prop}\label{prop:alt_char_image_diff}
The following formula holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alt_char_im}
\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u):=\Span_{Y\in \mathfrak{g}_1,t\in [0,1]}\left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_j(t)}\left(\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_{j})}\circ\dots\circ \mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_1)} \right)Yd\tau_{j}\dots d\tau_1(e) \right\},
\end{equation}
where, for every $Y \in \mathfrak{g}_1$, the 0-th term in the summation simply denotes $Y(e)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{eq:G_e^u}, we have:
\begin{equation}\
\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)=\left\{
\sum_{j=1}^s\int_{\Sigma_j}\left(\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_j)}\circ\dots\circ \mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_2)} \right)X_{v(\tau_1)}d\tau_j\dots d\tau_1(e)
\mid v\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)\right\}.
\end{equation}
To establish the $\subset$ inclusion in \eqref{eq:alt_char_im}, we
notice that any element in $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$ can be seen as the limit of finite sums of elements in the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:alt_char_im}, which in turn is a closed set that contains all of its limit points.
To deduce the $\supset$ inclusion in \eqref{eq:alt_char_im}, we fix instead a basis $(e_i)_{i=1}^r$ of $\mathbb{R}^r$, so that $X_{e_i}=X_i$ for $1\le i\le r$. We fix $t\in [0,1)$ (the case $t=1$ can be treated similarly) and, for $n$ large enough, we consider $\psi_n:=n\chi_{[t,t+\frac1n]}$ to see that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=0}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_j(t)}\left(\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_j)}\circ\dots\circ \mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_1)} \right)X_id\tau_j\dots d\tau_1(e)=\lim_{n\to \infty}G_e^u(\psi_n e_i)\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)
\end{equation}
since $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$ is closed as well, and we conclude.
\end{proof}
One can consider the elements of the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:alt_char_im} corresponding to $t=0$ to see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclusion}
\mathfrak{g}_1\subset \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u).
\end{equation}
Moreover, one can write $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)=\mathfrak g_1\oplus\mathfrak R_u$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subsp_A}
\mathfrak{R}_u:=\Span_{Y\in \mathfrak{g}_1,t\in [0,1]}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_j(t)}\left(\mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_j)}\circ\dots\circ \mathrm{ad}X_{u(\tau_1)} \right)Yd\tau_j\dots d\tau_1(e)\right\}.
\end{equation}
We defined a singular control $u$ as a critical point of $dF_e$, i.e. as an element $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ such that the map $d_uF_e:L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R})\to \mathfrak{g}$ is not surjective, see Definition~\ref{defi:abnormal_set}. With our discussion we have shown the following alternative characterization.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:singular}
A control $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ is singular if and only if the subspace $\mathfrak{R}_u$ is a proper subspace of $\mathfrak{g}_2\oplus \dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_{s}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:step_two}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of step $2$, a control $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ is singular if and only if the family $\left\{X_{u(t)}\mid t\in [0,1]\right\}$ spans at most an $(r-2)$-dimensional subspace. Indeed, if this is not the case, we see that $\mathfrak{R}_u=\mathfrak{g}_2$.
This is one of the key observations leading to the proof of the
Sard property for Carnot groups of step $2$ (see \cite{Gent_Hor,Vit_Sard}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{A dual point of view}
\begin{defi}\label{defi:brackets}
Given $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $i_1,\dots, i_k\in \{1,\dots,r\}$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:brackets}
X_{i_1\dots i_k}(e):=[X_{i_1},[\dots,[X_{i_{k-1}},X_{i_k}]\dots]](e).
\end{equation}
By multi-linearity of the Lie brackets, recalling that for $v\in \mathbb{R}^r$ we defined $X_v\in \mathfrak{g}_1$ as the sum $\sum_{i=1}^rv_iX_i$, \eqref{eq:brackets} can be extended to expressions of the form $X_{v_1\dots v_k}(e)$ for arbitrary vectors $v_1,\dots, v_k\in \mathbb{R}^r$. We also use round brackets to indicate the priority of nested commutators. In this way, any commutator is identified with a word $J=(j_1,\dots,j_k)$ with letters in the alphabet $\{1,\dots,r,(,),v\mid v\in \mathbb{R}^r\}$. For example, assuming $r=2$, we have
\begin{equation}
X_{(12)(112)}(e)=[[X_1,X_2],[X_1,[X_1,X_2]]](e).
\end{equation}
Given a covector $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}^*$ and a string $J$ as above, we define $\lambda_J:=\left\langle \lambda,X_J(e)\right\rangle$. If $J_1,\dots,J_{\mathrm{dim}(\mathfrak{g}_k)}$ are strings such that $X_{J_1},\dots, X_{J_{\mathrm{dim}(\mathfrak{g}_k)}}$ form a basis of $\mathfrak{g}_k$ for $k\in \{1,\dots, s\}$, $\lambda_{J_1},\dots,\lambda_{J_{\mathrm{dim}(\mathfrak{g}_k)}}$ are the coordinates of $\lambda$ on $\mathfrak{g}_k^*$.
\end{defi}
It follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:singular} that a control $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ is singular if and only if there exists a nonzero $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*$ such that $\lambda \in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$: in fact, the inclusion $\mathfrak{g}_1\subset \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$ yields that any $\lambda \in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$ has zero projection on $\mathfrak{g}_1^*$.
\begin{defi}\label{defi:abnGLambda}
For a given subset $\Lambda\subset \mathfrak{g}^*$, we define
\begin{equation}
\abn{\Lambda}:=\left\{ \gamma_u(1)\mid u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r),\, \text{and there exists $\lambda\in \Lambda$ such that $\lambda\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$} \right\}\subset \mathbb{G},
\end{equation}
that is $\abn{\Lambda}$ contains all the final points of singular curves $\gamma_u$ issuing from the origin $e\in \mathbb{G}$, and associated with some covector $\lambda\in \Lambda$ orthogonal to $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$.
\end{defi}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:normone}
The condition $\lambda\in\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$ is projectively invariant. Given any quadratic norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $
\mathfrak{g}^*$, we can always assume that
\begin{equation}
\lambda\in\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*):=\left\{ \xi\in \mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*\mid \|\xi\|=1 \right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
It follows from \eqref{eq:subsp_A} that $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*$ belongs to $\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_{k}(t)}\lambda_{u(\tau_{k})\dots u(\tau_1)j} d\tau_{k}\dots d\tau_1=0,
\end{equation}
for every $j=1,\dots,r$ and all $t\in [0,1]$. By differentiating with respect to $t$ we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:first_cond_perp}
\sum_{k=1}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_{k-1}(t)}\lambda_{u(\tau_{k-1})\dots u(\tau_1)u(t)j} d\tau_{k-1}\dots d\tau_1=0,
\end{equation}
for every $j=1,\dots,r$ and a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. Owing again to the multi-linearity of the Lie brackets, \eqref{eq:first_cond_perp} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sec_cond_perp}
\sum_{i=1}^r u_i(t)\left(\sum_{k=1}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_{k-1}(t)}\lambda_{u(\tau_{k-1})\dots u(\tau_1)ij} d\tau_{k-1}\dots d\tau_1\right)=0, \ \ j=1,\dots,r
\end{equation}
for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. This discussion proves the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:criterion_abnormal}
Given $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$, we define the skew-symmetric matrix $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)\in M_r(\mathbb{R})$ by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:matrix_abnormal}
\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)_{ij}:=\sum_{k=1}^{s-1}\int_{\Sigma_{k-1}(t)}\lambda_{u(\tau_{k-1})\dots u(\tau_1)ij} d\tau_{k-1}\dots d\tau_1,\ \ i,j=1,\dots,r.
\end{equation}
Then a control $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ is singular if and only if there exists $\lambda\in \mathbb S(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*)$ such that
\begin{equation}
u(t)\in \ker(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))
\end{equation}
for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}[Goh condition on Carnot groups of rank $2$]\label{rem:Goh}
Given a singular trajectory $\gamma_u$ contained in a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$, it is not difficult to see that $\mathfrak{g}_2\subset \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$ (see, e.g. \cite[Remark 2.8]{Vit_Sard}). In particular, every covector $\lambda\in\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)^\perp$ is orthogonal to $\mathfrak{g}_2$ (equivalently $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus\dots\oplus \mathfrak{g}_s^*$), i.e. $\lambda$ automatically satisfies the so-called {\em Goh condition}.
\end{remark}
Proposition~\ref{prop:criterion_abnormal} is of fundamental importance in our paper: indeed, it will allow us to study singular curves in terms of {\em concatenations} of trajectories of suitable dynamical systems. Let us fix some terminology: first, given a smooth vector field $V$ on $\mathbb{R}^r$, we call set of equilibria of the first-order differential system $\dot{x}=V(x)$, $x\in \mathbb{R}^r$, the set $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^r\mid V(x)=0\}$.
\begin{defi}[Concatenation]\label{defi:concatenation}
For a smooth vector field $V$ on $\mathbb{R}^r$ consider a differential system of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model_diff_syst}
\dot{x}=V(x),\ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^r.
\end{equation}
We say that $w\in AC([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ is a concatenation of the integral curves of \eqref{eq:model_diff_syst} if there exists an open set $I\subset [0,1]$ with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] write $I=\bigcup_{i} I_i$ as a finite or countable disjoint union of open intervals. Then, for every $i$, $w(I_i)$ is contained in an integral curve of \eqref{eq:model_diff_syst};
\item [(ii)] $w([0,1]\setminus I)$ is contained in the set of equilibria of \eqref{eq:model_diff_syst}.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
The differential systems involved in our analysis will depend on some parameter $\lambda$, typically in a sub-analytic fashion. We recall here the relevant definitions, borrowed from \cite{Bier_Milm}.
\begin{defi}[Sub-analytic sets and functions] \quad
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] A set $X\subset M$ of a real analytic manifold $M$ is {\em semi-analytic} if, for every $x\in M$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $X\cap U$ is a finite Boolean combination of sets $\{y\in U\mid f(y)=0\}$ and $\{y\in U\mid g(y)>0\}$, where $f,g:U\to \mathbb{R}$ are analytic functions.
\item [(b)] Let $M$ be a real analytic manifold. A set $X\subset M$ is {\em sub-analytic} if, for every $x\in M$, there exist an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$, a real analytic manifold $N$ and a relatively compact semi-analytic subset $A\subset M\times N$ such that $X\cap U=\pi(A)$, where $\pi:M\times N\to M$ is the canonical projection.
\item[(c)] Let $M,N$ be real analytic manifolds. A function $f:M\to N$ is {\em sub-analytic} if its graph is a sub-analytic set in $M\times N$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
The image of a relatively compact sub-analytic set by a sub-analytic mapping
is sub-analytic.
\subsection{Carnot groups of rank 2 and step 3}\label{sec:CG_r2_s3}
As a warming up, we discuss Lie groups $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$ and step $3$. This case is already well-known in the literature, as $\mathbb{G}$ is either the 5-dimensional free group (where $\abn{}=\exp(\mathfrak g_1)$) or the 4-dimensional Engel group (where $\abn{}=\exp(\mathbb{R} X)$ for some $X\in\mathfrak g_1$).
Pick a singular trajectory $\gamma_u$ and let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^r)$ be the associated control. Since $u$ is singular, there exists $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*$ such that \eqref{eq:sec_cond_perp} holds. In fact $\mathfrak{g}_1\oplus \mathfrak{g}_2\subset\mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^u)$ by the Goh condition, Remark~\ref{rem:Goh}, and therefore $\lambda\in \mathfrak{g}_3^*$.
Following Definition~\ref{defi:brackets}, the skew-symmetric matrix $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$ in \eqref{eq:matrix_abnormal} is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)_{ij}=\int_0^t\lambda_{u(\tau_1)ij}d\tau_1=\lambda_{\int_0^tu(\tau_1)d\tau_1ij}=\lambda_{w(t)ij},\ \ i,j=1,2,
\end{equation}
where $w$ is the primitive of $u$ (see Definition~\ref{defi:primitive}) and the second equality follows by the linearity of the map $v\mapsto \lambda_{vij}$ for every $v\in \mathbb{R}^2$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:criterion_abnormal}, $u(t)\in \ker(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))$ a.e. $t\in [0,1]$, and then
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Pf}(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))=w_1(t)\lambda_{112}+w_2(t)\lambda_{212}=0
\end{equation}
for every $t\in [0,1]$. By differentiating this last relation we finally deduce that
\begin{equation}
u_1(t)\lambda_{112}+u_2(t)\lambda_{212}=0
\end{equation}
a.e. on $[0,1]$, meaning that $(u_1(t),u_2(t))$ is parallel to $(\lambda_{212},-\lambda_{112})$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$.
Let us now fix $\lambda\in\mathfrak{g}_3^*$.
Then all the primitives $w$ associated with such a $\lambda$ (that is, such that $\lambda\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^{\dot{w}})^\perp$ where $\dot w=u$)
are supported within the integral curves of the differential system
\begin{equation}
\dot{x}(t)=v(\lambda),
\ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where we denoted by $v$ the map (see Remark~\ref{rem:normone} for the definition of $\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*)$):
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
v:\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*)&\to \mathbb{R}^2,\\
\lambda&\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{212} \\ -\lambda_{112}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since $w(0)=0$ and for every $\lambda\in\mathfrak{g}_3^*$ the vector $v(\lambda)$ is not zero (for otherwise $\lambda$ itself would be zero), we conclude that the primitives $w$ associated with $\lambda$ are supported within the line $x(t)=v(\lambda)t$.
Accordingly, every singular curve $\gamma_{\dot{w}}\subset \mathbb{G}$ associated with $\lambda$ is supported within the one-dimensional analytic submanifold $\left\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t):=\exp\left(t(\lambda_{212} X_1-\lambda_{112}X_2)\right).
\end{equation}
Noticing that also the assignment $\lambda\mapsto \mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)$ is analytic for every $t\in \mathbb{R}$, we conclude by standard transversality arguments (see e.g. \cite{Abra_Rob,Guil_Pol}) that $\abn{}$ is an analytic submanifold of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$ (we have taken into account that the projection of $\lambda$ onto $\mathfrak{g}_1^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_2^*$ is $0$).
\begin{prop}\label{prop:r2s3}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a Carnot group of rank $2$ and step $3$. Then, $\abn{}$ is an analytic submanifold of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\section{Carnot groups of rank 2 and step 4}\label{sec:CGr2s4}
Let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$, $w\in AC([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$ be the primitive of $u$ and $\gamma_u$ be the singular trajectory associated with $u$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:singular}, the subspace $\mathfrak{R}_u$, generated by elements of the form \begin{equation}\label{eq:subspace_non_surj_s2r4}
[X_{w(t)},X_j](e)+\int_0^t[X_{w(\tau_1)},[X_{u(\tau_1)},X_j]]d\tau_1(e)+\iint\limits_{0\le\tau_2\le\tau_1\le t}[ X_{w(\tau_2)},[ X_{u(\tau_2)},[X_{u(\tau_1)},X_j]]](e)d\tau_2d\tau_1,
\end{equation}
for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ and $j=1,2$, is strictly contained in $\mathfrak{g}_2\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4$ (compare with \eqref{eq:subsp_A}).
By the Goh condition (Remark~\ref{rem:Goh}) we deduce as in Section~\ref{sec:CG_r2_s3}
the existence of a
covector $\lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)$ such that, upon differentiating \eqref{eq:subspace_non_surj_s2r4} with respect to $t$, the identity
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{w(t)u(t)j}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau_1)u(\tau_1)u(t)j}d\tau_1=0
\end{equation}
holds for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ and $j=1,2$. The skew-symmetric matrix $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$ in \eqref{eq:matrix_abnormal} is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)_{ij}=\lambda_{w(t)ij}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau_1)u(\tau_1)ij}d\tau_1,\ \ i,j=1,2,
\end{equation}
and $u(t)\in\ker(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))$ a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ implies that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pf_r2_s4}
\mathrm{Pf}(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))=\lambda_{w(t)12}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau_1)u(\tau_1)12}d\tau_1=0
\end{equation}
for every $t\in [0,1]$. Notice that \eqref{eq:pf_r2_s4} is differentiable with respect to $t$, and gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pf_r2_s4_two}
\sum_{i=1}^2u_i(t)\left( \lambda_{i12}+\lambda_{w(t)i12} \right)=0,\ \ \text{a.e. }t\in [0,1],
\end{equation}
that is, we conclude that $(u_1(t),u_2(t))$ is parallel to $(\lambda_{212}+\lambda_{w(t)212},-\lambda_{112}-\lambda_{w(t)112})\in \mathbb{R}^2$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. Let us recall that $\lambda_{1212}=\lambda_{2112}$ by Jacobi's identity.
We fix $\lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)$. Forgetting about possible parametrizations, we conclude from \eqref{eq:pf_r2_s4_two} that all the primitives $w$
such that $\lambda\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^{\dot{w}})^\perp$, are concatenations (see Definition~\ref{defi:concatenation}) of the integral curves of the differential system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dif_sys_r2_s4}
\dot{x}=M(\lambda) x+v(\lambda),\ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^2
\end{equation}
where we introduced this time the mappings:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
M:\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)&\to M_2(\mathbb{R}),\\
\lambda&\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{2112} & \lambda_{2212}\\
-\lambda_{1112} & -\lambda_{2112}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}\ \ \ \ \ \
\begin{aligned}
v:\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)&\to \mathbb{R}^2,\\
\lambda&\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{212} \\ -\lambda_{112}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Notice that, since the primitives $w$ satisfy $w(0)=0$, one has to take into account only those concatenations starting at the origin. Observe also that $\mathrm{tr}(M(\lambda))=0$ for every $\lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)$, and that both the assignments $\lambda\mapsto M(\lambda)$ and $\lambda\mapsto v(\lambda)$ are analytic.
We stratify $\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)$ according to $\mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))$, and we consider the (pairwise disjoint) sub-analytic sets
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stratification_r2_s4}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_1&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))<0 \right\},\\
\Lambda_2&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))>0 \right\},\\
\Lambda_3&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)\mid \mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))=1 \right\},\\
\Lambda_4&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*)\mid M(\lambda)=0 \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r2_s4} analyzing separately each one of the above cases. Notice that the Jordan normal form $N$ of $M(\lambda)$ is constant on each
of the sets above, i.e. there exists $N=N(\Lambda_i)\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$ such that, for every $\lambda\in \Lambda_i$, there exists $P(\lambda)\in GL_2(\mathbb{R})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:first_norfor}
N=P(\lambda)^{-1}M(\lambda)P(\lambda).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the mappings $\lambda\mapsto P(\lambda)$ and $\lambda\mapsto P(\lambda)^{-1}$ can be chosen to be sub-analytic on each one of the sets $\Lambda_i$.
Up to a linear change of coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^2$ (not depending on time), of the form $z:=P(\lambda)^{-1}x$, it is therefore sufficient to study, for $\lambda\in \Lambda\in\{\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3,\Lambda_4\}$, the differential system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4}
\dot{z}=Nz+b(\lambda),\ \ z\in \mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where we defined $b(\lambda):=P(\lambda)^{-1}v(\lambda)\in \mathbb{R}^2$, and the assignment $\lambda\mapsto b(\lambda)$ is sub-analytic.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:wviachangeofcoord}
In the sequel we will make an abuse of notation by identifying the primitive $w$ with $P(\lambda)^{-1} w$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:changeofcoord}
The change of coordinates $z=P(\lambda)^{-1}x$ induces a change in the basis $X_1,X_2$ of $\mathfrak{g}_1$. More specifically, assuming
\begin{equation}
P(\lambda)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}
p_{11}(\lambda) & p_{12}(\lambda)\\
p_{21}(\lambda) & p_{22}(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
X_1(\lambda)&:=p_{11}(\lambda)X_1+ p_{21}(\lambda)X_2,\\
X_2(\lambda)&:=p_{12}(\lambda)X_1+ p_{22}(\lambda)X_2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the map $\lambda\mapsto (X_1(\lambda),X_2(\lambda))$ is sub-analytic.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Case I\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_1$}{}} In this case
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\
0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Given $\lambda\in \Lambda_1$, the integral curves of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} starting at $(z^0_1,z^0_2)$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= (e^t-1)b(\lambda)_1+e^tz^0_1,\\
z_2(t) &= -(e^{-t}-1)b(\lambda)_2+e^{-t}z^0_2.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
These trajectories are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:rank2step4caso1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{rank2step4caso1}
\caption{Trajectories of \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr}.}
\label{fig:rank2step4caso1}
\end{figure}
Therefore, a trajectory of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} asymptotically approaches the equilibrium $(-b(\lambda)_1,b(\lambda)_2)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond_equilibrium}
\text{either $b(\lambda)_1+z^0_1=0$ or $-b(\lambda)_2+z^0_2=0$.}
\end{equation}
If both the conditions in \eqref{eq:cond_equilibrium} are met, $z(t)$ remains indefinitely in the equilibrium. If only one of these conditions is satisfied, $z(t)$ approaches the equilibrium asymptotically, and only once (i.e., either in the limit as $t\to+\infty$ or as $t\to -\infty$).
Since the concatenations we consider have to start at the origin, it is natural to introduce the sets
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Xi_1&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1 \mid b(\lambda)_1\ne 0,\, b(\lambda)_2\ne 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_2&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1 \mid b(\lambda)_1= 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_3&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1 \mid b(\lambda)_2= 0 \right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
whose union covers $\Lambda_1$
For every $\lambda\in \Xi_1$, the solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} starting at the origin never crosses the equilibrium, not even asymptotically, and is defined for all times $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Every primitive $w$ associated with such a $\lambda$ is supported within the set $\{z(t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}$. The corresponding singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ are then supported within the one-dimensional submanifold $\left\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where for every $t\in \mathbb{R}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integration}
\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^t \dot{z}_1(\tau)X_1(\lambda)+\dot{z}_2(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)( e),
\end{equation}
and $z(t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr} with $z^0=0$. Since the codimension of $\Xi_1$ in $\mathfrak g^*$ is 4, we conclude that $\abn{\Xi_1}=\{\mathscr L(\lambda,t)\mid \lambda\in\Xi_1,\,t\in\mathbb{R}\}$ (compare with Definition~\ref{defi:abnGLambda}) is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
Next, we consider the case of $\lambda\in \Xi_2$ ($\lambda\in \Xi_3$ is analogous). The solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} starting at $(0,z_2^0)$ tends to $(0,b(\lambda)_2)$ only as $t\to+\infty$, and we see as well that $z_1(t)\equiv 0$ for all times. Likewise, any curve $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr} starting at $z^0_1\ne 0$ approaches asymptotically the equilibrium $(0,b(\lambda)_2)$ if and only if $z^0_2=b(\lambda)_2$, in which case we conclude that $z_2(t)\equiv b(\lambda)_2$.
Every primitive $w$ (recall Remark~\ref{rem:wviachangeofcoord}), associated with some $\lambda\in \Xi_2$, is a concatenation of the integral curves of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4}. Since we are interested only in those concatenations starting at the origin, we see that all such primitives are supported within in the set
\begin{equation}
\ell_\lambda:=\left\{( 0 , t )\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\}\cup \left\{(t, b(\lambda)_2)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\},
\end{equation}
and $w$ may switch between either one of the two components only at the equilibrium, see Figure~\ref{fig:rank2step4max}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{rank2step4max}
\caption{A possible concatenation in $\ell_\lambda$.}
\label{fig:rank2step4max}
\end{figure}
The corresponding singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ are then supported within the set $\{\mathscr{L}^1(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}\cup\{\mathscr{L}^2(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}$, where for every $\lambda\in \Xi_2$ and $t\in \mathbb{R}$ we define
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{L}^1(\lambda,t):&=\exp(tX_2(\lambda))\in \mathbb{G}\\
\mathscr{L}^2(\lambda,t): &=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^1 tX_1(\lambda)d\tau\right)\left( \overrightarrow{\exp}\int_0^1 b(\lambda)_2X_2(\lambda)d\tau(e)\right)\\
&=\exp(b(\lambda)_2 X_2(\lambda))\cdot \exp(tX_1(\lambda))\in \mathbb{G}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since the codimension of $\Xi_2$ in $\mathfrak g^*$ is at least 4, $\abn{\Xi_2}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{remark}
One can be more precise in case $\mathbb{G}$ is the free Carnot group of rank 2 and step 4. Indeed, in this case the condition $b(\lambda)_1=0$, which involves the $\mathfrak g_3^*$ component of $\lambda$, is independent from the other requirements on $\lambda$ (i.e. that $\lambda$ has zero projection on $\mathfrak{g}_1^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_2^*$ and that its norm is one). It follows that $\Xi_2$ has codimension at least 5 in $\mathfrak g^*$, hence $\abn{\Xi_2}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $4$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\noindent Similar considerations apply also for the families $\Xi_i$ appearing in the sequel.
\end{remark}
We summarize the discussion of Case I in the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_detMnegative} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$ and step $4$, $\abn{\Lambda_1}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case II\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_2$}{}} Here $N$ has the form
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1\\
1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Given $\lambda\in \Lambda_2$, the integral curves of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} starting at $z^0$ are given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr_detpos}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= (b(\lambda)_2+z^0_1)\cos t-(z^0_2-b(\lambda)_1)\sin t-b(\lambda)_2,\\
z_2(t) &= (b(\lambda)_2+z^0_1)\sin t+(z^0_2-b(\lambda)_1)\cos t+b(\lambda)_1;\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
namely, these integral curves are circles centered at the equilibrium $(-b(\lambda)_2,b(\lambda)_1)$. In particular, they pass through the equilibrium if and only if $z^0$ is the equilibrium itself, in which case the curves are constant.
We introduce the sets
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Xi_4&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_2\mid b(\lambda)_1= 0,\, b(\lambda)_2= 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_5&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_2\mid b(\lambda)_1\ne 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_6&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_2\mid b(\lambda)_2\ne 0 \right\}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
A trajectory $z(t)$ starting at the origin passes through the equilibrium if and only if $\lambda\in \Xi_4$, in which case it stays there for all times. On the other hand, if $\lambda\in \Xi_5$ or $\lambda\in\Xi_6$, $z(t)$ describes a circle through the origin with center in $(-b(\lambda)_2,b(\lambda)_1)$.
We conclude that every singular curve $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$, associated with a covector $\lambda\in \Xi_4$, reduces to the point $e\in \mathbb{G}$, while the singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ associated with covectors $\lambda\in \Xi_5\cup \Xi_6$ are supported within the set $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where
$\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:integration} and $z(t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_maxr_detpos} with $z^0=0$. Since the codimension of $\Lambda_2=\Xi_4\cup\Xi_5\cup\Xi_6$ is 4, we can state the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_detMpositive} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$ and step $4$, $\abn{\Lambda_2}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case III\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_3$}{}} Here $N$ has the form
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and the integral curves of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} starting at $z^0$ are given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expl_dynamic_rankone}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= b(\lambda)_2\frac{t^2}{2}+(b(\lambda)_1+z^0_2)t+z^0_1,\\
z_2(t) &= b(\lambda)_2t+z^0_2.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
We observe from the beginning that a necessary condition for the existence of equilibria is that $\lambda\in \Lambda_3\setminus\Xi_7$, where
\begin{equation}
\Xi_7:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_2\ne 0 \right\}.
\end{equation}
In particular, the primitives $w$ associated with a covector $\lambda\in \Xi_7$ are supported within the set $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where $\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:integration} and $z(t)$ is given by \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_rankone} with $z^0=0$.
We conclude that $\abn{\Xi_7}$ has codimension at least 3 in $\mathbb{G}$.
If instead $\lambda\in\Lambda_3\setminus\Xi_7$, i.e. $b(\lambda)_2=0$, equilibria of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} are found on the line $\{(\eta,-b(\lambda)_1)\mid \eta\in \mathbb{R}\}$, and $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_rankone} describes the horizontal line $z_2(t)\equiv z^0_2$. In particular it crosses the set of equilibria if and only if $z^0_2=-b(\lambda)_1$. Recalling that we start with $z^0_2=0$, we consider the sets:
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Xi_8&:=\left\{ \lambda\in\Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_2= 0,\, b(\lambda)_1\ne 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_9&:=\left\{ \lambda\in\Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_2= 0,\, b(\lambda)_1= 0 \right\}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
For every $\lambda\in \Xi_8$, the primitives $w$ associated with $\lambda$ are supported within the horizontal axis $\ell\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, and
$\abn{\Xi_8}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
Similar conclusions hold for $\lambda\in \Xi_9$, because in this case the primitives $w$ are supported within the horizontal axis, which coincides here with the set of equilibria.
\begin{remark}
We observe that $\Xi_9$ has codimension at least 5 in $\mathfrak g^*$: indeed, the condition $b(\lambda)=0$ necessarily imposes at least one extra condition on the $\mathfrak g_3^*$ component of $\lambda$, for otherwise one would get $\mathfrak g_3^*=0$. In particular, we have the better lower bound 4 on the codimension of $\abn{\Xi_9}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_rankMone} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$ and step $4$, $\abn{\Lambda_3}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:GoleKaridi}
C.~Gol\'e and R.~Karidi provided in \cite{GoleKaridi} examples of strictly
singular length minimizing curves. One of their examples is revisited in \cite[Section 6.3]{LLMV_GAFA}: this example is a parabola-type curve as in~\eqref{eq:expl_dynamic_rankone} associated with some $\lambda\in\Lambda_3$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Case IV\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_4$}{}} The condition $M(\lambda)=0$ implies that the projection of $\lambda$ onto $\mathfrak{g}_4^*$ is zero, and this implies that $v(\lambda)\ne 0$, for otherwise the covector $\lambda$ itself would be zero. Solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4} are therefore parallel lines and the concatenations giving the possible primitives $w$ are simply lines through the origin. We conclude as before.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_Mzero} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $2$ and step $4$, $\abn{\Lambda_4}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r2_s4} is complete.
\section{Carnot groups of rank 3 and step 3}\label{sec:r3s3}
Consider a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, and pick a singular trajectory $\gamma_u\subset \mathbb{G}$. Let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^3)$ be the control associated with $\gamma_u$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:singular}, the elements of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subspace_non_surj_s3r3}
[X_{w(t)},X_j](e)+\int_0^t[X_{w(\tau_1)},[X_{u(\tau_1)},X_j]](e),\ \ t\in [0,1], \ \ j=1,2,3
\end{equation}
do not generate the subspace $\mathfrak{g}_2\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3$, and therefore, up to differentiating \eqref{eq:subspace_non_surj_s3r3}, one gets the existence of a
covector $\lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)$
such that
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{u(t)j}+\lambda_{w(t)u(t)j}=0,
\end{equation}
for $j=1,2,3$ and a.e. $t\in [0,1]$.
We introduce the skew-symmetric matrix $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)\in M_3(\mathbb{R})$ defining
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)_{ij}=\lambda_{ij}+\lambda_{w(t)ij},\ \ 1\le i,j\le 3.
\end{equation}
Then $u\in \ker(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))$ for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:criterion_abnormal}.
Let $I_{\max}\subset [0,1]$ be a maximal open set where $\mathrm{rank}(\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))=2$, and observe that $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t))$ is zero on the complement $[0,1]\setminus I_{\max}$. For a.e. $t\in I_{\max}$, $u$ is parallel to
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_{23}+\lambda_{w(t)23} \\
\lambda_{31}+\lambda_{w(t)31} \\
\lambda_{12}+\lambda_{w(t)12}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
As in the previous section, we drop the parametrization of $\gamma_u$, and we see that all the primitives $w$
such that $\lambda\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^{\dot{w}})^\perp$ are obtained by concatenation of the integral curves of the differential system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dif_sys_r3_s3}
\dot{x}(t)=M(\lambda)x(t)+v(\lambda),\ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^3,
\end{equation}
where we defined
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
M:\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)&\to M_3(\mathbb{R}),\\
\lambda&\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{123} & \lambda_{223} & \lambda_{323} \\ \lambda_{131} & \lambda_{231} & \lambda_{331} \\ \lambda_{112} & \lambda_{212} & \lambda_{312} \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}\ \ \ \ \ \
\begin{aligned}
v:\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)&\to \mathbb{R}^3,\\
\lambda&\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{23} \\ \lambda_{31} \\ \lambda_{12} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Again, since the primitives $w$ satisfy $w(0)=0$, one has to take into account only those concatenations starting at the origin.
Observe that, as a consequence of Jacobi's identity, the matrix $M(\lambda)$ has zero trace. Notice moreover that the set $[0,1]\setminus I_{\max}$ coincides with the set of times $t\in [0,1]$ such that the solution $x(t)$ to \eqref{eq:dif_sys_r3_s3} crosses the set of equilibria of the system.
Keeping track of the zero-trace condition on $M(\lambda)$, we stratify $\mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stratification_r3_s3}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_1&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))\ne 0,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has three distinct real eigenvalues} \right\},\\
\Lambda_2&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))\ne 0,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has two distinct real eigenvalues} \right\},\\
\Lambda_3&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))\ne 0,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has two non-real eigenvalues} \right\},\\
\Lambda_4&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \det(M(\lambda))\ne 0,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has a generalized eigenvector of order } 2 \right\},\\
\Lambda_5&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))=2,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has two real eigenvalues} \right\},\\
\Lambda_6&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))=2,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has two non-real eigenvalues} \right\},\\
\Lambda_7&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))=2,\, M(\lambda)\;\textrm{has a generalized eigenvector of order } 3 \right\},\\
\Lambda_8&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid \mathrm{rank}(M(\lambda))=1\right\},\\
\Lambda_9&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_2^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_3^*)\mid M(\lambda)=0 \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is again convenient to change coordinates: we assume that $M(\lambda)$ is in its normal form $N=N(\lambda)$ and we complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3} analyzing separately each possibility for $N$. Recall that, similarly to \eqref{eq:first_norfor}, the change of coordinates $\lambda\mapsto P(\lambda)$ and $\lambda\mapsto P(\lambda)^{-1}$ can be chosen to be sub-analytic on each of the sets $\Lambda_i$. Then we write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3}
\dot{z}=Nz+b(\lambda),\ \ z\in \mathbb{R}^3,
\end{equation}
with the same conventions as in \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r2_s4}. We recall that this choice of coordinates induces a sub-analytic change of the frame $\lambda\mapsto \left(X_1(\lambda),X_2(\lambda),X_3(\lambda)\right)$ as in Remark~\ref{rem:changeofcoord}. We also make an abuse of notation similarly to Remark~\ref{rem:wviachangeofcoord}, identifying primitives $w$ with their new coordinate presentation $P(\lambda)^{-1}w$.
\subsection{Case I\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_1$}{}}\label{sec:r3_s3_diag} Here
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
a & 0 & 0 \\
0 & b & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -(a+b)
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ a,b\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\},\ \ ab>0, \ \ |a|>|b|.
\end{equation}
The solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:traj:s3_r3_max}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= \frac{e^{at}-1}{a}b(\lambda)_1+e^{at}z^0_1,\\
z_2(t) &= \frac{e^{bt}-1}{b}b(\lambda)_2+e^{bt}z^0_2,\\
z_3(t) &= -\frac{e^{-(a+b)t}-1}{a+b}b(\lambda)_3+e^{-(a+b)t}z^0_3,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and the equilibrium set reduces to the single point $\left(-\frac{b(\lambda)_1}{a},-\frac{b(\lambda)_2}{b},\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b}\right)$.
The curve $z(t)$ tends to the equilibrium (either as $t\to+\infty$ or as $t\to-\infty$) if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3}
\text{either $\frac{b(\lambda)_1}{a}+z^0_1=\frac{b(\lambda)_2}{b}+z^0_2=0$,\ \ or $-\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b}+z^0_3=0$.}
\end{equation}
It is not restrictive to discuss the cases in which only one of these conditions holds (if both conditions hold, $z(t)$ is constant). Assuming for example $-\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b}+z^0_3=0$ and $a> b>0$, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\to +\infty}\left( z_1(t)^2+z_2(t)^2\right)=+\infty;
\end{equation}
(this limit tends to $+\infty$ as well for $t\to -\infty$ if $a< b<0$). We conclude that $z(t)$ tends asymptotically to the equilibrium only once, either as $t\to +\infty$ or as $t\to -\infty$.
Recalling that we are interested only in concatenations of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{align}
\Xi_1&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1\mid b(\lambda)_1^2+b(\lambda)_2^2\ne 0, \, b(\lambda)_3\ne 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_2&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_3&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_1\mid b(\lambda)_1=b(\lambda)_2= 0 \right\}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{rank3step3max.eps}
\caption{The reachable set from the origin by trajectories of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} when $\lambda\in \Xi_3$.}
\label{fig:rank3step3max}
\end{figure}
For every $\lambda\in \Xi_1$, the trajectory $z(t)$ with $z^0=0$ never approaches the equilibrium. All the primitives $w$ associated with such values of $\lambda$ are supported within $\{z(t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}$, and the corresponding singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ are supported within $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid\lambda\in\Xi_1,t\in\mathbb{R}\}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ricostruzione_w}
\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t):=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^t \dot z_1(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2(\tau)X_2(\lambda)+\dot z_3(\tau)X_3(\lambda)d\tau\right)( e)
\end{equation}
and $z(t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} with $z^0=0$.
Taking into account that $\lambda$ has zero $\mathfrak{g}_1^*$ component, we deduce that $\abn{\Xi_1}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:ex1}
We observe that the
singular curve discussed in \cite[Section 6.3]{Vit_Sard} is associated with a covector $\lambda\in\Xi_1$.
\end{remark}
If instead $\lambda\in \Xi_2$, the equilibrium point is $(\frac{-b(\lambda)_1}{a},\frac{-b(\lambda)_2}{b},0)$ and the trajectory $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} can approach the equilibrium only if either $z_1^0+\frac{b(\lambda)_1}{a}=z_2^0+\frac{b(\lambda)_2}{b}=0$ or $z_3^0=0$. Any primitive $w$ starting at the origin and associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_2$, which is a concatenation of trajectories of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3}, must then be initially supported within the curve $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} with $z^0=0$, i.e., in the plane $z_3=0$, until it approaches the equilibrium. The point in $\mathbb{G}$ corresponding to the equilibrium is then
\begin{equation}
g_0:=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^{-\infty} \dot z_1(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)( e),
\end{equation}
where $z(t)$ is the trajectory in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} with $z^0=0$, and the chronological exponential above is to be intended with the same meaning as in Remark~\ref{rem:infinite}.
From the equilibrium, it can then continue either by flowing along trajectories supported within the same plane, or by following the line $z_1+\frac{b(\lambda)_1}{a}=z_2+\frac{b(\lambda)_2}{b}=0$, and by switching between these two possibilities at the equilibrium, potentially infinitely many times (see Figure~\ref{fig:rank3step3max}). Any such primitive is then supported within the set
\begin{equation}
\left\{g_0\cdot\exp(tX_3(\lambda))\mid t\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\cup\{\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t)\mid t\in\mathbb{R},\lambda\in\Xi_2,\theta\in\mathbb S^1\},
\end{equation}
where, setting $z^\theta(t)$ as the trajectory $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} with $z^0=(\cos\theta-\frac{b(\lambda)_1}{a},\sin\theta-\frac{b(\lambda)_2}{b},0)$, we defined
\begin{equation}\label{eq:set_2touse}
\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t):=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_{-\infty}^t \dot z_1^\theta(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2^\theta(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)(g_0)
\end{equation}
Again, if $a<b<0$ the chronological exponential above should be taken from $+\infty$ to $t$ (with limits of integration in this order, see Remark~\ref{rem:infinite}). Since $\Xi_2$ has codimension at least 4 in $\mathfrak g^*$, we conclude that $\abn{\Xi_2}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:rank3step3max}).
If $\lambda\in \Xi_3$, the equilibrium point is $(0,0,\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b})$. It can be easily checked that the trajectory $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} can approach the equilibrium only if either $z_1^0=z_2^0=0$ or $z_3^0=\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b}$. Any primitive $w$ starting at the origin and associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_3$ is then supported within the set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sets_1}
\{\exp(tX_3(\lambda))\mid t\in\mathbb{R}\}\cup\{\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t)\mid t\in\mathbb{R},\lambda\in\Xi_3,\theta\in\mathbb S^1\},
\end{equation}
where, setting $z^\theta(t)$ as the trajectory $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:traj:s3_r3_max} with $z^0=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b})$, we defined
\begin{equation}
\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t):=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_{-\infty}^t \dot z_1^\theta(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2^\theta(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)\left(\exp\left(\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{a+b}X_3(\lambda)\right)\right).
\end{equation}
Again, if $a<b<0$ the chronological exponential above should be taken from $+\infty$ to $t$ (in this order). We conclude that $\abn{\Xi_3}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:remark_free}
When $\mathbb{G}$ is the free group of rank 3 and step 3 one can be more precise: indeed, $\Xi_2$ and $\Xi_3$ have higher codimension and it follows that $\abn{\Xi_2}$ and $\abn{\Xi_3}$ are sub-analytic sets of codimension $3$ and $4$ in $\mathbb{G}$, respectively.
\end{remark}
The discussion of Case I can be summarized as follows.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_r3_s3_Mdiag}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_1}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case II\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_2$}{}} One can treat this case exactly as the case $\Lambda=\Lambda_1$ with $a=b$; distinguishing the two cases is necessary to guarantee that the change of coordinates $\lambda\mapsto P(\lambda)$ is sub-analytic for $\lambda\in\Lambda_i$, $i=1,2$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_r3_s3_Mdiageqeigen} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_2}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case III\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_3$}{}} Here we have
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -a & 0 \\
a & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2
\end{pmatrix},\ \ a\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}.
\end{equation}
Setting
\begin{equation}
\alpha:=b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2+(1+a^2)z_1^0 \ \ \text{and}\ \ \beta:=-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2+(1+a^2)z_2^0,
\end{equation}
the solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3_cplx}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) = & \frac{e^t}{a^2+1}\left(\frac{\alpha-i\beta}{2}e^{-iat}+\frac{\alpha+i\beta}{2}e^{iat}\right)-\frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{a^2+1}\\
z_2(t) = & \frac{e^t}{a^2+1}\left(\frac{\alpha-i\beta}{2}e^{iat}+\frac{\alpha+i\beta}{2}e^{-iat}\right)-\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{a^2+1}\\
z_3(t) = & \frac{1}{2}e^{-2t}\left( -b(\lambda)_3+2z_3^0 \right)+\frac{b(\lambda)_3}2.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
A trajectory $z(t)$ passes through the equilibrium $\left(-\frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2},-\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2},\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}\right)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}
\text{either}\ \ \frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2}+z_1^0=\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2}+z_2^0=0\ \ \text{or}\ \ 2z_3^0-b(\lambda)_3=0.
\end{equation}
Recalling that we are interested only in concatenations of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{align}
\Xi_4&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_1^2+b(\lambda)_2^2\ne 0, \, b(\lambda)_3\ne 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_5&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_1=b(\lambda)_2= 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_6&:=\left\{ \lambda\in \Lambda_3\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0 \right\}.
\end{align}
It is clear at this point that, for every $\lambda\in \Xi_4$, the singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ associated with $\lambda$ are supported within a one-dimensional submanifold $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in\mathbb{R}\}$, where $\mathscr L$ is defined as in \eqref{eq:ricostruzione_w},
so that $\abn{\Xi_4}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
If instead $\lambda\in \Xi_5$, a trajectory $z(t)$ approaches the equilibrium $\left(0,0,\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}\right)$ only if either $z_1^0=z_2^0=0$ or $z_3^0=\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}$. Any primitive $w$ associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_5$ is then supported within the set
\begin{equation}
\{\exp(tX_3(\lambda))\mid t\in\mathbb{R}\}\cup\{\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t)\mid t\in\mathbb{R},\lambda\in\Xi_2,\theta\in\mathbb S^1\},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t):=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_{-\infty}^t \dot z_1^\theta(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2^\theta(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)\left(\exp\left(\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}X_3(\lambda)\right)\right).
\end{equation}
and $z^\theta(t)$ is the trajectory $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3_cplx} with $z^0=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2})$. We conclude that $\abn{\Xi_5}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
If $\lambda\in \Xi_6$, a curve $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3_cplx} reaches the equilibrium $\left(-\frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2},-\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2},0\right)$ only if
\begin{equation}
\text{either}\ \ z_3^0=0\ \ \text{or}\ \ z_1^0+\frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2}=z_2^0+\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2}=0.
\end{equation}
Any primitive $w$ associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_4$ is then supported within the union of the sets
\begin{equation}
\left\{g_0\cdot\exp(tX_3(\lambda)\mid t\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\cup \{\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t)\mid t\in\mathbb{R},\lambda\in\Xi_6,\theta\in\mathbb S^1\}
\end{equation}
where, if $z(t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3_cplx} with $z^0=0$, we defined
\begin{equation}
g_0:=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^{-\infty} \dot z_1(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot z_2(\tau)X_2(\lambda)d\tau\right)( e)
\end{equation}
and $\mathscr L(\lambda,\theta,t)$ is given by \eqref{eq:set_2touse}, provided $z^\theta(t)$ is the trajectory $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:Z_dif_sys_r3_s3_cplx} with $z^0=\left( \cos\theta -\frac{b(\lambda)_1+ab(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2}, \sin\theta -\frac{-ab(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2}{1+a^2},0 \right)$. We deduce that $\abn{\Xi_6}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_r3_s3_Mcomplex} For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_3}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case IV\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_4$}{}} Here
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= (e^t-1)b(\lambda)_1+e^t(t-1)b(\lambda)_2+b(\lambda)_2+e^t(z_1^0+tz_2^0),\\
z_2(t) &= (e^t-1)b(\lambda)_2+e^{t}z^0_2,\\
z_3(t) &= -\frac{e^{-2t}-1}{2}b(\lambda)_3+e^{-2t}z_3^0,
\end{aligned}
\right..
\end{equation}
A curve $z(t)$ passes through the equilibrium $\left(-b(\lambda)_1+b(\lambda)_2,-b(\lambda)_2,\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}\right)$ if and only if either $b(\lambda)_2+z_2^0=b(\lambda)_1-b(\lambda)_2+z_1^0=0$ or $-\frac{b(\lambda)_3}{2}+z_3^0=0$.
The situation is similar to that of Case I in Section~\ref{sec:r3_s3_diag}, and the computations are left to the reader.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sard_r3_s3_MJord}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_4}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case V\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_5$}{}} Here
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and the solution $z(t)$ to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= (e^t-1)b(\lambda)_1+e^{t}z_1^0,\\
z_2(t) &= -(e^{-t}-1)b(\lambda)_2+e^{-t}z_2^0,\\
z_3(t) &= b(\lambda)_3t+z_3^0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
A necessary condition for the existence of equilibria is that $\lambda\in \Lambda_5\setminus \Xi_7$, where
\begin{equation}
\Xi_7:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_5\mid b(\lambda)_3\ne 0\right\}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\abn{\Xi_7}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
If $\lambda\in \Lambda_5\setminus \Xi_7$, equilibria of \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} are found on the line $\left\{(-b(\lambda)_1,b(\lambda)_2,\eta)\mid \eta \in \mathbb{R}\right\}$, and a curve $z(t)$ approaches the equilibrium set if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equilibrium_conditions}
\text{either $b(\lambda)_1+z_1^0=0$ or $-b(\lambda)_2+z^0_2=0$. }
\end{equation}
Recalling that we are interested only in concatenations of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{8}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_5\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0,\, b(\lambda)_1\ne 0,\, b(\lambda)_2\ne 0\right\},\\
\Xi_{9}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_5\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0,\, b(\lambda)_1= 0\right\},\\
\Xi_{10}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_5\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0,\, b(\lambda)_2= 0\right\}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Since $z(t)$ does not approach the set of equilibria if $\lambda\in \Xi_8$, we readily deduce that $\abn{\Xi_8}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
The cases $\lambda\in \Xi_{9}$ and $\lambda\in \Xi_{10}$ are symmetric, and without loss of generality we study only the first one. Assume then that $\lambda\in \Xi_{9}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{rank3step3rank2.eps}
\caption{Concatenation of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} if $\lambda\in \Xi_{9}$.}
\label{fig:rank3step3rank2}
\end{figure}
The trajectory $z(t)$ through $z^0$ is now given by
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= e^{t}z_1^0,\\
z_2(t) &= -(e^{-t}-1)b(\lambda)_2+e^{-t}z_2^0,\\
z_3(t) &= z_3^0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
In particular we see that if \eqref{eq:equilibrium_conditions} is satisfied, then either $z_1(t)\equiv 0$, or $z_2(t)\equiv b(\lambda)_2$. Since the $w_3$ coordinate of a primitive is allowed to change only within the line
$\left\{(0,b(\lambda)_2,\eta)\mid \eta \in \mathbb{R}\right\}$ of equilibria, we conclude that the primitives $w$ associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_9$ are supported within the union $\Pi(\lambda)$ of the planes $\left\{(0,z_2,z_3)\mid (z_2,z_3)\in \mathbb{R}^2\right\}$ and $\left\{(z_1,b(\lambda)_2,z_3)\mid (z_1,z_3)\in \mathbb{R}^2\right\}$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rank3step3rank2}.
Observe that the concatenations of solutions $z(t)$ have a ``tree-like'' structure within $\Pi(\lambda)$. Any primitive $w$ associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_9$ is supported within the set $\{\mathscr L(\lambda,z^0)\mid \lambda\in\Xi_9,z^0\in \Pi(\lambda)\}$ where, denoting by $\ell^{z^0}:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}^3$ the unique injective absolutely continuous curve joining the origin and $z^0$, and realized as a concatenation of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3}, we defined
\begin{equation}
\mathscr L(\lambda,z^0):=\left(\overrightarrow{\exp} \int_0^1 \dot \ell^{z^0}_1(\tau) X_1(\lambda)+\dot \ell^{z^0}_2(\tau)X_2(\lambda)+\dot \ell^{z^0}_3(\tau)X_3(\lambda)d\tau\right)(e).
\end{equation}
In particular, we deduce that $\abn{\Xi_9}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{prop}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_5}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:ex2}
Let $\mathbb F$ be the free Carnot group of rank 3 and step 3. The following curve $\gamma:[0,1]\to\mathbb F$, with associated control $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^3)$, starts from the origin and sweeps three segments on the coordinate axes:
\begin{equation}
u(t)=
\begin{cases}
(1,0,0) &\text{if }t\in[0,1/6)\\
(-1,0,0) &\text{if }t\in[1/6,2/6)\\
(0,1,0) &\text{if }t\in[2/6,3/6)\\
(0,-1,0) &\text{if }t\in[3/6,4/6)\\
(0,0,1) &\text{if }t\in[4/6,5/6)\\
(0,0,-1) &\text{if }t\in[5/6,1],
\end{cases}\qquad
\gamma(t)=
\begin{cases}
\exp(tX_1) &\text{if }t\in[0,1/6]\\
\exp((2/6-t)X_1) &\text{if }t\in[1/6,2/6]\\
\exp((t-2/6)X_2) &\text{if }t\in[2/6,3/6]\\
\exp((4/6-t)X_2) &\text{if }t\in[3/6,4/6]\\
\exp((t-2/6)X_3) &\text{if }t\in[4/6,5/6]\\
\exp((1-t)X_3) &\text{if }t\in[5/6,1].
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Let us check that $\gamma$ is singular. We use Proposition~\ref{prop:singular} and compute the subspace $\mathfrak{R}_u$ in~\eqref{eq:subsp_A}:
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{R}_u&=\Span_{Y\in \mathfrak{g}_1,t\in [0,1]}\left\{
\int_0^t[X_{u(\tau)},Y]d\tau + \int_0^t\int_0^\tau[X_{u(\sigma)},[X_{u(\tau)},Y]]d\sigma d\tau\right\}\\
&=\Span_{Y\in \mathfrak{g}_1,t\in [0,1]}\left\{
[X_{w(\tau)},Y] + \int_0^t[X_{w(\tau)},[X_{u(\tau)},Y]] d\tau\right\},\\
\intertext{where $w$ is as usual the primitive of $u$. Since, for all $\tau$, $w(\tau)$ and $u(\tau)$ are parallel, and actually of the form $(sX_i,\pm X_i)$ for some $s=s(\tau)\in\mathbb{R}$ and $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, we deduce}
\mathfrak{R}_u&\subset \mathfrak g_2\oplus \Span\{X_{iij}\mid i,j\in\{1,2,3\}\}.
\end{align*}
In particular, $\mathfrak R_u$ is a proper subspace of $ \mathfrak g_2\oplus\mathfrak g_3$ because $X_{123}$ and $ X_{213}$ do not belong to $\mathfrak R_u$.
The singular curve $\gamma$ is associated with a covector $\lambda\in\Xi_9\cap\Xi_{10}=\{\lambda\in\Lambda_5\mid b(\lambda)=0\}$ and is associated with a dynamical system with the equilibrium point at the origin; compare with Figure~\ref{fig:rank3step3rank2}. Actually, one can choose $\lambda$ in such a way that $\lambda\in\mathfrak g_2^\perp$ (i.e., $v(\lambda)=b(\lambda)=0$), $\lambda_{iij}=0$ for all couples $i,j$ and $\lambda_{123}=1,\lambda_{231}=-1$. We also observe that such a $\gamma$ provides a new example of a singular curve that is not contained in any subgroup of $\mathbb F$, see \cite[Section 6.3]{Vit_Sard}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Case VI\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_6$}{}} Here
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and the solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zt_rank2complex}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= (b(\lambda)_2+z^0_1)\cos t-(z^0_2-b(\lambda)_1)\sin t-b(\lambda)_2,\\
z_2(t) &= (z^0_2-b(\lambda)_1)\cos t+(b(\lambda)_2+z^0_1)\sin t+b(\lambda)_1,\\
z_3(t) &= b(\lambda)_3t+z^0_3.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
A necessary condition for the existence of equilibria is that $\lambda\in \Lambda_6\setminus \Xi_{11}$, where
\begin{equation}
\Xi_{11}:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_6\mid b(\lambda)_3\ne 0\right\},
\end{equation}
and the primitives $w$ associated with a covector $\lambda\in \Xi_{11}$ are supported within the set $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where $\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:ricostruzione_w} provided that $z(t)$ is given by \eqref{eq:zt_rank2complex} with $z^0=0$. In particular, $\abn{\Xi_{11}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
If instead $\lambda\in\Lambda_6\setminus \Xi_{11}$ the set of equilibria coincides with the line
$\left\{(-b(\lambda)_2,b(\lambda)_1,\eta)\mid \eta\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$, and the curves $z(t)$ in \eqref{eq:zt_rank2complex} are circles contained in the plane $\{(z_1,z_2,z_3^0)\mid (z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb{R}^2\}$ with center in the equilibrium $(-b(\lambda)_2,b(\lambda)_1,z_3^0)$. In particular, these curves pass through the equilibrium if and only if $z^0$ is an equilibrium itself, in which case the components $z_1(t)$ and $z_2(t)$ remain constant (instead, the concatenation allows the coordinate $z_3$ to vary within the line of equilibria). Recalling that we are interested only in concatenations of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{12}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_6\mid b(\lambda)_1\ne 0,\, b(\lambda)_3= 0 \right\},\\
\Xi_{13}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_6\mid b(\lambda)_2\ne 0,\, b(\lambda)_3= 0\right\},\\
\Xi_{14}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_6\mid b(\lambda)_1=b(\lambda)_2=b(\lambda)_3= 0 \right\},
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Our discussion shows that $\abn{\Xi_{12}}$ and $\abn{\Xi_{13}}$ are sub-analytic sets of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$. On the other hand, the singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ associated with $\lambda\in \Xi_{14}$ are supported within $\left\{\exp\left( tX_3(\lambda) \right)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$, and since $\Xi_{14}\subset \mathbb S(\mathfrak g_3^*)$ we conclude that $\abn{\Xi_{14}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $4$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:40}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_6}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case VII\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_7$}{}} Here we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:firstjord}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zt_rank2jord3}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= z^0_1+(b(\lambda)_1+z^0_2)t+(b(\lambda)_2+z^0_3)\frac{t^2}{2}+b(\lambda)_3\frac{t^3}{6},\\
z_2(t) &= z^0_2+(b(\lambda)_2+z^0_3)t+b(\lambda)_3\frac{t^2}{2},\\
z_3(t) &= z^0_3+b(\lambda)_3t.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
A necessary condition for the existence of equilibria is that $\lambda\in \Lambda_7\setminus \Xi_{15}$, where
\begin{equation}
\lambda\in \Xi_{15}:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_7\mid b(\lambda)_3\ne 0\right\},
\end{equation}
and the primitives $w$ starting at the origin and associated with a covector $\lambda\in \Xi_{15}$ are supported within the set $\{\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathbb{G}$, where $\mathscr{L}(\lambda,t)$ is as in \eqref{eq:ricostruzione_w} and $z(t)$ is given by \eqref{eq:zt_rank2jord3} with $z^0=0$. In particular, $\abn{\Xi_{15}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
If instead $\lambda\in \Lambda_7\setminus \Xi_{15}$ the set of equilibria is the line $\left\{(\eta,-b(\lambda)_1,-b(\lambda)_2)\mid \eta \in \mathbb{R}\right\}$, and a curve $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:zt_rank2jord3} approaches this line if and only if $z_2^0=-b(\lambda)_1$ and $z_3^0=-b(\lambda)_2$, in which case $z(t)\equiv (z_1^0,-b(\lambda)_1,-b(\lambda)_2)$ for all times. Since we are interested only in concatenations of solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{16}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_7\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0,\,b(\lambda)_1\ne 0, \right\},\\
\Xi_{17}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_7\mid b(\lambda)_3= 0,\,b(\lambda)_2\ne 0, \right\},\\
\Xi_{18}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_7\mid b(\lambda)_1=b(\lambda)_2=b(\lambda)_3= 0\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As in the previous subsection, we deduce that $\abn{\Xi_{16}}$ and $\abn{\Xi_{17}}$ are sub-analytic sets of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$. On the other hand, the singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ associated with $\lambda\in \Xi_{18}$ are supported within
$\left\{\exp\left( tX_1(\lambda) \right)\mid t\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$, and we easily conclude that $\abn{\Xi_{18}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $4$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:41}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_7}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Case VIII\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_8$}{}} Here
\begin{equation}
N=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
The solution to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} starting from the point $z^0$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ztjordan}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
z_1(t) &= z^0_1+(b(\lambda)_1+z^0_2)t+b(\lambda)_2\frac{t^2}{2},\\
z_2(t) &= z^0_2+b(\lambda)_2t,\\
z_3(t) &= z^0_3+b(\lambda)_3t.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Let us define
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{19}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_8\mid b(\lambda)_2\ne 0\right\},\\
\Xi_{20}&:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_8\mid b(\lambda)_3\ne 0\right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and let us notice that if $\lambda\in \Xi_{19}\cup \Xi_{20}$ then there are no equilibria, so that
$\abn{\Xi_{19}}$ and $\abn{\Xi_{20}}$ are sub-analytic sets of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$. If instead $\lambda\in \Lambda_8\setminus (\Xi_{19}\cup \Xi_{20})$, the set of equilibria coincides coincides with the plane $\left\{ (\eta, -b(\lambda)_1, \theta)\mid \eta,\theta\in \mathbb{R} \right\}$, and a trajectory $z(t)$ as in \eqref{eq:ztjordan} approaches this plane if and only if $z_2^0=-b(\lambda)_1$. To analyze concatenations starting at the origin, we introduce the sets
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \Xi_{21}:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_8\mid b(\lambda)_2=b(\lambda)_3=0,\ b(\lambda)_1\neq 0\right\},\\
& \Xi_{22}:=\left\{\lambda\in \Lambda_8\mid b(\lambda)_1=b(\lambda)_2=b(\lambda)_3=0\right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and we notice that, for $\lambda\in\Xi_{21}$, trajectories through the origin never approach the plane of equilibria. In particular, $\abn{\Xi_{21}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
Observe that for every $\lambda\in \Xi_{22}$ any singular primitive $w$
is in fact an absolutely continuous curve contained in the plane of equilibria. The singular curves $\gamma_{\dot{w}}$ starting at $e$ and associated with $\lambda\in\Xi_{22}$ are given as integral curves of differential system:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:curve_in_sottogruppi}
\dot{\gamma}_{\dot{w}}(t)=\dot w_1(t)X_1(\lambda)(\gamma_{\dot{w}}(t))+\dot w_3(t)X_3(\lambda)(\gamma_{\dot{w}}(t)),
\end{equation}
and are therefore contained within the subgroup of $\mathbb{G}$ generated by $X_1(\lambda)$ and $X_3(\lambda)$, which has dimension at most $5$ in $\mathbb{G}$. We now distinguish two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\dim\mathfrak g_2\geq 2$, then $\Xi_{22}\subset\mathbb S(\mathfrak g_3^*)$ has codimension at least 6, therefore $\abn{\Xi_{22}}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least 1 in $\mathbb{G}$.
\item If $\dim\mathfrak g_2=1$, then we conclude by the following lemma.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ehmehmehm}
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a Carnot group of rank 3 and step 3 such that $\dim(\mathfrak g_2)=1$. Then $\mathbb{G}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb H\times\mathbb{R}$ for some Carnot group $\mathbb H$ of rank 2 and step 3, and $\abn{}$ is an analytic manifold of codimension 3.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first part of the statement follows by noticing that the map $[\cdot,\cdot]:\mathfrak g_1\times\mathfrak g_1\to\mathfrak g_2$ can be identified with a non-zero skew-symmetric bilinear form on $\mathfrak g_1$, hence it has a one-dimensional kernel, say, $\Span\{X_3\}$. We then have $\mathbb{G}=\mathbb H\times\mathbb{R}$, where $\mathbb H$ is the subgroup generated by $X_1$ and $X_2$.
By \cite[Proposition 2.7]{OttaVitto} we have $\abn{}=\mathrm{Abn}_{\mathbb H}\times\mathbb{R}$ and we distinguish two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb H$ is the free group of rank 2 and step 3, and $\mathrm{Abn}_{\mathbb H}=\exp(\Span\{X_1,X_2\})$ by the discussion in Section~\ref{sec:CG_r2_s3}.
\item $\mathbb H$ is (isomorphic to) the Engel group with $[X_1,[X_1,X_2]]\neq 0$ and $[X_2,[X_1,X_2]]= 0$. It is well-known (see e.g.~\cite[Section 3]{SussCornucopia} or~\cite[p. 541]{GoleKaridi}) that $\mathrm{Abn}_{\mathbb H}=\exp(\Span\{X_2\})$.
\end{itemize}
In both cases the conclusion is immediate.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_8}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $1$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:ex3}
In \cite[Section 5]{LLMV_CAG} the authors provided an example of a Goh singular curve that is not better than Lipschitz continuous, as well as an example of a spiral-like Goh singular curve. We can recover both examples in the framework of the discussion of the present section (case VIII).
Let $\mathbb F$ be the free Carnot group of rank 3 and step 3, and consider the curve $\gamma_{\dot w}$ as in~\eqref{eq:curve_in_sottogruppi}. Choosing $ w_1$ and $ w_3$ arbitrarily in Lip$([0,1])$ we obtain a Goh singular curve with no regularity beyond the Lipschitz one. Choosing
\[
(w_1(t),w_3(t))=\left(t\cos(\log(1 - \log |t|)), t\sin(\log(1 - \log |t|)) \right)
\]
we recover the spiral-like example. Using Proposition~\ref{prop:singular} and computations similar to those in Remark~\ref{rem:ex2} we obtain that $X_{223}\not\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^{\dot w})$, i.e., the two curves just constructed are singular and associated with the unique covector $\lambda\in\mathfrak g_3^*$ such that $M(\lambda)_{ij}=0$ with the exception of $M(\lambda)_{12}=\lambda_{223}=1$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Case IX\texorpdfstring{: $\Lambda=\Lambda_9$}{}} The condition $M(\lambda)=0$ implies that the $\mathfrak{g}_3^*$ component of $\lambda$ is zero, and this implies that $v(\lambda)\ne 0$ for otherwise the covector $\lambda$ itself would be zero. Solutions to \eqref{eq:diff_sys_r3_s3} are therefore lines through the origin.
\begin{prop}
For a Carnot group $\mathbb{G}$ of rank $3$ and step $3$, $\abn{\Lambda_9}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension at least $2$ in $\mathbb{G}$.
\end{prop}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3} is complete.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3free}}\label{sec:proof_free} We sketch in this section how to show Theorem~\ref{thm:S_r3_s3free} if $\mathbb{G}$ is the free Carnot group of rank $3$ and step $3$. By Remark~\ref{rem:remark_free}, it is easy to conclude that $\abn{\Lambda_1}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$. A similar reasoning shows that the same conclusion holds also for $\abn{\Lambda_i}$, for $i=2,3,4$; actually, the codimensions of $\abn{\Lambda_2}$, $\abn{\Lambda_3}$, $\abn{\Lambda_4}$ are 4, 3, 4, respectively.
To see that $\abn{\Lambda_5}$ is a sub-analytic set of codimension $3$ in $\mathbb{G}$ it suffices to analyze the case of $\abn{\Xi_9},\abn{\Xi_{10}}$, taking into account the two conditions imposed on $b(\lambda)$ and the further one given by $\det(M(\lambda))=0$.
The lower bound 3 on the codimension of $\abn{\Lambda_6},\abn{\Lambda_7}$ is already stated in Propositions~\ref{prop:40} and~\ref{prop:41}. However, it can be showed that they are sub-analytic sets of codimension $4$ and $5$ in $\mathbb{G}$, respectively. Indeed, the Jordan normal form presented in \eqref{eq:firstjord} is a condition of codimension $2$ on the $\mathfrak{g}^*_3$ component of $\lambda$ by, e.g., \cite[\S 5.6]{Ar_Mat}.
In order to study the codimension of $\abn{\Lambda_8}$ it suffices to study $\abn{\Xi_{22}}$. Here, the trajectories of singular curves associated with a fixed $\lambda\in\Xi_{22}$ sweep a 5-dimensional subgroup. On the other hand, $\lambda\in\Xi_{22}$ imposes 9 independent conditions on $\lambda$ itself: 7 come from $\lambda\in\mathbb S(\mathfrak g_3^*)$ and 2 more are consequences of the prescribed normal form $N$ of $M(\lambda)$. Indeed, the prescribed normal form is a constraint of codimension $1$ \cite[\S 5.6]{Ar_Mat} and leads to the matrix
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
a & 1 & 0 \\
0 & a & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2a
\end{pmatrix},\ \ a\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
But then, by the rank-one condition, $a=0$ and we conclude.
Finally, an easy argument shows that $\abn{\Lambda_9}=\exp(\mathfrak g_1)$ is an analytic manifold of codimension $11$ in $\mathbb{G}$, and the proof follows.
\section{An open problem: the free Carnot group of rank 2 and step 5}\label{sec:r2s5}
We discuss in this section the case of Carnot groups of rank $2$ and step $5$, where the dynamics of singular controls is lead by a quadratic system of differential equations.
We derive explicitly such equations, but we leave as an open question their qualitative analysis. Let $u\in L^1([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$, $w\in AC([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$ be the primitive of $u$ and $\gamma_u$ be the singular trajectory associated with $u$. With the same conventions as in Section~\ref{sec:CGr2s4}, by Remark~\ref{rem:Goh} we can find a covector $\lambda\in \mathbb{S}(\mathfrak{g}_3^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_4^*\oplus \mathfrak{g}_5^*)$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{w(t)u(t)j}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau_1)u(\tau_1)u(t)j}d\tau_1+\iint_{0\le \tau_2\le \tau_1\le t}\lambda_{w(\tau_2)u(\tau_2)u(\tau_1)u(t)j}d\tau_2 d\tau_1=0
\end{equation}
for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$ and $j=1,2$. The skew-symmetric matrix $\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)\in M_2(\mathbb{R})$ in \eqref{eq:matrix_abnormal} is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{M}_u(\lambda,t)_{ij}=\lambda_{w(t)ij}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau_1)u(\tau_1)ij}d\tau_1+\iint_{0\le \tau_2\le \tau_1\le t}\lambda_{w(\tau_2)u(\tau_2)u(\tau_1)ij}d\tau_2 d\tau_1,\ \ i,j=1,2,
\end{equation}
and we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pf_r2_s5_two}
\sum_{i=1}^2u_i(t)\left( \lambda_{i12}+\lambda_{w(t)i12}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau)u(\tau)i12} \right)d\tau=0,\ \ \text{for a.e. }t\in [0,1].
\end{equation}
We therefore conclude that $(u_1(t),u_2(t))$ is parallel to
\begin{equation}
\left(\lambda_{212}+\lambda_{w(t)212}+\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau)u(\tau)212}d\tau,-\lambda_{112}-\lambda_{w(t)112}-\int_0^t\lambda_{w(\tau)u(\tau)112}d\tau\right)\in \mathbb{R}^2
\end{equation} for a.e. $t\in [0,1]$. Let us recall the relations (compare with Definition~\ref{defi:brackets})
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{1212}=\lambda_{2112},\ \ \lambda_{12112}=\lambda_{(12)(112)}+\lambda_{21112},\ \ \lambda_{12212}=\lambda_{(12)(212)}+\lambda_{21212}.
\end{equation}
After an integration by parts and some algebraic manipulations, we obtain the system:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:complicatedsyst}\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}(t)&=\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{212} \\ -\lambda_{112} \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{2112} & \lambda_{2212} \\ -\lambda_{1112} & -\lambda_{2112} \end{pmatrix}z(t)+\frac{1}{2}z(t)^T\begin{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{11212} & \lambda_{21212} \\ \lambda_{21212} & \lambda_{22212} \end{pmatrix} \\ \begin{pmatrix} -\lambda_{11112} & -\lambda_{21112} \\ -\lambda_{21112} & -\lambda_{22112} \end{pmatrix} \end{pmatrix}z(t)\\
&+\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{(12)(212)} \\ -\lambda_{(12)(112)} \end{pmatrix}\int_0^t z_1(\tau)\dot{z}_2(\tau)d\tau.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This integro-differential system can be differentiated in $t$ to obtain a second-order differential system in $\mathbb{R}^2$ or, equivalently, a first-order quadratic differential system in $\mathbb{R}^4$: all the primitives $w$ such that $\lambda\in \mathrm{Im} \,(G_e^{\dot{w}})^\perp$ are obtained by concatenation of (the first two components of) the integral curves of such extended system.
Let us go back to the system~\eqref{eq:complicatedsyst}, which is set in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with variable $z=(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb{R}^2$. One can however set it in the first Heisenberg group $\mathbb H^1$ by adding a new variable $\theta=\theta(t)$: if $\mathbb H^1$ is identified with $\mathbb{R}^3_{z_1,z_2,\theta}$ by exponential coordinates of the second type (see e.g.~\cite[Proposition 3.5]{LLMV_GAFA}) in such a way that a basis of left-invariant vector fields is provided by
\begin{equation}
Z_1=\partial_{z_1},\qquad Z_2=\partial_{z_2}+z_1\partial_\theta,\qquad T=[Z_1,Z_2]=\partial_\theta,
\end{equation}
we see that~\eqref{eq:complicatedsyst} can be equivalently written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sistemaHeis}
\dot p(t)=v_1(p(t))Z_1(p(t)) + v_2(p(t))Z_2(p(t)),
\end{equation}
where $p=(z_1,z_2,\theta)=(z,\theta)$ and
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix} v_1(p) \\ v_2(p) \end{pmatrix} :=
\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{212} \\ -\lambda_{112} \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{2112} & \lambda_{2212} \\ -\lambda_{1112} & -\lambda_{2112} \end{pmatrix}z+\frac{1}{2}z^T\begin{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{11212} & \lambda_{21212} \\ \lambda_{21212} & \lambda_{22212} \end{pmatrix} \\ \begin{pmatrix} -\lambda_{11112} & -\lambda_{21112} \\ -\lambda_{21112} & -\lambda_{22112} \end{pmatrix} \end{pmatrix}z
+ \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_{(12)(212)} \\ -\lambda_{(12)(112)} \end{pmatrix}\theta.
\end{equation}
The system~\eqref{eq:complicatedsyst} in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is then equivalent to the first-order, quadratic {\em horizontal} dynamical system~\eqref{eq:sistemaHeis} in $\mathbb H^1$. It would be interesting to know, at least, how the associated trajectories approach the equilibria.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Scientific discourse is a promising avenue for natural language processing (NLP). Scholarly works are rich in referential meaning due to their conceptual focus and structured expositions. They present a multitude of targets for the development of semantic enrichment and data mining techniques. We survey a prime example of an openly available library of scientific texts -- the arXiv.org preprint server. It is one of the largest international repositories of STEM scientific articles, numbering over 1.5 million submissions at the time of writing. Crucially, these texts are prepared for human academic consumption via print. It is only a recent development that they have been made available in a fully machine-readable representation, as part of a decade-long research endeavor \cite{StaKoh:tlcspx10}. The arXMLiv project now publishes an HTML5 dataset \citelanguageresources{SML:arXMLiv:08.2018} of 1.2 million documents converted from the original submissions -- allowing for straightforward reuse in mainstream NLP pipelines. This dataset surpasses 11 billion tokens and is sufficiently large to bootstrap pre-training language models.
In this paper we outline and motivate a new statement classification task, the first to be extracted from this corpus. Our goal is to fully leverage the annotations authors deposit while visually highlighting the key statements in their texts. We have attempted to collect the full spectrum of annotated statements, ranging from standard pieces of narrative (e.g. \textit{abstract}, \textit{related work}) to specialized parts of a scientific exposition (e.g. \textit{method}, \textit{result}). Our emphasis is on constructing the biggest possible resource for supervised learning, while also maintaining the highest possible quality in data collection. Our goal is to set the stage for further research, as well as to provide open and reproducible infrastructure for the wider community.
In section~\ref{sec:preparation}, we explain the precautions needed to reliably work with the data. Next, in section~\ref{sec:taskdesign} we perform first measurements of the data available for a ``statement classification'' task and motivate a concrete organization and methodology. We perform standard baseline evaluations in section~\ref{sec:baselines} and discuss our results in section~\ref{sec:discussion}. We outline previous attempts to analyze arXiv in section~\ref{sec:relatedwork}, along with a brief overview of statement classification tasks. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper and surveys the possible next steps, paving the way for future experiments using a reliable representation of arXiv data, and scientific discourse in general.
\section{Dataset Preparation}\label{sec:preparation}
The most challenging aspect of arXiv's technical documents, mostly written in \LaTeX{}, is to transition them into a standardized structured format. To enumerate: content, metadata, styling directives and non-textual modalities should be explicitly and cleanly separated. One such format is a scholarly flavor of HTML5, as produced in the arXMLiv project, via the LaTeXML conversion tool \cite{Miller:latexml:online}. The following preprocessing tasks, over HTML documents, are straightforward and follow standard techniques. The only exception is including mathematical expressions, discussed in section~\ref{sec:mathmodality}.
\subsection{Label selection}\label{sec:selection}
arXiv was never intended to be used for supervised learning tasks. However, documents authored in \LaTeX{} have the potential for highly regular markup, especially in disciplined use. In this paper we focus on scientific statements at the paragraph level, classically highlighted to readers via a variety of sectioning headings, and thus leaving an annotation trace. We attempt to retrieve as many as possible of these entries, but restrict ourselves to clean high-level markup deposited by authors (e.g. \verb|\begin{theorem}|). We verified that we can indeed rely on an author's intent to provide a heading for a formally distinct statement, when they leverage the \verb|\newtheorem| mechanism, provided by the \verb|amsthm| \LaTeX{} package. No effort is made to capture custom low-level markup (e.g. \verb|{\bf Theorem 4.1}\newline|), in order to avoid unneeded heuristic ambiguity or added noise.
We performed a survey of the most frequent author-supplied statement annotations in arXiv articles. We could only conduct this survey reliably due to the HTML dataset canonically preserving the authored markup and structure. First, we selected the top 500 environment names, from a total set of 20,000 unique \verb|\newtheorem|-defined custom names. This selection allows us to capture 98\% of available annotated paragraphs, as we observe a common core of standard statement names followed by a low-volume long tail. Next, each environment was mapped to its canonical label, for example \verb|{mainthm}| was mapped to \emph{theorem}. After curating, this resulted in a selection of 44 classes. Additionally, we also curated 12 ``closed set'' section heading names (such as \verb|\section{Introduction}|). Taking the union, we arrived at a total set of 50 distinct labels.
To obtain the statement content for our classification task, we extracted the \emph{first} logical paragraph within a marked up environment belonging to the label set. The headings are reliably marked up via HTML classes, allowing for robust selection queries written in XPath \cite{BBCFKRS:xpath20}. A logical paragraph is distinct from an HTML ``block'' paragraph, as it may span multiple blocks with interleaved multi-modal block content -- most notably display-style equations.
\subsection{Paragraph Preprocessing}
Both paragraph extraction, as well as transitioning to a plain-text representation that is compatible with modern NLP toolchains, were performed via the llamapun toolkit \cite{llamapun:github:on}, which specializes in efficient parallel processing and analysis of this flavor of document markup. We performed the preprocessing steps in order to remain fully aligned to the GloVe embeddings distributed together with the dataset \citelanguageresources{SML:arXMLiv:08.2018}. GloVe \cite{pennington2014glove} obtains a vectorial representation of words that is rich in latent features.
In order to control quality, we only included paragraphs that passed a language detection test for English via a recent implementation \cite{whatlang} of n-gram text categorization \cite{textcat}. To regularize the data, we also removed paragraphs with traces of conversion errors (error markup; words over 25 characters). Narrative text is downcased and copied, punctuation is discarded and mathematical expressions are substituted with their lexematized form. Citations, references and numeric literals are substituted with placeholder words. All other content is discarded. Llamapun implements its own word and sentence tokenization, aware of the formula modality. The tokenized sentences are preserved via newline characters in the serialized plain-text files, so we did not insert a special word token. A small example of a single sentence remark is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:remarkexample}.
Thus constructed, the extracted set has a median of 100 words per paragraph, and a mean of 145 words per paragraph. The label selection described in section~\ref{sec:selection} was sufficient to extract 10.5 million paragraphs, or roughly 13\% of the full 77 million paragraphs available in the entire corpus, which allows for using data-hungry modeling techniques.
We package and republish the preprocessed content, available at \cite{SML:statement-classification:08.2018}. The paragraphs for each label reside in a subdirectory of the corresponding name, one plain-text paragraph per file, one sentence per line. Each filename is obtained via the SHA-256 hash of its contents, guaranteeing both uniqueness, as well as random order, as part of this derivative collection.
\subsection{Math lexemes}
The LaTeXML conversion tool has a dedicated grammatical parsing stage for mathematics. We leverage its tokenized input representation to serialize the constituent lexemes of each expression. The goal is to provide a unified inline context of interleaved text and math symbolism, to allow for more complete models over this type of discourse.
It is well-established that the lexicon of mathematical expressions is much smaller than natural text \cite{Cajori:ahmn93}, being largely restricted to letters of the English and Greek alphabets, and a limited set of operator symbols. Hence, we use a different preprocessing approach for the symbolic modality, in fact opposite to the narrative approach, in an effort to expand its vocabulary and mitigate the challenges of lexical ambiguity.
While we downcase regular text in an effort to constrain the open-ended lexicon of technical English, our formula serialization instead not only preserves case, but also encodes the available stylistic information w.r.t to font. Namely, we preserve the distinctions between the various font styles, weights and faces. For example: $N$ (\verb|italic_N|), $\mathcal{N}$ (\verb|caligraphic_N|) and $\mathbb{N}$ (\verb|blackboard_N|) are three different entries in our plain-text data, when they occur inside formulas. Meanwhile, a bold \textbf{Naturals} or italic \textit{Naturals} that occur in regular text are still mapped to a regular small \verb|naturals|.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
Importantly, note that $c$ is independent of the $\epsilon_j$'s.
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{verbatim}
importantly note that italic_c is independent of the
italic_epsilon POSTSUBSCRIPT_start italic_j POSTSUBSCRIPT_end s
\end{verbatim}
\end{center}
\caption{Plain-text equivalent with sub-formula lexemes, for a \LaTeX-authored remark}
\label{fig:remarkexample}
\end{figure}
\section{Task Design}\label{sec:taskdesign}
We pre-partition the 50 class data into an 80/20 train/test split, which we consistently use in our modeling work. In order to inform if a classification task is well-posed, we pre-train a range of models known to perform well in the state of the art. In Figure~\ref{fig:confusion50}, we share the confusion matrix of our best 50-class baseline model, a BiLSTM encoder-decoder. We observed several general phenomena.
First, some classes were strongly separable in the task posed as-is, such as \emph{acknowledgement}, \emph{abstract} and \emph{proof}, at near-perfect classification rates. Second, there were ``confusion nests'' of interconnected classes. Most notably, \emph{proposition}, \emph{lemma} and \emph{theorem}, dominated by the latter two, had a strong indication of a shared language nest. On closer inspection, 9 classes (as seen in Table~\ref{table:nests}) were consistently misclassified in the dominant lemma-theorem nest. It stands to reason that as a first approximation we can then unify this constellation of classes into a single parent class, which we named after the most abstract label in the group - \emph{proposition}. Such regroupings simplify the task and reduce the classification difficulty when performed correctly. As we will show in Figure~\ref{fig:confusion13}, a consistent reorganization based on the confusion scores allows us to define a constrained problem with clear utility and integrity. Lastly, we also remark that the model performs in a very scattershot manner on about half of the label set. In some cases that is due to very little training data (e.g. \emph{hint}), in others it is due to limitations of the task setup (e.g. \emph{experiment}, which is hard to separate from \emph{example} and \emph{result} without additional context).
Following these observations, we propose a reduced task with an emphasis on class-separability at scale. To this end, we preserve the clearly separable cases and group the observed inter-confused nests together into more abstract union classes. All low-volume and scattershot classes are ignored for the reduced task. This brings us to a ``13 nest'' classification task, based on 25 of the original 50 classes, grouped into 13 separable classes. Importantly, we retain 99\% of the available data, or 10.4 million from the original 10.5 million paragraphs. The full breakdown of the organization and the final data frequency in each class is presented in Table~\ref{table:nests}.
Next, we present several baseline models for the classification task over these thirteen targets. We acknowledge that the original fifty classes could be utilized differently, and potentially modeled in full. To succeed in that direction, it is possible that the task setup would need to include both more data volume for the infrequent classes, as well as full document context, for distinguishing between classes with similar linguistic footprints (e.g. a \emph{conclusion} can often resemble a \emph{discussion}, but is always at the end of an article).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-2.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{figures/confusion_matrix_normalized_50_class_nolegend.png}
\caption{Normalized confusion matrix of a 50-class BiLSTM encoder-decoder}
\label{fig:confusion50}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabularx}{0.7\columnwidth}{lXr}
\toprule
\textbf{Class} & \textbf{Included Members}& \textbf{Frequency} \\
\midrule
abstract & & 1,030,774 \\[0.5ex]
acknowledgement & & 162,230 \\[0.5ex]
conclusion & discussion & 401,235 \\[0.5ex]
definition & & 686,717 \\[0.5ex]
example & & 295,152 \\[0.5ex]
introduction & & 688,530 \\[0.5ex]
keywords & & 1,565 \\[0.5ex]
proof & demonstration & 2,148,793 \\[0.5ex] \hline
proposition & \multirow{3}{\hsize}{assumption, claim, condition, conjecture, corollary, fact, lemma, theorem} & \\
& & 4,060,029 \\
& & \\ \hline
problem & question & 57,609 \\[0.5ex]
related work & & 26,299 \\[0.5ex]
remark & note & 643,500 \\[0.5ex]
result & & 239,931 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Labeled data for ``13 nest'' classification task}\label{table:nests}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Baselines}\label{sec:baselines}
We present a set of six baselines, together with a control for the impact of the mathematical modality to classification performance, as summarized in Table~\ref{table:baselines}.
All baselines were prepared via Keras \cite{chollet2015keras} on the Tensorflow backend \cite{tensorflow2015:whitepaper}, and are made openly available \cite{statement-classification:notebooks}.
For our baseline model implementations, we fix a paragraph size of 480 words, as a trade-off between model size and data coverage. Over the 10.4 million paragraphs in the
task, 96.46\% are 480 words or less. Out-of-vocabulary words were dropped, as is consistent with GloVe embeddings, which discard low frequency lexemes. In-vocabulary words are mapped to their dictionary index and embedded via the GloVe embeddings provided alongside the HTML data \citelanguageresources{SML:arXMLiv:08.2018}. The vocabulary contains just over one million words, and includes math lexemes. All trained baseline models used a weighted categorical cross-entropy loss function and the Adam optimizer \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KingmaB14}. Training relied on an early-stopping guard at a loss delta of $0.001$ with a patience of $3$ epochs.
The most frequent class in the data is \emph{proposition}, translating into a ``zero rule'' baseline of 0.388, obtained by the trivial model constantly emitting that label. To validate data integrity, we run a logistic regression on the plain dictionary indexes, achieving a near-random F1 score of 0.30.
Our simplest competitive baseline is a logistic regression over the GloVe-embedded representation of a paragraph. The embedded input is a $(480, 300)$ matrix, as induced by the 300-dimensional GloVe vectors. This is the case for all following baselines, which also use the embedding as a first layer. This model already displays a productive 0.77 F1 score, and we observe a single class that is perfectly recognized -- \emph{acknowledgement}.
Additionally, we train a perceptron model, starting with the GloVe embedded paragraph and containing a single hidden layer of 128 neurons, showcasing a 0.83 F1 score.
A baseline that is near the state of the art is the Hierarchical Attention Networks (HAN) model \cite{YangYDHSH16}. HAN excels at document-sized classification tasks, as using an attention mechanism allows them to address the long-range contextual information deficiencies of earlier architectures. As our statement task is only a small fraction of a document in size, we would expect HANs to be mildly successful. For the HAN implementation, we used an openly available Keras plugin \cite{keras2018han:github:on}. In order to avoid the extra complexity of evaluating the sentence tokenization, we did not use the sentence breaks, but instead partitioned the 480 word input into fixed sentence sizes. Performing a grid search on 3\% of the data, we found the best partition to be 8 sentences of 60 words each. Thus trained, the HAN model achieved an F1 score of 0.89.
Last, we train a Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM) encoder-decoder model, also known as a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) model, turned into a classifier via a standard softmax-activated dense layer. BiLSTM encoder-decoder models \cite{Cho_2014} have been shown to learn rich representations over their training data, generalize well and are successful in tracking long-distance contextual information, compared to classical RNN approaches - both due to the gating mechanisms of LSTM cells and the bidirectional application over the input. Encoder-decoders remain near to state-of-the-art results and are often coupled with different modeling components in ensemble techniques. Recent work \cite{Sachan2019RevisitingLN} suggests simple encoder-decoder models continue to be able to achieve competitive results, and we provide them as a baseline.
We coarsely searched for a good layer size by training model variants with 32, 64, 128 and 256 LSTM cells. We also coarsely experimented with upto 8 layers in depth. Our best model from these limited investigations has the shape:
\[ \mathrm{BiLSTM}(128)\rightarrow \mathrm{BiLSTM}(64) \rightarrow \mathrm{LSTM}(64) \rightarrow \mathrm{Dense}(13) \]
It achieves a baseline F1 score of 0.91, the best baseline presented in this paper. Its confusion matrix, also evaluated on the unseen test set of 2.1 million paragraphs, is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:confusion13}. We are hosting a live demonstration of this baseline model at \cite{classify_paragraph:github:on}.
\subsection{Controlling for the formula modality}\label{sec:mathmodality}
Starting from scratch, we re-extract the statement dataset with all traces of math symbolism omitted. The new collection has a mean of 59 words per paragraph and a median of 37.
A separate set of GloVe embeddings is built on the math-free data. All baseline methods are retrained and re-evaluated. The baseline results are summarized in Table~\ref{table:baselines}. In brief, the math symbolism modality did not influence regression models, and provided a 0.01 F1 score improvement to context-sensitive models. We leave investigations of the robustness of these findings to other studies, but remark further use of math symbolism has hints of promise for improving classification performance.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabularx}{0.7\columnwidth}{lXr}
\toprule
\textbf{Baselines 50-class} & \textbf{F1 score}& \textbf{F1 (no math)} \\
\midrule
Zero Rule & 0.201 & 0.206 \\
BiLSTM encoder-decoder & 0.67 & 0.67 \\
\toprule
\textbf{Baselines 13-class} & \textbf{F1 score}& \textbf{F1 (no math)} \\
\midrule
Zero Rule & 0.388 & 0.369 \\
LogReg & 0.30 & 0.35 \\
LogReg + GloVe & 0.77 & 0.77 \\
Perceptron & 0.83 & 0.83 \\
HAN & 0.89 & 0.88 \\
BiLSTM encoder-decoder & 0.91 & 0.90 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Baselines for ``13 nest'' classification tasks}\label{table:baselines}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.17]{figures/confusion_matrix_normalized_13_class_nolegend.png}
\caption{Normalized confusion matrix of a 13-class BiLSTM encoder-decoder}
\label{fig:confusion13}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
There is a clear hierarchy of difficulty in discriminating between different classes. At the two extremes, logistic regression was enough to achieve perfect classification of the \emph{acknowledgement} label, while \emph{example} had mixed results even with our best benchmark. Acknowledgements meet two very helpful criteria. First, they use emotive language visibly different from the main body of a scientific manuscript, which is technical and aims to be free of sentiment. Second, they have a very standard and narrow communicative function, which contributes to their regularity and separability. To contrast, \emph{example}s can be difficult to separate from e.g. \emph{remark} and \emph{proposition}. A component to that is the task limitation of using only the first paragraph of a potentially longer exposition, and having no manual curation of the annotated data. It is also unclear whether a human evaluator could accurately classify first paragraphs which act as preliminary to the central statement.
Composite groups of classes may be empirical demonstrations of language nests, as indicated by the consolidated \emph{proposition} class, which achieved a recall of 0.98. This shows how it can be fruitful to use a model known to perform well on standard NLP tasks in pre-analysis, in order to guide task design. Our investigations have shown that a careful grouping of related classes, while retaining 99\% of available annotated data, is essential for reaching state-of-the-art performance with known models on this task. We have demonstrated that the performance of the same baseline model improves from 0.67 to 0.91 F1 score through this type of empirical curation.
There are two observations on data integrity in mutual tension. On one hand, we have a very large dataset, in the tens of millions of labeled samples, sufficient to train deep learning networks, as well as to saturate the models we've presented as baselines, which have less than a million hyperparemeters. Achieving a high F1 score in the announcement of the task gives us some confidence of data quality and experimental design that allow for state-of-art methods to compete. On the other hand, we do not have the capacity to provide a real human evaluation on the task as posed, in order to set a natural ``best'' baseline, which would certainly be less than a perfect score. As the samples were never intentionally marked up for classification training, there is unaccounted noise, as well as conflicting counter-examples. This is the case as there is a qualitative difference between being asked to assign a label to an existing paragraph, compared to starting a new paragraph with the prior intention of it ultimately being e.g. a \emph{definition}. A couple of problematic examples we observed are \emph{abstracts} which begin with an enumeration of \emph{keywords}, as well as \emph{conclusions} which begin with an \emph{acknowledgement}.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:relatedwork}
Our work is the first systematic large-scale attempt to do scientific statement classification that we are aware of. Previous efforts of using arXiv as a dataset mainly focus on topic modeling and statistical analyses. They suffer from two technical drawbacks.
First, the size and heterogeneous nature of the dataset has posed a challenge. Early experiments would commonly analyze in the low tens of thousands of articles \cite{Watt_mathematicaldocument}, which comprise only 1-2\% of all available entries and may offer a skewed sample.
Similarly, a limited exploration into a ``segment classification'' task over arXiv has been carried out by \cite{Solovyev:2011:LSA:1988688.1988713}. It examines only a small fraction of an early version of the arXMLiv dataset, but does not attempt to model the language of statements, instead focusing on structural relationships and headings. The reader would notice headings (e.g. ``\textbf{Definition 2.3}'') are indeed reliably induced by the original author markup, thus somewhat directly achieve the 1.0 F1 score reported for the sample. Nevertheless, \cite{Solovyev:2011:LSA:1988688.1988713} is the first body of work we're aware of that broaches a ``statement classification''-near task description for arXiv.
More recently, a larger subset of arXMLiv has been used by the Math information retrieval (MathIR) community, who employ over a hundred thousand articles for benchmarking math-aware search systems \cite{AizKohOunSch:nmto16}.
The second challenge is high quality representation. Even cases where the experiment spans the entire corpus \cite{arxiv-structure-pdfs, arxiv-as-dataset, DBLP:journals/corr/DaiOL15} currently lack the canonical machine-readability offered by the HTML format we base our data extraction on. Instead, they work via reverse-engineering the printer-oriented PDF format back into a plain text form. These approaches are lossy and retrieve less structural information than the cues deposited by the author in the original sources. In particular, the HTML dataset preserves the exact environment scoping of marked up statements; it allows us to create structured trees for mathematical expressions; and clearly and reliably separates away the styling from the content of the document. Our approach has been recognized by the MathIR community \cite{AizKohOunSch:nmto16}, who use the machine-readable formula representations for their investigations into formula retrieval.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper proposed a novel scientific statement classification task. The task aims to assign 13 statement labels to 10.4~million paragraphs from 1.2~million scientific preprint articles submitted to arXiv.org. We trained and evaluated several baseline models, and report a best benchmark of 0.91~F1 score for a BiLSTM encoder-decoder. We are hopeful to see this baseline bested in follow-up work.
By working in the open, using a machine-readable HTML format and following a joint annual release cycle of dataset and derived resources, we hope to facilitate transparent and easy reproducibility of this work. Adding to the source data and embeddings which were already public \cite{SML:arXMLiv:08.2018}, we provide open implementations of our preprocessing \cite{llamapun:github:on}, experimental setup and models \cite{statement-classification:notebooks} and offer a live demonstration site for the best baseline \cite{classify_paragraph:github:on}. The final task data is also published as a dedicated resource \cite{SML:statement-classification:08.2018} and is meant to be a starting point for future experiments by the larger community.
\subsection{Future work}
The arXiv.org server is receiving an accelerating number of submissions every year, and shows promise to be a continuously expanding and self-renewing source of data. We plan to update and continue to improve the datasets and auxiliary resources presented in this paper on an annual basis.
We would suggest that an extension of the task is possible, where each paragraph is analyzed as part of the full-document context. In positionally anchored cases, such as \emph{abstract} and \emph{conclusion}, this is likely to provide a strong boost. Similarly, there is a dependent order between \emph{theorems} and their \emph{proofs}. We are considering extending the task to a sequence-of-paragraphs classification task, where the model would be presented with a $(n,480,300)$ input for a document of $n$ paragraphs and predict a sequence of $n$ labels. This will provide additional document-level insight, as the current paragraph task only attempts to separate the language nests of single statements in isolation.
Our statement classification dataset also has room for expansion. We could survey all high frequency heading titles in the corpus, and repurpose them as labels. Lastly, there are various forms of human curation that could aid us in evaluation, from providing a human benchmark score, to identifying and eliminating invalid samples.
\input{postamble_nips}
\end{document}
|
\section{Correlation integrals}
Correlation integrals were introduced into hydrodynamics by L.G. Loitsianskii (see, for instance, Ref. \cite{my} and references therein). Namely, the Loitsianskii velocity-velocity correlation integral for isotropic and homogeneous motion is
$$
\mathcal{L} = - \int r^{2} \langle {\bf u} ({\bf x},t) \cdot {\bf u} ({\bf x} + {\bf r},t) \rangle d{\bf r} \eqno{(1)}
$$
For certain class of the initial conditions this integral is a finite invariant of the Navier-Stokes (viscous) equations for incompressible fluids. Then G. Birkhoff introduced an additional correlation integral (see, for instance, Ref. \cite{saff} and references therein). The Birkhoff-Saffman integral for isotropic and homogeneous motion is
$$
\mathcal{S} = \int \langle {\bf u} ({\bf x},t) \cdot {\bf u} ({\bf x} + {\bf r},t) \rangle d{\bf r} \eqno{(2)}
$$
For certain class of the initial conditions this integral is also a finite invariant of the Navier-Stokes (viscous) equations for incompressible fluids.\\
While the invariance of the Loitsianskii integral is related to the angular momentum conservation (or to rotational symmetry - a consequence of the Noether's theorem), the invariance of the Birkhoff-Saffman integral is related to the linear momentum conservation (or to the spatial translational symmetry - also a consequence of the Noether's theorem). The spatial rotational and translational symmetries correspond to spatial isotropy and homogeneity, respectively (in this paper we understand the term 'isotropy' in its narrow meaning - rotational symmetry only). Therefore these invariants have a fundamental nature. \\
The velocity correlation integrals were originally introduced in order to study behaviour of kinetic energy spectrum at small values of wavenumber $k$
$$
E(k) \propto \mathcal{S}k^2 \eqno{(3)}
$$
or
$$
E(k) \propto \mathcal{L}k^4 \eqno{(4)}
$$
when the Birkhoff-Saffman integral $\mathcal{S}$ can be considered as a negligible one. \\
It was recently shown \cite{otto1} that there is an additional, now velocity-vorticity, correlation integral
$$
\mathcal{C} =\int \langle {\bf u} ({\bf x},t) \cdot {\boldsymbol \omega} ({\bf x} + {\bf r}, t) \rangle d{\bf r} \eqno{(5)}
$$
that is an invariant of the Navier-Stokes (viscous) equations for the incompressible fluids in the isotropic homogeneous case (${\boldsymbol \omega} ({\bf x}, t) = \nabla \times {\bf u} ({\bf x},t)$ is the vorticity field). \\
Generalization of the large-scale (small $k$) kinetic energy spectrum Eqs. (3)-(4) for the Chkhetiani invariant $\mathcal{C}$ dominated motion is
$$
E(k) \propto |\mathcal{C}|k \eqno{(6)}
$$
Obviously the Chkhetiani invariant $\mathcal{C}$ can be related to the well known helicity \cite{otto1}
$$
\mathcal{H} = \int h({\bf x},t)~ d{\bf x}
$$
where the helicity density
$$
h ({\bf x},t) = {\bf u} ({\bf x},t) \cdot {\boldsymbol \omega} ({\bf x}, t) \eqno{(7)}
$$
Another correlation integral related to the helicity is the Levich-Tsinober integral
\cite{lt}-\cite{l}
$$
I = \int \langle h ({\bf x},t) \cdot h ({\bf x} + {\bf r},t) \rangle d{\bf r} = \lim_{V\to\infty} \frac{1}{V} \langle \mathcal{H}^2 \rangle \eqno{(8)}
$$
where $V$ is the volume of the fluid motion. Unlike the previous integrals it is an inviscid invariant \cite{lt}-\cite{l} as the helicity itself (the conservation of the helicty can be related, by the Noether's theorem, to the fundamental relabeling symmetry \cite{mor}-\cite{pm}). It follows from the Eq. (8) that the Levich-Tsinober integral can have a non-zero value even when the average helicity is equal to zero. \\
Since the helicity itself is an inviscid invariant, as well as the kinetic energy, the Kolmogorov's scaling phenomenology for the inertial range of scales \cite{my} was applied to helicity in the Ref. \cite{fr} and kinetic energy spectrum $E(k) \propto \varepsilon_h^{2/3} k^{-7/3}$ (where $\varepsilon_h =|d\langle h \rangle/dt|$) was obtained instead of the Kolmogorov spectrum $E(k) \propto \varepsilon^{2/3} k^{-5/3}$ (where $\varepsilon =|d\langle {\bf u}^2 \rangle/dt|$). At this approach the average helicity and kinetic energy are considered as adiabatic invariants in the inertial range of scales. This approach can be also applied to the Levich-Tsinober integral as an inviscid invariant. However, one should take into account that unlike energy and helicity, which are quadratic invariants, the Levich-Tsinober integral is a quartic invariant (see Eq. (8)). Therefore, one should use $\varepsilon_I =|dI^{1/2}dt|$ in order to apply the Kolmogorov's scaling phenomenology to this case:
$$
E(k) \propto \varepsilon_I^{2/3} k^{-4/3} \eqno{(9)}
$$
\section{Distributed chaos}
Statistically stationary homogeneous and isotropic turbulence for incompressible fluids is usually numerically simulated in a cubic volume by the Navier-Stokes equations:
$$
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t} = - {\bf u} \cdot \nabla {\bf u}
-\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla {\cal P} + \nu \nabla^2 {\bf u} + {\bf f} \eqno{(10)}
$$
$$
\nabla \cdot {\bf u} = 0\eqno{(11)}
$$
with periodic boundary conditions (where ${\bf u}$ is a velocity field, ${\cal P}$ is a pressure field, $\nu$ is a viscosity, ${\bf f}$ is a forcing). Well defined broadband kinetic energy spectra are observed in these direct numerical simulations (DNS) already for small values of the Taylor-Reynolds number $Re_{\lambda} = 8$ (see, for instance, Ref. \cite{pky}). Since one cannot expect a turbulent motion at such values of $Re_{\lambda}$ \cite{sreeni},\cite{sb} these spectra can be attributed to a chaotic motion of the fluid.\\
Figure 1 shows, in the log-log scales, a kinetic energy spectrum obtained in a direct numerical simulation reported in the Ref. \cite{pky} (the spectral data were taken from Fig. 2 of the Ref. \cite{pky}). The dashed curve is drawn in the figure to indicate exponential spectral decay
$$
E(k) = a \exp-(k/k_c) \eqno{(12)}
$$
The dotted arrow indicates position of the wavenumber $k_c$ (the wavenumbers are normalized by the Kolmogorov scale \cite{my} $\eta = (\nu^3/\varepsilon)^{1/4}$). The exponential spectral decay is a well known (but not well understood) feature of the chaotic motions of fluids and plasmas (see, for instance, Refs. \cite{fm}-\cite{b1} and references therein). \\
Increase of $Re_{\lambda}$ results in more complex chaotic motion which is characterized by an ensemble with the statistically varying $k_c$ and $a$ parameters, and the ensemble average should be used in order to compute the spectral decay
$$
E(k) = \int P(a,k_c) ~\exp-(k/k_c)~ dadk_c \eqno{(13)}
$$
with $P(a,k_c)$ as a joint probability distribution for the ensemble parameters $a$ and $k_c$. For statistically independent parameters $a$ and $k_c$
$$
E(k) \propto \int P(k_c) ~\exp-(k/k_c)~ dk_c \eqno{(14)}
$$
\begin{figure} \vspace{-1.1cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.45\textwidth,file=fig1.eps} \vspace{-4.5cm}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectrum for isotropic homogeneous motion of incompressible fluid at $Re_{\lambda} = 8$.}
\end{figure}
One can consider a stretched exponential spectrum
$$
E(k) \propto \int P(k_c) ~\exp-(k/k_c)~ dk_c \propto \exp-(k/k_{\beta})^{\beta} \eqno{(15)}
$$
as a natural generalization of exponential spectrum.\\
Asymptotic behaviour of the probability density $P(k_c)$ at large values of $k_c$ can be immediately inferred from Eq. (15) \cite{jon}
$$
P(k_c) \propto k_c^{-1 + \beta/[2(1-\beta)]}~\exp(-bk_c^{\beta/(1-\beta)}) \eqno{(16)}
$$
Then assuming a scaling of the characteristic velocity $v_c$ at large values of the $k_c$
$$
v_c \propto k_c^{\alpha} \eqno{(17)}
$$
and normal (Gaussian) distribution of the $v_c$ we obtain from the Eq. (16) relationship between $\alpha$ and $\beta$
$$
\beta = \frac{2\alpha}{1+2\alpha} \eqno{(18)}
$$
\begin{figure} \vspace{-1.9cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig2.eps} \vspace{-3.6cm}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectrum for isotropic homogeneous {\it non-helical} turbulence at $Re_{\lambda} = 100$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \vspace{-0.5cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig3.eps} \vspace{-3.77cm}
\caption{As in the Fig. 2 but for the turbulence with strong multiscale helical injection.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \vspace{-0.5cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig4.eps} \vspace{-3.8cm}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectrum of the helical isotropic turbulence with multiscale Langevin stirring applied at all wavenumbers up to the dissipative scales. }
\end{figure}
Using the dimensional considerations we obtain from the Eqs. (2) and (17)
$$
v_c \propto \lvert\mathcal{S}\rvert^{1/2} k_c^{3/2} \eqno{(19)}
$$
i.e. $\alpha =3/2$ for the Birkhoff-Saffman turbulence. Then it follows from the Eqs. (15) and (18) that for this turbulence
$$
E(k) \propto \exp-(k/k_{\beta})^{3/4} \eqno{(20)}
$$
(cf. the Ref. \cite{b1}).
Analogously for turbulence dominated by the Chkhetiani invariant Eq. (5)
$$
v_c \propto \lvert\mathcal{C}\rvert^{1/2} k_c \eqno{(21)}
$$
and, correspondingly
$$
E(k) \propto \exp-(k/k_{\beta})^{2/3}, \eqno{(22)}
$$
whereas for the turbulence dominated by the Levich-Tsinober invariant Eq. (8)
$$
v_c \propto \lvert I \rvert^{1/4} k_c^{1/4} \eqno{(23)}
$$
and, correspondingly
$$
E(k) \propto \exp-(k/k_{\beta})^{1/3}. \eqno{(24)}
$$
\section{Direct numerical simulations}
In recent DNS reported in Ref. \cite{kes} the Navier-Stokes equations Eqs. (10-11) were numerically solved using two types of forcing: one - with energy injection applied at a large-scale ($k_f \simeq 2.2$) and another - with helicity injection applied at all scales (multiscale) belonging to the supposed inertial range. Both forcing funtions ${\bf f}({\bf x},t)$ were divergence free and delta-correlated in time.
The kinetic energy spectrum, obtained in the DNS for the first type of forcing (non-helical turbulence) at a statistically steady state, is shown in figure 2 (the spectral data were taken from Fig. 1 of the Ref. \cite{kes}, $Re_{\lambda} =100$). The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 2 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (20) corresponding to the Birkhoff-Saffman (non-helical) turbulence. The dotted arrow indicates position of the wavenumber $k_{\beta}$.
\begin{figure} \vspace{-1.7cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig5.eps} \vspace{-3.9cm}
\caption{The same spectral data as in the Fig. 4 but with the Chkhetiani invariant approximation Eq. (22) for the near-dissipation range. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \vspace{-0.5cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig6.eps} \vspace{-3.7cm}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectrum (spherically integrated) for the helical turbulence forced by the Euler large-scale forcing scheme. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \vspace{-0.5cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig7.eps} \vspace{-4.3cm}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectrum for the narrow-band forced helical turbulence. }
\end{figure}
Figure 3 shows the kinetic energy spectrum, obtained in the DNS for the second type of forcing (maximally helical turbulence) at a statistically steady state (the spectral data were also taken from Fig. 1 of the Ref. \cite{kes}). The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 3 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (24) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated helical turbulence. \\
In another recent DNS \cite{bif} a strong multiscale Langevin stirring was used for the helical injection in an isotropic homogeneous turbulence. The helical forcing was a Gaussian white-in-time with a power-law spectrum and energy injection was applied at all wavenumbers up to the dissipative scales. Figure 4 shows the kinetic energy spectrum, obtained in the DNS (the spectral data were taken from Fig. 2b of the Ref. \cite{bif}). The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 4 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (24) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated inertial range of the helical turbulence.
Figure 5 shows the same spectral data but the dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 5 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (22) corresponding to the Chkhetiani invariant dominated near-dissipation range of the helical turbulence (let us recall that the Chkhetiani invariant, as well as the Loitsianskii and the Birkhoff-Saffman integrals are invariants of the {\it viscous} Navier-Stokes equations \cite{otto1},\cite{otto2}). The dotted arrow indicates position of the wavenumber $k_{\beta}$. Naturally, the Chkhetiani invariant dominated range is overlapped with that dominated by the Levich-Tsinober invariant in this case.\\
The interplay of the Levich-Tsinober and the Chkhetiani turbulence can be also seen in the results of a recent DNS reported in the Ref. \cite{val}. In this DNS an Euler large-scale forcing was applied in order to obtain a helical homogeneous turbulence. This type of forcing resembles truncated Euler dynamics \cite{cic}: the lowest wavenumber (forced) modes, belonging to a sphere $0 \leq |{\bf k}| \leq k_f$, are obeying the incompressible ideal Euler equation, while being independent of the other modes. The modes with $|{\bf k}| > k_f$ obey the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, while being dependent on the modes inside the Euler (forcing) sphere. The inviscid invariants of the ideal Euler equation are conserved in this truncated system. Solenoidal random velocity fields with a given kinetic energy spectrum were used as initial conditions ($Re_{\lambda} = 136$ and $k_f = 1.5$).
Figure 6 shows the kinetic energy spectrum (spherically integrated), obtained in the DNS. The spectral data were taken from Fig. 3b (the case $c_{h}^1$) of the Ref. \cite{val}. The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 6 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (22) corresponding to the Chkhetiani invariant dominated near-dissipation range of the helical turbulence (the dotted arrow indicates position of the wavenumber $k_{\beta}$), whereas the straight line is drawn for reference of the scaling law Eq. (9) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated inertial range. And again (as in the previous case) the two ranges are overlapped. \\
In recent DNS Ref. \cite{al} the large-scale helical forcing was applied at wavenumbers $k_f \leq |{\bf k}| \leq k_{f}+1$ with $k_f =4$. While the forcing amplitude was fixed its Fourier modes phases were randomly varied. Figure 7 shows the kinetic energy spectrum obtained in the DNS (the spectral data were taken from Fig. 2b of the Ref. \cite{al}). The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 7 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (22) corresponding to the Chkhetiani invariant dominated near-dissipation range of the helical turbulence (the dotted arrow indicates position of the wavenumber $k_{\beta}$), whereas the straight lines are drawn for reference of the scaling law Eq. (9) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated inertial range and to the low-wavenumber scaling Eq. (6) corresponding to the Chkhetiani invariant.
\section{Laboratory experiments behind multiscale grids}
It is commonly believed that turbulent flows behind mechanical grids can provide laboratory simulation of isotropic (in a wide sense - including the reflection symmetry) homogeneous turbulence (see, for instance, Ref. \cite{tm} and references therein). However, direct measurements of helicity in the turbulence behind the grids indicate violation of the reflection symmetry \cite{kit}. Moreover, the Levitch-Tsinober integral Eq. (8) can have a finite (non-zero) value even when the average helicity is eqial to zero. Therefore, helicity related effects can play a significant role in the turbulent flows with zero average helicity, especially for the multiscale forcing (see above). In recent years the multiscale grids were actively used in the laboratory experiments and it is interesting to look at results obtained in these experiments. \\
Figure 8 shows the one-dimensional (longitudinal) kinetic energy spectrum obtained in a laboratory experiment \cite{kro} with a multiscale grid at distance $x/M_1=20$ behind the grid (where $M_1$ is the largest mesh size of the grid). The Reynolds number based on the mesh size $M_1$ is $Re = 6 \times 10^4$. The figure corresponds to the Fig. 8 of the Ref. \cite{kro}. The forcing geometric scales are uniformly distributed over the range of energy containing scales. The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 8 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (24) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated turbulence. One can see that although there were no special attempts to inject helicity in the flow the helicity related Levich-Tsinober invariant apparently plays a significant role in the inertial range of scales. It can be considered as a kind of reflection symmetry breaking, even if the mean helicity is still negligible in this turbulent flow (cf. Refs. \cite{lt},\cite{l},\cite{bt} and references therein). \\
Figure 9 shows the one-dimensional (longitudinal) kinetic energy spectrum obtained in a laboratory experiment \cite{hl} with a multiscale ('fractal') grid at distances $x/M=25,~35,~44.6$ behind the grid (where $M$ is the largest mesh size of the grid, $R_{\lambda} \simeq$ 94, 86, 81 correspondingly). The normalization used in the Fig. 9 results in a single (collapsed) spectrum for the three distances from the grid (the spectral data were taken from the Fig. 9b of the Ref. \cite{hl} and $\lambda$ is the Taylor microscale \cite{my}). The dashed curve is drawn in the Fig. 9 to indicate the stretched exponential spectral decay Eq. (24) corresponding to the Levich-Tsinober invariant dominated turbulence (the straight line corresponds to the scaling (9) in the large-scale part of the inertial range).
\begin{figure} \vspace{-1.5cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig8.eps} \vspace{-3.9cm}
\caption{One-dimensional (longitudinal) kinetic energy spectrum obtained in a laboratory experiment behind a multiscale grid. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure} \vspace{-0.3cm}\centering
\epsfig{width=.42\textwidth,file=fig9.eps} \vspace{-4cm}
\caption{Normalized one-dimensional (longitudinal) kinetic energy spectrum obtained in a laboratory experiment behind a multiscale ('fractal') grid.}
\end{figure}
\section{Acknowledgement}
I thank O.G. Chkhetiani for sending his papers and comments, E. Levich for discussion and P.-A. Krogstad for sharing his data.
|
\section{Introduction}
The census of stars and brown dwarfs in the solar neighborhood expanded dramatically with the launch of the \textit{Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer} (\textit{WISE}; \citealt{Wright2010WISE}). Discoveries include the third and fourth closest systems to the Sun in WISE J104915.57$-$531906.1AB (hereafter WISE 1049$-$5319AB; \citealt{Luhman2013}) and WISE J085510.83$-$071442.5 (hereafter WISE 0855$-$0714; \citealt{LuhmanW0855}), a substantial increase in the number of known late-type T dwarfs (e.g \citealt{Mace2013}), a new spectral class (Y dwarfs; \citealt{Cushing2011}; \citealt{Kirkpatrick2012}), and the M9 dwarf, WISE J072003.20$-$084651.2, located in the Galactic Plane (hereafter WISE 0720$-$0846; \citealt{Scholz2014}; \citealt{Kirkpatrick2014}).WISE 0720$-$0846, which is an M9.5/T5 binary \citep{Burgasser2015} at a distance of $6.72 \pm 0.05$ pc \citep{Henry2018}, is of particular interest because it passed within 0.25$_{-0.07}^{+0.11}$ pc of the Sun 70 ky ago, in the closest known flyby of a star to the solar system \citep{Mamajek2015}.
\textit{WISE} was built to survey the entire sky simultaneously in four mid-infrared bands whose central wavelengths are at 3.4 $\mu$m ($W1$), 4.6 $\mu$m ($W2$), 12 $\mu$m ($W3$), \& 22 $\mu$m ($W4$). The four-band cryogenic mission surveyed the sky 1.2 times between January 2010 and August 2010. After the cryogen in the outer tank was depleted, a three-band cryogenic survey was conducted using the $W1$, $W2$, and $W3$ bands, covering an additional 30\% of the sky, until the cryogen in the inner tank was also exhausted in September 2010. Following this, a two-band survey was conducted using only the $W1$ and $W2$ bands \citep{Mainzer2011}. The result of these surveys was two full maps of the sky and 20\% of a third, separated by $\sim$6 months. The data from all of these surveys were combined and used to generate the AllWISE source catalog \citep{Cutri2014}. The \textit{WISE} satellite was then put into hibernation until December 2013, when it was reactivated to search for potentially hazardous near-Earth objects, using the $W1$ and $W2$ bands alone (NEOWISE; \citealt{Mainzer2014}).
The multi-epoch nature of the \textit{WISE} observations meant that for the first time, all-sky proper motion surveys at infrared wavelengths were possible. \cite{Luhman2014}, \cite{Kirkpatrick2014}, and \cite{Kirkpatrick2016} used the data from the original \textit{WISE} mission with a time baseline of $\sim$6 months, to perform the first all-sky mid-infrared proper motion searches, finding 762, 3525, and 1039 new discoveries, respectively. \cite{Schneider2016} used the NEOWISE data in combination with the AllWISE source catalog to conduct a proper motion survey with a time baseline of $\sim$4 years. The longer time baseline of their survey enabled them to detect significantly more objects at fainter magnitudes than the surveys of \cite{Luhman2014} and \cite{Kirkpatrick2014} (see Figure 8 of \citealt{Schneider2016}).
The \cite{Schneider2016} survey discovered 20,551 motion objects, of which 1006 were new discoveries. In this paper, we present follow-up observations of 65 of these new discoveries. In \S2, we describe how we selected our targets for follow-up observations. In \S3, we detail the follow-up observations that were conducted and present all of our follow-up spectra. In \S4, we present spectral types and distance estimates for each of our objects. In \S5, we discuss our follow-up observations in detail.
\section{Target Selection}
In order to prioritize follow-up spectroscopic observations, \cite{Schneider2016} identified 128 objects that fell into at least one of three categories: 1) potential late-type brown dwarfs (spectral type $\geq$L7), 2) potential nearby objects (d $<$ 25 pc), and 3) potential subdwarfs (i.e. low metallicity dwarfs). To begin their candidate selection, \cite{Schneider2016} first estimated the spectral types of their new discoveries using available near- and mid-infrared photometry and the k-nearest neighbors method against a training set of objects with known spectral types (see Appendix A of \citealt{Schneider2016} for details). They identified a total of 39 candidates with estimated spectral types later than or equal to L7 and presented spectroscopy of six of these. Distances to all new discoveries were then computed using the photometric-based spectral types, $W2$ magnitudes, and the absolute magnitude-spectral type relations of \cite{DupuyLiu2012}. They identified a total of 46 objects with distance estimates less than or equal to 25 pc and presented spectroscopy of three of these. Finally, a total of 58 potential subdwarfs were identified using both a color cut and a reduced proper motion diagram, and spectroscopy of six of these were presented.
Here we present near-infrared spectroscopy of 65 additional objects. Of these, 53 were selected from the 128 sources selected by \cite{Schneider2016}: 23 candidate late-type brown dwarfs, 21 potentially nearby objects; and 21 subdwarf candidates. Eleven of these were candidates in more than one category, including WISE J032309.12$-$590751.0 and WISE J101944.62$-$391151.6, which were candidates in all three categories. Three additional objects, WISE J111320.39+501010.5, WISE J121231.97$-$050750.7, \& WISE J145747.55$-$094719.3, were identified as subdwarf candidates early on in the survey based on their high tangential velocities (v$_\text{tan} > 100$ km/s). During gaps in our Right Ascension coverage, we supplemented our target list with additional mid L candidates, observing a total of 7 additional objects. Finally, on one night with particularly poor weather, we observed two bright M dwarf candidates.
\section{Observations}
A summary of all follow-up observations is provided in Table 1. Included in this table are the AllWISE designation for each object (hereafter these will be abbreviated as WISE HHMM $-$ DDMM), the UT date of the observation, the telescope/instrument used to conduct the observations, the total exposure time used for each spectrum, the signal-to-noise of the resultant spectra calculated at the peak intensity in the $J$-band, and the A0 V star observed for calibration purposes. All spectra are plotted in Figures 1 -- 6, sorted by spectral type.
\startlongtable
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Summary of Observations}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\label{table:sdobservations}
\tablehead{
AllWISE Designation\tablenotemark{a} & UT Date & Telescope/Instrument & Total Exp Time(s) & A0 V Star & S/N\tablenotemark{b}}
\startdata
J000430.66$-$260402.3 & 2016 Aug 3 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 225200 & 45 \\
J000458.47$-$133655.1 & 2016 Sep 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 1154 & 18 \\
J000536.63$-$263311.8 & 2016 Sep 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 222332 & 19 \\
J000856.39$-$281321.7 & 2016 Sep 21 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 225200 & 18 \\
J010134.83+033616.0 & 2016 Sep 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 6457 & 81 \\
J010631.20$-$231415.1 & 2016 Sep 21 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 13433 & 12 \\
J011049.18$+$192000.1 & 2016 Oct 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 6457 & 46 \\
J013525.38+020518.2 & 2016 Aug 6 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 1154 & 22 \\
J022721.93+235654.3 & 2016 Aug 3 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 13869 & 38 \\
J030119.39$-$231921.1 & 2016 Aug 3 & IRTF/SpeX & 1912 & HD 19622 & 28 \\
J030919.70$-$501614.2 & 2016 Jul 18 & {\it Magellan}/FIRE & 1374 & HD 8811 & 43 \\
J031627.79+265027.5 & 2016 Aug 6 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 19600 & 35 \\
J032309.12$-$590751.0 & 2016 Jul 18 & {\it Magellan}/FIRE & 1374 & HD 325 & 64 \\
J032838.73+015517.7 & 2016 Aug 6 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 18571 & 24 \\
J033346.88+385152.6 & 2016 Sep 21 & IRTF/SpeX & 1673 & HD 21038 & 51 \\
J034409.71+013641.5 & 2016 Sep 21 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 21686 & 14 \\
J034858.75$-$562017.8 & 2016 Jul 18 & {\it Magellan}/FIRE & 1099 & HD 325 & 24 \\
J041353.96$-$202320.3 & 2017 Jan 16 & IRTF/SpeX & 1673 & HD 25754 & 25 \\
J041743.13+241506.3 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 25175 & 62 \\
J053424.45+165255.0 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 35036 & 97 \\
J054455.54+063940.3 & 2016 Sep 21 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 35153 & 158 \\
J061429.77+383337.5 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 717 & HD 45105 & 270 \\
J062858.69+345249.2 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 45105 & 48 \\
J063552.52+514820.4 & 2017 Nov 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 714 & HD 45105 & 16 \\
J084254.56$-$061023.7 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 63714 & 69 \\
J085039.11$-$022154.3 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 79108 & 89 \\
J085633.87$-$181546.6 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 82724 & 45 \\
J092453.76+072306.0 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 79108 & 67 \\
J094812.21$-$290329.5 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 94741 & 60 \\
J095230.79$-$282842.2 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 81694 & 96 \\
J101944.62$-$391151.6 & 2016 Dec 09 & CTIO/ARCoIRIS & 2880 & HD 89213 & 19 \\
J103534.63$-$071148.2 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 93346 & 35 \\
J111320.39+501010.5 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 99966 & 85 \\
J112158.76+004412.3 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 97585 & 43 \\
J112859.45+511016.8 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 99966 & 42 \\
J120751.17+302808.9 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 105388 & 121 \\
J121231.97$-$050750.7 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 109309 & 117 \\
J121914.75+081027.0 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 116960 & 60 \\
J122042.20+620528.3 & 2016 Jun 20 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 148968 & 44 \\
J123513.87$-$045146.5 & 2016 Jun 26 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 109309 & 41 \\
J124516.66+601607.5 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 118214 & 79 \\
J133520.09$-$070849.3 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 122749 & 19 \\
J134359.71+634213.1 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 118214 & 31 \\
J143942.79$-$110045.4 & 2016 Feb 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1673 & HD 136831 & 66 \\
J144056.64$-$222517.8 & 2016 Jun 20 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 133466 & 106 \\
J145645.54$-$103343.5 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 132072 & 78 \\
J145747.55$-$094719.3 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 132072 & 56 \\
J155225.22+095155.5 & 2016 Jun 20 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 136831 & 70 \\
J165057.66$-$221616.8 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 717 & HD 155379 & 291 \\
J171059.52$-$180108.7 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 717 & HD 154921 & 279 \\
J171105.08$-$275531.7 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 717 & HD 157918 & 220 \\
J171454.88+064349.8 & 2016 Mar 28 & IRTF/SpeX & 1912 & HD 161289 & 42 \\
J173551.56$-$820900.3 & 2016 Jul 18 & {\it Magellan}/FIRE & 1374 & HD 131912 & 89 \\
J180839.55+070021.7 & 2016 May 10 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 167163 & 32 \\
J182010.20+202125.8 & 2016 Oct 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 171623 & 8 \\
J183654.10$-$135926.2 & 2016 Oct 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1075 & HD 172904 & 13 \\
J191011.03+563429.3 & 2016 Jun 20 & IRTF/SpeX & 717 & HD 172728 & 317 \\
J201252.78+124633.3 & 2016 Sep 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 1195 & HD 191082 & 533 \\
J211157.84$-$521111.3 & 2016 Jul 18 & {\it Magellan}/FIRE & 1374 & HD 200523 & 63 \\
J215550.34$-$195428.4 & 2016 Oct 14 & IRTF/SpeX & 1912 & HD 203893 & 10 \\
J221737.41$-$355242.7 & 2016 Oct 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 202941 & 13 \\
J223444.44$-$230916.1 & 2016 Oct 14 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 212643 & 7 \\
J224931.10$-$162759.6 & 2016 Oct 14 & IRTF/SpeX & 2151 & HD 212643 & 24 \\
J230743.63+052037.3 & 2016 Oct 24 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 219833 & 54 \\
J234404.85$-$250042.2 & 2016 Sep 22 & IRTF/SpeX & 1434 & HD 225200 & 81 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{The prefix for AllWISE sources is WISEA. So for example J000430.66$-$260402.3 should be listed as WISEA J000430.66$-$260402.3.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Calculated at the peak intensity in the $J$-band.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F1.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F2.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra2}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F3.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra3}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F4.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra4}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F5.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra5}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[angle=90]{F6.pdf}}}
\caption{Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards.
\label{fig:spectra6}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{IRTF/SpeX}
Spectra of 59 objects were obtained using the SpeX spectrograph \citep{Rayner2003Spex} on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea. Observations were conducted between the dates of UT 24 Feb 2016 and UT 22 Nov 2017 (see Table 1 for full list of observation dates). The data were collected in prism mode spanning a wavelength range of 0.8--2.5 $\mu$m with a resolution of $R\equiv \lambda/\bigtriangleup \lambda = 250$, using either the $0\farcs5$-wide slit or the $0\farcs3$-wide slit aligned to the parallactic angle. For each object, a series of exposures were taken using an ABBA nod pattern along the 15$\arcsec$ long slit. Additionally, an A0 V star was observed at a similar airmass to each object and used for telluric correction and flux calibration. The data were all reduced using the Spextool package (\citealt{Vacca2003Spex}; \citealt{Cushing2004Spex}).
In order to spectral type our subdwarf candidates, we require spectra of subdwarf standards. One of us (A.J.B) obtained spectra of 16 M and L subdwarf standards using IRTF/SpeX. Observations were conducted between the dates of UT Sep 17 2003 and UT Dec 21 2006. Data were collected in prism mode, as discussed above, and reduced using the Spextool package (\citealt{Vacca2003Spex}; \citealt{Cushing2004Spex}). A list of these standards, their spectral types, the references for those spectral types, and the details of those observations are listed in Table 2. Spectra of these objects are shown in Figure 7.
\begin{deluxetable*}{llllllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecolumns{8}
\tablecaption{Subdwarf Standards}
\label{table:sdobservations}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Object} \vspace{-0.25cm} & \colhead{Other} & \colhead{Optical} & \colhead{Spectral Type} & \colhead{UT Date} & \colhead{Exp Time}\tablenotemark{a} & \colhead{A0 V Star}\tablenotemark{a} & \colhead{S/N\tablenotemark{b}}\\
\colhead{Name} \vspace{-0.005cm} & \colhead{Designation} & \colhead{Spectral Type} & \colhead{Reference} & & \colhead{(s)} & & }
\startdata
LP 51$-$133 & LHS 217 & esdM0\tablenotemark{c} & \cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} & 2006 Dec 21 & 320 & HD 33654 & 412 \\
LP 857$-$48 & LHS 375 & esdM4 & \cite{Gizis1997} & 2005 Mar 23 & 540 & HD 125299 & 318 \\
LP 589$-$7 & $\cdots$ & esdM5 & \cite{GizisReid1999} & 2004 Sep 05 & 1080 & HD 13936 & 318 \\
LP 258$-$28 & LHS 2023 & esdM6 & \cite{ReidGizis2005} & 2005 Mar 23 & 1080 & HD 58729 & 318 \\
APMPM J0559$-$29037 & $\cdots$ & esdM7 & \cite{Schweitzer1999} & 2005 Dec 31 & 1440 & HD 41473 & 159 \\
LEHPM 2$-$59 & $\cdots$ & esdM8 & \cite{Burgasser2006} & 2004 Sep 09 & 720 & HD 32855 & 120 \\
LP 625$-$2 & LHS 3181 & sdM2 & \cite{Raiz2008}\tablenotemark{d} & 2004 Jul 25 & 720 & HD 143459 & 758 \\
LP 803$-$27 & LHS 407 & sdM5 & \cite{Gizis1997} & 2004 Jul 25 & 480 & HD 133772 & 639 \\
LP 645$-$78 & LHS 1074 & sdM6 & \cite{ReidGizis2005} & 2004 Sep 08 & 1080 & HD 18735 & 173 \\
LP 440$-$52 & LHS 377 & sdM7 & \cite{Gizis1997} & 2004 Mar 12 & 480 & HD131951 & 514 \\
2MASS J01423153+0523285 & $\cdots$ & sdM8.5\tablenotemark{e} & \cite{Burgasser2007} & 2003 Sep 17 & 720 & HD 18571 & \phn60 \\
SSSPM J1013$-$1356 & $\cdots$ & sdM9.5 & \cite{Scholz2004} & 2004 Mar 12 & 720 & HD 88025 & 165 \\
2MASS J17561080+2815238 & $\cdots$ & sdL1\tablenotemark{f} & \cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} & 2005 Oct 20 & 960 & HD 160557 & \phn78 \\
SDSS J125637.13$-$022452.4 & $\cdots$ & sdL3.5 & \cite{Burgasser2009} & 2005 Mar 23 & 1080 & HD 111744 & \phn87 \\
2MASS J16262034+3925190 & $\cdots$ & sdL4 & \cite{Burgasser2007} & 2004 Jul 23 & 480 & HD 153345 & 429 \\
SDSS J115820.75+043501.7 & $\cdots$ & sdL7\tablenotemark{g} & \cite{Kirkpatrick2014} & 2006 Apr 08 & 1080 & HD 97585 & 106 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Exact exposure times and which A0V stars were used could not be determined because the original FITS headers from the reduction were lost. Therefore we estimated the exposure times and standards using the raw data frames obtained form the IRTF Legacy Archive \href{http://irtfdata.ifa.hawaii.edu/search/}{http://irtfdata.ifa.hawaii.edu/search/}. }
\tablenotetext{b}{Calculated at the peak intensity in the $J$-band.}
\tablenotetext{c}{\cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} classify this object in the near-infrared as $<$esdM5.}
\tablenotetext{d}{\cite{Raiz2008} references \cite{RuizAnguita1993} for the spectral type, which provides a spectrum but no spectral type.}
\tablenotetext{e}{\cite{Burgasser2004} classify this object in the near-infrared as similar to, or slightly later than, sdM7.5.}
\tablenotetext{f}{\cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} classify this object in the near-infrared as L1 pec (blue).}
\tablenotetext{g}{\cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} classify this object in the near-infrared as sdL7.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics{F7.pdf}}}
\caption{Subdwarf standards, listed in Table 2.
\label{fig:sd_stds}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Magellan/FIRE}
Spectra of 5 objects were obtained with the Folded-Port Infrared Echellete (FIRE; \citealt{Simcoe2013FIRE}) spectrograph on the {\it Magellan} 6.5m Baade Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. Observations were conducted on UT 18 Jul 2016. All observations were made with the high-throughput prism mode, which achieved a resolving power of R $\sim$ 450 across the 0.8--2.45 $\mu$m range. We used the $0\farcs6$-wide slit, aligned to the parallactic angle, and took exposures at two different nod positions along the slit. For all science targets, the sample-up-the-ramp mode was used. A0 V stars were observed after each science target to correct for telluric absorption and flux calibration. Data reduction was performed using a modified version of the Spextool reduction package (\citealt{Vacca2003Spex}; \citealt{Cushing2004Spex}).
\subsection{CTIO/ARCoIRIS}
One object was observed on UT 09 Dec 2016 with Astronomy Research using the Cornell Infrared Imaging Spectrograph (ARCoIRIS) on the 4 m Blanco telescope located at the Cerro Tolo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO). ARCoIRIS takes simultaneous spectra across six cross-dispersed orders covering the 0.8--2.4$\mu$m range, with a resolving power of $\sim$3500. Science exposures were taken at two different nod positions along the slit, which has a fixed width of 1$''$. After observing our science target, we observed an A0 V star to use for telluric corrections and flux calibration. Data reduction was performed using a modified version of the Spextool reduction package (\citealt{Vacca2003Spex}; \citealt{Cushing2004Spex}).
\section{Results}
\subsection{Spectral Classification}
Spectral types were determined by comparing each spectrum to the near-infrared spectral standards from \cite{Kirkpatrick2010Stds} and the near-infrared M and L subdwarf standards given in Table 2. First, the standard and object spectra were normalized to unity between 1.27 and 1.29 $\mu$m. One of us (J.J.G.) then assigned spectral types by eye, based on which spectral standard was the best match to each object over the 0.9--1.4 $\mu$m wavelength range. Some spectra fall appreciably red or blue of the spectral standards in the $H$- and $K$-bands and these are typed as `red' or `blue' respectively. Another of us (A.C.S.) confirmed all spectral types by eye, and the results are listed in Table 3.
In total, we present spectra of 31 new M dwarfs, 18 new L dwarfs, and 11 new T dwarfs. Spectra of one additional L dwarf and four additional T dwarfs are also presented, but these have been previously published as discussed below. 13 of our objects are subdwarfs, including 9 new M subdwarfs and 4 new L subdwarfs. 11 of these objects (including two subdwarfs) with spectral types ranging from M7 to T7 are predicted to be within 25 pc.
Five of our 65 objects have previously published spectra. \cite{Best2015} published a spectrum of WISE 0135+0205 (PSO J023.8557+02.0884), classifying it as an L9.5. We classified it as T0 (sl. red). \cite{Best2015} observed WISE 0316+2650 (PSO J049.1159+26.8409), classifying it as T2.5, with strong potential of being a binary. We classified it as a T3. \cite{Tinney2018} published a spectrum of WISE 1735$-$8209, classifying it as a T8; we classify it as a T7. \cite{LuhmanSheppard2014} observed WISE 2111$-$5211, classifying it as a T2.5; we typed it as a T3. \cite{Best2015} observed WISE 2249$-$1627 (PSO J342.3797$-$16.4665), classifying it as an L5, possibly in a binary with a T dwarf. \cite{SIMP2016} also observed this object, classifying it as an L4/T1 binary. We classified this as an L5 (blue).
Additionally, two objects have published spectral types estimated using photometry. \cite{Tinney2018} used methane imaging to spectral type WISE0309$-$5016 as a T7, which agrees with our spectral type. \cite{Kirkpatrick2019} note that, because this object is much brighter in $M_H$ than other objects of similar $H-W2$ color, and much brighter in $M_{W1}$ and M$_\text{ch1}$ than other objects of similar {\it Spitzer} ch1$-$ch2 color, it is likely an unresolved binary. \cite{Kirkpatrick2019} estimated the spectral type of WISE0323$-$5907 based on {\it Spitzer} ch1 and ch2 photometry to be a T6. We classified this object as a T7.
Finally we note that, in Table 10 of \cite{Schneider2016}, the spectral type of WISE 0413+2103 was mistaken for that of WISE 0413$-$2023. This caused WISE 0413+2103 to be listed as a late-type candidate, when it is in fact an M dwarf. We noticed this while selecting our follow-up candidates, and so observed WISE 0413$-$2023, which has a spectral type of L5 (blue).
\startlongtable
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Spectral Types}
\label{table:properties}
\tablehead{
\colhead{AllWISE Designation} \vspace{-0.25cm} & \colhead{Photometric\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Spectral Type\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Follow-Up\tablenotemark{c}}\\
\colhead{} \vspace{-0.05cm} & \colhead{Spectral Type} & \colhead{From Observations} & \colhead{Category}}
\startdata
J000430.66$-$260402.3 & 20.5 & T2 (blue) & l \\
J000458.47$-$133655.1 & 16.9 & T2 & g \\
J000536.63$-$263311.8 & 17.1 & T0 (pec) & l \\
J000856.39$-$281321.7 & 18.0 & L8 & n,l \\
J010134.83+033616.0 & 7.0 & M7 & s \\
J010631.20$-$231415.1 & 18.2 & L9 & l \\
J011049.18$+$192000.1 & 9.1 & M8 & w \\
J013525.38+020518.2 & 17.7 & T0 (sl. red) & l \\
J022721.93+235654.3 & 19.4 & L9 & n,l \\
J030119.39$-$231921.1 & 20.5 & T1 (sl. blue) & n,l \\
J030919.70$-$501614.2 & T7-T9\tablenotemark{d} & T7 & n,l \\
J031627.79+265027.5 & 19.0 & T3 & l \\
J032309.12$-$590751.0 & 26.2 & T7 & n,l,s \\
J032838.73+015517.7 & 18.5 & L5 (blue) & l \\
J033346.88+385152.6 & 11.6 & M8 & s \\
J034409.71+013641.5 & 19.1 & L8 & l \\
J034858.75$-$562017.8 & 22.6 & T3 & n,l \\
J041353.96$-$202320.3 & 17.7 & L5 (blue) & g \\
J041743.13+241506.3 & 23.7 & T6 & n,l \\
J053424.45+165255.0 & 15.4 & L2 (pec) & n \\
J054455.54+063940.3 & 10.3 & M9 & n \\
J061429.77+383337.5 & 10.3 & M9 & n \\
J062858.69+345249.2 & 17.2 & L4 & l \\
J063552.52+514820.4 & 17.4 & T0 & l \\
J084254.56$-$061023.7 & 22.7 & T4 & l,n \\
J085039.11$-$022154.3 & 16.3 & sdL7 (red) & n \\
J085633.87$-$181546.6 & 11.6 & L1 & g \\
J092453.76+072306.0 & 5.9 & M6 & s \\
J094812.21$-$290329.5 & 11.8 & sdL1 & s \\
J095230.79$-$282842.2 & 5.3 & esdM4 & s \\
J101944.62$-$391151.6 & 24.0 & T3 (blue) & n,l,s \\
J103534.63$-$071148.2 & 17.7 & sdL7 & l \\
J111320.39+501010.5 & 7.0 & M4 (blue) & s \\
J112158.76+004412.3 & 8.6 & M7 (blue) & s \\
J112859.45+511016.8 & 14.1 & L3 & g \\
J120751.17+302808.9 & 10.6 & M8 & s \\
J121231.97$-$050750.7 & 5.4 & M7 (sl. blue) & s \\
J121914.75+081027.0 & $<$5 & sdM7 & s \\
J122042.20+620528.3 & 6.3 & sdM7 & s \\
J123513.87$-$045146.5 & 5.1 & esdM4 & s \\
J124516.66+601607.5 & 9.4 & sdM8.5 & s \\
J133520.09$-$070849.3 & 12.3 & M7 & s \\
J134359.71+634213.1 & 10.3 & M8 & g \\
J143942.79$-$110045.4 & 11.8 & sdL1 & s \\
J144056.64$-$222517.8 & 9.1 & sdM8.5 & s \\
J145645.54$-$103343.5 & 10.2 & M8 (sl. blue) & g \\
J145747.55$-$094719.3 & 6.5 & esdM4 & s \\
J155225.22+095155.5 & 7.9 & sdM7 & s \\
J165057.66$-$221616.8 & 5.4 & M5 & n \\
J171059.52$-$180108.7 & 5.2 & M4(blue) & n \\
J171105.08$-$275531.7 & 7.3 & M6 & n \\
J171454.88+064349.8 & 15.0 & L2(red) & g \\
J173551.56$-$820900.3 & 24.3 & T7 & n,l \\
J180839.55+070021.7 & 14.7 & L1 (blue) & s \\
J182010.20+202125.8 & 7.4 & sdM8.5 & s \\
J183654.10$-$135926.2 & 8.7 & M6 & n \\
J191011.03+563429.3 & 11.6 & M8 & n \\
J201252.78+124633.3 & 6.5 & M7 (sl. red) & n \\
J211157.84$-$521111.3 & 19.7 & T3 & l \\
J215550.34$-$195428.4 & 16.7 & L7 & g \\
J221737.41$-$355242.7 & 10.3 & M5 & s \\
J223444.44$-$230916.1 & 17.4 & L5 & l \\
J224931.10$-$162759.6 & 17.1 & L5 (blue) & l \\
J230743.63+052037.3 & 11.7 & M7 & w \\
J234404.85$-$250042.2 & 11.8 & M7 & s \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Estimated spectral types are from \cite{Schneider2016}. They are numerical spectral types where, for example, M2=2, L2=12, T2=25, etc.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Spectral types as determined by comparing our SpeX Prism spectra with spectral standards. Subdwarf spectral types are denoted by the following abbreviations: sd = subdwarf, d/sd = dwarf/subdwarf, esd = extreme subdwarf.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Lists which of our follow-up categories an object belonged to: n=nearby, s=subdwarf, l=late-type, g=gap object, w=poor weather target.}
\tablenotetext{d}{WISE 0309$-$5016 does not show up in 2MASS, so a precise numerical spectral type could not be determined. Instead, an estimate was made based on the W1-W2 color. See Section 3.4 of \cite{Schneider2016} for details.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{Distance Estimates}
We can improve upon the spectrophotometric distances of \cite{Schneider2016} by using available photometry and absolute magnitude-spectral type relations to compute spectroscopic distances for each of our objects. We primarily used the relations of \cite{DupuyLiu2012}, which are valid for objects with spectral types between M6 and T9 (inclusive) and can be used with 2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K_s$ and WISE $W1$ and $W2$ photometry. For spectral types earlier than M6, we used the relations of \cite{Zhang2013}, which are valid for spectral types between M1 and L9 (inclusive) and can be used with 2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K_s$ photometry. Finally, for the subdwarfs, we used the relations of \cite{Zhang2017}, which are valid for subdwarfs with spectral types between M0 and L7 (inclusive) and can be used with 2MASS $J$ and $H$ band photometry.
These relations were combined with available photometry to calculate the distances and their uncertainties using a Monte Carlo approach to properly account for the uncertainties in the spectral type, spectral type-absolute magnitude relation, and the photometry. We randomly drew from distributions for the spectral type, the absolute magnitude, and the apparent magnitude to compute a distance. A uniform distribution with a width of 1 subtype centered on the spectral type of the object was used for the spectral type distribution, a normal distribution with a mean and standard deviation given by the spectral-type absolute magnitude relation and RMS uncertainty of that relation was used for the absolute magnitude relation, and a normal distribution with a mean and standard deviation given by the apparent magnitude and its uncertainty was used for the apparent magnitude distribution. The process was repeated 10,000 times for each object, and the mean and standard deviation of the resulting distribution gave us the spectroscopic distance and its uncertainty. Distances and uncertainties were calculated for each object in the filters where the spectral type - absolute magnitude relations are valid, and a weighted average of all individual spectroscopic distances for each object was then used to calculate the final spectroscopic distances, which can be found in Table 4.
\startlongtable
\begin{deluxetable*}{lllllll}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Object Distances}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\label{table:properties}
\tablehead{
\colhead{AllWISE Designation} \vspace{-0.35cm} & \colhead{Sp\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Schneider 2016\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Our} & \colhead{Gaia Source\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{Gaia\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{Kirkpatrick 2018\tablenotemark{e}} \\
\colhead{} \vspace{-0.005cm} & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{Dist (pc)} & \colhead{Dist (pc)} & \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Dist (pc)} & \colhead{Dist (pc)}}
\startdata
J000430.66$-$260402.3 & T2 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 25 $\pm$ 2.3 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J000458.47$-$133655.1 & T2 & $\cdots$ & 29 $\pm$ 2.7 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J000536.63$-$263311.8 & T0 (pec) & $\cdots$ & 31 $\pm$ 2.6 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J000856.39$-$281321.7 & L8 & 24--34 & 29 $\pm$ 2.5 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J010134.83+033616.0 & M7 & $\cdots$ & 92 $\pm$ 7.7 & 2551477793805008256 & $ 86 _{ -5.1}^{ +5.8}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J010631.20$-$231415.1 & L9 & $\cdots$ & 36 $\pm$ 3.2 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J011049.18$+$192000.1 & M8 & $\cdots$ & 59 $\pm$ 4.9 & 2786913366801779968 & $ 51.5 _{ -0.95}^{ +0.98}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J013525.38+020518.2 & T0 (sl. red) & $\cdots$ & 25 $\pm$ 2.1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J022721.93+235654.3 & L9 & 22--31 & 28 $\pm$ 2.3 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J030119.39$-$231921.1 & T1 (sl. blue) & 24--33 & 27 $\pm$ 2.3 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J030919.70$-$501614.2 & T7 & 9--13 & 14 $\pm$ 1.8 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 15.0 $\pm$ 0.87 \\
J031627.79+265027.5 & T3 & $\cdots$ & 22 $\pm$ 2.1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J032309.12$-$590751.0 & T7 & 16--26 & 19 $\pm$ 2.2 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 14.0 $\pm$ 0.84 \\
J032838.73+015517.7 & L5 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 47 $\pm$ 4.5 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J033346.88+385152.6 & M8 & $\cdots$ & 104 $\pm$ 8.7 & 236441149397820800 & $ 85 _{ -7.2}^{ +8.6}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J034409.71+013641.5 & L8 & $\cdots$ & 37 $\pm$ 3.5 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J034858.75$-$562017.8 & T3 & 24--33 & 28 $\pm$ 3.0 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J041353.96$-$202320.3 & L5 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 41 $\pm$ 3.5 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J041743.13+241506.3 & T6 & 13--19 & 12 $\pm$ 1.0 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J053424.45+165255.0 & L2 (pec) & 18--25 & 33 $\pm$ 2.8 & 3397015189186833408 & $ 28 _{ -2.8}^{ +3.6}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J054455.54+063940.3 & M9 & 24--37 & 35 $\pm$ 2.9 & 3333278694852547328 & $ 31.3 _{ -0.35}^{ +0.36}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J061429.77+383337.5 & M9 & 18--27 & 27 $\pm$ 2.2 & 956200977271782144 & $ 25.2 _{ -0.23}^{ +0.24}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J062858.69+345249.2 & L4 & $\cdots$ & 40. $\pm$ 3.3 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J063552.52+514820.4 & T0 & $\cdots$ & 29 $\pm$ 2.7 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J084254.56$-$061023.7 & T4 & 20--29 & 21 $\pm$ 1.9 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J085039.11$-$022154.3 & sdL7 (red) & 21--30 & 24 $\pm$ 3.4 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J085633.87$-$181546.6 & L1 & $\cdots$ & 64 $\pm$ 5.4 & 5728941156831133952 & $ 56 _{ -3.5}^{ +4.0}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J092453.76+072306.0 & M6 & $\cdots$ & 140 $\pm$ 12 & 586424457955450496 & $118 _{ -7.3}^{ +8.3}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J094812.21$-$290329.5 & sdL1 & $\cdots$ & 71 $\pm$ 9.8 & 5656672112963964928 & $ 62 _{ -2.6}^{ +2.8}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J095230.79$-$282842.2 & esdM4 & $\cdots$ & 110 $\pm$ 15 & 5464936251656505344 & $130. _{ -2.5}^{ +2.6}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J101944.62$-$391151.6 & T3 (blue) & 19--28 & 23 $\pm$ 2.0 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J103534.63$-$071148.2 & sdL7 & $\cdots$ & 42 $\pm$ 6.1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J111320.39+501010.5 & M4 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 140 $\pm$ 19 \tablenotemark{f} & 838162769031557888 & $181 _{ -9.3}^{+10.4}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J112158.76+004412.3 & M7 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 116 $\pm$ 9.9 & 3798149260432886528 & $ 75 _{ -6.7}^{ +8.2}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J112859.45+511016.8 & L3 & $\cdots$ & 46 $\pm$ 3.8 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J120751.17+302808.9 & M8 & $\cdots$ & 78 $\pm$ 6.5 & 4014105473115624192 & $ 71 _{ -3.5}^{ +3.9}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J121231.97$-$050750.7 & M7 (sl. blue) & $\cdots$ & 71 $\pm$ 6.0 & 3596616230830390016 & $ 66 _{ -1.8}^{ +1.9}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J121914.75+081027.0 & sdM7 & $\cdots$ & 120 $\pm$ 16 & 3902112585964749312 & $122 _{ -7.5}^{ +8.5}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J122042.20+620528.3 & sdM7 & $\cdots$ & 88 $\pm$ 7.4 & 1583395326382043392 & $113 _{ -4.0}^{ +4.3}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J123513.87$-$045146.5 & esdM4 & $\cdots$ & 160 $\pm$ 22 & 3680363115235579904 & $156 _{ -4.9}^{ +5.2}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J124516.66+601607.5 & sdM8.5 & $\cdots$ & 100 $\pm$ 14 & 1579775596664490752 & $116 _{ -3.7}^{ +4.0}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J133520.09$-$070849.3 & M7 & $\cdots$ & 130 $\pm$ 11 & 3630793763800277376 & $ 100. _{ -9.4}^{+11}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J134359.71+634213.1 & M8 & $\cdots$ & 98 $\pm$ 8.3 & 1665037775596252544 & $ 80. _{ -5.8}^{ +6.8}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J143942.79$-$110045.4 & sdL1 & $\cdots$ & 80. $\pm$ 11 & 6324908688520221568 & $130 _{-26}^{+47}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J144056.64$-$222517.8 & sdM8.5 & $\cdots$ & 80. $\pm$ 11 & 6278872445902622336 & $106 _{ -3.8}^{ +4.0}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J145645.54$-$103343.5 & M8 (sl. blue) & $\cdots$ & 61 $\pm$ 5.0 & 6313890619936907136 & $ 49 _{ -1.3}^{ +1.4}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J145747.55$-$094719.3 & esdM4 & $\cdots$ & 140 $\pm$ 19 & 6326026685686833920 & $166 _{ -5.5}^{ +5.9}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J155225.22+095155.5 & sdM7 & $\cdots$ & 130 $\pm$ 18 & 4455454422667645184 & $130 _{-12}^{+14}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J165057.66$-$221616.8 & M5 & 22--35 & 41 $\pm$ 6.4 & 4126600390415016832 & $ 34.7 _{ -0.12}^{ +0.12}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J171059.52$-$180108.7 & M4 (blue) & 24--37 & 60 $\pm$ 12 & 4134686886136743552 & $ 44.2 _{ -0.17}^{ +0.18}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J171105.08$-$275531.7 & M6 & 21--34 & 33 $\pm$ 2.8 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J171454.88+064349.8 & L2 (red) & $\cdots$ & 56 $\pm$ 4.8 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J173551.56$-$820900.3 & T7 & 14--21 & 13 $\pm$ 1.4 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 13.3 $\pm$ 0.81 \\
J180839.55+070021.7 & L1 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 79 $\pm$ 6.7 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J182010.20+202125.8 & sdM8.5 & $\cdots$ & 80. $\pm$ 11 & 4528661276939071488 & $124 _{ -3.0}^{ +3.1}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J183654.10$-$135926.2 & M6 & 20--31 & 35 $\pm$ 3.0 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J191011.03+563429.3 & M8 & 16--23 & 29 $\pm$ 2.4 & 2141364423410899968 & $ 23.48 _{ -0.07}^{ +0.07}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J201252.78+124633.3 & M7 (sl. red) & 17--26 & 20. $\pm$ 1.7 & 1803225427774999680 & $ 19.27 _{ -0.03}^{ +0.03}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J211157.84$-$521111.3 & T3 & $\cdots$ & 26 $\pm$ 2.4 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J215550.34$-$195428.4 & L7 & $\cdots$ & 39 $\pm$ 3.6 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J221737.41$-$355242.7 & M5 & $\cdots$ & 150 $\pm$ 24 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J223444.44$-$230916.1 & L5 & $\cdots$ & 55 $\pm$ 5.2 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J224931.10$-$162759.6 & L5 (blue) & $\cdots$ & 37 $\pm$ 3.1 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
J230743.63+052037.3 & M7 & $\cdots$ & 64 $\pm$ 5.4 & 2662702873947256832 & $ 87 _{ -2.7}^{ +2.9}$ & $\cdots$ \\
J234404.85$-$250042.2 & M7 & $\cdots$ & 84 $\pm$ 7.2 & 2338610933917661696 & $ 63 _{ -5.1}^{ +6.0}$ & $\cdots$ \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Spectral types as determined by comparing our SpeX Prism spectra with spectral standards. Subdwarf spectral types are denoted by the following abbreviations: sd = subdwarf, d/sd = dwarf/subdwarf, esd = extreme subdwarf.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Only listed for objects that were nearby candidates in the \cite{Schneider2016} survey}
\tablenotetext{c}{Only listed for objects with matches in Gaia DR2}
\tablenotetext{d}{Taken from \cite{Bailer-Jones2018}.}
\tablenotetext{e}{Only listed for three objects, which were included in the \cite{Kirkpatrick2019} paper.}
\tablenotetext{f}{This is the distance we calculated, assuming this object is a subdwarf. In the absence of this assumption, the distance would be 260 $\pm$ 31 pc.}
\end{deluxetable*}
Most of our distances are within, or close to, the distance ranges from the \cite{Schneider2016} survey. WISE 1710$-$1801 shows a large discrepancy between the spectroscopic distance calculated in this paper (60 $\pm$ 12 pc) and the spectrophotometric distance estimated in \cite{Schneider2016} (24--37 pc). This is likely a result of the fact that \cite{Schneider2016} used the \cite{DupuyLiu2012} relations to calculate their distance estimate, and these relations are not valid for early M dwarfs. The estimate in this paper used the \cite{Zhang2013} relations, which are valid for early M dwarfs.
We also searched the Gaia DR2 archive to identify which of our candidates were detected by Gaia. Using the 2MASS - AllWISE proper motions calculated by \cite{Schneider2016}, and the positions of our sources from the AllWISE epoch (2010.5), we calculated the positions of each of our sources in the Gaia epoch (2015.5). It was not possible to do this for WISE 0309$-$5016, because it was not detected in 2MASS and \cite{Schneider2016} were not able to calculate a 2MASS - AllWISE proper motion for it. We then cross-matched the positions of our objects at the Gaia epoch against the Gaia DR2 archive, and identified all Gaia matches within 5$\arcsec$. We then examined all the matches for each object to confirm matches, and in some cases, determine which of multiple matches was the correct object. This was accomplished by: first, performing a visual inspection of each of our objects using finder charts, examining the position of our object in images from DSS, UKIDSS, 2MASS, WISE, and Pan-STARRs, where available. Second, the separation was calculated between the coordinates we calculated for each object at the Gaia epoch and the coordinates for each match in the Gaia DR2 catalog, to determine which of the multiple matches was closest to the coordinates we calculated. Third, we compared the proper motions for each match in the Gaia Catalog to the proper motions for each source calculated in \cite{Schneider2016}, to make sure those values matched.
In total, 32 of our 65 objects have matches in Gaia. They are all listed in Table 4, along with the Gaia source ID for each match, and the Gaia distances for each object \citep{Bailer-Jones2018}. Two of our objects (WISE 0850$-$0221 and WISE 1808+0700) had matches in the Gaia catalog with no parallax measurements, and so are not included in Table 4. For most of our objects, we find good agreement between our spectroscopic distances and the Gaia distances, as well as the 2MASS - AllWISE proper motions and the Gaia proper motions, as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:distcomp}. For WISE 1113+5010, we noticed a large discrepancy between our spectroscopic distance of 260 $\pm$ 31 pc and the Gaia distance of $181 _{ -9.3}^{+10.4}$ pc. Our spectral type for this object is an M4 (blue), meaning it exhibits suppressed flux in the $H$- and $K$-bands, relative to the $J$-band, causing it to appear bluer in the $H$- and $K$- bands than field objects of the same spectral class. This is typically an indicator that an object could be a subdwarf (this is discussed in greater detail in \S 5.3). If we use the absolute magnitude-spectral type relations for subdwarfs, we get a distance of 140$\pm$19 pc, which is much closer to the Gaia distance. This suggests that WISE 1113+5010 may either be a subdwarf (sdM4) or an intermediate subdwarf (d/sdM4). Unfortunately, we do not have a spectrum of a sdM4 standard, and so we cannot confirm this hypothesis.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{F8.pdf}}}
\caption{Top panel: Comparison of the spectroscopic distances we calculated for each of our objects to the distances from Gaia, as determined by \cite{Bailer-Jones2018} and the distances determined from the parallaxes of \cite{Kirkpatrick2019}. One of our objects, WISE 1113+5010 shows a large discrepancy between the NEOWISE distance and the Gaia distance. We believe this is because it may be a subdwarf (see \S4.2 for details). We estimated what the spectroscopic distance would be if it was a subdwarf, and that matches up much better with the Gaia distance, as show in this figure. Middle and bottom panels: comparison of the NEOWISE proper motions and the Gaia proper motions for all objects that appear in Gaia. There is good agreement between these for all of our objects. \label{fig:distcomp}}
\end{figure}
Included in Table 4 along with our Gaia distances, are distances for three objects (WISE 0309$-$5016, WISE 0323$-$5907 and WISE 1735$-$8209) calculated from parallaxes obtained by \cite{Kirkpatrick2019} using the The Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; \citealt{Fazio2004}) on the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} \citep{Werner2004Spitzer}. The distances for WISE 0309$-$5016 and WISE 1735$-$8209 agree very well with the spectroscopic distances we calculated, but the distance for WISE 0323$-$5907 does not, as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:distcomp}. The parallax from \cite{Kirkpatrick2019} gives a distance of 14.0 $\pm$ 0.84 pc, and our spectroscopic distance is 19 $\pm$ 2.1 pc. The reason for the large discrepancy is still unclear. \citeauthor{Kirkpatrick2019} estimate the spectral type of this object to be T6, based on the ch1$-$ch2 photometry but, according to our spectrum from IRTF/SpeX, it is a textbook T7. \citeauthor{Kirkpatrick2019} note that this source is too faint in $W1$ and $W2$ for its Spitzer ch1$-$ch2 color. If we calculate the distance using only the 2MASS $J$-band photometry (which comes from the 2MASS reject catalog), we get a distance of 18.1 $\pm$ 4.2 pc, which falls within 1$\sigma$ of the \citeauthor{Kirkpatrick2019} value. This object will need to be studied further to determine the exact reason for this discrepancy.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Nearby Objects}
Volume-limited samples are the gold standard in astrophysics because they provide an unbiased sample of the objects under scrutiny. Constructing a complete census of the stars and brown dwarfs in the solar neighborhood is particularly important because this region contains the brightest, and thus most easily studied, objects of a given spectral class. At least one star or brown dwarf has been added to the list of stellar systems that lie within 10 pc of the Sun every year since 2002 \citep{Henry2018} indicating that the local census remains incomplete. The intrinsic faintness of brown dwarfs makes constructing volume-limited samples difficult, particularly out to larger distances where the census is even more incomplete.
Our survey and follow-up observations have identified 21 new objects within 30 pc of the Sun. Eleven of these objects have distances within 25 pc: one M dwarf (WISE 2012+1246 M7 (sl. red)), nine T dwarfs (WISE 0004$-$2604 T2 (blue), WISE 0135+0205 T0 (sl. red), WISE 0309$-$5016 T7, WISE 0316+2650 T3, WISE 0323$-$5907 T7, WISE 0417+2415 T6, WISE 0842$-$0610 T4, WISE 1019$-$3911 T3 (blue), and WISE 1735$-$8209 T7), and one L subdwarf (WISE 0850$-$0221 sdL7 (red)). An additional ten objects have spectroscopic distances 25 pc $<$ d $<$ 30 pc: two M dwarfs (WISE 0614+3833 M9, WISE 1910+5634 M8), two L dwarfs (WISE 0008$-$2813 L8, WISE 0227+2356 L9), and six T dwarfs (WISE 0004$-$1336 T2, WISE 0301$-$2319 T0 (sl. blue), WISE 0328$-$5620 T3, WISE 0348$-$5620 T3, WISE 0635+5148 T0, WISE 2111-5211 T3). Three of our objects are within 15 pc. All three of these are T dwarfs: (WISE 0309$-$5016 (13.8 $\pm$1.69; T7), WISE 1735$-$8209 (12.4$\pm$1.28; T7), WISE 0417+2415 (11.4$\pm$0.96; T6)). Even though it is within 15pc, WISE 0417+2415 has no published parallax. The other two have parallaxes published in \cite{Kirkpatrick2019}.
\subsection{Late-type Brown Dwarfs}
While the stellar mass function in the solar neighborhood is well understood \citep{Bastian2010}, the substellar mass function has proven more difficult to measure for two reasons. First, brown dwarfs cool over time, and thus do not follow a mass-luminosity relation as stars do. Second, as mentioned in \S 5.1, the census of brown dwarfs in the solar neighborhood remains incomplete. The census is most incomplete for the late-type T and Y dwarfs because of their intrinsic faintness. However, these objects are among the most important because it has been shown that they provide the best constraints on the underlying mass function (e.g. \citealt{Burgasser2004IMF} and \citealt{Kirkpatrick2019}).
In an effort to identify new late-type objects in the solar neighborhood, we observed 23 candidate late-type objects ($\geq$L7) from \cite{Schneider2016}. Fourteen of these are T dwarfs, with spectral types ranging from T0 to T7; four are late-type L dwarfs; and one (WISE 1035$-$0711) is a sdL7. The remaining four were mid-L dwarfs, with spectral types of either L4 or L5. We also discovered three additional late-type objects: WISE 2155$-$1954 (L7), WISE 0004$-$1336 (T2), and WISE 0850$-$0221 (sdL7 (red)), which were not late-type candidates.
WISE 0004$-$1336 was one of the objects we observed to fill in gaps in our Right Ascension coverage (see \S2). In \cite{Schneider2016} it had an estimated spectral type, based on the available photometry, of L6.9, making it just beyond the L7 cutoff, so it was not listed as one of their late-type candidates. When we observed this object, we found it to have a spectral type of T2. Three other objects (WISE 0005$-$2633; WISE 0135+0205; WISE 0635+5148) also had estimated spectral types, based on photometry, of L7 or earlier, and were classified as T dwarfs based on their spectra. In \cite{Schneider2016}, the spectral types for these objects were estimated based on their infrared colors (see Appendix of \cite{Schneider2016} for details), using available photometry. The colors for early T dwarfs can overlap with the colors of mid- to early-L dwarfs (see Figure 5 in \cite{Schneider2016}), which can cause these objects to be mistakenly classified as mid-L dwarfs because of the similarity in color. It is likely that this is why these objects were mis-classified as L6 or L7, instead of T dwarfs, and why WISE 0004$-$2604 missed the cut-off for the late-type objects in \cite{Schneider2016}.
\subsection{Subdwarfs}
While effective temperature is the primary parameter that controls the spectral morphology of brown dwarfs, both surface gravity and metallicity also play a role. Our understanding of the impacts that variations in metallicity have on the emergent spectra of brown dwarfs is still in its infancy because of the paucity of metal-poor L and T dwarfs known; the total number currently stands at 71 \citep{Zhang2018} which in in stark contrast to the thousands of near solar metallicity brown dwarfs known. Identifying new metal-poor brown dwarfs will help us to build a large enough sample to begin inferring trends in spectral morphology within a given spectral type, and will allow us to better examine trends across a larger range of subdwarf types.
We conducted follow-up observations of 24 candidate subdwarfs from \cite{Schneider2016}. As described in \S 3.1, we have spectra of 16 M and L subdwarf standards, obtained with IRTF/SpeX, which we used to determine which of our objects were subdwarfs. While this is the first time these have been used as near-infrared subdwarf standards, all had previously been spectral typed as subdwarfs in the optical, as detailed in Table 2. Our subdwarf spectral standards include both sd and esd for the M spectral class, and sd for the L spectral class. The esd have $-$1.7 $<$ [Fe/H] $\leq$ $-$1.0, and the sd have $-$1.0 $<$ [Fe/H] $\leq$ $-$0.3 (\citealt{Gizis1997}; \citealt{Zhang2017}). All of our observed objects, both subdwarf candidates and non-subdwarf candidates were compared against both the subdwarf and non-subdwarf standards during the spectral typing process. Final spectral types were determined based on the best match between each object and all available spectral standards. As can be see in Table 2 and Figure 7, our spectral sequence of subdwarf standards is incomplete, especially for the L subdwarfs. This is due to the fact that, at present, there are very few near-infrared spectral standards for subdwarfs available. We have spectral typed our objects to the best of our ability with the available standards, but, we have likely missed some of the subdwarfs in our sample, as a result of not having standards at those spectral types.
Of the 24 subdwarf candidates we observed, 11 were spectral typed as subdwarfs: six sdM (WISE 1219+018 sdM7; WISE 1220+6205 sdM7; WISE 1245+6016 sdM8.5; WISE 1440$-$2225 sdM8.5; WISE 1552+0951 sdM7; WISE 1820+2021 sdM8.5), two sdL (WISE 0948$-$2903 sdL1; WISE 1439$-$1100 sdL1), and three esdM4 (WISE 0952$-$2828; WISE 1235$-$0451; WISE 1457$-$0947). Ten of the remaining 13 were spectral typed as M dwarfs, with spectral types ranging from M4 to M8, one is an L1 (blue) (WISE 1808+0700), and one is a T7 (WISE 0323$-$5907). The remaining object, WISE 1019$-$3911, was spectral typed as a T3 (blue). We also observed two objects that were not subdwarf candidates, but were spectral typed as subdwarfs. Both are L subdwarfs. WISE 0850$-$0221 is a sdL7 (red) and WISE 1035$-$0711 is a sdL7. According to \cite{Zhang2018}, there are 66 known L subdwarfs. This includes four sdL7s, three sdL5s and four sdL1. We have discovered two additional sdL7s, two additional sdL1s and three candidate sdL5s, substantially increasing the number of known L subdwarfs at these spectral types.
Due to enhanced collision-induced $H_2$ absorption, subdwarfs tend to have suppressed flux in the $H$- and $K$-bands, relative to the $J$-band, causing them to appear bluer in the $H$- and $K$- bands than field objects of the same spectral class. In addition, they exhibit brightening in the $Y$-band. Among the objects we observed, 11 are blue: four M dwarfs, four L dwarfs, and three T dwarfs. For three of these (WISE 1121+0044, M7 (blue); WISE 1456$-$1033 M8 (sl. blue), and WISE 1808+0700 L1 (blue)), we have subdwarf spectral standards at those spectral types and so can confirm that, while they are blue, they are not subdwarfs. For the remaining eight, we do not. We believe these objects could be subdwarf candidates, but without subdwarf standards at the corresponding spectral types, we cannot be certain at this time. We have three new candidate T subdwarfs: WISE 0301$-$2319 (sdT1), WISE 0004$-$2604 (sdT2), and WISE 1019$-$3911 (sdT3); three new candidate sdL5: WISE 0328+0155, WISE 0413$-$2023, and WISE 2249$-$1627; and two new candidate sdM4: WISE 1113+5010 and WISE 1710$-$1801.
Additionally, WISE 0948$-$2903 (sdL1), and WISE 1439$-$1100 (sdL1), and some of the blue late Ms (e.g., WISE 1212$-$0507 and WISE 1121+0044) show a triangular $H$-band peak, a feature that is seen in the spectra of young, low-gravity M and L dwarfs and attributed to reduced collision induced $H_2$ absorption in low pressure atmospheres (e.g. \citealt{Rice2011}; \citealt{AllersLiu2013}). \cite{Aganze2016} analyzed this feature while studying the d/sdM7 GJ 660.1B which has [Fe/H] = $-$0.63$\pm$0.06, and found that this feature is also indicative of subsolar metallicity. The presence of this feature in our spectra supports the classification of WISE 0948$-$2903 and WISE 1439$-$1100 as subdwarfs, and suggests the blue M dwarfs may also have subsolar metallicities.
Among our discoveries, we find three new T subdwarf candidates all with distances around 25pc. One of these, WISE 1019$-$3911, was listed as a candidate in all three categories. Based on the estimates from \cite{Schneider2016}, WISE 1019$-$3911 was expected to be a T dwarf, with an estimated spectral type based on photometry of T4, an estimated distance of 19--28 pc, and was also a subdwarf candidate. We observed it using CTIO/ARCoIRIS, and spectral typed it as a T3 (blue) with a distance of 25.1 $\pm$ 0.32 pc. The other two, WISE 0004$-$2604 and WISE 0301$-$2319 were not subdwarf candidates. WISE 0004$-$2604 was a late-type candidate with an estimated spectral type, based on photometry of T0.5, and WISE 0301$-$2319 was a nearby late-type candidate with an estimated spectral type, based on photometry, of T0.5, and an estimated distance of 24--33 pc. We observed both of them with IRTF/SpeX, and typed WISE 0004$-$2604 as T2 (blue) with a distance of 25 $\pm$ 2.3 pc and WISE 0301$-$2319 as T1 (sl. blue) with a distance of 27 $\pm$ 2.3 pc.
If confirmed, these three objects would more than double the number of known early-type T subdwarfs. To date, only two early-type T subdwarfs are known: the sdT0 WISE 071121.36$-$573634.2 discovered by \cite{Kellogg2018} as part of the follow-up for the AllWISE2 motion survey \citep{Kirkpatrick2016}; and the sdT1.5 WISE 210529.08$-$623558.7, discovered by \cite{LuhmanandSheppard2014} as part of an analysis of high proper motion objects from the {\it WISE} survey. In addition, there are three published late-type T subdwarfs: the sdT5.5 HIP73786B, a common proper motion companion to the metal-poor K-star HIP73786 discovered by \cite{Murray2011} using data from the United Kingdom InfraRed Telescope (UKIRT) Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS); the sdT6.5 ULAS J131610.28+075553.0 discovered by \cite{Burningham2014} in the UKIDSS Large Area Survey; and the sdT8 WISE J200520.38+542433.9, a companion to the sdM1.5 Wolf 1130, discovered by \cite{Mace2013} using photometry from 2MASS, WISE, and other telescopes. Although it was not initially designated as a T subdwarf, \cite{BBK2006} showed that the peculiar T6 dwarf 2MASS 0937+2931 has a sub solar metallicity and has a spectral morphology consistent with other T subdwarfs. In addition, \cite{Zhang2019} report 38 metal-poor T dwarfs, that show suppressed $K$-band flux in their spectra, which they believe might be T subdwarfs. All of these have spectral types of T5 or later.
As discussed above, there are gaps in our sequence of subdwarf spectral standards. We do have spectra of several subdwarf candidates at these missing spectral types including two candidate sdM4: WISE 1113+5010 and WISE 1710$-$1801; three new candidate sdL5: WISE 0328+0155, WISE 0413$-$2023, and WISE 2249$-$1627; and three new candidate T subdwarfs: WISE 0301$-$2319 (sdT1), WISE 0004$-$2604 (sdT2), and WISE 1019$-$3911 (sdT3). These objects could potentially be used to fill in these holes in the sequence. This is beyond the scope of this work but, in the future these spectra could aid in the construction of a more complete classification scheme for subdwarfs.
We also calculated tangential velocities and their uncertainties for each of our objects, using a Monte Carlo approach to properly account for the uncertainties in the distances and proper motions. Normal distributions were constructed for $\mu_{\alpha}$, $\mu_{\delta}$, and distance, using their uncertainties. Values for each were randomly drawn from those distributions and used to calculate v$_\text{tan}$. This process was repeated 10,000 times, and the resulting distribution was fit to determine v$_\text{tan}$ and its uncertainty for each object. These values are reported in Table 5, and plotted in Figure \ref{fig:vtan}. In \cite{DupuyLiu2012}, they computed the membership probability as a function of tangential velocity for the thin disk, thick disk, and halo populations. Based on the results plotted in Figure 31 of that paper, we define the v$_\text{tan}$ values for these regions as follows: halo v$_\text{tan} \gtrsim 250$ km/s; thick disk 100 km/s $\lesssim$ v$_\text{tan}$ $\gtrsim$ 250 km/s; and thin disk v$_\text{tan} \lesssim 100$ km/s. All three of the extreme subdwarfs in our sample have v$_\text{tan} \gtrsim 250$ km/s, putting them in the halo, as expected of older, lower metallicity subdwarfs, which tend to be kinematically associated with the halo population. The dwarfs in our sample are likely clustered in the thin disk, though it is likely some are also in the thick disk. The subdwarfs in our sample are likely distributed throughout the thick and thin disk. Three of our dwarfs have tangential velocities that place them in the halo: WISE 0101+0336 (355.0 $\pm$ 30.1 km/s), WISE 0924+0723 (290 $\pm$ 26 km/s), and WISE 1113+5010 (460 $\pm$ 76 km/s). The velocity of WISE 1113+5010 is approaching the escape velocity of the Galaxy, which is v$_\text{tan}$=$ 528 _{ -25}^{ +24}$ km/s at the Sun's position \citep{Deason2019}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\includegraphics{F9.pdf}}}
\caption{Distribution of tangential velocities for our objects. \label{fig:vtan}}
\end{figure}
\begin{longrotatetable}
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccc}
\tablecaption{Photometry, Proper Motions, Spectral Types, and Tangential Velocities of All Observed Objects}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\label{table:photometry}
\tablehead{
\colhead{AllWISE} \vspace{-0.35cm} & \colhead{2MASS $J$} & \colhead{2MASS $H$} & \colhead{2MASS $K_{s}$} & \colhead{{\it WISE} $W$1} & \colhead{{\it WISE} $W$2} & \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}$} & \colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$} & \colhead{v$_\text{tan}$} & \colhead{Spectral} \\
\colhead{Designation} \vspace{-0.005cm} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mas/yr)} & \colhead{(mas/yr)} & \colhead{km/s} & \colhead{Type} }
\startdata
J000430.66$-$260402.3 & 16.487 $\pm$ 0.133 & 15.587 $\pm$ 0.129 & $>$15.523 & 15.211 $\pm$ 0.038 & 14.127 $\pm$ 0.044 & 11.9 $\pm$ 15.3 & $-$229.6 $\pm$ 13.8 & 27 $\pm$ 2.9 & T2 (blue) \\
J000458.47$-$133655.1 & 16.841 $\pm$ 0.171 & 16.120 $\pm$ 0.207 & $>$15.410 & 15.120 $\pm$ 0.037 & 14.457 $\pm$ 0.056 & 431.3 $\pm$ 21.8 & $-$37.4 $\pm$ 20.3 & 59 $\pm$ 6.3 & T2 \\
J000536.63$-$263311.8 & 17.171 $\pm$ 0.225 & 15.849 $\pm$ 0.165 & 15.191 $\pm$ 0.154 & 14.924 $\pm$ 0.033 & 14.261 $\pm$ 0.047 & 384.0 $\pm$ 22.8 & 39.8 $\pm$ 20.5 & 56 $\pm$ 5.8 & T0 (pec) \\
J000856.39$-$281321.7 & 16.727 $\pm$ 0.137 & 15.664 $\pm$ 0.139 & 15.049 $\pm$ 0.131 & 14.119 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.636 $\pm$ 0.037 & 284.3 $\pm$ 16.0 & $-$54.7 $\pm$ 13.6 & 40 $\pm$ 4.0 & L8 \\
J010134.83+033616.0 & 15.418 $\pm$ 0.052 & 14.650 $\pm$ 0.066 & 14.300 $\pm$ 0.069 & 14.206 $\pm$ 0.029 & 13.941 $\pm$ 0.039 & 591.3 $\pm$ 10.0 & $-$557.8 $\pm$ 8.5 & 360 $\pm$ 30. & M7 \\
J010631.20$-$231415.1 & 17.338 $\pm$ 0.235 & 16.115 $\pm$ 0.204 & 15.683 $\pm$ 0.241 & 14.899 $\pm$ 0.033 & 14.417 $\pm$ 0.049 & $-$271.5 $\pm$ 24.8 & $-$201.6 $\pm$ 23.2 & 57 $\pm$ 6.6 & L9 \\
J011049.18$+$192000.1 & 14.708 $\pm$ 0.032 & 14.142 $\pm$ 0.038 & 13.827 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.467 $\pm$ 0.025 & 13.147 $\pm$ 0.03 & 451.9 $\pm$ 6.0 & 38.0 $\pm$ 6.0 & 130 $\pm$ 10. & M8 \\
J013525.38+020518.2 & 16.622 $\pm$ 0.129 & 15.481 $\pm$ 0.104 & 15.123 $\pm$ 0.117 & 14.283 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.883 $\pm$ 0.04 & 102.9 $\pm$ 16.2 & $-$494.1 $\pm$ 15.2 & 60 $\pm$ 5.4 & T0 (sl. red) \\
J022721.93+235654.3 & 16.663 $\pm$ 0.135 & 15.647 $\pm$ 0.105 & 15.270 $\pm$ 0.155 & 14.304 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.690 $\pm$ 0.035 & 310.0 $\pm$ 15.2 & $-$139.0 $\pm$ 13.6 & 44 $\pm$ 4.2 & L9 \\
J030119.39$-$231921.1 & 16.635 $\pm$ 0.144 & 15.800 $\pm$ 0.158 & 15.579 $\pm$ 0.234 & 14.829 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.036 $\pm$ 0.036 & 263.7 $\pm$ 27.9 & $-$141.4 $\pm$ 22.9 & 38 $\pm$ 4.7 & T1 (sl. blue) \\
J030919.70$-$501614.2\tablenotemark{a} & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & 16.465 $\pm$ 0.057 & 13.631 $\pm$ 0.031 & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & T7 \\
J031627.79+265027.5 & 16.585 $\pm$ 0.149 & 15.592 $\pm$ 0.159 & $>$15.159 & 14.980 $\pm$ 0.035 & 13.934 $\pm$ 0.04 & 209.0 $\pm$ 22.5 & $-$15.6 $\pm$ 20.2 & 22 $\pm$ 3.1 & T3 \\
J032309.12$-$590751.0 & 16.881 $\pm$ 0.189\tablenotemark{b} & $>$16.669 & $>$16.262 & 16.804 $\pm$ 0.065 & 14.529 $\pm$ 0.039 & 542.9 $\pm$ 24.0 & 476.7 $\pm$ 21.4 & 66 $\pm$ 7.6 & T7 \\
J032838.73+015517.7 & 16.504 $\pm$ 0.172 & $>$16.598 & 15.202 $\pm$ 0.182 & 14.645 $\pm$ 0.031 & 14.327 $\pm$ 0.053 & 190.8 $\pm$ 22.7 & $-$233.2 $\pm$ 19.0 & 66 $\pm$ 7.8 & L5 (blue) \\
J033346.88+385152.6 & 16.073 $\pm$ 0.071 & 15.276 $\pm$ 0.082 & 15.000 $\pm$ 0.118 & 14.654 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.350 $\pm$ 0.047 & 240.4 $\pm$ 9.7 & $-$324.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & 200 $\pm$ 17 & M8 \\
J034409.71+013641.5 & $>$17.024 & 15.949 $\pm$ 0.198 & 15.549 $\pm$ 0.232 & 14.647 $\pm$ 0.034 & 14.183 $\pm$ 0.05 & $-$72.0 $\pm$ 31.2 & $-$286.6 $\pm$ 30.3 & 51 $\pm$ 7.2 & L8 \\
J034858.75$-$562017.8 & 16.652 $\pm$ 0.151 & $>$15.940 & $>$15.517 & 14.233 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.919 $\pm$ 0.036 & 169.7 $\pm$ 18.0 & 206.6 $\pm$ 16.3 & 36 $\pm$ 4.3 & T3 \\
J041353.96$-$202320.3 & 16.392 $\pm$ 0.111 & 15.444 $\pm$ 0.116 & 15.132 $\pm$ 0.174 & 14.233 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.919 $\pm$ 0.036 & $-$41.8 $\pm$ 15.0 & $-$349.9 $\pm$ 14 & 20 $\pm$ 2.7 & L5 (blue) \\
J041743.13+241506.3 & 15.766 $\pm$ 0.069 & 15.654 $\pm$ 0.136 & 15.450 $\pm$ 0.167 & 14.520 $\pm$ 0.032 & 13.374 $\pm$ 0.035 & 403.6 $\pm$ 10.1 & $-$489.8 $\pm$ 10.2 & 35 $\pm$ 3.2 & T6 \\
J053424.45+165255.0 & 15.445 $\pm$ 0.041 & 14.385 $\pm$ 0.037 & 13.572 $\pm$ 0.041 & 12.969 $\pm$ 0.024 & 12.575 $\pm$ 0.025 & $-$69.0 $\pm$ 6.4 & $-$76.4 $\pm$ 6.4 & 16 $\pm$ 1.7 & L2 (pec) \\
J054455.54+063940.3 & 14.039 $\pm$ 0.032 & 13.286 $\pm$ 0.028 & 12.795 $\pm$ 0.033 & 12.494 $\pm$ 0.024 & 12.265 $\pm$ 0.025 & 157.7 $\pm$ 12.8 & $-$329.2 $\pm$ 11.9 & 61 $\pm$ 5.3 & M9 \\
J061429.77+383337.5 & 13.523 $\pm$ 0.024 & 12.748 $\pm$ 0.029 & 12.251 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.848 $\pm$ 0.024 & 11.619 $\pm$ 0.022 & 84.9 $\pm$ 6.9 & $-$385.8 $\pm$ 6.8 & 50 $\pm$ 4.2 & M9 \\
J062858.69+345249.2 & 15.957 $\pm$ 0.084 & 15.265 $\pm$ 0.089 & 14.706 $\pm$ 0.084 & 13.923 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.615 $\pm$ 0.039 & 8.2 $\pm$ 7.4 & $-$286.5 $\pm$ 7.4 & 54 $\pm$ 4.7 & L4 \\
J063552.52+514820.4 & $>$16.680 & 15.504 $\pm$ 0.144 & 15.416 $\pm$ 0.180 & 14.610 $\pm$ 0.031 & 14.294 $\pm$ 0.046 & $-$121.1 $\pm$ 18.9 & $-$243.2 $\pm$ 17.3 & 37 $\pm$ 4.2 & T0 \\
J084254.56$-$061023.7 & 16.040 $\pm$ 0.076 & 15.680 $\pm$ 0.111 & $>$15.127 & 15.444 $\pm$ 0.041 & 14.086 $\pm$ 0.041 & $-$375.9 $\pm$ 14.9 & $-$45.0 $\pm$ 14.4 & 37 $\pm$ 3.7 & T4 \\
J085039.11$-$022154.3 & 15.443 $\pm$ 0.044 & 14.504 $\pm$ 0.041 & 14.100 $\pm$ 0.059 & 13.408 $\pm$ 0.025 & 13.100 $\pm$ 0.028 & $-$392.0 $\pm$ 6.7 & $-$132.1 $\pm$ 6.7 & 47 $\pm$ 6.6 & sdL7 (red) \\
J085633.87$-$181546.6 & 15.828 $\pm$ 0.071 & 15.252 $\pm$ 0.094 & 14.473 $\pm$ 0.095 & 14.350 $\pm$ 0.029 & 14.178 $\pm$ 0.043 & 76.7 $\pm$ 8.3 & $-$251.5 $\pm$ 7.7 & 80 $\pm$ 7.0 & L1 \\
J092453.76+072306.0 & 15.752 $\pm$ 0.083 & 15.272 $\pm$ 0.094 & 14.754 $\pm$ 0.112 & 14.722 $\pm$ 0.032 & 14.488 $\pm$ 0.054 & $-$248.4 $\pm$ 11.1 & $-$383.2 $\pm$ 10.7 & 290 $\pm$ 27 & M6 \\
J094812.21$-$290329.5 & 15.542 $\pm$ 0.056 & 15.019 $\pm$ 0.066 & 14.848 $\pm$ 0.122 & 14.332 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.962 $\pm$ 0.03 & $-$370.3 $\pm$ 7.8 & $-$238.0 $\pm$ 8.0 & 150 $\pm$ 20 & sdL1 \\
J095230.79$-$282842.2 & 14.942 $\pm$ 0.043 & 14.451 $\pm$ 0.041 & 14.050 $\pm$ 0.058 & 13.934 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.651 $\pm$ 0.034 & $-$572.2 $\pm$ 7.2 & 276.3 $\pm$ 7.2 & 340 $\pm$ 46 & esdM4 \\
J101944.62$-$391151.6 & 16.027 $\pm$ 0.096 & 15.766 $\pm$ 0.125 & 15.727 $\pm$ 0.267 & 15.645 $\pm$ 0.044 & 14.217 $\pm$ 0.042 & $-$472.2 $\pm$ 28.0 & 222.7 $\pm$ 26.4 & 58 $\pm$ 5.9 & T3 (blue) \\
J103534.63$-$071148.2 & 16.393 $\pm$ 0.094 & 15.843 $\pm$ 0.128 & 15.145 $\pm$ 0.141 & 14.381 $\pm$ 0.029 & 14.085 $\pm$ 0.045 & $-$375.5 $\pm$ 18.9 & $-$28.4 $\pm$ 15.8 & 80 $\pm$ 11. & sdL7 \\
J111320.39+501010.5 & 15.506 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.804 $\pm$ 0.086 & 14.898 $\pm$ 0.113 & 14.603 $\pm$ 0.029 & 14.411 $\pm$ 0.046 & $-$167.3 $\pm$ 10.8 & $-$313.2 $\pm$ 10.9 & 330$\pm$ 54 & M4 (blue) \\
J112158.76+004412.3 & 15.961 $\pm$ 0.077 & 15.256 $\pm$ 0.075 & 14.877 $\pm$ 0.133 & 14.715 $\pm$ 0.033 & 14.297 $\pm$ 0.047 & $-$383.0 $\pm$ 9.5 & $-$133.0 $\pm$ 9.8 & 224 $\pm$ 20 & M7 (blue) \\
J112859.45+511016.8 & 16.189 $\pm$ 0.069 & 15.110 $\pm$ 0.078 & 14.490 $\pm$ 0.069 & 13.944 $\pm$ 0.026 & 13.692 $\pm$ 0.032 & $-$117.7 $\pm$ 9.0 & $-$321.9 $\pm$ 9.1 & 74 $\pm$ 6.4 & L3 \\
J120751.17+302808.9 & 15.253 $\pm$ 0.051 & 14.799 $\pm$ 0.071 & 14.467 $\pm$ 0.077 & 14.046 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.713 $\pm$ 0.033 & 126.1 $\pm$ 9.1 & $-$241.1 $\pm$ 7.2 & 100 $\pm$ 8.9 & M8 \\
J121231.97$-$050750.7 & 14.676 $\pm$ 0.032 & 14.201 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.845 $\pm$ 0.049 & 13.663 $\pm$ 0.028 & 13.366 $\pm$ 0.033 & $-$474.2 $\pm$ 7.0 & $-$21.9 $\pm$ 7.1 & 160 $\pm$ 13 & M7 (sl. blue) \\
J121914.75+081027.0 & 15.780 $\pm$ 0.085 & 15.076 $\pm$ 0.096 & 14.979 $\pm$ 0.148 & 14.796 $\pm$ 0.034 & 14.567 $\pm$ 0.059 & $-$279.9 $\pm$ 11.4 & $-$347.7 $\pm$ 11.1 & 250 $\pm$ 34 & sdM7 \\
J122042.20+620528.3 & 15.433 $\pm$ 0.054 & 14.830 $\pm$ 0.062 & 14.730 $\pm$ 0.086 & 14.487 $\pm$ 0.029 & 14.152 $\pm$ 0.034 & $-$467.9 $\pm$ 9.4 & $-$280.9 $\pm$ 8.7 & 230 $\pm$ 19 & sdM7 \\
J123513.87$-$045146.5 & 15.681 $\pm$ 0.072 & 15.195 $\pm$ 0.083 & 15.029 $\pm$ 0.142 & 14.808 $\pm$ 0.033 & 14.535 $\pm$ 0.057 & $-$230.0 $\pm$ 10.1 & $-$351.4 $\pm$ 9.9 & 317 $\pm$ 44 & esdM4 \\
J124516.66+601607.5 & 15.663 $\pm$ 0.058 & 15.297 $\pm$ 0.104 & 15.086 $\pm$ 0.116 & 14.711 $\pm$ 0.028 & 14.502 $\pm$ 0.043 & $-$294.7 $\pm$ 11.1 & $-$239.8 $\pm$ 9.7 & 190 $\pm$ 26 & sdM8.5 \\
J133520.09$-$070849.3 & 16.336 $\pm$ 0.097 & 15.365 $\pm$ 0.09 & 14.989 $\pm$ 0.134 & 14.932 $\pm$ 0.034 & 14.565 $\pm$ 0.056 & $-$367.5 $\pm$ 11.9 & 84.1 $\pm$ 12.0 & 230 $\pm$ 21 & M7 \\
J134359.71+634213.1 & 16.004 $\pm$ 0.085 & 15.202 $\pm$ 0.106 & 14.795 $\pm$ 0.096 & 14.476 $\pm$ 0.025 & 14.262 $\pm$ 0.033 & $-$254.0 $\pm$ 12.4 & 86.7 $\pm$ 8.3 & 130 $\pm$ 12 & M8 \\
J143942.79$-$110045.4 & 15.837 $\pm$ 0.086 & 15.365 $\pm$ 0.098 & 15.038 $\pm$ 0.145 & 14.586 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.213 $\pm$ 0.043 & $-$252.3 $\pm$ 9.8 & $-$207.6 $\pm$ 9.3 & 130 $\pm$ 18 & sdL1 \\
J144056.64$-$222517.8 & 15.077 $\pm$ 0.05 & 14.688 $\pm$ 0.058 & 14.453 $\pm$ 0.087 & 14.108 $\pm$ 0.029 & 13.780 $\pm$ 0.042 & $-$239.5 $\pm$ 7.8 & $-$247.3 $\pm$ 7.9 & 130 $\pm$ 18 & sdM8.5 \\
J145645.54$-$103343.5 & 14.856 $\pm$ 0.049 & 14.197 $\pm$ 0.055 & 13.849 $\pm$ 0.044 & 13.467 $\pm$ 0.026 & 13.166 $\pm$ 0.031 & 29.2 $\pm$ 7.1 & $-$302.3 $\pm$ 7.1 & 87 $\pm$ 7.6 & M8 (sl. blue) \\
J145747.55$-$094719.3 & 15.331 $\pm$ 0.048 & 14.930 $\pm$ 0.063 & 14.688 $\pm$ 0.097 & 14.377 $\pm$ 0.029 & 14.205 $\pm$ 0.048 & $-$313.9 $\pm$ 8.6 & $-$250.9 $\pm$ 8.0 & 260 $\pm$ 36 & esdM4 \\
J155225.22+095155.5 & 15.923 $\pm$ 0.088 & 15.360 $\pm$ 0.082 & 15.164 $\pm$ 0.147 & 14.756 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.554 $\pm$ 0.054 & $-$241.5 $\pm$ 12.1 & $-$291.8 $\pm$ 11.5 & 230 $\pm$ 33 & sdM7 \\
J165057.66$-$221616.8 & 12.218 $\pm$ 0.024 & 11.679 $\pm$ 0.027 & 11.332 $\pm$ 0.026 & 11.122 $\pm$ 0.023 & 10.929 $\pm$ 0.021 & $-$123.3 $\pm$ 5.9 & $-$266.1 $\pm$ 5.9 & 57 $\pm$ 8.9 & M5 \\
J171059.52$-$180108.7 & 12.314 $\pm$ 0.027 & 11.800 $\pm$ 0.025 & $>$11.509 & 11.208 $\pm$ 0.024 & 11.027 $\pm$ 0.021 & $-$84.8 $\pm$ 7.5 & $-$365.1 $\pm$ 7.3 & 110 $\pm$ 22 & M4(blue) \\
J171105.08$-$275531.7 & 12.760 $\pm$ 0.033 & 12.190 $\pm$ 0.036 & 11.853 $\pm$ 0.037 & 11.456 $\pm$ 0.024 & 11.315 $\pm$ 0.023 & $-$169.0 $\pm$ 6.2 & $-$373.0 $\pm$ 6.1 & 63 $\pm$ 5.6 & M6 \\
J171454.88+064349.8 & 16.617 $\pm$ 0.132 & 15.467 $\pm$ 0.114 & 14.594 $\pm$ 0.089 & 14.066 $\pm$ 0.026 & 13.782 $\pm$ 0.036 & $-$83.2 $\pm$ 10.6 & $-$322.0 $\pm$ 10.6 & 88 $\pm$ 8.0 & L2 (red) \\
J173551.56$-$820900.3 & 16.393 $\pm$ 0.14 & $>$15.949 & $>$15.996 & 15.570 $\pm$ 0.036 & 13.723 $\pm$ 0.029 & $-$232.3 $\pm$ 16.3 & $-$253.4 $\pm$ 15.5 & 21 $\pm$ 2.4 & T7 \\
J180839.55+070021.7 & 16.125 $\pm$ 0.104 & 15.731 $\pm$ 0.143 & 15.338 $\pm$ 0.169 & 14.821 $\pm$ 0.034 & 14.497 $\pm$ 0.055 & $-$235.1 $\pm$ 21.4 & $-$177.8 $\pm$ 19.8 & 110 $\pm$ 12 & L1 (blue) \\
J182010.20+202125.8 & 15.188 $\pm$ 0.051 & 14.802 $\pm$ 0.071 & 14.606 $\pm$ 0.076 & 14.409 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.174 $\pm$ 0.04 & $-$341.1 $\pm$ 8.5 & $-$45.4 $\pm$ 8.5 & 130 $\pm$ 19 & sdM8.5 \\
J183654.10$-$135926.2 & 12.997 $\pm$ 0.024 & 12.433 $\pm$ 0.023 & 12.031 $\pm$ 0.019 & 11.542 $\pm$ 0.028 & 11.480 $\pm$ 0.029 & $-$21.2 $\pm$ 6.5 & $-$368.2 $\pm$ 6.6 & 61 $\pm$ 5.3 & M6 \\
J191011.03+563429.3 & 13.281 $\pm$ 0.027 & 12.654 $\pm$ 0.033 & 12.231 $\pm$ 0.026 & 11.825 $\pm$ 0.022 & 11.549 $\pm$ 0.021 & $-$364.6 $\pm$ 7.8 & 335.7 $\pm$ 6.9 & 68 $\pm$ 5.7 & M8 \\
J201252.78+124633.3 & 12.040 $\pm$ 0.021 & 11.425 $\pm$ 0.021 & 11.035 $\pm$ 0.018 & 10.796 $\pm$ 0.023 & 10.596 $\pm$ 0.02 & 282.7 $\pm$ 6.0 & 151.7 $\pm$ 5.9 & 30 $\pm$ 2.6 & M7 (sl. red) \\
J211157.84$-$521111.3 & 16.563 $\pm$ 0.166 & 15.923 $\pm$ 0.212 & $>$15.252 & 15.371 $\pm$ 0.039 & 14.308 $\pm$ 0.043 & $-$227.2 $\pm$ 28.5 & 87.3 $\pm$ 26.7 & 30 $\pm$ 4.4 & T3 \\
J215550.34$-$195428.4 & $>$16.978 & 15.971 $\pm$ 0.146 & 15.277 $\pm$ 0.142 & 14.552 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.172 $\pm$ 0.044 & $-$34.0 $\pm$ 16.8 & $-$352.7 $\pm$ 16.1 & 66 $\pm$ 6.7 & L7 \\
J221737.41$-$355242.7 & 14.874 $\pm$ 0.051 & 14.540 $\pm$ 0.068 & 14.236 $\pm$ 0.066 & 13.816 $\pm$ 0.025 & 13.573 $\pm$ 0.032 & 49.0 $\pm$ 7.1 & $-$304.9 $\pm$ 7.1 & 220 $\pm$ 35 & M5 \\
J223444.44$-$230916.1 & 15.262 $\pm$ 0.086 & 14.831 $\pm$ 0.11 & 14.082 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.745 $\pm$ 0.037 & 16.121 $\pm$ 0.085 & 408.9 $\pm$ 24.8 & $-$26.8 $\pm$ 22.5 & 110 $\pm$ 12 & L5 \\
J224931.10$-$162759.6 & 17.328 $\pm$ 0.228 & 16.284 $\pm$ 0.24 & $>$14.679 & 14.843 $\pm$ 0.034 & 14.368 $\pm$ 0.053 & 374.5 $\pm$ 8.8 & 126.2 $\pm$ 8.7 & 69 $\pm$ 6.0 & L7 \\
J230743.63+052037.3 & 14.741 $\pm$ 0.038 & 14.058 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.763 $\pm$ 0.039 & 13.159 $\pm$ 0.024 & 13.032 $\pm$ 0.028 & $-$133.3 $\pm$ 8.5 & $-$107.5 $\pm$ 7.7 & 52 $\pm$ 5.0 & M7 \\
J234404.85$-$250042.2 & 15.253 $\pm$ 0.056 & 14.634 $\pm$ 0.079 & 14.392 $\pm$ 0.083 & 13.881 $\pm$ 0.027 & 13.563 $\pm$ 0.034 & 342.7 $\pm$ 7.5 & $-$167.6 $\pm$ 6.8 & 150 $\pm$ 13 & M7 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{WISE 030919.70$-$501614.2 does not show up in 2MASS, and therefore does not have a 2MASS-AllWISE proper motion, and also does not have a calculated v$_\text{tan}$. }
\tablenotetext{b}{The 2MASS $J$-band photometry for WISE 032309.12$-$590751.0 was taken from the 2MASS reject table.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\end{longrotatetable}
\acknowledgments
This paper includes data gathered from the 6.5 meter {\it Magellan} Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, and is based in part on observations from Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO Prop. ID 2016B-0003; PI: A. Schneider), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. This publication makes use of data products from the {\it Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer}, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and NEOWISE which is a project of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology. {\it WISE} and NEOWISE are funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This research has benefitted from the M, L, T and Y dwarf compendium hosted at DwarfArchives.org. This research made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
\facilities{IRTF(SpeX), Magellan:Baade(FIRE), Blanco(ARCoIRIS)}
\software{Spextool (\citealt{Vacca2003Spex}; \citealt{Cushing2004Spex})}
\clearpage{}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
|
\section{Introduction and Model}
The interplay between geometric frustration and quantum fluctuations enhanced by low dimensionality results in a rich behavior and variety of exotic phases as spin liquids, that despite the theoretical description
\cite{Balents2010,LM_2011,Savary_2016,Knolle2019}
its experimental identification presents great challenges \cite{Wen2019}.\\
A paradigmatic case is the spin-1/2 kagom\'e lattice antiferromagnet, which finds experimental realization in several compounds, such as the Herbertsmithite ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$\cite{K-exp-1}, $\alpha$-vesignieite BaCu$_3$V$_2$O$_8$(OH)$_2$\cite{K-exp-2}, and [NH$_4$]$_2$ [C$_7$H$_{14}$N][V$_7$O$_6$F$_18$]$_5$\cite{K-exp-3}. The spin-1/2 kagom\'e lattice antiferromagnet has been proposed to exhibit a spin liquid ground state, although this aspect has not been fully clarified yet \cite{Hermele2008,Yan1173,Han2012,Fu655,PhysRevB.99.035155}.
\\
Another source of exotic phases are the Bose Einstein condensates (BEC), where a macroscopic number of bosons configure a single particle quantum state \cite{BEC_book}. In antiferromagnetic insulators, the magnetic excitations are usually bosonic magnons, whose interaction with the underlying crystalline lattice can lead to a rich phenomenology, including BEC \cite{Giamarchi2008,RevModPhys.86.563}. \\
The presence of an external magnetic field incorporates an extra degree of freedom that favors the emergence of a variety of behaviors and phases. The simple image of a magnetization curve that grows gradually with the magnetic field until it reaches saturation, in frustrated quantum systems can became considerably more complex.\\
On the one hand, flat regions, called plateaus, can emerge where magnetization remains constant at a certain fraction of saturation, in a range of applied magnetic field \cite{Mila-capitulo-plateaus}. Plateaus can have a classical origin, in the sense that they can be described in terms of relative orientations of classical spins \cite{PhysRevLett.108.057205}. However, there are plateaus that only admit a quantum description, in terms of elemental magnon or spinon excitations \cite{PhysRevLett.82.3168}.\\
Another ingredient is the appearance of jumps in the magnetization curve, due to different mechanisms, such as first-order transitions between classical \cite{PhysRevB.57.11504} or quantum states or BEC of a purely quantum nature \cite{andreas-localized-magnons}.\\
Interacting magnons in a BEC can be localized on certain places of the lattice due to frustration and crystallize through a superfluid-insulator transition, giving rise to a 'magnon crystal' phase \cite{andreas-localized-magnons,Zhitomirsky2005}.\\
Magnon crystal phases are present in a variety of frustrated magnets.
In particular, the spin-1/2 kagom\'e lattice antiferromagnet magnon crystal phases have been predicted below saturation \cite{Nishimoto2013,PhysRevB.88.144416} and found experimentally in the synthetic Cd-kapellasite at very high magnetic fields where the magnons localize on the hexagon of the kagom\'e lattice \cite{Okuma2019}
.\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Kagome-strip.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:lattice} Geometry of the Kagom\'e stripe lattice considered in this work. The four antiferromagnetic couplings $J_i$, $i=1,\ldots,4$ can be different to model the lattice distortion.
The unit cell is framed with blue lines and presents geometrical frustration. The white integers 1,\ldots,5 are used to index the sites within the unit cell. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The generality and richness of behaviors described before is also expected in a reduced geometry. This aspect is further enhanced by the recent synthesis of two tellurite-sulfates
A$_2$ Cu$_5$(TeO$_3$)(SO$_4$)$_3$ (OH)$_4$ with A = Na or K \cite{Kagome-exp}. In these compounds, the topological structure of Cu$^{+2}$-ions exhibits a 1D kagom\'e stripe lattice.
The experimental determination of the crystalline structure shows that the kagom\'e stripe is distorted, showing five different Cu-Cu distances,
as indicated in Fig. 2 (c) of reference \onlinecite{Kagome-exp}. In addition, the study of these compounds suggests an antiferromagnetic behavior and indicates the existence of antiferromagnetic order and some field induced magnetic transitions.\\
Motivated by the mentioned compounds and phenomenology we study the Heisenberg model on the Kagom\'e stripe lattice presented in Fig. \ref{fig:lattice}, in the presence of an external magnetic field.
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{<i,j>} J_{i,j} \, \vec{S}_{i}\cdot \vec{S}_{j}-h\sum_{i}\vec{S}^{z}_{i} .
\label{hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
We start with a five-spins unit cell in the lattice and four different magnetic couplings $J_{i,j}$ as schematized in Fig. \ref{fig:lattice}.
Note that although the material involves
five different couplings, in this work we consider a space of four couplings.
In this way an extra reflection symmetry is maintained, which simplifies the analysis, without losing the complexity of the unit cell of the material.
This is also justified because it is not intended to describe properly the material.
Throughout this work we will concentrate on different variants and limiting cases of the model to analyze the possible semiclassical and quantum phases that may be present in this system,
and that are of potential interest for the description of the actual materials. In this context we would like to highlight the study by Morita et al \cite{kagome-strip-red}, who analyze the structure of magnetization
curves in the subspace $J_1 = J_3$ (Fig. \ref{fig:lattice}) of our model.
A central aspect of this work is the analysis of the structure of the magnetization curves of the model. In this context the Oshikawa-Yamanaka-Affleck (OYA) theorem\cite{OYA} provides the necessary condition for the presence of magnetization plateaus as
\begin{equation}
NS(1-m)=\hbox{integer},
\label{OYA}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of spins in the ground state unit cell presenting spatial periodicity and $m=\frac{M}{M_{sat}}$ is the normalized magnetization per site.
According to \eqref{OYA}, if the translational symmetry of the lattice is preserved in the ground state ($N=5$), the magnetization curve may have plateaus at $m=1/5$ and $m=3/5$. On the other hand, the emergence of plateaus at different magnetization values is an indication of a spontaneous breaking of the translation symmetry in the ground state.
In this work we will explore both variants of phases that respect or break the underlying symmetry of the lattice, as well as their semiclassical or quantum character. To this end we will use a variety of analytical techniques that will allow us to describe the different emerging plateaus in semiclassical terms or by means of low energy effective models, complemented with numerical methods. The result is a single model with a rich structure of phases, exhibiting semiclassical signatures, as well as truly quantum aspects, as a generalized crystal magnon phase, not reported before.\\
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{bigfigtex.pdf}
\caption{Phase diagram of the model in a representative sector of the $J_3-J_1$ plane at $J_2=1$ and $J_4=0.8$,
evaluated by means of DMRG for a stripe with 180 spins (top left panel). The magnetic phases A, B and C are defined by the presence of
magnetization plateaus with $m=1/5$, $m=3/5$ and both, respectively.
Magnetization curves representative of each phase are depicted in bottom panels. We selected
$(J_3,J_1)=(\frac{7}{15},\frac23)$, $(J_3,J_1)=(\frac{11}{5},2)$, and $(J_3,J_1)=(1,\frac23)$ for A, B and C phases, respectively.
The plateaus widths, in units of $h$, corresponding to $m=1/5$ ($m=3/5$) are showed in top middle (right) panels.}
\label{fig:bigfig}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:classical-plateaus} we study the presence of semiclassical (Ising-like) plateaus in the magnetization curve, and we present the phase diagram in a representative subset of the parameter space. For this we employ Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) calculations. The main part of this Section concerns to the analysis of the origin of the semiclassical plateaus. This is rooted to the classical Kagom\'e-stripe lattice model and finally to the underlying Ising order of the unit cell. To this end, we study this limiting case explicitly in several Subsections, via Monte Carlo simulations and low energy effective models starting from the strong plaquette (unit cell) limit. The low energy model shows that semiclassical plateaus (in particular $m=3/5$) are perturbatively connected with this limit, completing the analysis of non-breaking lattice symmetry phases of this Section.
In Section \ref{Quantum plateaus} we study phases with spontaneously broken translational symmetry, in which a periodic structure of localized magnons emerges, and in particular at $m=4/5$. For a range of values within the parameters space we find exact ground states of magnon crystal phases \cite{andreas-localized-magnons}.
All these results are complemented with numerical DMRG determination of magnetization curves.
\section{Semiclassical plateaus}
\label{sec:classical-plateaus}
In this Section we analyze the phases of semiclassical plateaus
at $m=1/5$ and $m=3/5$. These phases preserve the lattice translational symmetry,
according to the OYA theorem given by \eqref{OYA}. To determine the extension of the
phases we have evaluated the magnetization as a function of the applied magnetic field for several values
of the couplings, by means of DMRG calculations for large stripes ($200$ spins). The DMRG computations were performed with the open source code ALPS \cite{ALPS}. For the calculations, we kept up to $500$ states throughout the work, which showed to be enough to achieve the required precision. \\
Due to the size of the parameters space, here we illustrate our results in a sector of the $J_3-J_1$ plane at $J_2=1$ and $J_4=0.8$. This subspace captures regions where the plateaus show separately or coexist.
The results are presented in the phase diagram of Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig} (top left), where the
$A,\; B\; \text{or}\; C$ phases
correspond to the presence of a magnetic plateau at $m=1/5$, $m=3/5$ or both, respectively.
At the bottom of Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig} we show a magnetization curve representative of each phase.
Additionally, to evaluate the evolution of the plateaus along the phase diagram,
we determined the plateaus widths for each pair $(J_3,J_1)$. The $m=1/5$ ($m=3/5$) plateaus widths
correspond to the top middle (right) diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig}.
\subsection{Correlation functions}
\label{sec:correlation functions}
To study the magnetic order associated with the semiclassical plateaus of Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig}, we
computed the $\braket{S^z_1S^z_n}$ correlation function, at $T=0$, using DMRG.
In Fig. \ref{fig:corr-tira} we present the results obtained for the correlation function
vs $n$ (according to the numbering
indicated in Fig. \ref{fig:lattice}). From the top, the first (second) panel corresponds to the magnetic plateau of Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig}
bottom left (middle).
The third and fourth panels of Fig. \ref{fig:corr-tira} correspond to the $m=1/5$ and $m=3/5$ magnetic plateaus of
Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig} bottom right, respectively.\\
The most important aspect to recall is that the correlations structure for all four plateaus analyzed here is in
correspondence with those obtained in the Ising limit, although renormalized by quantum fluctuations.
In the following Subsections (\ref{sec:MC} - \ref{sec:Heff-semiclassical}) we explore this connection
in detail from the perspective of a classical Ising model on the Kagom\'e stripe and from the isolated plaquettes, respectively.
\subsection{Ising limit of the Kagom\'e stripe}
\label{sec:Ising-limit}
In order to describe from a classical perspective the magnetic phases analyzed before,
let us first consider the Ising limit of the isolated plaquette (\emph{i.e.} $\vec{S}_{j}=(0,0,S_j^z)$,
and $J_4=0$ in \eqref{hamiltonian}). The Hamiltonian for the plaquette in this case reads
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H_{j}=
& J_{2}(S^{z}_{j,1}S^{z}_{j,2}+S^{z}_{j,4}S^{z}_{j,5})+
J_{1}S^{z}_{j,3}(S^{z}_{j,1}+S^{z}_{j,5})\\
&+J_{3}S^{z}_{j,3}(S^{z}_{j,2}+S^{z}_{j,4}).
\label{eq:H-ising-plaquette}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is possible to identify collinear ground states corresponding to Hamiltonian \ref{eq:H-ising-plaquette}.
Let us consider two different cases (both are 2-degenerate due to spin inversion symmetry), depending of the coupling's ratio:\\
\paragraph*{Case I: $J_{2} > J_{3} > J_{1} \quad (J_2 > J_1 > J_3$)}.
In this case $J_1 (J_3)$ is frustrated and the magnetization of the plaquette is $m=1/5$. The last case is represented in Fig. \ref{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette} (top left).
\paragraph*{Case II: $J_{2}<\{J_{1},J_{3}\}$.}
In this case $J_2$ is frustrated (independently of the relative values of $J_1$ and $J_3$) and the magnetization of the plaquette is $m=3/5$, as represented in Fig. \ref{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette} (top right).\\
These local magnetic structures can be extended to the complete Kagom\'e stripe lattice, where the individual plaquettes are coupled by $J_4>0$.
For the case I, the result of this interaction is a product state of $N$ individual plaquettes in exactly the same state, and the (normalized) magnetization is still $m=1/5$, as showed in
Fig. \ref{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette} (middle).
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{tira-corr-inset.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:corr-tira} $\braket{S_1^zS_n^z}$ correlation function on the
magnetization plateaus representative from each phase showed in Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig} (bottom), calculated by DMRG at T=0, with $J_2=1$.
The index $n$ follows the indexation from the inset in the first panel of this figure, and $m$ denotes the plateau magnetization.
Note that quantum fluctuations reduce the correlations amplitudes.
However the signature in all four plateaus is in complete agreement with the classical Ising limit, as we
show in Subsections \ref{sec:MC}-\ref{sec:Heff-semiclassical}. }
\end{figure}
In the case II at $h=0$, the $J_4>0$ couples the plaquettes and the stripe has $m=0$. However, at high $h$,
again we can construct a state with $N$ individual plaquettes in the same state, with $m=3/5$,
as we depict in Fig. \ref{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette} (bottom).
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Ising.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette}
Top left (right): Plaquette Ising ground state for $J_2>J_1>J_3$ }($J_2<\{J_1,J_3\}$) with magnetization $m=1/5$ ($m=3/5$).
Middle (bottom): Extension of local structures depicted above for finite $J_4>0$ in the Kagom\'e stripe with magnetization $m=1/5$ ($m=3/5$).
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The above shows that it is possible to construct classical states for the Kagom\'e stripe
(Fig. \ref{fig:casos-Ising-plaquette}) with the same magnetic structure of plateaus at $m=1/5$ and $m=3/5$, obtained via a fully quantum treatment of the model by means of DMRG
(Fig. \ref{fig:bigfig}), which are consistent with Fig. 2 of Morita et al work \cite{kagome-strip-red}. In addition, the correlations calculated by DMRG (\ref{fig:corr-tira}) also show the same structure as the Ising case as it is further investigated in the following subsection.\\
\subsection{Quantum vs thermal fluctuations}
\label{sec:MC}
To compare the role of thermal fluctuations at classical level with zero-temperature quantum effects, we analyzed the finite temperature classical limit of the model. For this we carried out Monte Carlo simulations of the
Ising model, \emph{i.e.} $\vec{S}_{i}=(0,0,S_i^z)$, in \eqref{hamiltonian}, with the Metropolis algorithm
\cite{MC_BOOK}, employing 500 sites, and 1500 independent systems. To prevent the system to stop in a local energy minimum at low $T$, we performed an annealing process, starting with a high temperature state (the system is in
the paramagnetic phase) and then lowering the temperature progressively until no thermal fluctuations are
found.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{corrMC.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:CorrMC} Classical correlation function $\braket{S^z_1S^z_n}$ on the $m=1/5$ magnetization plateau ($h=1.0$) calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation in the Ising limit of the model
for temperatures $T_1=0.5$ (red), $T_2=1.1$ (blue), and $T_3=1.7$ (yellow), for $J_1=\frac{2}{3}$, $J_2=1$ and $J_3=1$ (same coupling constants as the third panel from top
of Fig. \ref{fig:corr-tira})}. For $T=T_1$ no thermal excitations are found in the system, indicating that the spins are parallel or antiparallel with each other. For $T=T_3$ the temperature is high
enough for the correlations to rapidly fall off with $n$. For $T=T_2$
the correlations $\braket{S^zS^z}$ obtained by the \textit{classical}
Monte Carlo simulation are very similar to those calculated by DMRG using the Heisenberg
model at $T=0$.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:CorrMC} we present the results of the calculated correlations $\braket{S^z_1 S^z_n}$ for $T_1=0.5$, $T_2=1.1$ and $T_3=1.7$, with $T$ in units of energy.
Note that for $T=T_1$ no thermal excitations are found in the system, indicating that the spins are parallel or anti-parallel with each other. On the other hand, for $T=T_3$ the temperature is high
enough for the correlations to rapidly fall off with $n$. Finally, for the intermediate $T=T_2$ we highlight
that the correlations $\braket{S_1^zS_n^z}$ obtained by the \textit{classical}
Monte Carlo simulation are very similar to those calculated by DMRG using the Heisenberg
model at $T=0$. This indicates that the effect of quantum and thermal fluctuations gives an analogous result
in this correlation function.\\
\subsection{Effective model on semiclassical plateaus}
\label{sec:Heff-semiclassical}
Here we present an analytical approach for the treatment of semiclassical plateaus, which complements the numerical methods considered before. The method consists in the construction of an effective hamiltonian, based in quantum degenerate perturbation theory \cite{Totsuka1,Mila-ladder-98,Sen-ladder-99,mila-10,4-tube-3,LadderJJd}. In the last part of the work we apply the effective model technique for the case of quantum plateaus that break the translational invariance of the lattice.\\
For the present case, we start by considering a system of isolated plaquettes, \emph{i.e.} $J_4=0$, (see Fig.(\ref{fig:lattice}), whose Hilbert space has dimension $d=2^5$.
For fixed values of the couplings $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_3$, it is possible to diagonalize numerically
the plaquette Hamiltonian and obtain all the energies as functions of the magnetic field $h$. This is illustrated in
Fig. \ref{fig:E-plaquette} for the homogeneous plaquette case ($J_1=J_2=J_3=1$).\\
Note that for $h>0$ the plaquette has three different ground states corresponding to magnetizations
$m=1/5$ (blue), $m=3/5$ (red) and $m=1$ (orange), depending
on the magnetic field value.
At the critical fields $h_{0}^{(1)}$, $h_{0}^{(2)}$ (corresponding to the dashed vertical lines in the figure),
the ground state gets degenerate. In particular at $h_{0}^{(1)}$ the ground state is three-fold degenerate, although this is a particularity of the homogeneous case where all the couplings are equal.\\
The next step is to consider a weak coupling between the plaquettes, in particular, at the level crossing.
For $J_4$ finite, we separate the complete hamiltonian in two terms,
\begin{equation}
H=H_0+H_{int},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&H_0= \sum_n\bigg[ J_1(\vec{S}_{n,1} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,3} + \vec{S}_{n,3} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,5})\\
&+J_2(\vec{S}_{n,1} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,2} + \vec{S}_{n,4} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,5})+
J_3(\vec{S}_{n,2} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,3} + \vec{S}_{n,3} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,4})\\
&-h_0 \sum_{m=1}^5 S^z_{n,m} \bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
corresponds to the Hamiltonian of a single plaquette, where $h_0$ is the magnetic field at the energy levels crossing, and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H_{int}= \sum_n\bigg[ J_4(\vec{S}_{n,2} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,1} + \vec{S}_{n,5} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,4})\\
-(h-h_0)\sum_{m=1}^5 S^z_{n,m} \bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
is the plaquettes-interaction term.
Considering $0< J_4, h-h_0 \ll J_i$, $i=1,2,3$; at first order of perturbation theory we have
\begin{equation}
H^{(1)}=\sum_{ij}\ket{p_i} \braket{p_i|H_{int}|p_j}\bra{p_j},
\label{1pert}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{p_i}$ are the $2^{N_c}$ degenerated ground states, being $N_c$ the number of unit cell plaquettes.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plaquette-energies.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:E-plaquette} Energies as functions of magnetic field for the isolated plaquette, for $J_1=J_2=J_3=1$.
Ground states with magnetizations $m=1/5$, $m=3/5$ and $m=1$ are indicated with blue, red and orange lines respectively.
Critical magnetic fields $h_{0}^{(1)}=0.5$ and $h_{0}^{(2)}=2.5$ are highlighted by dashed vertical lines, where the ground state gets three- and two-fold degenerate, respectively.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Computing \eqref{1pert} and expanding the result locally in the $\{ \sigma^0,\frac{\sigma^i}{2} \}$ basis, where $\sigma^0$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix and $\sigma^i$ are
the Pauli matrices, one arrives (up to a constant term) at a low energy effective Hamiltonian corresponding to a spin 1/2 anisotropic Heisenberg chain with only nearest-neighbors interactions.
\begin{equation}
H_{eff}=\sum_n J_{xy} (S^x_n S^x_n+S^y_n S^y_n)+J_{zz} S^z_nS^z_n - \tilde{h} S^z_n,
\label{Hefff}
\end{equation}
in which the effective couplings $J_{xy}$, $J_{zz}$ and the effective magnetic field $\tilde{h}$
depend on the original couplings $J_i$ and magnetic field $h$. Note that this model is valid for 2-fold degenerate local ground states, which translates into an effective spin-1/2 per site.
For large enough $\tilde{h}$, the ground state of \eqref{Hefff} is the magnon vacuum
$\ket{0}\equiv \ket{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow...}$ (or $\ket{\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow...}$).\\
We now compute the 1-magnon dispersion relation
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_\pm (k) =J_{xy}\, cos(k)-J_{zz} \pm \tilde{h}.
\label{eq:magnon-dispersion}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:magnon-dispersion} we calculate the edges of the plateaus around the critical field where the first order expansion is made.
We impose the condition of gap closure, which determines the edge of the plateaus in terms of the magnetic couplings of the effective model.
\begin{equation}
\tilde{h}= \pm (J_{xy}+ J_{zz}).
\label{mingapless}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{tira1-heff.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:plateau06-Eff}
Magnetization curves near of saturation for $J_i=1$, $i=1,2,3$ and $J_4=0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2$ from top to bottom, respectively.
Green dashed lines correspond to the edge of the plateaus predicted by the closure of the gap in the magnon dispersion \eqref{eq:magnon-dispersion}. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:plateau06-Eff} we depict four sectors of magnetization curves showing the transition between $m=3/5$ and $m=1$ plateaus. The green dashed lines mark the plateaus edges as calculated by the low energy effective
Hamiltonian technique, using \eqref{mingapless}, for $J_4=0.05, \; 0.1, \; 0.15, \; 0.2$, and $J_i=1$, $i=1,2,3$. We found a very good agreement in the perturbative regime between analytical and numerical results. \\
The treatment for the case $m=1/5$ is conceptually similar to $m=3/5$ and it has also been studied numerically in other works \cite{kagome-strip-red},
we will not elaborate more on the subject here.
This concludes our identification of \textit{classical} plateaus.
In section \ref{sec:frac-plateaux} the presence of \textit{quantum} plateaus are studied.
These plateaus will not have a classical counterpart correspondence but a purely quantum mechanical origin which breaks the lattice symmetry.
\section{Quantum plateaus of localized magnons}
\label{Quantum plateaus}
In this section we study phases with spontaneous breaking of the lattice translational symmetry,
in which frustration induces a periodic structure of localized magnons associated to intermediate (or fractional) plateaus.
Noteworthy, we find an exact magnon crystal ground state with $ m = 4/5 $ of the anisotropic Heisenberg model,
which is a generalization of the state reported by J. Schulenburg et al \cite {andreas-localized-magnons}.
\subsection{A Magnon Crystal Phase in the anisotropic Kagom\'e-stripe}
\label{sec:loc-mag}
Let us first consider the anisotropic version of Heisenberg model on the Kagom\'e stripe (\ref{hamiltonian}) in a magnetic field, whose Hamiltonian reads
\begin{equation}
H= \sum_{<i,j>}J_{ij} \left[
\Delta S_i^zS_j^z +
\frac{1}{2}(S_i^+S_j^- + S_i^-S_j^+)\right] - h S^z.
\label{XXZ}
\end{equation}
At high magnetic field the ground state is the fully polarized ferromagnetic state $\ket{0}\equiv \ket{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow...}$
and the lowest energy excitations can be written in terms of a linear combination of 1-magnon states as
\begin{equation}
\ket{1}=\sum_l a_l S^-_l \ket{0}.
\label{eq:state-1}
\end{equation}
Taking a particular set of coupling values, the magnon dispersion relation may be independent of the momentum $k$
giving rise to a flat band spectrum. This implies that magnon excitations can be localized in a finite region of the stripe. \\
It is possible to construct the exact eigenstate of \eqref{XXZ}, with
localized magnons in the region $L$ represented by the bold hexagon in Fig. \ref{fig:loc-magnons}.
The necessary and sufficient condition for decoupling of the local state from the rest of the system is
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l \, \epsilon \,L} a_l J_{l\alpha} = 0,
\label{eq:loc}
\end{equation}
where $J_{l\alpha}$ couples the spins $\vec{S}_l$ and $\vec{S}_\alpha$, with $l \, \epsilon \, L$ and $\alpha=a,b,c,d$
(see Fig. \ref{fig:loc-magnons}).
It is possible to satisfy \eqref{eq:loc} by taking
\begin{equation}
a_l=\frac{(-1)^l}{\sqrt{6}}, \; l\, \epsilon \, L,
\label{eq:a_homogeneos}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{black-kagome-chain-L.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:loc-magnons} Kagom\'e stripe scheme where the bold hexagon denotes the region L, and the ellipse represents a
localized magnon. With numbers we index the sites of L, and with letters a,b,c,d we index the sites in interaction with
the region L. Here we show only two couplings, $J'$ and $J$, both subject to \eqref{eq:loc}. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
with the indexation of Fig. \ref{fig:loc-magnons},
and the coupling condition
\begin{equation}
J'=J \frac{2\Delta+1}{\Delta+1},
\label{CCond}
\end{equation}
where $J'$ couples contiguous two-triangle-cells (the unit cell framed in Fig. \ref{fig:lattice}) and $J$ couples spins inside this unit cell as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:loc-magnons}. This is the exact state reported by J. Schulenburg et al \cite {andreas-localized-magnons}.
The exact ground state of \eqref{XXZ} previous to saturation is the state with $N/2$ localized non interacting magnons
(with $N$ the number of unit-cells) and presents magnetization $m=4/5$. The presence of this exact solution can be observed in the magnetization curve as a jump of $\delta m=1/5$ just below saturation\cite{andreas-localized-magnons}.
Moreover, a fully exactly factorized ground state has necessary short range entanglement entropy. Reciprocally, the property of gapped systems to present short range
entanglement entropy \cite{short_range} gives further indications that, at this point, the system is fully gapped, implying, in particular, the presence of a magnetization plateau. For example,
imagine that one wish to describe the low energy behavior of the system in this point with a field theory description. Among the degrees of freedom of the low energy description,
the magnetic sector is the one related to the presence of a plateau in the magnetization curve: a gap in this sector implies a plateau. On the other hand, in order to obtain a short range entanglement, this
field theory should contain only short ranged or gapped degrees of freedom. This then implies a gap also in the magnetic sector and thus the presence of a magnetization plateau.
We have constructed the magnetization curve of model (\ref{XXZ})satisfying the coupling condition \eqref{CCond} for several values of anisotropy $\Delta$, by means of DMRG. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:jump-magnon}, where a macroscopic magnetization jump to saturation can be observed.
In addition, a magnetization plateau is present at $m=4/5$. This plateau is consistent with the OYA theorem \ref{OYA} provided that the ground state unit cell contains 10 spins. Therefore, the system breaks spontaneously the
original lattice translation symmetry, doubling the size of the unit cell as is expected for the non-interacting localized magnon state.
\subsection{Effective model on quantum plateaus of localized magnons}
\label{sec:frac-plateaux}
Here we further study the nature of plateaus with spontaneous breaking of the translational symmetry, in particular $m=4/5$ and the connection with
localized magnons. To this end we constructed a low energy effective hamiltonian via degenerate perturbation theory. First note that according to
(\ref{CCond}), $J'(\Delta=1) = 3/2 J$. This suggests the use of a more convenient unit cell including the strongest coupling $J'$ as shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:pencil-cell}. The unit cells (which we call `\textit{pencil cells}') contain two different couplings $J$ and $K$ and are interconnected
via $J_2$ and $K_2$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{point-I.pdf}
\caption{
\label{fig:jump-magnon}
Macroscopic magnetization jump ($\delta m = 1/5$) to saturation calculated by DMRG for a strip with 150 spins, on the coupling condition \eqref{CCond}
for three different anisotropies, which shows numerically the result of the presence of $N/2$ non-interacting magnons in the stripe as a first excited state.
Additionally, there is a $m=4/5$ plateau.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the method we fixed $(J,K)=(1.5,1)$, so that for $(J_2,K_2)=(1,1)$ the model satisfies (\ref{CCond}) and the system is
in a exact magnon crystal state, which we call from now on `point-I'.
Our effective model starts from decoupled pencil cells \emph{i.e.} $(J_2,K_2)=(0,0)$, rendering point-I difficult to access pertubatively. However, we will see that the model captures properly the phases with $m = 4/5$, associated with localized magnons.
To construct the effective model we start by separating the hamiltonian into $H=H_0+H_{int}$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&H_0= \sum_n\bigg[ J(\vec{S}_{n,1} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,2} + \vec{S}_{n,5} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,4})\\
&+K(\vec{S}_{n,2} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,3} + \vec{S}_{n,3} \cdot \vec{S}_{n,4}) -h_0 \sum_{m=1}^5 S^z_{n,m} \bigg],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in which $h_0$ is, as in subsection \ref{sec:Heff-semiclassical}, the magnetic field where the isolated pencil-plaquette ground state gets
degenerated due to the level crossing, and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&H_{int}= \sum_n\bigg[ J_2(\vec{S}_{n,2} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,1} + \vec{S}_{n,4} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,5})+\\
&K_2(\vec{S}_{n,3} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,1} + \vec{S}_{n,3} \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1,5}) -(h-h_0)\sum_{m=1}^5 S^z_{n,m} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By performing first order perturbation theory as before, we get a low energy effective Hamiltonian that predicts a region in couplings space where a fractional plateau at $m=4/5$ emerges. We proceeded in two ways, as showed in
Fig. \ref{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}. In blue we plot the solutions for $\Delta=1$ in the effective model which, according to
Bethe Ansatz \cite{bethe}, indicates that the effective chain does not pass through the N\'eel phase\cite{LadderJJd}, and consequently the
Kagom\'e stripe does not have a fractional plateau.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pencil-cell.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:pencil-cell}
Kagom\'e stripe scheme using the `pencil unit cell' (framed with blue lines). This unit cell is \textit{not} frustrated and composed by five sites, with two couplings, $J$ and $K$, fixed here to 1.5 and 1 respectively. The cells are coupled by $J_2$ and $K_2$. The numbers indicate the sites indexation.
}
\end{figure}
In red, we plot the solutions for a gapless spinon dispersion relation over the N\'eel state where both critical magnetic fields (plateau edges) are equal.
Both regions contain the exact solution $(J_2,K_2)=(1,1)$ (point-I), represented by a pink circle in Fig. \ref{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}, although the model is truly valid only in the $J_2,K_2 \ll J,K$ limit.
To analyze the evolution of the fractional $m=4/5$ plateau from the perturbative regime until reaching point-I, we evaluated numerically the magnetization curves by DMRG in the line $J_2=K_2 \equiv \tilde{J} $, for $\tilde{J}=0.1,0.2,..., 1$ (points represented by circles in Fig. \ref{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}), with $\Delta=1$. \\
The results are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:jumps}. As it can be observed in all cases there is a transition to saturation with a large slope, together with an increase in the m = 4/5 plateau width. In particular, for $\tilde{J}=0.5$ there is an abrupt jump of $\delta m=1/5$, identical to the magnetization jump observed for point-I ($\tilde{J}=1$). Motivated by this result, we proposed a state of the form \eqref{eq:state-1} and found a \textit{second} exact solution of localized magnons, that we named `point-II', represented by a pink circle at $J_2=K_2=0.5$ in Fig. \ref{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}.
To analyze the transition between hexagon to pencil cell localized magnons, we numerically evaluated the $\braket{S^+_iS^-_j}$ correlation functions, by means of DMRG.
The results are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:correlaciones-xy}, where we show $\braket{S^+_iS^-_j}$ for $J_2=K_2\equiv \tilde{J}=0.1,0.2,...,1$ (corresponding to the ten dots in Fig. \ref{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}).
As it can observed, in the homogeneous case where $\tilde{J}=1$ the fluctuations are localized on the hexagons as predicted. Note that this particular case is also depicted in Fig. 5 (a) of
Morita et al work \cite{kagome-strip-red}. On the other hand, as $\tilde{J}$ decreases, the fluctuations localize on pencil cells progressively.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{heff-prediction-larger.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:heff-prediccion-plateau08.pdf}
Blue lines: the limits of the region where the effective hamiltonian predicts the presence of a fractional m=4/5 plateau using Bethe ansatz.
Red lines: the corresponding result using the spinon dispersion relation approach on the effective model. The solid circles indicate the points selected to evaluate, by means of DMRG, the magnetization curves (Fig. \ref{fig:jumps}) and magnon localization (Fig. \ref{fig:correlaciones-xy}). In particular, pink circles denote the presence of a exact solution, crystal magnon phase, of localized magnons.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{jumps.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:jumps} Partial magnetization curves computed by means of DMRG for $J=3/2$, $K=1$ and $J_2=K_2\equiv \tilde{J}=0.1,0.2,...1$
using 24 pencil unit cells. Although there is a large slope transition in all the cases, for $\tilde{J}=0.5$ there is a clean jump from $m=4/5$ to saturation,
as in the $\tilde{J}=1$ case (point-I). This is a signature of a \textit{second} exact solution of localized magnons which we named `point-II'.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A generalized magnon crystal phase}
To generalize the solution in point-II to the anisotropic case ($\Delta \neq 1$) we proposed a coupling set\\
$ \{J=\frac{2\Delta+1}{\Delta+1}K, K=1, J_2(\Delta)=K_2(\Delta) \}$ (following de notation from
Fig. \ref{fig:pencil-cell}) and we found the solution
\begin{equation}
\frac{K_2(\Delta)}{K}=\frac{\sqrt{12 \Delta ^3 ( \Delta+1)+1}-(2 \Delta +1)}{2\Delta (\Delta +1) },
\label{eq:sol_delta_punto-II}
\end{equation}
together with a set of couplings $a_l(\Delta)$, $l\, \epsilon \, L$, plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:coef-punto-ii-D}.
We highlight that for $\Delta=2$ the coefficients $a_l$ are exactly \eqref{eq:a_homogeneos}, as showed in
Fig. \ref{fig:coef-punto-ii-D}; while the couplings are $\{J=5/3, K=1, J_2=K_2=1 \}$. In addition, $K_2(\Delta=2)$ and $K$ have
the same value as in the point-I case, while $J$ is different. Finally let us note that,
for $\Delta \, \epsilon \, (0, 1/\sqrt{3})$, \eqref{eq:sol_delta_punto-II} is negative, indicating ferromagnetic couplings.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{punto-II-coeficientes-delta.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:coef-punto-ii-D} Amplitudes $a_1=a_5$ (pink), $a_2=a_4$ (yellow), $a_3$ (green) and $a_6$ (violet) as functions of
the anisotropy $\Delta$, for the generalization of the magnon crystal phase of point-II. With dashed horizontal lines, the solution \eqref{eq:a_homogeneos} (exact ground state in
point-I).
Both states are equal at $\Delta=2$.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In the present paper we studied the magnetization properties of an antiferromagnetic Kagom\'e stripe lattice.
We constructed a magnetic phase diagram which shows three magnetic phases with the presence of a $m=1/5$, $m=3/5$ magnetic plateaus,
or both simultaneously. These plateaus are classical in the sense that they can be understood in terms of the Ising limit, by studying
the magnetization curves and the $\braket{S^z_iS^z_j}$ correlation function as well as comparing quantum density matrix renormalization group (DMRG)
calculations with classical Monte Carlo simulations in the Ising ground state for different coupling configurations.
We calculated the plateaus edges by means of the low energy effective Hamiltonian technique in the strong plaquettes limit.
The same technique proved to be remarkably useful in predicting the presence of a fractional $m=4/5$ quantum plateau; a plateau that cannot be explained in the Ising Limit.
This plateau is bounded to the presence of a localized magnon phase, as can be seen by computing the
$\braket{S^+_iS^-_j}$ correlation function with DMRG. Furthermore, we found an exact ground state with $m=4/5$ (just before saturation, due to a magnetization jump) of the anisotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian,
that provides a generalization of the state found by J. Schulenburg et al\cite{andreas-localized-magnons}.
This gives another example of a an exactly factorized magnon crystal ground state which finds its origin in the strong frustrating nature of the Hamiltonian \cite{plat2015selection,PI2}.\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{correlaciones-xy-S.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:correlaciones-xy} Transition between hexagon to pencil cell localized magnons.
Line widths indicate the $\braket{S^+_iS^-_j}$ correlation, for $\Delta=1$, $J=3/2$, $K=1$ and $K_2=J_2\equiv \tilde{J}=0.1,0.2,...,1$, computed by DMRG. Blue (red) lines correspond to negative (positive) correlations. The fluctuations are located on hexagons or pencil cells for $\tilde{J}$ near the unity or zero, respectively.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From a more general point of view, magnon crystals are known to be present in a wide variety of one and two dimensional frustrated systems \cite{andreas-localized-magnons}.
The hallmark of these system is a magnon flat band producing an exactly factorized ground state of
localized magnons which is purely quantum mechanical. The magnetic phase diagram of the model studied
here has the richness of having both, this kind of factorized quantum state as well as magnetization
classical (Ising like) plateaus. In particular this phenomenology is also present in the fully 2D kagom\'e model, indicating that some essential aspects of the system transcend dimensionality.
This has been an additional motivation to study the kagom\'e stripe model, which also provides a more accessible numerical treatment.\\
Finally, the richness of this system makes it an ideal laboratory for studying the behavior of such different gaped states in the presence of perturbations like transverse field or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge useful discussions with M. Matera.
C. A. Lamas is supported by ANPCyT (PICT 2013-0009)
|
\section{Introduction}
Mathematical modelling of chemical reaction networks naturally yields a large class of (typically) polynomial ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Beyond chemistry and biochemistry, this class of differential equations is also useful in applications to ecology, epidemiology and genetics. These ODE systems often contain many variables (e.g.\ concentrations of chemical species) and parameters e.g.\ rate constants), and moreover the parameters may not be exactly identifiable by experiments. Therefore a general study of systems with undetermined parameters is appropriate, and possible reduction of such systems to smaller dimension is particularly relevant.
Quasi-steady state (QSS) reduction is commonly used in (bio-)chemistry and related fields, but rarely for differential equations in other areas of application. The method was introduced, for a model of an enzyme-catalyzed reaction, by Michaelis and Menten in 1917 and (based on different assumptions) by Briggs and Haldane \cite{briggshaldane} in 1925. The reasoning of these authors used intuition about the specifics and parameters of such reactions. In contrast, the insight that singular perturbation theory (based on Tikhonov's 1952 paper \cite{tikh}) can explain quasi-steady state phenomena is due to Heineken et al. \cite{hta} in 1967, and the analysis of the basic Michelis-Menten reduction was brought to a conclusion by Segel and Slemrod \cite{SSl} in 1989. Nowadays QSS is widely seen as a special type of a singular perturbation scenario in the sense of Tikhonov and Fenichel \cite{fenichel}, although many authors still use QSS reduction without verifying the necessary conditions for singular perturbation reduction. For the reader's convenience, we give a brief outline of singular perturbation reduction (including a coordinate-free version) in the Appendix.
A general mathematical study of quasi-steady state reduction, including consistency and validity requirements, and establishing agreement of QSS and singular perturbation reduction under rather restrictive conditions, was carried out in \cite{gwz3}. In the present paper we continue this study for a special (but quite relevant) class of differential equations. Building on \cite{gw2,gwz3} we study ODE systems that depend linearly on the variables to be eliminated. To compute the singular perturbation reduction, we use the coordinate-free approach introduced in \cite{gw2} (see also Appendix 4 in \cite{gwz3}). We thus determine explicitly the two types of reduction for this general class of systems, and then obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for their agreement (up to higher order terms).
The motivation for studying this class of differential equations comes from reaction networks where the correct form of the ODE system can be identified by means of a set of \emph{non-interacting} species (under the assumption of mass-action kinetics), as introduced in \cite{feliu:intermediates,fwptm,saez_reduction}. A set of non-interacting species (variables) can be inferred from the reactions of the network alone without scrutinizing the analytical form of the ODE system, and will appear linearly in the differential equations.
In the setting of non-interacting species, we give general necessary and sufficient criteria for the existence of a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction, and furthermore we provide necessary and sufficient criteria for the Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction to agree with the QSS reduction. The linear structure of the ODE system (in the variables to be eliminated) provides easy to check sufficient \emph{graphical} criteria. For smaller reaction networks, the graph and the criteria can easily be constructed and checked by hand, providing criteria that are readily usable by application-oriented scientists.
We end the paper with a number of examples to illustrate the usefulness and limits of the graphical approach. In particular we study so-called post-translational modification (PTM) systems of which the classical Michaelis-Menten system is a special case, and further examples from the chemical and ecological literature.
\section{Linear elimination and reduction}
\subsection{Motivation and background: Reaction networks}\label{motivation}
We consider a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) arising from a reaction network. A reaction network (or network for short) with species set $\mathcal{S}=\{X_1,\ldots,X_n\}$ consists of a set of reactions $\mathcal{R}=\{r_1,\ldots,r_m\}$, such that the $i$-th reaction takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:network}
\sum_{j=1}^n \gamma_{ij} X_j \ce{->} \sum_{j=1}^n \gamma'_{ij} X_j,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{ij},\gamma'_{ij}\in\mathbb{N}_0$, are non-negative integers. The left hand side is called the \textit{reactant} of the reaction, the right hand side, the \textit{product}, and jointly they are \textit{complexes}. We will assume that any species takes part in at least one reaction and that the reactant and product sides are never identical, that is, it cannot be that $\gamma_{ij}=\gamma'_{ij}$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
A reaction network gives rise to an ODE system of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:crneq}
\dot{y} =N v(y), \qquad y\in \mathbb{R}^n_{\geq 0},
\end{equation}
where $\dot{y}$ denotes derivative with respect to time $t$, $N$ is the stoichiometric matrix, that is, the $i$-th column of $N$ is the vector with $j$-th entry $\gamma'_{ij}-\gamma_{ij}$, and $v(y)$ is a vector of \emph{rate functions} defined on an open neighborhood of $\mathbb{R}^m_{\geq 0}$ and {\em non-negative} on $\mathbb{R}^m_{\geq 0}$.
Under the additional assumption that $v_i(y)$ vanishes whenever $y_j=0$ and $\gamma'_{ij}<\gamma_{ij}$, that is, whenever $X_j$ is consumed by the reaction, the non-negative orthant $\mathbb{R}^n_{\geq 0}$ as well as the positive orthant $\mathbb{R}^n_{>0}$ are forward invariant by the trajectories of the system \cite{Sontag:2001}. Of particular interest is mass-action kinetics with
$$v=(v_1,\ldots,v_m), \quad v_i(y)=\kappa_i \prod_{j=1}^n y_j^{\gamma_{ij}},\quad \kappa_i> 0,$$
where $\kappa_i$ is the (non-negative) reaction rate constant. Formally, the borderline case $\kappa_i=0$ corresponds to removing a reaction, and we are also interested in such scenarios.
In \cite{feliu:intermediates,fwptm,saez_reduction}, a reduction procedure was introduced for the computation and discussion of steady states of an ODE system \eqref{eq:crneq}. It centers around the algebraic elimination at steady state of variables representing the concentrations of so-called \textit{non-interacting species}: Let $\mathcal{Z}=\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_P\}\subseteq \mathcal{S}$ be a subset of the species set and let $\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{S}\setminus \mathcal{Z}=\{X_1,\ldots,X_n\}$ be the complementary subset (where the species potentially are relabelled compared to \eqref{eq:network}). If, after writing the reactions as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reactions}
\sum_{j=1}^n \beta_{ij} X_j+\sum_{j=1}^P \delta_{ij} Z_{j}\ce{->} \sum_{j=1}^n \beta'_{ij} X_j+\sum_{j=1}^P \delta'_{ij} Z_j, \quad i=1,\ldots,m,
\end{equation}
the conditions
$$\sum_{j=1}^P \delta_{ij}\le 1,\quad \sum_{j=1}^P \delta'_{ij}\le 1$$
are satisfied, then the set $\mathcal{Z}$ is said to be \emph{non-interacting} and its elements are called \emph{non-interacting species}. Intuitively, two or more species are non-interacting if they are never found together in the same complex. This implies for mass-action kinetics that the variables corresponding to non-interacting species appear linearly in the ODE system.
The vector of concentrations of the non-interacting species and the remaining species are denoted by $z=(z_1,\ldots,z_P)$ and $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, respectively. Hence in this terminology $y=(x,z)\in \mathbb{R}^{n+P}$. It was shown in \cite{fwptm} that one may parameterize $z_1,\ldots, z_P$ by $x$ at steady state, given suitable regularity conditions on the Jacobian matrix and assuming the rate functions are linear in $z$. In the present paper we will extend this reduction procedure to the case of quasi-steady state reduction.
\subsection{{The general setting}}\label{gensetting}
We first discuss the reduction procedures in a context that is not restricted to reaction networks, just keeping the characteristic property of reaction equations with non-interacting species. This class of equations, and their reductions, may be of interest beyond reaction networks.
We consider a parameter dependent ODE system that is linear in $z$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{generalsystem}
\begin{array}{rcccl}
\dot x&=&a(x,\pi)&+&A(x,\pi)z\\
\dot z&=&b(x,\pi)&+&B(x,\pi)z,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with the following conditions on the domains of definition and the functions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi$ is a parameter vector varying in a subset $\Pi$ of $\mathbb{R}^q$ (for some $q$), with the property that for every $\widetilde\pi\in \Pi$ there is a smooth curve $\sigma\colon [0,\,1]\to \Pi$ such that $\sigma(0)=\widetilde \pi$ and $\sigma(s)\in{\rm int}\,\Pi$ for all $s>0$; in particular ${\rm int}\,\Pi$ is dense in $\Pi$. (For applications to reaction networks, we will have $\mathbb R^q_{> 0}\subseteq \Pi\subseteq\mathbb R^q_{\geq 0}$.)
\item There are distinguished open and non-empty sets $V_1\subseteq \mathbb R^n$, $V_2\subseteq \mathbb R^p$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $a,\,b,\,A,\,B$ are (vector-valued resp.\ matrix-valued) functions of dimension $n\times 1$, $p\times 1$, $n\times p$, and $p\times p$, respectively, that are defined and sufficiently differentiable on an open neighborhood of $\overline{V_1}\times\overline{\Pi}$;
\item $\overline{V_1}\times\overline{V_2}$ is positively invariant for system \eqref{generalsystem}, for any $\pi\in\Pi$.
\end{itemize}
(In applications to reaction networks, we will have $V_1=\mathbb R^n_{>0}$ and $V_2=\mathbb R^p_{>0}$, where $p\le P$ is to be defined later.)
\item For given $\pi\in\Pi$ define
\[
\Omega_\pi^*:=\big\{x\,|\,a(x,\pi),\,A(x,\pi),\,b(x,\pi),\,B(x,\pi),\text{ are defined and sufficiently differentiable}\big\}
\]
and
\[
\Omega_\pi:=\big\{x\in\Omega_\pi^*\,|\,B(x,\pi) \text{ is invertible}\big\},
\]
noting that both are open subsets of $\mathbb R^n$ and $V_1\subseteq \Omega^*_{\hat\pi}$.
\end{itemize}
The general question is whether (and how) it is possible to eliminate $z$, thus obtaining a reduced system in $x$ alone. For reaction networks, the ``classical'' quasi-steady state (QSS) reduction (see Briggs and Haldane \cite{briggshaldane}, Segel and Slemrod \cite{SSl} for the Michaelis-Menten system, and many others) has been in use for a long time.
For this heuristic reduction procedure one assumes invertibility of $B(x,\pi)$ for all $x$ and furthermore assumes that the rate of change for $z$ is equal to zero (or rather, almost zero in a relevant time regime). Then the ensuing algebraic relation
\[
0=\dot z= b(x,\pi)+B(x,\pi)z
\]
yields the QSS reduced system
\begin{equation}\label{cqssredsys}
\dot x=a(x,\pi)-A(x,\pi)B(x,\pi)^{-1} b(x,\pi),\qquad {x\in \Omega_\pi.}
\end{equation}
A priori this is a formal procedure, and one should not generally expect any similarity between solutions of \eqref{generalsystem} and \eqref{cqssredsys}. But this may be the case in certain parameter regions. A general discussion of QSS reductions, consistency conditions and their relation to singular perturbations was given in \cite{gwz3}. In the present paper we will obtain detailed results for systems of the special type \eqref{generalsystem}.
When Michaelis and Menten, and Briggs and Haldane, introduced QSS reduction, singular perturbation theory did not even exist. But starting with the seminal paper \cite{hta} by Heineken et al., the interpretation of QSS reduction as a singular perturbation reduction in the sense of Tikhonov \cite{tikh} and Fenichel \cite{fenichel} has been established in the literature. A convenient version of the classical reduction theorem is stated in Verhulst \cite{verhulst}, Thm.~8.1. We will refer to this version, with all differential equations autonomous.
We need to adjust system \eqref{generalsystem} by introducing a ``small parameter'' \cite{gw2,gwz}. To this end, we fix a suitable (to be specified below) parameter value $\widehat \pi$, consider a curve $\varepsilon\mapsto \widehat\pi+\varepsilon\pi^*+\cdots \in \Pi$ in the parameter space and expand
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
a(x,\widehat \pi +\varepsilon\pi^*+\cdots)&=&a_0(x)+\varepsilon a_1(x)+\cdots\\
A(x,\widehat \pi +\varepsilon\pi^*+\cdots)&=&A_0(x)+\varepsilon A_1(x)+\cdots\\
b(x,\widehat \pi +\varepsilon\pi^*+\cdots)&=&b_0(x)+\varepsilon b_1(x)+\cdots\\
B(x,\widehat \pi +\varepsilon\pi^*+\cdots)&=&B_0(x)+\varepsilon B_1(x)+\cdots,
\end{array}
\]
where $a(x,\widehat\pi)=a_0(x)$, $A(x,\widehat\pi)=A_0(x)$, etc., to obtain a system with small parameter $\varepsilon$, which we rewrite in the form
\begin{equation}\label{epsilonsystem}
\begin{array}{rcccccl}
\dot x&=&a_0(x)+A_0(x)z&+&\varepsilon\left(a_1(x)+A_1(x)z\right)&+&\cdots\\
\dot z&=&b_0(x)+B_0(x)z&+&\varepsilon\left(b_1(x)+B_1(x)z\right)&+&\cdots
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for {$x\in \Omega_{\widehat\pi}$ and $z\in V_2$. }
As before, for $a_0(x),b_0(x),$ $A_0(x), B_0(x)$, the dimensions are $n\times 1$, $p\times 1$, $n\times p$, and $p\times p$, respectively.
This system is in general not in the standard form for singular perturbations given in \cite{verhulst}, thus slow and fast variables are not separated. But assuming the existence of a transformation to standard form for singular perturbations, at $\varepsilon=0$ one has a positive dimensional local manifold of stationary points, usually called the {\em critical manifold}. In turn, the existence of such a critical manifold imposes conditions on the parameter value $\widehat\pi$. (For singular perturbations, this is part of the suitability mentioned above; see \cite{gwz,gwz3} for details.)
The connection between QSS and singular perturbation reductions was generally discussed in \cite{gwz3}, Section 4. The special type of system \eqref{generalsystem} allows for a simplified, shorter discussion, as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We consider throughout $\pi$ such that $\Omega_\pi\not=\emptyset$, hence $B(x,\pi)$ is invertible for some $x$.
\item As shown in \cite{gwz3}, Proposition 2, the minimal requirement for QSS to be consistent for all small perturbations of $\widehat \pi$ is invariance of the {\em QSS variety}
\[
Y_{\widehat\pi}:=\big\{(x,z)\in\Omega_{\widehat\pi}\times{V_2}\,|\,B(x,\widehat\pi)z+ b(x,\widehat\pi)=0\big\}.
\]
This requirement guarantees for small perturbations of $\widehat\pi$ that the $x$--components of solutions to \eqref{generalsystem} with initial value in $Y_{\widehat\pi}$ remain close to the corresponding solutions of \eqref{cqssredsys}, and it is also necessary for this property.
\item The invariance condition may be expressed as
\[
\left(Db_0(x)-DB_0(x)(B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x))\right)\left(a_0(x)-A_0(x)B_0(x)^{-1} b_0(x)\right)=0,\quad {x\in \Omega_{\widehat\pi}.}
\]
(See \cite{gwz3} for the general form; to verify directly in the given setting, evaluate $\frac{d}{dt}\left(B_0(x)z+ b_0(x)\right)=0$ on $Y_{\widehat\pi}$.)
\item The invariance condition alone is too weak to ensure quasi-steady state properties on par with expectations concerning fast-slow timescales. As a simple example, consider the case $b_0=0$, with system
\[
\begin{array}{rcccccl}
\dot x&=&a_0(x)+A_0(x)z&+&\varepsilon\left(a_1(x)+A_1(x)z\right)&+&\cdots\\
\dot z&=&B_0(x)z&+&\varepsilon\left(b_1(x)+B_1(x)z\right)&+&\cdots,\\
\end{array}
\]
and the QSS variety given by $z=0$. Whenever $a_0$ is non-zero, the rate of change for $x$ is of order one on the QSS manifold characterized by ($\dot z=0$, hence) $z=O(\varepsilon)$.
\item Conclusion (see also the extended discussion in \cite{gwz3}, Section 4): The natural way of transferring the QSS assumption for $z$ to a singular perturbation scenario is to stipulate that at $\varepsilon=0$, the equation $B_0(x)z+b_0(x)=0$ defines a set of stationary points of system \eqref{epsilonsystem}.
\end{itemize}
The above definitions and reasoning lead us to assume the following conditions in the sequel.\\
\noindent{\bf Blanket conditions.}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\Omega_{\widehat\pi}\cap V_1\not=\emptyset$.
\item $z=-B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)$ defines a set of stationary points of system \eqref{epsilonsystem} for $\epsilon=0$, thus
\[
a_0(x)-A_0(x)B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)=0
\]
holds for all {$x$ in $\Omega_{\widehat\pi}$}. We denote the critical set defined by $z=-B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)$ by $Y_{\widehat\pi}$.
\end{enumerate}
One may rephrase the second condition for the original parameter dependent system \eqref{generalsystem} as an identity
\begin{equation*}\label{tfpvcond}
a(x,\widehat\pi)-A(x,\widehat\pi)B(x,\widehat\pi)^{-1} b(x,\widehat\pi)=0 \quad\text{ for all } {x\in \Omega_{\widehat\pi},}
\end{equation*}
which, in turn, imposes conditions on the parameter value $\widehat \pi$. Thus we obtain a special instance of a {\em Tikhonov-Fenichel parameter value, briefly TFPV}, as introduced in \cite{gwz}, but for a prescribed critical manifold.
We now turn to reductions of system \eqref{epsilonsystem}, starting with the singular perturbation reduction with prescribed critical manifold $Y_{\widehat\pi}$. It will be convenient to introduce
\[
w(x):=B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)\quad \in \mathbb{R}^p\textrm{ for }{x\in \Omega_{\widehat\pi},}
\]
and thus have
\[
z=-w(x) \text{ on }Y_{\widehat\pi}
\]
by the blanket conditions, as well as
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
b_0(x)+B_0(x)z&=&B_0(x)\left(w(x)+z\right),\\
a_0(x)+A_0(x)z&=&A_0(x)\left(w(x)+z\right).
\end{array}
\]
We now carry out the decomposition and reduction procedure from \cite[Theorem 1, Remarks 1 and 2]{gw2} with
\begin{equation}\label{h0eq}
h^{(0)}(x,z)=\begin{pmatrix}a_0(x)+A_0(x)z\\
b_0(x)+B_0(x)z\end{pmatrix}, \quad h^{(1)}(x,z)=\begin{pmatrix}a_1(x)+A_1(x)z\\
b_1(x)+B_1(x)z\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
(We note that, in the given situation, reduction formulas provided earlier by Fenichel \cite{fenichel} and Stiefenhofer \cite{sti} are also applicable.)
The following is a straightforward application of \cite{gw2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lessuglylemma}
Assume blanket conditions (i) and (ii) hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \emph{Decomposition}: One has
\[
\begin{pmatrix}a_0(x)+A_0(x) z\\
b_0(x)+B_0(x) z\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}A_0(x)\\
B_0(x)\end{pmatrix}\cdot (w(x)+z)=P(x)\cdot \mu(x,z),
\]
where $P(x)=\begin{pmatrix}A_0(x)\\
B_0(x)\end{pmatrix}$ and $\mu(x,z)=w(x)+z$ is a map from {$\Omega_{\widehat\pi}\times \mathbb{R}^p$} to $\mathbb{R}^p$, and furthermore
\[
D\mu(x,z)=\Big(Dw(x)\quad I_p \Big) \ \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times (n+p)}.
\]
(Here $I_p$ denotes the $p\times p$ identity matrix.)
\item \emph{Condition for reducibility}: Define
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\Delta(x) &:=&D\mu(x,z) \cdot P(x) \\
&=&Dw(x)\,A_0(x)+B_0(x)=M(x) B_0(x)\quad \text{on }Y_{\widehat\pi},
\end{array}
\]
with
\[
M(x):=Dw(x) A_0(x) B_0(x)^{-1}+I_p \quad \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times p}\quad \text{on }Y_{\widehat\pi}.
\]
Then a (local) Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction with a linearly attractive critical manifold $Y_{\widehat\pi}$ exists if and only if the open set
\[
\widetilde\Omega_{\widehat\pi}:=\left\{x\in \Omega_{\widehat\pi}\,|\,\text{ all eigenvalues of } \Delta(x)\text{ lie in the open left half plane }\right\}\subseteq \Omega_{\widehat\pi}
\]
is non-empty.
\item Under the conditions stated in (b), the reduced system on $Y_{\widehat\pi}$, in slow time scale $\tau=\varepsilon t$, is obtained by multiplication of the projection matrix
\begin{align*}
Q(x) &:=I_{n+p}-\begin{pmatrix}A_0(x)\Delta(x)^{-1}\\B_0(x)\Delta(x)^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\cdot \Big(Dw(x) \quad I_p\Big)\\
&=I_{n+p}-\begin{pmatrix}A_0(x)B_0(x)^{-1}M(x)^{-1}\\ M(x)^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\cdot\Big(Dw(x) \quad I_p\Big)\\
\end{align*}
with
\[
h^{(1)}(x)=\begin{pmatrix}a_1(x)-A_1(x)w(x)\\ b_1(x)-B_1(x)w(x)\end{pmatrix}
\]
as in \eqref{h0eq}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
To keep notation manageable, we now suppress the argument $x$ in $a_0,a_1,\, A_0,A_1,\,b_0,b_1\,B_0,B_1\,w, \Delta, M$ and their derivatives.
The essential part of the reduction is given in the following proposition. Note that on $Y_{\widehat\pi}$ it suffices to consider the equation for $x$.
\begin{proposition
Given the blanket conditions (i) and (ii), assume that the conditions in part (b) of Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma} hold, and consider $Q$ as a $2\times 2$ block matrix of dimension $(n,p)\times(n,p)$. Then the upper left block equals
\[
I_n-A_0\,B_0^{-1}\,M^{-1}\,Dw
\]
and the upper right block equals
\[
-A_0\,B_0^{-1}\,M^{-1}.
\]
The reduced equation, in slow time $\tau=\varepsilon t$, on $Y_{\widehat\pi}$ yields the system
\begin{equation}\label{TFred}
\frac{dx}{d\tau}=\left(I_n-A_0\,B_0^{-1}\,M^{-1}\,Dw\right)\left(a_1-A_1w\right)-\left(A_0\,B_0^{-1}\,M^{-1}\right)\left(b_1-B_1w\right)
\end{equation}
for the projection of a solution $(x(\tau),\,z(\tau))$ of the reduced system on $Y_{\widehat\pi}$ to its first component. This may be rewritten as
\[
\frac{dx}{d\tau}=
\left(I_n-A_0\,(DwA_0+B_0)^{-1}\,Dw\right)\left(a_1-A_1w\right)-A_0\,(DwA_0+B_0)^{-1}\left(b_1-B_1w\right).
\]
\end{proposition}
This general reduction formula may seem rather unwieldy, given the seemingly simple starting point \eqref{generalsystem}. For the purpose of illustration we look at the smallest dimension.
\begin{proposition
For $n=p=1$ the reduced system in slow time is given by
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dx}{d\tau}=\frac{(B_0a_1-A_0b_1)-(B_0A_1-A_0B_1)w}{B_0+w^\prime A_0}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
We also make note of an important special case.
\begin{proposition}\label{zeezeroprop}
When $w$ is constant, then the reduced equation is given by
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dx}{d\tau}=a_1-A_1w-A_0B_0^{-1}(b_1-B_1w).
\end{equation*}
In particular when $w=0$ (thus the critical manifold is given by $z=0$) the reduced equation in slow time reads
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dx}{d\tau}=a_1-A_0B_0^{-1}b_1.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Having obtained the singular perturbation reduction, we compare it to the classical quasi-steady state reduction.
\begin{proposition}\label{qssprop} Assume blanket conditions (i) and (ii) hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The classical quasi-steady state reduction of system \eqref{epsilonsystem} yields the QSS-reduced system
\begin{equation}\label{qssredsysslow}
\frac{d x}{d\tau}=\left(a_1-A_1w-A_0B_0^{-1}(b_1-B_1w)\right)+\varepsilon(\cdots)
\end{equation}
in slow time.
\item The classical QSS reduction agrees with the singular perturbation reduction (up to higher order terms in $\varepsilon$) if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{agreecond}
A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\big(A_0B_0^{-1}\left(B_1w-b_1\right)-\left(A_1w-a_1\right)\big)=0.
\end{equation}
Given this condition, Tikhonov's theorem also applies to the QSS reduction.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}The second equation in \eqref{epsilonsystem} shows
\[
z=-(B_0+\varepsilon B_1+\cdots)^{-1}(b_0+\varepsilon b_1+\cdots).
\]
With the geometric series one has
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
(B_0+\varepsilon B_1+\cdots)^{-1}&=&B_0^{-1}(I+\varepsilon B_1B_0^{-1}+\cdots)^{-1}\\
&=& B_0^{-1}-\varepsilon B_0^{-1}B_1B_0^{-1}+\cdots
\end{array}
\]
and therefore
\[
z=- B_0^{-1}b_0+\varepsilon(B_0^{-1}B_1B_0^{-1}b_0-B_0^{-1}b_1)+\cdots
\]
Substitution into the first equation of \eqref{epsilonsystem}, replacing $b_0=B_0w$ and using blanket condition (ii), and further collecting terms yields the assertion of part (a). As for part (b), comparing equations \eqref{TFred} and \eqref{qssredsysslow} one obtains as necessary and sufficient conditions:
\[
\begin{array}{crcl}
& A_0B_0^{-1}\left(B_1w-b_1\right)&=& A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\left(B_1w-b_1\right)\\
& &+& A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\left(A_1w-a_1\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow& A_0B_0^{-1}\left(I_p-M^{-1}\right)\left(B_1w-b_1\right)&=&A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\left(A_1w-a_1\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow& A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\left(M-I_p\right)\left(B_1w-b_1\right)&=&A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\left(A_1w-a_1\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow& A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\,A_0B_0^{-1}\left(B_1w-b_1\right)&=&A_0B_0^{-1}M^{-1}\,Dw\left(A_1w-a_1\right)\\
\end{array}
\]
recalling the definition of $M$ in the last step. The last assertion holds since (as noted in \cite{gwz3}) higher order terms in $\varepsilon$ are irrelevant for the convergence statement in Tikhonov's theorem.
\end{proof}
We recover a special case of \cite{gwz3}, Prop. 5.
\begin{corollary}\label{qsscor}When $w$ is constant (in particular when $b_0=0$), then the differential equations for the singular perturbation reduction and the QSS reduction in slow time agree up to terms of order $\varepsilon$.
\end{corollary}
In general the QSS heuristic and singular perturbation reduction yield substantially different results, and the reduction by QSS is incorrect. However, for the following notable cases the two reductions are in agreement.
\begin{itemize}
\item $Dw=0$, thus $w$ is constant, see Corollary \ref{qsscor}. (As will turn out, this case occurs for many reaction networks.)
\item $A_0=0$. Here, system \eqref{h0eq} is in Tikhonov standard form with slow and fast variables separated.
\item $A_0B_0^{-1}\left(B_1w-b_1\right)=A_1w-a_1$. Here, both reductions have right hand side zero.
\end{itemize}
In dimension $2$ this list is complete (as seen by inspection of \eqref{agreecond}).
\medskip
To summarize: Given the blanket conditions (i) and (ii), as well as invertibility of the matrix $M$ (or $\Delta$) and the
eigenvalue condition in Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b), we have determined a closed-form version of the reduced system by singular perturbations and clarified its relation to the classical QSS heuristic. The next step will be to apply these results to reaction networks, making use of their special properties.
\section{Application to reaction networks}\label{crnsec}
We now return to the reaction networks from Section \ref{motivation}, and will extend results from \cite{feliu:intermediates,Fel_elim} on steady states to quasi-steady states. We assume that all the conditions stated after equation \eqref{generalsystem} hold, with $\mathbb R^q_{>0} \subseteq\Pi\subseteq \mathbb R^q_{\geq 0}$,
and introduce the following further assumptions and definitions. Note that all requirements are satisfied for systems with mass-action kinetics.
\begin{itemize}
\item The species are ordered as $X_1,\dots,X_n,Z_1,\dots,Z_P$, such that the concentration vector is $(x,z)$.
\item The rate function of a reaction involving the non-interacting species $Z_i$ in the reactant is linear in $z_i$ and does not depend on any other $z_j$.
\item The rate function of a reaction that does not involve any non-interacting species in the reactant is constant in $z_i$, $i=1,\ldots,P$.
\item We order the set of reactions such that the first $m_1$ reactions only have species in $\mathcal{X}$ in the reactant (without restrictions on the product), and the last $m_2$ reactions all have one non-interacting species in the reactant (and at most one in the product). Thus, $m=m_1+m_2$.
\end{itemize}
At the outset we consider a general parameter vector $\kappa=(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_q)\in\Pi$ varying in the parameter set $\Pi$. Let $v_1(x,\kappa)$ denote the vector of rate functions for the first $m_1$ reactions (which by assumption do not depend on $z$) and let $v_2(x,z,\kappa)$ be the vector of rate functions for the last $m_2$ reactions (which by assumption each component is linear in the concentration of the only non-interacting species in the reactant). Recall that, by assumption, all these functions are defined for all $(x,\kappa)$ in an open neighborhood of $\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}\times \mathbb R^q_{\geq 0}$, and all $z\in \mathbb R^P$. We further assume forward invariance of $\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}\times \mathbb R^P_{\geq 0}$ for system \eqref{eq:crneq}.
The dynamical system \eqref{eq:crneq}, which evolves in $\mathbb{R}^{n+P}_{\ge 0}$ (by the invariance), may then be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq:sys1}
\begin{pmatrix} \dot{x} \\ \dot{z} \end{pmatrix} &=N v(x,z,\kappa)=
\begin{pmatrix} N_{11} & N_{12} \\ N_{21} & N_{22} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} v_1(x,\kappa) \\ v_2(x,z,\kappa) \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} N_{11} \\ N_{21} \end{pmatrix} v_1(x,\kappa) +\begin{pmatrix} N_{12} \\ N_{22} \end{pmatrix} v_2(x,z,\kappa).
\end{align}
Here the size of $N_{11}$ is $n\times m_1$, that of $N_{21}$ is $P\times m_1$, that of $N_{12}$ is $n\times m_2$ and that of $N_{22}$ is $P\times m_2$.
By assumption $v_2(x,z,\kappa)$ is linear in $z$, hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:v2}
\begin{pmatrix} N_{12} \\ N_{22} \end{pmatrix} v_2(x,z,\kappa)= \begin{pmatrix} K_1(x,\kappa) \\ K_2(x,\kappa) \end{pmatrix} z,
\end{equation}
where $K_1$ is a $n\times P$ matrix and $K_2$ is a $P\times P$ matrix. We might take the system \eqref{eq:sys1} with \eqref{eq:v2} inserted to be of the form \eqref{generalsystem}. However, we will refrain from doing so here. Indeed we will modify the system before making the identification with \eqref{generalsystem}.
We note some crucial properties of $K_2(x,\kappa)$, most of which were already shown in \cite{feliu:intermediates,Fel_elim}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:compartment}
Let $\kappa\in\Pi$, and let $\Omega_\kappa$ be non-empty. Then the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For all $x\in\Omega_\kappa\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}$, $K_2(x,\kappa)$ is a compartmental matrix, that is, the diagonal entries of $K_2$ are non-positive, the off-diagonal entries non-negative, and all column sums are non-positive.
\item For all $x\in\Omega_\kappa\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}$, all non-zero eigenvalues of $K_2(x,\kappa)$ have negative real part, and for the eigenvalue $0$ (if it occurs) the geometric and algebraic multiplicity are equal.
\item Assume the rank of $K_2(x,\kappa)$ is equal to $p=P-k<P$ for all $x$ in an open set $\widetilde\Omega_\kappa\subseteq\Omega_\kappa$, and assume there are linearly independent linear forms $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k$ on $\mathbb R^P$ such that $\lambda_i (K_2(x,\kappa))=0$ for all $x$ and $\kappa$, and $1\leq i\leq k$. Then $K_2(x,\kappa)$ restricts to a linear map on ${\rm Ker}\,\lambda_1\cap\cdots\cap {\rm Ker}\,\lambda_k$. This map is invertible, and its eigenvalues are just the non-zero eigenvalues of $K_2(x,\kappa)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (a) A column of $N_{22}$ contains one entry $-1$ and one entry $1$ (with all other entries zero) if it corresponds to a reaction in \eqref{eq:reactions} with some non-interacting species appearing on either side, and contains just one entry $-1$ (with all other entries equal to zero) if it corresponds to a reaction with a non-interacting species appearing just on the left hand side. Since the rate functions are non-negative, the assertion of (a) follows.
(b) The first assertion of (b) is well known, see e.g. Anderson \cite{anderson-compartmental}, Thm.~12.1 or Chapter 6 of Berman and Plemmons \cite{berman} (noting that compartmental matrices are negative M-matrices). We include a proof of the second statement (which also is known) for the sake of completeness: Abbreviate $F:=K_2(x,\kappa)$, with $(x,\kappa)$ fixed, and consider the linear differential equation $\dot z=F\cdot z$. For this equation the positive orthant is positively invariant, and the equation admits the Lyapunov function $\sum_{i=1}^P z_i$, whence all solutions in the positive orthant are bounded for positive times. The existence of a non-trivial Jordan block for the eigenvalue $0$ would imply the existence of unbounded solutions for positive times; a contradiction.
(c) We have shown in (b) that $\mathbb R^P$ is the direct sum of the kernel and the image of $F$. Since the image is contained in ${\rm Ker}\,\lambda_1\cap\cdots\cap {\rm Ker}\,\lambda_k$, and both have dimension $P-k$, they are equal. This shows invertibility and the assertion about the eigenvalues, since ${\rm Im}\,F$ is the
sum of generalized eigenspaces for non-zero eigenvalues.
\end{proof}
The following remarks further illustrate the general structure of $K_2(x,\kappa)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For fixed $\kappa$ one may always consider those $x$ for which $K_2(x,\kappa)$ has maximal rank, but this may force restriction to a non-empty open subset of $\Omega_\kappa$ (with some consequences for applying the reduction results from Subsection~\ref{gensetting}). In the case of mass-action kinetics this subset is open and dense.
\item The relevant case of irreducible $K_2(x,\kappa)$ (on some open set) deserves closer attention. By Berman and Plemmons \cite{berman}, Ch.~6, Thm.~4.16 such matrices are either invertible or have one dimensional kernel. Going back to the argument in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(a), we see that the latter can happen only if all columns of $N_{22}$ contain an entry $1$ and an entry $-1$, but this means that $\sum_{i=1}^P z_i$ is a linear first integral, hence the hypothesis of Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(c) is satisfied.
\end{itemize}
We now require explicitly that in the situation of Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(c), \textit{all} linear forms $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k$ define first integrals of the system \eqref{eq:sys1} and depend on $z$ alone. Furthermore, we require that they are {\em induced by stoichiometry}, that is, they are defined by vectors in the left kernel of $N$. This situation is quite common for chemical and biochemical reaction networks \cite{feliu:intermediates,Fel_elim,saez_reduction}. In particular $\widetilde{\Omega}_\kappa=\Omega_\kappa$ in Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(c).
By considering the coefficients of the linear forms, we may thus write
\begin{equation*
\begin{pmatrix}\lambda_1\\ \vdots\\ \lambda_k\end{pmatrix}=W\in \mathbb \mathbb{R}^{k\times P},
\end{equation*}
such that $W N_{21}= W N_{22}=0$.
The following was shown in \cite{Fel_elim,saez_reduction}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:compstoich}
One may choose the $\lambda_i$ with pairwise disjoint support and coefficients $0$ and $1$ only. Thus, up to reordering of the $z_j$ one may assume
\[
W=\begin{pmatrix}W^\prime & I_k\end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times P},
\]
and any level set $Wz=\alpha\in \mathbb R^k_{\ge 0}$ may be rewritten in the form
\[
\begin{pmatrix}z_{p+1}\\ \vdots\\ z_P\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha_{1}\\ \vdots\\ \alpha_k\end{pmatrix}- W^\prime\begin{pmatrix}z_{1}\\ \vdots\\ z_p\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Moreover, for any $\alpha\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}^k$ and {$x$ in $\Omega_\kappa$} (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem:compartment}(c)) the
linear system in $z$
\[
\alpha = Wz, \qquad 0 = N_{21} v_1(x,\kappa) + K_{2}(x,\kappa)z
\]
has a unique solution, which is non-negative.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:crsredprop}
Consider the situation of Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(c) with all linear forms induced by stoichiometry and $W,W'$ as in Lemma \ref{lem:compstoich}.
Denote by $\widetilde K_2$ the $p\times P$-matrix containing the first $p$ rows of $K_2$, by $\widetilde N_{21}$ the matrix containing the first $p$ rows of $N_{21}$, and partition
\[
K_1=\begin{pmatrix}K_{11}&K_{12}\end{pmatrix},\quad \widetilde K_2=\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde K_{21}&\widetilde K_{22}\end{pmatrix}
\]
into matrices with $p$ resp. $k=P-p$ columns.
Then for any $\alpha\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}^k$ the restriction of \eqref{eq:sys1} to the level set $Wz=\alpha$ induces the following system in $\mathbb R^{n+p}_{\geq 0}$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:reformulate}
\dot x&=N_{11}v_1(x,\kappa)+K_{12}(x,\kappa)\alpha +\left(K_{11}(x,\kappa)-K_{12}(x,\kappa)W^\prime\right)z_{1:p}\\
\dot{ z}_{1:p} &=\widetilde N_{21}v_1(x,\kappa)+\widetilde K_{22}(x,\kappa)\alpha+\left(\widetilde K_{21}(x,\kappa)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\kappa)W^\prime\right) z_{1:p}, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $z_{1:p}=(z_1,\ldots,z_p)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from replacing $(z_{p+1},\ldots, z_P)$ in \eqref{eq:sys1} by way of Lemma \ref{lem:compstoich}.
\end{proof}
In the following ve take $V_1=\mathbb{R}^n_{>0}$ and $V_2=\mathbb{R}^p_{>0}$.
Consider a curve in the joint parameter space of $\kappa$ and $\alpha$, $(\kappa,\alpha)=(\widehat\kappa,\widehat\alpha)+\epsilon(\kappa^*,\alpha^*)+\ldots\in\Pi\times R^{k}_{\ge0}.$
Then system \eqref{eq:reformulate} can be written in the form of \eqref{epsilonsystem} with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ab1}
a_0(x)=N_{11}v_1(x,\widehat\kappa)+K_{12}(x,\widehat\kappa)\widehat\alpha,\quad A_0(x)=K_{11}(x,\widehat\kappa)-K_{12}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ab2}
b_0(x)=\widetilde N_{21}v_1(x,\widehat\kappa)+\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)\widehat\alpha,\quad B_0(x)=\widetilde K_{21}(x,\widehat\kappa)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime.
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:consequences}
Assume that notation and hypotheses are as in Proposition \ref{prop:crsredprop}.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $\widehat\kappa$ is such that $K_2(x,\widehat\kappa)$ has rank $p$ in $\Omega_{\widehat\kappa}$, then $B_0(x)=\widetilde K_{21}(x,\widehat\kappa)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime$ is invertible and all its eigenvalues have negative real part. In particular blanket condition (i) is satisfied.
\item If furthermore $v_1(x,\widehat\kappa)=0$ and $\widehat\alpha=0$, then $a_0(x)=0$ and $b_0(x)=0$, and blanket condition (ii) is satisfied. By (a) and Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b), $M=I_p$ and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction with a linearly attractive slow manifold exists. Furthermore $w=0$, hence Propositions \ref{zeezeroprop} and \ref{qssprop} apply and the singular perturbation reduction agrees with the classical QSS reduction.
\item If blanket condition (ii) is satisfied and $w$ is constant, then $\Delta=B_0$ and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction with a linearly attractive slow manifold exists. By Corollary~\ref{qsscor}, the singular perturbation reduction agrees with the classical QSS reduction.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first statement of part (a) is just a reformulation of Lemma \ref{lem:compartment}(c). The remaining assertions are clear.
\end{proof}
It was shown in \cite{saez_reduction} that the classical QSS reduction system can be interpreted as the ODE system associated with a reduced network in the species in $\mathcal{X}$ with an appropriate choice of kinetics. We will not go further into this here.
When the rate functions are multiple of some entry of $\kappa$, it follows from system \eqref{eq:reformulate} and the assumptions and notation of system \eqref{epsilonsystem} that
\begin{align*}
a_1(x) & =N_{11}v_1(x,\kappa^*)+K_{12}(x,\kappa^*)\widehat\alpha+K_{12}(x,\widehat\kappa)\alpha^* & A_1(x) & =K_{11}(x,\kappa^*)-K_{12}(x,\kappa^*)W^\prime, \\
b_1(x) & =\widetilde N_{21}v_1(x,\kappa^*)+\widetilde K_{22}(x,\kappa^*)\widehat\alpha+\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)\alpha^*, & B_1(x)& =\widetilde K_{21}(x,\kappa^*)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\kappa^*)W^\prime,
\end{align*}
hence $A_0,A_1$, resp.~$B_0,B_1$, are the same functions evaluated in different parameter points (c.f. \eqref{eq:ab1}, \eqref{eq:ab2}).
\medskip
To conclude this section, we illustrate that some of the first linear integrals from Lemma~\ref{lem:compartment} may depend on $x$ and $\k$ in some situations, and therefore may not all be induced by stoichiometry.
\begin{example}\label{ex:1}
Consider the network $Z_2\ce{<-[\kappa_1]} Z_1\ce{->[\kappa_2]} Z_3$ with only non-interacting species and mass-action kinetics. The matrix $K_2(x,\kappa)$ is found from
$$N v_2(x,z,\kappa)=\begin{pmatrix} -1 & -1 \\ 1& 0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_1z_1\\ \kappa_2z_1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} -(\kappa_1+\kappa_2) & 0 & 0 \\ \kappa_1 & 0 & 0\\ \kappa_2 &0&0\end{pmatrix}z.$$
This matrix vanishes when evaluated at the two linear forms $z_1+z_2+z_3$ and $\kappa_3z_1-\kappa_2z_2$. Both of these forms are independent of $x$, but only the first is independent of $\kappa$.
Similarly, consider the network $Z_1\ce{<-[\kappa_1]} X_1\ce{->[\kappa_2]} Z_2$ with two non-interacting species $Z_1,Z_2$ and mass-action kinetics. Now $m_2=0$ and the matrix $K_2(x,\kappa)z$ is obtained from
$$N_{22} v_2(x,z,\kappa)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}z.$$
(Note that $N_{22}$ is a $2\times 0$ matrix and $v_2(x,z,\kappa)$ is a $0\times 1$ matrix.)
Hence, this matrix vanishes when evaluated at any linear form.
However, the ODE system admits only one independent linear first integral in $z_1,z_2$, namely $\kappa_3z_1-\kappa_2z_2$, which depends on the choice of reaction rate constants.
\end{example}
\section{The non-interacting graph}
In this section we relate the results of the previous section to a particular labelled multi-digraph built from the reaction network and the set of non-interacting species, thus extending the formalism introduced in \cite{saez_reduction} from steady state to quasi-steady state. The two blanket conditions may be interpreted in terms of conditions on this graph, which (at least for relatively small networks) allows for easy identification of TFPVs.
We keep the special designations for $\Pi$, $\Omega_\kappa$ etc.\ from Section \ref{crnsec}. Recall that the vector of rate functions takes the form $v(x,z,\kappa)=(v_1(x,\kappa),v_2(x,z,\kappa))$ and that $v_2(x,z,\kappa)$ is linear in $z$, with each component depending on one $z_j$.
Therefore, we write
\[ v_2(x,z,\k)_i = \nu_2(x,\k)_i z_j,\quad j=j(i),\]
if $Z_j$ is the non-interacting species in the reactant of the considered reaction $r_{m_1+i}$.
Recall that the rate functions are evaluated only in the non-negative orthant.
We now decide for what values of the parameters $\k$ the blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.
Given $\k$, we follow \cite{saez_reduction} and introduce a labelled multi-digraph $\mathcal{G}_{\k}=(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}_{\k})$ describing the part of the network relating to the non-interacting species only. The node set is
$$\mathcal{N}=\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_P,*\}$$
and the edge set $\mathcal{E}_{\k}$ is defined by the following edges and labels, for each reaction $r_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m$,
\begin{align*}
Z_j & \ce{->[\nu_2(\cdot ,\k)_i]} Z_k && \text{if $r_{m_1+i}$ involves $Z_j$ in the reactant and $Z_k$ in the product,} \\
Z_j& \ce{->[\nu_2(\cdot,\k)_i]} * &&\text{if $r_{m_1+i}$ involves $Z_j$ in the reactant and no non-interacting species in the product,} \\
*& \ce{->[v_1(\cdot,\k)_i]} Z_k &&\text{if $r_i$ involves no non-interacting species in the reactant and $Z_k$ in the product.}
\end{align*}
The labels are functions of $x$. We let $\ell_{\kappa}(e)$ denote the label of a given edge $e$, which in turn is a function of $x$.
For a submulti-digraph $\mathcal{G}'=(\mathcal{N}',\mathcal{E}')$ of $ \mathcal{G}_{\k}$, we define the label of $\mathcal{G}'$ by
$$\ell_{\kappa}(\mathcal{G}')=\prod_{e\in\mathcal{E}'} \ell_{\kappa}(e).$$
Let $\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}=\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^0\cup \mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^1\cup \ldots\cup \mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^d$ be the partitioning of $\mathcal{G}$ into its connected components $\mathcal{G}^i_{\kappa}=(\mathcal{N}^i,\mathcal{E}_{\kappa}^i)$, such that $\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^0$ is the component containing the node $*$.
The component $\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^0$ consists of only the node $*$ if all edges of $\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}$ are between two non-interacting species. Since all species of the network are in at least one reaction (by assumption), all non-interacting species nodes will be connected to at least one other node, potentially $*$. Therefore a connected component cannot consist of only one non-interacting species. For each connected component $\mathcal{G}_{\kappa}^i$, $i=1,\ldots,d$, there is a corresponding first linear integral $\lambda_i$ (as in Lemma \ref{lem:compstoich}) with coefficient one for the entries corresponding to the nodes $V\in\mathcal{G}^i_{\kappa}$ and zero otherwise \cite{Fel_elim}.
Hence $d\leq k$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:compartment}(c) and our assumption that all linear forms are induced by stoichiometry imposes $d=k$.
Let $\alpha_i=\sum_{j=1}^P \lambda_{ij} z_j$ be the conserved amount.
Furthermore, let $\Theta_{\kappa,i}(V)$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, be the set of spanning trees rooted at the node $V\in\mathcal{N}^i$.
To be precise, the edges of a spanning tree are directed towards $V$, and there is precisely one outgoing edge for each $V'\in\mathcal{N}^i$, except for the root $V$. Furthermore, the set of spanning trees which have positive labels when evaluated for $x\in \Omega_\kappa\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}$ is denoted as
$$\Theta_{\kappa,i}^+(V)=\{\tau\,|\,\tau \in\Theta_{\kappa,i}(N),\, \ell_\kappa(\tau)>0 \textrm{ in }\Omega_\kappa\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}\}.$$
Next we relate the blanket conditions to conditions on the graph. For convenience we consider the joint parameter space of $\kappa$ and $\alpha$, and let $(\kappa,\alpha)=(\widehat\kappa,\widehat\alpha)+\epsilon(\kappa^*,\alpha^*)+\ldots$ with $\widehat\kappa\in \Pi$, $\widehat\alpha\in \mathbb{R}^d_{\ge0}$ be a curve in the joint parameter space for $\epsilon\ge 0$. Consider the ODE system
\begin{align*}
\dot x&=N_{11}v_1(x,\widehat\kappa)+K_{12}(x,\widehat\kappa)\widehat\alpha +\big(K_{11}(x,\widehat\kappa)-K_{12}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime\big)z_{1:p},\\
\dot{z}_{1:p} &=\widetilde N_{21}v_1(x,\widehat\kappa)+\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)\widehat\alpha+\big(\widetilde K_{21}(x,\widehat\kappa)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime\big) z_{1:p}, \nonumber
\end{align*}
or in the notation of \eqref{eq:ab1} and \eqref{eq:ab2},
$$\dot x= a_0(x)+A_0(x)z_{1:p},\qquad \dot{z}_{1:p}=b_0(x)+B_0(x)z_{1:p}.$$
The next lemma tells us that blanket condition (i) corresponds to the existence of at least one rooted spanning tree with positive label in each connected component, and the root must be $*$ for the component $\mathcal{G}_{\k}^0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:spanning}
$B_0(x)$ is invertible for a fixed $\widehat\kappa\in \Pi$ and $x\in \Omega_{\widehat\kappa}\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}$ if and only if $\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,0}^+(*)\not=\emptyset$ and $\cup_{V\in\mathcal{N}^i}\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,i}^+(V)\not=\emptyset$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $B_0(x)=\widetilde K_{21}(x,\widehat\kappa)-\widetilde K_{22}(x,\widehat\kappa)W^\prime$. It is shown in \cite{Fel_elim,saez_reduction} (with a proof based on the Matrix-Tree theorem) that invertibility is equivalent to the condition of the lemma.
\end{proof}
If at least one of the sets of spanning trees described in the lemma is empty, then there are additional conservation relations among non-interacting species, as in Example \ref{ex:1}, or $\widehat{\k}$ is such that some reactions have vanishing rate, and hence they are not present in practice.
\medskip
We now proceed to address blanket condition (ii). To this end, we need to introduce some extra objects.
Let $\sigma$ be a cycle of the graph $\mathcal{G}$, say in the connected component $\mathcal{G}_i$, $e$ an edge of $\sigma$, and define
$$\Gamma(\sigma)=\{\tau\cup \sigma\,|\, \tau\in \Theta_{\widehat\kappa,i}(\textrm{source of }e) \textrm{ and }\sigma\setminus e\,\,\text{is a subgraph of}\,\, \tau\},$$
where $\cup$ and $\setminus$ are applied to both node set and edge set.
That is, $\Gamma(\sigma)$ consists of spanning trees that, after the addition of an edge, contain the cycle $\sigma$.
It is shown in \cite{saez_reduction} that $\Gamma(\sigma)$ does not depend on the choice of $e$. We consider now the set $\Sigma$ of the cycles $\sigma$ of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ such that $\Gamma(\sigma)\not=\emptyset$ and further the sum of the columns of the stoichiometric matrix $N$ corresponding to the reactions in the cycle does not vanish on the $x$-coordinates. That is, if $\zeta_\sigma\in \mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the projection onto $\mathbb{R}^n$ of the sum of the reaction vectors of the reaction in $\sigma$, the cycle $\sigma$ belongs to $\Sigma$ if and only if
$$\zeta_\sigma\not=0\quad\text{and}\quad \Gamma(\sigma)\not=\emptyset.$$
The first condition means that the net production of the non-interacting species is non-zero in the reaction path composed of the reactions in the cycle.
A cycle consisting of two reactions forming one reversible reaction never satisfies this condition as the sum would be zero.
We let $\Sigma_0,\Sigma_1,\dots,\Sigma_d$ denote the respective subsets in each connected component of $\mathcal{G}_\k$.
Let $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m_1\}$ be the set of indices of the reactions that do not involve any non-interacting species, that is, $\sum_{j=1}^P \delta_{ij}=\sum_{j=1}^P \delta'_{ij}=0$ for $i\in I$.
For fixed $\k,\alpha$, and under blanket condition (i), it is shown in \cite{saez_reduction} that
in $\Omega$ the following equality holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h}
a_0(x)-A_0(x)B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)=\sum_{i\in I} v_{1}(x,\k)_i \xi_i + \sum_{i=0}^{d} \frac{\alpha_{i}}{q_{i}(x,\kappa)} \sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma_i} \left( \sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma(\sigma)} \ell_\k (\gamma) \right) \zeta_\sigma,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\alpha_0=1$ for convenience,
\item $\xi_i\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the vector with entries $\xi_{ij}=\beta'_{ij}-\beta_{ij}$ (the net production of the species in $\mathcal{X}$ in reaction $r_i$),
\item $\ell_\k(\gamma)$ is the label of the subgraph $\gamma$ of $\Gamma(\sigma)$, and has $\ell_\k(\sigma)$ as a factor,
\item
the function $q_{i}(x,\k)$ is positive if blanket condition (i) is satisfied. In particular, it is the sum of the labels of the trees in $\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,0}^+(*)$ for $i=0$ and of the labels of the trees in $\cup_{V\in\mathcal{N}^i}\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,i}^+(V)$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$ (c.f. Lemma~\ref{lem:spanning}).
\end{itemize}
We remark that in \cite{saez_reduction}, it is assumed the parameter $\widehat\kappa$ is positive, but this is not necessary as long as blanket condition (i) holds.
Using equality \eqref{eq:h}, we see that blanket condition (ii) holds if and only if the right hand side of \eqref{eq:h} vanishes.
In the next lemma we obtain a sufficient condition for this to occur.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:cycle}
Assume blanket condition (i) is satisfied for a fixed $\widehat\kappa\in\Pi$, and let $\widehat\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^d_{\ge 0}$.
A sufficient condition for blanket condition (ii) to be satisfied is that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $v_{1}(x,\widehat\k)_i=0$ for all $i\in I$,
\item[(b)] $\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma(\sigma)} \ell_\k (\gamma) =0$ for all cycles $\sigma\in\Sigma_0$ of $\mathcal{G}^0_{\k}$,
\item[(c)] $\widehat\alpha_i \left( \sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma(\sigma)} \ell_\k (\gamma) \right)=0$ for all cycles $\sigma\in\Sigma_i$ of $\mathcal{G}^i_{\k}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$.
\end{itemize}
These conditions are necessary if the vectors $\xi_i$ for $i\in I$ and $\zeta_\sigma$ for all $\sigma\in \Sigma$ are linearly independent.
\smallskip
Sufficient conditions for (b) and (c) to hold are
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ell_{\widehat{\k}}(\sigma)=0$ if $\sigma\in\Sigma_0$ is a cycle of $\mathcal{G}^0_{\k}$,
\item $\widehat\alpha_i \ell_{\widehat{\k}}(\sigma)=0$ if $\sigma\in\Sigma_i$ is a cycle of $\mathcal{G}^i_{\k}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The statement is a consequence of the form of the right hand side of \eqref{eq:h}
as all terms vanish under the conditions of the lemma. For the second part, we note that $\ell_{\widehat\k}(\gamma)$ is a multiple of $\ell_{\widehat\k}(\sigma)$.
\end{proof}
In the special case of mass-action kinetics, or kinetics for which each of the rate functions is multiplied by one of the parameters, the first two conditions in Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle} hold if the corresponding parameters are set to zero. Specifically, we obtain the following corollary, which is a consequence of Proposition~\ref{lem:consequences} and Lemmas~\ref{lem:spanning} and \ref{lem:cycle}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:QSS}
Assume $\Pi=\Pi_1\times \Pi_2\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{m}_{\geq 0} \times \mathbb{R}^{q-m}$ such that
\begin{align*}
v_1(x,\k)_i &= \k_i u_1(x,\k')_i &&\textrm{for all }i=1,\dots,m_1\\
\nu_2(x,\k)_i & =\k_i u_2(x,\k')_i && \textrm{for all }i=m_1+1,\dots,m,
\end{align*}
with $u_1,u_2$ functions of $x$ and $\k'\in \Pi_2$ taking only positive values. Assume further that $\Theta_{\kappa,0}(*)\not=\emptyset$ and $\cup_{V\in\mathcal{N}^i}\Theta_{\kappa,i}(V)\not=\emptyset$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$ (whether these hold does not depend on $\k$).
\begin{itemize}
\item
Let $\widehat\k\in \Pi_1\times \Pi_2$ such that $\widehat\kappa_{1:m_1}=0$, $\widehat\k_{i}>0$ for $i=m_1+1,\dots,m$, and let $\widehat\alpha=0$. Then blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied and furthermore, $w(x)=0$ and all eigenvalues of $\Delta(x)=B_0(x)$ have negative real part for $x\in \Omega_\kappa\cap\mathbb R^n_{\geq 0}$. Consequently, a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction.
\item
In particular, there is a choice of parameters for which the QSS reduction can be seen as a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction of the original system.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Any tree in $\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,i}(V)$, for any $i,V$ with $V=*$ if $i=0$, has only edges with source an element in $Z$.
These edges have label of the form $\widehat\k_j u_2(x,\widehat\k')_j $ with $\widehat\k' \in \Pi_2$, which by assumption is strictly positive.
Hence, any spanning tree in the relevant sets $\Theta_{\widehat\kappa,i}(V)$ has positive label. By Lemma~\ref{lem:spanning}, blanket condition (i) holds.
Conditions (a) and (c) from Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle} hold trivially. Consider now a cycle $\sigma\in \Sigma_0$. If the cycle contains the node $*$, then the label of the edge with source $*$ is zero, and hence $\ell_{\widehat\k}(\sigma)=0$. If $*$ is not in the cycle, then consider any subgraph $\gamma \in \Gamma(\sigma)\neq \emptyset$. This subgraph contains a spanning tree with root a node of the cycle. Hence, it must contain an edge with source $*$, which has zero label, implying that $\ell_{\widehat{\k}}(\gamma)=0$ for any $\gamma \in \Gamma(\sigma)$. It follows that condition (b) of Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle} is satisfied as well, and hence blanket condition (ii) holds.
\end{proof}
A nice consequence of the Corollary is that if all reactions involve some species in $Z$ in the reactant, then $\widehat{\alpha}=0$ defines a TFPV, regardless of the (positive) values of the reaction rate constants.
Note that if $\mathcal{G}_\k^0$ has only the node $*$, then $b_0=0$ and hence $w=0$.
\begin{remark}\label{rk:intermediates}
A special scenario occurs for so-called \emph{intermediate species} \cite{feliu:intermediates}: these are species that do not interact with any other species, and are the reactant and the product of at least one reaction. The set of these species is obviously a set of non-interacting species. With mass-action kinetics, $K_2(x,\k)$ has full rank and hence there are no linear first integrals in their concentrations. In particular,
\[ b_0(x)=N_{21} v_1(x,\k),\qquad B_0(x)= K_2(x,\k), \]
and $B_0(x)$ is constant in $x$. Hence, if blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied, we need only to choose $\widehat\k$ such that the rate of any reaction producing an intermediate is constant in order to obtain a valid Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction which further agrees with the QSS reduction (up to irrelevant terms of higher order in $\epsilon$).
Let us look at this scenario in more detail.
By the condition on the production and degradation of all intermediates, the graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ has one connected component, namely that of $*$, which necessarily has a spanning tree rooted at $*$.
The label of the spanning tree may be zero depending on $\widehat\kappa$. Hence blanket condition (i) is satisfied if and only if there is a directed path from any intermediate species to $*$ with positive label.
The cycles of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ are of two kinds. A cycle is not in $\Sigma$ if it does not go through $*$, because the reactions corresponding to the cycle only involve non-interacting species. If a cycle goes through $*$, then it contains an edge of the form
$*\ce{->} Z.$
By setting the reaction rate constant of all reactions of this form to zero, we are guaranteed that \eqref{eq:h} is zero, that is, blanket condition (ii) holds.
This straightforwardly implies that $b_0(x)=0$, hence also $w=0$. Hence by Corollary \ref{cor:QSS} there exists a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction and it agrees with the QSS reduction. By Proposition \ref{zeezeroprop} the reduced system is
$$\frac{dx}{d\tau}=a_1(x)-A_0B^{-1}_0b_1(x).$$
By the nature of the reactions, the matrices $A_0$ and $B_0$ are constant in the concentrations $x$.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Before moving to the discussion of realistic examples in the next section, we provide an illustrative example to show that the conditions in Lemma \ref{lem:cycle} are sufficient but not necessary.
\begin{example
Consider the (artificial) reaction network
\begin{equation*}
X_1+Z_1\ce{->[\kappa_1]} 2X_1, \quad X_1\ce{->[\kappa_2]} 2X_1+Z_1, \quad X_1+Z_1\ce{->[\kappa_3]} 0, \quad X_1\ce{->[\kappa_4]} Z_1
\end{equation*}
with $\mathcal{Z}=\{Z_1\}$, $\mathcal{X}=\{X_1\}$, and assuming mass-action kinetics. The graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ for $\widehat\kappa$ is
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (Z) at (0,0) {$Z_1$};
\node (*) at (3,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (Z) to[out=10,in=170] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_1x_1$} (*);
\draw[->] (Z) to[out=50,in=130] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3x_1$} (*);
\draw[->] (*) to[out=-170,in=-10] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2x_1$} (Z);
\draw[->] (*) to[out=-130,in=-50] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_4x_1$} (Z);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
It has exactly two spanning trees rooted at $*$, namely $Z_1\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1x_1]}*$ and $Z_1\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3x_1]}*$, so either of these two coefficients must be non-zero for blanket condition (i) to be fulfilled, see Lemma \ref{lem:spanning}.
There are four possible cycles, but only two are in $\Sigma$, namely
$$\sigma_1\colon\quad Z_1\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1x_1]}*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_{2}x_1]}Z_1,\qquad \sigma_2\colon \quad Z_1\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3x_1]}*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_{4}x_1]}Z_1.$$
For each cycle $\sigma_i$, $\Gamma(\sigma_i)$ contains only $\sigma_i$. Furthermore, $\zeta_{\sigma_1}= 2$ and $\zeta_{\sigma_2}=-2$.
The other two cycles have net production of $X_1$ equal to zero. We have $I=\emptyset$ and the function on the right side of \eqref{eq:h} is
\[ \frac{1}{q(x_1,\widehat\kappa)}\big(2 \widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_2 x_1^2-2\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_4 x_1^2 \big) = \frac{2x_1^2}{q(x_1,\widehat\kappa)}\big( \widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_2 -\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_4 \big) ,
\]
where $q(x_1,\widehat\kappa)$ is positive if blanket condition (i) holds, that is, if at least one of $\widehat\k_1,\widehat\k_3$ are positive.
Blanket condition (ii) is fulfilled by choosing for example $\widehat\kappa_{2}=\widehat\kappa_{4}=0$ according to Lemma \ref{lem:cycle}. However, it is clear that the function also vanishes if $\widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_2-\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_4=0$. This implies the conditions in Lemma \ref{lem:cycle} are only sufficient and not necessary.
To complete the example, we note that
\begin{align*}
a_0(x_1) &= (\widehat\kappa_2 - \widehat\kappa_4) x_1, & A_0(x_1)= \phantom{-}(\widehat\kappa_1 - \widehat\kappa_3) x_1,\\
b_0(x_1) & = ( \widehat\kappa_2+ \widehat\kappa_4) x_1 & B_0(x_1)= -(\widehat\kappa_1 + \widehat\kappa_3) x_1,
\end{align*}
hence
$$w(x_1)=B_0(x_1)^{-1}b_0(x_1)=-\frac{\widehat\kappa_2+\widehat\kappa_4}{\widehat\kappa_1+\widehat\kappa_3},\qquad \Delta(x_1)=B_0(x_1)=-(\widehat\kappa_1 + \widehat\kappa_3) x_1,$$
and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists according to Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b). Finally, according to Corollary \ref{qsscor}, the Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction and the QSS reduction agree since $w$ is constant.
\end{example}
\section{Examples and applications}
\subsection{The Michaelis-Menten mechanism}
\label{sec:MM}
For the purpose of illustration, we will discuss the standard enzyme-substrate mechanism for some choices of non-interacting sets with mass-action kinetics. (Note that all possible QSS and Tikhonov-Fenichel reductions of this system are discussed in \cite{gwz,gwz3}.) The mechanism is
\begin{equation*}
E+S\ce{<=>[\kappa_1][\kappa_{2}]} C\ce{->[\kappa_3]} E+P.
\end{equation*}
There are two linear first integrals, which are given by the stoichiometry, namely $x_E+x_C$ and $x_C+x_S+x_P$. The associated ODE system is
\begin{align*}
\dot{x}_E &= -\k_1 x_E x_S + (\k_2+\k_3) x_C \\
\dot{x}_C &= \k_1 x_E x_S - (\k_2+\k_3) x_C \\
\dot{x}_S &= -\k_1 x_E x_S + \k_2 x_C \\
\dot{x}_P &= \k_3 x_C.
\end{align*}
The domain $\Omega_{\widehat\kappa}$ depends on the choice of parameters, but one will always have $\mathbb R^n_{>0}\subseteq\Omega_{\widehat\kappa}$.
\paragraph{\bf Case $\mathcal{Z}=\{S\}$.} The non-interacting graph for a parameter value $\widehat\kappa$ is
$$S\ce{<=>[\widehat\kappa_1x_E][\widehat\kappa_{2}x_C]}*.$$
There is one rooted spanning tree at $*$, namely $S\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1x_E]}*$, and by Lemma \ref{lem:spanning}, blanket condition (i) holds if and only if $\widehat\kappa_1>0$.
For blanket condition (ii) we consider the cycles of the graph. There is only one cycle
$$S\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1]}*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_{2}]}S$$
which is not in $\Sigma$. Here $I=\{3\}$ and the rate function of the third reaction is $\widehat\k_3 x_C$. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle}, blanket condition (ii) holds if and only if $\widehat\kappa_3=0$.
Now let $\widehat\k_1>0$ and $\widehat\k_3=0$. We verify the reducibility conditions from Lemma~\ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b),
and we find
$$B_0(x)=-\widehat\kappa_1 x_E,\quad w(x)=B_0(x)^{-1}b_0(x)=-\frac{\widehat\kappa_2 x_C}{\widehat\kappa_1 x_E}.$$
If $\widehat\kappa_2=0$, then $\Delta(x)=B_0$, hence a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with QSS, according to Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b) and Corollary \ref{qsscor}. If $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, then
$$\Delta(x)=-\left(\widehat\kappa_1x_E+\frac{\widehat\kappa_2x_C}{x_E}+\widehat\kappa_2\right),$$
and a Tikohnov-Fenichel reduction exists according to Lemma \ref{lem:lessuglylemma}(b); note that here $M\not=\Delta$. However, the reduction agrees with the QSS reduction only in a degenerate setting: By Proposition \ref{zeezeroprop}, we find that for the two reductions to agree, identity \eqref{agreecond} must be satisfied. With
$$A_0B_0^{-1}(B_1-b_1)=\begin{pmatrix} -1 \\1 \\0\end{pmatrix} \left(\frac{\widehat\kappa_2}{\widehat\kappa_1}\kappa_1^*-\kappa_2^*\right)x_C,\quad A_1w-a_1=\begin{pmatrix} -1 \\1 \\0\end{pmatrix}\left(\frac{\widehat\kappa_2}{\widehat\kappa_1}\kappa_1^*-\kappa_2^*\right)x_C +\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\-1 \\-1\end{pmatrix}\kappa_3^*x_C,$$
this holds if and only if $\kappa_3^*=0$. However, this implies $\kappa_3= \widehat\kappa_3+\varepsilon^2\cdots$ for the curve in parameter space, hence the reduced system is trivial, providing no information. (Moreover, if one makes the obvious choice $\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_3+\varepsilon\kappa_3^*$, then last reaction of the mechanism does not occur at all.)
\paragraph{\bf Case $\mathcal{Z}=\{E,C\}$.} The non-interacting graph for a given $\widehat\kappa$ is
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (*) at (-1,0) {$*$};
\node (E) at (0,0) {$E$};
\node (C) at (3,0) {$C$};
\draw[->] (E) to node[above]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_1x_S$} (C);
\draw[->] (C) to[out=145,in=35] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2$} (E);
\draw[->] (C) to[out=-155,in=-25] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3$} (E);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
with two connected components.
There are three rooted spanning trees to consider, namely
$$E\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1x_S]} C,\quad C\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_{2}]} E,\quad C\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3]} E,$$
so at least one of the parameters needs to be different from zero in order to satisfy blanket condition (i) according to Lemma \ref{lem:spanning}. Furthermore, $I=\emptyset$ and there is only one cycle in $\Sigma$, viz.
$$\sigma\colon \quad E\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_1x_S]}C\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3]} E.$$
The cycle belongs to the connected component with the linear first integral $x_E+x_C=\alpha_1$.
The set $\Gamma(\sigma)$ contains only $\sigma$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle},
in conjunction with blanket condition (i), blanket condition (ii) holds if and only if $\widehat\alpha_1 \widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_3 x_S=0$. The case that $x_S$ vanishes identically may be dismissed, since it would amount to $\mathcal{Z}=\{E,C,S\}$. We are left with the following scenarios:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat\kappa_1>0$, and $\widehat\kappa_3=0$ or $\widehat\alpha_1=0$
\item $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, and $\widehat\kappa_1=0$ or $\widehat\kappa_3=0$ or $\widehat\alpha_1=0$
\item $\widehat\kappa_3>0$, and $\widehat\kappa_1=0$ or $\widehat\alpha_1=0$.
\end{itemize}
By substituting $x_C = \alpha_1 - x_E$, we are in the setting of \eqref{epsilonsystem} and \eqref{eq:ab2}, with
\[
x=\begin{pmatrix}x_S\\ x_P\end{pmatrix} \text{ and } z=x_E,
\]
and
\begin{align*}
b_0 & = (\widehat \k_2 + \widehat \k_3)\widehat\alpha_1, & B_0 &= - \widehat\k_1 x_S - (\widehat \k_2 + \widehat \k_3),
&a_0&=\widehat\alpha_1\begin{pmatrix} \widehat\k_2 \\ \widehat\k_3 \end{pmatrix},
&A_0 &= \begin{pmatrix} -\widehat \k_1 x_S - \widehat\k_2 \\ -\widehat\k_3 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Moreover
\[
w(x)= \frac{- (\widehat \k_2 + \widehat \k_3)\widehat\alpha_1}{ \widehat\k_1 x_S + (\widehat \k_2 + \widehat \k_3)}.
\]
In the cases where $\widehat\alpha_1=0$ or $\widehat\k_2=\widehat\k_3=0$, we have $b_0(x)=0$, so $\Delta=B_0$, and all eigenvalues lie on the left half plane. Consequently, a Tikohnov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction.
When $\widehat\alpha_1\neq 0$ but $\widehat \k_1=0$, then $w(x)$ is constant and by Proposition~\ref{lem:consequences}, a Tikohnov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction.
The only scenario left to analyze is when $\widehat\k_3=0$ and the remaining parameters are positive, thus we have a curve $\varepsilon \kappa_3^*$ in parameter space. One easily checks that $\Delta(x)<0$ for all $x$. But identity \eqref{agreecond} would imply (after some computation) that
\[
\k_3^*\left(\frac{\widehat \k_2 }{ \widehat\k_1 x_S + \widehat \k_2}-1\right)=0.
\]
This yields a contradiction unless $\k_3^*=0$, but the latter characterizes the degenerate case that the last reaction does not occur at all.
\paragraph{\bf The case $\mathcal{Z}=\{P\}$.} This is a case where no Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction (and no QSS reduction) exists: The non-interacting graph for $\widehat\kappa$ is
$$*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3x_C]}P.$$
There is no spanning tree rooted at $*$, so blanket condition (i) cannot be satisfied.
\subsection{A predator-prey system}
The following three dimensional predator-prey system was introduced and discussed in \cite{rosenzweig} in the course of a first-principle derivation of the two dimensional Rosenzweig-MacArthur system:
\begin{align*}
\dot{x}_B &= \phantom{-}\kappa_1 x_B(1-x_B) -\kappa_2 x_Bx_H,\\
\dot{x}_S &= -\kappa_3 x_S+\kappa_4 x_Bx_H, \\
\dot{x}_H &= \phantom{-}\kappa_3x_S-\kappa_4 x_Bx_H+\kappa_5 x_S-\kappa_6 x_H,
\end{align*}
with non-negative parameters $\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_6$. Here $x_B$ stands for the abundance of species $B$, the prey while $x_S$ resp.\ $x_H$ are abundances of the species $S$ and $H$ (resting and hunting predators). The three dimensional system is obtained from an individual based stochastic model (see \cite{rosenzweig}, Section 2), upon scaling the abundance of prey.
All Tikhonov-Fenichel parameter values for dimension two, and all reductions, were determined in \cite{rosenzweig} and its supplementary material.
We investigate here what types of reductions arise by means of sets of non-interacting sets and Lemmas~\ref{lem:spanning} and \ref{lem:cycle}.
The ODE may be considered to arise from reaction networks with mass-action kinetics in different ways. We make a choice different from \cite{rosenzweig} and consider, for example,
\[B\ce{<=>[\kappa_1][\kappa_7]} 2B,\qquad B+H\ce{->[\kappa_2]}H,\qquad S\ce{->[\kappa_3]} H,\]
\[ B+H\ce{->[\kappa_4]}B+S,\qquad S\ce{->[\kappa_5]} S+H,\qquad H\ce{->[\kappa_6]} 0,\]
with $\k_1=\k_7$.
The network has only two sets of non-interacting species, namely, $\mathcal{Z}=\{H\}$ and $\mathcal{Z}= \{S\}$. (The union of these two sets is not a non-interacting set, and neither is $\{B\}$. According to \cite{rosenzweig} there exist QSS reductions with respect to $B$, hence our approach will not retrieve all possible QSS reductions.)
We will provide a brief analysis of the two different sets using Lemma \ref{lem:spanning} and Lemma \ref{lem:cycle}, and compare the results to the detailed analysis carried out in \cite{rosenzweig}. In that paper it is shown that in the case $\widehat\kappa_1=0$, $\widehat\kappa_2\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_6=0$ is a necessary condition for the existence of a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction. The condition is further divided into 11 cases specifying precisely the parameters that are zero and those that are not in order to obtain validity. We will discuss these cases from the perspective of Lemma \ref{lem:spanning} and Lemma \ref{lem:cycle}, which are used without further reference.
\paragraph{The case $\mathcal{Z}=\{S\}$.} The non-interacting graph is
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (S) at (0,0) {$S$};
\node (*) at (2,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (S) to[out=30,in=150] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3$} (*);
\draw[->] (*) to[out=-150,in=-30] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_4x_Bx_H$} (S);
\draw[->] (S) .. controls (-1,-1) and (-1,1).. node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_5$} (S);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
There is one spanning tree rooted at $*$: $S\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3]}*$, hence only $\widehat\kappa_3>0$ is required for blanket condition (i). Additionally, there is one cycle in $\Sigma$, $\sigma\colon S\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_5]}S$ and
$I=\{1,2,6,7\}$. Hence assuming
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat\kappa_3>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_2=\widehat\kappa_5=\widehat\kappa_6=0$
\end{itemize}
implies that blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied. If in addition $\widehat\kappa_4=0$, then Corollary \ref{cor:QSS} applies and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction. Whenever $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, subsection 4.3 of \cite{rosenzweig} shows that a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists but is not in agreement with the QSS reduction. Here we have retrieved cases 5 and 9 of \cite[Section 3.4.2]{rosenzweig}.
If we consider \eqref{eq:h}, then $\Gamma(\sigma)$ consists of the graph
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (S) at (0,0) {$S$};
\node (*) at (2,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (*) to node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_4x_Bx_H$} (S);
\draw[->] (S) .. controls (-1,-1) and (-1,1).. node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_5$} (S);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
which has label $\widehat\kappa_5\widehat\kappa_4x_Bx_H$. This term vanishes when $\widehat{\k}_4=0$, which gives rise to the following new set of parameters satisfying blanket conditions (i) and (ii):
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat\kappa_3>0$, $\widehat\kappa_5>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_2=\widehat\kappa_4=\widehat\kappa_6=0$.
\end{itemize}
In this case, $w(x)=0$ and hence a Tikohnov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction; the supplementary material to \cite{rosenzweig} shows that the reduced system is of Volterra-Lotka type.
This is case 8 from \cite[Section 3.4.2]{rosenzweig}.
\paragraph{The case $\mathcal{Z}=\{H\}$.} The non-interacting graph is
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (H) at (0,0) {$H$};
\node (*) at (4,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (H) to[out=30,in=150] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_4x_B$} (*);
\draw[->] (H) to[out=-30,in=-150] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_6$} (*);
\draw[->] (*) to[out=-120,in=-60] node[below,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3x_S$} (H);
\draw[->] (*) to[out=120,in=60] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_5x_S$} (H);
\draw[->] (H) .. controls (-1,-1) and (-1,1).. node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2x_Bx_H$} (H);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
There are two spanning trees rooted at $*$: $H\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_4x_B]}*$ and $H\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_6]}*$, hence $\widehat\kappa_4>0$ or $\widehat\kappa_6>0$ are necessary and sufficient conditions for blanket condition (i). Additionally, $I=\{1,7\}$ and there are three cycles in $\Sigma$:
$$\sigma_1\colon H\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_2x_B]}H,\qquad \sigma_2\colon H\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_6]}*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_3x_S]} H,\qquad \sigma_3\colon H\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_4x_B]}*\ce{->[\widehat\kappa_5x_S]} H,$$
hence, according to Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle}, the following possibilities guarantee that blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item$\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_2=\widehat\kappa_5=\widehat\kappa_6=0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_2=\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_4=0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_2=\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_5=0$.
\end{itemize}
If both $\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_5=0$ (as in the third case), then Corollary \ref{cor:QSS} shows existence of a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction and agreement with the QSS reduction. If $\widehat\kappa_3>0$ in the first case or $\widehat\kappa_5>0$ in the second case, then a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction is still obtained but it does not agree with the QSS reduction; see \cite[Section 4.2]{rosenzweig}. We have retrieved cases 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of \cite[Section 3.4.2]{rosenzweig}.
If we consider the explicit form of \eqref{eq:h}, we find that $\Gamma(\sigma_1)$ consists of two graphs:
\begin{minipage}[h]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (H) at (0,0) {$H$};
\node (*) at (2,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (*) to node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_5x_S$} (H);
\draw[->] (H) .. controls (-1,-1) and (-1,1).. node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2x_Bx_H$} (H);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[h]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\node (H) at (0,0) {$H$};
\node (*) at (2,0) {$*$};
\draw[->] (*) to node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3x_S$} (H);
\draw[->] (H) .. controls (-1,-1) and (-1,1).. node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2x_Bx_H$} (H);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
Furthermore, $\zeta_{\sigma_1}= (-1,0)^{tr}$. Hence, the term in \eqref{eq:h} corresponding to this cycle
has numerator $-\widehat\k_2 x_B x_S (\widehat\k_3+\widehat\k_5)$ and is zero in the $x_S$ component. For the other two cycles, the sets $\Gamma(\sigma_i)$ contain only the cycle itself and when added together give the term with numerator
$(0,-\widehat\k_3 \widehat\k_6 x_S + \widehat \k_4 \widehat\k_5 x_S x_B)^{tr}$.
The detailed analysis of the term arising from the cycle $\sigma_1$ gives the following cases for which blanket conditions (i) and (ii) hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item$\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_5=\widehat\kappa_6=0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_5=\widehat\kappa_4=0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\k_2>0$, $\widehat\kappa_1=\widehat\kappa_3=\widehat\kappa_5=0$.
\end{itemize}
This gives cases 1, 2 and 3 of \cite[Section 3.4.2]{rosenzweig}.
In all cases $b_0=0$, hence $w=0$, and we obtain a Tikohnov-Fenichel reduction which agrees with the QSS reduction.
By our approach we could not identify case 4 of the 11 cases listed in \cite[Section 3.4.2] {rosenzweig} corresponding to setting all reaction rate constants to zero except $\widehat\kappa_2>0$. For an explanation, note that this case amounts to a QSS reduction with quasi-steady state species $B$.
\subsection{A two substrate mechanism}
We consider a mechanism that consists of two substrates $A,B$ that are converted into two products $P,Q$ through a series of reactions catalysed by an enzyme $E$; see Cornish-Bowden \cite[Chapter 5]{enz-kinetics}. It is an example of a \emph{bi-bi} mechanism in the notation of Cleland \cite{FH07}.
\begin{align*}
E +A& \ce{<=>[\kappa_1][\kappa_2]} \! EA & EA+B &\ce{<=>[\kappa_3][\kappa_4]} \! EAB \ce{<=>[\kappa_5][\kappa_6]} \! EPQ \ce{<=>[\kappa_7][\kappa_8]} \! EQ+P & EQ &\ce{<=>[\kappa_9][\kappa_{10}]} \! E+Q.
\end{align*}
Here, the complexes $EA, EAB, EPQ, EQ$ are seen as intermediate or transient complexes in the transformation of $A,B$ into $P,Q$.
We discuss here just one set of non-interacting species, namely $\mathcal{Z}=\{Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4,Z_5\}$, where $Z_1=E$, $Z_2=EA$, $Z_3=EAB$, $Z_4=EPQ$ and $Z_5=EQ$ are all species involving the enzyme $E$. There is a single linear first integral relating only species in $\mathcal{Z}$, which is $\lambda(z)=z_1+z_2+z_3+z_4+z_5$ ($=\alpha$). We further assume mass-action kinetics.
Let $(\kappa,\alpha)=(\widehat\kappa,\widehat\alpha)+\epsilon(\kappa^*,\alpha^*)+\ldots$ be a curve in the joint parameter space with $\widehat\kappa\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{10}$ and $\widehat\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$. The non-interacting graph $\mathcal{G}$ for $\widehat\kappa$ is
\begin{center}
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (*) at (-2,-2) {$*$};%
\node (E) at (0,-2) {$Z_1$}
\node (EA) at (2,-2) {$Z_2$}
\node (EAB) at (4,-2){$Z_3$};
\node (EPQ) at (6,-2){$Z_4$};
\node (EQ) at (8,-2){$Z_5$.};
\draw[->] (EA) to[out=10,in=170] node[above,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_3x_B$} (EAB);
\draw[->] (EAB) to[out=190,in=-10] node[below,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_4$} (EA);
\draw[->] (EAB) to[out=10,in=170] node[above,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_5$} (EPQ);
\draw[->] (EPQ) to[out=190,in=-10] node[below,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_6$} (EAB);
\draw[->] (EPQ) to[out=10,in=170] node[above,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_7$} (EQ);
\draw[->] (EQ) to[out=190,in=-10] node[below,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_8x_P$} (EPQ);
\draw[->] (E) to[out=10,in=170] node[above,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_1x_A$} (EA);
\draw[->] (EA) to[out=190,in=-10] node[below,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_2$} (E);
\draw[->] (EQ) to[out=230,in=310] node[below,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_9$} (E);
\draw[->] (E) to[out=320,in=220] node[above,sloped] {\footnotesize $\widehat\kappa_{10}x_Q$} (EQ);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{center}
The set $\Sigma$ has two cycles: The cycle with the edges with labels $\widehat\kappa_1$, $\widehat\kappa_3$, $\widehat\kappa_5$, $\widehat\kappa_7$ and $\widehat\kappa_9$ that meets all nodes clockwise, and the cycle with the edges with the rest of the labels that meets all nodes counter-clockwise, $\widehat\kappa_2$, $\widehat\kappa_4$, $\widehat\kappa_6$, $\widehat\kappa_8$ and $\widehat\kappa_{10}$. In both cases $\Gamma(\sigma)$ is the cycle itself and the labels are respectively
\[\widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_5\widehat\kappa_7\widehat\kappa_9x_Ax_B\qquad \textrm{and}\qquad \widehat\kappa_2\widehat\kappa_4\widehat\kappa_6\widehat\kappa_8\widehat\kappa_{10}x_Px_Q,\]
and furthermore one has $I=\emptyset$. Blanket condition (i) is satisfied if there is a spanning tree with positive labels of the connected component with nodes $\mathcal{Z}$, see Lemma \ref{lem:spanning}. The latter can be achieved in various ways:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\kappa_8>0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_6>0$, $\widehat\kappa_9>0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, $\widehat\kappa_4>0$, $\widehat\kappa_7>0$, $\widehat\kappa_9>0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_2>0$, $\widehat\kappa_5>0$, $\widehat\kappa_7>0$, $\widehat\kappa_9>0$,
\item $\widehat\kappa_3>0$, $\widehat\kappa_5>0$, $\widehat\kappa_7>0$, $\widehat\kappa_9>0$,
\end{itemize}
assuming $Z_1$ to be the root, and similarly if any other node is the root. This gives $25$ different cases.
Blanket condition (ii) holds for all positive $x_A,x_B,x_P,x_Q$ if and only if $\widehat\kappa_1\widehat\kappa_3\widehat\kappa_5\widehat\kappa_7\widehat\kappa_9=0$ and $\widehat\kappa_2\widehat\kappa_4\widehat\kappa_6\widehat\kappa_8\widehat\kappa_{10}=0$, or $\widehat{\alpha}=0$.
We have (with $z_3$ eliminated using the linear first integral)
$$a_0(x)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \widehat\kappa_4\widehat\alpha \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad b_0(x)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \widehat\kappa_4\widehat\alpha \\ \widehat\kappa_5\widehat\alpha \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$
In particular, if $\widehat\alpha=0$ or $\widehat\kappa_4=\widehat\kappa_5=0$, then $a_0(x)=b_0(x)=0$ and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with the QSS reduction. By symmetry of the reactions, the same holds if $\widehat\kappa_6=\widehat\kappa_7=0$.
\subsection{Post-translational modification systems}
\paragraph{Generalities.}
We will consider here a generalization of the Michaelis Menten system in Section \ref{sec:MM} known as post-translational modification (PTM) systems \cite{fwptm}. Mass-action kinetics is assumed throughout.
A PTM system consists of reactions of the form
$$S_i+S_j\ce{<=>[a_{i,j}^\ell][b^\ell_{i,j}]} C_\ell,\quad C_\ell \ce{<=>[c_{\ell,k}][c_{k,\ell}]} C_k,\quad S_i \ce{<=>[d_{i,j}][d_{j,i}]} S_j,$$
for $i,j,\ell,m$ varying in some index sets and $a^\ell_{i,j},b^\ell_{i,j},c_{\ell,k},d_{i,j}\ge 0$. (Recall that a reaction rate constant is allowed to be zero in which case the corresponding reaction does not take place.) The species $S_i$ are known as substrates and the species $C_\ell$ as intermediates. The Michaelis-Menten system discussed earlier is one example of a PTM system (in which the enzyme also plays the role of a substrate). PTM systems are found in abundance in biological organisms and PTM is considered a general mechanism for signal transmission \cite{fwptm}. The class of PTM systems also includes the MAPK cascade, a layered network of reactions in which a signal is filtered. These systems play pivotal roles in the modelling of cancers and have been studied extensively in the literature, experimentally as well as mathematically.
We will assume that all intermediate species are degraded in the sense that for any $C_\ell$ there exists a sequence of reactions (with positive rate constants) such that
$$C_\ell \ce{->[c_{\ell,\ell_1}]}\quad \ldots\quad \ce{->[c_{\ell_{k-1},\ell_{k}}]} C_{\ell_k}\ce{->[b^{\ell_k}_{i,j}]} S_i+S_j.$$
Next, we will study some generic cases of non-interacting species sets in the light of Lemma \ref{lem:spanning} and Lemma \ref{lem:cycle}. Let $\kappa$ denote the vector of parameters and assume $\kappa=\widehat\kappa+\epsilon\kappa^*+\ldots$ is a curve in parameter space with $\widehat\kappa\in\mathbb{R}^m_{\ge 0}$.
The case where $\mathcal{Z}$ only consists of intermediate species was discussed in Remark~\ref{rk:intermediates}.
We consider a generalization of the standard Michaelis-Menten reduction by enzyme and substrate. For this,
assume furthermore that
\begin{itemize}
\item All intermediate species are produced and degraded that is, for $C\in\mathcal{C}$ (in the set of intermediate species) there is a sequence of reactions such that
$$S_i+S_j\ce{->[]}\ldots\ce{->[]}C\ce{->[]}\ldots\ce{->[]} S_k+S_\ell$$
\item $\mathcal{Z}=\mathcal{C}\cup\mathcal{S}$, where $\mathcal{S}=\{S_{K+1},\ldots,S_M\}$ (potentially after relabelling) is a subset of the substrate species. Furthermore, assume the graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ has two components, $\mathcal{G}_\k^0$ with $\mathcal{N}^0=\{*\}$ and $\mathcal{G}_\k^1$. Hence there is a linear first integral
$$\sum_{i\colon C_i\in\mathcal{C}} z_i+\sum_{i\colon S_i\in \mathcal{S}} z_i$$
relating the non-interacting species, and if there is a non-interacting species in the reactant (product) of a reaction, then there is one in the product (reactant) of the same reaction.
\end{itemize}
Assume that blanket conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied, for example by choosing rate constants or conserved amounts such that Lemma \ref{lem:spanning} and Lemma \ref{lem:cycle} are applicable. Note that any cycle in $\Sigma$ contains both substrates and intermediates. Indeed, a cycle of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ involving only substrates (resp.\ intermediates) corresponds to a reaction path with reactions of the form $S_i\ce{->[]}S_j$ (resp.\ $C_i\ce{->[]}C_j$), hence the net production of species that are not non-interacting is zero and the cycle is not in $\Sigma$.
Since $\mathcal{G}^0_\k$ contains only the node $*$, one has $b_0(x)=0$ and a Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction is exists and agrees with the QSS reduction. Furthermore, it takes the form in Proposition~\ref{zeezeroprop}, where
$a_1(x),b_1(x)$, $A_0(x)$, $B_0(x)$ are all linear in $x$, hence the right hand side of the ODE system is a rational function $p(x)/q(x)$ in $x$, with $p(x),q(x)$ irreducible polynomials in $x$.
It follows from \cite{fwptm} that the monomials of $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ only depend on the reactions $S_i\ce{->[]}S_j$ and whether $S_i+S_j$ is connected by a reaction path to
$S_k+S_\ell$ or not, and not on the chain of intermediate species connecting them nor the structure of the intermediate network as such.
\paragraph{A class of PTM systems.} As an example, we consider a modified Michaelis-Menten system with enzyme $E$, substrate $S$, product $P$ and an arbitrary number $C_1,\ldots, C_m$ of intermediate complexes (that is, $E, S,P$ are ``substrates'' in the terminology of the first part). The reactions are
\[
E+S\ce{<=>[\k_1][\k_{-1}]} C_1, \quad C_i\ce{<=>[\gamma_{ij}][\gamma_{ji}]} C_j, \quad C_m\ce{->[\k_2]} E+P,
\]
and we assume that there is a reaction path from $C_1$ to $C_m$, and mass-action kinetics.
We consider the non-interacting set $\mathcal{Z}=\{ E,C_1,\dots,C_m\}$ with the linear first integral $\alpha=x_E+ x_{C_1}+\dots+x_{C_m}$.
We have $b_0=0$ as the component of $*$ only contains one node.
The graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ is of the form
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1.2pt]
\draw[dashed,fill=gray!20!white] (3.4,0) circle (40pt);
\node (E) at (0,0) {$E$};
\node (C1) at (3,1) {$C_1$};
\node (Cm) at (3,-1) {$C_m$};
\node (Ci) at (4,0) {$C_i$};
\draw[->] (E) to[out=45,in=180] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\kappa_1x_S$} (C1);
\draw[->] (C1) to[out=210,in=0] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\kappa_2$} (E);
\draw[->] (Cm) to[out=180,in=-45] node[above,sloped]{\footnotesize $\kappa_3$} (E);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where the dashed circle represents the edges among the intermediate species and with labels $\gamma_*$. Note that all edges of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ have a label that is constant in $x_S$, except the edge $E\rightarrow C_1$ has label $\k_1x_S$.
Blanket condition (i) is satisfied if the graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ contains at least one spanning tree.
All cycles in $\Sigma$ must involve both $E$ and intermediates, and since the net production of either $S$ or $P$ needs to be non-zero, we are left with cycles containing the edges with labels $\k_1x_S$ and $\k_2$.
Hence, in view of Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle}, assuming the existence of the spanning tree with positive label, $\widehat\alpha=0$ or $\widehat\k_1=0$ or $\widehat\k_3=0$ guarantee that blanket condition (ii) holds.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:QSS}, $\widehat\alpha=0$ implies $w=0$. When $\widehat\k_1=0$, $w$ is constant as $v_1(x,\widehat\k)=0$ and $K_{2}(x,\k)$ becomes constant in $x$.
It follows that either $\widehat\alpha=0$ or $\widehat\k_1=0$ give choices of TFPV, the Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction exists and agrees with QSS.
We now find the reduced system in $x_S$, by using the expression in \eqref{cqssredsys} and then evaluating at the TFPV.
We have
\[
\dot{x}_S = -\k_1 x_E x_S + \k_2 x_{C_1} .
\]
We assume the graph $\mathcal{G}_\k$ is strongly connected. Then, by \cite{Fel_elim}, see also \cite{saez_reduction,feliu:intermediates},
the solution to $\dot{x}_{C_i}=0$, $i=1,\dots,m$, together with the linear first integral is of the form
\[ x_E = \frac{\alpha (\k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m)}{\k_1\delta x_S + \k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m},\qquad x_{C_i} = \frac{\alpha \k_1 \theta_i x_S}{\k_1\delta x_S + \k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m},\]
where
$\theta_i $ is the sum of the labels of all spanning trees of the subgraph of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ delimited by the dashed circle in the figure above rooted at $C_i$, and depends only on $\gamma_*$; and $\delta$ is the sum $\theta_1+\dots+\theta_m$.
Then $\k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m$ is the sum of the labels of all spanning trees of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ rooted at $E$ and $\k_1\theta_i x_S$ is the sum of the labels of all spanning trees of $\mathcal{G}_\k$ rooted at $C_i$. The denominator is the sum of all possible spanning trees of $\mathcal{G}_\k$.
Plugging these expressions into $\dot{x}_S$, we obtain
\[
\dot{x}_S = -\k_1 x_S \frac{\alpha (\k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m) }{\k_1\delta x_S + \k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m} + \k_2 \frac{\alpha \k_1 \theta_1 x_S}{\k_1\delta x_S + \k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m} = \frac{ - \k_1 \k_3 \alpha \theta_m x_S}{\k_1\delta x_S + \k_2 \theta_1 + \k_3 \theta_m} .
\]
This is the QSS reduction of the system, which agrees with the Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction if either $\widehat\alpha=0$ or $\widehat\k_1=0$, provided $\mathcal{G}_{\widehat{\k}}$ has a rooted spanning tree with positive label. Remarkably, the basic form of the reduced equation (the right hand side being a quotient of two degree one polynomials) does not depend on the number of intermediates nor on specifics of their interactions, and is identical with the form of the standard Michaelis-Menten equation.
We now look at the specific cases. For $\widehat\alpha=0$, we consider the curve $\epsilon \alpha^*$ in parameter space, which gives in slow time
\[
\frac{d x_S}{d\tau} = \frac{ - \widehat\k_1 \widehat\k_3 \alpha^* \widehat\theta_m x_S}{\widehat\k_1\widehat\delta x_S + \widehat\k_2 \widehat\theta_1 +\widehat \k_3\widehat \theta_m} .
\]
For $\widehat\k_1=0$, we consider $\epsilon\k_1^*$, which gives in slow time
\[
\frac{d x_S}{d\tau}= \frac{ -\k_1^* \widehat\k_3 \widehat\alpha \widehat\theta_m x_S}{\epsilon\k_1^* \widehat\delta x_S + \widehat\k_2\widehat\theta_1 + \widehat\k_3 \widehat\theta_m} = \frac{ -\k_1^* \widehat\k_3 \widehat\alpha \widehat\theta_m }{\widehat\k_2\widehat\theta_1 + \widehat\k_3 \widehat\theta_m}x_S+\epsilon(\ldots).
\]
\section*{Appendix: A brief outline of singular perturbation reduction}
Here we give a brief informal outline on singular perturbation reduction according to Tikhonov\cite{tikh} and Fenichel \cite{fenichel}. For more details see the monograph by Verhulst \cite{verhulst}, Chapter 8, and \cite{gw2} for the coordinate-independent version. All functions and vector fields in the following are assumed to be sufficiently differentiable.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Consider a system with small parameter $\varepsilon$ in {\em standard form}
\[
\begin{array}{rccl}
\dot x_1 &= f_1(x_1,\,x_2) + \varepsilon \;(\dotsc),\quad &\quad &x_1 \in D\subseteq \mathbb R^r,\\
\dot x_2 &= \varepsilon f_2(x_1,\,x_2) + \varepsilon^2 \;(\dotsc),\quad &\quad &x_2 \in G \subseteq\mathbb R^s.
\end{array}
\]
Rewritten in {\em slow time} $\tau=\varepsilon t$ one obtains
\[
\varepsilon x_1^\prime= f_1(x_1,\,x_2) + \cdots,\quad
x_2^\prime =f_2(x_1,\,x_2) + \cdots.
\]
Given that
\begin{itemize}
\item there is a non-empty {\em critical manifold}
\[
\widetilde Z :=\left\{ (y_1,\,y_2)^T\in D\times G ;\, f_1(y_1,\,y_2) =0\right\};
\]
\item there exists $\nu>0$ such that all eigenvalues of $ D_1f_1(y_1,\,y_2)$, $(y_1,y_2)\in\widetilde Z$ have real part $\leq -\nu$,
\end{itemize}
then by
{\bf Tikhonov's Theorem} there exist $T>0$ and a neighborhood of $\widetilde Z$ in which, as $\varepsilon \to 0$, all solutions converge uniformly to solutions of
\[
x_2^\prime = f_2(x_1,\,x_2),\quad f_1(x_1,\,x_2)=0 \quad \text{on }\left[ t_0,\,T\right]
\]
with $t_0>0$ arbitrary.
\item
More generally, a system may be put into standard form (and then admit a singular perturbation reduction) by a coordinate transformation. Thus we start with a parameter dependent equation
\[
\dot x = h^{(0)}(x) + \varepsilon h^{(1)}(x) +\varepsilon^2 \dotso
\]
and assume that $Z:=\{x;\,h^{(0)}(x)=0\}$ has dimension $s>0$. This system
admits a coordinate transformation into standard form and subsequent Tikhonov-Fenichel reduction near every point of $Z$ if and only if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item ${\rm rank\ } Dh^{(0)}(x)=r:=n-s$ for all $x\in Z$,
\item for each $x\in Z$ there exists a direct sum decomposition
$\mathbb R^n = {\rm Ker\ } Dh^{(0)}(x) \oplus {\rm Im\ } Dh^{(0)}(x)$,
\item for each $x\in Z$ the non-zero eigenvalues of $Dh^{(0)}(x)$ have real parts smaller than $ -\nu<0$.
\end{enumerate}
\item
The remaining problem is that an explicit computation of the coordinate transformation is generally impossible. This can be circumvented by the following coordinate-free reduction procedure, which we state for the system
\[
x^\prime = \varepsilon^{-1}h^{(0)}(x) + h^{(1)}(x) +\dotso
\]
in slow time. We assume that $Z\subseteq\mathcal{V}(h^{(0)})$, the vanishing set of $h^{(0)}$, satisfies conditions (i), (ii) und (iii), and let $a\in Z$.
\smallskip
{\bf Decomposition:} There is an open neighborhood $U_a$
of \(a\) such that
\[
h^{(0)}(x) = P(x) \mu(x),
\]
with \(\mu(x)$ having values in $\mathbb R^{r}$, $P(x)$ having values in $ \mathbb R^{n\times r}$, \({\rm rank}\ P(a) = r\), ${\rm rank}\ D\mu(a)=r$, and (w.l.o.g.)
$\mathcal{V}(h^{(0)}) \cap U_a = \mathcal{V}(\mu) \cap U_a=Z$. (This is a consequence of the implicit function theorem for the differentiable case. When $h^{(0)}$ is rational then $P$ and $\mu$ can be chosen rational, and $U_a$ is Zariski-open.
\smallskip
{\bf Reduction:} The system
\[
x' = \left [I_n - P(x) A(x)^{-1} D\mu(x)\right] h^{(1)}(x), \quad \text{with }A(x):= D\mu(x) P(x)
\]
is defined on $U_a$ and admits $Z$ as invariant set. The restriction to $Z$ corresponds to the reduction from Tikhonov's theorem.
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.} CL acknowledges support by the DFG Research Training Group GRK 1632 ``Experimental and Constructive Algebra''. SW acknowledges support by the bilateral project ANR-17-CE40-0036 and DFG-391322026 SYMBIONT. EF and CW acknowledge support from the Independent Research Fund of Denmark. Moreover EF, SW and CW thank the Erwin-Schr\"odinger-Institute (Vienna) for the opportunity to participate, in October 2018, in the workshop ``Advances in Chemical Reaction Network Theory'', during which a substantial part of the present paper was written.
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep Neural Networks have been very successful in variegation of tasks. They have been applied to Image classification \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet,he2015delving,simonyan2014very}, Text analytics \cite{pennington2014glove,huang2012improving}, Handwriting generation \cite{graves2013generating}, Image Captioning \cite{karpathy2015deep}, Automatic Game playing \cite{mnih2013playing,silver2016mastering}, Speech Recognition \cite{hannun2014deep}, Machine translation \cite{bahdanau2014neural,sutskever2014sequence} and many others. Bengio et~al. \cite{lecun2015deep} and Schmidhuber \cite{schmidhuber2015deep} provides an extensive review of deep learning and its applications. \\
The representational power of a neural network increases with its depth as is evident from the architectures like Highway Networks \cite{srivastava2015training} (32 layers and 1.25M parameters) and ResNet \cite{he2016deep} (110 layers has 1.7M parameters). Such large number of weights presents a challenge in terms of storage capacity, memory bandwidth and representational redundancy. For example, widely used models like AlexNet Caffemodel is over 200MB, and the VGG-16 Caffemodel is over 500MB.
With advent of mobile technologies and IoT devices the need for faster and accurate computing has arisen. Sparse matrix multiplications and convolutions are a lot faster than their dense counterparts. Furthermore, a sparse model with few parameters gain advantage in terms of better generalization ability thereby preventing overfitting. Effect of various regularizers ($L_0, L_1 and L_2$) on CNN (Convolutional Neural Networks) are studied in \cite{collins2014memory}.\\
In this paper we introduce a novel loss function to achieve sparsity by minimizing a convex upper bound on Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension.
We first derive an upper bound on the VC dimension of the classifier layer of a neural network, and then apply this bound on the intermediate layers in the neural networks, in conjunction with the weight-decay ($L_2$ and $L_1$ norms) regularization bound. This result provides us with a novel error functional to optimize over with backpropagation for training neural network architectures, modified from the traditional learning rules.\\
This learning rule adapts the model weights to minimize both empirical error on training data as well as the VC dimesion of the neural network. With the inclusion of a term minimizing the VC dimension, we aim to achieve sparser neural networks, which allow us to remove a large number of synapses and neurons without any penalty on empirical performance.\\
Finally, we demonstrate the consistent effectiveness of the learning rule across a variety of learning algorithms on various datasets across learning task domains. We see that the data dependent rule promotes higher test set accuracies, faster convergence and achieves smaller models across various architectures such as Feedforward (Fully Connected) Neural Networks (FNNs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) confirming our hypothesis that the algorithm indeed controls model complexity, while improving generalization performance.\\
The rest of the paper is organised as follows - in Section \ref{sec:relatedwork} we provide a brief overview of the recent relevant work in complexity control and generalization in deep neural networks, and in Section \ref{sec:vcbound} we provide the derivation for our learning rule, and proof for theoretical bounds. Section \ref{sec:quantization} describes the effect of quantization on VC dimension bound of the network. In the subsequent section \ref{sec:results} we describe our experimental setup and methodology, along with qualitative and quantitative analyses of our experiments.
\section{Related Works}\label{sec:relatedwork}
Compression of deep nets have been widely studied. Network pruning and quantization are the methods of choice. Researchers have used weights and neuronal removal to instigate sparsity. \cite{han2015learning} used iterative deletion of weights and neurons to achieve sparsity. \cite{zhou2016less,scardapane2016group} used group sparse regularization on weights to incorporate sparsity. \cite{sun2016sparsifying} used iterative sparsification based on neural correlations. \cite{liu2014pruning} used optimal brain damage to enforce sparsity. \cite{srinivas2015data} removed redundant neurons based on saliancy of two weight sets. \cite{wolfe2017incredible} used second order Taylor information to prune neurons.\cite{aghasi2016net} pruned the net using sparse matrix transformation keeping the layer input and output close to the original unpruned model.\cite{srinivas2016training} used a bimodal regularizer to enforce sparsity and \cite{babaeizadeh2016noiseout} merged two neurons with high correlations.\\
A rich body of literature exist on quantizing the models as well. \cite{han2015deep} build their model on top of their earlier model, by adding quantization and Huffman coding. \cite{lin2015neural} used weight binarization and quantizing the learned representations in each layers to achieve the same. In their work \cite{rastegari2016xnor} binarized both weights and inputs to the convolutional layers. \cite{mellempudi2017mixed} proposed cluster based quantization method to convert pre-trained full precision weights to ternary weights with minimal loss in accuracy. \cite{hubara2016quantized} quantized weights, activations and incorporated quantized gradients with 6 bits in their training.
\section{Sparsifying Neural Networks through Pruning}\label{sec:vcbound}
In this section we derive an upper bound on the VC dimension $\gamma$. This proof is an extension of the one in \cite{jayadeva2015learning}. Vapnik \cite{vapnik98} showed that the VC dimension $\gamma$ for fat margin hyperplane classifiers with margin $d \geq d_{min}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqnh}
\gamma \leq 1 + \operatorname{Min} \bigg( \ceil{\frac{R^2}{d_{min}^2}}, n \bigg)
\end{equation}
Let us consider a dataset $X \in \Re^{M \times n}$ with $M$ samples and $n$ features. The individual samples are denoted by $x^i \in \Re^n$.
where $R$ denotes the radius of the smallest sphere enclosing all the training samples. We first consider the case of a linearly separable dataset. By definition, there exists a hyperplane $w^Tx + b = 0$, parameterized by $w \in \Re^n$ and a bias term $b$ with positive margin $d$ that can classify these points with zero error. We can always choose a value $d_{min} < d$; for all further discussion we assume that this is the case. The samples are assumed to be in a high dimension; this assumption is reasonable because the samples inherently have a large number of features and are thus linearly separable, owing to Cover's theorem \cite{cover1968capacity}, or they have been transformed from the input space to a high dimensional space by using a nonlinear transformation. The case when the samples are linearly separable and in a small dimension is not interesting as these are of a trivial nature.
Thus we have,
\begin{equation}\label{eqnh1}
\gamma \leq 1 + \frac{R^2}{d^2_{min}}
\end{equation}
Let us consider the problem of minimizing the fraction as minimizing the upper bound on VC dimension.
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh2}
\operatorname{Min} \frac{R^2}{d^2_{min}}
\end{gather}
Since, both the numerator and denominator are positive quantities with $d_{min} > 0$ and $d_{min} < d$, we can alternatively write (\ref{eqnh2}) as:
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh3}
\operatorname{Min} \frac{R}{d}
\end{gather}
We simplify the value of the fraction $\frac{R}{d}$, to attain a tractable convex bound in term of the weights of network.
\begin{gather}
\frac{R}{d} = \bigg(\frac{ \operatorname*{max}_i \|x^i\| }{ \operatorname*{min}_{i} \frac{\|w^Tx^i +b\|}{\|w\|}}\bigg)\\
= \bigg(\frac{ \operatorname*{max}_i \|x^i\| \|w\| }{ \operatorname*{min}_{i} \|w^Tx^i +b\| } \bigg) \label{eqnh4}
\end{gather}
Without proper scaling of $w$ and $b$, we can write the minimum value of distance of correctly classified point to be $1$.
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh5}
\operatorname*{min}_{i} \|w^Tx^i +b\| =1
\end{gather}
Using (\ref{eqnh5}), we convert (\ref{eqnh4}) to the following optimization problem.
\begin{gather}\label{eqnh6}
\frac{R}{d} = \big(\operatorname*{max}_i \|x^i\| \|w\| \big)
\end{gather}
Since, for two numbers $A$ and $B$, the following inequality holds:
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh7}
\|A\|^2 + \|B\|^2 \geq \|A\|\|B\|
\end{gather}
Applying the inequality (\ref{eqnh7}) to (\ref{eqnh6}), we achieve the following upper bound on the fraction
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh8}
\frac{R}{d} \leq \big(\operatorname*{max}_i \|x^i\|^2 + \|w\|^2 \big)
\end{gather}
For a separating hyperplane $w^Tx^i +b$ that passes through the data, the maximum distance of the point from the plane, is greater than the maximum radius of the data. Thus we can extend the bound on radius of dataset as:
\begin{gather}\label{eqnh9}
\operatorname*{max}_{i}\|x^i\| \leq \ \operatorname*{max}_{i} \frac{\|w^Tx^i +b\|}{\|w\|}
\end{gather}
Using the bound derived in (\ref{eqnh9}), we can write (\ref{eqnh8}) as:
\begin{gather}\label{eqnh10}
\frac{R}{d_{min}} \leq \bigg(\operatorname*{max}_i \frac{\|w^Tx^i +b\|^2}{\|w\|^2} + \|w\|^2 \bigg)
\end{gather}
For positive numbers $a_i,\,\, i \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$, the following inequality holds,
\begin{gather}
\operatorname{Max} a_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{N} a_i \label{eqnh11}
\end{gather}
Using (\ref{eqnh11}) in (\ref{eqnh10}), we have the following bound
\begin{gather}\label{eqnh12}
\frac{R}{d} \leq \bigg( \sum_{i=1}^{M} \frac{\|w^Tx^i +b\|^2}{\|w\|^2} + \|w\|^2 \bigg)
\end{gather}
Finally, we arrive at the convex and differentiable version of the bound on VC dimension, that can be minimized using stochastic gradient descent and can used in conjugation with various architectures. The following bound acts as a data dependent regularizer when used alongside the loss function minimization. Here we present the effectiveness of the bound for reducing the number of connections of the network.
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh13}
\Gamma = \operatorname*{Min} \big( \sum_{i=1}^{M} \|w^Tx^i +b\|^2 + C \|w\|^2 \big)
\end{gather}
\subsection{A bound on Neural network}
We now use the bound (\ref{eqnh13}) in the context of a multi-layer feedforward neural network. Consider a neural with multiple hidden layers for the problem of multiclass classification with $K$ classes. Let the number of neurons in the penultimate layer be denoted by $l$, and let their outputs be denoted by $z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_l$; let the corresponding connecting weights for the classifier layer be denoted by $w_{c_i} \in \Re^K,\,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1, \ldots, l\}$ respectively. One may view the outputs of this layer as a map from the input $x$ to $\phi(x)$, i.e. $z = \phi(x)$. The biases of at the output are denoted by $b_{c_i} \in \Re \,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1, \ldots, K\}$. The $j^{th}$ score for $i^{th}$ input pattern at the output is given by $net_j^i = w_{c_j}^T z^i + b_{c_j}$.
For the purposes of this paper, we use multiclass hinge loss following the works of Tang et~al., \cite{tang2013deep}, where the authors state superiority of hinge loss over softmax loss.
Thus applying the bound (\ref{eqnh13}) on the classification layer of neural network, lead us to the following optimization problem:
\begin{gather}
\operatorname{Min} E = \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j\neq y_i}^{K} \max(0, 1 - net_{y_i}^i + net_j^i) + \nonumber\\
\frac{C}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{K}\|w_{c_j}\|_2^2 + \frac{D}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{K} (net_j^i)^2 \label{eqnh14}
\end{gather}
\subsection{Application of the bound on hidden layers}
The great advantage with this bound is its ability to be applied to pre-activations in the net across all the layers. When applied to the pre-activations in a net, it is interpreted as a $L_2$ regularizer. It forces pre-activations to be close to zero. For ReLu activation functions $max(0,x)$, our data dependent regularizer forces the pre-activations for each layer to be close to zero. Thus, it in turn enforces sparsity at neuronal levels in the intermediate layers. In principle, during back-propagation this tantamount to solving a least squares problem for each neuron where the targets are all $0$. Consider a feedforward architecture with $P$ hidden layers. For an intermediate layer $h$, the let the activations of the layer $h-1$ with $l_{h-1}$ neurons be $z_{h-1} \in \Re^{l_{h-1}}$. Let $w_{h_i} \in \Re^{l_{h-1}},\,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1, \ldots, l_h\}$ be the weights of the layer $h$ going from $h-1$ to $h$ and $b_{h_i}$ be the set of biases. Let us assume that the targets for each sample for each pre-activations $a_{h_i}\,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1, \ldots, l_h\}$ is $0$. Hence, the application of (\ref{eqnh13}) on pre-activations with ReLu activation function, is equivalent to the following minimization problem.
\begin{gather}\label{eqnh15}
\operatorname{Min} \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{l_h}\|w_{h_j}\|_2^2 + \frac{D}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{l_h} \left(0 - (w_{h_j}^T z_{h-1}^i+b_{h_j}) \right)^2
\end{gather}
With the application of VC bound (\ref{eqnh15}) to all the layers, the final minimization problem can be derived from (\ref{eqnh14}) as:
\begin{gather} \label{eqnh16}
\operatorname{Min} E = \frac{C}{2}\sum_{h=0}^{P-1}\sum_{j=1}^{l_h}\|w_{h_j}\|_2^2 + \nonumber \\
\frac{C}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{K}\|w_{c_j}\|_2^2 + \frac{D}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{l=0}^{P-1}\sum_{j=1}^{l_h} (w_{h_j}^T z_{h-1}^i + b_{h_j})^2 + \nonumber \\
\frac{D}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{K} (net_j^i)^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j\neq y_i}^{K} \max(0, 1 - net_{y_i}^i + net_j^i)
\end{gather}
\section{Trade-off between margin and error: Role of quantization}\label{sec:quantization}
Consider a binary classification problem with $M$ samples where $i^{th}$ sample is denoted as $x^i \in \Re^n$ and its corresponding label is represented as $y_i \in \{-1,1\}$. Let us define a fat margin hyperplane classifier denoted by $\sum_{j=1}^{n} (w_jx_j) + b = 0$ where, $w_j \in \Re \,\, \forall \,\, j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ be the weights and $b \in \Re$ be the bias term. Let $w_j^Q$ be the quantized weights and $b^Q$ be the quantized bias term. Without loss of generality, we can consider hyperplanes passing through the origin. To see that this is possible, we augment the co-ordinates of all samples with an additional dimension or feature whose value is always $1$, i.e. the samples are given by $\hat{x}^i \leftarrow \{x^i; 1\}, i = 1, 2,\ldots, M$; also, we assume that the weight vector is $(n+1)$-dimensional, i.e. $u \leftarrow \{w; b\}$. Thus, the classifier then becomes $\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} (u_j\hat{x}_j) = 0$. Following the above notation, quantized version of vector $u$ is denoted as $u^Q$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th2}
Consider full precision and a quantized fat margin classifiers with upper bounds on VC dimensions as $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^Q$. If $(|u_j|-|u_j^Q|) \geq 0 \,\, \forall \,\, j \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$, then the quantized classifier has smaller VC bound ($\Gamma^Q < \Gamma$).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given a set of linearly separable data points and the two fat margin classifiers, former with full precision and latter with quantized set of weights. If the predicted label for each data point assigned by each individual classifiers is the same, which implies that the two classifiers have same accuracies, then the differences in the scores for each sample multiplied by its individual class should be positive.
\begin{gather}
y_i \sum_{j=1}^{n+1} (\Delta u_j\hat{x}_j^i) \geq 0 \,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1,\ldots,M\} \implies \label{quant_delta}\\
\begin{cases}
\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} (\Delta u_j\hat{x}_j^i) \geq 0 \,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1,\ldots,M \,:\, y_i = 1\} \\
\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} (\Delta u_j\hat{x}_j^i) \leq 0 \,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1,\ldots,M \,:\, y_i = -1\}
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
where, $\Delta u_j = u_j- u_j^Q$.\\
It can be easily shown that (\ref{quant_delta}) is true if,
\begin{gather}
(|u_j|-|u_j^Q|) \geq 0 \,\, \forall \,\, j \in \{1,\ldots,n\} \label{cond1}
\end{gather}
The condition (\ref{cond1}), translates to the fact that we assign smaller number mantissa bits to the weights or during reduction in fraction bits $|u_j^Q|$ is smaller than $|u_j|$. The argument for this condition comes from the fact that if (\ref{cond1}) holds then the sign of $\Delta u_j$ remains the same as that of $u_j$ or $u_j^Q$. Now since quantization does not allow flipping of signs of each individual bits, (\ref{cond1}) allows for the same sign of the sum given by eq. (\ref{quant_delta}).
This implies,
\begin{gather}
\|u\|_2^2 \geq \|u^Q\|_2^2 \label{norm_inq}\\
\|u^Tx^i\|_2^2 \geq \|{u^Q}^Tx^i\|_2^2 \,\, \forall \,\, i \in \{1,\ldots,M\} \label{norm_uTx_inq}
\end{gather}
From, eq. (\ref{eqnh13}) where we define $\Gamma = C\|u\|_2^2 + \|u^Tx^i\|_2^2 $, analogous to it, the quantized counterpart can be defined as $\Gamma^Q = C \|u^Q\|_2^2 + \|{u^Q}^Tx^i\|_2^2 $. Now, using eq. (\ref{norm_inq}) and eq. (\ref{norm_uTx_inq}), we have,
\begin{gather}
\Gamma^Q \leq \Gamma
\end{gather}
Thus by introducing the quantization, one can reduce the complexity of the classifier. This is also evident from the fact that the size of hypothesis class $H$ reduces as the precision is reduced.
\end{proof}
\section{Empirical Analysis and Observations}\label{sec:results}
We determine the effectiveness of network pruning and quantization on various network architectures like Convolutional Neural networks (CNNs) and fully-connected neural (FNN) nets using various data independent regularizers such as L1 norm and L2 norm on weights and dropout and the proposed data dependent regularizer (\ref{eqnh13}).
\subsection{Setup and Notation}
All our experiments are run on a GPU cluster with NVIDIA Tesla K40 GPUs, and implementations were done using the assistance of the Caffe \cite{jia2014caffe} library for CNNs, while the experiments for FNNs were done using Tensorflow \cite{abadi2016tensorflow} and quantization of FNNs was implemented using Matlab \cite{guide1998mathworks}. \\
\textbf{Hyperparamter settings}: The two main hyperparameters in our experiments are $C$ and $D$, which are described in section \ref{sec:vcbound}. The two hyperparameters were tuned in the range of $[10^{-04},10^{-01}]$ and $[10^{-08},10^{-04}]$ in the multiples of $10$. The other parameters such as dropout rate was kept at their default values for densely connected nets and quicknet. The learning rate was tuned for two values namely $10^{-02}$ and $10^{-01}$. For CNNs the learning rate was multiplied by $0.1$ after every $100000$ iterations, whereas for FNNs the learning rate was decreased as $\frac{1}{epoch}$ after every epoch (one complete pass of data). The total number of iterations was kept to be $230000$ for CNNs and $500$ epochs for FNNs.\\
The notation used for simplicity in understanding experimental results is given as,
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Symbols & Meaning \\
\hline
H & Hinge loss \\
W2 & $L_2$ regularization \\
W1 & $L_1$ regularization \\
LCL & LCNN applied only on last layer \\
LCA & LCNN applied on all layers \\
D & Dropout \\
BN & Batch normalization \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Tabular representation of notation.}
\label{tab:notations1}%
\end{table}%
\subsection{Network Pruning}
To analyse the efficacy of our regularizer in attaining sparsity we perform pruning of the network after training has finished. Firstly, we select a minimum weight threshold of $1e-03$. Then, we calculate the absolute value of weights in each layer, subsequently we divide the difference between maximum value of weights in each layer and the minimum threshold value into 50 (for FNNs) or 100 (for CNNs) steps. In the last step, we loop over these 50 steps and prune the weights whose absolute magnitude is below the step value.
\subsubsection{CNNs: Datasets}
Our first set of experiments are performed on image classification task using CNNs. Table (\ref{tab:datasets_CNN}) describes the standard image classification dataset used in the pruning and quantization experiments.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Dataset used for CNN experiments}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
name & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{features} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{classes} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{train size} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{val size} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{test size} \\
\hline
Cifar 10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} & 32$\times$32$\times$3 &10 & 50000 & 5000 &5000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:datasets_CNN}%
\end{table}%
\subsubsection{CNNs: Experiments}
We studied the effect of pruning and quantization on two architectures of CNNs, namely Caffe quicknet \cite{jia2014caffe} and Caffe implementation of densly connected convolutional nets \cite{huang2016densely} with 40 layers. We study various regularization and found that data dependent regularization achieves maximum sparsity, thus maximum compression ratio when compared to its contemporary regularizations. \\
Table \ref{tab:c_10_5_comp_ratio} shows the compression ratio achieved when we prune the trained model. $L_2$ weight regularization achieves the best compression followed by our data dependent regularizer, whereas table \ref{tab:c_10_5_acc} shows the accuracies, our data dependent regularizer reaches the best accuracy in the pool, keeping up the sparsity.
We compare the effect of pruning and quantization on various regularizers visually using 2 dimensional tSNE plots of the final layer of densely connected CNNs. Figure (\ref{fig:tSNE_visualization}) describes the results. Here we observe that data dependent regularizer allows forming of compact clusters thus achieving better generalizations for Cifar 10 dataset. The plots for pruned and quantized networks are visually similar, yet on closer inspection one finds that some of the clusters like Automobile, Horse, Cat and Airplane gets better clusters in terms of compactness and better separability than their unpruned and un-quantized counterparts.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Compression ratio for cifar 10 quick net model}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Pruning} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Quantization} \\
\hline
S & 1.41 & 1.28 \\
S + LCA & 1.29 & 1.07 \\
S + W & \textbf{6.95} & \textbf{6.03} \\
S + W + BN & 1.92 & 2.33 \\
S + W + BN + LCA & 1.33 & 1.93 \\
S + W + BN + LCA + D & 1.16 & 2.20 \\
S + W + D & 3.20 & 1.46 \\
S + W + D + BN & 1.56 & 2.48 \\
S + W + D + LCA & 3.77 & 1.53 \\
S + W + D + LCL & 2.65 & 1.05 \\
S + W + LCA & 1.89 & 1.04 \\
S + W + LCL & 3.95 & 1.08 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:c_10_5_comp_ratio}%
\end{table}%
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Accuracies for cifar 10 quick net model}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Original acc} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Pruned acc} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Quantization acc} \\
\hline
S & 0.73 & 0.72 & 0.71 \\
S + LCA & 0.77 & 0.77 & 0.75 \\
S + W & 0.77 & 0.76 & 0.76 \\
S + W + BN & \textbf{0.80 } & 0.79 & 0.77 \\
S + W + BN + LCA & 0.78 & 0.77 & 0.73 \\
S + W + BN + LCA + D & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.78 \\
S + W + D & 0.77 & 0.76 & 0.76 \\
S + W + D + BN & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.79 \\
S + W + D + LCA & 0.74 & 0.73 & 0.79 \\
S + W + D + LCL & 0.78 & 0.73 & 0.77 \\
S + W + LCA & 0.77 & 0.76 & 0.78 \\
S + W + LCL & \textbf{0.79} & 0.78 & 0.79 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:c_10_5_acc}%
\end{table}%
Table \ref{tab:cifar10_densenet} shows the accuracies of Cifar10 before and after pruning and quantization on densely connected CNNs \cite{huang2016densely}. We observe that our regularization performs equally well when used in conjugation with dropout and $L_2$ weight regularizer.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Accuracies for cifar 10 densely connected CNN }
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Original acc} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Pruned Acc} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Quantization acc} \\
\hline
H +D & 0.901 & 0.887 & 0.901 \\
H +W +D & \textbf{0.924 }& 0.913 & 0.923 \\
H +W +LCL +D &\textbf{ 0.924} & 0.914 & 0.920 \\
H + W & 0.900 & 0.886 & 0.897 \\
H + W + LCL & 0.895 & 0.888 & 0.889 \\
H +W1 & 0.866 & 0.853 & 0.857 \\
H +W1 +LCL & 0.857 & 0.847 & 0.854 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:cifar10_densenet}%
\end{table}%
Figure \ref{fig:pruned_quant_acc} shows the accuracies of various algorithms with the total number of bits after we perform the first round of pruning. We see that our regularizer has the best set of accuracies (H +W + LCL) among all the algorithms and is quite robust to the changes in the total number of bits.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{pruned_quantization_accuracy_for_various_algorithms_for_cifar_10_quick}
\caption{Accuracies for various algorithms after pruning and then quantizing the number of bits}
\label{fig:pruned_quant_acc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{H_W_1}
\caption{H + W2}
\label{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{H_W_2}
\caption{H + W2 + P + Q}
\label{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_Q}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{H_W_LCL_1}
\caption{H + W2 + LCL}
\label{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_LCL}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.22\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{H_W_LCL_2}
\caption{H + W2 + LCL + P + Q}
\label{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_LCL_Q}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ tSNE visualization of last layer in densenet \cite{huang2016densely} for 50 random test samples from each class of Cifar 10 for various regularizations, here the notation in figures correpond to H = Hinge loss, W or W2 = L2 weight regularization, LCL = data dependent regularizer applied on last layer only, P= pruning applied, Q= quantization applied. We observe that in both the cases, the figures (\ref{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_LCL}) and (\ref{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_LCL_Q}) have better clustering than figures (\ref{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W}) and (\ref{fig:tsne_c10_dense_H_W_Q})}
\label{fig:tSNE_visualization}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Accuracies for various methods for 1 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Unpruned} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Pruned} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 0.826 & 0.848 & 0.849 & 0.848 & 0.848 & \textbf{0.849} & 0.818 & 0.842 & 0.840 & 0.839 & \textbf{0.842} & 0.840 \\
acoustic & \textbf{0.781} & \textbf{0.781} & \textbf{0.781} & 0.778 & 0.773 & \textbf{0.781} & \textbf{0.779} & \textbf{0.779} & \textbf{0.779} & 0.778 & 0.769 & \textbf{0.779} \\
connect-4 & 0.815 & \textbf{0.820} & 0.819 & 0.812 & 0.813 & 0.819 & 0.809 & \textbf{0.810} & \textbf{0.810} & 0.809 & 0.805 & \textbf{0.810} \\
dna & 0.851 & 0.941 & \textbf{0.954} & 0.938 & 0.941 & 0.953 & 0.845 & 0.938 & \textbf{0.950} & 0.930 & 0.938 & 0.944 \\
ijcnn & 0.968 & 0.964 & \textbf{0.974} & 0.965 & 0.964 & \textbf{0.974} & 0.962 & 0.955 & \textbf{0.967} & 0.956 & 0.955 & \textbf{0.967} \\
mnist & \textbf{0.968} & \textbf{0.968} & 0.938 & 0.947 & 0.940 & 0.933 & \textbf{0.959} & \textbf{0.959} & 0.929 & 0.940 & 0.937 & 0.930 \\
protein & 0.617 & 0.676 & \textbf{0.685} & 0.667 & 0.676 & \textbf{0.685} & 0.614 & 0.668 & \textbf{0.677} & 0.658 & 0.668 & \textbf{0.677} \\
seismic & 0.737 & 0.740 & \textbf{0.741} & 0.738 & 0.740 & \textbf{0.741} & 0.729 & 0.736 & \textbf{0.741} & 0.738 & 0.736 & \textbf{0.741} \\
w8a & \textbf{0.988} & \textbf{0.988} & \textbf{0.988} & 0.984 & 0.982 & \textbf{0.988} & 0.979 & \textbf{0.981} & 0.979 & 0.974 & 0.972 & 0.979 \\
webspam uni & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.985} & 0.984 & 0.971 & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.978} & \textbf{0.978} & \textbf{0.978} & 0.975 & 0.963 & \textbf{0.978} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:acc_NN1_pr}%
\end{table*}%
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Accuracies for various methods for 2 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Unpruned} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Pruned} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 0.831 & \textbf{0.849} & 0.845 & 0.843 & 0.847 & 0.841 & 0.827 & \textbf{0.841} & 0.840 & 0.834 & 0.839 & 0.831 \\
acoustic & 0.777 & 0.775 & \textbf{0.779} & 0.776 & 0.775 & 0.777 & \textbf{0.777} & 0.766 & 0.775 & 0.771 & 0.766 & 0.767 \\
connect-4 & 0.804 & 0.817 & 0.816 & 0.816 & 0.821 & \textbf{0.824} & 0.798 & 0.813 & 0.811 & 0.808 & 0.815 & \textbf{0.823} \\
dna & 0.812 & 0.938 & \textbf{0.957} & 0.906 & 0.938 & 0.895 & 0.803 & 0.930 & \textbf{0.954} & 0.898 & 0.930 & 0.886 \\
ijcnn & \textbf{0.982} & 0.980 & 0.979 & 0.972 & 0.980 & 0.979 & \textbf{0.977} & 0.972 & 0.973 & 0.967 & 0.972 & 0.974 \\
mnist & 0.953 & 0.957 & 0.958 & 0.953 & \textbf{0.959} & 0.943 & 0.948 & 0.955 & \textbf{0.957} & 0.944 & 0.952 & 0.939 \\
protein & 0.596 & 0.664 & \textbf{0.670} & 0.605 & 0.664 & 0.604 & 0.587 & 0.658 & \textbf{0.670} & 0.599 & 0.658 & 0.597 \\
seismic & 0.744 & 0.743 & \textbf{0.746} & 0.725 & 0.738 & 0.738 & 0.743 & 0.740 & \textbf{0.746} & 0.725 & 0.733 & 0.731 \\
w8a & 0.986 & 0.985 & 0.986 & 0.972 & 0.975 & \textbf{0.987} & \textbf{0.978} & 0.976 & \textbf{0.978} & 0.970 & 0.970 & 0.977 \\
webspam uni & \textbf{0.986} & 0.983 & \textbf{0.986} & 0.969 & 0.983 & 0.981 & \textbf{0.979} & 0.978 & \textbf{0.979} & 0.965 & 0.978 & 0.978 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:acc_NN2_pr}%
\end{table*}%
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Accuracies for various methods for 3 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Unpruned} & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Pruned} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 0.832 & \textbf{0.847} & 0.845 & 0.845 & \textbf{0.847} & 0.840 & 0.822 & 0.838 & 0.836 & \textbf{0.840} & 0.838 & 0.831 \\
acoustic & 0.779 & 0.775 & \textbf{0.779} & 0.775 & 0.775 & 0.771 & \textbf{0.777} & 0.772 & \textbf{0.777} & 0.769 & 0.772 & 0.767 \\
connect-4 & 0.815 & \textbf{0.820} & 0.816 & 0.816 & 0.817 & 0.813 & 0.805 & 0.811 & \textbf{0.816} & 0.808 & 0.808 & 0.808 \\
dna & 0.761 & 0.934 & \textbf{0.957} & 0.903 & 0.932 & 0.856 & 0.756 & 0.931 & \textbf{0.950} & 0.902 & 0.922 & 0.852 \\
ijcnn & 0.980 & \textbf{0.982} & 0.981 & 0.977 & \textbf{0.982} & 0.977 & 0.972 & 0.973 & 0.974 & \textbf{0.975} & 0.973 & 0.971 \\
mnist & 0.958 & 0.960 & \textbf{0.961} & 0.954 & 0.955 & 0.945 & 0.955 & 0.954 & \textbf{0.960} & 0.951 & 0.946 & 0.944 \\
protein & 0.621 & 0.656 & \textbf{0.675} & 0.657 & 0.668 & 0.627 & 0.614 & 0.648 & \textbf{0.668} & 0.651 & 0.662 & 0.617 \\
seismic & 0.736 & \textbf{0.745} & 0.742 & 0.728 & 0.727 & 0.739 & 0.736 & \textbf{0.742} & 0.735 & 0.728 & 0.722 & 0.735 \\
w8a & 0.970 & 0.981 & 0.980 & 0.973 & 0.972 & \textbf{0.982} & 0.970 & 0.972 & 0.971 & 0.970 & 0.970 & \textbf{0.975} \\
webspam uni & \textbf{0.979} & \textbf{0.979} & \textbf{0.979} & \textbf{0.979} & \textbf{0.979} & \textbf{0.979} & 0.973 & 0.970 & \textbf{0.973} & \textbf{0.973} & 0.970 & \textbf{0.973} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:acc_NN3_pr}%
\end{table*}%
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{accuracy_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_1}
\caption{accuracy FNN1}
\label{fig:acc_NN1_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{error_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_1}
\caption{loss FNN1}
\label{fig:err_NN1_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{margin_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_1}
\caption{margin FNN1}
\label{fig:mar_NN1_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{accuracy_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_2}
\caption{accuracy FNN2}
\label{fig:acc_NN2_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{error_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_2}
\caption{loss FNN2}
\label{fig:err_NN2_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{margin_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_2}
\caption{margin FNN2}
\label{fig:mar_NN2_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{accuracy_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_3}
\caption{accuracy FNN3}
\label{fig:acc_NN3_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{error_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_3}
\caption{loss FNN3}
\label{fig:err_NN3_7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{margin_for_various_algorithms_for_dataset_7_3}
\caption{margin FNN3}
\label{fig:mar_NN3_7}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of quantization on accuracy, margin and loss function for 1,2 and 3 hidden layer FNN for dataset 'dna'. Here we see that even on decreasing the number of total number of bits (applying brute force to determine the number of fraction bits using 1\% error tolerance), the accuracy does not significantly decrease even if total number of bits are as close to 4. In a peculiar observation, we see that for all the cases, at some value of total number of bits, the accuracy increases slightly compared to full precision. This value is different for different regularizers.}
\label{fig:fnn_acc_margin}
\end{figure*}
Similar results were obtained for Cifar100 and MNIST datasets. Results of which can be found in supplementary section.
\subsubsection{FNNs: Datasets}
We use 10 datasets from LIBSVM website \cite{chang2011libsvm}, to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method when compared to other methods. The datasets vary in the number of features, classes, and training set sizes thus covering a wide variety of applications of neural networks.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Datasets used for FNN experiments adopted from \cite{chang2011libsvm}}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
name & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{features} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{classes} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{train size} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{val size} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{test size} \\
\hline
a9a & 122 & 2 & 26049 & 6512 & 16281 \\
acoustic & 50 & 3 & 63058 & 15765 & 19705 \\
connect-4 & 126 & 3 & 40534 & 13512 & 13511 \\
dna & 180 & 3 & 1400 & 600 & 1186 \\
ijcnn & 22 & 2 & 35000 & 14990 & 91701 \\
mnist & 778 & 10 & 47999 & 12001 & 10000 \\
protein & 357 & 3 & 14895 & 2871 & 6621 \\
seismic & 50 & 3 & 63060 & 15763 & 19705 \\
w8a & 300 & 2 & 39800 & 9949 & 14951 \\
webspam uni & 254 & 2 & 210000 & 70001 & 69999 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:datasets_FNN}%
\end{table}%
\subsubsection{FNNs: Experiments}
In these set of experiments we show the individual effect of pruning and quantization on a wide range of regularizers prevalent in the neural network domain. We also test the efficacy of our regularizer in achieving sparsity across various neural network sizes ranging from 1 hidden layer to 3 hidden layers. The number neurons in each layer was set to 50.\\
Tables (\ref{tab:acc_NN1_pr}-\ref{tab:acc_NN3_pr}) shows the accuracy obtained for the datasets in case of unpruned and pruned network. We vary the number of hidden layers from 1 to 3 and evaluate the test set accuracies. We find that for 1 hidden layer FNN, $L_1$ weight regularization and $L_1$ regularization with data dependent term have the highest accuracies for 7 out of 10 datasets, whereas for pruned network $L_1$ regularization has the best performance. Similar observations can be made about networks with two and three hidden layers, where $L_1$ regularization has the best performances in terms of accuracies. \\
Tables (\ref{tab:comp_NN1_pr})-(\ref{tab:comp_NN3_pr}) demonstrates the compression ratio $r$ for individual networks. We observe that the regularizers with data dependent term outperforms in 9 out of 10 for network with 1 hidden layer, 7 out of 10 in networks with two hidden layers and 8 out of 10 in networks with 3 hidden layers. The compressions ranges from 1.0 to 5063 with just pruning.\\
Tables (\ref{tab:comp_NN1_pr})-(\ref{tab:comp_NN3_pr}) exhibits the compression ratio achieved by various regularizers. Here the compression ratio is defined as $r=\frac{\text{total number of non-zero weights before pruning}}{\text{total number of non-zero weights after pruning}}$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Compression ratios for various methods for 1 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.6}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 2.1 & \textbf{133.0} & 99.2 & 2.4 & \textbf{133.0} & 99.2 \\
acoustic & 1.2 & 1.2 & 1.2 & 1.0 & \textbf{1.5} & 1.2 \\
connect-4 & 1.5 & 2.3 & \textbf{5.1} & 1.1 & 2.3 & \textbf{5.1} \\
dna & 1.8 & 167.3 & \textbf{262.9} & 19.5 & 167.3 & 85.2 \\
ijcnn & 1.5 & \textbf{7.0} & 3.2 & 1.6 & \textbf{7.0} & 3.2 \\
mnist & 2.3 & 2.3 & 2.3 & 1.8 & 3.0 & \textbf{6.5} \\
protein & 1.8 & \textbf{37.1} & 35.3 & 4.6 & \textbf{37.1} & 35.3 \\
seismic & 1.1 & \textbf{1.4} & 1.3 & 1.0 & \textbf{1.4} & 1.3 \\
w8a & 3.1 & 75.0 & 3.1 & 1377.5 & \textbf{1515.2} & 3.1 \\
webspam uni & 1.3 & 1.3 & 1.3 & 2.2 & \textbf{2.8} & 1.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:comp_NN1_pr}%
\end{table}%
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Compression ratios for various methods for 2 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.6}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 1.3 & 157.1 & 72.1 & 3.2 & \textbf{204.7} & 23.6 \\
acoustic & 1.0 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 1.4 & 2.0 & \textbf{2.7} \\
connect-4 & 1.4 & 1.9 & \textbf{5.0} & 1.6 & 3.8 & 4.4 \\
dna & 1.4 & 55.7 & \textbf{172.8} & 4.0 & 55.7 & 2.7 \\
ijcnn & 1.6 & 7.1 & \textbf{8.1} & 2.0 & 7.1 & 6.4 \\
mnist & 1.4 & 2.9 & 2.4 & 1.5 & 2.9 & \textbf{8.1} \\
protein & 1.3 & \textbf{51.4} & 35.8 & 1.3 & \textbf{51.4} & 2.4 \\
seismic & 1.1 & 2.1 & 1.5 & 1.0 & 2.1 & \textbf{6.1} \\
w8a & 4.4 & 4.5 & 4.4 & 2212.8 & \textbf{2528.9} & 74.7 \\
webspam uni & 1.6 & \textbf{4.7} & 1.6 & 1.8 & \textbf{4.7} & \textbf{4.7} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:comp_NN2_pr}%
\end{table}%
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Compression ratios for various methods for 3 hidden layer FNN}
\scalebox{0.6}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W2+LCA} & \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{H+W1+LCA} \\
\hline
a9a & 1.4 & \textbf{354.7} & 283.8 & 2.2 & \textbf{354.7} & 36.0 \\
acoustic & 1.2 & 3.4 & 1.2 & 1.5 & 3.4 & \textbf{5.9} \\
connect-4 & 1.5 & 2.1 & 3.1 & 1.5 & 3.4 & \textbf{8.7} \\
dna & 1.3 & 3.6 & \textbf{596.0} & 4.4 & 18.2 & 2.9 \\
ijcnn & 2.1 & \textbf{13.5} & 12.5 & 1.8 & \textbf{13.5} & 9.0 \\
mnist & 1.3 & 3.6 & 3.1 & 1.6 & 3.4 & \textbf{6.2} \\
protein & 1.3 & 6.5 & 39.4 & 1.7 & \textbf{46.9} & 2.4 \\
seismic & 1.0 & 4.8 & 10.0 & 1.0 & \textbf{82.1} & 9.5 \\
w8a & 1265.8 & 2531.5 & 2531.5 & 4050.4 & \textbf{5063.0} & 22.0 \\
webspam uni & 1.9 & \textbf{9.4} & 1.9 & 1.7 & \textbf{9.4} & 2.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:comp_NN3_pr}%
\end{table}%
\subsection{FNN:Quantization}
Figures \ref{fig:fnn_acc_margin} shows effect of quantization on the generalization abilities of neural networks. We performed quantization on the trained network. We show the accuracy, margin computed as $\frac{2}{\|w\|^2}$ and loss for multiple regularizers as the total number of bits are varied from 16 to 2. For every value of total number of bits, the number of fraction bits were varied from 3 to 15 and the number which amounted to best test set accuracies was selected . We observe that for 1 hidden layer network, the $L_1$ regularizer with data dependent term despite having the highest accuracy to start with, is the least robust as it tapers of quickly with decrease in total number of bits, whereas, $L_2$ regularizer based on minimization of VC bound is the most robust. For other networks our proposed data dependent regularizer has comparable performances to other regularizers. One peculiar observation in the figures \ref{fig:fnn_acc_margin} is that, we observe a peak in a accuracy at a certain bit value. One possible explanation can be attributed to the fact that quantization noise may allow the network to reach a better minima thus achieving higher accuracies than their full precision counterpart.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper attempts to extend the ideas of minimal complexity machines \cite{jayadeva2015learning} and learn the weights of a neural network by minimizing the empirical error and an upper bound on the VC dimension. However, an added advantage of using such bound, is in terms of reduction in model complexity. We observe that pruning and then quantizing the models helps to achieve comparable or better sparsity in terms of weights and allows for better generalization abilities.\\
We proposed a theoretical framework to reduce the model complexity of neural networks and then ran multiple experiments on various benchmark datasets. These benchmarks offer a diversity in terms of the number of samples and number of features. The results incontrovertibly demonstrate that the our data dependent regularizer generalize better than conventional CNNs and FNNs.
The approach presented in the paper is generic, and can be adapted to many other settings and architectures. In our experiments we use a global hyperparameter for data dependent term, which can be further improved by using multiple hyperparameters for individual layers.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section{Introduction}
Depressive disorders are the 4th leading cause of disability worldwide \cite{who2016}. Successful treatment of depression depends on a precise diagnosis, so it is important to develop classification tools that allow not only to distinguish depressed patients from healthy controls, but also to identify subtypes of depression. Especially urgent is the differentiation between unipolar and bipolar depression because they require different treatment plans, and misdiagnosis can delay recovery. It is, however, a demanding task, because unipolar and bipolar depression share a similar symptom profile \cite{hui2018analysis}. This makes a data-driven computer-aided precise diagnosis of depression subtypes based on biomarkers, rather than symptoms, an attractive approach.
Most attempts to aid in diagnosis of depression with machine learning tools applied to neuroimaging data have been centred around Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) \cite{gao2018machine}. MRI benefits from advantages in spatial composition of the data, but has disadvantages in terms of low temporal composition, high cost, and requirement of more extensively trained research personnel, compared to EEG. Finally, fMRI measures brain activity indirectly, using blood oxygenation measures as a proxy of brain activity, while EEG measures the electrical activity of the brain directly. This makes EEG an attractive brain imaging tool for neuropsychiatric disorders.
\subsection{Computer-aided diagnosis of unipolar depression with EEG}
In the past 20 years, the classification of unipolar depression based on EEG features attracted significant research effort \cite{acharya2018automated,acharya2015novel,ahmadlou2012fractality,ahmadlou2013spatiotemporal,bairy2017automated,cukic2018eeg,faust2014depression,hosseinifard2013classifying,knott2001eeg,liao2017major,mumtaz2017electroencephalogram,mumtaz2018machine,puthankattil2012classification}. Notably, some of these attempts reach an accuracy of up to 99.5\% \cite{faust2014depression}. However, all those results were achieved on small datasets (22 to 90 recordings) obtained in non-naturalistic highly controlled research settings and were not replicated in independent clinical samples, which raises doubts in scalability of results and their translatability to realistic clinical settings.
\subsection{Computer-aided diagnosis of bipolar vs. unipolar depression with EEG}
So far, there were few attempts to differentiate unipolar from bipolar depression with machine learning tools applied to EEG data \cite{khodayari2010diagnosis,erguzel2015wrapper,erguzel2016artificial}. A maximum likelihood approach based on the combination of factor analysis models achieved an average correct diagnosis rate (prediction accuracy) of around 85\% \cite{khodayari2010diagnosis}. A support vector machine classifier achieved a prediction accuracy of 80.19\% \cite{erguzel2015wrapper}. Finally, an artificial neural network achieved a prediction accuracy of 83.87\% \cite{erguzel2016artificial}. All those attempts suffered from the same problems with scalability \& translatability as unipolar classification research.
Given the therapeutic importance of precise diagnosis of bipolar vs. unipolar depression, further efforts are required to improve the classification precision. We suggest contributing to those efforts by adding microstates features, which can tap into the function of large-scale brain networks, and have shown great potential as biomarkers in neuropsychiatry research.
\section{Proposed methods}
\subsection{Data}
We intend to use a large EEG sample, including over 650 unipolar and over 250 bipolar depression patients and healthy controls, from multiple hospitals hospitals, for training and testing of our classifier. 90\% of this data will be used for training and testing of our model. To validate our results, we will set aside a smaller
sample (10\%) of the data, which will consist of recordings coming from a different hospital setting than the data used for training and testing.
\subsection{Features}
Inspired by previous research \cite{erguzel2015wrapper,erguzel2016artificial,khodayari2010diagnosis,tas2015eeg,cai2018pervasive,khaleghi2015eeg,cukic2018eeg,hosseinifard2013classifying,strik1995larger}, we propose the following features:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Band features: cordance, spectral coherence, absolute power.
\item Time domain features: mean, variance, kurtosis, skewness, Hjorth parameters.
\item Non-linear features: entropy, C0-complezity, fractal dimension.
\item Microstates features: duration, occurence, contribution, transition probabilities. Research has not used microstates to classify unipolar vs. bipolar depression, although Strik et al. suggested altered microstate patters in depression \cite{strik1995larger}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Machine learning}
\subsubsection{Feature selection}
We propose to use a wrapper feature selection method developed specifically for EEG data \cite{hossain2014feature}. It implements a backward search strategy, which starts with the full feature set and iteratively removes features using correlation criteria. Because microstates have not been previously used to differentiate unipolar and bipolar depression, we intend to research microstates features separately as an additional step, with the use of analysis of variance (ANOVA), confusion matrices and single variable classifiers.
\subsubsection{Classifiers}
A recent review \cite{yannick2019deep} highlighted advantages of deep learning in applicability to EEG data because of its capacity to learn good feature representations from raw data. They discuss that deep neural networks, in particular convolutional networks, could learn features from raw or minimally preprocessed data. As such, we propose to experiment with fully connected, convolutional, and recurrent neural networks. However, we still intend to preprocess the data and perform feature selection as described above, and compare performances of pipelines with manual preprocessing and wrapper feature selection to no or minimal preprocessing and automatic feature learning with neural networks.
Additionally, we propose to experiment classifiers such as Logistic Regression, Linear Discriminant Analysis, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Trees, including the recent highly popular LightGBM \cite{ke2017lightgbm}, Naive Bayes, and Support Vector Machines. The final choice of the algorithm will be done empirically. For training and testing, we will split the data with the 80-20 ratio. To maximize the amount of data available for training, we will use leave-one-out cross-validation.
\subsubsection{Evaluation techniques}
We will evaluate our model using AUC-ROC (Area Under The Curve - Receiver Operating Characteristics) analysis. It is an aggregate measure of performance across all possible classification thresholds, which can be interpreted as the probability that the model ranks a random positive example more highly than a random negative example. It is scale-invariant and measures how well predictions are ranked, rather than their absolute values. Also, it is classification-threshold-invariant and measures the quality of the model’s predictions irrespective of the classification threshold. AUC-ROC values range from 0 (worst) to 1 (best).
Additionally, we will use the classification accuracy score, which is the ratio of number of correct predictions to the total number of input samples.
We will consider precision accuracy higher than human diagnostic error a successful validation procedure.
\pagebreak
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect.intro}
Multiplicity distributions (MDs) of high energy collisions have been extensively studied in the field of multiparticle production. It is one of the first observables to be determined in new high-energy experiments. This is partly due to the ease with which such information can be obtained, and also because MDs contain useful information on the underlying production processes. Due to the inability of perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (pQCD) to provide a complete theoretical account for the observed MDs incorporating both the hard and soft processes, various phenomenological approaches had to be adopted. These can range from dynamical approaches in the form of coloured string interactions \cite{Lund} and dual-parton model \cite{DualParton}, to geometrical approaches \cite{GBM1,GBM2} resulting in the fireball model \cite{Fireball}, stochastic approaches \cite{GMD, Chewetal, p-pbar} modelling high energy collision as branching \cite{GMD, Chewetal, p-pbar} or clans \cite{ClanModel}.
The myriad of stochastic models since proposed have described the experimental data well with very reasonable $\chi^2/dof$ values. Amongst the numerous proposed distributions, the Negative Binomial Distribution (NBD) and its variants are the most ubiquitous \cite{NBD}. However, as has been proposed recently \cite{JPG, MWW1, RWW-Odessa, 3componentNBD}, a good fit to the MD from a statistical distribution is only one aspect of a full description of the multi-faceted set of information derivable from the MDs. A more stringent requirement before any phenomenological model is considered viable is to also reproduce the oscillatory behaviour seen in the so called modified combinant, $C_j$, which can be derived from experimental data. In fact, this phenomenon is observed not only in $pp$ collisions discussed in \cite{JPG, MWW1, RWW-Odessa, 3componentNBD} but also, as demonstrated recently in \cite{e+e-}, in $e^+e^-$ annihilation processes. Such oscillations may be therefore indicative of additional information on the multiparticle production process, so far undisclosed. Specifically, the periodicity of the oscillations of modified combinants derived from experimental data is suggestive.
It is in this spirit that this study sets forth to understand the effects of the collision systems and various experimental observables on the period and extent of oscillations in $C_j$. In Section \ref{sect.mod.combinant}, the concept of \textit{modified combinant} will be reviewed in light of its connection to the earlier concept of \textit{combinant} \cite{ST,Combinants,Combinants2}. From this link, an attempt is made on the potential interpretation of modified combinant applied in the context of multi-particle production.
Section \ref{sect.dependence} discusses the problem of dependence on collision system whereas Section \ref{sect.oscillation.dependence} discusses the effect various experimental variables have on the modified combinant oscillations and summarises the key points observed.
Our concluding remarks are contained in Section \ref{sect.conclusion} together with a tentative proposal of employing the characteristics of oscillations in experimental modified combinants to distinguish between different collision types. Some explanatory material is presented in appendices: \ref{appendixA} presents the relationship between $C_j$ and the $K_q$ and $F_q$ moments that are more familiar to the particle physics community whereas \ref{appendixB} shows the possible origin of the observed oscillations of $C_j$ based on the stochastic approach to the particle production processes.
\section{Modified Combinant and Combinant}
\label{sect.mod.combinant}
Statistical distributions describing charged particle multiplicity are normally expressed in terms of their generating function, $G(z) = \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} P(N)z^N$, or in terms of their probability function $P(N)$. One other way to characterise a statistical distribution is a recurrent form involving only adjacent values of $P(N)$ for the production of $N$ and $(N+1)$ particles,
\begin{equation}
(N+1)P(N+1) = g(N)P(N).
\label{recurrence.P(N)}
\end{equation}
Cast in this form, every $P(N)$ value is assumed to be determined only by the next lower $P(N-1)$ value. In other words, the link to other $P(N-j)$'s for $j>1$ is indirect. In addition, the eventual algebraic form of the $P(N)$ is determined by the function $g(N)$. In its simplest form, one can assume $g(N)$ to be linear in $N$, such that
\begin{equation}
g(N) = \alpha + \beta N \label{g(n)}.
\end{equation}
Some prominent distributions have been defined in this form. For example, when $ \beta = 0$ one gets the Poisson Distribution (PD). The Binomial Distribution (BD) arises for $ \beta < 0$ and $ \beta > 0$ results in the Negative Binomial Distribution (NBD). While conceptualising a phenomenological model, the form of $g(N)$ can be modified accordingly to describe the experimental data, cf., for example, \cite{Hoang1987, Zborovsky2011}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption {Distributions $P(n)$ used in this work: Poisson (PD), Negative Binomial (NBD) and Binomial (BD), their generating functions $G(z)$ and modified combinants $C_j$ emerging from them.} \vspace*{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
& & & \\
&~ $P(N)$ ~ &~ $G(z)$ ~ & ~$C_j$~ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
PD & $\frac{\lambda^N}{N!} \exp( - \lambda)$ & $\exp[\lambda (z - 1)]$ & $\delta_{j0}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
NBD & ${N+k-1\choose N} p^N (1 - p)^k$ & $\left( \frac{1 - p}{1 - pz}\right)^k$ & $\frac{k}{\langle N\rangle} p^{j+1}$ \\
& & & \\
\hline
& & & \\
BD & ${ K\choose N} p^N (1 - p)^{K-N}$ & $(pz + 1 - p)^K$ & $\frac{-K}{\langle N\rangle} \left( \frac{p}{p - 1}\right)^{j+1}$\\
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{Table_1}
\end{table}
However, the direct dependence of $P(N+1)$ on only $P(N)$, as seen in Eq. \ref{recurrence.P(N)}, seems unnecessarily restrictive. This constraint can be further relaxed, by writing the probability function connecting all smaller values of $P(N-j)$ as follows \cite{ST},
\begin{equation}
(N + 1)P(N + 1) = \langle N\rangle \sum^{N}_{j=0} C_j P(N - j). \label{eqn.Cj.recur}
\end{equation}
The coefficients $C_j$ are known as the \textit{modified combinants} and forms the core of this study. They are related to the combinants $C^*_j$ first defined for the study of boson production models \cite{Combinants,Combinants2} by the following relation \cite{JPG}:
\begin{equation}
C_j = \frac{(j+1)}{\langle N\rangle}C^*_{j+1}. \label{relation.to.combinant}
\end{equation}
Combinants were first introduced to quantify the extent any distributions deviate from a Poisson distribution. For the Poisson distribution $C_0 = 1$ and $C_{j>1} = 0$. In this way, any non-zero $C_j$ at higher orders indicate a deviation from the Poisson distribution.
From Eq. (\ref{eqn.Cj.recur}), two obvious interpretations for $C_j$ follow. First, there is a one-to-one map between $C^*_j$ to $C_j$ via Eq. (\ref{relation.to.combinant}). Modified combinants can be interpreted as a proxy to the extent of deviation from a Poisson distribution at different higher orders.
Secondly, $C_j$'s are the normalized weights in the series for the value of $(N+1)P(N+1)$. This can be interpreted as the "memory" which $P(N+1)$ has of the $P(N-j)$ term. In other words, the modified combinants are the weights in which all earlier $P(N-j)$ values has on the current probability. In this interpretation the links between $P(N+1)$ to all $P(N-j)$ values are clearly established.
One further notes that since $C_j$'s are expressed in terms of the probability function in Eq. (\ref{eqn.Cj.recur}), it may be reasonable to attempt casting the modified combinant in terms of the generating function $G(z) = \sum_N P(N)z^N$. Such an expression is immensely useful should a theoretical distribution avail itself to describe experimental data. In this case, $C_j$ can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation}
\langle N \rangle C_j = \frac{1}{j!}\frac{d^{j+1}\ln G(z)}{dz^{j+1}}\Bigg |_{z=0}.
\label{Cj.in.Gz}
\end{equation}
Modified combinants for some prominent distributions are shown in Tab. \ref{Table_1}.
Note that the generating functions of NBD and BD are in fact some quasi-power functions of $z$ and as such can be written in the form of the corresponding Tsallis distribution \cite{WW-APPB},
\begin{equation}
G(z) = \exp_q[\langle N\rangle (1-z)] = [ 1 + (q-1)\langle N\rangle (1-z)]^{\frac{1}{1-q}} \label{qGz}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
q-1 &=& \frac{1}{k} = \frac{p}{(1-p)\langle N\rangle}\qquad {\rm for~NBD},\label{qNBD}\\
q-1 &=& -\frac{1}{K} = - \frac{p}{\langle N\rangle}\qquad \quad {\rm for~BD}, \label{qBD}
\end{eqnarray}
whereas for $q\to 1$ in both cases we obtain $G(z)$ for PD. Eqs. (\ref{qNBD}) and (\ref{qBD}) allow to write $C_j$ for all three distributions differentiated by the above choice of the paramater $q$ in one formula,
\begin{equation}
C_j = \frac{1}{(q-1)\langle N\rangle + 1}\left[ \frac{(q-1)\langle N\rangle}{(q-1)\langle N\rangle + 1}\right]^j. \label{qCj}
\end{equation}
Note that while for the PD and NBD coefficients $C_j$ are monotonic and positive functions of rank $j$, they strongly oscillate for the BD. This feature will be very important in all our further analysis here.
To understand the effects of various experimental variables on oscillations of modified combinants, a mathematical expression is required for calculating the value of $C_j$ given $P(N)$. From Eq. (\ref{eqn.Cj.recur}), it follows that
\begin{equation}
\langle N \rangle C_j = (j+1)\left[ \frac{P(j+1)}{P(0)} \right] - \langle N\rangle \sum^{j-1}_{i=0}C_i \left[ \frac{P(j-i)}{P(0)} \right].
\label{rCj}
\end{equation}
Note that Eq. (\ref{rCj}) will require $P(0) > 0$ which is often the case as most experimental data on non-single diffraction collision exhibits enhanced void probability \cite{MWW1, voidprob}. In the event that the void probability is not made available, it will be inferred from the normalization of probability.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{F1aC.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{F1bC.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Top panel: Data on $P(N)$ measured in $e^+e^-$ collisions by the ALEPH experiment at $91$ GeV \cite{ALEPH} are fitted by the distribution obtained from the generating function given by Eq. (\ref{GBDNBD}) with parameters: $K=1$ and $p'=0.8725$ for the BD and $k=4.2$ and $p=0.75$ for the NBD.
Bottom panel: the modified combinants $C_j$ deduced from these data on $P(N)$. They can be fitted by $C_j$ obtained from the same generating function with the same parameters as used for fitting $P(N)$.}
\label{F1a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{F2aC.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{F2bC.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Top panel: Multiplicity distributions $P(N)$ measured in $pp$ collisions by ALICE \cite{ALICE}. Bottom panel: The corresponding modified combinants $C_j$. Data are fitted using sum of two compound distributions (BD+NBD) given by Eqs. (\ref{2-CBD}) and (\ref{2CBD}) with parameters:
$K_1 = K_2 = 3$, $p_1 = 0.9$, $p_2 = 0.645$, $k_1 = 2.8$, $k_2 = 1.34$, $m_1 = 5.75$, $m_2 = 23.5$ , $w_1 = 0.24 $ and $w_2 = 0.76$ . }
\label{F1b}
\end{figure}
\section{Dependence of $C_j$ oscillations on collision systems}
\label{sect.dependence}
We shall start with a reminder of two distinct observed patterns of modified combinants, one observed
in $e^+e^-$ annihilation \cite{RWW-Odessa, e+e-} (cf. Fig. \ref{F1a}) and another observed in $pp$ scattering \cite{MWW1,RWW-Odessa} (cf. Fig. \ref{F1b}). In the first case we use the additivity property of modified combinants, i.e. that for a random variable composed of independent random variables, with its generating function given by the product of their generating functions, $G(x)=\prod_jG_j(x)$, the corresponding modified combinants are given by the sum of the independent components. For the $e^+e^-$ data we shall use then the generating function $G(z)$ of the multiplicity distribution $P(N)$ in which $N$ consists of both the particles from the BD ($N_{BD}$) and from the NBD ($N_{NBD}$):
\begin{equation}
N = N_{BD} + N_{NBD}. \label{NN}
\end{equation}
In this case generating function is
\begin{equation}
G(z)=G_{BD}(z)G_{NBD}(z) \label{GBDNBD}
\end{equation}
and multiplicity distribution can be written as
\begin{equation}
P(N) = \sum_{i=0}^{min\left\{ N,k\right\}} P_{BD}(i)P_{NBD}(N-i), \label{PbdPnbd}
\end{equation}
and the respective modified combinants are
\begin{equation}
\langle N\rangle C_j = \left< N_{BD}\right>C_j^{(BD)} + \left< N_{NBD}\right> C_j^{(NBD)}. \label{Cjbdnbd}
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{F1a} shows the results of fits to both the experimentally measured \cite{ALEPH} multiplicity distributions and the corresponding modified combinants $C_j$ calculated from these data (cf. \cite{e+e-} for details).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_UA5_200GeV_pn_gen_2.pdf}
\hspace{10mm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_UA5_200GeV_cj_gen2.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_UA5_900GeV_pn_gen_1.pdf}
\hspace{10mm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig_UA5_900GeV_cj_gen_1.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Left panels: Multiplicity distributions $P(N)$ measured in $p \bar{p}$ collisions by UA5 experiment \cite{UA5900GeV}. Right panels: The corresponding modified combinants $C_j$. Data at $900$ GeV are fitted by the distribution obtained from the generating function given by the product $G(z) = G_{BD}(z)G_{NBD}(z)$ with parameters: $K = 1$ and $p' = 0.659$ for the BD and $k = 2.4$ and $p = 0.905$ for the NBD. Data at $200$ GeV are fitted by the distribution obtained from the generating function given by $G(z)=G_{CD}(z)G_{NBD}(z)$ with parameters $K = 1$, $p' = 0.845$ and $\lambda = 4.6$ for the compound distribution CD (Binomial Distribution compound with Poisson, $BD\& PD$) and $k= 1.7$, $p = 0.875$ for the NBD. }
\label{F1c}
\end{figure*}
In the case of $pp$ collision the satisfactory agreement in fitting observed oscillatory pattern is obtained by using the sum of two Compound Binomial Distributions of BD with NBD type,
\begin{equation}
P(N) = \sum_{i=1,2} w_i h\left(N; p_i, K_i, k_i, m_i\right); \hspace{1cm} \sum_{i=1,2} w_i = 1
\label{2CBD}
\end{equation}
with the generating function of each component equal to
\begin{equation}
H(z) = \left[ p\left( \frac{1 - p'}{1 - p'z}\right)^k + 1 - p\right]^K; \hspace{1cm} p'=\frac{m}{m+k}
\label{2-CBD}
\end{equation}
As seen in Fig. \ref{F1b}, one gains satisfactory control over both the periods and amplitudes of the oscillations, as well as their behavior as a function of the rank $j$. More importantly one can reproduce the enhancement of void probability of $P(0)>P(1)$ in addition to fitting both the $P(N)$ and $C_j$.
The results presented in Figs. \ref{F1a} and \ref{F1b} suggest the possibility that the enhanced oscillatory behavior is, perhaps, a trait of the annihilation type of the process considered. To check this we turned to $p\bar{p}$ processes measured by UA5 \cite{UA5900GeV}. Fig. \ref{F1c} demonstrates that the outcome is rather intriguing and brings in new questions. At $900$ GeV one observes oscillatory pattern which follows that observed in annihilation process $e^+e^-$, and which can be fitted by the same kind of $P(N)$. However, the observed oscillatory pattern changes dramatically at $200$ GeV and resembles that seen before in the $pp$ collisions. It can still be fitted using generating function $G(z)$ given by Eq. (\ref{GBDNBD}) but with Binomial Distribution replaced by compound distribution CBD of the Binomial Distribution with Poisson distribution, i.e., by
\begin{equation}
G(z) = G_{CBD}(z)G_{NBD}(z) \label{CBD-NBD}
\end{equation}
where generating function for Compound Binomial Distribution (CBD) is given by
\begin{equation}
G_{CBD}(z) = \left[ p \exp[\lambda (z-1)] + 1 - p\right]^K. \label{G_CBD}
\end{equation}
Such replacement allows to preserve oscillating power of BD but, at the same time, to gain better control over the period of oscillations which is detemined by the mean multiplicity $\lambda$ in the PD \cite{MWW1}.
Note that the BD used at $900$ GeV can be considered as such compound distribution but with the PD replaced by $\delta_{N,1}$. It means therefore that, in order to fit the annihilation data at lower energies, one has to somehow smear out this delta-like behavior. In fact, one could as well use instead of the PD a NBD with large $k$ and $p$ such that $\lambda = kp/(1-p)$.
We close this Section by noting that the use of $G(z)$ in the form of Eq. (\ref{GBDNBD}) corresponds to a QCD-based approach based on stochastic branching processes used in \cite{e+e-}, the so-called Generalized Multiplicity distribution (GMD), with initial number of gluons given by a BD. The links between adopting a stochastic branching approach in the study of QCD phenomena has its roots in \cite{QCD.jets.MC}. In fact, similar approach was also formulated on general grounds in \cite{SBW} where it was shown that the stochastic birth process with immigration and with initial conditions given by BD results in the so-called Modified Negative Binomial Distribution (MNBD) (both approaches are presented in more detail in \ref{appendixB}). With more general choice of initial conditions, i.e., by replacing BD by some compound distribution CD based on BD, one can, as presented here, describe also $p\bar{p}$ processes. However, in the case of $pp$ collisions this CD is more complicated (we have now $K = 3$ in our BD, which could, perhaps, correspond to $3$ valence quarks; additionally, to describe $P(N)$ we need in this case at least two such components).
\section{Dependence of $C_j$ oscillations on phase space being tested}
\label{sect.oscillation.dependence}
In addition to dependence on the collision system discussed above there are data \cite{CMS7TeV, ATLAS7TeV,ATLAS13TeV,ALICE8TeV.wide.eta,ALICE,UA5900GeV} (see also \cite{3componentNBD}) which allows to investigate the possible oscillatory behavior of $C_j$ in different pseudorapidity windows $|\eta|$, for different transverse momentum cuts $p_T$ and for different collision energies $\sqrt{s}$. We shall study them in this section.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F4ALICE7eta.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F4ALICE7wide.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{
Top panel: The plots of $C_j$ oscillations using $pp$ experimental data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV derived from ALICE Collaboration over a pseudorapidity range up to $|\eta| < 2.4$ \cite{ALICE}. The magnitude and period is comparable to $C_j$ derived from the CMS Collaboration at the same energy and pseudorapidity. Bottom panel: $C_j$ plots from ALICE Collaboration \cite{ALICE8TeV.wide.eta} obtained for pseudorapidity up to $|\eta|<3.4$ plotted separately for clarity. Note the increase in oscillatory magnitude at $|\eta|<3.4$.}
\label{graph.pp.across.eta}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dependence on pseudorapidity window}
\label{sect.eta.dependence}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F6pTCMSATLAS.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{fig_ALICE_7TeV_3_cj_additional2.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Top panel: The plot of $C_j$ vs $j$ with CMS data at $7$ TeV with $|\eta| < 2.4$ \cite{CMS7TeV} and ATLAS data \cite{ATLAS7TeV} with $\eta < 2.5$. CMS has extrapolated its data all the way to $p_T > 0$ MeV/c in the cited reference. This allows us to compare it with the data obtained experimentally with $p_T > 500$ MeV/c, also from CMS. The $C_j$ derived from ATLAS data tracks that of CMS closely. Bottom panel: Schematic view of modified combinants $C_j$ for separate components from the two component compound distribution given by Eqs. (\ref{2CBD}) and (\ref{2-CBD}) with parameters fitting experimental $P(N)$ shown in Fig. \ref{F1b}.}
\label{graph.pp.across.pt}
\end{figure}
The dependence of the extent of oscillations on the pseudorapidity window from which the experimental data was obtained is the most obvious. Intuitively, one would expect experimental data collected from a larger pseudorapidity phase space to be more representative of the collective behaviour of the underlying collision (e.g. $e^+e^-, pp$ or $p\bar{p}$) and the associated secondary particles.
Fig. \ref{graph.pp.across.eta} shows example of the observed differences between the oscillations in $C_j$ derived from different rapidity windows by ALICE Collaboration \cite{ALICE}. The first observation is that oscillations, which are almost non-existent at small pseudorapidity window ($|\eta|<1.5$) are becoming very strong at the maximal pseudorapidity window ($|\eta| < 3.4$.
There is also a change in the period of oscillations (where present) with a change in pseudorapidity window. In general, the period decreases from around $18$ for $| \eta | < 2.4$, to approximately $11$ for $|\eta|<1.5$. The amplitude of oscillations for any smaller pseudorapidity window is too weak to discern the period. Nevertheless, the oscillations for the data from the ALICE Collaboration are relatively smooth within the pseudorapidity phase space.
Data from the ALICE Collaboration had been taken over a larger pseudorapidity window, up to $\eta < 3.4$. This allows the investigation of behaviour of $C_j$ oscillations beyond the limited window $|\eta| \leq 2.4$ available in by CMS data (this is due to challenges surrounding the drastic drop in reconstruction efficiencies at $| \eta | > 2.4$ \cite{CMS7TeV}). The bottom panel of Fig. \ref{graph.pp.across.eta} has been plotted using ALICE data from $\eta < 2.4$ to $\eta < 3.4$ for better clarity. The trend of increasing period with larger pseudorapidity window continues beyond $|\eta|<2.4$. However, the rate of amplitude decay slows significantly between $|\eta|<2.4$ and $|\eta|<3.0$ and reverses at $|\eta|<3.4$. From this observation, it is inferred that the amplitude stops its decay and reversed somewhere between $3.0 < |\eta| < 3.4$.
\subsection{Dependence on $p_T$}
\label{pt.dependence}
In earlier study presented in \cite{3componentNBD} it was noted that the $C_j$ obtained from data obtained for $p_T > 100$ MeV/c cut by ATLAS \cite{ATLAS13TeV} exhibit minimal oscillation for $| \eta | < 2.5$, which are completely absent for data with $p_T > 500$ MeV/c cut. This observation suggests that the $p_T$ phase space plays a role in the extent of $C_j$ oscillations as well. For this subsection, we will consider $pp$ collision data obtained from the ATLAS and CMS collaborations across different $p_T$ cuts at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV. The CMS collaboration performs an extrapolation down to $p_T = 0$ MeV/c for their MD data. This allows further exploration of the behaviour of the $C_j$ oscillations over the complete $p_T$ phase space. The resulting uncertainty due to the extrapolation is less than $1\%$, inclusive of systematic uncertainty \cite{CMS7TeV}.
Top panel of Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.pt} presents results for data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV, from CMS at $|\eta| < 2.4$ and from ATLAS at $|\eta| < 2.5$. The small difference in the pseudorapidity window over which they are obtained is considered insignificant, as can be seen in the close tracking of the data points from CMS and ATLAS for $p_T > 500$ MeV/c. Note that the $C_j$ oscillations are the strongest at $p_T > 0$ MeV/c (from CMS) while having minimal oscillations at $p_T > 500$ MeV/c (both CMS and ATLAS). Due to the lack of availability of data points with consecutive integral $N$ from ATLAS at $p_T > 500$ MeV/c, the plot has to be truncated at $j=30$. Unfortunately, no $p_T$ data is available from earlier experiments. The dearth of such data prohibits further investigation into the effects on oscillations between various $p_T$ cuts in $p\bar{p}$ collisions. Nevertheless, even these limited results can be very helpful in understanding the message of $C_j$. They are very similar to what is presented in the bottom panel of Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.pt} which shows schematic view of modified combinants $C_j$ for separate components from the two component compound distribution given by Eqs. (\ref{2CBD}) and (\ref{2-CBD}) with parameters fitting experimental $P(N)$ shown in Fig. \ref{F1b}. This comparison seems to suggest that particles with large transverse momenta mainly come from the first component (with smaller mean multiplicity) in our two component compound distribution. In other words, top panel of Fig. \ref{graph.pp.across.pt} seems to show that reducing the $p_T$ phase space eliminates (at least to some extent) one of the components.
\subsection{Dependence on $\sqrt{s}$}
\label{energy.dependence}
The reason why data from $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV has been extensively exploited in the earlier parts of this work is due to the fact that oscillatory behaviour are more apparent at higher collision energies. Hints of this potential dependence on collision energy can first be observed in Fig. \ref{F1c} between $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV vs $\sqrt{s}=900$ GeV in similar pseudorapidity windows.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F7CMSenergy.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F7ALICEenergy.pdf}
\caption{Plots of $C_j$ vs $j$ across various centre-of-mass collision energies. Top panel: The plots of $C_j$ vs $j$ using data form CMS up to $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV. It shows that the effect of an increase in centre-of-mass collision energies has minimal effect on the amplitude and the period of the resulting oscillations. Bottom panel: Plots of $C_j$ vs $j$ made using data from ALICE up to $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV. The amplitude seemed to undergo a much faster decay with an increase in collision energy, together with an increase of the oscillation period.}
\label{graph.energy.dependence}
\end{figure}
The modified combinants derived form CMS \cite{CMS7TeV} and ALICE \cite{ALICE8TeV.wide.eta} across centre-of-mass energies are plotted in Fig. \ref{graph.energy.dependence} on the top and bottom panel respectively. The difference between the data sources is that ALICE provides data up to $\sqrt{s}= 8$ TeV while that from CMS is up to $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV. To facilitate comparison, only data at $|\eta| < 2.4$ is used, on considerations that it shows the most distinct oscillatory behaviour without the amplitude blowing up. Note that CMS does not provide data obtained from wider pseudorapidity windows, which makes comparison difficult.
For the $C_j$ from CMS, there is no clear effect on the amplitude with increasing collision energies. The $C_j$ made with data from lower collision energy of $\sqrt{s} = 0.9 $ TeV appeared to have a slightly higher initial amplitude but decayed at similar rates to that from $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV. There is also an increase in the period of oscillation at higher energies. On the other hand, the graph derived from ALICE data seemed to show a more distinct difference in the amplitude between data from $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ TeV and that from $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV with a slower rate of decay. The shorter period at lower energy is also observed here, and is consistent up to $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV.
However, there are some observed differences in the details between both plots in Fig. \ref{graph.energy.dependence}. Some examples include the higher amplitudes of the oscillating $C_j$ for ALICE than than CMS at the same $\sqrt{s}$, the location of the amplitudes with respect to $q$ etc. These discrepancies can be traced back to different $P(N)$ values obtained between the two experiments due to slightly different methods in which measured data is being treated between the two experiments. A more detailed comparison can be found in \cite{ALICE8TeV.wide.eta}. However, this difference should not mask the trend in $C_j$ oscillations with increasing energies, which is the main point behind the plot.
\subsection{Summary and discussion of results}
\label{sect.discussion}
The pseudorapidity window within which the data has been obtained appears to have the most significant effect on the oscillatory period for the corresponding derived value of $C_j$. This feature can be clearly observed in the plot across various pseudorapidity windows from ALICE data in Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.eta}. There is direct correspondence between the size of the pseudorapidity window to the oscillation period. While $C_j$ up to $|\eta| < 1.0$ barely exhibits any oscillations, the Top panel of Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.eta} shows an increase in period from 11 at $|\eta| < 1.5$ to 18 for $|\eta| < 2.4$. With reference to the bottom panel in Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.eta} for large pseudorapidity windows, we see that increasing the size of the window results in a corresponding increase in oscillatory period, from $18$ at $|\eta| < 2.4$ up to $23$ at $|\eta| < 3.4$. Data from UA5 paints a different story. The $C_j$ oscillates with period 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 900$ GeV at $|\eta| < 3.0$ and above. Coupled with the modified combinants derived from $e^+e^-$ \cite{e+e-}, this seems to suggest that $C_j$ from matter-antimatter ($p\bar{p}$ and $e^+e^-$) collisions oscillates more violently at comparatively lower energies than their $pp$ counterparts. This may be a feature useful in distinguishing between the two types of collision data.
The second effect of larger pseudorapidity window is on the amplitude of the oscillations of $C_j$. Referring to Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.eta}, the amplitude of oscillation increases from just below $1.5$ for data from $\eta < 1.5$, to around $1.8$ for $C_j$ derived form $\eta < 2.4$.
In Fig \ref{graph.ppbar.power.law} it is observed that both in UA5 and ALICE data the amplitudes of oscillations increase as a power-law from $\eta < 3.0$ onwards. The increase is more prominent for higher energies and for $p\bar{p}$ data from UA5. Note that when we use $G(z)$ as given by Eq. (\ref{GBDNBD}) then amplitude of oscillations is given by $[p/(1-p)]^j$. If the modified combinants were to be interpreted as weights of the various $P(N)$'s, as discussed in Section \ref{sect.mod.combinant}, the oscillations in the weights are more pronounced and periodic in a larger pseudorapidity phase space.
Another aspect which the oscillatory behaviour can be discussed is in terms of the $p_T$ phase space. In the top panel of Fig \ref{graph.pp.across.pt}, results from both CMS and ATLAS data shows an unambiguous relation between $p_T$ phase space and oscillatory extent of $C_j$. The extrapolation of the CMS data from $p_T > 0$ MeV/c for $\sqrt{s} \leq 7$ TeV allows us access to full $p_T$ phase space for LHC Run 1 energies. By comparing the derived $C_j$ from both CMS, ALICE and ATLAS, it is clear that like pseudorapidity, the larger the $p_T$ phase space, the larger the extent of oscillations. The comparison of these results with view of $C_j$ from separate components of distribution used to fit experimental $P(N)$ shown in Fig. \ref{F1b} which seems to suggest that particles with large transverse momenta mainly come from the first component is very instructive and suggest further investigations which, however, go beyond the goals of this work.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F8UA5fit.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F8ALICEfit.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Top panel: The amplitude of the absolute values of $C_j$ are plotted against $j$ and fitted to a line $y(x) = 2.26\times1.07^x$ for $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV data, and to $y(x) = 1.99\times1.93^x$ for $\sqrt{s} = 900$ GeV data.
Bottom panel: The same for ALICE data at $\sqrt{s}= 900$ GeV and for $|\eta| < 3.0$. In this case the data points are fitted against a line $y(x) = 2.09\times1.01^x$. In both cases, the oscillation amplitude increases in a power-law fashion as function of $x=j$.}
\label{graph.ppbar.power.law}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, varying the collision energies does not produce such drastic changes in the extent of oscillations as compared to pseudorapidity and $p_T$ cuts. In Fig \ref{graph.energy.dependence}, we see that the effects of an increase in collision energy has minimal effects to the amplitude decay and the period of oscillatory behaviour. Both the amplitude and period of oscillations do not change significantly from $\sqrt{s}= 0.9 $ to $7 $ TeV for CMS, and up to $\sqrt{s} = 8 $ TeV for ALICE.
Note that usually the oscillatory behaviour of $C_j$ (as well as the lack of oscillations) is observed in the ideal cases, i.e., for $P(N)$ described by analytical formulas. Experimentally $C_j$'s are obtained from the measured multiplicity distributions, which are recorded with some acceptance in limited phase space and which contain both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. However, as was shown in \cite{e+e-}, experimental acceptance do not generate oscillations of $C_j$. For example, acceptance procedure applied to NBD gives again the NBD with the same $k$ but with the modified $p$, which is now equal to $p' = p\alpha/(1 - p +p\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ denotes the probability of the detection of a particle in the selected phase space. For a distribution described by NBD the acceptance does not alter the smooth decrease of $C_j$. In addition, the influence of statistical and systematic uncertainties on $C_j$ was discussed in details in earlier works \cite{MWW1, 3componentNBD}. It was found that at sufficiently-high statistics, modified combinants $C_j$ become relatively insensitive to statistical uncertainties, although the effects of systematic uncertainties of the measurements still remain.
However, it turns out that, notwithstanding this sensitivity, the oscillatory signal observed in the modified combinants derived from ATLAS, ALICE, CMS and UA5 data remains statistically significant. Therefore, the regularity and periodicity of the observed oscillations cannot be results of random fluctuations but instead, justify detailed and careful analysis of oscillations in modified combinants in the study of multiplicity distributions.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sect.conclusion}
The utility of a phenomenological approach to analysis of multiplicity distributions stems from the lack of a comprehensive theoretical explanation transcending the hard and soft regimes of QCD. If enlarging the pseudorapidity phase space results in more distinct oscillatory behaviour, then the $C_j$ oscillations could find their origins in soft hadronic collisions.
This paper discusses dependence of $C_j$ oscillations on collision systems and the impact of varying pseudorapidity, $p_T$ cuts and collision energies on the oscillatory behaviour of $C_j$. It is clear that pseudorapidity has the greatest impact on the oscillatory behaviour among the experimental variables considered. The general trend inherent in the data shows increased oscillatory behaviour with an increase in the extent of phase space under considerations. Sampling within a larger extent of experimental phase space allows the collection of information from a larger domain. This in turn implies more representative data to be collected when the extent of phase space is large.
The way the $C_j$ oscillates between $pp$ and $p\bar{p}$ collisions is clearly different, in terms of the order of magnitude as well as the period. For $pp$ data from ALICE, the $C_j$ oscillates with a period of $20$. This is close to the earlier discussion in Section \ref{sect.eta.dependence} with $C_j$ oscillating at a period of $18$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV, $|\eta|<2.4$. In the case of $p\bar{p}$, $C_j$ oscillates with a period of $2$. Such a short period is reminiscent of our earlier work \cite{e+e-} exploring $C_j$ oscillations derived from $e^+e^-$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 91$ GeV. Based on these two observations, it seemed that at sufficiently wide pseudorapidity window, $C_j$ from particle-antiparticle collisions at different energies oscillates with period $2$, while that from particle-particle collisions do not exhibit such regularity. Such power-law increase in amplitude may potentially be a characteristic of matter-antimatter collision, including that from $e^+e^-$.
Another distinguishing feature between $pp$ and $p\bar{p}$ collisions is the order of magnitude over which the oscillations take place. At $\sqrt{s}=900$ GeV, $C_j$ from $p\bar{p}$ goes up to a magnitude of $10^{20}$ while that for $pp$ stays below $10$. Should more data between the two types of collisions become available in the future, such figures can be tabulated to explore the dependence of the scaling coefficients on energy and pseudorapidity.
The relationship between $C_j$ and $F_q$ and $K_q$ moments as discussed in the \ref{appendixA} may offer some clues as to why $C_j$ derived from experimental MD data oscillates. The $H_q=K_q/F_q$ moments, with its roots in gluodynamics \cite{origins.H.moment,application.H.moment}, were conceived of and observed to undergo oscillations in earlier studies. On the other hand, $F_q$ has shown to be a valuable a tool in the study of intermittent behaviour \cite{origins.intermittency} in multiparticle production. Any attempts at a physical interpretation of $C_j$ can be considered in analogy to the relationship between $H_q$ and $F_q$. However, before that, the exact physical interpretation of $C_j$ still remains open and is subject for further investigation.
Finally, we will refer to the imposing question: what lesson can be learned from the behavior of modified combinants $C_j$ deduced from the measured multiplicity distributions $P(N)$ in what concerns the the dynamics of the multiparticle production process. First, it seems that the oscillations of the $C_j$ are closely related to
the need to use some specific form of multiplicity distribution (MD) in the description of these processes. It must be a compound distribution based on BD (CBD), which gives oscillations, with some other MD, which controls their period and amplitudes. In fact, as shown in \cite{MWW1} the successful use of simple sum of $3$ NBDs presented in \cite{3componentNBD} is possible only because such sum acts effectively as a kind of BD. In our investigations we were usually using MD which were either compound distributions of BD with NBD (either the sum of two such compound distributions to get perfect agreement with data) or MD for the sum of multiplicities from BD (or CBD) and NBD. In all cases BD is crucial to describe the oscillatory behaviour of modified combinants. This result, if taken seriously, imposes certain restrictions on the selection of the appropriate multi-particle production model. In \ref{appendixB} we present a summary of two potential candidates for such model, both based on some specific stochastic approach, one of which was used in this work. A broader discussion on this topic, in particular what other classes of models can meet the criteria required here, would require a separate work.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We are indebted to Edward Grinbaum-Sarkisyan for fruitful discussions. This research was supported in part by the National Science Center (NCN) under contracts 2016/23/B/ST2/00692 (MR) and 2016/22/M/ST2/00176 (GW). M. Ghaffar would like to thank NUS where part of this work is done for the hospitality. H.W. Ang would like to thank the NUS Research Scholarship for supporting this study. We would like to thank P. Agarwal and Z. Ong for reading the manuscript and for contributing to the insightful discussions.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Any realistic quantum system is open because of unavoidable
coupling to its environment. The theory of open quantum systems
studies the effect of the surrounding environment on the system
dynamics~\cite{breuer-2002}. The environment can be represented as
a large reservoir either in thermodynamic
equilibrium~\cite{schoeller-2018} or in a non-equilibrium state.
The system-reservoir interaction entangles the system with the
environmental degrees of freedom, which typically leads to the
irreversible system decoherence. Such a decoherence significantly
affects quantum transport~\cite{cui-2006,talarico-2019}, molecular
excitation dynamics and relaxation~\cite{valkunas-2013}, and
performance of quantum sensors~\cite{degen-2017}. It is the
decoherence that complicates the protocols of quantum information
transmission~\cite{wilde-2017} and
processing~\cite{nielsen-2000,filippov-2019}. This circumstance
makes the study of decoherence an important field of research for
the development of quantum technologies~\cite{glaser-2015}.
The state of a quantum system is represented by the density
operator $\varrho(t)$ that is a Hermitian positive-semidefinite
unit-trace operator acting in the system Hilbert space ${\cal H}$.
Let ${\cal T}({\cal H})$ be the space of trace class operators
acting in ${\cal H}$. The open dynamics is usually described by
the time-convolutionless master equation $\frac{d}{dt}\varrho(t) =
{\cal L}_t [\varrho(t)]$, which is obtained by averaging over the
environmental degrees of freedom in the joint evolution of the
system and the reservoir. The generator ${\cal L}_t: {\cal
T}({\cal H}) \mapsto {\cal T}({\cal H})$ is time-dependent in
general, which may lead to non-Markovian
effects~\cite{rivas-2014,breuer-2016,de-vega-2017,benatti-2017,fc-2018,li-2018,luchnikov-2019}.
There are physical situations, however, where the generator is
time-independent within the characteristic timescale of system
evolution. Microscopic derivations of the master equation
\begin{equation} \label{master-equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\varrho(t) = {\cal L} [\varrho(t)]
\end{equation}
can be obtained in the weak coupling
limit~\cite{van-hove-1954,davies-1974,spohn-1978,accardi-1990},
the singular coupling limit~\cite{palmer-1977,gorini-1978}, the
stochastic limit~\cite{accardi-book,pechen-2002}, the low density
limit for gas
environment~\cite{dumcke-1985,accardi-1991,accardi-1992,rudnicki-1992,apv-2002,accardi-2003,pechen-2004,pechen-jmp-2006},
the stroboscopic limit in the collision
model~\cite{rau-1963,giovannetti-2012,lorenzo-2017,luchnikov-2017},
and the monitoring approach to derivation of linear Boltzmann
equation~\cite{hornberger-2007,hornberger-2008,vacchini-2009,smirne-2010}.
In all these approximations, the particular form of ${\cal L}$ is
expressed through the system-environment interaction Hamiltonian
and the reservoir equilibrium state. The solution of the master
equation \eqref{master-equation} is given by the quantum dynamical
semigroup $e^{{\cal L}t}$, whose complete positivity makes the
generator ${\cal L}$ take the
Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad (GKSL)
form~\cite{gks-1976,lindblad-1976}:
\begin{equation} \label{GKSL}
{\cal L} [\varrho] = - \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,\varrho] + \sum_{k}
\gamma_k \left( A_k \varrho A_k^{\dag} - \frac{1}{2}
\{A_k^{\dag}A_k,\varrho\} \right),
\end{equation}
Here $[\cdot,\cdot]$ and $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ denote the
commutator and anticommutator, respectivey, $H$ is a Hermitian
operator, $\gamma_k > 0$ is the relaxation rate for the
$k$th channel of decoherence, and $\{A_k\}$ are the jump
operators.
In this paper, we consider a quantum system interacting with a gas
reservoir. The gas is supposed to be dilute, so that gas particles
rarely interact with the system. The scattering of gas particles
on the system leads to the system decoherence. Such a situation
takes place in all vacuum experiments because of the presence of a
background gas, e.g., in levitated
optomechanics~\cite{hornberger-2008,martinetz-2018}, ion
traps~\cite{wineland-1998,serra-2001}, and atom
interferometers~\cite{uys-2005}. Finding the specific form of the
generator ${\cal L}$ and determining the relaxation rates is an
important timely problem for control and
manipulation~\cite{pechen-2006,pechen-rabitz-2014,pechen-2019} of
quantum systems in the presence of a background gas.
There are two distinctive theoretical approaches to treat motional
degrees of freedom for gas particles: (i) quantum and (ii)
classical.
Within the first approach, the reservoir is treated as an ensemble
of non-interacting quantum particles being in the Gibbs state
$\rho_{\rm R}=Z^{-1}\exp[{-\beta(H_{\rm R}-\mu \hat{N})}]$ with
inverse temperature $\beta$ and chemical potential $\mu$, where
$Z$ is the normalizing factor, $\hat{N}$ is the number operator
for gas particles, and $H_{\rm R}$ is the free gas Hamiltonian.
The reservoir can be in a non-equilibrium Gaussian state in
general. The interaction between the system and gas particles has
the scattering type and preserves the number of gas particles,
i.e., commutes with $\hat{N}$. Due to interaction with the system,
gas particles are scattered on the system and this scattering
induces transitions between the system's quantum states. The basic
assumption for the ab-initio derivation of the master
equation~\eqref{master-equation} within this approach is that
density of gas particles $n$ is low so that only collisions
between the system and one particle of the gas dominate. The
interaction of the system simultaneously with two or more gas
particles is assumed to have negligible probability. Formally,
this assumption is described by taking the limit $n \to + 0$.
However, simply taking this limit would imply complete
disregarding of the reservoir and lead to a trivial system
dynamics. To get a non-trivial dynamics, one has to also consider
long time scale $t \approx 1/n \to +\infty$. Thus the \emph{low
density limit} (LDL) is defined as the following joint limit: the
gas density $n \rightarrow +0$, the time $t \rightarrow +\infty$,
such that $nt$ is fixed (it is the new slow time scale). The
explicit form of the generator~\eqref{GKSL} in the LDL is derived
{\it ab initio} from exact microscopic dynamics without any
further assumptions and is expressed through the scattering
$T$-matrix for interaction of the system and one gas particle in
Refs.~\cite{dumcke-1985,accardi-1991,apv-2002,accardi-2003,pechen-2004}
and is briefly reviewed in Ref.~\cite{breuer-2002}, Sec. 3.3.4.
The approach of the authors of
Refs.~\cite{apv-2002,accardi-2003,pechen-2004,pechen-jmp-2006}
allows to derive not only the master equation for the reduced
dynamics, but a full quantum stochastic differential equation for
the approximate unitary dynamics of the system and quantum gas.
Important is that the interaction between the system and the gas
is generally considered to be strong and fully quantum mechanical.
Thus, the LDL allows to derive a tractable master equation for a
fully quantum system in the strong coupling regime (beyond the
perturbation expansion).
Within the second approach, the gas particles move along the
classical trajectories whereas their internal degrees of freedom
are
quantum~\cite{alicki-2003,koniorczyk-2008,vacchini-2009,smirne-2010}
(similarly to the micromaser theory~\cite{rempe-1990}). As a
result, the interaction between the quantum system and the
reservoir particle is only activated during the collision time $\tau$;
the system-particle interaction energy increases up to the
characteristic value $U_0$ during the collision (when the system
and the particle are close to each other) and vanishes prior and
after the collision (when the system and the particle are far
apart). Since the reservoir is large and the gas is dilute, each
gas particle interacts with the system at most once and one can
neglect simultaneous collisions of the system with several
particles. This feature is similar to the LDL approach. The master
equation~\eqref{master-equation} was obtained for such a
semiclassical \emph{collision model} (CM) in the stroboscopic
approximation $U_0 \tau \ll \hbar$ (see, e.g.,
Refs.~\cite{rau-1963,giovannetti-2012,lorenzo-2017,scarani-2002,rybar-2012,mccloskey-2014,kretschmer-2016,dabrowska-2017,filippov-2017,ciccarello-2017},
where the generator ${\cal L}_t$ is derived for rectangular
activation functions, various interaction types, and environment
states).
Interestingly, the predictions of these two approaches have not
been compared in the literature. This is mainly due to the fact
that the LDL approach was extensively studied in mathematical
physics, whereas the collision models have been essentially
developed for quantum information tasks as a tractable description
of the open quantum dynamics. However, the common dominating role
of the simultaneous interaction of the system with at most one gas
particle and the absence of many-body interactions makes such a
comparison a natural task. The goal of this paper is to fill the
gap between the two approaches and provide the conditions under
which these approaches lead to the same resulting master equation.
We consider the system and gas particles as having internal
degrees of freedom and establish equivalence, under certain
conditions, between the master equations derived using LDL and CM.
It is worth mentioning that a master equation describing
collisional decoherence for systems with internal degrees of
freedom was derived also using a scattering description of the
interaction events~\cite{hornberger-2007,smirne-2010}. The
established in our work equivalence relation simplifies the
analysis of such open quantum systems for which either of the
models is easy to handle. For instance, one can use the
stroboscopic approximation in the collision model for fast
particles in some thermodynamic
problems~\cite{levy-2012,kosloff-2013,kosloff-2019} instead of
dealing with the fully quantum description.
To take into account only the relevant physical parameters, we
consider a simplified model of elastic collisions and an
energy-degenerate quantum system. This model describes, for
instance, a quantum spin system interacting via collisions with
spin gas particles (see Fig.~\ref{figure1}).
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{section-ldl}, we
review the LDL model and derive the explicit form of the generator
${\cal L}^{\rm LDL}$ for the case when gas particles have internal
degrees of freedom. In Sec.~\ref{section-cm}, we review the
collision models with a factorized environment and derive the
generator ${\cal L}^{\rm CM}$ for the case of fast particles, when
the trajectories of gas particles can be considered as straight
lines. In Sec.~\ref{section-comparison}, we compare the results of
Secs.~\ref{section-ldl} and~\ref{section-cm} and find the
conditions for their equivalence. In
Sec.~\ref{section-conclusions}, conclusions are given.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{Open dynamics of the system (large circle) with density
operator $\varrho$ due to interaction with a diluted gas (small
circles).} \label{figure1}
\end{figure}
\section{The low density limit for the fully quantum model}
\label{section-ldl}
\subsection{Gas of particles with no internal degrees of freedom}
Consider an ideal gas of $N$ nonrelativistic particles each of
mass $m$ moving in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Thermal state of such gas is
described by the density operator
\begin{equation} \label{rho-env}
\varrho_{E} = \varrho_1^{\otimes N}, \quad \varrho_1 =
\frac{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{V} \int f({\bf p}) \ket{\bf p} \bra{\bf p}
d^3{\bf p},
\end{equation}
where $V$ is a volume occupied by gas, $\ket{{\bf p}}$ is a
single-particle state with the definite momentum ${\bf p}$ such
that $\ip{{\bf p}}{{\bf p}'} = \delta({\bf p} - {\bf p}')$, and
$f({\bf p})$ is the Maxwell--Boltzmann distribution
\begin{equation} \label{p-distribution}
f({\bf p}) = \left( 2 \pi m k T \right)^{-3/2} \exp \left(
-\frac{{\bf p}^2}{2mkT} \right).
\end{equation}
Here $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the
temperature. In the position representation, we have
\begin{equation}
\ip{\bf r}{\bf p} = (2\pi\hbar)^{-3/2} \exp \left( \frac{i{\bf
p}{\bf r}}{\hbar} \right),
\end{equation}
so the density operator~\eqref{rho-env} is properly
normalized, namely,
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}[\varrho_{E}] = \left( \int \bra{\bf r} \varrho_{E}
\ket{\bf r} d^3{\bf r} \right)^N = \left( \int f({\bf p}) d^3{\bf
p} \right)^N = 1.
\end{equation}
We consider the gas in the thermodynamic equilibrium with the
homogeneous density of particles $n({\bf r}) = n$. The density $n$
is expressed through the creation and annihilation operators in
coordinate representation, $a^{\dag}({\bf r})$ and $a({\bf r})$,
as follows:
\begin{equation}
n = \frac{N}{V} = {\rm tr} \left[ \varrho_{E} a^{\dag}({\bf r})
a({\bf r}) \right] = \ave{a^{\dag}({\bf r}) a({\bf r})}.
\end{equation}
In the momentum representation, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{a-dag-a-average}
\ave{a^{\dag}({\bf p}) a({\bf p}')} &=& {\rm tr} \left[
\varrho_{E} a^{\dag}({\bf p}) a({\bf p}') \right]
\nonumber\\
&=& (2\pi\hbar)^3 n f({\bf p}) \delta({\bf p} - {\bf p}'),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function (in this case, in a
three-dimensional space of momenta).
The Hamiltonian of a single gas particle is $H_1 = \int \frac{{\bf
p}^2}{2m} \ket{{\bf p}} \bra{{\bf p}} d^3{\bf p}$. Its second
quantization gives the environment Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{E} = \int \frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} a^{\dag}({\bf p}) a({\bf p})
d^3{\bf p}.
\end{equation}
Let $H_S = \sum_k \epsilon_k \ket{k}\bra{k}$ be the system
Hamiltonian and $H_{S1}$ be the interaction Hamiltonian for the
system and a single gas particle. The total interaction
Hamiltonian $H_{\rm int}$ is the second quantization of $H_{S1}$.
For instance, if $H_{S1} = Q_S \otimes U({\bf r})$, then $H_{\rm
int} = Q_S \otimes \int U({\bf r}) a^{\dag}({\bf r}) a({\bf r})
d^3{\bf r}$.
The system and the gas environment altogether evolve in accordance
with the von Neumann equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \varrho_{S+E}}{dt} = -\frac{i}{\hbar}[ H_S \otimes I_{E} +
I_S \otimes H_{E} + H_{\rm int},\varrho_{S+E}]
\end{equation}
with the initial condition $\varrho_{S+E}(0) =
\varrho_S(0) \otimes \varrho_{E}$. The reduced system evolution is
obtained by taking the partial trace over environment,
\begin{equation} \label{system-general}
\frac{d \varrho_{S}}{dt} = {\rm tr}_{E} \left( -\frac{i}{\hbar}[
H_S \otimes I_{E} + I_S \otimes H_{E} + H_{\rm
int},\varrho_{S+{E}}] \right).
\end{equation}
The fundamental result of the LDL approach~\cite{dumcke-1985} is
that the open dynamics~\eqref{system-general} in the limit $n
\rightarrow 0$, $t \rightarrow +\infty$, $nt = {\rm const.}$,
reduces to Eq.~\eqref{master-equation} with the GKSL
generator~\eqref{GKSL}, namely,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\varrho_S}{dt} = - \frac{i}{\hbar} [H_S + H_{\rm
LS},\varrho_S] + {\cal D}[\varrho_S].
\end{equation}
Importantly, the Lamb shift $H_{\rm LS}$ and the dissipator ${\cal
D}$ depend only on the scattering $\hat{T}$-operator for the
interaction of the system with one particle of the gas,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{T} = H_{S1} \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \!\!\! & \bigg\{ &
\!\!\! \exp\left[ - \frac{it}{\hbar} \biggl( H_S \otimes I_{1} +
I_S
\otimes H_1 + H_{S1} \biggr) \right] \nonumber\\
&& \!\!\! \times \exp\left[ \frac{it}{\hbar} \biggl( H_S \otimes
I_{1} + I_S \otimes H_1 \biggr) \right] \bigg\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Denoting $T(k,{\bf q}|l,{\bf p}) := \bra{k} \otimes
\bra{\bf q} \hat{T} \ket{l} \otimes \ket{\bf p}$ and
\begin{equation}
T_{\epsilon}({\bf q},{\bf p}) = \sum_{k,l:~\epsilon_k - \epsilon_l
= \epsilon} T(k,{\bf q}|l,{\bf p}) \ket{k} \bra{l},
\end{equation}
the final result is~\cite{dumcke-1985}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm LS} &=& (2\pi\hbar)^3 n \sum_{k,l:\
\epsilon_k = \epsilon_l} \int d^3{\bf p} \, f({\bf p}) \,
{\rm Re} T(k,{\bf p}|l,{\bf p}) \, \ket{k}\bra{l},\quad\,\,\,\\
{\cal D}[\varrho_S] &=& (2\pi)^4 \hbar^2 n
\sum_{\epsilon} \iint d^3{\bf p} \, d^3{\bf q} \, f({\bf p}) \,
\delta\left( \frac{{\bf q}^2}{2m} -
\frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} + \epsilon \right) \nonumber\\
&\times& \left[ T_{\epsilon}({\bf q},{\bf
p}) \varrho_S T_{\epsilon}^{\dag}({\bf q},{\bf p}) - \frac{1}{2}
\left\{ \varrho_S, T_{\epsilon}^{\dag}({\bf q},{\bf p})
T_{\epsilon}({\bf q},{\bf p}) \right\} \right].
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we restored the physical dimension of the Lamb shift
(energy) and the dissipator (frequency) and have taken into
account the factor $(2\pi\hbar)^3$ from
Eq.~\eqref{a-dag-a-average}.
In what follows, we consider a modification of the LDL approach
for the case of gas particles having also internal degrees of
freedom, e.g., spin.
\subsection{Gas of particles with internal degrees of freedom}
Let $\{\ket{i}\}_i$ be an eigenbasis for the internal Hamiltonian
of gas particles, $H_{\lambda} = \sum_i \lambda_i \ket{i}\bra{i}$.
Merging the motional and internal degrees of freedom in the
notation $\ket{i,{\bf p}}$, we denote the corresponding creation
and annihilation operators by
\begin{equation}
a_i^{\dag}({\bf p}) := a^{\dag}(i, {\bf p}), \quad a_i({\bf p}) :=
a(i, {\bf p}).
\end{equation}
Suppose that the internal state of every gas particle is $\sum_{i}
\mu_i \ket{i} \bra{i}$. Then the environmental state is
$\widetilde{\varrho}_{E} = \widetilde{\varrho}_1^{\otimes N}$ with
\begin{equation} \label{rho-env-modified}
\widetilde{\varrho}_1 = \frac{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{V} \sum_{i} \mu_i
\int f({\bf p}) \ket{i,{\bf p}} \bra{i,{\bf p}} d^3{\bf p}.
\end{equation}
The single-particle Hamiltonian $\widetilde{H}_1 := H_{\lambda}
\otimes I_1 + I_{\lambda} \otimes H_1$ represents the sum of
internal and kinetic energies, respectively. The second quantized
version of $\widetilde{H}_1$ is
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{H}_{E} = \sum_{i} \int d^3{\bf p} \left( \lambda_i +
\frac{ {\bf p}^2}{2m} \right) a_i^{\dag}({\bf p}) a_i({\bf p})
\end{equation}
and commutes with $\widetilde{\varrho}_{E}$.
This model allows for including the interaction between the system and the
internal degrees of freedom of gas particles during collisions. We
consider the interaction Hamiltonian of the form
\begin{equation} \label{F-U}
\widetilde{H}_{S1} = F \otimes U({\bf r}) = \sum_{k,l,i,j}
F_{ki,lj} \ket{k} \bra{l} \otimes \ket{i}\bra{j} \otimes U({\bf
r}),
\end{equation}
where the operator $F$ describes interaction between internal
degrees of freedom of the system and a gas particle, and $U({\bf
r})$ determines the strength of this interaction for a given
position ${\bf r}$ of the gas particle with respect to the system,
see Fig.~\ref{figure2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{A gas particle with the initial momentum ${\bf p}$ and
internal state $\ket{j}$ is scattered to the state with momentum
${\bf q}$ and internal state $\ket{i}$, whereas the system state
is changed from $\ket{l}$ to $\ket{k}$. Operator $F$ defines the
interaction between internal degrees of freedom of the gas
particle and the system, potential $U({\bf r})$ determines the
strength of the interaction.} \label{figure2}
\end{figure}
The scattering operator for this model is
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{T} = \widetilde{H}_{S1} \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\!\!\! & \bigg\{ & \!\!\! \exp\left[ - \frac{it}{\hbar} \left( H_S
\otimes \widetilde{I}_{1} + I_S
\otimes \widetilde{H}_1 + \widetilde{H}_{S1} \right) \right] \nonumber\\
&& \!\!\! \times \exp\left[ \frac{it}{\hbar} \left( H_S \otimes
\widetilde{I}_{1} + I_S \otimes \widetilde{H}_1 \right) \right]
\bigg\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{I}_{1}$ is the identity operator for
the gas particle. Denoting $\widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf q}|l;j,{\bf p})
:= \bra{k;i,{\bf q}} \widetilde{T} \ket{l;j,{\bf p}}$ and
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{T}_{\epsilon}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p}) =
\sum_{k,l:~\epsilon_k - \epsilon_l = \epsilon}
\widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf q}|l;j,{\bf p}) \ket{k} \bra{l},
\end{equation}
the final result for the Lamb shift and dissipator in
the LDL master equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{H}_{\rm LS} &=& (2\pi\hbar)^3 n
\sum_i \sum_{k,l:\, \epsilon_k = \epsilon_l} \mu_i\nonumber\\
&& \times \int
d^3{\bf p} \, f({\bf p}) \, {\rm Re} \widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf p}|l;i,{\bf p}) \, \ket{k}\bra{l}, \label{LS-internal} \\
\widetilde{\cal D}[\varrho_S] &=& (2\pi)^4
\hbar^2 n \sum_{\epsilon} \sum_{i,j} \mu_j \iint d^3{\bf p} \, d^3{\bf q} \, f({\bf
p}) \delta\bigg( \frac{{\bf q}^2}{2m} + \lambda_i \nonumber\\
&& - \frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} - \lambda_j + \epsilon \bigg) \bigg[
\widetilde{T}_{\epsilon}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p}) \varrho_S
\widetilde{T}_{\epsilon}^{\dag}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p}) \nonumber\\
&&- \frac{1}{2} \left\{ \varrho_S,
\widetilde{T}_{\epsilon}^{\dag}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p})
\widetilde{T}_{\epsilon}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p}) \right\} \bigg].
\qquad \label{D-internal}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Gas of spin particles in the Born approximation}
Consider a gas of particles with degenerate internal degrees of
freedom, e.g., spin particles in zero magnetic field. In this
case, $\lambda_i = 0$ for all $i$ and $H_{\lambda} = 0$. To
further simplify the expression~\eqref{D-internal}, let us also
assume that the separation of system energy levels is small as
compared to the characteristic kinetic energy of gas particles,
i.e. that $|\epsilon_k - \epsilon_l| \ll \left\langle \frac{{\bf
p}^2}{2m} \right\rangle$. For instance, this holds if the system
is a spin in zero magnetic field. In this case, the collisions are
\emph{elastic} meaning that the energy of incident particles
equals the energy of scattered particles. Then $\epsilon$ takes
the only zero value, and we simplify the summations: $\sum_{k,l:\,
\epsilon_k = \epsilon_l} = \sum_{k,l}$ and
$\widetilde{T}_{0}(i,{\bf q};j,{\bf p}) = \sum_{k,l}
\widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf q}|l;j,{\bf p}) \ket{k} \bra{l}$.
Additionally, we have
\begin{equation}
\delta\left( \frac{{\bf q}^2}{2m} - \frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} \right) =
\frac{m}{p} \, \delta(q-p),
\end{equation}
where we use the notations $q=|{\bf q}|$ and $p = |{\bf p}|$.
To calculate the elements of the $T$-matrix analytically, we
consider the first-order Born approximation $\widetilde{T} \approx
\widetilde{H}_{S1}$ leading to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{T-Born}
\widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf q}|l;j,{\bf p}) & \approx & F_{ki,lj} \bra{\bf q} U({\bf r}) \ket{\bf p} \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{F_{ki,lj}}{(2\pi\hbar)^3} \int e^{i({\bf p} - {\bf
q}){\bf r} / \hbar} U({\bf r}) d^3{\bf r}. \quad
\end{eqnarray}
Let $U_0$ be the characteristic strength of $U({\bf r})$ and $d$
be the characteristic distance such that $U({\bf r})$ is
negligible if $|{\bf r}| > d$. Then the first-order Born
approximation is valid for fast particles with $pd \gg \hbar$ if
$U_0 \ll \frac{\hbar p}{m d}$~\cite{LL}. Since the average
momentum is $\ave{p} = \int |{\bf p}| f({\bf p}) d^3{\bf p} =
\sqrt{8mkT/\pi}$, the first-order Born approximation is valid for
fast particles if
\begin{equation} \label{Born}
U_0 \ll \sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2 kT}{m d^2}}.
\end{equation}
In the first-order Born approximation, substituting
Eq.~\eqref{T-Born} into the Lamb shift~\eqref{LS-internal} and the
dissipator~\eqref{D-internal} yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{H}_{\rm LS}^{\rm LDL} &=& n \int
U({\bf r}) d^3{\bf r} \sum_{i}
\mu_i A_{ii}, \label{Lamb-LDL} \\
\widetilde{\cal D}^{\rm LDL}[\varrho_S] &=&
\Gamma \sum_{i,j} \mu_j \left( A_{i j} \varrho_S A_{i j}^{\dag} -
\frac{1}{2} \left\{ \varrho_S, A_{i j}^{\dag} A_{i j} \right\}
\right), \qquad \label{D-LDL}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where we introduced the notations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{A-definition} A_{i j} &=& \sum_{k,l}
F_{ki,lj} \ket{k} \bra{l} = I_S \otimes \bra{i} \, F \, I_S
\otimes \ket{j}, \\
\label{D-0} \Gamma &=& (2\pi)^4 \hbar^2 n m
\iint d^3{\bf p} \, d^3{\bf q} \frac{\, f({\bf p}) \, \big\vert
\! \bra{\bf q} U({\bf r})
\ket{\bf p} \! \big\vert^2 \, \delta(q-p)}{p} \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and have taken into account $\int d^3{\bf p} f({\bf p})
= 1$.
Provided the potential $U({\bf r})$ is spherically symmetrical,
i.e., $U({\bf r}) = V(r)$, $r = |{\bf r}|$, the
expression~\eqref{D-0} can be further simplified. In this case,
the Fourier transform $\bra{\bf q} U({\bf r}) \ket{\bf p}$ depends
only on the absolute value $|{\bf q} - {\bf p}|$, which in turn
depends on the scattering angle $\theta$ between ${\bf p}$ and
${\bf q}$. Due to the presence of delta function $\delta(p-q)$ in
$\Gamma$, one can set $q=p$ that gives $|{\bf q} - {\bf p}| = 2 p
\sin \frac{\theta}{2}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \bra{\bf q} U({\bf r}) \ket{\bf p} \Big\vert_{q=p} \nonumber\\
&& = \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^2 p \sin\frac{\theta}{2}}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} V(r) \sin\left( \frac{2pr}{\hbar}
\sin\frac{\theta}{2} \right) r dr.
\end{eqnarray}
Remembering that the distribution $f({\bf p})$ depends on the
absolute value of momentum $p = |{\bf p}|$, we further use the
notation $f(p)$ instead of $f({\bf p})$ to refer to
Eq.~\eqref{p-distribution}. This allows us to first integrate over
$d^3{\bf q} = q^2 dq \sin\theta d\theta d\varphi$ and later use
the simplified expression $d^3{\bf p} = 4\pi p^2 dp$. Introducing
a new variable, $\xi = \sin\frac{\theta}{2}$, we have $\sin\theta
d\theta = 4\xi d\xi$ and finally
\begin{equation} \label{D-0-through-V}
\Gamma = \frac{32 \pi^2 n m}{\hbar^2} \int\limits_0^{\infty} f(p)
\, p \, dp \int\limits_0^1 \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \left(
\int\limits_0^{\infty} V(r) \sin \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr
\right)^2.
\end{equation}
In what follows, we consider the particular cases of analytically
tractable potentials $V(r)$ to get the final explicit expression
for the dissipator $\widetilde{\cal D}^{\rm LDL}$.
\subsubsection{Gaussian potential}
Consider Gaussian potential $U({\bf r}) = V(r) = U_0 \exp\left(-
\dfrac{r^2}{2d^2} \right)$. Direct computation yields
\begin{equation} \label{scattering-amp-Gaussian}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} V(r) \sin \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr =
\frac{\sqrt{2\pi} p d^3 U_0 \xi}{\hbar} \exp \left( - \frac{2 p^2
d^2 \xi^2}{\hbar^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\noindent Substituting Eq.~\eqref{scattering-amp-Gaussian} into
Eq.~\eqref{D-0-through-V}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{D-0-Gaussian}
\Gamma = \frac{(2\pi)^{3/2} n m d^4 U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}
\left( 1+ \dfrac{\hbar^2}{8m d^2 kT}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Since the average momentum $\ave{p} = \sqrt{8mkT/\pi}$ satisfies
the condition $\ave{p}d \gg \hbar$ for fast particles, we neglect
the term $\frac{\hbar^2}{8m d^2 kT}$ in Eq.~\eqref{D-0-Gaussian}
and obtain
\begin{equation} \label{D-0-Gaussian-fast}
\Gamma \Big\vert_{\rm fast} = \frac{(2\pi)^{3/2} n m d^4
U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent The derived expression is valid if the
condition~\eqref{Born} is additionally satisfied.
\subsubsection{Spherical square-well potential}
Consider the spherical square-well potential $U({\bf r}) = V(r) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
U_0, & r \leq d, \\
0, & r > d. \\
\end{array} \right.$ Then
\begin{equation} \label{scattering-amp-rectangular}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} V(r) \sin \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr =
\frac{\hbar d U_0}{2p\xi} \left( \frac{\hbar}{2 p d \xi}
\sin\frac{2pd\xi}{\hbar} - \cos\frac{2pd\xi}{\hbar} \right).
\end{equation}
\noindent Substituting Eq.~\eqref{scattering-amp-rectangular} into
Eq.~\eqref{D-0-through-V}, we get a rather complicated expression,
which is simplified for fast particles with $\ave{p}d \gg \hbar$
as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{D-0-rectangular-fast}
\Gamma \Big\vert_{\rm fast} = \frac{2\sqrt{2\pi} n m d^4
U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Note that the obtained result is derived within the
first-order Born approximation that is valid if the
condition~\eqref{Born} is satisfied.
\section{Semiclassical collision model}
\label{section-cm}
\subsection{Collision model with a finite interaction time}
\label{section-cm-finite-int-time}
In conventional collision models~\cite{rau-1963,scarani-2002}, the
quantum system sequentially interacts with environmental particles,
whose only degrees of freedom are internal. The system interacts
with each environmental particle only once, and the initial state of
all environment particles is $\left(\sum_i \mu_i
\ket{i}\bra{i}\right)^{\otimes N}$. Each collision lasts for a
finite time $\tau$. In between the collisions, the system evolves
unitarily with its Hamiltonian $H_S$. Denote by $t_{\rm free}$ the
intercollision time. Then the frequency of collisions equals
$(t_{\rm free} + \tau)^{-1}$, see Fig.~\ref{figure3}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{Collision model with impact time $\tau$ and free
propagation time $t_{\rm free}$. The system-particle Hamiltonian
during the collision is $gF$.} \label{figure3}
\end{figure}
Let $gF$ be the system-particle Hamiltonian during the collision,
where $g$ is the characteristic strength. This implies that one
can neglect the effect of the system Hamiltonian during the
collision, which is justified if $\tau \| [H_S \otimes I,F] \| \ll
\hbar \| F \|$. In particular, it takes place if $|\epsilon_k -
\epsilon_l| \tau \ll \hbar$. Assuming $g\tau \ll \hbar$, we obtain
the following master equation for the system:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{master-eq-collision}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \frac{d\varrho_S}{dt} = -
\frac{i}{\hbar(t_{\rm free} + \tau)} \left[ t_{\rm free} H_S + g
\tau \sum_{i}
\mu_i A_{ii}, \varrho_S \right] \nonumber\\
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! + \frac{g^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 (t_{\rm free}
+ \tau)} \sum_{i,j} \mu_j \left( A_{i j} \varrho_S A_{i j}^{\dag}
- \frac{1}{2} \left\{ \varrho_S, A_{i j}^{\dag} A_{i j} \right\}
\right), \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the operators $A_{ij}$ are expressed through $F$
exactly as in Eq.~\eqref{A-definition}.
If $\tau \gg t_{\rm free}$, then the obtained master equation is
valid in the limit $g \tau \rightarrow 0$, $g^2 \tau \rightarrow
{\rm const.}$~\cite{giovannetti-2012,lorenzo-2017,luchnikov-2017}.
If $\tau \ll t_{\rm free}$, then Eq.~\eqref{master-eq-collision}
reduces to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{master-eq-collision-simplified}
&& \frac{d\varrho_S}{dt} = - \frac{i}{\hbar} \left[ H_S + \frac{g
\tau}{t_{\rm free}} \sum_{i}
\mu_i A_{ii}, \varrho_S \right] \nonumber\\
&& + \frac{g^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \sum_{i,j} \mu_j
\left( A_{i j} \varrho_S A_{i j}^{\dag} - \frac{1}{2} \left\{
\varrho_S, A_{i j}^{\dag} A_{i j} \right\} \right), \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and is valid if $g\tau \ll \hbar$.
Finally, consider an ensemble of particles with various values of
the parameter $g\tau$ that appear with various frequencies $t_{\rm
free}^{-1}$. Collisions with such an ensemble result in the Lamb
shift and the dissipator as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! H_{\rm LS} = \left\langle \frac{g
\tau}{t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle \sum_{i} \mu_i A_{ii}, \\
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\cal D}[\varrho_S] = \left\langle
\frac{g^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle \sum_{i,j}
\mu_j \left( A_{i j} \varrho_S A_{i j}^{\dag} - \frac{1}{2}
\left\{ \varrho_S, A_{i
j}^{\dag} A_{i j} \right\} \right). \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Collision model for gas particles}\label{section-finite-time}
In the semiclassical collision model, gas particles move along the
classical trajectories, whereas their internal degrees of freedom
are quantum. We consider a low density gas ($n d^3 \ll 1$), so
that the collisions are rather rare and we can neglect the events
when two or more gas particles are simultaneously in the volume
$\sim d^3$ nearby the system. It means that the effective
interaction time $\tau$ is much less than the intercollision time
$t_{\rm free}$.
Consider an itinerant gas particle with the given trajectory ${\bf
r}(t)$ that moves in the potential $U({\bf r})$ with
characteristic length $d$. Define the effective collision time
$\tau$ through
\begin{equation} \label{effective-time}
U_0 \tau = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} U \big({\bf r}(t) \big) dt,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $U_0$ is the characteristic strength of the
potential $U({\bf r})$. Then a single collision with the
interaction Hamiltonian~\eqref{F-U} results in the unitary
operator $W = \exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar} U_0 F \tau)$ that acts on the
internal degrees of freedom of the system and the itinerant gas
particle. Therefore, $U_0 \tau$ plays the same role as $g\tau$ in
Sec.~\ref{section-cm-finite-int-time}. Note that despite the fact
that a particle enters the interaction region $|{\bf r}| < d$ for
a finite period $(t_{\rm in},t_{\rm out})$, we can still use
definition~\eqref{effective-time} because the potential $U({\bf
r})$ is negligible when a gas particle is outside the interaction
region.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{The impact parameter $b$. The classical trajectories are
approximated by straight lines for fast gas particles (left). The
volume of particles with momentum ${\bf p}$ and impact parameter
$b - (b+db)$ that reach the interaction region within time $t$, is
$dV = 2\pi b \, db \times p t/ m$ (right).} \label{figure4}
\end{figure}
If the interaction strength between the system and a particle
($\sim U_0$) is small as compared to the kinetic energy of a gas
particle ($\sim kT$), then we can neglect the curvature of
trajectories and approximate them by straight lines, see
Fig.~\ref{figure4}. As before, we additionally assume that $U({\bf
r}) = V(r)$, i.e., the potential is spherically symmetrical.
Within such an approximation, $U_0 \tau$ depends on the absolute
value of particle momentum, $p$, and the impact parameter $b$ (see
Fig.~\ref{figure4}):
\begin{equation} \label{effective-time-simplified}
U_0 \tau = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left( \sqrt{b^2 +
\tfrac{p^2 t^2}{m^2}} \right) dt.
\end{equation}
Consider particles with momenta ${\bf p} - ({\bf p} + d{\bf p})$.
The number of particles that would pass through the interaction
region with impact parameters $b - (b + db)$ within time period
$t$ equals $n dV f({\bf p}) d^3{\bf p}$, where $dV = 2\pi b \, db
\times p t/ m$ is the corresponding volume, see
Fig.~\ref{figure4}. Therefore, the collision rate for such
particles reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{t_{\rm free}} = \frac{n \times 2\pi b \, db \times p
f({\bf p}) d^3{\bf p}}{m} = \frac{ 8 \pi^2 n b p^3 f(p) \, db \,
dp }{ m }.
\end{equation}
Using the results of Sec.~\ref{section-cm-finite-int-time}, we
readily find the Lamb shift and the dissipator in the
semiclassical collision model:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& H_{\rm LS}^{\rm CM} = \left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle \sum_{i} \mu_i A_{ii}, \label{Lamb-CM} \\
&& {\cal D}^{\rm CM} = \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2
t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle \sum_{i,j} \mu_j \left( A_{i j}
\varrho_S A_{i j}^{\dag} - \frac{1}{2} \left\{ \varrho_S, A_{i
j}^{\dag} A_{i j} \right\} \right). \label{D-CM} \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Here
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \label{C1} \left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle = \int_0^{\infty} db \int_0^{\infty} dp \frac{ 8
\pi^2 n b p^3
f(p)}{ m } \nonumber\\
&& \qquad \quad \times \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left( \sqrt{b^2
+ \tfrac{p^2
t^2}{m^2}} \right) dt ,\\
&& \label{C2} \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm
free}} \right\rangle = \int_0^{\infty} db \int_0^{\infty} dp
\frac{ 8 \pi^2 n b p^3 f(p)}{ \hbar^2 m }
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad \quad \times \left[\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left(
\sqrt{b^2 + \tfrac{p^2 t^2}{m^2}} \right) dt \right]^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\tau \sim \frac{md}{\ave{p}} \sim \sqrt{\frac{md^2}{kT}}$
and $t_{\rm free} \sim \frac{m}{n d^2 \ave{p}}$, the derived
formulas are valid if $nd^3 \ll 1$ (approximation of rare
collisions, $\tau \ll t_{\rm free}$), $|\epsilon_k - \epsilon_l|
\sqrt{\frac{md^2}{kT}} \ll \hbar$ and $U_0 \sqrt{\frac{md^2}{kT}}
\ll \hbar$ (stroboscopic approximation), $kT \gg U_0$
(approximation of straight trajectories).
In what follows, we consider particular cases of analytically
tractable potentials $V(r)$ to get the explicit expressions for
Eqs.~\eqref{C1} and \eqref{C2}.
\subsubsection{Gaussian potential}
If $U({\bf r}) = V(r) = U_0 \exp\left(- \dfrac{r^2}{2d^2}
\right)$, then
\begin{equation} \label{int-V-Gaussian}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left( \sqrt{b^2 + \tfrac{p^2
t^2}{m^2}} \right) dt = \frac{\sqrt{2\pi} m d U_0}{p} \exp\left(-
\frac{b^2}{2 d^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\noindent Substituting Eq.~\eqref{int-V-Gaussian} into
Eqs.~\eqref{C1} and \eqref{C2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \label{C1-Gaussian} \left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle = (2\pi)^{3/2} nd^3 U_0,\\
&& \label{C2-Gaussian} \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2
t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle = \frac{(2\pi)^{3/2} n m d^4
U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{Spherical square-well potential}
If $U({\bf r}) = V(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
U_0, & r \leq d, \\
0, & r > d, \\
\end{array} \right.$ then
\begin{equation} \label{int-V-rectangular}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left( \sqrt{b^2 + \tfrac{p^2
t^2}{m^2}} \right) dt = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{2mU_0}{p} \sqrt{d^2 - b^2}, & b \leq d, \\
0, & b > d. \\
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\noindent Substituting Eq.~\eqref{int-V-rectangular} into
Eqs.~\eqref{C1} and \eqref{C2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \label{C1-rectangular} \left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm
free}}
\right\rangle = \frac{4\pi}{3} nd^3 U_0,\\
&& \label{C2-rectangular} \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2
t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle = \frac{2\sqrt{2\pi} n m d^4
U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Comparison of the two approaches}
\label{section-comparison}
\subsection{Comparison in the high temperature limit}
In Secs.~\ref{section-ldl} and \ref{section-cm}, the two different
approaches are presented for the derivation of the GKSL master
equation for a spin system interacting with a diluted gas of spin
particles. In the low density limit of the fully quantum approach,
the generator of the master equation is defined by
formulas~\eqref{Lamb-LDL} and \eqref{D-LDL}. In the semiclassical
collision model, the generator of the master equation is defined
by formulas~\eqref{Lamb-CM} and \eqref{D-CM}.
The first observation is that both generators are expressed
through the same operators $A_{ij}$ and have identical operator
structure.
Second, the Lamb shifts~\eqref{Lamb-LDL} and \eqref{Lamb-CM}
exactly coincide because by the change of variables $z = pt/m$ in
Eq.~\eqref{C1} we extract $\int_0^{\infty} 4 \pi^2 p^2 f(p) dp =1$
and get the following integral in cylindrical coordinates:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle &=& n
\int_0^{\infty} 2 \pi b db \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left(
\sqrt{b^2
+ z^2} \right) dz \nonumber\\
& = & n \int U({\bf r})d^3{\bf r}.
\end{eqnarray}
Third, the dissipators~\eqref{D-LDL} and \eqref{D-CM} generally do
not exactly coincide because $\Gamma \neq \left\langle \frac{U_0^2
\tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle$ for finite
temperatures, cf. Eqs.~\eqref{D-0-Gaussian} and
\eqref{C2-Gaussian}. However, for the considered examples of
Gaussian and spherical square-well potentials surprisingly $\Gamma
\vert_{\rm fast} = \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm
free}} \right\rangle$. In fact, if the average kinetic energy $kT
\gg \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$, then the gas particles are fast and the
dominant scattering angles satisfy $\theta \lesssim
\frac{\hbar}{pd}$, Ref.~\cite{LL}. In this case, $\xi =
\sin\frac{\theta}{2} \lesssim \frac{\hbar}{2pd}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_0^1 \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \left( \int_0^{\infty}
V(r) \sin \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&& \approx \int_0^{\frac{\hbar}{2pd}} \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \left(
\int_0^d V(r) \sin \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&& \approx \int_0^{\frac{\hbar}{2pd}} \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \left(
\int_0^d V(r) \frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&& = \frac{1}{2d^2} \left( \int_0^d V(r) r^2 dr \right)^2 \sim
U_0^2 d^4.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent The obtained estimation is of the same order as the
collision model expression,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{\infty} b \, db \left[ \int V(\sqrt{b^2 + z^2}) dz
\right]^2 \sim U_0^2 d^4.
\end{equation}
\noindent Therefore, $\Gamma \sim \left\langle \frac{U_0^2
\tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle$ if $kT \gg
\frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$.
Fourth, in the limit of infinite temperature the dissipators in
the low density approach and the collision model exactly coincide
for spherical potentials $U({\bf r})=V(r)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{T-limit}
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\Gamma}{\left\langle \frac{U_0^2
\tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle} = 1.
\end{equation}
\noindent To prove Eq.~\eqref{T-limit} we rewrite the integral
$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V \left( \sqrt{b^2 + z^2} \right) dz = 2
\int_{b}^{\infty} V(r) \frac{r \, dr}{\sqrt{r^2 - b^2}}$ which
yields
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_0^{\infty} b \, db \left[ \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} V
\left( \sqrt{b^2 + z^2} \right) dz \right]^2 \nonumber\\
&& = 4 \int\limits_0^{\infty} b \, db \int\limits_0^{\infty} dr
\int\limits_0^{\infty} dr' V(r) V(r') r r' f(b,r) f(b,r'), \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $f(b,r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{if~} r \leq b, \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2-b^2}} & \text{if~} r > b. \\
\end{array} \right.$ Since
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_0^{\infty} b \, db \, f(b,r) f(b,r') = \int_0^{\min(r,r')}
\frac{b \, db}{\sqrt{(r^2-b^2)(r'^2-b^2)}} \nonumber\\
&& = \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{r+r'}{|r-r'|},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent we get the following expression in the collision model:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{C2-kernel}
&& \left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle = \frac{16 \pi^2 n m}{\hbar^2}
\int_0^{\infty} f(p) \, p \, dp \nonumber\\
&& \qquad \times \int_0^{\infty} dr \int_0^{\infty} dr' V(r) V(r')
r r' \ln \frac{r+r'}{|r-r'|}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent On the other hand, in the low density approach,
Eq.~\eqref{D-0-through-V} can be rewritten in the form
\begin{equation} \label{Gamma-kernel}
\Gamma = \frac{32 \pi^2 n m}{\hbar^2} \int\limits_0^{\infty} f(p)
\, p \, dp \int\limits_0^{\infty} dr \int\limits_0^{\infty} dr' \,
V(r) V(r') r r' K(r,r'),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the kernel
\begin{equation}
K(r,r') = \int\limits_0^1 \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \sin
\frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \sin \frac{2pr'\xi}{\hbar} \xrightarrow[]{p
\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{r+r'}{|r-r'|}.
\end{equation}
\noindent As the limit $p \rightarrow \infty$ is equivalent to the
high temperature limit $T \rightarrow \infty$, we see that
Eqs.~\eqref{C2-kernel} and \eqref{Gamma-kernel} coincide when $T
\rightarrow \infty$, which leads to Eq.~\eqref{T-limit}.
Fifth, the applicability of the first-order Born approximation for
fast particles in the low-density-limit approach,
Eq.~\eqref{Born}, is equivalent to the condition of stroboscopic
approximation in the collision model, $g\tau \ll \hbar
\Leftrightarrow U_0 \sqrt{\frac{md^2}{kT}} \ll \hbar$.
Sixth, if both conditions $kT \gg \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$ (fast
particles) and $U_0 \sqrt{\frac{md^2}{kT}} \ll \hbar$ (Born
approximation and stroboscopic approximation) are satisfied, then
automatically $kT \gg U_0$, i.e., the approximation of straight
trajectories is justified in the collision model.
Finally, we conclude that both the low density limit approach and
the collision model provide very similar predictions for the
reduced dynamics of the spin system ($\epsilon_k = \epsilon_l$,
$\lambda_i = 0$) if $nd^3\ll 1$, $kT \gg \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$,
and $U_0 \ll \sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2 kT}{m d^2}}$.
\subsection{Estimation of difference for finite temperature}
Let us analyze the difference between the two approaches when
lowering the gas temperature. We consider a spherical square-well
potential, for which the quantitative estimation of the
discrepancy becomes tractable.
In the LDL approach, lowering the velocity of gas particles can be
taken into account by considering the second-order perturbation of
the scattering operator, $\widetilde{T} = F \otimes U({\bf r}) + F
\otimes U({\bf r}) G_0^{(+)}(E) F \otimes U({\bf r})$, where
$G_0^{(+)}(E)$ is the retarded Green operator for Hamiltonian $H_S
\otimes \widetilde{I}_{1} + I_S \otimes \widetilde{H}_1$,
$E=\frac{p^2}{2m}$. Provided $kT \gg \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$, we
find the matrix element $\widetilde{T}(k;i,{\bf p}|l;i,{\bf p})$
and calculate the corrected Lamb shift:
\begin{equation} \label{LS-corrected}
\widetilde{H}_{\rm LS}^{\rm LDL} = \frac{4\pi}{3} n d^3 U_0
\sum_{i,k,l} \mu_i \left( F_{ki,li} - \frac{2 U_0}{kT}
(F^2)_{ki,li} \right) \ket{k}\bra{l}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Finite values of $\frac{k T m d^2}{\hbar^2}$ lead to the
exponentially small relative error in the Lamb shift of the order
of $\frac{\hbar}{d \sqrt{mkT}} \exp(- \frac{k T m d^2}{\hbar^2})$
as a result of approximate integration
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_{|{\bf r}'| \leq d} d^3{\bf r}' \int d^3{\bf p} \, f({\bf
p}) \, \frac{e^{i |{\bf r} - {\bf r}'| p / \hbar}}{|{\bf r} - {\bf
r}'|}
\nonumber\\
&& \approx \int_{{\bf r}' \in \mathbb{R}^3} d^3{\bf r}' \int
d^3{\bf p} \, f({\bf p}) \, \frac{e^{i |{\bf r} - {\bf r}'| p /
\hbar}}{|{\bf r} - {\bf r}'|}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent We see that the Lamb shifts $\widetilde{H}_{\rm LS}^{\rm
LDL}$ and $H_{\rm LS}^{\rm CM} = \left\langle \frac{U_0
\tau}{t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle \sum_{i,k,l} \mu_i F_{ki,li}$
have different operator structure in general. If $\left\langle
\frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle$ is given by
Eq.~\eqref{C1-rectangular}, then the relative error
\begin{eqnarray} \label{H-H}
&& \frac{\| \widetilde{H}_{\rm LS}^{\rm LDL} - H_{\rm LS}^{\rm
CM}\|}{ n d^3 |U_0| \, \|F\|} \nonumber\\
&& \sim \max \left[ \frac{|U_0| \, \|F\|}{kT} , \frac{\hbar}{d
\sqrt{mkT}} \exp\left(- \frac{k T m d^2}{\hbar^2}\right) \right].
\end{eqnarray}
As far as the dissipator in the LDL approach is concerned, the
small parameter $\frac{\hbar^2}{k T m d^2}$ contributes linearly
already in the first-order Born approximation [cf.
Eq.~\eqref{D-0-Gaussian} for the Gaussian potential]. In fact, for
a spherical square-well potential we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_0^1 \frac{d\xi}{\xi} \left( \int_0^{\infty} V(r) \sin
\frac{2pr\xi}{\hbar} \, r dr \right)^2 = \frac{\hbar^4 U_0^2}{128
p^3} \nonumber\\
&& \times \left( \frac{32 p^4 d^4}{\hbar^4} - \frac{8 p^2
d^2}{\hbar^2} - 1 + \cos \frac{4pd}{\hbar} + \frac{4pd}{\hbar}
\sin \frac{4pd}{\hbar} \right) \nonumber\\
&& \approx \frac{U_0^2 d^4}{4} \left[ 1 - \exp\left( - \frac{8 p^2
d^2}{9 \hbar^2} \right) \right], \label{int-approx}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the latter approximation provides an interpolation
between asymptotics $\frac{2 p^2 U_0^2 d^6}{9 \hbar^2}$ for
$\frac{pd}{\hbar} \ll 1$ and $\frac{U_0^2 d^4}{4}$ for
$\frac{pd}{\hbar} \gg 1$ and has the maximum relative error 4.21\%
for $\frac{pd}{\hbar} = 5.03$. Substituting~\eqref{int-approx}
into \eqref{D-0-through-V}, we get
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = \frac{2\sqrt{2\pi} n m d^4 U_0^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}
\left( 1 - \frac{9 \hbar^2}{16 k T m d^2} \right).
\end{equation}
Similarly to the case of the Lamb shift, we expect that the second
order perturbation with respect to the small parameter
$\frac{|U_0|}{kT}$ in the LDL approach would result in the jump
operators that are different from the jump operators in the
collision model. Therefore, the relative discrepancy in
dissipators is estimated as
\begin{equation} \label{D-D}
\frac{\| \widetilde{\cal D}^{\rm LDL}[\varrho] - {\cal D}^{\rm
CM}[\varrho] \|}{ \frac{n m d^4 U_0^2 \|F\|^2}{\hbar^2 \sqrt{mkT}}
} \sim \frac{1}{kT}\max\left(|U_0|\|F\|, \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2} \right).
\end{equation}
It is also possible to slightly adapt the CM approach to allow for
lowering velocity of gas particles by considering a perturbation
of their trajectories from straight lines caused by a
state-dependent potential $\ave{F} U({\bf r})$, where $\ave{F} =
{\rm tr}[F \sum_i \mu_i \ket{i}\bra{i} \otimes \varrho_S] = \sum_i
\mu_i {\rm tr}[A_{ii} \varrho_S]$. For a spherical square-well
potential with negative $\ave{F} U_0$ the perturbed trajectory
consists of 3 line segments. The angle of incidence $\alpha$ and
the angle of refraction $\beta$ at the first vertex satisfy the
relation $p \sin\alpha = p' \sin\beta$, where $p$ and
$p'=\sqrt{p^2 + 2m \ave{F} |U_0|}$ are the momenta of the particle
outside and inside of the region $|{\bf r}| \leq d$, respectively.
Additionally, the angle of incidence is related to the impact
parameter $b$ by formula $\sin\alpha = \frac{b}{d}$. The effective
collision time
\begin{equation} \label{tau-corrected}
\tau = \frac{2md\cos\beta}{p'} = \frac{2m\sqrt{ (d^2-b^2)p^2 + 2m
\ave{F} |U_0|d^2 }}{p^2 + 2m \ave{F} |U_0|}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Using the exact expression~\eqref{tau-corrected} for
$\tau$, we find the coefficients $\left\langle \frac{U_0
\tau}{t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle$ and $\left\langle \frac{U_0^2
\tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}} \right\rangle$ in the Lamb
shift~\eqref{Lamb-CM} and the dissipator~\eqref{D-CM} in the
modified semiclassical collision model. The first order expansion
of these coefficients with respect to small parameter
$\frac{|U_0|}{kT}$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \label{C1-rectangular-corrected}
\left\langle \frac{U_0 \tau}{t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle = \frac{4\pi}{3} nd^3 U_0 \left[ 1 - \frac{\ave{F} U_0}{kT} + o\left(\frac{\ave{F}|U_0|}{kT}\right) \right],\\
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \label{C2-rectangular-corrected}
\left\langle \frac{U_0^2 \tau^2}{\hbar^2 t_{\rm free}}
\right\rangle = \frac{2\sqrt{2\pi} n m d^4 U_0^2}{\hbar^2
\sqrt{mkT}} \left[ 1 + \frac{\ave{F} U_0}{kT} +
o\left(\frac{\ave{F}|U_0|}{kT}\right) \right]. \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent We see that such a non-linear modification of the
collision model provides a better agreement between
$\widetilde{H}_{\rm LS}^{\rm LDL}$ and $H_{\rm LS}^{\rm CM}$ and
between $\widetilde{\cal D}^{\rm LDL}$ and ${\cal D}^{\rm CM}$ for
some states $\varrho_S$ and operators $F$, however, the
discrepancy between the two approaches is still given by
formulas~\eqref{H-H} and~\eqref{D-D} in general.
\section{Conclusions} \label{section-conclusions}
We developed and compared two approaches to the analysis of the
open quantum system dynamics induced by interaction of the
spin-like system with a dilute gas of spin-like particles with
internal degrees of freedom: the low density limit in the fully
quantum scenario and the semiclassical collision model. We derived
GKSL master equations for a specific class of system-particle
interaction Hamiltonians of the form $\widetilde{H}_{S1} = F
\otimes U({\bf r})$, however, the results remain valid for a
general spin-dependent scattering process with the interaction
Hamiltonian $\widetilde{H}_{S1} = \sum_{i,j,k,l} \ket{k}\bra{l}
\otimes \ket{i}\bra{j} \otimes F_{ki,lj}({\bf r})$. Using the
first-order Born approximation in the fully quantum treatment, the
simplified expressions for the Lamb shift~\eqref{Lamb-LDL} and the
dissipator~\eqref{D-LDL} were derived. In the semiclassical
collision model, we used the approximation of straight
trajectories and the stroboscopic approximation to get the Lamb
shift~\eqref{Lamb-CM} and the dissipator~\eqref{D-CM}. We proved
equivalence of the Lamb shifts in both approaches and found that
both dissipators~\eqref{D-LDL} and \eqref{D-CM} qualitatively
coincide for finite temperatures and quantitatively coincide in
the limit $T \rightarrow \infty$. The illustrative examples of
Gaussian and spherical square-well potentials are considered, for
which the dissipators~\eqref{D-LDL} and \eqref{D-CM} are compared
in the case of fast particles up to the second order of the
scattering potential $F \otimes U({\bf r})$. The sufficient
conditions for the two approaches to give the same master equation
are $n d^3\ll 1$, $kT \gg \frac{\hbar^2}{md^2}$, and $U_0 \ll
\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2 kT}{m d^2}}$.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The study in Secs. II.B, II.C, III.B, IV, and V was supported by
the Russian Science Foundation under Project No. 17-11-01388 and
performed in Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of
Sciences. Secs. I, II.A, and III.A were written in Valiev
Institute of Physics and Technology of Russian Academy of
Sciences, where S.N.F. was supported by Program No. 0066-2019-0005
of the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology, where S.N.F. and G.N.S. were
supported by the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical
Physics and Mathematics ``BASIS'' under Grant No. 19-1-2-66-1; and
National University of Science and Technology ``MISIS'', where
A.N.P. was supported by Project No. 1.669.2016/1.4 of the Russian
Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
For an integer $N$ and a constant $\beta\in [0,\infty[$ consider the $\beta$-Jacobi
(or $\beta$-MANOVA) ensembles which are $[0,1]^N $-valued random variables $X$ with Lebesgue densities
\begin{equation}\label{start-stationary}
f_{\beta,a_1,a_2}(x) := c_{\beta,a_1,a_2}
\prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{a_1}(1-x_i)^{a_2} \cdot
\prod_{1\le i<j\le N}|x_i-x_j|^{\beta}
\end{equation}
with parameters $a_1,a_2> -1 $ and known normalizations $c_{\beta,a_1,a_2}>0$ which can be expressed
via Selberg integrals; see the survey \cite{FW}.
For
$\beta=1,2,4$, and suitable $a_1,a_2$, the variables $X$ appear as spectrum of the classical Jacobi ensembles;
see e.g.~\cite{F}. Moreover, for general $\beta,a_1,a_2$, the variables appear as eigenvalues of
the tridiagonal models in \cite{KN}, \cite{K}. Furthermore, for the ordered models on the alcoves
$A_0:=\{x\in\mathbb R^N: \> 0\le x_1\le \ldots\le x_N\le1\}$, the probability measures with
densities $N!\cdot f_{\beta,a_1,a_2}$ appear in log gas models as stationary distributions of diffusions
$(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ with $N$ particles in $[0,1]$; see \cite{F, Dem, RR1}.
These diffusions and their stationary distributions are closely related to Heckman-Opdam
hypergeometric functions of type $BC_N$. In particular, the generator of the
transition semigroup of $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$
is the symmetric part of a Dunkl-Cherednik Laplace operator. Moreover,
Heckman-Opdam Jacobi polynomials form
a basis of eigenfunctions, where these polynomials are
orthogonal w.r.t.~the density $N!\cdot f_{\beta,a_1,a_2}$ on $A_0$. For the background see the monograph \cite{HS} and
\cite{Dem, RR1, L, BO}.
We point out that for $\beta=1,2,4$ and suitable $a_1,a_2$, the diffusion $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$
and their stationary distributions on $A_0$ are projections of Brownian motions and
uniform distributions on compact Grassmann manifolds over $\mathbb F=\mathbb R, \mathbb C, \mathbb H$; see
\cite{HS}, \cite{RR2}.
In this paper we use the elementary symmetric polynomials $e_0,e_1,\ldots, e_N$
in $N$ variables and construct poynomials $p_n$ of order $n=1,\ldots,N$ via linear combinations
such that for
suitable exponents $r_n\ge0$, the processes $(e^{r_nt}p_n(X_t))_{t\ge0}$ are martingales where,
after some parameter transform, $p_n$, $r_n$ depend
only on 2 parameters and not on the third one; see Proposition
\ref{elementary-symm-martingale} for details.
We use this result to show that for particular starting points,
\begin{equation}\label{start-char-pol}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i})\bigr) = \tilde P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}(y)\quad\quad\text{for all}\quad t\ge0
\end{equation}
where $\tilde P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is a monic Jacobi polynomial on $[0,1]$ where
$\alpha,\beta$ depend on the 2 relevant parameters of the martingale result
(here, $\beta$
is not the $\beta$ in (\ref{start-stationary})). In the limit $t\to\infty$, (\ref{start-char-pol})
leads to a corresponding formula for the expectation for the random variable $X$ with density
in (\ref{start-stationary}) and to Aomoto's Selberg integral \cite{A}.
Corresponding results for classical Hermite and Laguerre ensembles are given in \cite{DG, FG};
for these results for related multivariate Bessel processes we refer to \cite{KVW}.
Clearly, (\ref{start-char-pol}) admits an interpretation for
characteristic polynomials of classical Jacobi ensembles
and the tridiagonal $\beta$-Jacobi models in \cite{KN}.
The proof of the martingale result
relies on the stochastic differential equation for the diffusion $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$;
for the general background here we refer to \cite{P, RW}.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 3 we briefly recapitulate some facts on
Heckman-Opdam Jacobi polynomials of type $BC$, the associated
Dunkl-Cherednik Laplace operator, and the transition semigroup of the diffusion
$(X_t)_{t\ge0}$.
In Section 3 we then use stochastic analysis to derive our martingales.
Section 4 is then devoted to (\ref{start-char-pol}).
In Section 5 we then discuss some connection between the martingale result and Heckman-Opdam
Jacobi polynomials.
A comment about notations and normalizations:
We start in Section 2 with a brief survey on the compact Heckman-Opdam theory
of type $BC$ with multiplicity parameters $k_1,k_2,k_3\ge0$. We
transfer all results from the trigonometric case to
the interval $[-1,1]$, and start with transformed parameters $\kappa,p,q$
in the SDE approach in Section 3. We there follow
\cite{Dem} where we replace his $\beta$ by $\kappa\ge0$, in order to avoid any confusion with the
classical parameters $\alpha,\beta>-1$ of the one-dimensional Jacobi polynomials $P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$.
The choice of the interval $[-1,1]$ instead of $[0,1]$ as in (\ref{start-stationary}) or \cite{Dem}
is caused by the fact that the results should fit to the $P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$.
\section{ Heckman-Opdam Jacobi polynomials of type $BC$}
We first recapitulate some general facts on Heckman-Opdam theory from \cite{HS}.
\begin{remarks-general-heckman-opdam}
Let $(\frak a, \langle\,.\,,\,.\,\rangle) $ be a Euclidean space of dimension $N$.
Let $R$ be a crystallographic, possibly not reduced root system in $\frak a$
with associated reflection group $W$.
Fix a positive subsystem $R_+$ of $R$ and a $W$-invariant multiplicity function $k:R\to[0,\infty[$.
The Cherednik operators associated with $R_+$ and $k$ are
\begin{equation}\label{def-dunkl-cher-op}
D_\xi(k)f(x)
= \partial_\xi f(x) + \sum_{\alpha \in R_+} \frac{ k(\alpha) \langle \alpha, \xi\rangle }{1-e^{-\langle \alpha,x\rangle}}
(f(x)-f(\sigma_\alpha(x)) -\langle \rho(k), \xi\rangle f(x)
\end{equation}
for $\xi \in \mathbb R^n$ with the half-sum
$ \rho(k) := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \in R_+} k(\alpha) \alpha$ of positive roots.
The $D_\xi(k)$ ($\xi \in \frak a$) commute, and for each $\lambda \in \frak a _\mathbb C$ there exists a unique analytic function $G(\lambda,k; .\,)$ on a common $W$-invariant tubular neighborhood of $\frak a$ in the complexification
$\frak a_{\mathbb C}$, the so called Opdam-Cherednik kernel, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{Opdam-Cherednik}
D_\xi(k)G(\lambda,k;\,.\,) = \langle \lambda, \xi \rangle\, G(\lambda,k; \,.\,) \>\> \forall \, \xi \in \frak a ; \,\,G(\lambda, k; 0) = 1.
\end{equation}
The hypergeometric function associated with $R$ is defined by
$$ F(\lambda, k;z) = \frac{1}{|W|} \sum_{w\in W} G(\lambda, k; w^{-1}z).$$
For the Heckman-Opdam polynomials, we write
$\alpha^\vee = \frac{2\alpha}{\langle \alpha, \alpha \rangle}$ for $\alpha \in R$ and
use the weight lattice and the set of dominant weights associated with $R$ and $R_+$,
$$ P = \{\lambda \in \frak a: \langle \lambda, \alpha ^\vee \rangle \in \mathbb Z \>\> \forall \alpha \in R\,\}, \quad
P_+ = \{\lambda \in P: \langle \lambda, \alpha^\vee\rangle \geq 0\,\, \forall \alpha \in R_+\,\}\supset R_+ $$
where
$P_+$ carries the usual dominance order.
Let
$ \mathcal T:= \text{span}_{\mathbb C}\{e^{i\lambda}, \, \lambda \in P\}$
the vector space of trigonometric polynomials associated with $R$.
The orbit sums
$$ M_\lambda = \sum_{\mu \in W\!\lambda} e^{i\mu}\,, \quad \lambda \in P_+$$
form a basis of the subspace $\mathcal T^W$ of $W$-invariant polynomials in $\mathcal T$.
For $ Q^\vee := \text{span}_{\mathbb Z}\{\alpha^\vee, \, \alpha \in R\}$,
consider the torus $\mathbb T = \frak a/2\pi Q^\vee$ with
the weight function
\begin{align}\label{weight-trig} \delta_k(t) :=
\prod_{\alpha \in R_+} \Bigl|\sin\Bigr(\frac{\langle \alpha, t\rangle}{2}\Bigr)\Bigr|^{2k_\alpha}.
\end{align}
The Heckman-Opdam polynomials associated with $R_+$ and $k$ are given by
$$ P_\lambda(k;z) := M_\lambda(z) + \sum_{\nu < \lambda} c_{\lambda\nu}(k) M_\nu(z) \quad (\lambda \in P_+\,, z\in \frak a_{\mathbb C})$$
where the $c_{\lambda\nu}(k)\in \mathbb R$ are determined by the condition that $P_\lambda(k;\,.\,)$
is orthogonal to $M_\nu$ in $L^2(\mathbb T, \delta_k)$ for $\nu \in P_+$ with $\nu<\lambda$.
It is known that
$\{P_\lambda(k, \,.\,), \lambda\in P_+\,\}$ is an orthonormal basis of the space $L^2(\mathbb T, \delta_k)^W$
of all $W$-invariant functions in $L^2(\mathbb T, \delta_k)$.
By \cite{HS}, the normalized polynomials
$$ R_\lambda(k,z):= P_\lambda(k;z)/P_\lambda(k;0)$$
satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{relation-pol-hyper}
R_\lambda( k,z) = F(\lambda+\rho(k),k;iz).
\end{equation}
We next introduce the Heckman-Opdam Laplacian
$$\Delta_k:= \sum_{j=1}^N D_{\xi_j}(k)^2 \>\> - \>\> \|\rho(k)\|_2^2$$
with an orthonormal basis $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_N$ of $\frak a$.
The operator $\Delta_k$ does not depend on the basis and, by \cite{Sch1, Sch2},
has for a $W$-invariant function $f$ the form
$$\Delta_k f(x)= \Delta f(x)+\sum_{\alpha \in R_+} k(\alpha) \coth\Bigl( \frac{\langle \alpha, x\rangle}{2}\Bigr)\cdot
\partial_\alpha f(x).$$
If we take the factor $i$ in (\ref{relation-pol-hyper}) into account as in \cite{RR1}, we now consider the operator
\begin{equation}\label{generator-general}
\tilde\Delta_kf(t):=\Delta f(t)+\sum_{\alpha \in R_+} k(\alpha) \cot\Bigl( \frac{\langle \alpha, t\rangle}{2}\Bigr)\cdot
\partial_\alpha f(t).
\end{equation}
By construction, the $P_\lambda$ ($\lambda\in P_+$)
are eigenfunctions of $\tilde\Delta_k$ with
with eigenvalues $-\langle \lambda,\lambda+2\rho(k)\rangle\le0$.
This is used in \cite{RR1} to construct the transition densities of the diffusions with the generators $L_k$.
\end{remarks-general-heckman-opdam}
\begin{remarks-general-compact-bc}
We now turn to the nonreduced root system
$$ R= BC_N = \{\pm e_i, \pm 2 e_i, \pm(e_i \pm e_j); \>\> 1\leq i < j \leq N\} \subset \mathbb R^N $$
with weight lattice $P = \mathbb Z^n$ and torus $\mathbb T= (\mathbb R/2\pi \mathbb Z)^N.$
The mulitplicities on $R$ are written as $k=(k_1,k_2, k_3)$ with $k_1, k_2, k_3$ as the values on the roots $e_i, 2e_i, e_i \pm e_j$.
Now fix a positive subsystem $R_+$ and consider
the associated normalized Heckman-Opdam Jacobi polynomials $R_\lambda= R_\lambda^{BC}$ ($\lambda\in \mathbb Z_+^N$)
as e.g.~in \cite{BO, L, RR1}.
(\ref{weight-trig}) and some calculation show that the polynomials $\widetilde R_\lambda$ with
$$ \widetilde R_\lambda(\cos t):= R_\lambda(k;t) \quad\quad(\lambda \in \mathbb Z_+^N)$$
form an orthogonal basis of
$L^2(A_N, w_k)$ on the alcove
$$A_N:=\{x\in\mathbb R^N| \> -1\leq x_1\leq ...\leq x_N\leq 1\}$$
with the weight function
\begin{equation}\label{weight-general} w_k(x)
:= \prod_{i=1}^N (1-x_i)^{k_1+k_2-1/2}(1+x_i)^{k_2-1/2} \cdot \prod_{i<j}|x_i-x_j|^{2k_3}.
\end{equation}
The operator $\tilde\Delta_k$ from (\ref{generator-general}) is given by
\begin{align}\label{generator-trigonometric}
\tilde\Delta_k f(t):=\Delta f(t)+\sum_{i=1}^N &\Biggl(k_1 \cot(\frac{t_i}{2})+2k_2 \cot(t_i)\\
&+k_3\sum_{j: j\ne i}\Bigl(\cot(\frac{t_i-t_j}{2})+\cot(\frac{t_i+t_j}{2})\Bigr)\Biggr)\partial_{i}f(t).
\notag\end{align}
The substitutions $x_i=\cos t_i$ and
elementary calculations lead to the operator
\begin{equation}\label{generator-algebraic}
L_kf(x):= \sum_{i=1}^N (1-x_i^2)f_{x_i,x_i}(x)+ \sum_{i=1}^N\Biggl( -k_1-(1+k_1+2k_2)x_i
+2k_3\sum_{j: j\ne i} \frac{1-x_i^2}{x_i-x_j}\Biggr)f_{x_i}(x).
\end{equation}
In summary, the Heckman-Opdam Jacobi
polynomials $ \widetilde R_\lambda$ are eigenfunctions
of $ L_k$ with eigenvalues $-\langle \lambda,\lambda+2\rho(k)\rangle$ where
$\rho(k)$ has the coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{rho-component}
\rho(k)_i=\bigl(k_1+2k_2+2k_3(N-i)\bigr)/2 \quad\quad (i=1,\ldots,N).
\end{equation}
By \cite{RR1}, $ L_k$
is the generator of a Feller semigroup with transition operators whose smooth densities admit
series expansions involving the $ \widetilde R_\lambda$. Moreover, by standard stochastic calculus, the associated Feller
processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ with coordinates $X_{t,i}$ should be solutions of the SDEs
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-alcove-k}
dX_{t,i} = \sqrt{2(1-X_{t,i}^2)}\> dB_{t,i} + \Bigl( -k_1-(1+k_1+2k_2)X_{t,i} +2k_3\sum_{j: j\ne i} \frac{1-X_{t,i}^2}{X_{t,i}-X_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt.
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$ and an $N$-dimensional Brownian motion $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$.
In fact, it is shown in Theorem 2.1 of \cite{Dem} that for any starting point $x$ in the interior of $A_N$ and all
$k_1,k_2,k_3>0$, the SDE (\ref{SDE-alcove-k}) has a unique strong solution $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$
where the paths are reflected when they meet the boundary $\partial A_N$ of $A_N$.
We study these Jacobi processes in the next section.
\end{remarks-general-compact-bc}
\begin{example}
For $N=1$, the $ \widetilde R_\lambda$ are
one-dimensional Jacobi polynomials
\begin{align}\label{jacobi-pol-def}
P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)&:= \binom{n+\alpha}{n} \>_2F_1\bigl(-n, n+\alpha + \beta+1; \alpha +1;(1-x)/2\bigr) \\
&= \sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n}{k}
\frac{(n+\alpha+\beta+1)_k(\alpha+k+1)_{n-k}}{n!} \Bigl(\frac{x-1}{2}\Bigr)^k\notag
\end{align}
for $\alpha,\beta>-1$, where the $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are orthogonal
w.r.t.~the weights $(1-x)^\alpha(1+x)^\beta$ on $]-1,1[$; see Ch.~4 of \cite{S}.
With these notations we see from (\ref{weight-general}) that
$$\binom{n+\alpha}{n} \tilde R_n^{BC_1}(k;.) = P_n^{(\alpha, \beta)} \quad \text{ with } \quad
\alpha = k_1+k_2 -\frac{1}{2}, \, \beta = k_2-\frac{1}{2}.$$
Moreover, (\ref{generator-algebraic}) corresponds with the classical differential equation for the $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$.
\end{example}
\section{Some martingales related to Jacobi processes}
In this section we study the $\beta$-Jacobi processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ on $A_N$ which satisfy (\ref{SDE-alcove-k}).
We follow \cite{Dem} and introduce new parameters $p,q,\kappa>0$ instead $k_1,k_2,k_3$ where we replace the parameter
$\beta$ in \cite{Dem} by $\kappa$ in order to avoid problems with the classical Jacobi polynomials below.
For $\kappa>0$ and
$p,q>N-1+1/\kappa$, we now
define the Jacobi process $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ as the unique strong solution
of the SDEs
\begin{align}\label{SDE-alcove}
dX_{t,i} &= \sqrt{2(1-X_{t,i}^2)}\> dB_{t,i} +\kappa\Bigl((p-q) -(p+q)X_{t,i}\\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad +
\sum_{j: \> j\ne i}\frac{(1+X_{t,i})(1-X_{t,j})+(1+X_{t,j})(1-X_{t,i})}{X_{t,i}-X_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt \notag\\
&= \sqrt{2(1-X_{t,i}^2)}\> dB_{t,i} +\kappa\Bigl((p-q) -(p+q)X_{t,i} +
2\sum_{j: \> j\ne i}\frac{1-X_{t,i}X_{t,j}}{X_{t,i}-X_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt
\notag\\
&=\sqrt{2(1-X_{t,i}^2)}\> dB_{t,i} +\kappa\Bigl((p-q) +(2(N-1)-(p+q))X_{t,i}\notag\\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad +
2\sum_{j: \>j\ne i}\frac{1-X_{t,i}^2}{X_{t,i}-X_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt
\notag
\end{align}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$
with an $N$-dimensional Brownian motion $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$
where the paths of $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ are reflected on $\partial A_N$
and where we start in some point in the interior of $A_N$; see
Theorem 2.1 of \cite{Dem}.
Clearly the SDEs (\ref{SDE-alcove}) and (\ref{SDE-alcove-k}) are equal for
\begin{equation}\label{parameter-change-k-p}
\kappa=k_3, \quad q= N-1+\frac{1+2k_1+2k_2}{2k_3}, \quad p= N-1+\frac{1+2k_2}{2k_3}.
\end{equation}
It is known
by \cite{Dem, Dou} that for
$\kappa\ge 1$ and
$p,q\ge N-1+2/\kappa$,
the process does not meet $\partial C_N^A$ almost surely.
Besides the original processes for $\kappa>0$ we also consider the transformed processes
$(\tilde X_{t}:=X_{t/\kappa})_{t\ge0}$.
We use the obvious formulas
$$ \int_0^t Z_{s/\kappa} \> ds=\kappa \int_0^{t/\kappa } Z_{s} \> ds \quad\text{and}\quad
\int_0^t Z_{s/\kappa} \> d\tilde B_{s}=\sqrt\kappa \int_0^{t/\kappa } Z_{s} \> dB_s$$
with Brownian motions $(B_t)_{t\ge0}, \>(\tilde B_t)_{t\ge0} $ starting in $0$ related by
$\tilde B_t= \sqrt\kappa \cdot B_{t/\kappa}$. We then obtain the renormalized SDEs
\begin{equation}\label{SDE-alcove-normalized}
d\tilde X_{t,i} =
\frac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt\kappa } \sqrt{1-\tilde X_{t,i}^2}\> d\tilde B_{t,i} +\Bigl((p-q) -(p+q)\tilde X_{t,i} +
2\sum_{j\ne i}\frac{1-\tilde X_{t,i}\tilde X_{t,j}}{\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j}}\Bigr)dt
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$. The generator of the diffusion semigroup associated with $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$
is the operator $\tilde L_k:=\frac{1}{\kappa} L_k$.
We now derive some results for symmetric polynomials of
$(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ and $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$.
For this we recapitulate that the elementary
symmetric polynomials $e_n^{m}$ in $m$ variables for $n=0,\ldots,m$ are characterized by
\begin{equation}\label{symmetric-poly}
\prod_{j=1}^m (z-x_j) = \sum_{j=0}^{m}(-1)^{m-j} e_{m-j}^{m}(x) z^j \quad\quad (z\in\mathbb C, \> x=(x_1,\ldots,x_m)).
\end{equation}
In particular,
$e_0^{m}=1, \> e_1^{m}(x)=\sum_{j=1}^m x_j ,\ldots, e_m^{m}(x)=\prod_{j=1}^m x_j$.
We need a further notation: For a non-empty set
$S\subset \{1,\ldots,N\}$, let $\tilde X_{t}^S$ be the $\mathbb R^{|S|}$-valued
variable with the
coordinates $\tilde X_{t,i}$ for $i\in S$ in the natural ordering on $S\subset \{1,\ldots,N\}$.
We need the following technical observation:
\begin{lemma}\label{symmetric-pol-in-t}
For all $r\in\mathbb R$, $n=0,1,\ldots,N$, $\kappa\ge 1$ and $p,q$ with
$p,q\ge N-1+2/\kappa$,
\begin{align}d(e^{rt}&\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}))=
\frac{\sqrt 2 \cdot e^{rt}}{\sqrt\kappa}\sum_{j=1}^N\sqrt{1-\tilde X_{t,j}^2}\cdot
e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}}) d\tilde B_{t,j}
\notag\\
&+e^{rt}\Biggl((r-n(p+q-n+1)) e_n^N(\tilde X_{t})
+ (p-q)(N-n+1)e_{n-1}^N(\tilde X_t)
\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad -(N-n+2)(N-n+1)
e_{n-2}^N(\tilde X_{t})\Biggr)dt
\notag\end{align}
where, for $n=0,1$, we assume that $e_{-2}\equiv e_{-1}\equiv 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We are in the situation where the process does not meet the boundary.
Ito's formula and the SDE (\ref{SDE-alcove-normalized}) show that
$$d(e^{rt}\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}))=
r\cdot e^{rt}\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) \> dt+
e^{rt}\sum_{j=1}^N e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\> d\tilde X_{t,j}.$$
Therefore, by the second line of the SDE (\ref{SDE-alcove-normalized}), and with
$$dM_t:= \frac{\sqrt 2\cdot e^{rt}}{\sqrt\kappa}\sum_{j=1}^N\sqrt{1-\tilde X_{t,j}^2}\cdot
e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\> d\tilde B_{t,j},$$
\begin{align}\label{elementary-symm-1}
d(&e^{rt}\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}))=
r\cdot e^{rt} e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) \> dt+ dM_t\\
&\quad+ e^{rt}\Biggl((p-q)\sum_{j=1}^N e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})
-(p+q)\sum_{j=1}^N e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\cdot \tilde X_{t,j}
\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+ 2\sum_{i,j;\> i\ne j}\frac{1-\tilde X_{t,j}\tilde X_{t,i}}{\tilde X_{t,j}-\tilde X_{t,i}}
e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})
\Biggr)dt.\notag
\end{align}
Simple combinatorial computations for $i\neq j$ (cf. (2.10), (2.11) in \cite{VW}) yield
\begin{align}\label{elementary-symm-2}
&\sum_{j=1}^N e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})=(N-n+1)\cdot e_{n-1}^{N}(\tilde X_{t}),\\
&\sum_{j=1}^N e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})\tilde X_{t,j}=n\cdot e_{n}^{N}(\tilde X_{t})\notag
\end{align}
as well as
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-2a}
e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{j\}})- e_{n-1}^{N-1}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i\}})=
(\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j})e_{n-2}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{elementary-symm-3}
\sum_{i,j=1,\ldots,N; i\ne j}e_{n-2}^{N-2}(\tilde X_{t}^{\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{i,j\}})=
(N-n+2)(N-n+1)e_{n-2}^N(\tilde X_{t}).
\end{equation}
(\ref{elementary-symm-1})-(\ref{elementary-symm-3}) now imply
\begin{align}
d(e^{rt}&\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}))= dM_t + e^{rt}\Biggl( r\cdot e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) +
(p-q)(N-n+1) e_{n-1}^N(\tilde X_{t})\notag\\
& - n(p+q) e_n^N(\tilde X_{t})
- (N-n+2)(N-n+1)e_{n-2}^N(\tilde X_{t})+ n(n-1) e_n^N(\tilde X_{t})\Biggr)dt.
\notag
\end{align}
This leads to the lemma for $n\ge2$.
An inspection of the proof shows that all formulas are also valid for $n=0,1$ with the convention of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} leads to the following martingales w.r.t.~the canonical
filtration of the Brownian motion $(\tilde B_t)_{t\ge0}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{elementary-symm-martingale}
Let $n\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, $\kappa>0$ and
$p,q>N-1+1/\kappa$. Put
$$r_n:=n(p+q-n+1).$$
Then there exist coefficients $c_{n,l}\in\mathbb R$ for $l=0,\ldots, n-1$
such that
for all starting points $x_0$ in the interior of $C_N^A$ and the Jacobi process $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$
with parameters $\kappa,p,q$,
the process
\begin{equation}\label{mart-formel}
\Biggl( e^{r_nt}\cdot
\Biggl( e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) + \sum_{l=1}^{n} c_{n,l} \cdot e_{n-l}^N(\tilde X_{t})\Biggr)\Biggr)_{t\ge0}
\end{equation}
is a martingale. The $c_{n,l}$ and $r_n$ do not
depend on $\kappa$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first assume that $\kappa\ge 1$ and $p,q\ge N-1+2/\kappa$ as in Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t}.
Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} here yields that for $l=0,\ldots, n$,
the processes
$ (e^{r_nt}\cdot e_{n-l}^N(\tilde X_{t}))_{t\ge0}$ are linear combinations of the processes
$I_{n-l-j}:=(\int_0^t e^{r_ns}\cdot e_{n-l-j}^N(\tilde X_{s})\> ds)_{t\ge0}$ for $j=0,1,2$
up to the addition of some integrals w.r.t.~$(\tilde B_t)_{t\ge0}$. As the
integrands of these Brownian integrals are bounded, these Brownian integrals are obviously
martingales.
Let us now consider all linear combinations of the processes
$I_{n-l-j}$ for $l\ge0$ and $j=0,1,2$.
The definition of $r_n$ and Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} ensure that the summand $I_n$ does not appear.
Moreover, if we put
\begin{equation}\label{recurrence-1a}
c_{n,1}:= \frac{(p-q)(N-n+1)}{r_n-r_{n-1}}= \frac{(p-q)(N-n+1)}{p+q-2n+2},
\end{equation}
we see that the summand $I_{n-1}$ also does not appear. If we now define
\begin{align}\label{recurrence-1b}
c_{n,l}:=& \frac{(p-q)(N-n+l)c_{n,l-1}-(N-n+l)(N-n+l+1)c_{n,l-2}}{r_n-r_{n-l}}\\
=& \frac{(p-q)(N-n+l)c_{n,l-1}-(N-n+l)(N-n+l+1)c_{n,l-2}}{l(p+q-2n+l+1)}
\notag
\end{align}
for $l=2,\ldots,n$ with $c_{n,0}=1$ in an recursive way, we obtain from Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t}
that the summands $I_{n-l}$ also do not appear.
In summary, we conclude that the proposition holds for $\kappa\ge 1$ and $p > q\ge N-1+2/\kappa$.
We now use Dynkin's formula (see e.g. Section III.10 of \cite{RW}) which implies that
the symmetric functions
$$ f_{N,n}:A_N\times [0,\infty[\to \mathbb R, \quad (x,t)\mapsto
e^{r_nt}\cdot
\Bigl( e_n^{N}(x) + \sum_{l=1}^{n} c_{n,l} \cdot e_{n-l}^{N}(x)\Bigr) $$
are space-time-harmonic w.r.t. the generators of the renormalized
Jacobi processes $(\tilde X_t)_{t\ge0}$ for $\kappa\ge 1$ and $p > q\ge N-1+2/\kappa$,
i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{diff-op-space-time}
(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+ \tilde L_k)f_{N,n}\equiv 0
\end{equation}
for the parameters related via
(\ref{parameter-change-k-p}). As the left hand side of (\ref{diff-op-space-time}) is analytic in $p,q,\kappa$,
analytic continuation shows that $f_{N,n}$ is space-time-harmonic
also for all $\kappa>0$ and
$p>q>N-1+1/\kappa$ with the corresponding coefficients $c_{n,l}= c_{n,l}(p,q,N)$
via (\ref{recurrence-1a}) and (\ref{recurrence-1b}). Dynkin's formula now yields the
proposition in general.
\end{proof}
The independence of $r_n$ and $c_{n,l}$ from $\kappa$ in Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} is not surprising
by the space-time-harmonicity argument. In fact, $\kappa$ appears in the differential operator
in (\ref{diff-op-space-time}) only as a constant factor in the classical Laplace operator $\Delta$.
As $\Delta e_{j}^{N}\equiv 0$ for all $j$, the independence of $\kappa$
is obvious.
\begin{remark}
The recurrence formulas (\ref{recurrence-1a}) and (\ref{recurrence-1b}) for the $c_{n,l}$
can be simplified slightly; we however do not have
a closed formula for $\tilde c_{n,l}$ except for $p=q$.
In the case $p=q$ we have $ c_{n,l}=0$ for $l$ odd, and
\begin{equation}\label{c-k-2l}
c_{n,2l}=\frac{(-1)^l (N-n+2)_{2l}}{ l!\cdot 2^l \cdot (p+q-2n+3)(p+q-2n+5)\cdots(p+q-2n+2l+1)}
\end{equation}
for $l=1,\ldots,\lfloor n/2\rfloor$. This follows easily from (\ref{recurrence-1a}) and (\ref{recurrence-1b}).
\end{remark}
We return to Lemma \ref{symmetric-pol-in-t} and Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale}.
An inspection of the proofs shows that both results are also valid for $\kappa=\infty$
in which case the
SDE (\ref{SDE-alcove-normalized}) is an ODE, and the process $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ is deterministic
whenever so is the initial condition for $t=0$. There are several limit theorems
(laws of large numbers, CLTs) for the limit transition $\kappa\to\infty$; see \cite{HV}.
In particular, Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale}
for $\kappa\in]0,\infty]$ leads to:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-expectation-general}
For any starting point $x_0$ in the interior of $A_N$,
let $(\tilde X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ be the
associated normalized Jacobi process
with $\kappa\in]0,\infty]$ and $p,q>N-1+1/\kappa$.
Then there are constants $a_{n,l}\in\mathbb R$ for $0\le l\le n\le N$ such that
$$\mathbb E(e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) )=\sum_{l=0}^n a_{n,l} e^{-r_lt}$$
with $r_0=0$ where the coefficients $a_{n,l}$ and the exponents $r_l$
do not depend on $\kappa$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} shows that
$$\mathbb E(e_n^N(\tilde X_{t}) )=e^{-r_nt}\Bigl(e_n^N(x_0)+ \sum_{l=0}^{n-1} c_{n,l} e_l^N(x_0)\Bigr)-
\sum_{l=0}^{n-1} c_{n,l} E(e_l^N(\tilde X_{t}) ).$$
As $a_{n,l}:= e_n^N(x_0)+ \sum_{l=0}^{n-1} c_{n,l} e_l^N(x_0)$ is independent of $\kappa$, the corollary follows by
induction.
\end{proof}
\section{Results for a special starting point}
We now choose special starting points.
For this we use the ordered zeros of special Jacobi polynomials $P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ as introduced in Section 2.
We need the following characterization of the ordered zeros
$z_1\le \ldots\le z_N$ of $P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ due to Stieltjes, which is presented
in \cite{S} as Theorem 6.7.1:
\begin{lemma} Let $(x_1,\ldots,x_N)\in A_N$. Then $(x_1,\ldots,x_N)=(z_1,\ldots,z_N)=:z$ if and only if
for all $j=1,...,N$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-zeros}
\sum_{i=1,\ldots,N,i\neq j}\frac{1}{x_j-x_i}+\frac{\alpha+1}{2}\frac{1}{x_j-1}+\frac{\beta+1}{2}\frac{1}{x_j+1}=0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We now return to the normalized Jacobi processes $(\tilde X_t)_{t\ge0}$ with parameters $p,q,\kappa$.
We write the drift parts in the SDEs (\ref{SDE-alcove-normalized}) as
\begin{align}\label{drift-part}
(p&-q) -(p+q)\tilde X_{t,i} +
2\sum_{j: \>j\ne i}\frac{1-\tilde X_{t,i}\tilde X_{t,j}}{\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j}}\notag\\
&= (p-q)+ (2(N-1)-(p+q))\tilde X_{t,i}+2(1-\tilde X_{t,i}^2)\sum_{j: \> j\ne i}\frac{1}{\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j}}
\notag\\
&=2(1-\tilde X_{t,i}^2)\cdot\Bigl( \frac{p-(N-1)}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde X_{t,i}+1}+
\frac{q-(N-1)}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde X_{t,i}-1}+ \sum_{j: \> j\ne i}\frac{1}{\tilde X_{t,i}-\tilde X_{t,j}}\Bigr)
\end{align}
for $i=1,\ldots,N$.
We now compare (\ref{drift-part}) with (\ref{eq-zeros}) and obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-solution}
Let $p,q>N-1$, and put
\begin{equation}\label{alpha-beta}
\alpha:= q-N>-1, \quad \beta:= p-N>-1.
\end{equation}
Then, for $\kappa=\infty$, the SDE (\ref{SDE-alcove-normalized}) is an ODE which has the vector $z\in A_N$
of the preceding lemma as unique constant solution.
\end{corollary}
We now combine this with Corollary \ref{constant-expectation-general} and obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-solution-2}
Let $\kappa\in]0,\infty]$, $p,q>N-1$, and take the vector $z\in A_N$
of the preceding lemma as starting point. Let $(\tilde X_t)_{t\ge0}$ be the associated normalized
Jacobi process. Then, for all $n=0,1,\ldots,N$ and $t\ge0$,
$$\mathbb E(e_n^N(\tilde X_t))=e_n^N(z).$$
In particular, this expectation does not depend on $t$ and $\kappa$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} This is clear for $\kappa=\infty$ by Corollary \ref{constant-solution}. As
$\mathbb E(e_n^N(\tilde X_t))$ is independent of $\kappa\in]0,\infty]$ by Corollary
\ref{constant-expectation-general},
the result is clear.
\end{proof}
We immediately obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{constant-solution-3}
Let $\kappa\in]0,\infty[$, $p,q>N-1$, and $z\in A_N$ as above. Then for the associated Jacobi process
$( X_t)_{t\ge0}$ starting in $z$, and all $n=0,1,\ldots,N$ and $t\ge0$,
$\mathbb E(e_n^N( X_t))=e_n^N(z).$
\end{corollary}
As an application, we get the following result:
\begin{theorem}\label{det-formula}
Let $\kappa\in]0,\infty[$, $p,q>N-1$, and $\alpha,\beta$ as well as $z\in A_N$ as above. Let
$( X_t)_{t\ge0}$ be the associated Jacobi process starting in $z$.
Then, for all $t\ge0$,
\begin{equation}\label{det-form-1}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i})\bigr) = \frac{1}{l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}} \cdot P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}(y)
\quad\quad\text{for}\quad y\in \mathbb R
\end{equation}
with the leading coefficient $l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ of $ P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$.
Moreover, for $n=0,1,\ldots, N$,
\begin{align}\label{det-form-2}
& \mathbb E\bigl(e_{n}^N(X_{t})\bigr)= e_{n}^N(z)\\
&=\frac{2^{N}}{\binom{2N+\alpha+\beta}{N}}
\sum_{l=N-n}^N (-1)^{N-l} \binom{N}{l} \binom{l}{N-n}
\frac{(N+\alpha+\beta+1)_l(\alpha+l+1)_{N-l}}{N!2^l}.\notag
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Corollary \ref{constant-solution-3} shows that
\begin{align}\label{det-computation}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{t,i})\bigr)&=
\sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n\mathbb E\bigl(e_n^N( X_{t})\bigr)\cdot y^{N-n}
=\sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n e_n^N(z)\cdot y^{N-n}\\
&=\prod_{i=1}^N (y- z_i)= \frac{1}{l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}} \cdot P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}(y).
\notag\end{align}
This proves the first statement.
We now use
$l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}=2^{-N}\binom{2N+\alpha+\beta}{N}$ (see (4.21.6) of \cite{S}) and compare the coefficients in
(\ref{det-computation}) and (\ref{jacobi-pol-def}). This in combination with the binomial formulas
easily leads to the second statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For $p=q$, i.e., $\alpha=\beta$, Eq.~(\ref{det-form-2}) can be written in a simpler way by using the
$\>_2F_1$-representation (4.7.30) of \cite{S} of the Jacobi polynomials in this case.
In fact, a straightforward computation here implies the following:
If $N=2R$ is even, then
$ \mathbb E\bigl(e_{n}^N(X_{t})\bigr)= e_{n}^N(z)=0$ for $k$ odd, and, for $n=0,\ldots,R$,
$$\mathbb E\bigl(e_{2n}^N(X_{t})\bigr)= e_{2n}(z)= (-1)^n \frac{R!\cdot n!}{(R-n)!} \cdot
\frac{(2R+\alpha+1/2 -n)_n}{(1/2+R -n)_n}.$$
Moreover, for $N=2R+1$ odd, we have $ \mathbb E\bigl(e_{k}^N(X_{t})\bigr)= e_{k}^N(z)=0$ for $k$ even,
and, for $n=0,\ldots,R-1$,
$$\mathbb E\bigl(e_{2n+1}^N(X_{t})\bigr)= e_{2n+1}^N(z)= (-1)^n \frac{R!\cdot n!}{(R-n)!} \cdot
\frac{(2R+\alpha+3/2 -n)_n}{(3/2+R -n)_n}.$$
\end{remark}
We now apply Theorem \ref{det-formula} for $t\to\infty$ in order to get a corresponding result for
$\beta$-Jacobi ensembles:
\begin{corollary}\label{det-formula-uniform}
Let $k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb R$ with $k_3>0$, $k_2>-1/2$, and $k_1+k_2>-1/2$.
Let $X$ be an $A_N$-valued random variable with Lebesgue density
\begin{equation}\label{stationary-dist}
c_{k_1,k_2,k}
\prod_{i=1}^N \bigl((1-x_i)^{k_1+k_2-1/2}(1-x_i)^{k_2-1/2}\bigr)
\prod_{1\le i<j\le N}|x_i-x_j|^{2k_3}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{det-form-stat}
\mathbb E\bigl(\prod_{i=1}^N (y- X_{i})\bigr) = \frac{1}{l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}} \cdot P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}(y)
\quad\quad\text{for}\quad y\in \mathbb R
\end{equation}
with the Jacobi polynomial $ P_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ with
leading coefficient $l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and with
$$\alpha=\frac{1+2k_1+2k_2}{2k_3}-1>-1, \quad \beta=\frac{1+2k_2}{2k_3}-1>-1.$$
Moreover, for $n=0,1,\ldots, N$,
\begin{align}\label{det-form-3}
& \mathbb E\bigl(e_{n}^N(X)\bigr)= \\
&=\frac{2^{N}}{\binom{2N+\alpha+\beta}{N}}
\sum_{l=N-n}^N (-1)^{N-l} \binom{N}{l} \binom{l}{N-n}
\frac{(N+\alpha+\beta+1)_l(\alpha+l+1)_{N-l}}{N!2^l}.\notag
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By the parameter transform (\ref{parameter-change-k-p}), we have $p,q>N-1$. Moreover,
(\ref{parameter-change-k-p}) and (\ref{alpha-beta}) lead to the formula for $\alpha,\beta$ in the corollary.
We now consider the associated Jacobi processes $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ as in Theorem \ref{det-formula}.
It follows from \cite{RR1} (see in particular Proposition 3.4 there) that the $X_t$ tend for $t\to\infty$
to $X$ in distribution. Therefore, as $A_N$ is compact, the corollary follows from Theorem \ref{det-formula}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example} Let $N=1$. Here $k_3$ is irrelevant, and we have from (\ref{jacobi-pol-def}) that
$$ \frac{1}{l_N^{(\alpha,\beta)}} \cdot P_1^{(\alpha,\beta)}(y)= y+\frac{\alpha-\beta}{\alpha+\beta+2}=
y+\frac{k_1}{k_1+2k_2+1}.$$
Eq.~(\ref{det-form-stat}) can be checked here by via classical beta-integrals.
\end{example}
Corollary \ref{det-formula-uniform} is equivalent to Aomoto's Selberg integral \cite{A}
which involves additional elementary symmetric polynomials in classical Selberg integrals.
These formulas admit even further generalizations like Kadell's Selberg integral \cite{Ka} where
Jack polynomials $C_\lambda^{(1/k_3)}$ instead of
elementary symmetric polynomials are used in Selberg integrals.
\begin{remark}
If we put $k_1=0$ and use the tranform $x_i\mapsto x_i/\sqrt{k_2}$ ($i=1,\ldots,N$),
then Corollary \ref{det-formula-uniform} leads for $k_2\to\infty$ to
a corresponding result for $\beta$-Hermite ensembles; see e.g. \cite{FG}.
Moreover, if we use the tranform $x_i\mapsto \frac{\alpha}{2}(x_i+1)$ ($i=1,\ldots,N$)
with $\alpha$ as in Corollary \ref{det-formula-uniform}, then
Corollary \ref{det-formula-uniform} leads for $k_1\to\infty$
to a corresponding result for $\beta$-Laguerre ensembles; see e.g. \cite{FG}.
Corresponding limits are also possible on the level of the diffusions above,
and one obtains the results in \cite{KVW} for
multivariate Bessel processes associated with the root systems A and B.
For these Bessel processes we refer to \cite{CDGRVY} and references there.
\end{remark}
\section{An algebraic explanation of some of the preceding results}
We finally discuss Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} from an algebraic point of view.
For this we consider the Heckman-Opdam Jacobi polynomials $ \widetilde R_{\lambda}$ from
Section 2.2 for partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N)\in\mathbb Z_+$ with
$\lambda_1\ge\ldots\ge\lambda_N$. It follows from (\ref{rho-component}) that $ \widetilde R_{\lambda}$
is an eigenfunction of $ L_k$ with eigenvalue
\begin{equation}\label{eigen-jacobi} r(\lambda):= -\langle \lambda,\lambda+2\rho(k)\rangle=
-\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i( \lambda_i+k_1+2k_2+2k_3(N-i)).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the $ \widetilde R_{\lambda}$ form an orthogonal basis of $L^2(A_N,w_k)$.
On the other hand, Proposition \ref{elementary-symm-martingale} and its proof with the comments about
space-time harmonic functions imply that for $n=1,\ldots,N$ the polynomials
\begin{equation}\label{pol-jac}
q_n(x):= e_n^N(x) + \sum_{l=1}^{n} c_{n,l} \cdot e_{n-l}^N(x)
\end{equation}
with the coefficients $c_{n,l}$ from (\ref{mart-formel}) are eigenfunctions of $\tilde L_k$
and thus of
$ L_k$. In particular, $q_n$ is an eigenfunction of $ L_k$ with eigenvalue
$$-k_3n(p+q-n+1)=-n(1+k_1+2k_2+(2N-n-1)k_3).$$
This is equal to $r(\lambda(n))$ in (\ref{eigen-jacobi}) for
the partition $\lambda(n):=(1,\ldots,1,0,\ldots,0)$ where 1 appears $n$-times.
Therefore, the following result is quite natural.
\begin{lemma} Let $k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb R$ with $k_3>0$, $k_2>-1/2$, and $k_1+k_2>-1/2$.
Then for each $n=1,\ldots,N$, the polynomials $ \widetilde R_{\lambda(n)}$ and $ q_n $ are equal
up to a multiplicative constant. In particular,
$ \widetilde R_{\lambda(n)}$ is independent of $k_3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $n=1,\ldots,N$. Then the statement is clear when the eigenvalue $r(\lambda(n))$
has multiplicity 1.
Assume now that $r(\lambda(n))$ has multiplicity $\ge2$, i.e.,
there exists a partition $\lambda\ne \lambda(n)$ with
\begin{equation}\label{equal-eigen}
\langle \lambda,\lambda+2\rho(k)\rangle=\langle \lambda(n),\lambda(n)+2\rho(k)\rangle.
\end{equation}
As $\rho(k)_1\ge\ldots\ge\rho(k)_N$, a simple monotonicity argument shows that then
$\lambda$ satisfies $\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i\ne n$. On the other hand, if (\ref{equal-eigen}) holds for some
$\lambda\ne \lambda(n)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i\ne n$ and some $k_1,k_2,k_3$, then
(\ref{equal-eigen}) fails to hold for any slightly modified parameter $k_1$ by (\ref{eigen-jacobi}).
Therefore, $ \widetilde R_{\lambda(n)}$ and $ q_n $ are equal
up to a multiplicative constant for these modified $k_1$. An obvious continuity argument now shows that
this equality also holds for the original $k_1$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Conditioning on multimodal information is one of the predominant methods of
grounding representation learned in deep learning models
\citep{chrupala2015learning,lazaridou2015combining}, i.e., relating the word or
sentence representation to non-linguistic real-world entities such as objects
in photographs. In the context of multimodal machine translation (MT), models
using multimodal auxiliary loss have been shown to outperform their text-only
counterparts \citep{elliott2017imagination,helcl2018cuni}. Experiments with
multimodal language models (LMs) also confirm that multimodality influences the
semantic properties of learned representations
\citep{poerner2018interpretable}.
On the other hand, recent experiments with large-scale language modeling
suggest that these models provide sufficiently informative representations
reusable in most natural language processing (NLP) tasks
\citep{peters2018elmo,devlin2018bert}. Current research has also seen an
increasing trend towards investigation on universality of learned
representations where the learned representations are supposed to contain
sufficient inductive biases for a variety of NLP tasks
\citep{conneau2017supervised,howard2018fine}.
Research in evaluating representations has focused on measuring the correlation
between the similarity of learned representations and the semantic similarity
of words \citep{hill2015simlex,gerz2016simverb} and sentences
\citep{agirre2012semeval,agirre2016semeval}. Work on probing representations
include relating learned representations to existing well-trained models by
finding a mutual projection between the learned representations and evaluating
the performance of the projected representations within the trained model
\citep{saphra2018language}, and observing the effect of changes in the
representation by backpropagating the changes to the input
\citep{poerner2018interpretable}.
Universal sentence representations are typically evaluated on its effects on
downstream tasks. \citet{conneau2018senteval} and \citet{wang2018glue} recently
introduced comprehensive sets of such downstream tasks providing a benchmark
for the sentence representation evaluation. The tasks include various sentence
classification tasks, entailment or coreference resolution. However, the
drawback of these methods is that they require generating representations of
millions of sentences which are later used for a rather time-consuming training
of models for the downstream tasks.
In this paper, we investigate representations obtained specifically from
grounded models using the two predominant sequence modeling architectures: a
model based on recurrent neural networks
(RNN;~\citealp{mikolov2010recurrent,bahdanau2014neural}) and a model based on
the self-attentive Transformer architecture \citep{vaswani2017attention}. We
study the learned representations on aspects of grounding, semantics and the
degree to which some of these representations are correlated, irrespective of
modeling choices. Our main observations are: a) models with access to explicit
grounded information learn to ignore image information; b) grounding accounts
for \emph{better semantic representations} as it provides a stronger training
signal and is especially pronounced when a model has access to less training
samples; c) while Transformer based models might have better task performance,
we observe that \emph{RNN based models capture better semantic information}.
\section{Assessing Contextual Representations}\label{sec:method}
In this section, we briefly describe the methods used for extracting
representations and for quantifying the representation qualities: Canonical
Correlation Analysis (CCA) for image retrieval evaluation, and cosine distance
for Semantic Textual Similarity evaluation. Finally, we also use Distance
Correlation (DC) for representation similarity evaluation. Whereas the first
two of them are used for evaluation on downstream tasks, the latter one is only
quantifies mutual similarities of the representations.
\paragraph{Canonical Correlation Analysis.}
We take input as the two sets of aligned representations from two different
subspaces, say $\mathbf{T} = \{\mathbf{t_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{t_n}\}$ and
$\mathbf{V} = \{\mathbf{v_1}, \ldots, \mathbf{v_n}\}$, where $\mathbf{t_i}$ and
$\mathbf{v_i}$ are vector representations. CCA \citep{hotelling1936relations}
finds pairs of directions $\mathbf{w_t}, \mathbf{w_v}$, such that the linear
projections of $\mathbf{T}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ onto these directions, i.e., the
canonical representations $\mathbf{w_t}^{\top}\mathbf{T}$ and
$\mathbf{w_v}^{\top}\mathbf{V}$, are maximally correlated. For, further details
on CCA, we refer the reader to~\citet{hardoon2004canonical}.
The most significant property of CCA for our analysis is that CCA is a
\emph{subspace only method} where we obtain naturally occurring correlations
between two spaces. Importantly, we don't \emph{learn} to align, but obtain
alignments that are potentially present between the two subspaces. Further, CCA
is \emph{affine-invariant} due to its reliance on correlation rather than
orthogonality of direction vectors.
We use CCA over mean-pooled sentence representations and image representations
and obtain two highly correlated projections respectively. CCA and its variants
have been used in previous research to obtain cross-modal
representations~\cite{gong2014improving,yan2015deep}.
We evaluate the projected representations on image retrieval task and report
the recall at 10. Note that we do not backpropagate the correlation to the
network and keep the representation fixed because our goal is not training
towards optimal cross-modal representation but only to asses the (already
trained) sentence representation.
\paragraph{Cosine Distance.}
For evaluation on the STS task, we use cosine distance between of vectors
$\mathbf{t}$ and $\mathbf{v}$:
\[ \text{sim}(\mathbf{t, v}) = 1 - (\mathbf{t} \cdot \mathbf{v})\ /\
{\|\mathbf{t}\| \|\mathbf{v}\|}. \]
Following the SentEval benchmark \citep{conneau2018senteval}, we report the
Spearman correlation between the distance and human assessments.
The goal of the STS task is to asses how well the representation capture
semantic similarity of sentences as perceived by humans. Similar to the image
retrieval task, we do not fine-tune the representations for the similarity task
and report the Spearman correlation of the cosine distance between the
representations and the ground-truth similarity.
\paragraph{Distance Correlation.}
Distance correlation (DC) is a measure of dependence between any two paired
vectors of arbitrary dimensions~\cite{szekely2007gabor}. Given, two paired
vectors, $\mathbf{t} \in \mathcal{R}^m$ and $\mathbf{v} \in \mathcal{R}^n$ and
suppose that $\phi_1(t), \phi_2(v)$ and $\phi_3(t,v)$ are the individual
characteristic functions and joint characteristic function of the two vectors
respectively. The distance covariance $\text{dcov}^2(\mathbf{t, v})$ between
$\mathbf{t}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ with finite first moments is a non-negative
number given by:
\begin{equation*}
%
%
\int_{\mathcal{R}^{m+n}}\|\phi_3(\mathbf{t,v}) -
\phi_1(\mathbf{t})\phi_2(\mathbf{v})\|_2^2~\psi(\mathbf{t,v})d\textbf{t}~d\textbf{v}
\end{equation*}
where $\psi(\mathbf{t,v}) :=
\{\|\mathbf{t}\|_m^{1+m}\|\mathbf{v}\|_n^{1+n}\}^{-1}$; $m$ and $n$ are the
dimensionalities of $\mathbf{t}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ respectively. The distance
correlation (DC) is then defined as:
\[ \text{dcorr}(\textbf{t, v}) = \frac{\text{dcov}(\textbf{t,
v})}{\sqrt{\text{dcov}(\textbf{t, t})\text{dcov}(\textbf{v, v})}}. \]
A detailed description of the DC is beyond the scope of this paper, but we
refer the reader to \citet{szekely2007gabor} for a thorough analysis.
Our use of DC is motivated by the result that DC quantifies dependence measure,
especially it equals zero exactly when the two vectors are mutually independent
and are not correlated.
Also, DC measures both \emph{linear} and \emph{non-linear} association between
two vectors.
We use DC to measure the degree of correlation between different
representations. We are especially interested in studying the degree to which
two independently learned representations are correlated.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:models}
We examine representations for four types of models: a) LMs; b) image
representation prediction models (Imaginet); c) textual MT\@; and d) multimodal
MT models. For each task, we train models based using RNNs and the
Transformer architecture. In addition, we use training datasets of different
sizes.
All models trained with Neural Monkey\footnote{\url{https://github.com/ufal/neuralmonkey}} \citep{helcl2017neural}.
\subsection{Models}
\paragraph{Language Models.} We trained an RNN LM with a single GRU layer
\citep{cho2014gru} of 1000 dimensions end embeddings of 500. The Transformer LM
\citep{vaswani2017attention} has model dimension 512, 6 layers, 8 attention
heads and hidden layer size 4,096.
\paragraph{Imaginet.} The Imaginet models \citep{chrupala2015learning} predict
image representation given a textual description of the image. The
representations is trained only via its grounding in the image representation.
We use a bidirectional RNN encoder with the same hyperparameters as the
aforementioned LM\@.
The Transformer based Imaginet uses the same hyperparameters as the Transformer
based LM\@. The states of the encoder are then mean-pooled and projected with a
hidden layer of 4,096 and ReLU non-linearity to a 2,048-dimensional vector
corresponding to the image representation from the \texttt{ResNet}
\citep{he2016deep}. For a fair comparison, we use the representation before the
final non-linear projection.
For completeness, We also compare the LMs with ELMo \citep{peters2018elmo}, a
representation based on deep RNN LM with character-based embeddings pre-
trained on a large corpus, of 30 million sentences, and BERT
\citep{devlin2018bert}, a Transformer based sentence representation that is
similar to Transformer based LM. We note however that BERT is trained in a
significantly different procedure than regular LMs.
\paragraph{Textual MT models.}
We trained the attentive RNN based seq2seq model \citep{bahdanau2014neural}
with the same hyperparameters as the RNN Imaginet model, and with the
conditional GRU \citep{firat2016cgru} as the decoder. With the Transformer
architecture, we used the same hyperparameters as for the Imaginet models.
Besides the text-only models, we trained Imagination models
\citep{elliott2017imagination} that combine the translation with the Imaginet
models in a multi-task setup. The model is trained to generate a sentence in
target language and predict image representation at the same time.
With multi-task learning, the model takes advantage from large parallel data
without images and monolingual image captioning data at the same time.
Presumably, the model achieves a superior translation quality by being able to
learn a better source sentence representation. At the inference time, the only
requires the textual input.
\paragraph{Multimodal MT models.} For both RNN and Transformer architectures,
we used the same hyperparameters as for the textual models. As in previous
models, we use last convolutional layer of \texttt{ResNet} as image
representation.
In the RNN setup, we experiment with decoder initialization with image
representation \citep{caglayan2017lium,calixto2017incorporating} and with
doubly attentive decoder with three different attention combination strategies
\citep{libovicky2017attention}. First, we concatenate context vectors computed
independently over the image representation and source sentence; second (flat
attention combination), we compute a joint distribution over the image
convolutional maps and the source encoder; third (hierarchical attention
combination), we compute the context vectors independently and combine
them hierarchically using another attention mechanism.
In the Transformer setup, the multimodal models use doubly attentive decoders
\citep{libovicky2018input}. We experiment with four setups: serial, parallel,
flat and hierarchical input combination. The first two are a direct extension
of the Transformer architecture by adding more sublayers in the decoder. The
latter ones are a modification of the attention strategies for in the RNN
setup.
\subsection{Datasets}
\paragraph{Training data.} To evaluate how the representation quality depends
on the amount of the training data, we train our models on different datasets.
The smallest dataset that is used for all types of experiments is
Multi30k~\citep{elliot2016multi} that consists of only 29k training images with
English captions and their translations into German, French, and Czech.
For monolingual experiments (LM and image representation prediction) we further
use English captions from the Flickr30k dataset \citep{plummer2015flickr30k}
that contains 5 captions for each image, in total 145k. The largest monolingual
dataset we work with is a concatenation of Flickr30k and the COCO dataset
\citep{lin2014coco}, with 414k descriptions of 82k images.
For textual MT, where parallel data are needed, we also consider an
unconstrained setup with additional data harvested from parallel and
monolingual corpora \citep{helcl2017wmt,helcl2018cuni} combined with the EU
Bookshop corpus \citep{tiedemann2012opus}, in total of 200M words.
Multimodal MT models are trained on the Multi30k data only.
\paragraph{Evaluation data.}
We fit the CCA on the 29k image-sentence pairs of the training portion of the
Multi30k and evaluate on the 1k pairs from the test set.
For STS, we evaluate the representations on the SemEval 2016 dataset
\citep{agirre2016semeval}. The test set consists of 1,186 sentence pairs
collected from datasets of newspaper headlines, machine translation
post-editing, plagiarism detection, and question-to-question and
answer-to-answer matching on Stack Exchange data. Each sentence pair is
annotated with a similarity value.
\input{results_table}
\section{Results \& Discussion}\label{sec:results}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{distance_selected.pdf}
\caption{Distance correlation of representations from pairs of selected
models.}\label{fig:dist_corr}
\end{figure}
We present image retrieval and STS along with the task-specific metrics in
Table~\ref{tab:quantitative}. We observe that on moderately sized datasets,
models conditioned on target language and visual modality provide a stronger
training signal for learning sentence representations than models trained with
simple language modeling objective.
The unconstrained variant of the RNN MMT models obtains a similar performance
in the STS as the ELMo and BERT models even though the training samples was
\emph{orders of magnitude fewer}.
We also observe that while the Transformer based models achieve a superior
translation quality on the MT tasks, the results on STS suggest that RNN models
obtain semantically richer representations. While the textual RNN translation
models perform better on image retrieval than the Transformer models, but the
other way round with Transformer based Imagination models that are explicitly
trained to predict the image representation perform better than their RNN
counterparts. With these consistent observations, we posit that the
Transformer based models, while achieving good performance on the task it is
trained for, seem to ignore image information.
The slight difference between the image retrieval performance of the Imaginet
and Imagination models suggest that training the representation using the
vision and the target language signal is complementary.
We also evaluated the STS performance of the representations with the CCA
projections. The Spearman's correlation is consistently worse by about
$0.02-0.03$.
The encoder of the multimodal MT models that explicitly use the visual input in
the decoder achieve significantly lower image retrieval scores. This
observation suggests that the textual encoder seems to ignore information about
visual aspects of the meaning as the decoder has full access to this
information from the explicit conditioning on image representations. This
observation is in line with the conclusions of the adversarial evaluation
\citep{elliott2018adversarial,libovicky2018input}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{bleu_vs_sts.pdf}
\caption{Plot of dependence of the BLEU score on the Spearman correlation
on the STS dataset.}\label{fig:bleu_vs_sts}
\end{figure}
Our experiments also indicate that the performance on STS is highly correlated
with the translation quality for both the RNN based and the Transformer based
models (see Figure~\ref{fig:bleu_vs_sts}) which is in contrast in findings
of \citet{cifka2018bleu} who measured correlation of BLEU score and STS under similar conditions. In addition, we observe that
Transformers perform significantly worse with STS than their RNN counterparts.
The translation quality also appears to be highly correlated with the amount of
available training data and image retrieval abilities of the representation
(see Table~\ref{tab:correl}).
\input{bleu_correlation_table}
The result of DC for selected models are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dist_corr}.
The DC of the image and the sentence representations is proportional to the
image retrieval score, also, images have the least correlation distance
resulting in poorer resultant CCA based projections. Sentence representations
seem to be more similar among the tasks than among the architectures. Most
notable is the mutual similarity of representation from all MT systems
regardless of the architecture and the modality setup.
\section{Conclusions}
We conducted a set of controlled and thorough experiments to asses the
representational qualities of monomodal and multimodal sequential models with
predominant architectures. Our experiments show that grounding, in either the
visual modality or with another language, especially their combination in the
Imagination models, results in better representations than LMs trained on
datasets of similar sizes. We also showed that the translation quality of the
MT models is highly correlated both, with the ability of the models to retain
image information and with the semantic properties of the representations.
The RNN models tend to perform better on both the semantic similarity and image
retrieval tasks, although they do not reach the same translation quality. We
hypothesize this is because of the differences in the architecture that allows
the Transformer network to directly access information that the RNN needs to
pass in its hidden states.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
Jindřich received funding from the Czech Science Foundation, grant no. 18-02196S.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
\subsection{$q\bar{q}$ as a rough guide to the spectrum}
In this article we concentrate on axial--vector mesons in a $q\bar{q}$ field theory approach.
It is natural to question, at a time where exotic and hidden exotic mesons are widely discussed,
why is a discussion limited to quark--antiquark configurations even thinkable.
Therefore, we plot in figure~\ref{fig:isgur} the two lowest traditional quark--model states for each quark flavor (dotted lines, from~\cite{Godfrey:1985xj}) against the experimental states~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}, and all shifted in mass so that the relevant $0^-1^-$ s--wave threshold is at $E=0$ (hence $\pi\rho$, $KK^*$, $DD^*$ and $BB^*$ all appear at the same height in the spectral Grotrian diagram: this removes the additive effect of the quark mass).
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/PseudovectorsAndThresholds.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\ \ \
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{fig:isgur} Spectrum of low--lying closed flavor axial--vector mesons.
We compare the old predictions of the Godfrey and Isgur quark model~\cite{Godfrey:1985xj} with the current (central value) masses as listed in the Review of Particle Physics~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. From left to right, the $q\bar{q}$ flavors are light--antilight, $s\bar{s}$, $c\bar{c}$, and $b\bar{b}$.
In all cases the zero is normalized to the relevant vector--pseudoscalar decay threshold of the same quantum numbers.}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The figure shows several well--known features: that heavy quark states are more deeply bound and the one nearest decay threshold can be a radial excitation (the first one for charm, the second one for bottom); that the $c\bar{c}$ state, the renowned $X(3872)$ is a bit low as compared to the pure $q\bar{q}$ model prediction, and just at the decay threshold; and that, because the pions are so light and hence the threshold so low, excited $1^+$ states made of light quarks are broad and extremely difficult to reconstruct in experiment.
But most importantly, it shows that the quark model gets the basic picture right, roughly identifying where the different axial vector mesons should be. Of course, coupling to meson--meson channels can profoundly change the properties of any one particular state. But to study global properties of the spectrum, it is clear that the $q\bar{q}$ approach, even without that claim to precision in any particular state, is sensible.
Mesons are eigenstates of parity. In the quark model, a quark and an antiquark in the cm frame
have total orbital angular momentum equal to that of the relative particle, $L=l$, and the parity
is $P:=(-1)^{L+1}$. Positive parity is thus achieved with odd orbital angular momentum.
Further, if the $q$ and $\bar{q}$ are of the same (opposite) flavor, then the meson is an eigenstate of charge conjugation, which is given by the total spin $S=s_q+s_{\bar{q}}$ as $C:=-(-1)^L(-1)^{S+1}=(-1)^{L+S}$.
Because $S$ can only take the values $S=0$ and $S=1$, positive charge conjugation implies
$S=1$ (because $L$ is odd) and the triangle inequality forces $L=1$. These $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ mesons are then of necessity eigenstates of $L$ and $S$ with respective eigenvalues $1$ and $1$ (spin triplet). In the traditional spectroscopic notation, they are $^3P_1$. Similarly, with $P=+1$ but $C=-1$ we must have
$L=1$, $S=0$ or $^1P_1$.
This pure $L$--$S$ basis therefore diagonalizes the infinitely heavy quarkonium and is a very good approximation for the $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ spectrum. For light mesons whose quantum numbers are compatible with a quark composition $s\bar{s}$ and $n\bar{n}$ (with $n=u,d$), there is no reason to expect that $q\bar{q}$ appropriately reflects the underlying meson structure given that the strong interactions can create an arbitrary number of light quarks and gluons. Nevertheless, the counting of states, their quantum numbers, and their approximate position in the spectrum follows the naive quark model counting: the only prominent exotic multiplet is Jaffe's inverted scalar nonet~\cite{Pelaez:2015qba}.
This unreasonable agreement has led to the formulation of field--theory based quasiparticle approximations in which the bare quarks are dressed by $q\bar{q}$ pairs as in the BCS mechanism~\cite{Adler:1984ri}, or by gluons modeling the QCD Dyson--Schwinger equations~\cite{Fischer:2003rp}. The idea is that a quark mass--gap dominates most of the low--lying spectrum that therefore admits a description in terms of only a quark and an antiquark. This is consistent with chiral symmetry breaking and the Goldstone boson nature of the pion and kaon.
\subsection{Mixing of $1^+$ mesons}
For open--flavor mesons, in which the quark and antiquark have different flavor (unlike in quarkonium), charge conjugation is no more a symmetry. Therefore, even in simple quark models, there is no reason to expect that $S$ is a good quantum number. Here, the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ states are still an optional basis, but since both $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ have equal quantum numbers $J^P=1^+$, they generally mix.
There is an extreme case when either the quark (or the antiquark) is much heavier than its partner (or generically, when its mass accounts for much of the meson's). Then, Heavy Quark Symmetry applies and we know that the spin of the heavy quark is a good quantum number because it cannot be reversed. Then the correct way of building total $J$ is by coupling first the light partner spin and the angular momentum into its total ${\bf j}_q={\bf s}_q+{\bf l}$ and then couple this to the heavy quark's spin ${\bf J}={\bf s}_Q+{\bf j}_q$. The states can then be labeled as $(s_Q,j_q)_J$. In the heavy quark limit, $m_Q\gg m_q$, these are good quantum numbers.
For the intermediate case where the masses are different, $m_f\neq m_{f'}$, neither set is made of good quantum numbers and we can speak (if only two states are considered) of a mixing angle $\theta_P$ referred to the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis.
This is analogous to the ${\bf j}$--${\bf j}$ coupling in atomic physics and we dedicate figure~\ref{fig:CtoPb} to remind the reader of the transition, through group 14 (formerly, group IV) with two electrons outside closed spherical subshells, from Carbon to Lead, between quite pure Russell-Saunders ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ coupling for Carbon to quite pure ${\bf j}$--${\bf j}$ coupling for Lead.
It is instructive to illustrate these features by means of the shell model, in which the potential is given by $V=\sum V^{(i)}_{\rm central}+V^{ee}_{\rm residual}+V^{LS}$, with the residual electron-electron and spin-orbit interactions being written respectively as
\begin{equation}
V^{ee}_{\rm residual}=\alpha\left( \sum_{i<j}^Z \frac{1}{\arrowvert {\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j\arrowvert}
- \bigg< \sum_{i<j}^Z \frac{1}{\arrowvert {\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j\arrowvert} \bigg> \right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
V^{LS} = \frac{1}{2m_e^2} \frac{1}{r} \frac{dV^{\rm central}}{dr} {\bf S}\cdot {\bf L}.
\end{equation}
The ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ coupling is appropriate when the contribution coming from the residual electron-electron interaction (after subtracting the central part) dominates over the $S$-dependent spin-orbit interaction. Therefore, the remaining contribution does dot depend on $S$ so that it is a good quantum number.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\frame{\includegraphics*[width=\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/CarbonoalPlomo.eps}}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\ \ \
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{fig:CtoPb}
Elements in group 14 (old IV) of the periodic table have two electrons out of a closed shell as indicated. Carbon is a classic example in which these two electrons undergo Russell-Saunders ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ coupling just as in heavy quarkonium. Lead on the other hand shows very clear ${\bf j}$--${\bf j}$ coupling as in the heavy-light mesons. Intermediate elements nicely show the evolution between the two extreme cases.\\ Our meson calculations will likewise evolve from pure ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ to pure ${\bf j}\cdot {\bf j}$ coupling as function of the mass--difference between the quark and the antiquark (see figure~\ref{Fig-mixing-angle-s} below).
}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Returning to the (infinitely--) heavy--light system~\cite{Rosner:1985dx}, since we know that $s_Q$ will be a good quantum number because the dominant term in the QCD Lagrangian is the spin--independent $m_Q\bar{\Psi}\Psi$, the mixing angle in the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis can be exactly calculated.
In standard angular momentum notation,
\begin{equation}
\arrowvert \left( (L s_q)j_q s_Q \right) JM \rangle = \sum_S \arrowvert \left(L(s_q s_Q)S\right)JM\rangle \cdot
\langle (L(s_q s_Q)S)J\arrowvert ((L s_q)j_q s_Q)J\rangle
\end{equation}
that effects the change of basis in terms of a recoupling coefficient. This can be substituted by a Racah coefficient or a Wigner 6j coefficient, that for the problem at hand is
\begin{equation}
\bigg\langle \left (1\left(\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2}\right)S\right) 1 \bigg\arrowvert \left(\left(1 \frac{1}{2} \right)j_q \frac{1}{2} \right)1\bigg\rangle =
(-1)^{1+1/2+1/2+1} \sqrt{2j_q+1} \sqrt{2S+1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
$$1$$ & $$\frac{1}{2}$$ & $$j_q$$ \\
$$\frac{1}{2}$$ & $$1$$ & $$S$$
\end{array}
\right\}\ .
\end{equation}
Evaluating the 6j coefficients finally leads to the rotation matrix
\begin{equation} \label{jqrotation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
$$j_q=\frac{1}{2}$$ \\ $$j_q=\frac{3}{2}$$
\end{array}
\right)_{J=1} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
$$\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}$$ & $$-\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}$$ \\
$$\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}$$ & $$\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}$$
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
$$S=1$$ \\ $$S=0$$
\end{array}
\right)_{J=1}
\end{equation}
so that the two extreme basis for mesons are separated by a rotation angle
\begin{equation} \label{maxangle}
\theta_P^{\rm max}=\arccos\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \right)\simeq 35.3^{\rm o}\ .
\end{equation}
Knowing this value exactly will come handy as a later check of the numerics.
Finally, light quarks deserve a specific comment. Though $m_d\gg m_u$, they are both much smaller than the QCD scale, $m_d, m_u \ll 1$ GeV. This causes isospin to be an approximate symmetry, and though for $u\bar{d}$ and $d\bar{u}$ mesons $C$ is not a good symmetry, it can be substituted for the approximate $G$-parity, that for a quark--antiquark system is $G:=C(-1)^I=(-1)^{L+S+I}$, with $I$ the isospin of the state.
In consequence, $S$ and $L$ are once more good quantum numbers (to fix the external $P$ and $G$) and these light mesons have a $q\bar{q}$ component that must be in the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis.
In conclusion, when the quark and antiquark flavors are equal ($m_f=m_{f'}$), or when both are very small, the mixing angle vanishes. And when one of them is infinitely heavy but the other one is held fixed, the mixing angle takes the value $\arccos\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\right)$. For intermediate cases, we will resort to an extraction from the computer code data.
In comparing to the literature, we need to take note that some authors use the opposite convention to the mixing angle, ordering the $LS$ basis by lowest $S$-spin instead of lowest mass; that is, instead of $(S=1,S=0)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{jqrotation}), they employ $(S=0,S=1)$.
The two choices of angle are then complementary,
$\theta_{P,\rm \ comp} = \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{P}$. Our choice makes the natural interval for the mixing angle be $[0,35.3^{\rm o}]$ and the complementary one $[54.7^{\rm o},90^{\rm o}]$. Other conventions still take $-\theta_{P,\rm \ comp}$. We find our choice the preferable one on the grounds of simple interpretation.
\section{Hamiltonian field theory formalism}
\label{sec:Formalism}
\subsection{Simplified Hamiltonian} \label{H}
In principle, one would like to solve the meson spectrum directly from the QCD Hamiltonian.
Its Coulomb gauge formulation~\cite{Christ:1980ku} has the advantage that one can construct the Fock space of possible hadrons directly from quarks, antiquarks and physical transverse gluon.
The disadvantage is a very difficult interaction kernel that depends on the fields (and, as in any equal--time Hamiltonian approach, a nontrivial boost operator that makes changes of reference frame all but intractable~\cite{Rocha:2009xq}).
For what is worth, we quote once again its exact form before proceeding to a sensible approximation:
\begin{equation}
H_{QCD} = H_{q} + H_{g} + H_{qg} + H_{C},
\label{H_QCD}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{q} & = & \int d\mathbf{x} \Psi^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{x}\right) \left[-i \mat{\alpha} \cdot \mat{\nabla} + \beta m\right] \Psi\left(\mathbf{x}\right),
\nonumber \\
H_{g} & = & \frac{1}{2} \int d\mathbf{x} \left[\mathcal{J}^{-1} \mat{\Pi}^{a}\left(\textbf{x}\right) \cdot \mathcal{J} \mat{\Pi}^{a}(\textbf{x}) + \mathbf{B}^{a}(\textbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{B}^{a}(\textbf{x})\right],
\nonumber \\
H_{qg} & = & g \int d\mathbf{x} \mathbf{J}^{a}\left(\textbf{x}\right) \cdot \mathbf{A}^{a}(\textbf{x}),
\nonumber \\
H_{C} & = & \frac{g^{2}}{2} \int d\mathbf{x} d\mathbf{y} \rho^{a}\left(\textbf{x}\right) \mathcal{J}^{-1} K^{ab}\left(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\right) \mathcal{J} \rho^{b}\left(\textbf{y}\right).
\label{H_QCD2}
\end{eqnarray}
There, $\Psi$ and $m$ are the current quark field and mass; $\mathbf{A}^{a}$ $(a=1,2,\ldots,8)$ are the Coulomb--gauge transverse gluon fields satisfying $\mat{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{A}^{a} = 0$; $g$ is the coupling constant; $\mat{\Pi}^{a}$ are the conjugate fields; $\mathbf{B}^{a}$ are the chromomagnetic fields
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{B}^{a} = \mat{\nabla} \times \mathbf{A}^{a} + \frac{1}{2} g f^{abc} \mathbf{A}^{b} \times \mathbf{A}^{c};
\label{Bfield}
\end{equation}
and the color densities $\rho^{a}$ and quark color currents $\mathbf{J}^{a}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^{a}(\textbf{x}) & = & \Psi^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{x}\right) T^{a} \Psi\left(\mathbf{x}\right) + f^{abc} \mathbf{A}^{b}\left(\mathbf{x}\right) \cdot \mat{\Pi}^{c}\left(\mathbf{x}\right), \nonumber \\
\mathbf{J}^{a} & = & \Psi^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{x}\right) \mat{\alpha} T^{a} \Psi\left(\mathbf{x}\right),
\label{color_dens_curr}
\end{eqnarray}
with $T^{a} = \lambda / 2$ and $f^{abc}$ being the $SU_{c}(3)$ generators and structure constants, respectively.
The factor $\mathcal{J}$ can be recognized as the Faddeev-Popov determinant and is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{J} = \det\left(\mat{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{D} \right),
\label{FP_det}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{D}$ is the covariant derivative in adjoint representation, $\mathbf{D}^{ab} = \delta^{ab} \mat{\nabla} - g f^{abc} \mathbf{A}^{c}$.
Finally, the kernel $K^{ab}\left(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}\right)$ in $H_{C}$ represents the instantaneous non-Abelian Coulomb interaction
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{ab}\left(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}\right) = \left\langle \mathbf{x}, a \vert (\mat{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{D})^{-1}( - \nabla^{2}) (\mat{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{D})^{-1} \vert \mathbf{y}, b \right\rangle .
\label{Kernel1}
\end{eqnarray}
The nonlinear kernel and Faddeev-Popov determinant make the Hamiltonian of QCD in Coulomb gauge~\cite{Christ:1980ku} notoriously difficult to handle, one of the reasons why the Hamiltonian method is usually treated only in simplified terms~\cite{Feuchter:2004mk,Reinhardt:2004mm,Szczepaniak:2005xi}.
This work addresses axial--vector mesons with $J^P=1^+$; but two transverse gluons, by Landau--Yang's theorem, cannot form a state of $J=1$; therefore, the term $H_{g}$ would start contributing only in three--particle configurations such as hybrid mesons~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2000hj} or three--gluon oddballs~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2005jf}. We do not need to discuss it in this paper, as the philosophy of the quasiparticle gap makes those configurations heavier than $q\bar{q}$ (which is supported by the calculations in those references).
To achieve a tractable model, we simplify the remaining interaction terms $H_C$ and $H_{qg}$, replacing them by classical interactions.
The Coulomb interaction is substituted by the following longitudinal Coulomb potential:
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{C} \longrightarrow V_{C} = -\frac{1}{2} \int d\mathbf{x} d\mathbf{y} \rho^{a}\left(\mathbf{x}\right) \hat{V}\left(\vert\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}\vert\right) \rho^{a}\left(\mathbf{y}\right),
\label{Coul_Pot1}
\end{eqnarray}
with a confining potential in momentum space derived from the Yang--Mills dynamics~\cite{Szczepaniak:2001rg},
\begin{eqnarray}
V \left( p \right) =
\begin{cases}
\left(-12.25 \frac{ m_g^{1.93}}{p^{3.93}} \right), & \mbox{for } p < m_g, \\
-\frac{8.07}{p^2} \frac{\ln{\left( \frac{p^2}{m_g ^2} + 0.82 \right)^{-0.62}}}{\ln{\left( \frac{p^2}{m_g ^2} + 1.41 \right)^{0.8}}}, & \mbox{for } p > m_g. \end{cases}
\label{Coul_Pot2}
\end{eqnarray}
The parameter $m_g$ determines the scale of the model, and it is set to $m_g \approx 600 $ MeV.
This is in accordance with the obtention of such reasonable Cornell potential from gluodynamics~\cite{Szczepaniak:2001rg} and trades off the cutoff or equivalent regulator used to quantize it~\cite{Szczepaniak:2005xi}.
The coupling between quarks and transverse gluons $H_{qg}$ appears at second order in a diagrammatic expansion since the gluon has to be produced and absorbed. Having the structure $\vec{\alpha}\cdot\vec{\alpha}$ in spinor space, it is important to properly describe hyperfine splittings in the spectrum.
We again approximate this second order interaction by a classical transverse hyperfine potential $V_T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{T} & = \frac{1}{2} \int d\mathbf{x} \:d\mathbf{y} J_{i}^{a}\left(\textbf{x}\right) \hat{U}_{ij}\left(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}\right) J^{a}_{j}(\textbf{y}),
\label{V_T}
\end{eqnarray}
where the kernel $\hat{U}_{ij}$ inherits the transversality of the propagated physical gluons that have been eliminated,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{U}_{ij} \left(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}\right) = \left(\delta_{ij} - \frac{\nabla_{i} \nabla_{j}}{\mat{\nabla}^{2}}\right)_{\mathbf{x}} \hat{U}\left(\vert \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y} \vert\right).
\label{U_ij}
\end{eqnarray}
We choose $\hat{U}$ to be a Yukawa-type potential representing the exchange of a constituent gluon with dynamical mass $m_g$; in momentum space it is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
U \left( p \right) = C_h\begin{cases}
(- 24.57) \frac{1}{p^2 + m_g ^2}, & \mbox{for } p < m_g, \\
- \frac{8.07}{p^2} \frac{\ln{\left( \frac{p^2}{m_g ^2} + 0.82 \right)^{-0.62}}}{\ln{\left( \frac{p^2}{m_g ^2} + 1.41 \right)^{0.8}}}, & \mbox{for } p > m_g. \end{cases}
\label{Yuk_pot}
\end{eqnarray}
The constant $C_h$ is left as a free model parameter that controls the global strength of this potential with respect to the longitudinal one. The factor $-24.57$ is not a parameter, instead it is fixed by matching the high and low momentum ranges at the scale $m_g$.
Thus, the model parameters are $m_g$ (overall scale), $C_h$ (purely phenomenological, in the gauge theory it should be fixed by $m_g$ or equivalently $\alpha_s$), and the current quark masses $m_f$.
The model has the same degrees of freedom and global symmetries as QCD so its multiplet structure is the same; it supports spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking as described next in subsection~\ref{subsec:gap}, unlike the constituent quark model; having a long--range potential, it supports radial--like excitations (unlike the Nambu--Jona--Lasinio model, that has no excited states); its wave equations are much simpler to solve than the covariant Dyson--Schwinger equations in Landau gauge, where radial excitations are not well understood either; and unlike in lattice gauge theory, the formulation is continuous and the rotation and chiral properties are manifest.
On the down side, there is no known way to control its uncertainties with a counting; and because the boost operators are complicated in equal--time quantization, its usefulness is limited to spectroscopy, hadron structure (form factors, structure functions, etc.) are not naturally treated in this framework, since they require wavefunctions in different reference frames.
\subsection{Quark gap equation}\label{subsec:gap}
The first order of business is to obtain gapped quasiparticles so a truncation of the Fock space at the $q\bar{q}$ level makes sense. Here we briefly summarize the gap equation obtained with the Bogoliubov-Valatin (BV) variational method, in the spirit of many earlier works~\cite{Adler:1984ri}.
We introduce a variational trial function, $\phi (\arrowvert\mathbf{k}\arrowvert) \equiv \phi_k$, i.e. the Bogoliubov angle. It specifies the quark vacuum and one--body dispersion relation by minimization of the vacuum expectation value of the Hamiltonian, $\delta \langle \Omega \vert H \vert \Omega \rangle = 0$, where $ \vert \Omega \rangle $ is the quasiparticle (BCS) vacuum. Then, proceeding with the standard minimization procedure with the convention for the quasiparticle basis in~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2004wr}, we obtain the quark gap equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
k s_k - m_f c_k & = & \int_{0} ^{\infty} \frac{q^2}{6 \pi ^2} \left[ s_k c_q \left(V_1 + 2 W_0 \right) - s_q c_k \left(V_0 + U_0 \right)\right] ,
\label{gap_eq}
\end{eqnarray}
where the shorthand functions $s_k$ and $c_k$ are defined in terms of the Bogoliubov
angle and can be related to the running quark mass $m_q (k)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
s_k \equiv \sin{\phi_k} = \frac{m_q(k)}{E(k)}, \nonumber \\
c_k \equiv \cos{\phi_k} = \frac{k}{E(k)},
\label{sc_def}
\end{eqnarray}
with $E(k) = \sqrt{M_q ^2 (k) + k^2}$.
The functions $V_0, V_1, W_0 $ and $U_0$ represent angular integrals of the form
\begin{equation} \label{ang_int}
F_n (k,q) \equiv \int_{-1} ^{1} dx \; x^n \; F(|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|),
\end{equation}
with $x = \hat{k}\cdot \hat{q}$. The $V_n$ and $U_n$ functions in Eq.~(\ref{gap_eq}) are thus angular integrals of the longitudinal and transverse potentials, respectively. The $W$-function is also connected to $U$, being defined for convenience by
\begin{equation}
W(|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|) \equiv U(|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|) \frac{x (k^2 + q^2) - k q (1 + x^2) }{|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|^2}.
\label{W_func}
\end{equation}
In the following sections, we will also make use of the auxiliary function $Z$:
\begin{equation}
Z(|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|) \equiv U(|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|) \frac{ 1 - x^2 }{|\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}|^2}.
\label{Z_func}
\end{equation}
The gap equation~(\ref{gap_eq}) needs to be numerically solved, which we do by iteration with a Newton--like method (employing a linearization in the separation between the initial guess and the actual solution). A typical outcome is shown in figure~\ref{fig:massgap}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/GapMass.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\ \ \
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{fig:massgap}
Example gap functions $m(k)$ for $m_g=0.6$ GeV, $C_h=0.7$ and quark masses $m_u=1$ MeV, $m_s=50$ MeV at a high scale. The running masses increase from right (current) to left (constituent masses, respectively). }
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Meson spectrum: TDA equation of motion}
Once the 1--body problem has been variationally dealt with, we can interpret the mesonic states as excited bound states of quasiparticles. Safe for the pion, as a Goldstone boson, the Tamm-Dancoff (TDA) approximation~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2001kr} is appropriate.
First, let us deploy the more difficult TDA equation for an open-flavor meson in the state $| \Psi ^{nJP} \rangle $ with total angular momentum $J$, parity $P$ and radial quantum number $n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \Psi^{nJP} \vert \left[H, Q^{\dagger}_{nJP} \right] \vert \Omega \rangle = \left(E_{nJP} - E_{0}\right) \langle \Psi^{nJP} \vert Q^{\dagger}_{nJP} \vert \Omega \rangle ;
\label{TDA_eq}
\end{eqnarray}
$Q^{\dagger}_{nJP}$ is the meson creation operator
\begin{eqnarray}
Q^{\dagger}_{nJP} \equiv \sum_{\alpha \beta} \int\frac{d\mathbf{k}}{\left(2\pi\right)^{3}} \Psi^{nJP}_{\alpha \beta}\left(\mathbf{k}\right) B^{\dagger}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k}\right) D^{\dagger}_{\beta}\left(-\mathbf{k}\right),
\label{meson_op}
\end{eqnarray}
with $B^{\dagger}_{\alpha}$ and $ D^{\dagger}_{\beta}$ the quasiparticle operators for the quark and antiquark, $\alpha, \beta $ denoting spin projections over $\bf k$ (we have omitted the color indices), and $\Psi^{nJP}_{\alpha \beta}$ the corresponding wave function.
Making use of conventional techniques, the commutators in left-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{TDA_eq}) can be evaluated after normal ordering with respect to the BCS vacuum, and the projected equation for the wave function can be obtained. We employ the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi^{nJP}_{\alpha \beta}\left(\mathbf{k}\right) = \sum_{L S m_{L} m_{S}} \langle L, m_{L}, S, m_{S} \vert J, m_{J} \rangle \left(-1\right)^{\frac{1}{2} + \beta} \left\langle \frac{1}{2}, \alpha, \frac{1}{2}, -\beta \biggr\vert S, m_{S} \right\rangle Y_{L}^{m_{L}}\left( \hat{k} \right) \Psi^{nJP}_{LS}\left(k \right),
\label{wave_func}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\Psi^{nJP}_{LS}\left(k\right)$ is the radial wave function. The equation for each of these components is then
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(M_{nJP} - \epsilon_{k}^{f} - \epsilon_{k}^{f'} \right) \Psi^{nJP}_{LS}\left(k\right) = \sum_{\Lambda \Sigma} \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} \frac{q^{2} dq}{12 \pi^{2}} \; K^{JP; f f'}_{L S ; \Lambda \Sigma}\left(k, q\right) \Psi^{nJP}_{\Lambda \Sigma}\left(q\right),
\label{TDA_eq_part_wav}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{nJP} \equiv E_{nJP} - E_0$ is the mass of the meson state (if only one ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ component contributes) or a matrix (if more than one is coupled to the same $J^P$).
$\epsilon_{k } ^{f} $ is the self--energy of the quasiparticle with flavor $f$ (noticing that there is one gap angle for each quasiparticle), given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon _{k } ^{f} = m _{f} s_{k} ^{f} + k c_{k} ^{f} - \int_{0} ^{\infty} \frac{q^2}{6 \pi ^2} \left[ s_{k }^{f} s_{q}^{f} \left(V_0 + 2 U_0 \right) + c_{k}^{f} c_{q}^{f} \left(V_1 + W_0 \right)\right];
\label{self_en}
\end{equation}
and that needs to be regulated. It is formally infinite through the confining potential kernels $V_0$, $V_1$, but a Ward identity from global color symmetry guarantees the cancellation~\cite{Bicudo:1989si} of that infinity with the one coming from the two--body kernel (which checks all the relative factors in the computer code).
That kernel $K^{JP; f f'}_{L S ; \Lambda \Sigma}\left(k, q\right)$, coupling different orbital and spin states, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber K^{JP; f f'}_{L S ; \Lambda \Sigma}\left(k, q\right) &= & \frac{2}{\pi \left(2J + 1\right)} \sum_{m_{\Lambda} m_{\Sigma} m_{J} m_{L} m_{S}} \langle J, m_{J} \vert L, m_{L}, S, m_{S} \rangle \langle \Lambda, m_{\Lambda}, \Sigma, m_{\Sigma} \vert J, m_{J} \rangle \int d\Omega_{k} d\Omega_{q} Y_{L}^{*m_{L}}\left(\mathbf{k}\right) Y_{\Lambda}^{m_{\Lambda}}\left(\mathbf{q}\right) \\
& & \times \sum_{\gamma \delta \alpha \beta} \left(-1\right)^{1 + \beta + \gamma} G^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right) \left\langle S, m_{S} \biggr\vert \frac{1}{2}, \alpha, \frac{1}{2}, -\beta\right\rangle \left\langle \frac{1}{2}, \delta, \frac{1}{2}, -\gamma \biggr\vert \Sigma, m_{\Sigma} \right\rangle .
\label{Kernel}
\end{eqnarray}
The function $G^{\alpha \beta}_{ \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right)$ in Eq.~(\ref{Kernel}) is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
G^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right) \equiv V\left(\vert\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}\vert\right) h^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right) - U\left(\vert\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}\vert\right) t^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right),
\label{G_func}
\end{eqnarray}
and carries dependence on the Bogoliubov angle coming from the quasiparticle basis through the functions $h^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }$ and $t^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber h^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(k, q\right) &= & \frac{1}{4} \left[a_{5} \:g_{ \gamma \beta}(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}) \:\delta_{\alpha \delta} + a_{8} \:g_{ \gamma \beta}(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}) \:g_{\alpha \delta}(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}) + a_{7} \:\delta_{ \gamma \beta} \:\delta_{\alpha \delta} + a_{6} \:\delta_{ \gamma \beta} \:g_{\alpha \delta}(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}})\right], \\
\nonumber t^{f f'}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta } \left(k, q\right) & = & - \frac{1}{4} \left[a_{1} b_{i \alpha \delta} ^L (\hat{\mathbf{k}}) b_{i \gamma \beta} ^R (\hat{\mathbf{k}}) + a_{3} b_{i \alpha \delta} ^L (\hat{\mathbf{k}}) b_{i \gamma \beta}^L (\hat{\mathbf{q}})
+ a_{4} b_{i \alpha \delta} ^R (\hat{\mathbf{q}}) b_{ i \gamma \beta} ^R (\hat{\mathbf{k}}) + a_{2} b_{i \alpha \delta}^R (\hat{\mathbf{q}}) b_{i \gamma \beta} ^L (\hat{\mathbf{q}}) \right] \\
\nonumber & & + \frac{1}{4 \left(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}\right)^{2}}
\left[a_{1} \left(g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) q\right) \left(g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right) +\right.\\
\nonumber & & + a_{3} \left(g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) q\right) \left(g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) k - g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right) +\\
\nonumber & & + a_{4} \left(g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right) \left(g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right) +\\
& & \left. + a_{2} \left(g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{k}}\right) k - g_{\alpha \delta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right) \left(g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) k - g_{ \gamma \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{q}}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}\right) q\right)\right].
\label{h_t_func}
\end{eqnarray}
In these last expressions we have used the shorthands $g_{\alpha \beta}$ and $b_{i\alpha \beta} ^{L,R}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\alpha \beta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{r}}, \hat{\mathbf{w}}\right) & \equiv & \chi_{\alpha}^{\dagger} \mat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \mat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{w}}\chi_{\beta}, \nonumber \\
b_{i \alpha \beta} ^L \left(\hat{\mathbf{r}}\right) & \equiv & \left(\chi_{\alpha}^{\dagger} \:\sigma_{i} \:\mat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \:\chi_{\beta}\right),
\nonumber \\
b_{i \alpha \beta} ^R \left(\hat{\mathbf{r}}\right) & \equiv & \left(\chi_{\alpha}^{\dagger} \:\mat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \:\sigma_{i} \:\chi_{\beta}\right),
\label{g_b_func}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\chi_{\alpha} $ denoting Pauli spinors, and the coefficients $a_i$ that carry the gap angle dependence (and arise from the four--spinor products),
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{1} &= & \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^{f'} },\label{eq:d17} \nonumber \\
a_{2} &= & \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{3} &= &\sqrt{1 + s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{4} &= & \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^f} \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^f} \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{5} &= & \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{6} &= & \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{7} &= & \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 + s_{q}^{f'} }, \nonumber \\
a_{8} &= & \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{k}^{f'} } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^f } \sqrt{1 - s_{q}^{f'} }.
\label{a_coeff}
\end{eqnarray}
In turn, $s_{k(q)}^{f(f')} $ is the sine of the corresponding gap angle as given in Eq.~(\ref{sc_def}), obtained by solving the gap equation for the $f(f')$-th quasiparticle. It carries the dependence on the current quark mass and (for light quarks) on chiral symmetry breaking.
Application of the TDA equation to the meson spectrum with quantum states designated by $I^G (J^{PC})$, requires first an analytic computation of the corresponding kernel $K^{JP;f f'}_{L S ; \Lambda \Sigma}\left(k, q\right)$.
A few of the lowest angular momentum kernels, assuming isospin symmetry
(and omitting the $f$, $f'$ indices) are:
\begin{itemize}
\item pseudoscalar ($0^{-+}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{0^-}_{0 0 ; 0 0}\left(k, q\right) & = & V_{1} \left(a_{5} + a_{6}\right) + V_{0} \left(a_{7} + a_{8}\right) + 2 U_{0} \left(a_{1} + a_{2}\right)
- 2 W_{0} \left(a_{3} + a_{4}\right);
\label{K_PS}
\end{eqnarray}
(Actually, we employ an extended version of this equation using the Random Phase Approximation as described in~\cite{LlanesEstrada:1999uh} that respects chiral symmetry, guaranteeing that Goldstone's theorem is implemented and thus $m_\pi=0$ in the $m_q=0$ limit, but we eschew a detailed description because it defocuses our discussion of the axial vector mesons for which the TDA is sufficient.)
\item vector ($1^{--}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{1^-}_{0 1 ; 0 1}\left(k, q\right) & = & \frac{1}{3} \left[3 V_{1} \left(a_{5} + a_{6}\right) + a_{8} \left(4 V_{2} - V_{0}\right) + 3 a_{7} V_{0} - 2 \left(a_{1} + a_{2}\right) U_{0} +\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left.+ 2 \left(a_{3} + a_{4}\right) U_{1} + 2 q k \left(a_{3} + a_{4}\right) Z_{0} + 4 \left(a_{1} k^{2} + a_{2} q^{2}\right) Z_{0} \right];
\label{K_V}
\end{eqnarray}
\item axial ($1^{+-}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 0}\left(k, q\right) & = & \left(a_{5} + a_{6}\right) V_{2} + \left(a_{7} + a_{8}\right) V_{1} + 2 \left(a_{1} + a_{2}\right) U_{1}
- 2 \left(a_{3} + a_{4}\right) W_{1};
\label{K_PV1}
\end{eqnarray}
\item axial ($1^{++}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{1^+}_{1 1 ; 1 1}\left(k, q\right) & = & \frac{1}{2} \left(V_{0} + V_{2}\right) \left(a_{5} + a_{6}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \left(U_{0} + U_{2} - 2 W_{1}\right) \left(a_{3} + a_{4}\right) \nonumber \\
& & + V_{1} \left(a_{7} + a_{8}\right) + Z_{1} \left(a_{1} k^{2} + a_{2} q^{2}\right) + Z_{0} \frac{1}{2} \left(k^{2} - q^{2}\right) \left(a_{4} - a_{3}\right).
\label{K_PV2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
The parts proportional to the longitudinal Coulomb potential (all terms containing $V_i$) can be checked against prior literature, as are the entire pseudoscalar and vector kernels.
The longitudinal axial--vector kernel pieces in Eqs.~(\ref{K_PV1}) and~(\ref{K_PV2}) coincide with those computed by~\cite{Ligterink:2003hd} (that corrected an error in the earlier evaluation of~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2001kr}, where the scalar and tensor kernels for the longitudinal potential can be found if needed).
\subsection{Nondiagonal TDA equation (for open flavor)}
\label{Off-diagonal}
Central to this work is the mixing of axial states with open flavor $f\neq f'$,
$ \vert u\bar{s} \rangle$, $\vert c\bar{u}\rangle$, $\vert c\bar{s}\rangle$, etc.
in which case the quark and antiquark have different gap angles.
(In the case of hidden flavor $f=f'$, the gap angle is the same for both, and therefore the spectrum can be obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem in TDA equation with the kernels given by Eqs.~(\ref{K_PV1}) and (\ref{K_PV2}) in the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis; this degenerate case is relegated, for the sake of expediency, to appendix~\ref{sec:equalflavor}.)
For states with open flavor we should expect the Coulomb gauge model to incorporate mixing,
yielding non-vanishing off-diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian.
The TDA equation given in Eq.~(\ref{TDA_eq_part_wav}) generalizes then to a coupled--channel problem given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Mixeddiagonalization}
\left(M_{n1^+} - \epsilon_{k}^{f} - \epsilon_{k}^{f'}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Psi^{n1^+}_{10}\left(k\right) \\
\Psi^{n1^+}_{11}\left(k\right) \\
\end{array}\right) = \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} \frac{q^{2} dq}{12 \pi^{2}} \;
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 0}\left(k, q\right) & K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 1}\left(k, q\right) \\
K^{1^+}_{1 1 ; 1 0}\left(k, q\right) & K^{1^+}_{1 1 ; 1 1}\left(k, q\right) \\
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Psi^{n1^+}_{10}\left(q\right) \\
\Psi^{n1^+}_{11}\left(q\right) \\
\end{array}\right),
\label{TDA_eq_part_wav_Axial}
\end{eqnarray}
where the off-diagonal element $K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 1}\left(k, q\right)$ of the kernel matrix is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 1}\left(k, q\right) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left\{ \left(V_{2} - V_{0}\right) \left(a_{5} - a_{6}\right) + \left[ U_{0} - U_{2} + Z_{0} \left( k^2 - q^2 \right) \right] \left(a_{3} - a_{4}\right) \right\}.
\label{K_PV_OFF_DIAG}
\end{eqnarray}
We can exploit the symmetry of the TDA kernels under transposition and $\mathbf{k} \leftrightarrow \mathbf{q}$ exchange, to yield $ K^{1^+}_{1 1 ; 1 0}\left(k,q\right) = K^{1^+}_{1 0 ; 1 1}\left(q, k\right) $.
An interesting check is to take both quasiparticles to have equal flavor.
In that case, $a_{4} = a_{3}$ and $a_{5} = a_{6}$ as can be read off Eq.~(\ref{a_coeff}) setting $f=f'$ there. In that case the kernel $K$ in Eq.~(\ref{K_PV_OFF_DIAG}) vanishes
and the ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ basis diagonalizes the Hamiltonian.
This is as advertised since only the diagonal elements $\langle 1^{++} \vert H \vert 1^{++} \rangle $ and $\langle 1^{+-} \vert H \vert 1^{+-} \rangle $ should be finite. The off-diagonal elements $\langle 1^{++} \vert H \vert 1^{+-} \rangle $ and $\langle 1^{+-} \vert H \vert 1^{++} \rangle $ must then vanish due to $C$-parity becoming a good quantum number.
(Taking this limit analytically and numerically, we obtain the same results as those described in Appendix~\ref{sec:equalflavor} for the equal--flavor case.)
In the general case when $a_3\neq a_4$, $a_5\neq a_6$, the solution of the integral eigenvalue problem in Eq.~(\ref{TDA_eq_part_wav_Axial}) provides the masses of the mixed pseudovector states.
However, the formulation in Eq.~(\ref{K_PV_OFF_DIAG}) makes clear that the oft discussed mixing angle $\theta_P$ is, strictly speaking, insufficient to completely describe the $^3P_1$--$^1P_1$ mixing.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{FIGS.DIR/GroundorAllMixing.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\ \ \
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{fig:mixingtype} Whereas in the literature one often discusses the mixing angle between the ground state $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ state (left), a more general treatment as in Eq.~(\ref{Mixeddiagonalization}) allows for each of the radial excitations on the $^1P_1$ tower to mix with any of those in the $^3P_1$ suite, since the radial $q\bar{q}$ wavefunctions are orthonormal only within each of the two sets, but not across them. This more general mixing is depicted in the right panel. (The levels actually correspond to the axial $B_1$ mesons computed with the Coulomb gauge approach.)}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
As figure~\ref{fig:mixingtype} shows, the usual treatment in terms of only one mixing angle $\theta_P$ misses the fact that any of the $^3P_1$ states can mix with any of the $^1P_1$ levels. Naturally, the ground state mixes more strongly with the ground state. But our treatment actually allows for a full simultaneous diagonalization of the two towers of states to yield a unique $1^+$ spectrum for each flavor combination.
Nevertheless, we will loosely speak of the mixing angle $\theta_P$ extracting it phenomenologically from our resulting calculated spectrum. It should be clear though that the small mixing with excited states of the opposite ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ coupling causes probability leak to a wider Hilbert space.
In a strict $2\times 2$ treatment as often done in phenomenological work, one needs to allow for $\theta_P$ to have a small imaginary part representing the leak in the reduced, ground state, space.
\section{Selected numerical spectrum for open--flavor $1^+$ mesons.}
\label{Results}
In this section we report on the calculated spectra for the axial-vector mesons with open flavor.
They are obtained by solving the gap equation followed by the eigenvalue problem in Eq.~(\ref{TDA_eq_part_wav_Axial}), including both the improved Cornell potential and the transverse hyperfine interaction whose kernel is a Yukawa-type potential, corresponding to the exchange of a constituent gluon with a dynamical mass $m_g $, as discussed in subsection~\ref{H}. The parameters used to obtain them are $m_g = 600 $ MeV, $C_h = 0.7$ and the quark masses quoted in each table. All integrations have been cutoff at a scale $\Lambda = 6.0 $ GeV.
There is little sensitivity to this cutoff at or above this scale, since the typical support of the wavefunction for the ground state mesons in each channel is a few hundred MeV, so the precise value of $\Lambda$ is of little consequence. The gluon mass $m_g$ was fixed from~\cite{Szczepaniak:2001rg,LlanesEstrada:2004wr} to obtain a reasonable Cornell potential, so it is ultimately tied to the charmonium spectrum through other works. $C_h$ is not a parameter directly relatable to QCD
and we use it to have sensible pseudoscalar--vector meson splittings across the quark--mass range (in combination with chiral symmetry breaking, that enhances the $\pi$--$\rho$ splitting).
Because these few numbers are needed to obtain agreement with the basic pseudoscalar and vector mesons, the axial--vector computations are parameter--free. Nevertheless, we will show the dependence on the current quark mass which we believe is the most interesting dependence and our focus.
The current quark masses $m_f$ approximately corresponding to a physical flavor in the model approach and the constituent quark masses $\mathcal{M}_f = M_f (0) $ extracted from the gap equation are displayed in Table~\ref{TABLE-QUARKS}.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{The current and constituent quark masses ($m_f$ and $\mathcal{M}_f = M_f (0)$, respectively). All quantities are given in MeV. }
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-QUARKS}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c }
\hline
\hline
Flavor & This approach & Other related \\
& (Coulomb gauge QCD model) & estimates~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2004wr,Tanabashi:2018oca} \\
\hline
$m_u = m_d$ & 1 & 1.5-5.5
\\
$m_s $ & 50 & 70-120
\\
$m_c $ & 830 & 1000-1400
\\
$m_b $ & 3900 & 4000-4500
\\
\hline
$\mathcal{M}_u = \mathcal{M}_d$ & 97 & 200-340
\\
$\mathcal{M}_s $ & 208 & 450-500
\\
$\mathcal{M}_c $ & 1218 & 1500-1600
\\
$\mathcal{M}_b $ & 4436 & 4600-5100
\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The input quark masses seem somewhat smaller than other estimates from quark models, but this field theory approach has a contribution from the quark self--energy that works to increase the meson masses in practice, so the constituent quark masses (and thus, their current masses too) need to be smaller to reasonably reproduce the basic pseudoscalar and vector mesons.
The ``constituent" quark mass is a model--dependent concept. In the quark model of Godfrey and Isgur~\cite{Godfrey:1985xj} or later similar approaches, the one--body part of the Hamiltonian is $\epsilon(k) = M + T(k)$ where $T(k)$ is an explicit function of $k$ that does not receive a contribution from the interaction potential. In field--theory approaches such as this Coulomb gauge model, the one--body part is given by Eq.~(\ref{self_en}), that, schematically and near zero momentum, takes the form $\epsilon(k) = M + T(k)+\int dq F[V(k,q)]$. The last contribution is positive for a potential attractive in the $q\overline{q}$ channel (note the sign in Eq.~(\ref{Coul_Pot2})) and accounts for the difference between the relatively light constituent masses in table~\ref{TABLE-QUARKS} and traditional nonrelativistic approaches. With a strong infrared confining interaction however, this integral is divergent by itself; only when used in the two--body equation~(\ref{TDA_eq_part_wav}), a cancellation with the negative two--body potential yields the finite meson masses. In summary, it is not surprising that the constituent quark masses are smaller than in more static constituent approaches. The constituent mass is still a useful concept marking the onset of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Other relativistic approaches, however~\cite{Santopinto:2014opa}, obtain similarly light quark masses.
The BCS gap equation for the one--body problem and the TDA (or RPA, for the pseudoscalar) are solved in the same grid, which is important to aid with the numerical cancellation of the infinity in the self--energy and that in the two--body kernel. The resulting radial wavefunctions $\Psi^{nJP}_{LS}(\arrowvert {\bf k}\arrowvert)$ are expressed in that grid as $\Psi^{nJP}_{LS}(k_i)$, though we do not address them in this work.
(An alternative method employing a variational basis of a few bell--shaped functions instead of deltas at the $k_i$ points was put forward in \cite{Amor-Quiroz:2017jhs}.)
The physical $J=1$ states are linear combinations of the ${n}^3 P _1$ and ${n}^1 P _1$ basis states, and we can obtain them by considering the off-diagonal matrix element discussed in Sec.~\ref{Off-diagonal} relating these ${n}^3 P _1$ and ${n}^1 P _1$ states to the physical states $n P_1 $ and $n P_1 ^{\prime}$ [with the index prime $({}^{\prime})$ indicating the lowest and highest eigenvalues].
As already discussed, the mixing parameter is approximately a mixing angle.
To compare with the literature, we can obtain such angle from a mock--theory in which,
instead of Eq.~(\ref{Mixeddiagonalization}), the eigenvectors $n P_1 $ and $n P_1 ^{\prime}$ would stem from
diagonalization of a $2 \times 2$ mass matrix: this yields a relation between the mixing angle $\theta _P$ and the mass differences~\cite{Blundell:1995au},
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos{2 \theta _{nP}} = \frac{M(n^1P_1) - M(n^3P_1)}{M(n P_1 ) - M(n P_1 ^{\prime})};
\label{mixingangle}
\end{eqnarray}
as well the corresponding masses
\begin{eqnarray}
M(n P_1 ) & = & M(n^1P_1) \cos^2{\theta _{nP}} + M(n^3P_1) \sin^2{\theta _{nP}} - [M(n^3P_1) - M(n^1P_1)] \frac{\sin^2{2 \theta _{nP}}}{2 \cos{2 \theta _{nP}}}, \nonumber \\
M(n P_1 ^{\prime}) & = & M(n^1P_1) \sin^2{\theta _{nP}} + M(n^3P_1) \cos^2{\theta _{nP}} + [M(n^3P_1) - M(n^1P_1)] \frac{\sin^2{2 \theta _{nP}}}{2 \cos{2 \theta _{nP}}} .
\label{mixing}
\end{eqnarray}
Table~\ref{TABLE-MESONS} summarizes the TDA masses of the lowest-lying $n P_1 $ and $n P_1 ^{\prime}$ mesons with open flavor; the energies of the $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ configurations in the absence of mixing; and the
$1^{+}$--$1^{+'}$
mixing angles resulting from their comparison.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{TDA masses of lowest-lying unmixed
$1^1P_3$, $1^1P_1$, as well as mixed (physical)
$1 P_1 $ and $1 P_1 ^{\prime}$ mesons with open flavor, and the
$1^{+}$--$1^{+'}$
mixing angles. The TDA eigenvalue problem as well as the gap equation have been solved with the presence of an improved Cornell potential and a transverse hyperfine interaction, as discussed in subsection~\ref{H}. The masses are given in GeV and rounded off to the nearest 5 MeV after estimating the mixing angle.
The experimental values of the masses $1 P_1 $ and $1 P_1 ^{\prime}$ states are given in the third column, when available~\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}.
The last column reports the mixing angle in the relativized model of Godfrey and Isgur taken from Godfrey and Isgur (GI)~\cite{Godfrey:1985xj} or Ferretti and Santopinto (FS)~\cite{Ferretti:2015rsa}. Whereas our mixing angle interpolates between $LS$ ($\theta_P=0$) and $jj$ ($\theta_P \simeq 35.3^{\circ}$) coupling values, for equal--flavor and very different flavored quarkonia respectively, the logic of $\theta_{\rm QM}$ in the literature is less clear, though some of their smaller values for the angle can perhaps be understood by the constituent mass being larger (so that the $jj$--type mixing is further away)
}
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-MESONS}
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c| c c c c |c|c}
\hline
Quark content $[q_f \bar{q_{f'}}]$ &
States $(1P_1, 1P_1^{\prime})[I(J^P)]$ &
Exp. mass (PDG) &
$1^{++}$ & $1^{+-}$ &
$1P_1$ &
$1P_1^{\prime}$
& $\theta_P$ &
$\theta^{\rm QM}_{\rm comp}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{\rm QM}$
\\
\hline
$s\bar{u} / s\bar{d} $ & $ K_1(1270), K_1(1400) [\frac{1}{2}(1^+)]$ & 1.272, 1.403 & 1.180 & 1.375 & 1.135 & 1.410 & 22.3$^{\circ}$ &
-34$^{\circ}$ (GI
\\
$c\bar{u} / c\bar{d} $ & $ D_1(2420), D_1(2430) [\frac{1}{2}(1^+)]$ &
2.422, 2.42
& 2.350 & 2.490 & 2.225 & 2.600 & 34.0$^{\circ}$ &
25.7$^{\circ}$ (FS); 41$^{\circ}$ (GI)
\\
$c\bar{s} $ & $ D_{s1}(2460), D_{s1}(2536) [0(1^+)]$ & 2.460, 2.536 & 2.420 & 2.515 & 2.350 & 2.580 & 33.0$^{\circ}$ &
37.5$^{\circ}$ (FS); 44$^{\circ}$ (GI)
\\
$b\bar{u} / b\bar{d} $ & $ B_1(5721),? [\frac{1}{2}(1^+)]$ & 5.726, ? & 5.665 & 5.790 & 5.535 & 5.905 & 35.0$^{\circ}$ &
30.3$^{\circ}$ (FS); 43$^{\circ}$ (GI)
\\
$b\bar{s} $ & $ B_{s1}(5830),? [0(1^+)]$ & 5.829, ? & 5.725 & 5.810 & 5.645 & 5.890 & 34.8$^{\circ}$ &
39.1$^{\circ}$ (FS); 45$^{\circ}$ (GI)
\\
$b\bar{c} $ & $ ?, ? [0(1^+)]$ & ?, ? & 6.595 & 6.610 & 6.580 & 6.620 & 33.4$^{\circ}$ &
53$^{\circ}$ (GI)
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The information in this Table~\ref{TABLE-MESONS} shows that the parameter--free prediction of the Coulomb--gauge kernels gets the spectrum approximately right but is not particularly accurate, with typical errors 100-200 MeV. We do not consider that it is worth fine--tuning it, since it is not an arbitrarily improvable approximation with a control parameter, and rather proceed to make some more general statements.
Should one wish to identify the reasons of the discrepancies with the experimental spectrum, even realizing that global models of hadrons always carry an uncertainty barring parameter fine tuning for each subsystem of the meson spectrum, one should first start thinking that the potential
itself, in a truncated Hilbert space, can acquire chiral symmetry breaking pieces that change the spin splittings. Our four--vector interaction, borrowed directly from the QCD Lagrangian, needs to incorporate additional terms that require calculations in a self--consistent way (see~\cite{Alkofer:2008tt} for a lucid discussion in Landau gauge). Such pieces enhance the difference of spin couplings between light and heavy quarks and (presumably) improve the global fit. Further improvement likely require multiquark--explicit gluon states.
The one thing that can be examined, in an approach that simultaneously incorporates light--quark and heavy--quark symmetries as appropriate, is the dependence of the spectrum with the quark masses.
This is particularly interesting for the mixing angle, that depends quite strongly on $m_f-m_{f'}$.
To this purpose we dedicate Tables~\ref{TABLE-Axial-S}, and \ref{TABLE-Axial-D}.
They display the masses of the axial vector states, the $1^{++} - 1^{+-}$ mixing angles as a function of the current quark mass $m_{f'}$, at fixed value of $m_f \equiv m_s, m_c$.
(As a check, these calculations were carried out with a substantially larger number of points in the integral equation discretization than those in Table~\ref{TABLE-MESONS}. The difference in the eigenstates are not visible within our quoted 5 MeV precision.)
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{\emph{Axial vector mesons with at least one $s$--quark}. \\ Masses of the axial vector states $^3P_1$, $^1P_1$, $1 P_1 $ and $1 P_1 ^{\prime}$ (and of the first radially excited doublet $2 P_1 $ and $2 P_1 ^{\prime}$) and the
$^3P_1 - ^1P_1$ mixing angle for the ground state, as a function of the current quark mass $m_{f'}$, at fixed value of $m_f = 50 $ MeV ($\equiv m_s$). All meson masses in GeV. The (orientative) physical points are highlighted in boldface. The experimental values of the masses from the PDG are given when available.}
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-Axial-S}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c c c| c c }
\hline
$m_{f'}$ & $^3P_1$ & $^1P_1$ & $1 P_1 $ & $1 P_1 ^{\prime}$ & $\theta _P$ & $2 P_1 $ & $2 P_1 ^{\prime}$ \\
\hline
0.000 & 1.175 & 1.375 & 1.130 & 1.410 & 22.7$^{\circ}$ & 1.830 & 1.995 \\
\hline
{\bf 0.001} & {\bf 1.180} & {\bf 1.375} & {\bf 1.135} & {\bf 1.410} & {\bf 22.2$^{\circ}$}
& {\bf 1.840} & {\bf 2.000} \\
{\bf State} & & & $K_1(1270)$ & $K_1(1400)$ & & $K_1(1650)$ & \\
$\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ & & & 1.272(7) & 1.403(7) & & 1.672(50) & \\
\hline
0.005 & 1.190 & 1.380 & 1.160 & 1.405 & 20.2$^{\circ}$ & 1.855 & 2.000\\
0.010 & 1.205 & 1.385 & 1.180 & 1.405 & 17.6$^{\circ}$ & 1.875 & 2.000\\
0.015 & 1.215 & 1.390 & 1.200 & 1.405 & 15.7$^{\circ}$ & 1.890 & 2.005\\
0.020 & 1.230 & 1.400 & 1.215 & 1.405 & 13.3$^{\circ}$ & 1.905 & 2.010\\
0.025 & 1.240 & 1.405 & 1.235 & 1.410 & 10.6$^{\circ}$ & 1.920 & 2.015\\
0.030 & 1.250 & 1.415 & 1.245 & 1.415 & 7.7$^{\circ}$ & 1.930 & 2.020\\
0.035 & 1.260 & 1.420 & 1.260 & 1.420 & 6.4$^{\circ}$ & 1.940 & 2.030\\
0.040 & 1.270 & 1.430 & 1.270 & 1.430 & 4.6$^{\circ}$ & 1.950 & 2.035\\
0.045 & 1.285 & 1.435 & 1.285 & 1.435 & 0$^{\circ}$ & 1.960 & 2.045 \\
\hline
{\bf 0.050} & {\bf 1.295} & {\bf 1.445} & {\bf 1.295} & {\bf 1.445} & {\bf 0$^{\circ}$} & {\bf 1.970} & {\bf 2.050} \\
{\bf State} & $f_1(1420)$ & $h_1(1415)$ & & & & & \\
$\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ & $1.426(1) $&$ 1.416 (8)$& & & & & \\
\hline
0.055 & 1.305 & 1.450 & 1.305 & 1.450 & 0$^{\circ}$ & 1.980 & 2.060 \\
0.060 & 1.315 & 1.460 & 1.315 & 1.460 & 4.7$^{\circ}$ & 1.985 & 2.065 \\
0.065 & 1.325 & 1.460 & 1.320 & 1.470 & 6.7$^{\circ}$ & 1.995 & 2.075\\
0.070 & 1.335 & 1.475 & 1.330 & 1.480 & 7.5$^{\circ}$ & 2.000 & 2.080\\
0.075 & 1.345 & 1.485 & 1.340 & 1.485 & 7.5$^{\circ}$ & 2.010 & 2.090\\
0.080 & 1.355 & 1.495 & 1.350 & 1.495 & 9.5$^{\circ}$ & 2.020 & 2.095\\
0.085 & 1.365 & 1.500 & 1.355 & 1.505 & 11.1$^{\circ}$ & 2.025 & 2.105\\
0.090 & 1.370 & 1.510 & 1.365 & 1.515 & 11.6$^{\circ}$ & 2.030 & 2.115\\
0.095 & 1.380 & 1.515 & 1.375 & 1.525 & 12.5$^{\circ}$ & 2.040 & 2.120\\
0.100 & 1.390 & 1.525 & 1.380 & 1.535 & 14.1$^{\circ}$ & 2.045 & 2.130\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Table~\ref{TABLE-Axial-D} provides the masses and mixing angle of the first axial doublet with one charm quark, as function of the mass of the antiquark $m_{f'}$.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{
\emph{Axial vector mesons with at least one $c$--quark}.\\
Masses of the axial vector states $^3P_1$, $^1P_1$, $1_L ^{+}$, $1_H ^{+}$ and the $^3P_1 - ^1P_1$ mixing angle for the ground state, as a function of the current quark mass $m_{f'}$, at fixed value of $m_f = 830 $ MeV ($\equiv m_c$). All meson masses in GeV, rounded off to the nearest 5 MeV after computing the mixing angle. The (orientative) physical points are highlighted in boldface. The experimental values of the masses from the PDG are given when available.
}
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-Axial-D}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c c c }
\hline
$m_{f'}$ & $^3P_1$ & $^1P_1$ & $1 P_1 $ & $1 P_1 ^{\prime}$ & $\theta _P$ \\
\hline
{\bf 0.000} & {\bf 2.350} & {\bf 2.490} & {\bf 2.220} & {\bf 2.600} & {\bf 34.1$^{\circ}$}\\
0.400 & 2.870 & 2.905 & 2.860 & 2.915 & 24.3$^{\circ}$\\
0.500 & 2.990 & 3.020 & 2.985 & 3.025 & 20.4$^{\circ}$\\
0.600 & 3.105 & 3.135 & 3.105 & 3.135 & 14.3$^{\circ}$\\
0.700 & 3.220 & 3.250 & 3.220 & 3.250 & 10.9$^{\circ}$\\
0.725 & 3.250 & 3.275 & 3.250 & 3.275 & 8$^{\circ}$\\
0.750 & 3.280 & 3.305 & 3.280 & 3.305 & 0$^{\circ}$\\
0.800 & 3.335 & 3.360 & 3.335 & 3.360 & 0$^{\circ}$\\
\hline
{\bf 0.830} & {\bf 3.370} & {\bf 3.395} & {\bf 3.370} & {\bf 3.395} & {\bf 0$^{\circ}$}\\
{\bf State} & $\chi_{c1} (1P)$ & $h_{c} (1P)$ & & & \\
$\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ & 3.511 & 3.525 & & & \\
\hline
0.900 & 3.450 & 3.470 & 3.450 & 3.470 & 0$^{\circ}$\\
0.925 & 3.475 & 3.500 & 3.475 & 3.500 & 8.5$^{\circ}$\\
0.950 & 3.505 & 3.525 & 3.505 & 3.525 & 8.5$^{\circ}$\\
1.000 & 3.560 & 3.580 & 3.560 & 3.585 & 8.5$^{\circ}$\\
1.100 & 3.670 & 3.690 & 3.670 & 3.695 & 14.5$^{\circ}$\\
1.200 & 3.780 & 3.800 & 3.780 & 3.800 & 16.8$^{\circ}$\\
1.300 & 3.890 & 3.910 & 3.885 & 3.910 & 18.4$^{\circ}$\\
1.400 & 3.995 & 4.015 & 3.995 & 4.020 & 21.5$^{\circ}$\\
1.500 & 4.105 & 4.125 & 4.100 & 4.125 & 26.8$^{\circ}$\\
1.800 & 4.425 & 4.440 & 4.420 & 4.460 & 26.6$^{\circ}$\\
2.000 & 4.635 & 4.650 & 4.630 & 4.660 & 28.4$^{\circ}$\\
2.300 & 4.950 & 4.965 & 4.940 & 4.975 & 30.5$^{\circ}$\\
3.000 & 5.675 & 5.690 & 5.665 & 5.700 & 31.8$^{\circ}$\\
{\bf 3.900} & {\bf 6.595} & {\bf 6.610} & {\bf 6.580} & {\bf 6.620} & {\bf 33.4$^{\circ}$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
The mixing angle given in Tables~\ref{TABLE-Axial-S} and~\ref{TABLE-Axial-D} as function of the quark mass splitting $ \Delta m_{f' f} = m_{f'} - m_{f}$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig-mixing-angle-s}, at fixed values of $m_f $.
The plots show that at $\Delta m_{f' f} \approx 0$, the mixing angle also vanishes.
As the current quark mass splitting increases, the mixing angle augments,
tending to its maximum value of $\theta _P = 35.3 ^{\circ}$ in the heavy quark limit of $m_f'$ for $m_f$ fixed.
The point of this exercise is not an eventual agreement or disagreement with experiment, but to clarify (given the confusion that we have seen in the literature) how the pure $q\bar{q}$ has to (roughly) behave as a function of the quark mass and how the value of the mixing angle is fixed, from theory, at the ends of the spectrum.
\begin{figure}[th]
\centering
\includegraphics[{height=8.0cm,width=8.0cm}]{FIGS.DIR/Fig-mixing-angle-s.eps}
\includegraphics[{height=8.0cm,width=8.0cm}]{FIGS.DIR/Fig-mixing-angle-c.eps}
\caption{Mixing angle between the two $(1^{+})$ states as a function of the current quark mass splitting $ \Delta m_{f' f} = m_{f'}-m_f $.
Left plot: $m_f = 50 $ MeV ($\equiv m_s$). Right plot: $m_f = 830 $ MeV ($\equiv m_c$).
The mixing angle vanishes at the deep valley in the middle of each plot (pure ${\bf L}$--${\bf S}$ coupling or $\theta_P=0$) when the quark masses are equal.
}
\label{Fig-mixing-angle-s}
\end{figure}
For completeness, we will also give two tables with numerical results for equal--flavor ($m_f=m_{f'}$),
though charge conjugation makes the mixing angle vanish. The discussion will be very brief; further outcomes of the calculation for other omitted mesons can be obtained from the authors upon request.
The first one, Table~\ref{TABLE-Strange-Axial-PS-Vector} lists the masses of the axial vector mesons with one light quark, as function of the antiquark mass. Since we have already given the corresponding mixing angles for the cases of interest in Table~\ref{TABLE-Axial-S} above, we now compare instead the closed-flavor axial mesons with the masses of the vector and pseudoscalar mesons (with open flavor) computed with the same Coulomb approach, that eventually allows to obtain the phase space for the strong decay $1^+\to 1^- 0^-$.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Masses of the lowest (closed--flavor) axial, (open--flavor) pseudoscalar and vector states as a function of the current quark mass $m_{f'} $. (The approximate strange mass within this Hamiltonian is noted.) For the pseudoscalar and vector mesons, the light quark mass is fixed at $m_f = 1$ MeV, and for the axial state $m_f = m_{f'}$, as these are the masses relevant for the decay $1^+\to K^* K$. In the pseudoscalar case, the masses are calculated within RPA approach~\cite{LlanesEstrada:2001kr,LlanesEstrada:2004wr}. The values are given in GeV.}
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-Strange-Axial-PS-Vector}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c }
\hline
$m_{f'}$ & $0^+ (1^{++})$ & $\frac{1}{2} (1^{-})$ & $\frac{1}{2} (0^{-})$ \\
\hline
\hline
0 & 1.215 & 0.760 & 0 \\
\hline
0.005 & 1.260 & 0.770 & 0.210 \\
\hline
0.010 & 1.295 & 0.780 & 0.290 \\
\hline
0.020 & 1.355 & 0.810 & 0.395 \\
\hline
0.030 & 1.410 & 0.835 & 0.460 \\
\hline
0.040 & 1.465 & 0.860 & 0.515 \\
\hline
{\bf 0.050} & {\bf 1.515} & {\bf 0.890} & {\bf 0.560} \\
{\bf State} & $\mathbf{f_1(1420)}$ & $\mathbf{K^*(892)}$ & $\mathbf{K(497)}$ \\
$\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ & {\bf 1.426(1)} & {\bf 0.892} & {\bf 0.498} \\
\hline
0.060 & 1.560 & 0.910 & 0.595 \\
\hline
0.070 & 1.605 & 0.935 & 0.630 \\
\hline
0.080 & 1.650 & 0.960 & 0.665 \\
\hline
0.090 & 1.690 & 0.980 & 0.690 \\
\hline
0.100 & 1.735 & 1.005 & 0.720 \\
\hline
0.110 & 1.775 & 1.025 & 0.745 \\
\hline
0.120 & 1.815 & 1.045 & 0.770 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Towards the end of the table, for a quark mass a bit above twice the strange mass, the axial vector state becomes bound. This is the situation empirically found for charmonium, where the ground state $1^{++}$ and $1^{+-}$ mesons are bound, and it is the $X(3872)$ or $\chi_1'(3872)$, whose $q\bar{q}$ component has one radial excitation, that finds itself at the strong decay threshold to $D^*D$.
Therefore, Table~\ref{TABLE-Strange-Axial-PS-Vector} is continued in Table~\ref{TABLE-Charm-Axial-PS-Vector} but not with the first $1^3P_1$ ground state axial--vector meson, rather with its first radial excitation $2^3P_1$ that is relevant for the charm region.
\begin{center}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Masses of the (closed--flavor) axial, (open--flavor) pseudoscalar and vector states as function of the current quark mass $m_{f'}$. (The approximate charm mass in this Hamiltonian is highlighted.) For the pseudoscalar and vector mesons, these are the lowest states obtained with light quark mass fixed at $m_f = 1$ MeV; and for the axial meson this is the $2 ^3 P_1 $ state with $m_f = m_{f'}$. The values are given in GeV.}
\vskip1.5mm
\label{TABLE-Charm-Axial-PS-Vector}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c}
\hline
$m_{f'}$ & $2 ^3 P_1 $ & $\frac{1}{2} (1^{-})$ & $\frac{1}{2} (0^{-})$ \\
\hline
\hline
0.600 & 3.330 & 1.790 & 1.730 \\
\hline
0.650 & 3.440 & 1.855 & 1.800 \\
\hline
0.700 & 3.545 & 1.920 & 1.865 \\
\hline
0.750 & 3.655 & 1.985 & 1.930 \\
\hline
0.800 & 3.760 & 2.050 & 1.995 \\
\hline
{\bf 0.830} & {\bf 3.825} & {\bf 2.085} & {\bf 2.035} \\
{\bf State} & $\mathbf{X(3872)}$ & $\mathbf{D^{*} }$ & $\mathbf{D }$ \\
{\bf $\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ (charged)} & - & {\bf 2.010} & {\bf 1870} \\
{\bf $\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ (neutral)} & {\bf 3.872}& {\bf 2.007} & {\bf 1865} \\
\hline
0.850 & 3.870 & 2.110 & 2.060 \\
\hline
0.900 & 3.975 & 2.170 & 2.125 \\
\hline
0.950 & 4.080 & 2.235 & 2.185 \\
\hline
1.000 & 4.185 & 2.295 & 2.250 \\
\hline
1.050 & 4.290 & 2.355 & 2.310 \\
\hline
1.100 & 4.395 & 2.410 & 2.370 \\
\hline
1.150 & 4.500 & 2.470 & 2.430 \\
\hline
1.200 & 4.605 & 2.530 & 2.490 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}
Once more, the listed state, corresponding to the first radial excitation, passes from being above threshold and decaying strongly, to becoming a bound state under threshold. In the model, this happens for energies below the charmonium spectrum, but this is because the threshold comes too high (the calculation of the mass of the $D$ meson seems to be overshooting). However in nature the cross from unbound to bound happens for quark masses so close to the actual charm mass, that the state is pegged at the threshold and the discussion of how much of its nature is due to its quarkonium seed and how much to its molecular component~\cite{Kalashnikova:2010hv} has generated an inmense literature
(see for example~\cite{Barnes:2003vb,Meng:2007cx,Ferretti:2013faa}).
Once a number of numerical results has been exposed, we return to the open--flavor case, where the discussion of the axial--vector mixing angle is germane, and discuss three additional physics topics.
\newpage
\section{Some physical consequences}
In this section we explore several contemporary physical consequences and applications in meson spectroscopy.
Subsection~\ref{subsec:Bc} highlights the $B_{c1}$ axial vector mesons because a chain of reasoning based on LO Heavy Quark Effective Theory suggests that the mixing angle in the second excited state can be directly read off from experiment, checking whether indeed the mixing is near the ideal $s_Q$--$j_q$ coupling.
\subsection{Decays of excited $B_{c1}$ mesons} \label{subsec:Bc}
The $B_c$ family of mesons is composed of one $b$--quark and one $c$--antiquark.
Because $m_b>>m_c$, Heavy Quark Spin Symmetry dictates that the $b$--spin $s_b$ is a good
quantum number and the $s_b$--$j_c$ coupling (\emph{aka} $j$--$j$ coupling) applies.
This is supported by the early NRQCD computation in a quenched lattice of~\cite{Davies:1996gi}
that finds a mixing angle $\theta_P=(33.4\pm 1.2)^{\rm o}$ quite near the extreme Heavy--Light value
of Eq.~(\ref{maxangle}).
No axial vector mesons with this flavor content have been experimentally reported yet. A simple linear interpolation between the $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ spectra, leaning on the known masses of the $\eta_c$, $\eta_c(2S)$, $B_c$, $B_c(2S)$, $\eta_b$, $\eta_b(2S)$, $\chi_c$, $h_c$, $X(3872)$, $\chi_b$, $\chi_b(2S)$ and $h_b(2S)$ suggests that the first two pairs of $B_{c1}$ axial vector mesons are to be found near $6780\pm 30$ MeV and $7130\pm 30$ MeV.
The threshold for the strong $s$--wave decay $1^+\to 1^-0^-$ of an axial meson is, for the $B_{c1}$ family, given by the two energies
$m_B+m_{D^*}=(5.279+2.010)$ GeV $= 7.289$ GeV and
$m_{B^*}+m_D=(5.325+1.870)$ GeV $= 7.195$ GeV respectively. Thus, all four of the first $B_{c1}$ mesons will be narrow bound states, just like in the $b\bar{b}$ spectrum.
The actual Coulomb gauge model calculation shown in table~\ref{tab:Bc} concurs with this observation. Though it seems likely that the computed $B_{c1}$ masses lie 100 MeV too low, it seems clear that it is the third pair of $B_{c1}$ mesons (in the Coulomb approach, around 7.31 GeV, in the real world probably up to 7.4 GeV, as supported by the recent model of~\cite{Akbar:2018hiw} and references therein) that will be able to decay strongly.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:Bc} Computed masses (in GeV) of pseudoscalar, vector, and axial--vector $B_{c}$ mesons in the Coulomb gauge model with $m_g=0.6$ GeV, $C_h=0.7$, $m_b=3.9$ GeV, $m_c=0.83$ GeV.
Also shown are the masses of the two experimentally known pseudoscalar states and a guess (based on interpolating between charmonium and bottomonium with the states listed in the text) at the mass of the $B_{c1}$. It is clear that the third pair of $B_{c1}$ mesons (highlighted in boldface), probably around {\bf 7.4} GeV in view of all the information available, will be the lightest one that can decay into the open flavor channels $BD^*$ and $B^*D$. (All calculations rounded off to the nearest 5 MeV.)}
\begin{tabular}{c||ccccc} \hline
$0^-$ ($B_c$) & 6.310 & 6.770 & 7.135 & 7.440 & 7.710 \\
$\mathbf{m_{exp}}$ & 6.275(0.8)& 6.871(2) & & & \\ \hline
$1^-$ ($B_c^*$) & 6.325& 6.780 & 7.140 & 7.445 & 7.715 \\ \hline
$^3P_1$ & 6.595 & 6.980 & 7.305 & 7.590 & 7.845 \\
$^1P_1$ & 6.610 & 6.990 & 7.315 & 7.595 & 7.850 \\ \hline
Mixed $1^+$ & 6.580, 6.620 & 6.975, 7.000 & {\bf 7.300, 7.320} & & \\
Interpolated & $6.780\pm 0.030$ & $7.130\pm 0.030$ & & & \\
from $c\bar{c}$, $b\bar{b}$ & & & & & \\ \hline
Potential model of~\cite{Akbar:2018hiw} & 6.725, 6.744& 7.098, 7.105& 7.393, 7.405 & & \\ \hline
Instantaneous BS~\cite{Li:2018eqc} & 6.815,6.830 & 7.168, 7.174 & & & \\ \hline
Lattice (quenched NRQCD)~\cite{Davies:1996gi} & 6.738(8), 6.760(8) & & & & \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Once the spectroscopy has been reviewed, we can discuss how the mixing angle of the $1^+$ $B_c$ mesons that can decay to open flavor channels can be exposed~\footnote{There is a recent preprint~\cite{Li:2018eqc} that provides a complementary point of view from the Dyson--Schwinger Equations.}. The guiding principle is that, in the decay process, light degrees of freedom cannot alter the spin of a heavy quark. This means that $s_b$ for the heavy quark can be read off directly in the final state. Once this has been discounted,
the interesting observation is that whether $j_c=1/2$ or $j_c=3/2$ for the charm quark can also be tracked to the final state. This is because the light degrees of freedom (eventually, a constituent $u\bar{u}$ pair) cannot flip the spin of the charm quark either. This is illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:Bcdecays}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/Bc1excDecay.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\ \ \
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{center} \vspace{-2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:Bcdecays} The decay of the excited $B_{c1}$ axial vector meson selects
$BD^*$ or $B^*D$ (in the heavy quark limit) depending on the internal angular momentum
$j_c=3/2$ or $j_c=1/2$. The idea is that the heavy quark spins (hatched) are unaffected. Thus, the $s_b$ $b$--quark spin goes directly into the final state. When the string snaps and a light quark--antiquark pair is created, the $s_c$ is supposedly likewise not affected, because $m_c\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}, m_u$. In that case, conservation of angular momentum as indicated predicts that each of the $j_c$ states decays to a different vector/pseudoscalar combination distinguishable by flavor.}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-4cm}
\end{figure}
The outcome is that, out of the two possible channels, the configuration with $j_c=3/2$ selects $B\bar{D}^*$, and this is distinguishable from $B^*\bar{D}$ which is how the $j_c=1/2$ state decays.
Thus, the almost perfect $s_Q$--$j_q$ mixing for this excited $B_{c1}$ states can be read off the final state. Uncertainties in the prediction are $O(m_c/m_b)$ from demanding that the $s_b$ spin stays constant in the decay, and a smaller $O(m_u/m_c)$ from fixing the charm spin, amounting to a 25\% uncertainty (this is still good enough to allow clear distinction of the two channels).
It remains to hope that a future upgrade of Belle-II (or some other $B$ factory) can thoroughly explore the much unknown $B_c$ spectrum extending above 12.55 GeV. In addition to the one highlighted here, there are many physics opportunities in doing so~\cite{Drutskoy:2012gt}.
\subsection{Mixing of strange $K_1$ mesons}
The literature is riddled with discussion about the correct angle mixing the $K_1$ mesons composed by a strange and a light quark--antiquark pair with isospin 1/2.
The $^3P_1$ $SU(3)$ nonet containing $a_1(1260)$, whose $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ eigenstates are $f_1(1285)$ and $f_1(1420)$, would contain four $K_{1A}$ kaon resonances. Likewise, the
$^1P_1$ $SU(3)$ nonet containing $b_1(1235)$, whose $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$ eigenstates are $h_1(1170)$ and $h_1(1380)$, would contain four $K_{1B}$s.
The rotation matrix equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{jqrotation}) is
\begin{equation} \label{Krotation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
$$K_1(1400)$$ \\ $$K_1(1270)$$
\end{array}
\right)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
$$\cos \theta_{K_1}$$ & $$-\sin \theta_{K_1}$$ \\
$$\sin \theta_{K_1}$$ & $$\cos \theta_{K_1}$$
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
$$K_{1A}$$ \\ $$K_{1B}$$
\end{array}
\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Typical analysis examines the masses, with formulae such as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{simplemasses}
m^2_{K_{1A}} = m^2_{1400}\cos^2\theta_{K_1} + m^2_{1270}\sin^2\theta_{K_1}, \\ \nonumber
m^2_{K_{1B}} = m^2_{1400}\sin^2\theta_{K_1} + m^2_{1270}\cos^2\theta_{K_1}.
\end{eqnarray}
For example, Suzuki~\cite{Suzuki:1993yc} proposed that $\theta_{K_1}=33^{\rm o}$ or alternatively $57^{\rm o}$. Cheng finds a smaller value of order $(28-30)^{\rm o}$~\cite{Cheng:2013cwa} excluding the larger solution. Isgur and Godfrey seem to quote some $34^{\rm o}$~\cite{Godfrey:1985xj}
($56^{\rm o}$ taking the complementary angle)
Burakovsky and Goldman quote a large mixing between 35 and 55 degrees~\cite{Burakovsky:1997dd}
and another nonrelativistic quark model by Li and Li~\cite{Li:2006we} yields 59 degrees (the complementary angle of 31 degrees, of course).
To isolate the rotation angle, one needs the masses on the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{simplemasses}) that correspond to no physical particle; they are sometimes obtained from a model Hamiltonian, as is our case, or else they can be isolated from flavor analysis in the Gell-Mann-Okubo spirit. In this case, the difficulty is that the $f_1$ and $h_1$ mesons, because there are two in each multiplet, undergo singlet--octet flavor mixing, and that flavor angle\cite{Yang:2010ah,Dudek:2011tt,Liu:2014doa} becomes entangled with the spin angle of interest for Eq.~(\ref{Krotation}).
In any case, we do not concur here with the findings in the literature. Our result for the mixing angle can be read off the left end of the left plot in figure~\ref{Fig-mixing-angle-s} and has been highlighted in bold face in table~\ref{TABLE-Axial-S}, and it is about 22.2$^{\rm o}$, well below the $O(30^{\rm o})$ coming from phenomenological analysis.
First, it is easy to identify the difference: we use model masses computed within the same Hamiltonian, instead of employing phenomenological masses read off from the experiment. This would seem like a shortcoming on our part. But let the reader consider that the asymptotic value for the mixing angle,
35.2$^{\rm o}$ from Eq.~(\ref{maxangle}), should not be reached as early as a light--strange system: we do not theoretically expect angles of order 30 degrees until the light--charm or light--bottom mesons.
That is, our calculation is actually closer to theory expectations in this regard. The extractions from the experimental masses are probably parametrizing other more complex physics (such as meson--molecule mixing, decay channel influence, or mixing with further mesons) into this pure $q\bar{q}$ mixing angle, where it does not belong.
\subsection{Excited mesons with light quarks and insensitivity to chiral symmetry breaking}
\label{subsec:excited}
As is well known, the QCD Lagrangian admits an approximate chiral symmetry
due to the extreme lightness of the up and down quarks, $\left( m_u,\ m_d \right) \sim O(1-10{\rm MeV}) \ll
\left(4\pi f_\pi,\ m_N \right) \sim O(1{\rm GeV})$.
In terms of the running quark mass $m(k)$, the chiral charge associated to this approximate global symmetry is given as~\cite{Bicudo:2009cr}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{chiralcharge}
Q_5^a = \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\sum_{\lambda \lambda ' c}\ \ \sum_{\{f f'\}_{\rm light }} \left( \frac{\tau^a}{2} \right)_{ff'}
{ k \over \sqrt{ k^2 + m^2(k)}}
\\ \nonumber
\left( ({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf
\hat{k}})_{\lambda \lambda'}
\left( B^\dagger_{k \lambda f c} B_{k \lambda' f' c} + D^\dagger_{-k \lambda' f' c}
D_{-k \lambda f c}
\right) + \right. \\ \nonumber \left.
{ m(k) \over k} (i\sigma_2)_{\lambda \lambda'} \
\left( B^{\dagger}_{k\lambda f c} D^\dagger_{-k\lambda'f'c}+
B_{k \lambda' f' c} D_{-k \lambda f c}
\right) \right) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Spontaneous chiral symmetry is triggered by the apparition of a nonnegligible $m(k)$ (recall figure~\ref{fig:massgap}). Then, for low $k$, the term in the last line dominates. This creates or destroys the $q\bar{q}$ Fock--space component of a pion (which implements the nonlinear, Goldstone--boson realization of chiral symmetry)~\footnote{The corresponding sine of the gap angle $\sin\phi(k) = \frac{m(k)}{\sqrt{m^2+k^2}}$ is actually the pion wavefunction in the Random Phase Approximation.}.
However, if the typical $k$ is large, because quarks are in an excited state, then $m(k)/k$ can become small. In consequence, that third line gets to be negligible and the second line turns dominant, noticing that it counts the number of light quarks and antiquarks but applies a $({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf
\hat{k}})$ operator to them. Thus, hadron states in which all light quarks sit in wavefunctions with large momentum compared to $m(0)$, the constituent quark mass, are expected to come in mass--degenerate multiplets.
As is easily seen, $[Q_5^a,P]\neq 0$ (in the Pauli--Dirac representation, $P=\int \bar{\Psi} \gamma^0 \Psi$, for example), so that the chiral charge cannot be diagonalized simultaneously with parity though both commute with the Hamiltonian. Because parity is an exact symmetry of the strong interactions and thus conserved by them, it is normally chosen as an observable. The action of the chiral charge then generates chiral multiplets that contain members of opposite parities~\cite{Detar:1988kn}. (If the quark and antiquark flavors are equal, then charge conjugation $C$ is also conserved, but $[Q_5,C]\neq 0$, so the same comment applies.)
As befits this work on $J=1$ mixing, we will dedicate some of the discussion in the next subsection~\ref{subsec:J1doubling} to the angular--momentum structure of the chiral charge.
For now, let us just remark that a prediction of QCD as a chiral theory could be that there is a parity doubling (chiral symmetry is closer to Wigner than to Goldstone mode in the high--energy spectrum).
This insensitivity of the high spectrum to chiral symmetry breaking has been estimated to trigger around 2.5 GeV in the light meson spectrum~\cite{Swanson:2003ec}, a challenging but not outlandish scale.
There are two levels of discussion.
The first is whether the parity doubling happens at all in the experimental spectrum (it does in
adequate models of QCD that can address high excitation; model independent approaches such as lattice gauge theory and effective theories have difficulties in credibly doing so, and there are not many solid statements, but see~\cite{Denissenya:2014poa} and references therein for a briefing).
This is not an idle question. At the present time, the experimental evidence is marginal (Regge trajectories do not clearly converge, and the assignment of various parity doublers in the spectrum is debatable). The reason one can theoretically question the very interesting concept is because the Wigner realization of the symmetry requires $k\gg m(k)$. If an excited meson is mostly $q\bar{q}$, then
$\langle k \rangle \sim \frac{M_{\rm meson}}{2} \gg m(\langle k\rangle)$, and we expect parity doubling to set in. However, for multiquark mesons, $\langle k \rangle \sim \frac{M_{\rm meson}}{N} $ can well be of the same order of $m(k)$; then, quark velocity is small and chiral symmetry continues in Goldstone mode even for very excited mesons.
The second level arises when and if the parity doubling is well established. In that case, one could ask how fast does the high spectrum become insensitive to chiral symmetry breaking. For example,
a constituent quark model with explicit (not spontaneous) chiral symmetry breaking would have $m(k)=m_q$ a constant. Then one would expect~\cite{Segovia:2008zza}, as with any relativistic corrections (since, as seen in Eq.~(\ref{chiralcharge}), the action of the chiral charge is to hit the quark spin with the operator $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot {\bf k}$), to have
\begin{equation}
(M_+-M_-)\propto \frac{1}{M_++M_-},
\end{equation}
that is, the splitting would fall--off as the inverse of the state mass, $\Delta\propto 1/M$.
However, in QCD and models thereof that implement spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, $m(k)$ falls with $k$, so that the parity doubling should happen faster, depending on the support of the mass gap function and of the quark wavefunction inside the hadron. Finding parity degeneracy in the spectrum
can help learning about the quark mass function~\cite{Bicudo:2009cr}.
From all the information available, this might be possible for high--$J$ excitations, but it seems too unlikely for fixed--$J$, large radial $n_r$ excitations, as we will next reconfirm.
\subsection{Excited $J=1$ mesons and parity doubling} \label{subsec:J1doubling}
Let us focuse on the angular momentum part of the chiral charge and abstract all other features (flavor, color, radial parts of the wavefunction). The content of its action with respect to angular momentum in this high--$k$ regime is in the $({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf
\hat{k}})_{\lambda \lambda'} $ scalar product. This is a $^3P_0$ structure with $L=1$ coupled to $S=1$ to yield $J=0$. Therefore, $1^+$ states are mapped to $1^-$ states, to satisfy the parity flip and the angular momentum addition rules with a scalar operator.
In a state with several light quarks/antiquarks of different momentum, most straightforwardly in a baryon~\cite{Bicudo:2009cr}, one can apply $({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf \hat{k}_1})({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf \hat{k}_2})\dots$ more than once. But in $q\bar{q}$ mesons, because there is only one $k$ and $({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf \hat{k}})^2 = \boldsymbol 1$, we can speak of parity doublets (modulo isospin structure).
There are two conceivable ways of achieving large $k$. Probably the clearest one is to choose increasingly large $J$~\cite{Bicudo:2009cr}. But at fixed $J=1$ as relevant for this paper, one has to examine highly (radially--) excited states.
We have carried out a computation of several radial excitations for axial--vector mesons and compared it to one of vector mesons in table~\ref{tab:quiral}. We have stopped reporting further excitations upon reaching the charmonium region, since numerous unrelated resonances start appearing there and clutter the spectrum.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:quiral} Numeric computations of the vector and axial vector mesons (in MeV) with equal light flavor $m_f=m_{f'}=1$ MeV up to the fifth excitation, to examine the concept of insensitivity to chiral symmetry breaking in the high spectrum. The evidence for this insensitivity is marginal, with the splitting between would--be chiral partners falling as $M^{-1.2}$, only slightly faster than the natural $M^{-1}$ fall--off for relativistic interactions in constituent quark models~\cite{Segovia:2008zza}. }
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}\hline
$1^{++}$ & 1035 & 1740 & 2305 & 2780 & 3190 \\
State & $a_1(1260)$ & $a_1(1640) $ & & & \\
$m_{exp}$ & 1230(40) & 1640(40) & & & \\
\hline
$1^{+-}$ & 1270 & 1870 & 2400 & 2850 & 3245 \\
State & $ b_1(1235) $ & & & & \\
$m_{exp}$ & 1230(3) & & & & \\
\hline
$1^{--}$ & 730 & 1515 & 2115 & 2610 & 3040 \\
State & $ \rho(770) $ & $ \rho(1450) $ & $ \rho(1700) $& & \\
$m_{exp}$ & 775(0.3) & 1465(25) & 1720(20) & & \\
\hline
$1^{--'}$ & 1320 & 1955 & 2485 & 2935 & 3330 \\ \hline
$\frac{M_{1^{++}}+M_{1^{+-}}}{2}-\frac{M_{1^{--}}+M_{1^{--'}}}{2}$ &
130 & 70 & 50 & 45 & 35 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
If we just look at the actual masses, the idea of insensitivity to chiral symmetry breaking seems reasonable. But to distinguish whether this breaking is explicit (as in a constituent quark model) or spontaneous (as in QCD, the truncated Dyson-Schwinger equations thereof, or the Coulomb gauge approach here exposed) is much more difficult. The (configuration--averaged) parity splitting in the last line of the table is clearly falling.
For this purpose we have constructed the quantity $( \overline{M}_{1^+}-\overline{M}_{1^-})\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i} M_i ^{(J=1)} $ or, for short, $M\Delta$, and plot it in the left panel of figure~\ref{fig:insensitivity}. It is clear that this quantity is proportional to the parity splitting $\Delta$ but correcting its $M$ dependence: in the quark model, it should flatten out as the cost of one unit of $L$ is down by one power of $M$.
The data in the figure shows that the chiral model here discussed falls slightly faster, but not by much. A fit to the computer data yields $M^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\simeq 1.2$ just above 1. Thus, we conclude that gaining information about the running quark mass from the radial--like excitations of the $J=1$ mesons is not to be realistically expected, unlike perhaps the large-$J$ excitations.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/Restoration1.eps}\ \ \
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\textwidth]{FIGS.DIR/Restoration2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:insensitivity} Left: We plot $10^{-6}M \Delta$ with $M=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i} M_i ^{(J=1)} $ ($M$ and $\Delta$ given in units of MeV) for each radial excitation (multiplet average mass) and $\Delta= \bar{M}_{1^+}-\bar{M}_{1^-}$ is the parity splitting between the average of the two axial--vector masses and that of the two vector masses for each radial quantum number $n$.
This observable would be about flat for a constituent quark model, since $k\gg m_q$ would damp the angular--momentum (and hence parity) splittings as $1/M$ (which we are correcting for). That it falls with radial quantum number is a feeble indication of insensitivity to spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the upper spectrum.\\
Right: A related observable constructed from the computations of Glozman and Wagenbrunn~\cite{Wagenbrunn:2006cs}, $10^{-6}(M_{1^{++}}-M_{1^{--}})\frac{M_{1^{++}}+M_{1^{--}}}{2}$, with the vector meson mixing chosen to be in the same representation of the chiral group as the $1^{++}$ meson. In this case, the onset of insensitivity to the quark mass is even slower than the $1/M$ fall--off expected in a constituent quark model. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Now, the calculation that we report is almost identical to the one in~\cite{Wagenbrunn:2006cs} for this particular channel (we are using slightly different parametrizations of the Coulomb--like potential but the setup is very similar). They quote their states in terms of the string tension $\sqrt{\sigma}$, but once pinned by making the $\rho$ mass in both calculations equal, the differences are at most 50 MeV and this only for quite excited states. Unsurprisingly, their results in what concerns insensitivity to chiral symmetry breaking are very similar.
Since they address vector--meson $s-d$ wave mixing carefully, they can identify the chiral partner of each of the axial vector mesons for equal quark flavor. The parity doublings for the $1^{+-}$ state and its $1^{--}$ partner are not clearly decreasing with $M$, but those for $1^{++}$ and corresponding $1^{--}$ in the same representation of the chiral group are indeed falling. For this last case we construct a similar quantity to our $M\Delta$, namely $10^{-6}(M_{1^{++}}-M_{1^{--}})\frac{M_{1^{++}}+M_{1^{--}}}{2}$ that only considers this doublet, and plot it in the right panel of figure~\ref{fig:insensitivity}.
This $M$-multiplied splitting is not falling: so the computation of~\cite{Wagenbrunn:2006cs} is not exposing the running quark mass $m(k)$ in this channel. This reinforces our conclusion that only the first of the two statements at the end of subsection~\ref{subsec:excited} can be addressed with $J=1$ mesons.
Finally, let us devote some discussion to the open--flavor case. Here, there is an exhaustive work~
\cite{Bicudo:2015mjf} that addresses heavy--light systems and, up to very large excitation, finds relatively slow return of the Wigner realization of chiral symmetry.
We will only add one point related to $1^+$ meson mixing: whereas the chiral charge, due to the $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot \hat{\bf k}$ operator is not diagonal in the $L$--$S$ basis, it is so in the
$j_q$--$s_Q$ one. This comes about because
\begin{equation}\label{chiralsplit}
\left( \boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot \hat{\bf k}\right)_{\lambda m_{sq}} = -\sqrt{4\pi} \sum_{m_sm_l} Y_1^{m_l}(\hat{\bf k})
\left( \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{m_s}\right)_{\lambda m_{sq}}\langle 1 m_s 1 m_l\arrowvert 00\rangle
\end{equation}
is a scalar. Since it does not act on the heavy quark, adding this total $0$ angular momentum to the light quark's $j_q$ again yields $j_q$.
By constructing the angular--momentum state of the quark (color and flavor indices are omitted)
\begin{equation}
\arrowvert j_q m_q\rangle = \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} R(\arrowvert {\bf k}\arrowvert)
\sum_{m_{sq}m_L} \langle \frac{1}{2} m_{sq} L m_L \arrowvert j_q m_q \rangle
Y_L^{m_L}(\hat{\bf k}) B^\dagger_{m_{sq}} ({\bf k}) \arrowvert 0 \rangle
\end{equation}
and employing
\begin{equation}
\left(\sigma^{m_S} \right)_{\lambda m_{sq}} = \sqrt{3} (-1)^{1-2m_{sq}}
\langle \frac{1}{2} m_{sq} 1 m_S \arrowvert \frac{1}{2} \lambda \rangle ,
\end{equation}
it is not too hard to find a closed expression for the matrix element of $Q_5$ in the $j_q$ basis connecting specific vector and axial--vector mesons, which becomes an angular momentum recoupling problem solvable by a Wigner 9$j$ symbol,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle jq m_q \arrowvert Q_5 \arrowvert j_q m_q \rangle = \left[\int_0^\infty \frac{k^2dk}{(2\pi)^3}
R_{1^+}^*(\arrowvert {\bf k} \arrowvert)R_{1^-}(\arrowvert {\bf k} \arrowvert) \right]
\sum_{L\Lambda}
\left(-3\sqrt{2(2L+1)(2j_q+1)}\right)
\left\{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$\frac{1}{2}$ & $L$ & $j_q$ \\
1 & 1 & 0\\
$\frac{1}{2}$ & $\Lambda$ & $j_q$ \\
\end{tabular}
\right\} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The first line of the 9$j$ symbol constructs the ket from a spin 1/2 quark and the orbital angular momentum $L$. Likewise, the last line corresponds to the bra with angular momentum $\Lambda$ (in the case at hand, the values that they can take are $L=1$ and $\Lambda=0,2$ respectively). The middle line corresponds to the structure of the chiral charge in Eq.~(\ref{chiralsplit}). By columns, the first is the quark spin, the second the orbital angular momentum, and the third the total angular momentum.
This calculation shows that there is a case in which experimental data can be directly used to read off the parity splitting: for excited $B^*$--like mesons, the nearest vector and axial--vector mesons are directly chiral partners, (for other cases, they have to be disentangled from the physically mixed states).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Conclusions}
In this work we have provided minimal background about the theoretical point of view on the problem of
axial--vector meson mixing. We have employed the Coulomb gauge Hamiltonian approach to QCD. The truncation thereof that we employ is not, at the present time, amenable to systematic improvement, nor there exists a rigorous analysis of its uncertainty. Therefore we have not fine tuned the few Hamiltonian parameters (scale of the potential $m_g$, relative strength of the transverse gluon exchange $C_h$, and quark masses at a high scale) to optimize the fit to the spectrum, though a very good fit does not seem to be within reach. Instead, the model can be used for a unified discussion of the spectrum through the whole range of quark masses.
This has allowed us to simultaneously address axial--vector $B_{c1}$ mesons, the least known of the meson systems, that share properties of heavy--light and of quarkonium systems; with kaon $K_1$ mesons, where we can qualitatively estimate the mixing angle of the $q\bar{q}$ mesons with a theoretically anchored computation and weigh on its discussion; and to address the concept of parity doubling due to the Wigner realization of chiral symmetry in the high spectrum; all within the same model and with the same interactions.
One obvious improvement that can be deployed in future work if there would be interest
is to extend the simple one--angle analysis to a multidimensional space where the various radial
excitations are connected by an overlap matrix. In principle, we can obtain those overlaps by integrating
the radial wavefunctions obtained $\int R^*_1(\arrowvert {\bf k}\arrowvert) R_3(\arrowvert {\bf k}\arrowvert)$ between the spin--singlet and triplet configurations. This would allow for an independent calculation of the mixing angle in taking only the ground state, but also for a refinement including the all--to--all mixing of figure~\ref{fig:mixingtype}.
But the most significant piece of work ahead is to connect the quark--antiquark formulation here presented for axial--vector mesons to one including multiquark configurations or, more directly, meson--meson ones, to be able to describe the effect of coupled channels. There is a large literature on this, especially in view of
the effect of axial resonances in controlling the scattering of $D$ mesons in the hadron medium into which the quark--gluon plasma cools~\cite{Abreu:2011ic} or, saliently for spectroscopy,
the near--threshold $X(3872)$ meson.
This ``cryptoexotic'' (hidden exotic) is likely~\cite{Kalashnikova:2010hv} seeded by the $q\bar{q}$ meson that we have been discussing, attracted by the threshold through mixing with molecular configurations. At present we are considering how to address the problem with minimum effort;
the following two observations are relevant to decide it. The first, and positive one, is that the Coulomb gauge model is a field theory. This means that higher Fock space configurations can be treated with the same parameters and on the same footing, by just extending the Fock space in which the model Hamiltonian is diagonalized. For example, meson-tetraquark mixing has been explored within this approach by other authors~\cite{Wang:2008mw}. The second, and negative one, is that the two meson--like configurations coupling to the ordinary $q\bar{q}$ will have significant momentum and boosting the
model wavefunctions is far from trivial. Therefore, only near threshold states such as $X(3872)$ can be addressed with some confidence. Instead, for a global analysis such as we have performed here,
we would rather rely on a combination of effective theory in the spirit of~\cite{Roca:2003uk,Roca:2005nm}
where the Hamiltonian model is only used to obtain certain key coefficients at a safe kinematic point,
and the EFT is used to extend the work to arbitrary kinematics.
Finally, a competent lattice calculation~\cite{Woss:2019hse} has already been presented, so one should carefully consider in which direction can model computations complement it given their systematic limitations.
\begin{acknowledgments}
L.M.A. and A.G.F. thank the Departamento de F\'{i}sica Te\'{o}rica of the Universidad Complutense in Madrid for kind hospitality while part of this work was completed.
Work supported by Brazilian funding agencies CNPq (contracts 308088/2017-4 and 400546/2016-7) and FAPESB (contract INT0007/2016). Additionally, MINECO:FPA2016-75654-C2-1-P (Spain); Universidad Complutense de Madrid under research group 910309 and the IPARCOS institute; and the EU's Horizon 2020 programme, grant 824093.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Predicting stock returns is a task that has attracted a lot of attention among investors, financial managers and advisors but also among academics. This is important to finance practitioners to best allocate their assets and to academics to build better and more accurate asset pricing models. Moreover, predicting stock returns gives crucial implications about market efficiency. Interest in stock price movements dates back to \cite{kendall1953analysis} where it was noticed that stock prices seemed to move randomly over time. This is what is called ``the random walk hypothesis". This hypothesis is consistent with the efficient-market hypothesis which views prices as a function of information. The efficient-market hypothesis states that current stock prices reflect all the available information and if there are movements in the next periods, they comes as a result of a release of new information or as a result of random shocks. This means that it is impossible to predict future stock prices using past information. This work uses Artificial Neural Networks (hereafter ANNs) to question efficient market hypothesis by attempting to predict future individual stock prices using historical data.
\subsection{Related Work}
The efficient markets theory was first proposed by the French mathematician Louis Bachelier in 1900 (see \cite{bachelier1900theorie}) but it started to draw a lot of attention only by the 1960’s. There were a huge number of studies which analyzed whether this hypothesis was true. The first variables used in predicting future movements were past prices, and later other predictive variables such as interest rates, default spreads, dividend yield, the book-to-market ratio, and the earnings-price ratio. (e.g \cite{fama1977asset}, \cite{fama1988dividend}, \cite{rozeff1984dividend}, \cite{shiller1984stock}, \cite{flood1986evaluation}, \cite{campbell1988dividend}). The last three ratios have received the most interest in the literature. The hypothesis that dividend yields forecast stock returns is even older (for example, \cite{dow1920scientific} and \cite{ball1978anomalies}). All three of these ratios have prices in the denominator, thus, high rations imply that the stock is undervalued, which in turn suggests high subsequent returns. This contradicts the view that returns (and thus prices) can not be predicted using past information. Indeed, studies such as \cite{fama1988dividend} showed that these ratios are positively correlated with subsequent returns.
The interest in the topic continued also during the 1990s
and early 2000s where in addition to the above mentioned predictive variables, many authors like \cite{lamont1998earnings}, \cite{baker2000equity}, \cite{lettau2001consumption}, used financing activity, consumption/wealth relation and valuations of high and low beta stocks. Setting aside the difference in predictive variables, model specifications or different ways to correct for errors and/or biases, what all these studies have in common is the usage of traditional approaches and methods for estimation and predictions. \cite{fama1988dividend} use a linear least-squares model to predict the monthly NYSE returns from dividend yields and they find a $t$-statistics between $2.20$ and $3.21$. In line with the criticism that the method used here is biased (e.g \cite{stambaugh1985bias} and \cite{mankiw1986we}), \cite{nelson1993predictable} replicate the study, correcting the bias by using bootstrap simulations. They find $p$-values between $0.03$ and $0.33$. On the other hand, \cite{stambaugh1999predictive} performs the estimation assuming that dividend yields follow a first-order autoregressive (AR1) process. He regresses the NYSE returns during 1952-1996 on dividend yields and the $p$-value reported for the one-sided test is $0.15$.
Although the focus has been on predictive variables as the ratios mentioned above, stock prices are also very sensitive to social and political events, monetary policy, interest rates, and many more macro economic variables. Public news announcements or periods of no public information release also significantly affect fluctuations in stock prices (e.g \cite{chen2000extensions} and \cite{chaudhuri2004stock}). The multivariate vector autoregression (VAR) model, a generalization to univariate autoregressive (AR) model, has also been widely used in the literature. This is a stochastic process model, treating all variables as potentially endogenous, and it is used to capture the linear interdependencies among multiple time series.
Nevertheless, given the chaotic, extremely volatile and nonparametric nature of stock prices, also these methods are questioned when it comes to obtaining reliable results. If stock prices do not follow random walks, what processes do they follow? When it comes to observing patterns, various studies have shown that stock returns exhibit reversal at weekly and 3-5 year intervals, and drift over 12-month periods (\cite{bondt1985does}, \cite{lo1990contrarian}, \cite{jegadeesh1993returns}). Several models have been proposed to capture the predictability of stock returns using the approaches mentioned above. \cite{grossman1996equilibrium} evaluates some popular models using a Kalman Filter technique and finds that they have serious flaws. Popular models are usually too restrictive, they fail to perform well in empirical tests and have even worse performance in out of sample tests.
Despite the difficulties of the task, different estimation models, different ways of correcting for biases, there is a consensus among financial economists nowadays that stock returns contain a significant predictable component based on in-sample tests (Campbell 2000). Nevertheless, in the out of sample forecasting tasks, the predictive ability is pretty low (\cite{bossaerts1999implementing} and \cite{goyal2003predicting}, \cite{welch2008goyal}). This is mainly related to the dynamic, and complex nature of the markets. Considering the difficulty and the flaws of the traditional estimation and forecast approaches, ANNs are now widely used in finance and economics and have received special focus especially on the task of stock price forecast. They have achieved high accuracy even in the out of sample, or test sets. ANNs have become an attractive tool for predicting stock market trends mostly because they can predict any non-linear dynamic system to any accuracy provided some mild conditions are met.
In one of the earliest studies, \cite{kimoto1990stock} used several learning algorithms and prediction methods for the Tokyo stock exchange prices index (TOPIX) prediction system. Their system used modular neural networks to learn the relationships among various factors. \cite{kamijo1990stock} used recurrent neural networks for stock price pattern recognition and \cite{ahmadi1990testability} used a neural network to study the arbitrage in the stock market. \cite{yoon1991predicting} also performed predictions using neural networks. Some were focused on forecasting the stock index futures market.
\cite{trippi1992trading} and \cite{choi1995trading}
predicted the daily direction of change in the SP 500 index futures using ANNs. \cite{duke1993neural} tried to predict the daily predictions of the German government
bond futures. Even though many of them did not bear
outstanding prediction accuracy, many others have shown
that ANN approach can outperform conventional methods
(eg. \cite{yao1995forecasting}; \cite{van1996application}; \cite{fernandez2000profitability}).
Most of the studies that use ANN to predict movements in stock prices use high frequency data, i.e hourly or daily data. \cite{martinez2009artificial} analyze intra-day price movements and predict the best times to trade and make profits within a day. Other studies like \cite{senol2008stock} try to predict the direction of the movements rather than how much will the stock move, where the output is a categorical variable (goes up, goes down or stays the same). \cite{yao1995forecasting} also use daily data to forecast the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE) index. Many other studies focus on predicting indexes rather than individual stock prices such as \cite{wanjawa2014ann}, \cite{sheta2015comparison}.
\subsection{Contributions}
This work has the following novel contributions in stock price forecasting: 1) it does not make assumptions related to the functional form of the model, 2) it aims at predicting individual stock prices rather than predict price indexes, 3) it tries, given historical data, to predict one quarter or one month ahead rather than dealing with intraday or next day predictions, 4) it only uses as input the historical stock price of each firm and 5) it also offers a test for the relevance of network inputs in the prediction task.
\section{Data and Methodology}
\subsection{Data and statistics}
Historical data of prices and dividend yields are taken
from Quandl (\cite{QuandlDT}) with data that ranges from 1980 to 2017. Quarterly data on prices, i.e the closing price at the end of each quarter is used and later on, monthly frequency data, i.e the closing price at the end of each month, is used. Quandl provides stock prices data for stocks in NYSE, NASDAQ and AMEX. The number of companies used in the study is 439. On the left, Fig. \ref{Ffig} shows the time series of three sample stock prices. Some prices have a very steep slope of the time trend, for some the slope of the trend is lower, and some of them appear more stationary and oscillate around some average price value during time, even though the variance seems to change. These patters highlight the highly non stationary nature of the prices.
Each of the companies is observed for a different number of quarters. The shortest time series is restricted to 16 quarters. The longest one consists of 175 quarterly observations for different companies in the sample. Monthly time series is also restricted to have a length of at least 16. Fig. \ref{Ffig} on the right shows the histogram of the number of years observed for 439 firms in the sample.
Different models require different ways to deal with the
time series of different length and different processing of the data. We consider two models in order to forecast future quarterly stock prices: Recurrent Neural Network (hereafter RNN) and Multilayer Perceptron (hereafter MLP). We also consider an MLP with monthly frequency data and for the latter case, we also offer a test on whether past changes in stock prices have any effect on future prices (Section \ref{testsection}). The next subsections will explain in detail how the data is processed for each of the models considered. The MLP with monthly data is similar to the one with quarterly data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{prices.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{histogram_years.png}
\caption{Left: Sample stock prices over time, Right:Frequency of number of observed years }
\label{Ffig}
\end{figure}
In all the following sections, we have used TensorFlow library (\cite{tensorflow2015-whitepaper}) in Python and NVIDIA® GeForce® 940MX GPU.
\subsection{Recurrent Neural Network}
In this subsection we discuss how the data is processed in order to be used in an RNN (see \cite{graves2013speech}). Later on, the RNN architecture is discussed, and lastly, how learning is conducted.
Given the time series nature of the data, a natural way for prediction is using an RNN. After having a choice of modeling, the data must also be processed accordingly. The data in Quandl is obtained in the form of a data-frame and then it is reconstructed as a dictionary, with stock name as key and the associated matrix, $M_n$, as value. For stock $n$ , where $n \in \{1, . . . , N \}$, the matrix $M_n$ is a $T_n \times 3$ matrix where $T_n$ is the time period for which data is available on stock $n$ and the three columns correspond to values of time, past prices and current prices respectively. The second column is a shift of the third column one row above. The first observation is lost, since there is no history of price to predict the price value of the first observation. We need to store the data as a $N \times T \times 3$ matrix where $T = \max \{T_1 ,...,T_N \}$. For this purpose, we need all the firms to have the same time dimension. Thus, we replace the non available data (the missing values) of each matrix $M_n$ with zeros. The original matrix $M_n$ and the augmented matrix $\tilde{M}_n$ are shown below:
\noindent\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
M_n=
\begin{bmatrix}
t_1 & x_0 & x_1\\
t_2 & x_1 & x_2\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
t_{T_n} & x_{T_n-1} & x_{T_n},
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{M}_n
\begin{bmatrix}
t_{-(T-T_n)} & 0 & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
t_0 & 0 & 0\\
t_1 & x_0 & x_1\\
t_2 & x_1 & x_2\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
t_{T_n} & x_{T_n-1} & x_{T_n}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
The time column is augmented by the same $\delta_t$ (here it
moves quarterly). The two other columns are added with zeros. For this model we try to use the variables in levels, logs
and also the first difference of the logs. Using the first difference, improves stationary, increasing
the performance after training. Fig. \ref{Fig3} shows the time series of a sample stock in levels and first difference of the logs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{price-diff.png}
\caption{Stock price over time for selected sample stock}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
Now the augmented values of $0$ can be interpreted as zero changes in stock prices from one stock to another. A typical RNN architecture for one hidden layer is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig4-5} on the left. In addition to this model, we also use Long Short Term Memory Network (hereafter LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Units (hereafter GRU).
Let $h_{t+1}$ be given by:
\begin{equation}
h_{t+1}=g_h(W_ix_{t+1}+W_rh_t+b_h)
\end{equation}
and the predicted value at time $t$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\hat{x}_{t+1}=g_y(W_yh_t+b_y).
\label{5}
\end{equation}
$W_i$ , $W_r$ and $W_y$ denote the weights, $b_h$ and $b_y$ denote the biases and $g_h$ and $g_y$ are the non linearities used. The process has an output at every step. First, we need to forward till the end in order to obtain the cost which we denote by $\mathcal{L}$. In this case we use the mean squared error:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_{t,i}-\hat{x}_{t,i})^2,
\end{equation}
where $x_{t,i}$ is the actual value of the stock price of company $i$ at time $t$ and $\hat{x}_{t,i}$ is the predicted one given from the Eq. \ref{5}. It is clear that with this formulation, the calculation of the partial derivative of the cost with respect to $W_r$ requires to back-propagate till the beginning in each step. One of the concerns in this case might be vanishing/exploding gradients as well as exponential memory decay over time (see \cite{pascanu2013difficulty}). For this we allow for manipulation of the memory of the system, using LSTM and GRU. They are gated mechanisms or architectures of RNNs that control the information flow through some gates. LSTM is characterized by 3 gates: input, forget and output,
while GRU by 2 gates: reset and update (see \cite{hochreiter1997long} and \cite{cho2014learning}). Using the last two methods increases the memory of the network and they are expected to give more accurate results.
The choice of optimization algorithm for this model is
Adam Optimizer (see \cite{kingma2014adam} and \cite{le2011optimization}). The batch size used is $128$ and we use a
piece wise constant learning rate with boundaries set at
$300000$, $600000$ and $1200000$ and learning rates of $0.00001$, $0.000005$, $0.000001$, $0.0000001$ respectively. A hyperbolic tangent non linearity is used for all the hidden layers, except the last one where no nonlinearity is used. The sample is divided randomly in a train set which consists $67\%$ of the total sample and a test set consisting of $33\%$ of the total sample.
\subsection{Multilayer Perceptron}
In this subsection, the MLP (see \cite{lecun2015deep}) is discussed , including how the data is processed, the architecture of the MLP and how the learning is conducted.
The input in each period is a vector of past prices, rather than a scalar. Having such a model in mind, the data should be reprocessed accordingly. Now for every firm $n \in {1,..., N }$ the input matrix will be of the form shown in Eq. \ref{Eq7} and the output will be of the form shown in Eq. \ref{Eq7-1}:
\noindent\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
X_n=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_0 & x_1 & \cdots & x_{m-1}\\
x_1 & x_2 & \cdots & x_m\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
x_{T_n-m-1} & x_{T_n-m-2} & \cdots & x_{T_n-1}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{Eq7}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
y_n=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_m\\
x_{m+1}\\
\vdots\\
x_{T_n}.
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{Eq7-1}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
Having this information for all firms, we create $X$ by
stacking all $X_n$ and $y_n$ for all $n \in \{1,..., N \}$, so that the
data is ready to be fed into the network (see Eq. \ref{eq8-1} and Eq. \ref{eq9-1}).
\noindent\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
X=
\begin{bmatrix}
X_1\\
X_2\\
\vdots\\
X_N,
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq8-1}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
\begin{equation}
Y=
\begin{bmatrix}
y_1\\
y_2\\
\vdots\\
y_N
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq9-1}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
The architecture of a one layer perceptron is shown in
Fig. \ref{Fig4-5} where in order to predict each period's price of firm $n$
at $t + 1$, the inputs used are $X_{n,t,1}$, $X_{n,t,2}$, ..., $X_{n,t,m}$, for a choice of $m$. Here $X_{n,t,1}$ represents the element in the $t$ -th row and the $1$-st column of the matrix $X_n$. $X_{n,t,2}$ represents the element in the $t$- th row and the $2$- nd column of the matrix $X_n$ and so on.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{rnn-archi.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{MLP-architecture.png}
\caption{Left: RNN Architecture; Right: MLP Architecture. The first subscript denotes the firm, the second subscript denotes the row and the third subscript denotes the column of the matrix in Eq. \ref{Eq7}.}
\label{Fig4-5}
\end{figure}
For this model, we use the variables in their logarithmic
form. The time series of price for one of the sample stocks
is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig6} together with its logarithmic transformation. The choice of optimization algorithm for this model is also Adam Optimizer. The loss function chosen is mean squared error, shown in Eq. \ref{Eq11}. The batch size used is $128$ and we use a piecewise constant learning rate with boundaries set at $300000$, $600000$ and $1200000$ and learning rates of $0.00001$, $0.000005$, $0.000001$, $0.0000001$ respectively for each interval.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T (y_{n,t}-\hat{y}_{n,t})^2.
\label{Eq11}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{log_prices_new.png}
\caption{Stock price over time for selected sample stock}
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Results from RNN model}
This subsection discusses the results obtained from the RNN. Fig. \ref{Fig7-8} on the left shows the semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for every $10$ batches of $128$ samples.
The model used is an RNN with $5$ hidden layers and Basic
cells. Fig.\ref{Fig7-8} on the right shows the predicted values of quarterly prices for random actual-predicted pairs in the test set. The black lines represent the actual time series of prices and the blue line represents the predictions over time. The test loss reached after all the iterations is $0.33$ and the results do not seem very satisfactory. The model fails to predict very high or low deviations from zero.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{loss_RNN_1layers.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{Pred_LSTM_1layers.png}
\caption{Left: Semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for RNN; Right: Predicted (blue) vs Actual (black) stock prices for random actual-predicted pairs in the test set for RNN}
\label{Fig7-8}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{loss_RNN_1layers.png}
\caption{Semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training
for RNN}
\label{Fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Pred_LSTM_1layers.png}
\caption{Predicted (blue) vs Actual (black) stock prices for random actual-predicted pairs in the test set for RNN}
\label{Fig8}
\end{figure}
\fi
We repeat the experiment for one and five hidden layers and use basic RNN cell, LSTM cell and GRU cell. Table \ref{Tab1} shows the mean squared error loss in each of the cases.
\begin{table}
\centering
\vspace{2ex}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l| l| l| }\hline
&RNN&LSTM&GRU\\\hline
$1$ Hidden Layer & $0.2922$ &$0.3076$& $0.3103$\\\hline
$5$ Hidden Layers & $0.3376$& \textbf{0.2628} & $0.2726$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Mean Squared Error Comparison}
\label{Tab1}
\end{table}
From these results, we can see that LSTM and GRU achieve the lowest mean squared error with 5 hidden layers. This is because they allow for an increase in the memory of the network compared to the basic RNN cell.
\subsection{Results from the MLP model}
The MLP model results are discussed in the following subsections. The first subsection reports the results from an MLP where the train and test set is split randomly. The next subsection shows the results when train set consists of observations before year 2016 and all the other observations are in the test set.
\subsubsection{Random split of the train and test set}
First, we report results from an MLP model with $1$
hidden layer, $x_{n,t}$ and $9$ lags of $x_{n,t}$ to predict the next price $x_{n,t+1}$ for each firm $n$. The ``lags” of a time series $x_t$ are considered to be all the past observations of $x_t$ , i.e $x_{t-1}$ , $x_{t-2}$, .... The semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for every $10$ batches of $128$ samples is shown in Fig.\ref{Fig9-10} on the left.
The actual versus the predicted values from this model are
shown in Fig.\ref{Fig9-10} on the right. Here we randomly pick from the test set values of prices for some firm in the sample at some point in time. We plot these values with black and for each of them, we show with a blue color the predicted values from the model. The mean squared error loss is $0.06$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{Loss_m10_1layers_2500000iter.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{Pred_m10_1layers_2500000iter.png}
\caption{Left: Semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for MLP; Right: Predicted (blue) vs Actual (black) stock prices for random actual-predicted pairs in the test set for MLP with random splitting }
\label{Fig9-10}
\end{figure}
We also report the results of the model when we use different
number of hidden layers and different number $m$ of lags of
$x_{n,t}$ to predict the next values of $x_{n,t+1}$ for firm $n$. These results are shown in Table \ref{Tab2}. From these results, we can see that the minimum value of the mean squared error is achieved when using $1$ hidden
layer, $x_t$ and $9$ lags of $x_t$ as input $(m = 10)$ to predict $x_{t+1}$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\vspace{2ex}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l |l| l| l|}\hline
m&$15$&$10$&$5$&$1$\\\hline
$1$ Hidden Layer & $0.0623$ & \textbf{0.06}& $0.0601$& $0.0613$\\\hline
$2$ Hidden Layers & $0.0612$& $0.0718$ & $0.0630$& $0.0675$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Mean Squared Error Comparison}
\label{Tab2}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Non random split of train and test set}
For this section we use the variables again in their logarithmic form. Fig.\ref{Fig11-12} on the left shows the semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for every $10$ batches of $128$ samples. Fig.\ref{Fig11-12} on the right shows the actual values (black line ) versus the predicted values (blue line) for some randomly picked observations in the sample.
Table \ref{Tab3} shows the comparison for different model specifications in terms of the mean squared error. The best specification seems to be the MLP with $m$ value of $10$ and $2$ hidden layers, where the error reached is $0.0337$. The error is lower compared to the model where the split is random because the test size here is smaller. In the random split, the test size consists of $33\%$ of the sample, while here it contains only observations in $2016$ and after.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{loss_nonrandom.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{pred_nonrandom.png}
\caption{Left: Semilogy of the mean squared error loss during training for MLP; Right: Predicted (blue) vs Actual (black) stock prices for random actual-predicted pairs in the test set for MLP with non random splitting}
\label{Fig11-12}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\vspace{2ex}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l |l| l| l|}\hline
m&$15$&$10$&$5$&$1$\\\hline
$1$ Hidden Layer & $0.0427$ & $0.041$& $0.0399$& $0.0437$\\\hline
$2$ Hidden Layers & $0.0401$& \textbf{0.033} & $0.0372$& $0.0348$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Mean Squared Error Comparison for MLP with non random splitting}
\label{Tab3}
\end{table}
\section{A test for the relevance of network inputs}
\label{testsection}
In this section we formally test the null hypothesis that past prices do not affect present stock prices versus the alternative that they do. For this task, we use the results from \cite{white2001statistical}. The authors use a one hidden layer perceptron, with a continuous nonlinearity $\psi$ for the hidden layer and a linear activation function for the output layer. Formally, the output is given by:
\begin{equation}
f(x,w)=w_{00}+\sum_{j=1}^J w_{0j} \psi(\tilde{x}^Tw_{1j}),
\label{eq51}
\end{equation}
where $w \equiv (w_{00}, w_{01},...,w_{0h}, w_{11}^T,...,w_{1h}^T)^T$ are the weights, $x$ denotes the vector of inputs with $\tilde{x}=(1,x^T)^T$ and $h$ is the number of neurons in the hidden layer. We use 1 hidden layer with 16 neurons and a hyperbolic tangent function as $\psi()$. Learning is done to minimize the following:
\begin{equation}
\min_{w}N^{-1} \sum_{n=1}^N(Y_n-f(X_n,w))^2,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of observations, $Y_n$ denotes the target and $f(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the function defined in Eq. \ref{eq51}. During training, we use a piecewise constant learning rate with boundaries at $600000$ and $1200000$ and values of the learning rate of $0.004$, $0.0005$ and $0.0001$ respectively for each interval. Observations before 2012 are used for the train set and observations after 2012 are used for the test set.
With the appropriate restrictions discussed in \cite{white2001statistical}, it follows that a weight vector $\hat{w}_N$ exists and converges almost surely to $w^*$ which solves:
\begin{equation}
\min_{w} \lambda(w)=E([Y_n-f(X_n,w)]^2).
\end{equation}
The hypothesis we are interested to estimate is:
\begin{equation}
\partial f(x,w^*)/ \partial x_i =0 , \quad i \in I_0,
\end{equation}
where $I_0$ is the set of indexes specifying the inputs whose relevance we are interested in. The authors consider the following statistics:
\begin{equation}
\hat{m} = N^{-1}\sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{i \in I_0} f_i(X_n,\hat{w}_N)^2,
\end{equation}
where $f_i(\cdot, w)$ denotes $\partial f(\cdot, w)/ \partial x_i$. This statistics is $0$ if and only if $f_i(X_n,\hat{w}_N)$ is $0$. They show that the statistics has an asymptotic $\chi2$ mixture distribution. Since the computation of a critical value is complicated, the authors use the bootstrap method with a bootstrap statistics given by:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\mathcal{B}}^*_N=\sum_{n=1}^Nm(X_n,\hat{w}^*_N)-\sum_{n=1}^N m(X_n,\hat{w}_N) - \sum_{n=1}^N \bigtriangledown ^T m(X_n,\hat{w}_N)(\hat{w}^*_N - \hat{w}_N).
\end{equation}
Here $\hat{w}^*_N$ are the weights obtained from the bootstrap sample and $m(X_n,\hat{w}_N)=\sum_{i \in I_0} f_i(X_n,\hat{w}_N)^2$. The bootstrap method consists of the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Use the original sample solve the minimization problem to get $\hat{w}_N$.
\item Draw a sample $\{Z_1^*,...,Z_N^* \}$ with replacement from the original sample and compute resampled weights $\hat{w}_N^*$ by solving the minimization problem with the new sample.
\item Compute the bootstrap statistics, $\bar{\mathcal{B}}^*_N/N$.
\item Repeat steps 2 and 3 $v$ times (e.g $v=100$ or $v=1000$).
\item Compute the $p$-value.
\end{enumerate}
We use $1000$ bootstrap samples for each model. The weights $\hat{w}^*_N$ for each of the bootstrap sample are learned by setting the initial values of the weights at $\hat{w}_N$.
Following the methods described in \cite{white2001statistical}, one should train separately for each firm, for each frequency (daily, weekly, monthly), and for different time periods. Due to the computational intensity of experimenting with $439$ firms, $3$ different frequencies and different time periods, we only perform the test on the top $5$ firms with monthly frequency and a time period from 1980 to 2017. Thus, our hypothesis testing is now restricted to "are past prices of those 5 firms relevant in predicting the current prices?". The firms used are the top 5 companies in terms of Market Capitalization from NASDAQ (as of 2017): Apple, Inc. (AAPL), Comcast Corporation (CMCSA), Intel Corporation (INTC), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT), PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP), monthly frequency and the 3 models as in Eq. \ref{Eq18}, \ref{Eq19} and \ref{Eq20}.
The $p$-value is equal to the proportion of bootstrap samples that give a higher statistics than the original one. For example, if the number of samples exceeding the original statistics is $k$ and the total number of bootstrap statistics is b, the $p$-value is calculated as $\frac{k}{b}$. In this work we use a ratio of $\frac{k+1}{b+1}$ to provide more robust estimates. Also, we use percentage price changes, $\bigtriangleup \log P_t$ and for a given firm we estimate the three of the following models:
\begin{equation}
\bigtriangleup \log P_t=f(\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-1},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-2},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-3},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-4},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-5},\omega)+\epsilon_t
\label{Eq20}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bigtriangleup \log P_t=f(\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-1},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-2},\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-3},\omega)+\epsilon_t
\label{Eq19}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bigtriangleup \log P_t=f(\bigtriangleup \log P_{t-1},\omega)+\epsilon_t.
\label{Eq18}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{AAPL.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{MSFT.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{INTC.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{CMCSA.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth]{PEP.png}
\caption{Bootstrap Statistics Distribution for AAPL, CMCSA, MSFT, INTC and PEP}
\label{Fig13}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{p-values.png}
\caption{p-values for each individual model}
\label{Fig14}
\end{figure}
Then we have to test the null hypothesis with multiple models, for different lags used and different firms. We need an upper bound on the $p$-value for the joint null hypothesis that in none of a particular group of models do the lagged changes matter. For this, we use the Bonferroni inequality for multiple hypothesis. With the Bonferroni method, we reject the null at the $\alpha$ level if $P_{(1)} \leq \alpha/m$, where $m$ is the number of models and $P_{(1)} $ is the smallest $p$-value from all the $m$ models. So the Bonferroni $p$-value bound is $\alpha=mP_{(1)}$. One could use tighter bounds by a modification of the Bonferroni inequality as in \cite{hochberg1988sharper}.
Fig. \ref{Fig13} shows the bootstrap statistics for all the firms, trained with the model with 5 lags. The statistics does not seem to be normally distributed nevertheless the distribution seems approximately symmetric, with the exception of AAPL and PEP. The p-values for all $15$ models we estimate are given in Fig. \ref{Fig14}. With a value of $P_{(1)}$ equal to $0.0059$, $\alpha=10\%$ and $m=15$, we can reject the null hypothesis that in none of the models do lagged changes matter.
\section{Conclusions}
This work questions the efficient-market hypothesis using DNNs. For this purpose, we use RNN and MLP to forecast next quarter’s stock movements using historical stock prices. We train the MLP with a random and a non random train and test split. We also conduct a formal statistical test for the null hypothesis that past prices do not affect current prices versus the alternative that they do. The results reject the null hypothesis that in none of the models that we estimate, do the lagged prices matter. These results contradict the efficient-market hypothesis, in line with the work of \cite{basu1977investment}, \cite{rosenberg1985persuasive} and others. This encourages the use of better models, different specifications and different processing of the data to predict more accurately the future stock movements.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{Nonparametric regression}
Motivated by the huge success of deep neural networks
in applications (cf., e.g.,
\cite{Sch15} and the literature cited therein)
there is now keen interest in investigating theoretical
properties of deep neural networks. In
statistical research this is usually done in context
of nonparametric regression (cf., \cite{KoKr17}, \cite{BK17}, \cite{Sch17}, \cite{KL20}, \cite{FM18} and \cite{NI19}).
Here,
$(X,Y)$ is an $\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}$--valued random vector
satisfying ${\mathbf E} \{Y^2\}<\infty$, and given a sample
of $(X,Y)$ of size $n$, i.e., given a data set
\begin{equation}
\label{se1eq1}
{\mathcal{D}}_n = \left\{
(X_1,Y_1), \dots, (X_n,Y_n)
\right\},
\end{equation}
where
$(X,Y)$, $(X_1,Y_1)$, \dots, $(X_n,Y_n)$ are i.i.d. random variables,
the aim is to construct an estimate
\[
m_n(\cdot)=m_n(\cdot, {\mathcal{D}}_n):\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}
\]
of the regression function $m:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
$m(x)={\mathbf E}\{Y|X=x\}$ such that the $L_2$ error
\[
\int |m_n(x)-m(x)|^2 {\mathbf P}_X (dx)
\]
is ``small'' (see, e.g., \cite{GKKW02}
for a comprehensive study to nonparametric regression and
motivation for the $L_2$ error).
\subsection{Rate of convergence}
It is well--known that one
needs smoothness assumptions on the regression function in
order to derive non--trivial rates of convergence
(cf., e.g., Theorem 7.2 and Problem 7.2 in
\cite{DGL96} and
Section 3 in \cite{DW80}).
Thus we introduce the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{intde2}
Let $p=q+s$ for some $q \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $0< s \leq 1$,
where $\mathbb{N}_0$ is the set of nonnegative integers.
A function $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called
\textbf{$(p,C)$-smooth}, if for every $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_d) \in
\mathbb{N}_0^d$
with $\sum_{j=1}^d \alpha_j = q$ the partial derivative
$\frac{
\partial^q f
}{
\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
}$
exists and satisfies
\[
\left|
\frac{
\partial^q f
}{
\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
}
(x)
-
\frac{
\partial^q f
}{
\partial x_1^{\alpha_1}
\dots
\partial x_d^{\alpha_d}
}
(z)
\right|
\leq
C
\cdot
\| x-z \|^s
\]
for all $x,z \in \mathbb{R}^d$, where $\Vert\cdot\Vert$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
\end{definition}
\cite{Sto82} showed that the optimal minimax rate of convergence in nonparametric
regression for $(p,C)$-smooth functions is $n^{-2p/(2p+d)}$.
\subsection{Curse of dimensionality}
In case
that $d$ is large compared to $p$ the above rate of convergence is
rather slow which is a symptom of so-called curse of dimensionality. One way to circumvent it is to
impose additional constraints on the structure of the regression
function. Recently it was shown, that deep neural networks are able to circumvent the curse of dimensionality whenever suitable hierarchical composition assumptions on the regression function hold. Here the regression function is contained in the following function class:
\begin{definition}
\label{de2}
Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$ and $m: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ and let
$\P$ be a subset
of $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{N}$
\noindent
\textbf{a)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a hierarchical composition model of level $0$
with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$, if there exists a $K \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ such that
\[
m(x) = x^{(K)} \quad \mbox{for all } x = (x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)})^{\top} \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\]
\noindent
\textbf{b)}
We say that $m$ satisfies a hierarchical composition model
of level $\ell+1$ with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$, if there exist $(p,K) \in \P$, $C>0$, $g: \mathbb{R}^{K} \to \mathbb{R}$ and $f_{1}, \dots, f_{K}: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$, such that
$g$ is $(p,C)$--smooth,
$f_{1}, \dots, f_{K}$ satisfy a hierarchical composition model of level $\ell$
with order and smoothness constraint $\mathcal{P}$
and
\[m(x)=g(f_{1}(x), \dots, f_{K}(x)) \quad \mbox{for all } x \in \mathbb{R}^d.\]
\end{definition}
In case that the order and smoothness constraint of $g$ alternates between $(p,d)$ and $(\infty, K)$ and $g$ is a sum in every second level, this definition equals the definition of the so--called \textit{$(p,C)$-smooth generalized hierarchical interaction models} of order $d^*$, which were introduced by \cite{KoKr17}. They showed that for such models suitably defined multilayer
neural networks (in which the number of hidden layers depends
on the level of the generalized interaction model) achieve the rate of convergence $n^{-2p/(2p+d^*)}$
(up to some logarithmic factor) in case $p \leq 1$.
\cite{BK17} generalized this result for $p>1$ provided the squashing function is suitably
chosen. For the hierarchical composition model of Definition \ref{de2}, where the smoothness and dimension is fixed within one level, \cite{Sch17} showed (up to some logarithmic factor) a rate of convergence
\begin{align*}
\max_{(p,K) \in \P} n^{-2p/(2p+K)}
\end{align*}
for sparse neural networks with ReLU activation function. \cite{KL20} showed that this rate holds even for simple fully connected neural networks and arbitrary hierarchical composition model of Definition \ref{de2}. All the above mentioned results are optimal up to some logarithmic factor. \cite{Liu19} showed that some of these results hold even without the logarithmic factor. For regression functions with a form of common statistical models, i.e. multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), \cite{EcSch18} showed that convergence rate by DNNs can also be improved.
In case that the regression function is defined on a manifold, \cite{Sch19} showed, that the convergence rate by DNNs depends on the dimension of the manifold. \cite{NI19} analyzed the performance of DNNs in case that the high-dimensional data have an intrinsic low dimensionality and showed that the convergence rate by DNNs depends only on the intrinsic dimension and not on the input dimension.
\subsection{Low local dimensionality}
In this article we consider regression functions with low local dimensionality. There exist several examples in the literature, where high dimensional problems can be treated locally in much lower dimension. \cite{Bell_1997} showed that the probability distribution of a natural scene is highly structured, since, for instance, the neighboring pixel of a natural scene have redundant informations. \cite{ViSch97} and \cite{HSV09} analyzed in their research on human motor control some regularities in full-body movement of humans within and across individuals. These regularities also lead to locally low-dimensional data distributions. For instance, they showed that for estimating the inverse dynamics of an arm, a globally 21- dimensional space reduces, on average to 4-6 dimensions locally. And also in our own research it can be reasonably assumed, that the analyzed data set is of a locally low dimensional structure. The data set under study (which is part of the Machine Learning Repository: \url{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/machine-learning-databases/00275/}) is related to 2--year usage log of a bike sharing system namely Captial Bike Sharing (CBS) at Washington, D.C., USA (\cite{FG13}). The data show the hourly aggregated count of rental bikes and 12 attributes, namely the season (1: spring, 2: summer, 3: fall, 4: winter), the year (0: 2011, 1:2012), the month (1 to 12), the hour (0 to 23), holiday (whether the day is holiday (1) or not (0)), the day of the week (1 to 7), workingday (if day is neither weekend nor holiday is 1, otherwise is 0), the weather situation (1: Clear, Few clouds, Partly cloudy, 2: Mist + Cloudy, Mist + Broken clouds, Mist + Few clouds, Mist, 3: Light Snow, Light Rain + Thunderstorm + Scattered clouds, Light Rain + Scattered clouds, 4: Heavy Rain + Ice Pallets + Thunderstorm + Mist, Snow + Fog), the normalized temperature in Celsius, the normalized feeling temperature in Celsius, the normalized humidity and the normalized windspeed. For this data set we conjecture that depending on the season,
the hour and the attribute working day the count of rental
bikes depends on different subsets of the other attributes.
E.g., in spring and fall during the rush hour on working
day the weather is not important at all. But on days which
are not working days, it depends mainly on the hour and the
weather, where for different seasons different weather
attributes are important (like temperature and humidity
in summer or weather situation in the Spring and in the Fall).
This leads to the assumption, that the underlying regression function performs differently on different subsets and depends locally only on a few of its input components.
In summary, that means that one can reduce dimension locally without losing much information for many high dimensional problems thus avoiding the curse of dimensionality. This finding motivates us to analyze regression functions with low local dimensionality.
\\
\\
We say
a function $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ has a low local dimensionality, if it depends locally only on a very few of its component, where in different areas these subsets of variables can be different.
The simplest
way to define this formally is to assume that there exist
$d^* \in \{1, \dots, d\}$,
$K \in \mathbb{N}$, disjoint sets $A_1$, \dots, $A_K \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, functions
$f_1$, \dots, $f_{K}:\mathbb{R}^{d^*} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and subsets of indices
$J_1$, \dots, $J_K \subset \{1, \dots, d\}$ of cardinality at most
$d^*$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{se3eq1}
f(x)
=
\sum_{k=1}^K
f_k(x_{J_k}) \cdot \mathds{1}_{
A_k
}(x)
\end{equation}
holds for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, where
\begin{align*}
x_{\{j_{k,1}, \dots, j_{k,d^*}\}} = (x^{(j_{k,1})}, \dots, x^{(j_{k,d^*})}) \ \mbox{for} \ 1 \leq j_{k,1} < \dots < j_{k,d^*} \leq d.
\end{align*}
As a consequence of using the indicator function, assumption (\ref{se3eq1})
implies that $f$ in general is not globally smooth, in particular it
is not even continuous. In view of many applications where it is
intuitively
expected that the dependent variable depends smoothly on the
independent variables, this does not seem to be realistic.
To avoid this problem, we will allow in the sequel smooth transitions
between the different areas $A_1$, \dots, $A_K$
in (\ref{se3eq1}). To achieve this, we assume that the function
$f$ is squeezed between two functions of the form (\ref{se3eq1}). In order to simplify the presentation, we use in the sequel $d$-dimensional polytopes for the sets $A_1, \dots, A_K$. Since polytopes can be described as the intersection of a finite number of half spaces, we define the local dimensionality as follows:
\begin{definition}
\label{se3de2}
A function $f: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ has \textit{local dimensionality} $d^{\ast} \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ on $[-A,A]^d$ for $A > 0$ with order $(K_1, K_2)$, ${\mathbf P}_X$-border $\epsilon >0$ and borders $\delta_{i,k} > 0$ for $i =1, \dots, K_1$, $k=1, \dots, K_2$ if there exists $a_{i,k} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\Vert a_{i,k} \Vert \leq 1$, $b_{i,k} \in \mathbb{R}$, $J_k \subseteq \{1, \dots, d\}$ with $|J_k| \leq d^{\ast}$ for $i =1, \dots, K_1$, $k=1, \dots, K_2$ and
\begin{equation*}
f_k: \mathbb{R}^{d^{\ast}} \to \mathbb{R}
\end{equation*}
such that for
\begin{equation*}
(P_k)_{\delta_k} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^d: a_{i,k}^T x \leq b_{i,k} - \delta_{i,k} \ \mbox{for $i = 1, \dots, K_1$}\}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
(P_k)^{\delta_k}= \{x \in \mathbb{R}^d: a_{i,k}^T x \leq b_{i,k} + \delta_{i,k} \ \mbox{for $i = 1, \dots, K_1$}\}
\end{equation*}
with $\delta_k = (\delta_{1,k}, \dots, \delta_{K_1,k})$
we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k=1}^{K_2} f_k(x_{J_k}) \cdot 1_{(P_k)_{\delta_k}}(x) \leq f(x) \leq \sum_{k=1}^{K_2} f_k(x_{J_k}) \cdot 1_{(P_k)^{\delta_k}}(x) \ \ \ (x \in A)
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf P}_X\left(\left( \bigcup_{k=1}^{K_2}(P_k)^{\delta_k} \textbackslash (P_k)_{\delta_k}\right)\cap [-A,A]^d\right) \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
Figure \ref{fig2} shows a function $f(x)$ with $K_2=4$, polytopes $P_1 = [-2,0] \times [-2,0]$, $P_2=[-2,0] \times [0,2]$, $P_3 = [0,2] \times [0,2]$ and $P_4 = [0,2] \times [-2,0]$ and functions $f_1(x_1)=\sin(4 \cdot x_1)$, $f_2(x_2)=\exp(x_2)$, $f_3(x_2) = \cos(4 \cdot x_2)$ and $f_4(x_2) = \exp(x_1)$ with smooth transitions between the polytopes.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ex6.eps}
\caption{An example of a function with low local dimensionality with a 2-dimensional support. The support is divided into four pieces, the function depends locally only on one variable of the input and is globally smooth.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Main results}
In this paper we show that sparse neural network regression estimates are able
to achieve a dimension reduction in case that the regression
function has a low local dimensionality. We derive the rate of convergence which depends
only on the local dimension $d^*$ and not on the input dimension $d$ (cf., Theorem \ref{th2}).
Thus our neural network regression
estimates are able to circumvent the curse of dimensionality in case that $d^*$ is much smaller than $d$. Finally, we verify the theoretical results using simulation studies and experiments on real data.
\\
\\
We point out another advantage of DNNs, namely that that neural networks are able to detect a locally low dimensional structure and therefore achieve a faster rate of convergence. As a technical contribution of this paper, we present a result concerning the connection between neural networks and so-called multivariate adapative regression splines (MARS). For instance, we show that the sparse neural network
regression estimates, where the weights are chosen by the least squares,
satisfy the expected error bound of MARS in case that this procedure works in an optimal way (cf., Theorem 2 in the Supplement).
\\
Our results are based
on a set of sparse neural networks instead of fully connected neural networks. On the one hand
this network architecture leads to a better bound of the covering number, which is essential to
show the convergence result. On the other hand they perform better with regard to the simulated and real data
as shown in our simulation studies. In applying our estimates to a real-world data experiment we
emphasize the practical relevance of our assumption on the regression function and show
that our sparse neural network estimates outperform other nonparametric regression estimates, especially MARS, on this data set.
\subsection{Discussion of related results}
It is frequently observed by various researchers, that the true intrinsic dimensionality of high dimensional data is often very low (e.g. \cite{BN03}, \cite{T00}, \cite{HSV09}, \cite{NI19}). Several estimators like the kernel methods and the Gaussian process regression are able to exploit the intrinsic low dimensionality of covariates and achieve a fast rate of convergence depending only on the intrinsic dimensionality of the data set (e.g. \cite{B07}, \cite{S11}, \cite{K13}, \cite{Yang:1997aa}). Recently, \cite{NI19} also derived convergence rates by DNNs, which only depend on the intrinsic dimension and are free from the nominal dimension. \cite{Sch19} achieved approximation rates of DNNs that only depend on $d^*$, in case that the input lies on on a $d^*$-dimension manifold.
To describe the intrinsic dimensionality, both articles used the notion of \textit{Minkowski dimension}.
\\
\\
All the above mentioned results use the observation, that many high dimensional problems are contained in a low dimensional space. At this point we would like to highlight the difference with our assumption. While these studies focus on the behavior of the measure ${\mathbf P}_X$ of covariates, we analyze regression functions with some specific structure, i.e. regression functions with low local dimensionality. In our case the dimension of the regression function is locally of size $d^* \leq d$ and the regression function performs differently on different subsets. This does not imply, that there is some intrinsic low dimensionality in the measure ${\mathbf P}_X$ of covariates.
\\
\\
A similar structure of regression functions has been studied by \cite{FM18}. They analyzed the performance of DNNs for a certain class of piecewise smooth functions. Here piecewise smooth regression functions where the partitions have smooth borders were considered. For instance, their partition consists of a finite number of pieces, where each piece is an intersection of so-called \textit{basis pieces}. Each basis piece is defined with the help of a horizon function and is regarded as one side of surfaces by a H\"older-smooth function. Thus the pieces of the partition in this paper have smooth borders, which is a more flexible way to define piecewise smooth functions, but which does not contain the case of globally smooth functions. Since we also want to take into consideration smooth functions with low local dimensionality, i.e. functions which perform differently on different pieces (depending only on a few components of the input on each piece), but are nevertheless globally smooth, we define our pieces as d--dimensional polytopes and allow smooth transition between them.
\\
\\
As mentioned earlier, the proof of our main result is based on a result that analyzes the connection between DNNs and MARS. \cite{EcSch18} already showed a similar result for the ReLU activation function. In particular, they showed that every function expressed as a function in MARS can also be approximated by a multilayer neural network (up to a sup-norm error $\epsilon$). Using this result they derived a risk comparison inequality, that bound the statistical risk of fitting a neural network by the statistical risk of spline-based methods.
Due to the fact that the ReLU activation function and consequently
the corresponding neural network are piecewise linear functions
it is not that suprisingly to find connection to spline methods. This paper extends this result by showing connection between neural networks with smooth
activation functions and MARS, which was not covered by the results in \cite{EcSch18}. Additionally, we
show our result for a more general basis of smooth piecewiese polynomials, i.e. a product of a
truncated power basis of degree 1 and a B-spline basis. This leads to better approximation properties
in case of very smooth regression function. \\
\\
The approximation of B-Splines by DNNs has also been studied by \cite{Liu19}. They showed that a DNN with $const \cdot m$ hidden layers and a fixed number of neurons per layer achieves an approximation rate of size $4^{-2m}$ for a tensor product B-spline basis. In the Supplement we derive a related result for DNN with squashing activation function.
\subsection{Notation}
Throughout the paper, the following notation is used:
The sets of natural numbers, natural numbers including $0$, integers, non-negative real numbers and real numbers
are denoted by $\mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{N}_0$, $\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{R}_+$ and $\mathbb{R}$, respectively. For $z \in \mathbb{R}$, we denote
the smallest integer greater than or equal to $z$ by
$\lceil z \rceil$, and
$\lfloor z \rfloor$
denotes the largest integer that is less than or equal to $z$.
Furthermore we set $z_+=\max\{z,0\}$.
The Euclidean and the supremum norms of $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$
are denoted by $\|x\|_2$ and $\|x\|_\infty$, respectively.
For $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
\[
\|f\|_\infty = \sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}^d} |f(x)|
\]
is its supremum norm, and the supremum norm of $f$
on a set $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ is denoted by
\[
\|f\|_{\infty,A} = \sup_{x \in A} |f(x)|.
\]
A finite collection $f_1, \dots, f_N:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
is called an $\varepsilon$--$\|\cdot\|_{\infty,A}$-- cover of ${\cal F}$
if for any $f \in {\cal F}$ there exists $i \in \{1, \dots, N\}$
such that
\[
\|f-f_i\|_{\infty,A}
=
\sup_{x \in A} |f(x)-f_i(x)| < \varepsilon.
\]
The $\varepsilon$--$\|\cdot\|_{\infty,A}$- covering number of ${\cal F}$
is the size $N$ of the smallest $\varepsilon$--$\|\cdot\|_{\infty,A}$-- cover
of ${\cal F}$ and is denoted by ${\mathcal{N}}(\varepsilon,{\cal F},\| \cdot \|_{\infty,A})$.
We write $x = \arg \min_{z \in D} f(z)$ if
$\min_{z \in {\mathcal{D}}} f(z)$ exists and if
$x$ satisfies
\[
x \in D \quad \mbox{and} \quad f(x) = \min_{z \in {\mathcal{D}}} f(z).
\]
If not otherwise stated, any $c_i$ with $i\in\mathbb{N}$
symbolizes a real nonnegative constant,
which is independent of the sample size $n$.
\subsection{Outline}
The outline of this paper is as follows: In Section \ref{se2}
the sparse neural network regression estimates analyzed in this
paper are introduced. The main result is presented in Section
\ref{se3}. The finite sample size behavior of our estimate is analyzed by applying it to simulated and real data in Section \ref{se4}.
\section{Sparse neural network regression estimates}
\label{se2}
The starting point in defining a neural network is the
choice of an activation function \linebreak $\sigma: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$.
We use in the sequel
so--called squashing functions, which are nondecreasing
and satisfy $\lim_{x \rightarrow - \infty} \sigma(x)=0$
and
$\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \sigma(x)=1$.
An example of a squashing function is
the so-called sigmoidal or logistic squasher
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq1a}
\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{1+\exp(-x)} \quad (x \in \mathbb{R}).
\end{equation}
A multilayer feedforward neural network with
$L$ hidden layers and $k_1$, $k_2$, \dots, $k_L$
number of neurons in the first,
second, $\dots$, $L$-th hidden layer
and sigmoidal function $\sigma$ is a real-valued function defined on $\mathbb{R}^d$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{se2eq1}
f(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{k_L} c_{1,i}^{(L)} \cdot f_i^{(L)}(x) + c_{1,0}^{(L)},
\end{equation}
for some $c_{1,0}^{(L)}, \dots, c_{1,k_L}^{(L)} \in \mathbb{R}$ and for $f_i^{(L)}$'s recursively defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq2}
f_i^{(r)}(x) = \sigma\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k_{r-1}} c_{i,j}^{(r-1)} \cdot f_j^{(r-1)}(x) + c_{i,0}^{(r-1)} \right)
\end{equation}
for some $c_{i,0}^{(r-1)}, \dots, c_{i, k_{r-1}}^{(r-1)} \in \mathbb{R}$
$(r=2, \dots, L)$
and
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq3}
f_i^{(1)}(x) = \sigma \left(\sum_{j=1}^d c_{i,j}^{(0)} \cdot x^{(j)} + c_{i,0}^{(0)} \right)
\end{equation}
for some $c_{i,0}^{(0)}, \dots, c_{i,d}^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}$.
We denote
by ${\cal F}(L,r,\alpha)$
the set of all fully connected neural networks with $L$ hidden layers, $r$
neurons
in each hidden layer and weights bounded in absolute value by $\alpha$.
\newline
In the sequel we propose sparse neural networks architectures, where the consecutive layers of neurons are not fully connected. The structure of our sparse neural networks depends on smaller neural networks that are fully connected. For $M^{*} \in \mathbb{N}$, $L \in \mathbb{N}$, $r \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\alpha > 0$, we denote the set of all functions $f: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ that satisfy
\begin{equation*}
f(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{M^{*}} \mu_i \cdot f_i(x) \ (x \in \mathbb{R}^d)
\end{equation*}
for some $f_i \in \mathcal{F}(L, r, \alpha)$ and for some $\mu_i \in \mathbb{R}$, where $|\mu_i| \leq \alpha$, by $\mathcal{F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha}$. An example of a network in class $\mathcal{F}^{(sparse)}_{3, L, r, \alpha}$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig1} which gives a good idea of how the network structure looks like.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick]
\tikzstyle{annot} = [
text centered
]
\tikzstyle{rectangle_style}=[rectangle, draw]
\node[annot] at (1, -3+2) {\footnotesize{$x^{(2)}$}};
\node[annot] at (1, -3+4) {\footnotesize{$x^{(1)}$}};
\draw[->] (1.4,-3+2) -- (1.8,-3+2);
\draw[->] (1.4,-3+4) -- (1.8,-3+4);
\draw[->] (8.2,2-2.1) -- (8.6,2-2.1);
\node[annot] at (9.2, 2-2.1) {\footnotesize{Output}};
\foreach \x in {1,2}
\fill (2, -3 + 2*\x) circle (4pt);
\begin{scope}
\clip[draw] (4,2-1.3*1) rectangle (6,3-1.3*1);
\draw[rotate=45,step=2mm] (-5,-5) grid (7,7);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\clip[draw] (4,2-1.3*2) rectangle (6,3-1.3*2);
\draw[rotate=45,step=2mm] (-5,-5) grid (7,7);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\clip[draw] (4,2-1.3*3) rectangle (6,3-1.3*3);
\draw[rotate=45,step=2mm] (-6,-6) grid (7,7);
\end{scope}
\draw (2,-3+4) -- (4, 2-0.75);
\draw (2,-3+4) --(4, 2-2.1);
\draw (2,-3+4) --(4, 2-3.5);
\draw (2,-3+2) -- (4, 2-0.75);
\draw (2,-3+2) --(4, 2-2.1);
\draw (2,-3+2) --(4, 2-3.5);
\fill (8, 2-2.1) circle (4pt);
\draw (6, 2-0.75) --(8, 2-2.1);
\draw (6, 2-2.1) -- (8, 2-2.1);
\draw (6, 2-3.5) -- (8, 2-2.1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A neural network with $M^*=3$ boxes of fully connected neural networks}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In the sequel we want to use data (\ref{se1eq1}) in order
to choose a function from $\mathcal{F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha}$ such that this function is
a good regression estimate. In order to do this, we use the principle
of
least squares and define our regression estimate $\tilde{m}_n$ as a
function
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq4}
\tilde{m}_n(\cdot)= \tilde{m}_n(\cdot,{\mathcal{D}}_{n}) \in {\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}
\end{equation}
from ${\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}$, which minimizes the so--called
empirical $L_2$ risk over ${\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}$, i.e., which satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq5}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n
| Y_i - \tilde{m}_n(X_i)|^2
=
\min_{ f \in {\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n
| Y_i - f(X_i)|^2.
\end{equation}
Here we assume for notational simplicity that the minimum above does
indeed exists. In case that it does not exist our results also hold for
any function chosen from ${\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}$ which minimizes
the empirical $L_2$ risk in (\ref{se2eq5}) up to some small additive
term, e.g., up to $1/n$.
For technical reasons in the analysis of our estimate we need to
truncate
it at some data--independent level $\beta_n$ satisfying $\beta_n
\rightarrow \infty$ for $n \rightarrow\infty$, i.e., we set
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq6}
m_n(x)=T_{\beta_n} \tilde{m}_n(x) \quad (x \in \mathbb{R}^d),
\end{equation}
where $T_{\beta_n} z = \max \{
\min\{ z, \beta_n \}, - \beta_n
\}$ for $z \in \mathbb{R}$.
The number $L$ of layers and the number $r$ of parameters of each fully connected neural network $f_i$ will be chosen as a large enough constant. For the bound
$\alpha_n$ on the absolute value of the weights we will use a
data--independent
bound of the form $\alpha_n=c_1 \cdot n^{c_2}$ for some $c_1,c_2>0$. The main
parameter
left which controls the flexibility of the networks is then the number
$M^{\ast}$ of fully connected neural networks $f_i \in {\cal F}(L,r,\alpha_n)$ $(i=1, \dots, M^{*})$. To choose it, we will use the principle of
splitting of the sample (cf., e.g., Chapter 7 in Gy\"orfi et al. (2002)).
Here we split the sample into a learning sample of size $n_l$ and a
testing sample of size $n_t$, where $n_l,n_t \geq 1$ satisfy
$n=n_l+n_t$,
e.g., $n_l= \lceil n/2 \rceil$ and $n_t=n-n_l$. We use the learning
sample
\[
{\mathcal{D}}_{n_l}= \left\{
(X_1,Y_1), \dots, (X_{n_l},Y_{n_l})
\right\}
\]
to define for each $M^{*}$ in $\P_n=\{ 2^l \, : \, l=1, \dots, \lceil \log
n \rceil \}$
an estimate $\tilde{m}_{n_l,M^{*}}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq7}
\tilde{m}_{n_l,M^{*}}(\cdot)=\tilde{m}_{n_l,M^{*}}(\cdot,{\mathcal{D}}_{n_l}) \in {\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, r, \alpha_n}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq7b}
\frac{1}{n_l} \sum_{i=1}^{n_l}
| Y_i - \tilde{m}_{n_l,M^{*}}(X_i)|^2
=
\min_{ f \in {\cal F}^{(sparse)}_{M^{*}, L, k, \alpha_n}}
\frac{1}{n_l} \sum_{i=1}^{n_l}
| Y_i - f(X_i)|^2,
\end{equation}
and set
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq8}
m_{n_l,M^{*}}(x)=T_{\beta_n} \tilde{m}_{n_l,M^*}(x) \quad (x \in \mathbb{R}^d).
\end{equation}
Then we choose
$M^{*} \in \P_n$ such that the empirical $L_2$ error of the estimate
on the testing data is minimal, i.e., we define
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq9}
m_n(x,{\mathcal{D}}_n)=m_{n_l,\hat{M}^{*}}(x,{\mathcal{D}}_{n_l}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{se2eq10}
\hat{M^{*}} \in \P_n
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\frac{1}{n_t} \sum_{i=n_l+1}^n
| Y_i - m_{n_l, \hat{M^{*}}}(X_i)|^2
=
\min_{M^* \in \P_n}
\frac{1}{n_t} \sum_{i=n_l+1}^n
| Y_i - m_{n_l,M^*}(X_i)|^2.
\end{equation}
\section{Main result}
\label{se3}
Our theoretical result will be valid for sigmoidal functions which
are
$2$--admissible according to the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{se3de1}
Let $N \in \mathbb{N}_0$.
A function $\sigma : \mathbb{R} \to [0, 1]$ is called \textbf{N-admissible},
if it is nondecreasing and Lipschitz continuous and if, in addition,
the following three conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The function $\sigma$ is $N+1$ times continuously differentiable with bounded derivatives.
\item[(ii)] A point $t_{\sigma} \in \mathbb{R}$ exists, where all
derivatives up to order $N$ of $\sigma$ are
nonzero.
\item[(iii)] If $y > 0$, the relation $|\sigma(y) - 1| \leq \frac{1}{y} $ holds. If $y < 0$, the relation $|\sigma(y)| \leq \frac{1}{|y|}$ holds. \label{3}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\noindent
It is easy to see that the logistic squasher (\ref{se2eq1a})
is $N$--admissible for any $N \in \mathbb{N}$ (cf., e.g. \cite{BK17}).
Our main result shows, that the sparse neural networks can achieve the
$d^*$--dimensional rate of convergence in case that the regression function has local
dimensionality $d^*$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th2}
Let $\beta_n = c_{3} \cdot \log(n)$ for some constant $c_{3}>0$. Assume that the distribution of $(X,Y)$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{subgaus}
\mathbf E \left(\exp({c_{4}\cdot |Y |^2})\right) <\infty
\end{align}
for some constant $c_{4}>0$ and that the distribution of $X$ has bounded
support $supp(X) \subseteq [-A,A]^d$ for some $A \geq 1$. Let $M, K_1,K_2 \in \mathbb{N}$.
Assume furthermore that $m$
has local dimensionality $d^*$ on $supp(X)$ with order $(K_1, K_2)$, ${\mathbf P}_X$-border $c_{5}/n$ and borders $\delta_{i,k}$, where $\delta_{i,k} \geq c_{6}/n^{c_{7}}$ holds for some constants $c_{5}, c_{6}, c_{7} > 0$ ($i =1, \dots, K_1$, $k=1, \dots, K_2$) and where all functions
$f_k$ in Definition \ref{se3de2} are bounded and $(p,C)$--smooth for some $p = q+s$ with $0< s \leq 1$ and $q \leq M$.
Let the least squares neural network
regression estimate $m_n$ be defined as in Section \ref{se2}
with parameters $L=3K_1+d \cdot (M+2)-1$, $r=2^{M-1} \cdot 16+ \sum_{k=2}^M 2^{M-k+1} +d +5$, $\alpha_n=c_1 \cdot n^{c_2}$ and $n_l=\lceil n / 2 \rceil$.
Assume
that the sigmoidal function $\sigma$ is $2$--admissible, and
that $c_1,c_2>0$ are suitably large.
Then we have for any $n > 7$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
{\mathbf E} \int |m_n(x)-m(x)|^2 {\mathbf P}_X(dx)
\leq
c_8 \cdot
(\log n)^3 \cdot 2^{K_1} \cdot K_2 \cdot
n^{
- \frac{2p}{2p+d^*}.
}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
The proof is available in the Supplement.
\noindent
\begin{remark}
The class of regression functions with low local dimensionality $d^*$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{th2} contains all $(p,C)$-smooth functions, which depend at the most on $d^*$ of its input components. This is because the polytopes in the definition of low local dimensionality (see Definition \ref{se3de2}) can be chosen as one single hyperplane $a^T x \leq b$ ($K_1=K_2=1$) with $\Vert a \Vert \leq 1$, $a \in \mathbb{R}^{d^*}$ and $b= \sqrt{d \cdot A} +1$, in which case the single hyperplane contains all $x \in [-A,A]^d$. Consequently, the rate of convergence in Theorem \ref{th2} is optimal up to some logarithmic factor according to \cite{Sto82}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The deep neural network estimate in the above theorem achieves a rate
of convergence which is independent of the dimension $d$ of $X$,
hence it is able to circumvent the curse of dimensionality in case
that the regression function has low local dimensionality.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Outline of the proof of Theorem \ref{th2}]
In the proof of Theorem \ref{th2} the following bound on the expected $L_2$ error of our sparse neural network regression estimate is essential:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{th2eq1}
&&
{\mathbf E} \int |m_n(x)-m(x)|^2 {\mathbf P}_X(dx)
\leq
(\log n)^3 \cdot
\inf_{\substack{I \in \mathbb{N}, \ B_1, \dots, B_I \in \mathcal{B}^{*}}}
\Bigg(
c_9 \cdot \frac{I}{n}
\notag \\
&&
\hspace*{3cm}
+
\min_{(a_i)_{i=1, \dots, I}\in [-c_{10} \cdot n, c_{10} \cdot n]^I}
\int
|\sum_{i=1}^I a_{i} \cdot B_{i}(x)-m(x)|^2 {\mathbf P}_X(dx)
\Bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\mathcal{B}^*$ is a basis consisting of functions representable as a product of a truncated power basis of degress 1, i.e. the MARS function class, and a tensor product B-spline basis (see the Supplement for a detailed definition). A complete proof of this bound can be found in Theorem 2 in the Supplement. In the proof we derive some approximation-theoretical properties of sparse DNNs. For instance we show that our sparse DNNs approximate functions of the form
\begin{align*}
B(x) = \sum_{i=1}^I a_{i} \cdot B_{i}(x), \quad B_i \in \mathcal{B}^*.
\end{align*}
Since every function with low local dimensionality $d^*$ (according to Definition \ref{se3de2}) can be expressed as a linear combination of functions of $\mathcal{B}^*$ in case that $x$ is not contained in $\left(\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{K_2}(P_k)^{\delta_k} \textbackslash (P_k)_{\delta_k}\right)\cap [-A,A]^d\right)$, we can use the bound \eqref{th2eq1} to show our main result. Here we proceed as follows: First we show that an indicator function of a polytope can be approximated by a linear truncated power basis. In the second step we prove that every $(p,C)$-smooth function can be approximated by a linear combination of a tensor product B-Spline basis. In the last step we show that every function of the form
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=1}^{K_2} f_k(x_{J_k}) \cdot \mathds{1}_{(P_k)^{\delta_k}}(x)
\end{align*}
with notations according to Definition \ref{se3de2} can be expressed as a linear combination of functions of $\mathcal{B}^*$. Together with the assumption
\begin{align*}
{\mathbf P}_X\left(\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{K_2}(P_k)^{\delta_k} \textbackslash (P_k)_{\delta_k}\right)\cap [-A,A]^d\right) \leq \frac{c_{5}}{n}
\end{align*}
we conclude the assertion of the Theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Simulation study}
\label{se4}
To illustrate how the introduced nonparametric regression estimate based on our sparsely connected neural networks behaves in case of finite sample sizes, we apply it to simulated data using the MATLAB software. Due to the fact that our estimate contains some parameters that may influence their behavior, we will choose these parameters in a data-dependent way by splitting of the sample. Here we use $n_{train}=\lceil \frac{4}{5} \cdot n \rceil$ realizations to train the estimate several times with different choices for the parameters and $n_{test}=n-n_{train}$ realizations to test the estimate by comparing the empirical $L_2$ risk of different parameter settings and choosing the best estimate according to this criterion. The parameters $L$, $r$ and $M^{*}$ of the estimates in Section \ref{se2} are chosen in a data-dependent way. Here we choose $L=\{1, 3, 6\}$, $r \in \{3, 6, 10\}$ and $M^{*} \in \{1, 2, \dots, 10\}$. To solve the least squares problem in \eqref{se2eq5}, we use the quasi-Newton method of the function \textit{fminunc} in MATLAB to approximate the solution. \newline
The results of our estimate are compared to other conventional estimates. In particular we compare the sparsely connected neural network estimate (abbr. \textit{neural-sc}) to a fully connected neural network (abbr. \textit{neural-fc}) with adaptively chosen number of hidden layers and number of neurons per layer. The selected values of these two parameters to be tested were $\{1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12\}$ for $L$ and $\{1, 2, \dots, 6, 8, 10\}$ for $r$. Beside this, we compare our neural network estimate to another sparsely connected neural network estimate, namely the network \textit{neural-x} defined in \cite{BK17}. The parameters $l,K,d^*, M^*$ of this estimate are chosen in a data-dependent way as described in \cite{BK17}. For instance, we select these parameters out of the set $\{0,1,2\}$ for $l$, out of $\{1, \dots, 5\}$ for $K$, out of $\{1, \dots, d^*\}$ for $d^*$, and out of $\{1, \dots, 5, 6, 11, 16, 21, \dots, 46\}$ for $M^*$.\\
Furthermore, we consider a nearest neighbor estimate (abbr. \textit{neighbor}). This means that the function value at a given point $x$ is approximated by the average of the values $Y_1, \dots, Y_{k_n}$ observed for the data points $X_1, \dots, X_{k_n}$, which are closest to $x$ with respect to the Euclidean norm (breaking the ties by indices). Here the parameter $k_n \in \mathbb{N}$ denoting the involved neighbors is chosen adaptively from the set $\{1, 2, 3\} \cup \{4, 8, 12, 16, \dots, 4 \cdot \lceil \frac{n_{train}}{4}\rceil\}$. Another competitive approach is the interpolation with radial basis function (abbr. \textit{RBF}). Here we use Wendland's compactly supported radial basis function $\phi(r) = (1-r)^6_+ \cdot (35r^2+18r+3)$, which can be found in \cite{LM02}. The radius $r$ that scales the basis functions is also selected adaptively from the set $\{0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 30, 60, 100\}$. The last competitive approach is of course MARS. Here we used the ARESLab MATLAB toolbox provided by \cite{J16}.
\newline
The $n$ observations (for $n \in \{100, 200\}$) $(X,Y), (X_1, Y_1), (X_2, Y_2), \dots, (X_n, Y_n)$ are chosen as independent and identically distributed random vectors with $X$ uniformly distributed on $[0,1]^{10}$ (in particular, the dimension of $X$ is $d=10$) and $Y$ generated by
\begin{equation*}
Y = m_i(X) + \sigma_j \cdot \lambda_i \cdot \epsilon \ (i \in \{1,2,3\}, j \in \{1,2\})
\end{equation*}
for $\sigma_j \geq 0$, $\lambda_i \geq 0$ and $\epsilon$ standard normally distributed and independent of $X$. The $\lambda_i$ is chosen in way that respects the range covered by $m_i$ on the distribution of $X$. Since our regression functions perform differently on different polytopes we determine the interquartile range of $10^5$ realizations of $m_i(X)$ (additionally stabilized by taking the median of hundred repetitions of this procedure) not for the whole regression function, but on each set seperately and use the average of those values. For the regression functions below we got
$\lambda_1=2.72$, $\lambda_2=6.28$ and $\lambda_3=12.2$. The parameters scaling the noise are chosen as $\sigma_1 = 5\%$ and $\sigma_2 = 20\%$.
\newline
\newline
The regression functions which were used to compare the different approaches are listed below.
\begin{align*}
m_1(x) = & \left(\frac{10}{1+x_1^2}+5 \cdot \sin(x_3 \cdot x_4)+2\cdot x_5\right) \cdot 1_{H_1}(x)\\
& \quad + \left(\exp(x_1)+x_2^2+\sin(x_3 \cdot x_4) -3\right) \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}^{10}\textbackslash H_1}(x),
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
m_2(x) = &\left(\cot\left(\frac{\pi}{1+\exp(x_1^2+2 \cdot x_2+ \sin(6 \cdot x_4^3) -3)}\right)\right) \cdot 1_{H_1}(x)\\
\quad & + \left(\cot\left(\frac{\pi}{1+\exp(x_1^2+2 \cdot x_2+ \sin(6 \cdot x_4^3) -3)}\right)\right.\\
& \quad + \exp\left(3 \cdot x_3+2 \cdot x_4- 5 \cdot x_1+ \sqrt{x_3 + 0.9 \cdot x_4+0.1}\right)\bigg) \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}^{10} \textbackslash H_1}(x)\\
m_3(x) = &\left(2 \cdot \log(x_1 \cdot x_2+4 \cdot x_3 + |\tan(x_4)|\right) \cdot 1_{H_2 \cup H_3}(x) + \left(x_3^4 \cdot x_5^2 \cdot x_6 - x_4 \cdot x_7\right) \cdot 1_{H_2^C \cup H_3}(x)\\
\quad & + \left(3 \cdot x_8^2 + x_9 +2\right)^{0.1 +4 \cdot x_{10}^2} \cdot 1_{H_3^C}(x)
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
H_1 = &\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{10}: 0.1 \cdot x_1 + 0.4 \cdot x_2 + 0.3 \cdot x_3 + 0.1 \cdot x_4+0.2 \cdot x_5 + \\
& \quad 0.3 \cdot x_6 + 0.6 \cdot x_7 + 0.02 \cdot x_8 + 0.7 \cdot x_9 + 0.6 \cdot x_{10} \leq 1.63\}\\
H_2 = &\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{10}: 0.1 \cdot x_1 + 0.4 \cdot x_2 + 0.3 \cdot x_3 + 0.1 \cdot x_4+0.2 \cdot x_5 + \\
& \quad 0.3 \cdot x_6 + 0.6 \cdot x_7 + 0.02 \cdot x_8 + 0.7 \cdot x_9 + 0.6 \cdot x_{10} \leq 1.6\}\\
H_3 = &\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{10}: 4 \cdot x_1 + 2 \cdot x_2 + x_3+4 \cdot x_4+x_5+x_6 \leq 7.5\}.
\end{align*}
The quality of each of the estimates is determined by the empirical $L_2$-error, i.e. we calculate
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon_{L_2, N}(m_{n,i}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \left(m_{n,i}(X_{n+k}) - m_i(X_{n+k}))^2\right),
\end{equation*}
where $m_{n,i}$ $(i=1, \dots, 4)$ is one of our estimates based on the $n$ observations and $m_i$ is our regression function. The input vectors $X_{n+1}, X_{n+2}, \dots, X_{n+N}$ are newly generated independent realizations of the random variable $X$, i.e. different from the $n$ input vectors for the estimate. We choose $N = 10^5$. We normalize our error by the error of the simplest estimate of $m_i$, i.e. the error of a constant function, calculated by the average of the observed data. Thus the errors given in our tables below are normalized error measures of the form $\epsilon_{L_2,N}(m_{n,i})/\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,N}(avg)$. Here $\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,N}(avg)$ is the median of $50$ independent realizations you obtain if you plug the average of $n$ observations into $\epsilon_{L_2,N}(\cdot)$. Since our simulation results depend on randomly chosen data points we repeat our estimation $50$ times by using differently generated random realizations of $X$ in each run. In Table \ref{tab1} and Table \ref{tab2} we listed the median (plus interquartile range IQR) of $\epsilon_{L_2,N}(m_{n,i})/\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,N}(avg)$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Median of the normalized empirical $L_2$-error for each estimate and regression functions $ m_1, m_2$}
\label{tab1}
\begin{center}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{$m_1$}\\
\hline
\textit{noise} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$5\%$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$20\%$} \\
\hline
\textit{sample size} & $n=100$ & $n=200$ & $n=100$ & $n=200$\\
\hline
$\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,\bar{N}}(avg)$ &$29.5445$& $29.4330$&$29.4970$& $29.4375$\\
\hline
\textit{neural-sc} & $\mathbf{0.3809}(0.1902)$ & $\mathbf{0.1926}(0.1568)$ & $0.5113(0.3604)$ & $0.2971 (0.2546)$\\
\textit{neural-x} & $0.4412 (0.2653)$ & $0.2035 (0.2178)$ & $\mathbf{0.4674} (0.4427)$ & $\mathbf{0.2218} (0.3167)$\\
\textit{neural-fc} &$0.5040(0.3988)$& $0.2220(0.1568)$ & $0.4958(0.4742)$& $0.3016 (0.1928)$ \\
\textit{RBF} & $0.6856(0.1205)$& $0.6064(0.0670)$ & $0.7044(0.1150)$& $0.6173 (0.0754)$\\
\textit{neighbor} &$0.6387(0.0785)$& $0.5610(0.0489)$ & $0.6411 (0.0776)$& $0.5589 (0.0500)$ \\
\textit{MARS} &$0.6747(0.1433)$& $0.5091(0.0567)$ & $0.6949(0.1787)$& $0.5149 (0.0519)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{$m_2$}\\
\hline
\textit{noise} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$5\%$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$20\%$} \\
\hline
\textit{sample size} & $n=100$ & $n=200$ & $n=100$ & $n=200$\\
\hline
$\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,\bar{N}}(avg)$ & $671.83$ & $670.77$ &$669.82$& $672.04$ \\
\hline
\textit{neural-sc} & $\mathbf{0.8108}(0.6736)$ & $\mathbf{0.5468}(0.6812)$ &$\mathbf{0.7453}(0.5348)$& $\mathbf{0.5146}(0.4298)$ \\
\textit{neural-x} & $0.8296 (0.3139)$ & $0.5543 (0.3884)$ & $0.8788 (0.5053)$ & $0.5488 (0.4127)$\\
\textit{neural-fc} &$1.0668(0.6779)$& $0.7792(0.4642)$ & $0.9678(0.4276)$& $0.8476(0.6150)$\\
\textit{RBF} &$1.0172(0.2613)$& $0.6896(0.3906)$ &$1.0179(0.2517)$& $0.6582 (0.3297)$\\
\textit{neighbor} &$0.8640(0.1086)$& $0.7990(0.1476)$ &$0.8657(0.0884)$& $0.7469(0.1156)$ \\
\textit{MARS} &$1.6299(1.5082)$& $3.4815(16.9055)$ &$1.6363(2.4886)$& $2.3530(10.0750)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Median of the normalized empirical $L_2$-error for each estimate and regression functions $m_3$}
\label{tab2}
\begin{center}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{$m_3$}\\
\hline
\textit{noise} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$5\%$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$20\%$} \\
\hline
\textit{sample size} & $n=100$ & $n=200$ & $n=100$ & $n=200$\\
\hline
$\bar{\epsilon}_{L_2,\bar{N}}(avg)$ & $9023.9$ & $9018.4$ & $9117.1$ & $9017.4$ \\
\hline
\textit{neural-sc} & $0.5983(0.6832)$ & $\mathbf{0.2006} (0.3523)$ & $\mathbf{0.5521} (0.3977)$ & $ 0.3223 (0.3143)$ \\
\textit{neural-x} & $\mathbf{0.5168} (0.6809)$ & $0.3156 (0.2091)$ & $0.5555 (0.6642)$ & $\mathbf{0.3147} (0.2386)$\\
\textit{neural-fc} & $0.7337 (0.6276)$ & $0.3657 (0.4543)$ & $0.8311 (0.4058)$ & $0.3397 (0.4208)$ \\
\textit{RBF} & $0.6764 (0.4601)$ & $0.5527 (0.3601)$ & $0.6580 (0.4698)$ & $0.5312 (0.3780)$\\
\textit{neighbor} & $0.8188 (0.1170)$ & $0.7137 (0.0985)$ & $0.8024 (0.1117)$ & $0.7191 (0.0987)$ \\
\textit{MARS} & $0.9925 (1.7966)$ & $0.6596 (0.7020)$ & $1.1440 (5.5270)$ & $0.6445 (0.7419)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We observe that our estimate outperforms the other approaches in 8 of 12 examples for regression functions with low local dimensionality. Especially in cases $m_1$ and $m_3$, the error of our estimate is about half the error in each of the other approaches for $n=200$ and $\sigma=0.05$, except for the error of the other neural networks. We also observe, that the relative improvement of our estimate (and of the other networks) with an increasing sample size is much larger than the improvement for most of the other approaches (except in $m_2$ for the RBF and in $m_3$ for MARS).
This could be a plausible indicator for a better rate of convergence. \\
It makes sense that we also get good approximations for the fully connected neural networks, since some of the sparse networks can be expressed by fully connected ones (e.g., choosing some weights as zero). The estimate \textit{neural-x} of \cite{BK17} was originally constructed to estimate regression functions with some composition assumption, for instance $(p,C)$-smooth generalized hierarchical interaction models. Since our regression functions follow a $(p,C)$-smooth generalized hierarchical interaction model on each polytope, it is plausible that this estimate also performs well for those regression functions. Nevertheless, with regard to our simulation results we see, that (with four exception) our sparse neural networks perform better than the other neural network estimates.
\section{Real-world data experiment}
The different approaches of the simulation study were further tested on a real--world data set to emphasize the practical relevance of our estimate. The data set under study was the earlier mentioned 2--year usage log of a bike sharing system named Captial Bike Sharing (CBS) at Washington, D.C., USA (\cite{FG13}), where we conjecture some low local dimensionality in the data set, which fits our assumption on the regression function.
The data set consists of $17379$ data points, where each of them represents one hour of a day between 2011 and 2012; $500$ were used for training and testing and the rest is used to compute the errors contained in Table \ref{tab4}. We used the same parameter sets as in the simulation study for all of our estimates and normalized the results again with the simplest estimate i.e. the average of the observed data . Table \ref{tab4} summarizes the results.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Normalized empirical $L_2$-risk for each estimate for the bike sharing data}
\label{tab4}
\begin{center}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
\textit{neural-sc} & \textit{neural-x} & \textit{neural-fc} & \textit{RBF} & \textit{neighbor} & \textit{MARS}\\
\hline
$\textbf{0.1680}$ & $0.3706$ & $0.5924$ & $0.8121$ & $0.6829$ & $0.3970$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Again we observe that our estimate outperforms the others i.e. the error of our estimate is about half the error of the second best approach (MARS). Hence our assumption of low local dimensionality seems plausible, at least for this real data set, since the estimate following this assumption outperforms all other estimates.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is widely accepted that the idea of quantum information is useful and important to understand quantum gravity in the AdS/CFT correspondence, starting from the work \cite{Ryu:2006bv}.
The holographic entanglement entropy \cite{Ryu:2006bv} is given by an extremal area of a codimension-two surface anchored to the entangling surface on the AdS boundary.
There are many significant developments based on the holographic entanglement entropy (See \cite{Rangamani:2016dms} for review and references therein).
However, the holographic entanglement entropy is not enough to understand a black hole physics, for instance, a late time dynamics of black holes \cite{Susskind:2014moa}.
To remedy this problem, Susskind and his collaborators introduced a notion of complexity of quantum states in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence and proposed its holographic dual.
Now there are two different conjectures for the complexity; the ``complexity $=$ volume'' (CV) conjecture \cite{Susskind:2014,Susskind:2014rva} and the ``complexity $=$ action'' (CA) conjecture \cite{Brown:2015bva,Brown:2015lvg}.
The CV conjecture states that the holographic dual of the complexity is given by a maximal volume of codimension-one surface anchored to the AdS boundary\footnote{Alternatively quantum information metric has been studied as a field-theoretic dual of the maximal volume \cite{MIyaji:2015mia,Belin:2018fxe,Belin:2018bpg}.},
\begin{align}
C_{\text{V}} = \frac{V}{G_{\text{N}}L} \label{CVcon} \,,
\end{align}
where $G_{\text{N}}$ is the Newton constant.
In order to make the complexity dimensionless, the length scale $L$ is introduced and this is assumed to be an AdS radius.
The CV conjecture is ambiguous due to the length scale.
On the other hand, the CA conjecture states that the holographic dual of the complexity is given by the gravitational action on the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) patch,
\begin{align}
C_{\text{A}} = \frac{I_{\text{WDW}}}{\pi \hbar} \,, \label{CAcon}
\end{align}
where $\hbar$ is the Planck constant and we will set $\hbar =1$ later. In the CA conjecture, there is no length scale introduced by hand.
It has been revealed that there is no significant difference between the two conjectures such as they show the same divergence structures, late time behaviours and so on.
The CV and CA conjectures were originally proposed as holographic duals of the complexity but its definition in quantum field theory did not exist at that time.
Now there are some proposals of the definition of the complexity in quantum field theory.
One of the authors and his collaborators proposed the complexity by optimizing the path integral appearing in the wave functional \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}, called the path-integral optimization we will work in this paper.
One of the advantages of the path-integral optimization is that we can obtain the complexity in generic CFT.
Furthermore, the path-integral optimization can be regarded as a special case of the circuit complexity \cite{Jefferson:2017sdb} shown by \cite{Camargo:2019isp}. See \cite{Bhattacharyya:2018wym,Takayanagi:2018pml} for a further development of the path-integral optimization.
Note that these definitions of the complexity are not satisfactory because they contain some ambiguities
\cite{Jefferson:2017sdb,Chapman:2017rqy,Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh,Caputa:2018kdj}.
Recently, the authors in \cite{Chapman:2018bqj} argued that defects might distinguish the features of these two holographic conjectures.
They showed that the increments of the holographic complexities in a AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ model with a defect \cite{Azeyanagi:2007qj} behave
\begin{align}
\Delta C_{\text{V}}^{\text{defect}} = C_{\text{V}}^{\mathrm{DCFT}} - C_{\text{V}}^{\mathrm{CFT}} \neq 0 \,,
\qquad \Delta C_{\text{A}}^{\text{defect}} = C_{\text{A}}^{\mathrm{DCFT}} - C_{\text{A}}^{\mathrm{CFT}} = 0 \,.
\end{align}
It implies that the defects are detected by $C_{\text{V}}$ but invisible to $C_{\text{A}}$.
They also showed that the circuit complexity \cite{Jefferson:2017sdb} of several models in defect CFT$_2$ does not depend on the presence of defects.
Hence, their result suggests that the CV conjecture is not adequate for the holographic dual of the complexity.
In this paper, we will make an attempt to test their argument in boundary CFT (BCFT).
Because two copies of BCFT can be regarded as a CFT with a codimension-one defect or interface via doubling trick,
our setup is relevant to defect CFTs considered in \cite{Chapman:2018bqj}.
We will compute some quantities conjectured to be dual to the complexity of quantum states.
One is the optimized Liouville action $C_{\text{L}}$ in the path-integral optimization approach \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh} in BCFT$_2$.
The others are the maximal volume $C_{\text{V}}$ and the WdW action $C_{\text{A}}$ in a holographic model proposed by Takayanagi \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp}.
Especially we will study the boundary complexity which is an increment of the complexity due to the presence of the boundary,
\begin{align}
\Delta C^{\text{bdy}} = C^{\mathrm{BCFT}} - \frac{1}{2} C^{\mathrm{CFT}} \,. \label{bdyC}
\end{align}
The factor $1/2$ comes from the fact that the spacetime of BCFT is just half of the spacetime of CFT.
We will check whether the boundary complexities in these three proposals depend on the existence of the boundary.
The organization of this paper is as follows.
In the next section, we apply the path-integral optimization to BCFT$_2$ and compute a boundary complexity.
We will see that the path-integral optimization naturally produces a geometry in Takayanagi's AdS$_3$/BCFT$_2$ model.
Hence, in order to compare the result in section \ref{2}, we give a brief review of the AdS$_{d+1}$/BCFT$_d$ model and study holographic complexities following the CV and CA conjectures in section \ref{3}.
The final section is devoted to discussion.
\paragraph{Note added:} After submitting the paper to arXiv, we were informed of a forthcoming paper by P.~Braccia, A.~Cotrone and E.~Tonni \cite{BCT}, which is based on a thesis written by P.~Braccia presented in the end of July and we received the thesis where the correct WDW patch in the AdS$_3$/BCFT$_2$ setup has already been presented.
They independently studied the CV and CA complexities in the AdS$_3$/BCFT$_2$ setup with finite interval and there are some overlaps with section \ref{3} in our paper.
\section{Path-integral optimization in BCFT}
\label{2}
In this section, we will work on the path-integral optimization in BCFT to compute the optimized Liouville action proposed as the complexity of the ground state \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}.
To simplify our discussion, we restrict our attention to BCFT$_2$ in this section.
\subsection{Ground state wave functional in BCFT and boundary Liouville action}
Consider a two-dimensional CFT on half line with a flat Euclidean metric,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2=\delta_{ab}\mathrm{d} x^a \mathrm{d} x^b =\mathrm{d} z^2 + \mathrm{d} x^2 \,.
\end{align}
The ground state wave functional is described by a Euclidean path integral on a two-dimensional region $\mathcal{M}= \{x \geq 0, \epsilon \leq z < \infty \}$
\begin{align}
\Psi_{\delta_{ab}}^{\mathrm{BCFT}} [\tilde{\varphi}(x)]
= \int_\mathcal{M} \! \mathcal{D} \varphi \, \mathrm{e}^{-S_{\mathrm{BCFT}}[\varphi]} \, \prod_{x>0} \delta (\varphi(\epsilon, x) - \tilde{\varphi}(x)) \,,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\varphi} (x)$ is a configuration of the CFT field at the cutoff surface $\partial \mathcal{M}_0 = \{x \geq 0, z = \epsilon \}$.
The boundary condition on the other boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_1 = \{ x = 0, \epsilon \leq z < \infty \}$ classifies types of BCFTs.
We introduce a cutoff parameter $\epsilon$ for later convenience.
See the left picture in Figure \ref{fig:opt1}.
For the purpose to estimate the wave functional effectively, the path integral is actually redundant because some high-energy degrees of freedom would be suppressed in the deep region of the bulk $\mathcal{M}$.
To reduce such degrees of freedom,
we deform the background metric with a boundary condition keeping the wave functional.
In two-dimensional CFTs, it can be realized by Weyl transformation of the background metric,
\begin{align}
\delta_{ab} \ \to \ \mathrm{e}^{2\phi} \delta_{a b} \,.
\end{align}
This procedure is analogous to a coarse-graining procedure for discretized path-integral on a flat lattice with spacing $\epsilon$
due to deforming the flat lattice to a lattice with position dependent spacing $\epsilon \mathrm{e}^{-\phi}$, as firstly considered in \cite{Miyaji:2016mxg}.
Under the Weyl transformation of the reference metric $\delta_{ab}$,
the wave functional transforms as
\begin{align} \label{wave}
\Psi_{\mathrm{e}^{2\phi} \delta_{a b}}^{\text{BCFT}} [\tilde{\varphi}(x)]
= \mathrm{e}^{S_{\text{L}}[\phi]-S_{\text{L}}[0]} \, \Psi_{\delta_{ab}}^{\text{BCFT}} [\tilde{\varphi}(x)] \,.
\end{align}
Here $S_{\text{L}}$ is the boundary Liouville action\footnote{Here we rescale $\phi$, $\mu$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ in \cite{Fateev:2000ik} as $b \phi \to \phi$, $4\pi b^2 \mu \to \mu$ and $2\pi b^2 \mu_{\mathrm{B}} \to \mu_{\mathrm{B}}$, respectively, where $b$ is a coupling relevant to the central charge $c = 1 + 6 (b + 1/b)^2$ ($c\simeq 6/b^2$ in the semi-classical limit $b \to 0$). By applying the rescaling to (3.5) in \cite{Fateev:2000ik} associated with boundary two-point functions, we can find the quantum constraint for the existence of the semi-classical solutions, $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}^2/\mu = \pi b^2/(2\tan (\pi b^2/2))$. The range of the cosmological constant is $0 \leq |\mu_{\mathrm{B}}/\sqrt{\mu}| \leq 1$ for $|b| \leq 1$. } \cite{Fateev:2000ik},
\begin{align} \label{LA}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{L}} [\phi] &= \frac{c}{24 \pi} \int_{\mathcal{M}} \! \mathrm{d} ^2x \, \sqrt{g}
\left( R \phi + (\partial \phi)^2 + \mu \mathrm{e}^{2 \phi} \right) \\
&\quad + \frac{c}{12 \pi} \sum_{i} \int_{\partial \mathcal{M}_i} \! \mathrm{d} s \, \sqrt{h}
\left( K \phi + \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^{(i)} \mathrm{e}^{\phi} \right) \,,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
with the central charge $c$, the metric $g_{ab}$, the Ricci scalar $R$, the induced metric on the boundary $h$ and the extrinsic curvature $K$.
The Liouville action is evaluated on the original metric $\delta_{ab}$ in \eqref{wave}.
The parameters $\mu$ and $\mu_{\text{B}}^{(i)}$ represent the bulk and the boundary cosmological constants respectively.
We will set $\mu_{\text{B}}^{(0)} = 0$, $\mu_{\text{B}}^{(1)} = \mu_{\text{B}}$ for later convenience,
and take $\mu, \mu_{\mathrm{B}} \geq 0$ for the convergence of the action in the semi-classical level.
The appearance of the Liouville action in \eqref{wave} follows from a transformation of the path-integral measure,
\begin{align}
[\mathcal{D} \varphi]_{\mathrm{e}^{2\phi}\delta_{ab}}
= \mathrm{e}^{S_{\text{L}}[\phi]-S_{\text{L}}[0]} \, [\mathcal{D} \varphi]_{\delta_{ab}} \,.
\end{align}
The overall factor reflects how much redundant degrees of freedom (or lattice sites) can be reduced.
To optimize the path integral, we will minimize this factor, or the exponent $S_{\mathrm{L}}$.
From the solution of the equation of motion for $\phi$, we will obtain the optimized path-integral geometry.
Then the on-shell Liouville action is expected to be a measure for complexity of quantum states in CFTs.
\subsection{Optimize the Liouville action}
Let us move to the analysis of the Liuouville action \eqref{LA}.
The action leads the equation of motion and the boundary condition,
\begin{align}
- 2\partial^2 \phi + 2\mu \mathrm{e}^{2 \phi} &= 0 \,, \label{EOM} \\
n \cdot \partial \phi + \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^{(i)} \mathrm{e}^{\phi} &= 0 \,. \label{BC1}
\end{align}
where $n^a$ is an out-going unit normal vector.
Note that the Ricci scalar and the extrinsic curvature vanish because the original metric is flat and the boundaries are conformal.
From the transformation laws under the Weyl transformation,
\eqref{EOM} and \eqref{BC1} are simply written as
\begin{align}
&R + 2 \mu = 0 \,, \\
&K + \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^{(i)} = 0 \,,
\end{align}
in the deformed background.
The geometry is the AdS spacetime with the AdS radius $L = 1/\sqrt{\mu}$.
It also has another length scale $\mu_{\text{B}} = \mu_{\text{B}}^{(1)}$ associated to the boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$.
We can make a dimensionless parameter $\mu_{\mathrm{B}} /\sqrt{\mu} = \mu_{\mathrm{B}} L$.
Taking the boundary condition such that the conformal factor decays at infinity and is fixed on the cutoff surface $\partial \mathcal{M}_0$ as $\mathrm{e}^{2 \phi (z=\epsilon,x)}=L^2/\epsilon^2$,
the equation of motion \eqref{EOM} leads
\begin{align}
\mathrm{e}^{2 \phi (z,x)} = \frac{L^2}{z^2} \,. \label{Lsol1}
\end{align}
Then the path-integral optimization leads the time slice of the AdS metric in Poincar\'{e} coordinates,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s ^2= L^2\frac{\mathrm{d} z^2 + \mathrm{d} x^2}{z^2} \,.
\end{align}
For the boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_0$, we fix the shape by setting $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}^{(0)} = 0$ to keep the same wave functional.
After the path-integral optimization, the boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_0$ can be understood as the boundary of the AdS spacetime.
For the other boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_1$ with $\mu_{\mathrm{B}} = \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^{(1)} \neq 0$, the boundary condition \eqref{BC1} determines the shape as\footnote{Note that, in order to have positive real $\alpha$, $\mu_{\text{B}} L$ is restricted to a specific region $0 \leq \mu_{\text{B}} L \leq 1$. This is consistent with the constraint from the quantum Liouville theory mentioned in the previous footnote.}
\begin{align}
x = f(z) = -\alpha z \,, \qquad
\alpha = \frac{\mu_{\mathrm{B}}L}{\sqrt{1- \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^2L^2}} \,. \label{m1shape}
\end{align}
Hence, the path-integral optimization to BCFT introduces a new boundary in the radial direction of the AdS spacetime as Takayanagi's AdS/BCFT model \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp}.
For $\mu_{\mathrm{B}} L\to 0$ ($\alpha \to 0$) limit, $\partial \mathcal{M}_1$ becomes perpendicular to $\partial \mathcal{M}_{0}$ and no shape deformation happens after the optimization.
For $\mu_{\mathrm{B}} L\to 1$ ($\alpha \to \infty$) limit, the corner between $\partial \mathcal{M}_{0}$ and $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ disappears and $\mathcal{M}$ becomes the upper-half plane.
As seen later, the slope $\alpha$ is related with the boundary entropy.
For the brief picture of our optimization procedure, see Figure \ref{fig:opt1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.30]
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(2,0) node [right] {$x$};
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(0,2) node [above] {$z$};
\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(0,1.8);
\draw (1.2,0) node [below] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{0}$};
\draw (-0.5,0.8) node [above] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$};
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (-0.4,0.9) arc (180:270:0.4);
\draw (0.2,0)--(0.2,0.2)--(0,0.2);
\filldraw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=gray,opacity=0.6,draw=none] (0,0)--(0,2)--(-1,2)--(-1,0)--cycle;
\draw (1,1) node {$\mathcal{M}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\hsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,1.2)--(1,1.2) node [above] {Optimize}--(2,1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.3\hsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.30]
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(2,0) node [right] {$x$};
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(0,2) node [above] {$z$};
\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(-1,1.732);
\draw (-1.2,1.732) node [above] {$x = -\alpha z$};
\draw (1.2,0) node [below] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{0}$};
\draw (-1.2,0.8) node [above] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$};
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (-1,0.9) arc (210:300:0.4);
\draw (0.3,0) arc (0:120:0.3);
\filldraw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=gray,opacity=0.6,draw=none] (0,0)--(-1,1.732)--(-1,0)--cycle;
\draw (1.2,1) node {$\mathcal{M}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(Left) The setup of the path integral for vacuum wave functional in BCFT. The boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ is located at $x=0$ and the state is realized at $\partial \mathcal{M}_{0} = \{x>0, z = \epsilon \sim 0 \}$.
(Right) The setup after the path-integral optimization. The boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ is tilted.}
\label{fig:opt1}
\end{figure}
Finally, we obtain the on-shell Liouville action,
\begin{align}
C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{BCFT}}
&= \left. S_{\mathrm{L}} \right|_{\text{on-shell}} \\
&= \frac{c}{12 \pi} \cdot \frac{x_{\infty}}{\epsilon} +\frac{c}{6 \pi}\alpha \log \left( \frac{z_{\infty}}{\epsilon}\right) \,, \label{Lon1}
\end{align}
where $z_\infty$ and $x_\infty$ correspond to IR cutoffs.
The first term has volume divergence and is half of the Liouville action in CFT without boundary.
The data of the boundary can be read off from the second term.
In total, the path-integral optimization leads the boundary complexity,
\begin{align}
\Delta C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\text{bdy}}
= C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{BCFT}} - \frac{1}{2} C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\mathrm{CFT}}
= \frac{c}{6 \pi}\alpha \log \left( \frac{z_{\infty}}{\epsilon}\right) \,. \label{bdyCL}
\end{align}
The boundary complexity diverges logarithmically and this behaviour is consistent with the defect complexity in the CV conjecture \cite{Flory:2017ftd,Chapman:2018bqj}.
Note that the complexity can depend on the regularization scheme as similar to the entanglement entropy.
Indeed, for the first term in \eqref{Lon1} which is volume divergent,
we can see how they affect.
The coefficient of the logarithmic term in \eqref{Lon1}, however, is independent of the regularization schemes,
\begin{align}
\left. \Delta C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\text{bdy}} \right|_{\mathrm{univ}}
= \frac{c}{6\pi} \alpha
= \frac{c}{6\pi} \frac{\mu_{\mathrm{B}} L}{\sqrt{1- \mu_{\mathrm{B}}^2 L^2}} \,, \label{Cuniv}
\end{align}
and is often called the universal term in this sense.
\subsection{Boundary entropy}
In this subsection,
we will compute the boundary entropy \cite{Affleck:1991tk,Friedan:2003yc}, which is an increment of the entanglement entropy due to the existence of the boundary, in our setup by using the path-integral optimization \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}.
From the result, we will find a parameter matching between the boundary entropy in BCFT and $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}L$ in the Liouville side.
Consider a subsystem $A$ in the half line $x \geq 0$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:bdyEE}. It has length $l$ and is attached to the boundary $x=0$.
To compute the boundary entropy \cite{Affleck:1991tk,Friedan:2003yc}
\begin{align} \label{defbdyEE}
S_{\text{bdy}} = S_A^{\text{BCFT}} - \frac{1}{2} S_A^{\text{CFT}} \,,
\end{align}
via the replica trick, we put a vertex operator at the edge of $A$ creating the deficit angle $2\pi(1-n)$.
Then the delta functional source term is added to the Liouville action and the equation of motion is deformed as
\begin{align}
-\partial^2 \phi + \mu \mathrm{e}^{2 \phi} = \pi (n-1) \cdot \delta(x-l) \delta(z=0) \,,
\end{align}
with the boundary condition \eqref{BC1}.
In the path-integral optimization procedure for the reduced density matrix $\rho_{A}$,
we divide the boundary $ \partial \mathcal{M}_{0}$ as
$ \partial \mathcal{M}_{0} = \partial \mathcal{M}_{A} \cup \partial \mathcal{M}_{\bar{A}}$ associated to the subsystem $A$ and the compliment $\bar{A}$.
We fix $\partial \mathcal{M}_{A}$ and deform $\partial \mathcal{M}_{\bar{A}}$ with $\mu_{\mathrm{B}} = \pi (1-n)$ so that the $n$-sheeted replica manifold $\mathcal{M}^{(n)}$ is realized.
For $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$, we put the same boundary condition as before.
To obtain the entanglement entropy,
we take the limit $n \to 1$.
In this limit, back reactions from the bulk vertex operator is suppressed and two boundaries $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ and $\partial \mathcal{M}_{\bar{A}}$ are deformed independently.
We have the wave functional optimized by the path integral and, following previous works \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}, can compute the entanglement entropy using it,
\begin{align}
S_{A}^{\text{BCFT}}
&= -\left. \partial_n \left( \log \frac{\mathrm{Tr} (\rho_{A}^n )}{(\mathrm{Tr} \rho_{A} )^n} \right) \right|_{n = 1} \\
&= \left. \partial_n \left( \frac{c (n-1)}{6} \int_{\gamma_A } \! \mathrm{d} s \, \mathrm{e}^{\phi} \right) \right|_{n = 1} \\
&= \frac{c}{6} \log \left(\frac{2l}{\epsilon} \right) + \frac{c}{12} \log \left(\frac{1 + \mu_{\mathrm{B}}L}{1 - \mu_{\mathrm{B}}L} \right) \,.
\end{align}
where $\gamma_{A}$ is an arc to which $\partial \mathcal{M}_{\bar{A}}$ transforms by the optimization and it is anchored on $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ and the edge of $A$ (Figure \ref{fig:bdyEE}).
The first term is half of the entanglement entropy in CFT without boundary and hence the second term represents the boundary entropy \eqref{defbdyEE},
\begin{align}
S_{\text{bdy}} = \frac{c}{12} \log \left(\frac{1 + \mu_{\mathrm{B}}L}{1 - \mu_{\mathrm{B}}L} \right) = \frac{c}{6} \, \mathrm{arcsinh} \, \alpha \,. \label{bdyEE}
\end{align}
Since the path-integral optimization naturally produces the AdS geometry with the cutoff in the radial direction, it is instructive to compare the boundary entropy we obtained with that of the AdS/BCFT model \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk}.
For this purpose, we introduce new coordinates,
\begin{align}
z=\frac{w}{\cosh (r/L)} \,, \quad x= w \tanh \left(\frac{r}{L}\right) \,.
\end{align}
In the new coordinates, the range of $w$ is $0\leq w < \infty$ and that of $r$ is $-r_\ast < r < \infty$.
$-r_\ast$ is the position of the boundary in the radial direction and it is given by
\begin{align}
r_\ast=\frac{L}{2}\log \left( \frac{1+\mu_{\mathrm{B}}L}{1-\mu_{\mathrm{B}}L} \right) \,.
\end{align}
By using the Ryu-Takayanagi formula, the boundary entropy becomes $S_{\text{bdy}} =c r_\ast/6 L=r_\ast /4G_{\text{N}}$ with $c=3L/2G_{\text{N}}$ and it perfectly agrees with that of \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk}. Note that the range of the radial direction $r$ is different from $\rho$ used in \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk} but the relation $r_\ast = \rho_0$ holds.
Finally, we can check the relation between the boundary entropy \eqref{bdyEE} and the universal coefficient of the boundary complexity \eqref{Cuniv},
\begin{align}
\left. \Delta C_{\mathrm{L}}^{\text{bdy}} \right|_{\mathrm{univ}}
= \frac{c}{6 \pi} \sinh \left( \frac{6 S_{\mathrm{bdy}}}{c} \right) \,.
\end{align}
From this relation, the monotonicity of the boundary entropy under the renormalization group flow localized on the boundary, called the $g$-theorem \cite{Affleck:1991tk,Friedan:2003yc,Casini:2016fgb}, implies the monotonicity of the boundary complexity under the boundary RG flow.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.50]
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(2.5,0) node [right] {$x$};
\draw[-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0)--(0,2) node [above] {$z$};
\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(-1,1.732);
\draw (-1.2,1.732) node [above] {$x = -\alpha z$};
\draw (0.7,-0.05) node [below] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{A}$};
\draw (2,-0.05) node [below] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{\bar{A}}$};
\draw (-0.65,0.3) node [above] {$\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$};
\draw[thick] (1.4,0) arc (0:120:1.4);
\fill (1.4,0) circle (1.2pt) node[below] {$l$} (-0.7,1.732*0.7) circle (1.2pt);
\filldraw[pattern=north east lines, pattern color=gray,opacity=0.6,draw=none] (0,0)--(-1,1.732)--(-1,0)--cycle;
\draw[blue] (0,0)--(0.7,0) node [above] {$A$}--(1.4,0);
\draw (0,0) node [below] {$0$};
\draw (1.1,1.1) node [above] {$\gamma_{A}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The entanglement entropy associated to the subsystem $A$ ($0 \leq x \leq l$) is given by the length of the arc $\gamma_{A}$ anchored on the boundary surface $\partial \mathcal{M}_{1}$ ($x = - \alpha z$) and the edge of $A$.}
\label{fig:bdyEE}
\end{figure}
\section{Holographic complexity in the AdS/BCFT model}
\label{3}
In this section, we consider the holographic complexities $C_{\text{V}}$ and $C_{\text{A}}$ in the AdS/BCFT model proposed by Takayanagi \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp}.
\subsection{Review of the AdS/BCFT model}
Consider BCFT which is defined on a half plane, $x_1 \geq 0$, on flat spacetime with metric,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2=\eta_{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu
= -\mathrm{d} t^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} \mathrm{d} x_i^2 \,,
\end{align}
where the signature of $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ is mostly plus, and the indices $\mu, \nu$ run $0$ to $d-1$.
The bulk AdS metric with a radius $L$ in Poincar\'{e} coordinate is
\begin{align}\label{BCFT_coord}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = G_{MN} \mathrm{d} X^M \mathrm{d} X^N =L^2 \frac{\mathrm{d} z^2+\eta_{\mu \nu} \mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu}{z^2} \,,
\end{align}
where $z$ is a radial coordinate and its range is $0<z<\infty$.
To reduce the isometry of the metric from $SO (2,d)$ to $SO (1,d)$, we introduce a boundary $\mathcal{Q}$ in the radial direction.
To construct the gravity dual following Takayanagi's proposal \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp}, we introduce the boundary with a brane of tension $T$,
\begin{align} \label{Action}
\begin{aligned}
I &= \frac{1}{16\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{B}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d+1}X \, \sqrt{-G}\, \left( R + \frac{d(d-1)}{L^2}\right) \\
&\qquad + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{Q}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d}X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}} \left( K - T\right) + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{M}} \! \mathrm{d}^d X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}}\, K \,,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{B}$ is the bulk AdS spacetime and $\mathcal{M}$ is the boundary on which the dual BCFT lives.
In the present case, $\mathcal{M}$ is the half plane, $\mathcal{B}$ is the bulk AdS spacetime in the coordinates \eqref{BCFT_coord} with the restricted range $x_1 \geq -\alpha z $, and $\mathcal{Q}$ is the AdS boundary at $x_1= -\alpha z $.
$\hat{G}_{MN}$ represents the induced metric.
To make the variational problem well-define in the presence of the boundary, the Gibbons-Hawking term is introduced with the extrinsic curvature defined by
\begin{align}
K_{MN} = \hat{G}_{ML}\hat{G}_{NK}\nabla^L n^K \,,
\end{align}
for the outward pointing normal vector $n^M$.
The Dirichlet boundary condition is imposed on $\mathcal{M}$, but the Neumann boundary condition is chosen on $\mathcal{Q}$
\begin{align}
K_{MN} -\hat{G}_{MN} K = - T\, \hat{G}_{MN} \,.
\end{align}
Since the extrinsic curvature is given by
\begin{align}
K = - \frac{d}{L} \frac{x_1}{\sqrt{z^2+x_1^2}} \,,
\end{align}
the brane tension is fixed to be
\begin{align}
T = \frac{d-1}{L} \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \,.
\end{align}
For $d=2$, comparing the model to the Liouville setup, we find the parameter relations $L=1/\sqrt{\mu}$ and $T = \mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ as discussed in the previous section via the boundary entropies. Because $\alpha$ plays the same role in each setup, we do not mind the duplicate notation of $\alpha$.
\subsection{CV conjecture}
Let us compute a holographic complexity following the CV conjecture \eqref{CVcon}
\begin{align}
C_{\text{V}}= \frac{V}{G_{\text{N}} L} \,,
\end{align}
in the AdS/BCFT model.
In this setup, the length scale $L$ is fixed to be the AdS radius and $V$ is the maximum volume at $t=0$ given by
\begin{align}
V&=\int _\epsilon ^\infty \mathrm{d} z \int _{-\alpha z}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} x_1 \int \prod_{i=2}^{d-1} \mathrm{d} x_i \frac{L^d}{z^d} \\
&= \frac{1}{2}V_{d-1}L^d \int _\epsilon ^\infty \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{z^d}
+ \alpha \frac{L^{d}V_{d-2}}{(d-2)\epsilon^{d-2}} \,, \label{integration}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is a cutoff, and $V_{d-1}$ and $V_{d-2}$ are $(d-1)$- and $(d-2)$-dimensional infinite volumes, respectively.
The first term corresponds to a half of a complexity without boundary.
In the CV conjecture \eqref{CVcon}, the boundary complexity \eqref{bdyC} is
\begin{align}
\Delta C_{\text{V}}^{\text{bdy}}
= C_{\text{V}}^{\text{BCFT}} - \frac{1}{2}C_{\text{V}}^{\text{CFT}}
= \alpha \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{(d-2)G_{\text{N}}\epsilon^{d-2}} \,.
\end{align}
The boundary contribution still survives and is proportional to $1/\epsilon^{d-2}$ as expected.
In $d=2$ case, the boundary complexity is logarithmically divergent,
\begin{align}
\Delta C_{\text{V}}^{\text{bdy}}=\alpha \frac{L}{G_{\text{N}}} \log \left( \frac{z_\infty}{\epsilon}\right) =
\frac{2c}{3} \alpha \log \left( \frac{z_\infty}{\epsilon}\right) \,, \label{CVd2}
\end{align}
where $z_\infty$ is an IR cutoff and the relation $c=3L/2G_{\text{N}}$ is used.
This is obtained by a direct computation of the integral \eqref{integration} or a replacement of $V_{d-2}/(d-2)\epsilon^{d-2}$ with $\log (z_\infty /\epsilon)$.
This result quantitatively matches with that of the path-integral complexity \eqref{bdyCL}.
Since both of the boundary complexity and the boundary entropy are monotonic increasing functions of the slope $\alpha$, they are monotonically decreasing under the boundary RG flow.
Note that the RG flow from UV to IR corresponds to from large $\alpha$ to small $\alpha$.
See \cite{Flory:2017ftd} for a related previous work on the CV conjecture with boundary or defect.
\subsection{CA conjecture}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tdplotsetmaincoords{65}{105}
\begin{tikzpicture}[tdplot_main_coords,scale=0.7]
\draw[thick,-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0,0) -- (5,0,0) node[below]{$z$};
\draw[thick,-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,-5,0) -- (0,5,0) node[right]{$x_1$};
\draw[thick,-{Triangle[angle'=60,scale=0.8]}] (0,0,-5) -- (0,0,5) node[left]{$t$};
\coordinate (O) at (0,0,0);
\coordinate (Ob) at (0,5,0);
\coordinate (A11) at (1,-{sqrt(3)}/2,{sqrt(1+3/4)});
\coordinate (B11) at (1,0,1);
\coordinate (C11) at (1,5,1);
\coordinate (A12) at (1,-{sqrt(3)}/2,-{sqrt(1+3/4)});
\coordinate (B12) at (1,0,-1);
\coordinate (C12) at (1,5,-1);
\coordinate (A21) at (4,-{4*sqrt(3)}/2,{4*sqrt(1+3/4)});
\coordinate (B21) at (4,0,4);
\coordinate (C21) at (4,5,4);
\coordinate (A22) at (4,-{4*sqrt(3)}/2,-{4*sqrt(1+3/4)});
\coordinate (B22) at (4,0,-4);
\coordinate (C22) at (4,5,-4);
\draw[dashed] (O)--(B11)--(B21) (B22)--(B12)--(O)
(Ob)--(C11)--(C21)--(C22)--(C12)--cycle
(B11)--(B12) (C11)--(C12)
(O)--(A11) (O)--(A12) (A21)--(A22);
\draw[red, thick] (A11)--(A12) (A11)--(A21) (A12)--(A22)
(B11)--(C11) (C12)--(B12);
\draw[red,thick,name path=P11] (B11) parabola (A11);
\draw[red,thick,name path=P12] (B12) parabola (A12);
\fill[gray,opacity=0.5] (B11)--(C11)--(C12)--(B12)--cycle;
\fill[gray,opacity=0.2] (B11)--(C11)--(C21)--(B21)
(B12)--(C12)--(C22)--(B22);
\fill[blue,opacity=0.2] (A11)--(A12)--(A22)--(A21)--cycle;
\fill[domain=0:1,smooth,variable=\t, gray, opacity=0.5] plot(1,{-sqrt(3)/2*\t},{sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*\t)^2+1)})--plot(1,{-sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t)},{-sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t))^2+1)})--cycle ;
\fill[domain=0:1,smooth,variable=\t, gray, opacity=0.2]
plot(1,{-sqrt(3)/2*\t},{sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*\t)^2+1)})--plot(4,{-4*sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t)},{4*sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t))^2+1)})--cycle
plot(1,{-sqrt(3)/2*\t},{-sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*\t)^2+1)})--plot(4,{-4*sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t)},{-4*sqrt((sqrt(3)/2*(1-\t))^2+1)})--cycle;
\draw ($(B11)!.5!(C12)$) node {$S_\epsilon$}
(2.5,-{2.5/2*sqrt(3)},0) node {$\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$}
($(B11)!.5!(C21)$) node {$N_{1}$} ($(B12)!.5!(C22)$) node {$N_{2}$}
(A21) node[left] {$J_{\text{n},1}$} (A22) node[left] {$J_{\text{n},2}$}
(C11) node[above right] {$J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}$} (C12) node[below right] {$J_{\text{s},\epsilon_-}$}
($(A11)!.5!(A12)$) node[left] {$\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The WDW patch which is the causal development of the Cauchy slice $t = 0$. The bulk region $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}$ is surrounded by a portion $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$ of the brane $\mathcal{Q}$, null surfaces $N_{1,2}$ and the timelike surface $S_\epsilon$ at $z=\epsilon$. The red lines are joints $J_{\text{n},1,2} = N_{1,2} \cap \mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$, $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_\pm} = N_{1,2} \cap S_\epsilon$ and $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon} = \mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}} \cap S_\epsilon$. The other timelike surface $S_\infty$ at $z=z_\infty$, the other spacelike joints $J_{\text{s},\infty_\pm}$ and the other timelike joint $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}$ are not depicted.}
\label{fig:HC}
\end{figure}
The CA conjecture \eqref{CAcon} argues that the holographic complexity is given by the WDW action
\begin{align}
C_{\text{A}} =\frac{I_{\text{WDW}}}{\pi} \,,
\end{align}
as noted in introduction.
We consider a state at $t=0$, and hence the causal development of the Cauchy slice, called the WDW patch, is surrounded by the boundary $\mathcal{Q}$, two null surfaces emanating from $(z,t)=(0,0)$, denoted by $N_1$ for the future directing surface and $N_2$ for the past directing surface.
For regularization, we introduce two timelike surfaces at $z=\epsilon$ and $z=z_\infty$, denoted by $S_\epsilon$ and $S_{\infty}$ respectively.
The WDW patch for $x_1\geq 0$ region is the same as that of a pure AdS spacetime.
However, as noted in \cite{Chapman:2018bqj}, the WDW patch for $x_1<0$ region is surrounded by null rays emanating from the point $(z,t,x_1)=(0,0,0)$ and is given by $t^2<z^2+x_1^2$.\footnote{We would like to thank S.~Chapman, D.~Ge and G.~Policastro for pointing out this.}
The WDW patch contains two null joints, $J_{\text{n},1}$ and $J_{\text{n},2}$, four spacelike joints, $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}$, $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_-}$, $J_{\text{s},\infty_+}$ and $J_{\text{s},\infty_-}$, and two timelike joints, $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon}$ and $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}$.
See Figure \ref{fig:HC} for the configuration of the WDW patch.
The WDW action consists of variable terms,
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
I_{\text{WDW}} &= \frac{1}{16\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d+1}X \, \sqrt{-G}\, \left( R + \frac{d(d-1)}{L^2}\right) \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}} \! \mathrm{d}^d X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}} \left( K - T\right) + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \sum_{i=\epsilon,\infty} \int_{S_i} \! \mathrm{d}^d X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}}\, K \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \sum_{i=1}^2 \epsilon_\kappa \left( \int_{N_i} \! \mathrm{d} \lambda \mathrm{d}^{d-1} \bm{x}\, \sqrt{\gamma} \kappa + \int_{N_i} \! \mathrm{d} \lambda \mathrm{d}^{d-1} \bm{x} \, \sqrt{\gamma} \Theta \log (\ell_{\text{ct}}|\Theta | ) \right) \\
& \quad + \frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \sum_{J} \epsilon_a \int_{J} \! \mathrm{d}^{d-1} X \, \sqrt{h} a
+\frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \sum_{\mathcal{J}}\epsilon_\phi \int_{\mathcal{J}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d-1} X \, \sqrt{-h} \phi \,. \label{WDWA}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The first term is a bulk contribution in the WDW patch,
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}$ which is a bulk AdS region surrounded by $\mathcal{Q}$, $N_{1,2}$ and $S_{\epsilon,\infty}$. The second term is the Gibbons-Hawking term with the brane tension $T$ of the boundary region $\mathcal{Q}$ surrounded by $N_{1,2}$ and $S$, denoted by $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$.
The third term represents the Gibbons-Hawking term of the cutoff surfaces $S_\epsilon$ and $S_\infty$.
The terms in the third line are null surface contributions and their counter terms, which are introduced for a reparametrization invariance.
$\epsilon_\kappa= -1$ for future of the boundary segment and $\epsilon_\kappa=1$ for past of the boundary segment.
$\gamma_{MN}$ is the induced metric on the null surfaces and $\gamma$ is its determinant.
$\kappa$ is defined by the equation $k^M \nabla_M k_N =\kappa k_N$ and represents how the null coordinate $\lambda$ deviates from affine parametrization.
$\Theta=\partial_\lambda \log \sqrt{\gamma} $ represents the expansion.
The new length scale in the counter term, $\ell_{\text{ct}}$, serves a scale appearing in the definition of complexity in quantum field theory.
The rest terms are joint contributions and the details are explained when we evaluate them.
See \cite{Lehner:2016vdi,Hayward:1993my} for the detail of the various terms.
Comments on cutoffs are in order. As usual, we have to introduce the cutoffs at $z=\epsilon$ for a UV reguralization and at $z=\infty$ for an IR reguralization.
Note that a different reguralization scheme is often used in literature about the AdS/CFT setup with defect. See, e.g., \cite{Chapman:2018bqj} for detail.
In higher dimensions, the IR contributions in \eqref{WDWA} can be ignored compared with other contributions containing UV divergences.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}$}
Let us evaluate the bulk action in the WDW patch.
The bulk region in the WDW patch consists of the $x_1 \geq 0$ region $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}^+$ and the $x_1 < 0$ region $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}^-$.
Since the Ricci scalar of AdS$_{d+1}$ is $R=-d(d+1)/L^2$ , the bulk contribution becomes
\begin{align}
I_{\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}}
&=\frac{1}{16\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d+1}X \, \sqrt{-G}\, \left( R + \frac{d(d-1)}{L^2}\right) \\ &=I_{\mathcal{B}_\text{WDW}^+} -\frac{dL^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_\text{N}(d-2)\epsilon^{d-2}} \left( \alpha \sqrt{1+\alpha^2} + \mathrm{arcsinh}\, \alpha \right) \,.
\end{align}
The first term is a contribution from $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}^+$ and a half of the pure AdS spacetime.
The second term is a contribution by the boundary and comes from the region $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}^-$.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$}
Since null rays on the surface are given by $t=\pm \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}z$, the WDW patch on the brane $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$ is surrounded by the null rays.
The induced metric on the brane is
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = L^2 \frac{(1+\alpha^2)\mathrm{d} z^2 -\mathrm{d} t^2 + \sum_{i=2}^{d-1}\mathrm{d} x_i^2 }{z^2} \,,
\end{align}
and the extrinsic curvature becomes
\begin{align}
K = \frac{d}{L}\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \,.
\end{align}
The WDW action of the brane $\mathcal{Q}$ becomes
\begin{align}
I_{\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}}
&=\frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}} \! \mathrm{d}^{d}X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}} \left( K - T\right) \\
&= \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{4\pi G_\text{N}(d-2)\epsilon^{d-2}}\alpha \sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \,.
\end{align}
Only the boundary contribution survives.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from $S_\epsilon$ and $S_\infty$}
The induced metric on $S_{\epsilon}$ is
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2=\frac{L^2}{\epsilon^2}\eta_{\mu \nu}\mathrm{d} x^\mu \mathrm{d} x^\nu \,,
\end{align}
and the extrinsic curvature on $S_\epsilon$ is
\begin{align}
K=\frac{d-1}{L} \,.
\end{align}
Then, the surface contribution on $S_\epsilon$ becomes
\begin{align}
I_{S_\epsilon}
&=\frac{1}{8\pi G_{\text{N}}}\int_{S_\epsilon} \! \mathrm{d}^d X \, \sqrt{-\hat{G}}K \\
&=I_{S_{\epsilon}^+}
+\frac{(d-1)L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_{\text{N}}\epsilon^{d-2}}\left( \alpha\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} + \mathrm{arcsinh} \, \alpha \right) \,,
\end{align}
where the first term is half of the action of the surface at $z=\epsilon$ in the AdS spacetime and the second term is a boundary contribution coming from the $x_1<0$ region.
The contribution for $S_\infty$ can be easily obtained by changing the sign of the extrinsic curvature and replacing $\epsilon$ with $z_\infty$,
\begin{align}
I_{S_\infty}=I_{S_{\infty}^+}
-\frac{(d-1)L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_{\text{N}}z_\infty^{d-2}}\left( \alpha\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} + \mathrm{arcsinh} \, \alpha \right) \,.
\end{align}
For higher dimensions, the IR surface contribution can be ignored while it still survives for $d=2$.
In $d=2$ case, the boundary contributions are opposite and the sum of two boundary contributions vanishes.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from null surfaces}
Since the geometry is symmetric at $t=0$, contributions of two null surfaces are the same.
The null surface consists of the $x_1 \geq 0$ region, $N_1^+$, and the $x_1 < 0$ region, $N_1^-$.
Since we are especially interested in the boundary complexity, we need not to evaluate the WDW action of $N_1^+$. Here we give a brief prescription to evaluate it.
The null surface $N_1^+$ is parameterized by the coordinate $\lambda =z/N=t/N$ where $N$ is an arbitrary parameter,
\begin{align}
x^M = (N\lambda, N\lambda, x_1,\bm{x}) \,,
\end{align}
where the first component is $z$-direction and the second component is $t$-direction.
The tangent vector to $N_1$ is
\begin{align}
k^M =\frac{\mathrm{d} x^M}{\mathrm{d} \lambda} =N(1,1, 0,\bm{0}) \,.
\end{align}
Then the induced metric, $\kappa$ and the expansion on $N_1^+$ are given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2=L^2\frac{\delta_{ij}\mathrm{d} x^i \mathrm{d} x^j}{z^2} \,, \qquad
\kappa= -\frac{2}{\lambda} \,, \qquad
\Theta =-\frac{d-1}{\lambda} \,,
\end{align}
respectively, where $i$ and $j$ run in space directions on the boundary of AdS.
By using these, it is possible to obtain the null surface contribution of $N_1^+$.
Next, let us consider the $x_1<0$ region, $N_1^-$.
The null surface $N_1^-$ can be parameterized by
\begin{align}
x^M = (M\lambda \cos \theta, M\lambda, - M\lambda \sin \theta,\bm{x}) \,,
\end{align}
where $M$ is an arbitrary parameter.
The tangent vector to $N_1^-$ is
\begin{align}
k^M =\frac{\mathrm{d} x^M}{\mathrm{d} \lambda} =M(\cos \theta ,1, -\sin \theta ,\bm{0}) \,.
\end{align}
Then the induced metric, $\kappa$ and the expansion on $N_1^-$ are given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2=L^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d} \theta^2}{\cos ^2 \theta} + \frac{\mathrm{d} \bm{x}^2}{z^2} \right) \,, \qquad
\kappa= -\frac{2}{\lambda} \,, \qquad
\Theta =-\frac{d-2}{\lambda} \,,
\end{align}
respectively.
The contribution from the null boundaries is evaluated as
\begin{align}
I_{N_1}=I_{N_2}&=-\frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{N_1} \! \mathrm{d} \lambda \mathrm{d} \theta \mathrm{d}^{d-2} \bm{x} \, \sqrt{\gamma} \kappa \\
&=I_{N_1^+} + \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{4\pi G_\text{N}(d-2) \epsilon^{d-2}}\mathrm{arcsinh}\, \alpha \,,
\end{align}
and the counter terms are
\begin{align}
I_{N_1,\text{ct}}&=I_{N_2,\text{ct}}=-\frac{1}{8\pi G_\text{N}} \int_{N_1} \! \mathrm{d} \lambda \mathrm{d} \theta \mathrm{d}^{d-2}\bm{x} \, \sqrt{\gamma} \Theta \log (\ell_{\text{ct}}|\Theta | ) \\
&\begin{aligned}
&=I_{N_1^+,\text{ct}}-\frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_\text{N} \epsilon^{d-2}}
\left(\frac{1}{d-2} - \log \left( \frac{\ell_{\text{ct}}M(d-2)}{\epsilon} \right) \right) \, \mathrm{arcsinh} \alpha \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad + \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_\text{N} \epsilon^{d-2}} \int_0^{\theta_\alpha} \! \mathrm{d} \theta \frac{\log \cos \theta}{\cos \theta} \,,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
with $\tan \theta_\alpha = \alpha$.
Here $I_{N_1^+}$ and $I_{N_1,\text{ct}}^+$ represent contributions without boundary.
The boundary contribution of $I_{N_1^+}$ does not depend on the arbitrary parameter $M$, while that of the counter term depends on the arbitrary parameter $M$.
However, this dependence cancels with the joint terms of $J_3$ as we will see later.
Hence, we do not discuss this point anymore here.
Note that the counter term vanishes in $d=2$ since the expansion vanishes, $\Theta =0$.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from spacelike joints}
There are four spacelike joints in the WDW patch.
Two spacelike joints between the null surfaces and $S_\epsilon$ are denoted by $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}$ for $t>0$ and $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_-}$ for $t<0$, respectively.
Similarly, there are two spacelike joints between the null surfaces and $S_\infty$ denoted by $J_{\text{s},\infty_+}$ for $t>0$ and $J_{\text{s},\infty_-}$ for $t<0$, respectively.
From the symmetric reason, $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}$ and $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_-}$ are the same contribution, and $J_{\text{s},\infty_+}$ and $J_{\text{s},\infty_-}$ are the same contribution. See Fig. \ref{fig:HC}.
Let us compute the joint term $J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}$, firstly.
The unit normal vector of $S_\epsilon$ is given by
\begin{align}
s^M = \frac{\epsilon}{L}(-1,0,\cdots,0) \,,
\end{align}
and a term in the integrand is given by
\begin{align}
a=\log |k\cdot s| =\log \left( \frac{ML\cos \theta}{\epsilon} \right) \,.
\end{align}
Then the joint action with $\epsilon_a=-1$ becomes
\begin{align} \label{Jse}
I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}}=I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}^+} - \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}\mathrm{arcsinh}\, \alpha}{8\pi G_\text{N}\epsilon^{d-2}} \log \left( \frac{ML}{\epsilon} \right) - \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi G_\text{N}\epsilon^{d-2}} \int_0^{\theta_\alpha} \! \mathrm{d} \theta \, \frac{\log \cos \theta}{\cos \theta} \,.
\end{align}
The first term represents half of the joint action without boundary, and the second and third terms are just boundary contributions.
The joint term $J_{\text{s},\infty_+}$ can be easily obtained by replacing $\epsilon$ in \eqref{Jse} with $z_\infty$ and $\epsilon_a = -1$ with $\epsilon_a = 1$. For $d>2$, this term can be ignored, but for $d=2$, the contribution remains.
For $d>2$, by adding $I_{N_1,\text{ct}}$ and $I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}}$, we can easily confirm that the combination between $I_{N_1,\text{ct}}$ and $I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}}$ does not depend on the arbitrary parameters $N$ and $M$ as mentioned above.
In $d=2$, the sum of $I_{N_1}$, $I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_+}}$ and $I_{J_{\text{s},\epsilon_-}}$ does not depend on the arbitrary parameter $M$.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from null joints}
There are two null joints in the WDW patch.
A null joint between the null surface $N_1$ ($N_2$) and the brane $\mathcal{Q}$ is denoted by $J_{\text{n},1}$ ($J_{\text{n},2}$).
From the symmetric reason, $J_{\text{n},1}$ and $J_{\text{n},2}$ are the same contribution.
Let us evaluate a contribution of the null joints $J_{\text{n},1}$ and $J_{\text{n},2}$.
The unit normal vector to $\mathcal{Q}$ is
\begin{align}
s^M = \frac{z}{L\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}}(-\alpha,0,-1,0,\cdots,0) \,,
\end{align}
and the induced metric on the joint is given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} s^2 = L^2\frac{\alpha^2 \mathrm{d} z^2 + \sum_{i=2}^{d-1}\mathrm{d} x_i^2}{z^2} \,.
\end{align}
Since the vector $s^M$ and the null vector $k^M$ are orthogonal, the integrand of the joint $J_{\text{n},1}$ contains a strong divergence,
\begin{align}
a=\log |k\cdot s| =\log 0 \,.
\end{align}
Naively, it seems that this $\log 0$ divergence causes an incurable problem.
However, the joint term $J_{\text{n},1}$ does not depend on the boundary parameter $\alpha$ and it will be subtracted when we define the boundary complexity.
\subsubsection*{Contribution from timelike joints}
The last contribution comes from the timelike joints between the brane $\mathcal{Q}$ and cutoff surfaces,denoted by $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon}$ located at $z=\epsilon$ and $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}$ located at $z=z_\infty$.
Let us evaluate $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon}$, first.
The outgoing normal unit vector to $S_\epsilon$ is
\begin{align}
n_{S_\epsilon}^M=\frac{\epsilon}{L} \left( -1,0,\cdots , 0\right) \,,
\end{align}
and the outgoing normal vector to $\mathcal{Q}$ is
\begin{align}
n_\mathcal{Q}^M = \frac{\epsilon}{L \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \left(-\alpha ,0,-1 ,0,\cdots ,0\right) \,.
\end{align}
Then, the angle between two normal vectors is given by
\begin{align}
\cos \phi = n_S\cdot n_\mathcal{Q} = \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \,.
\end{align}
The joint action is evaluated as
\begin{align}
I_{\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\epsilon}}&=\frac{1}{8\pi G_{\text{N}}}\int \! \mathrm{d}^{d-1}X \, \sqrt{-h}\phi \\ &=\frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{4\pi G_{\text{N}}\epsilon^{d-2}}\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \arccos \left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}}\right) \,,
\end{align}
where $h_{MN}$ is an induced metric on the joint.
See \cite{Hayward:1993my} for the detail of the timelike joint contribution.
Next, let us consider the $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}$ contribution.
The contribution for higher dimensional case can be ignored and we restrict our attention to a two dimensional case.
For $\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}$, the angle between two normal vectors is given by
\begin{align}
\cos \phi = - \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} \,,
\end{align}
and the joint contribution becomes
\begin{align}
I_{\mathcal{J}_{\text{t},\infty}}=\frac{L}{4\pi G_{\text{N}}}\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \left( \pi - \arccos \left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}}\right) \right) \,.
\end{align}
\subsubsection*{Total CA}
In total, the boundary complexity for $d > 2$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{CAddim}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta C_{\text{A}}^{\text{bdy}}&= \frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{8\pi^2 G_\text{N}\epsilon^{d-2}}\left[ (d-2) \left( \alpha \sqrt{1+\alpha^2}+ \mathrm{arcsinh}\, \alpha \right)
+2\log \left(\frac{\ell_{\text{ct}}(d-2)}{L}\right)\mathrm{arcsinh}\, \alpha \right] \\
&\quad +\frac{L^{d-1}V_{d-2}}{4\pi^2 G_\text{N}\epsilon^{d-2}} \left(\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} \arccos \left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}}\right) -\frac{\pi}{2}\right) \,.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
and the boundary complexity for $d=2$ is given by
\begin{align}
\Delta C_{\text{A}}^{\text{bdy}}= \frac{L}{4\pi G_\text{N}} \left(\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} - 1 \right) \,. \label{bdyCAd2}
\end{align}
When we subtract the complexity without boundary, we include null joint terms and timelike joint terms to the half of the complexity, $C_{\text{A}}^{\text{CFT}}/2$, such that the boundary complexity vanishes for $\alpha =0$.
It is clear that the boundary complexity \eqref{CAddim} in the CA conjecture does not vanish for $d>2$.
In $d=2$ case, it turns out that the finite term of the boundary complexity \eqref{bdyCAd2} is universal, since the logarithmic divergent term vanishes,
\begin{align}\label{CAun}
\left. \Delta C_{\text{A}}^{\text{bdy}}\right|_{\log}
= 0 \, , \qquad
\left. \Delta C_{\text{A}}^{\text{bdy}}\right|_{\mathrm{univ}}
= \frac{L}{4\pi G_\text{N}} \left(\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} - 1 \right) \,.
\end{align}
It means that, for $d=2$, the CA conjecture gives the divergence structure different from the CV conjecture \eqref{CVd2} and the path-integral optimization approach \eqref{bdyCL} which are logarithmically divergent.
Note that, as $\alpha$ decreases, the boundary complexity \eqref{bdyCAd2} monotonically decreases as same as the boundary entropy \eqref{bdyEE}.
\section{Discussions}
We studied complexity of quantum states in BCFT$_2$ using the path-integral optimization \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}.
Since the path-integral optimization naturally produces the AdS geometry with a cutoff in the radial direction as in the AdS/BCFT model \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp}, we also studied holographic complexity in the AdS$_{d+1}$/BCFT$_d$ model following the CV and the CA conjectures \cite{Susskind:2014,Susskind:2014rva,Brown:2015bva,Brown:2015lvg}.
It was revealed that the boundary complexity which is an increment of the complexity due to the boundary does not vanish in the path-integral optimization, in the CV conjecture and even in the CA conjecture.
The path-integral complexity and the CV complexity shows logarithmic divergences in $d=2$ case and they are the same up to the overall prefactors.
On the other hand, the CA complexity does not show a logarithmic divergence and has non-vanishing constant in $d=2$.
For higher dimensional case, the CV and the CA boundary complexities show the same divergent structures.
Let us compare our result with Chapman \textit{et al}. \cite{Chapman:2018bqj}.
While the increments of the circuit complexity in several DCFT models vanish in their work, the path-integral complexity increases due to the boundary for a positive $\mu_{\text{B}}$.
Hence this fact implies that whether the boundary complexity and the defect complexity vanish depends on the definition of the complexity in QFT or models in BCFT and DCFT.
In gravity side, our results of the boundary complexity in the CV and the CA conjectures in $d=2$, are consistent with their argument\footnote{In \cite{Chapman:2018bqj} the defect complexity in the CA conjecture vanishes but it was argued that the coefficient of the logarithmic term vanishes while the finite term depends on the cut-off one employs.
We obtained the non-vanishing contribution in the boundary complexity and argue that it does not depend on the cut-off scheme and it is universal in this sense.}
and we arrive at the same conclusion which the boundary or defect can distinguish action from volume.
On the other hand, in higher dimensional case ($d>2$), the boundary complexity does not vanish even in the CA conjecture.
We conclude that the boundary and the defect can not detect the definite difference of the CV conjecture and the CA conjecture except a special case in contrast to the argument by Chapman \textit{et al}. \cite{Chapman:2018bqj}.
We can infer the reason why the boundary complexity in the CA conjecture in the AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ setup from our higher dimensional calculations.
The boundary contribution among the volume $\mathcal{B}_{\text{WDW}}$, the brane $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{WDW}}$ and the null surfaces $N$ is proportional to $d-2$ and this proportional factor delete a factor $1/(d-2)$ in front of $1/\epsilon^{d-2}$.
Hence $\log (z_\infty / \epsilon)$ terms do not appear in $d \to 2$ limit.
There is a comment on the boundary Liouville action \eqref{LA} used in the path-integral optimization.
The region $\mathcal{M}$ has the two boundaries $\partial \mathcal{M}_0$ and $\partial \mathcal{M}_1$ and there is a point where the two boundaries cross.
The extrinsic curvature suddenly changes at the point and should be proportional to a delta function.
In such a case, the Liouville action can contain a joint contribution as in \cite{Hayward:1993my} and the complexity would change.
However, even if the contribution coming from the point is added, it does not make the complexity vanishing since it should be proportional to the angle between two normal vectors to the boundaries. It might be notable that the corner angle contribution also appeared in the CA complexity \eqref{CAddim} in $d>2$.
Some comments on the CA conjecture are in order.
The WDW patch in AdS spacetime with boundary in the radial direction includes null joint terms between the boundary and the null surfaces like $J_{\text{n},1}$ and $J_{\text{n},2}$ in our setup.
Since the normal vector of the boundary and the null vector of the null surfaces are perpendicular each other, the joint terms contain unavoidable divergences due to $\log 0$.\footnote{We again thank S.~Chapman, D.~Ge and G.~Policastro for pointing out this to us.}
For the boundary complexity, we avoid this problem by including similar terms in the subtracted WDW action of the half AdS spacetime.
However, the CA complexity with boundary itself suffers from the divergences coming from $\log 0$.
The resolution of this problem might be shed light on the holographic complexity.
To simplify our discussion in the path-integral optimization, we restricted our attention to BCFT$_2$.
It is interesting to apply the path-integral optimization method to defect CFT or higher-dimensional BCFT and confirm whether the defect or the boundary contributions still survive.
Also, finite temperature variants of the AdS/BCFT models, which the holographic complexities were studied in \cite{Flory:2017ftd,Cooper:2018cmb,Numasawa:2018grg}, might be good playgrounds.
In two-dimensional CFTs, \cite{Caputa:2018kdj} made connection between the circuit complexity \cite{Jefferson:2017sdb} and the path-integral optimization \cite{Caputa:2017urj,Caputa:2017yrh}
by using a geometric action associated with Virasoro group (see also \cite{Camargo:2019isp,Akal:2019hxa}).
It is interesting to generalize \cite{Caputa:2018kdj} to BCFT$_2$ and check whether the boundary complexity vanishes or not.
We hope for the non-vanishing boundary complexity in this setup.
\acknowledgments
YS would like to thank A.~O'Bannon for introducing me to the paper \cite{Chapman:2018bqj}.
The authors thank S.~Chapman, D.~Ge, K.~Goto, Y.~Nakayama, S.~Sugishita, T.~Takayanagi and K.~Umemoto for fruitful discussions.
The authors sincerely thank the authors of the paper \cite{Chapman:2018bqj} for pointing out our mistakes in terms of the WDW patch and E.~Tonni for correspondence.
The authors thank the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University.
Discussions during the workshop YITP-T-19-03 ``Quantum Information and String Theory 2019'' were useful to complete this work.
The work of YS is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid (Wakate-A), No.17H04837 and the work of KW is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellows, No.18J00322.
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let
$ \gamma : \mathbb{S}_L \to \mathbb{R}^d $
be a closed curve in
$ \mathbb{R}^d $
for $ L>0 $ and $ d \geq 2$,
where
$\mathbb{S}_L$
is a circle with length
$L$.
The curve
$ \gamma $
is said to be a \textit{knot} when it is embedded in
$ \mathbb{R}^3 $.
For
$\alpha$,
$q \in (0,\infty)$,
O'Hara's knot energies of $ \gamma $
are denoted by $ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma) $
and are defined by
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma)
:=
\frac 1 \alpha
L^{\alpha q-2}
\int_{\mathbb{S}_L} \int_{\mathbb{S}_L}
\left(
\mathcal{M}^\alpha (\gamma)
\right)^q
dsdt,
\]
where
\[
\mathcal{M}^\alpha (\gamma)
=
\mathcal{M}^\alpha (\gamma)(s,t)
:=
\frac{1}{ | \gamma(t) - \gamma(s) |^\alpha }
-
\frac{1}{ D( \gamma(s) , \gamma(t) )^\alpha },
\]
and
$ D( \gamma(s) , \gamma(t) ) $
is the intrinsic distance between
$ \gamma(s) $
and
$ \gamma(t) $.
Note that the coefficient
$L^{\alpha q-2}$
ensures O'Hara's energies are scale invariant.
These energies were introduced by J. O'Hara \cite{O91} to give an answer to the question,
``What is the most beautiful knot in a given knot class ?''.
Therefore, O'Hara's energies were constructed so that as the knot becomes more well-balanced,
the value of the energy decreases.
Also, when we deform a knot, it is not desirable that the knot class to which the knot belongs changes.
Thus, these energies were also constructed so that divergence occurs if a knot has self-intersection.
However, it is difficult to calculate values of O'Hara's energies directly,
and as a result,
it is not easy to evaluate well-balancedness.
Therefore,
it is desirable to numerically calculate these energies.
A discretization of O'Hara's energy with
$ \alpha = 2 $,
$q=1 $
was proposed by Kim-Kusner \cite{KK}.
Let
$ p_n : \mathbb{S}_L \to \mathbb{R}^d $
be a polygon with
$n$
edges parametrized by arc-length and embedded in
$ \mathbb{R}^d $
with length
$L$.
Let
$ a_i $
be the value of the arc-length parameter at the $i$-th vertex of
$p_n$,
and note that
$ p_n $ is made by connecting
$ \{ p_n(a_i) \} $
in turn.
Then, the polygonal discrete energy,
denoted by
$ \mathcal{E}_n (p_n) $,
is defined by
\[
\mathcal{E}_n (p_n)
:=
\frac 1 2
\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i\ne j}}^n
\mathcal{M}_n (p_n)
| p_n(a_{i+1}) - p_n(a_i) |
| p_n(a_{j+1}) - p_n(a_j) |,
\]
where
\[
\mathcal{M}_n (p_n)
:=
\frac{1}{ | p_n(a_j) - p_n(a_i) |^2 }
-
\frac{1}{ D( p_n(a_j) , p_n(a_i) )^2 }.
\]
Using this discrete energy,
Kim-Kusner \cite{KK} calculated values of O'Hara's energy with
$ \alpha = 2 $, $q=1$
of torus knots by numerical experiments.
Scholtes \cite{Sch} addressed to what extent
$ \mathcal{E}_n $
approximates
$ \mathcal{E}^{2,1} $.
For a closed curve
$ \gamma : \mathbb{S}_L \to \mathbb{R}^d $,
\textit{inscribed polygons} in
$ \gamma $
were considered.
Let
$ p_n $
be an inscribed polygon,
and suppose the vertices correspond to parameters
$ b_j \in \mathbb{S}_L $;
that is, $p_n$ is made by connecting
$ \{ \gamma (b_j) \} $
in turn.
It was shown that if
$ \gamma $
belongs to
$ C^{1,1} (\mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d) $
and that there exists
$ c,\bar{c} >0 $
such that
\[
\frac c n \leq \min_{k=1,\ldots n} | \gamma(b_{k+1}) - \gamma(b_k) |
\leq \max_{k=1,\ldots n} | \gamma(b_{k+1}) - \gamma(b_k) |
\leq \frac{\bar{c}}{n},
\]
then it holds that for all
$\varepsilon >0$,
there exists
$ C_\varepsilon >0 $
depending on
$ \gamma $,
$c$,
and
$\bar{c}$
such that
\[
| \mathcal{E}^{2,1} (\gamma) - \mathcal{E}_n (p_n) |
\leq C_\varepsilon \frac 1 {n^{ 1- \varepsilon }}.
\]
Also, it was shown that if
$ \gamma \in C^{0,1} (\mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d) $
and
$ \mathcal{E}^{2,1} (\gamma) < \infty $,
then it holds that
\[
\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}_n (p_n) = \mathcal{E}^{2,1} (\gamma).
\]
In addition, the idea of \textit{$\Gamma$-convergence} was used in \cite{Sch}.
$\Gamma$-convergence was introduced by De Giorgi and is one type of convergence of a sequence of functionals which is very useful when we study the convergence of the sequence of minimal values of each functional to those to the limit functional.
In \cite{Sch}, it was shown that
$ \mathcal{E}_n $
converges to
$ \mathcal{E}^{2,1} $
in the sense of $\Gamma$-convergence on metric spaces.
Here, these metric spaces contain
$C^1$
curves and equilateral polygons with length
$1$
belonging to a given tame knot class equipped with the metric induced by
$L^r$-norm and
$W^{1,r}$-norm with
$ r \in [1, \infty] $.
Using this,
it was shown that
minimal values of
$ \mathcal{E}_n $
converge to the minimal value of
$ \mathcal{E}^{2,1} $.
Moreover,
it was shown that minimizers of
$ \mathcal{E}_n $
in the set of equilateral polygons
are regular polygons
and that the minimizers are unique except congruent transformations and similar transformations.
$\mathcal{E}^{2,1}$
is called the M\"{o}bius energy,
since this energy is invariant under M\"{o}bius transformations.
Scholtes did not use this property for proving his result,
and thus it is natural to believe that this argument may be applicable to all of O'Hara's energies;
we prove this here.
More precisely, in this article,
we propose a discretization of
$(\alpha ,q)$-O'Hara energies by using the idea of \cite{Sch},
and we discuss approximation of the discrete energies to O'Hara energies and the $\Gamma$-convergence.
\begin{df}[A discretization of $(\alpha ,q)$-O'Hara energies]
Let
$\alpha\ ,q \in (0, \infty)$,
and let
$ p_n : \mathbb{S}_L \to \mathbb{R}^d $
be a polygon parametrized by arc-length with
$n$
vertices whose total length is
$L>0$.
Let
$a_j$
be the value of arc-length parameters corresponding to its vertices and assume
\[
0 \leq a_1 < a_2 < \cdots < a_n < L\ \ (\operatorname{mod}\,L).
\]
Then, we define
$\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n)$
by
\[
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}(p_n)
:=
\frac 1 \alpha
L^{\alpha q-2}
\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i\ne j}}^n
( \mathcal{M}^\alpha_n (p_n) )^q
| p_n(a_{i+1}) - p_n(a_i) |
| p_n(a_{j+1}) - p_n(a_j) |,
\]
where
\[
\mathcal{M}^\alpha_n (p_n)
=
\mathcal{M}^\alpha_n (p_n)(a_i,a_j)
:=
\frac{1}{ | p_n(a_j) - p_n(a_i) |^\alpha }
-
\frac{1}{ D( p_n(a_j) , p_n(a_i) )^\alpha }.
\]
\end{df}
Our main theorems are as follows.
\begin{thm}[cf.\ Theorems \ref{orderinscribed} and \ref{inscribed}]
Assume that
$ \alpha \in ( 0 , \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
satisfy
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $,
and set
$\displaystyle \sigma := \frac{\alpha q-1}{2q}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{1}
Let
$ \gamma \in C^{ 1,1 } ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) $
be a curve parametrized by arc-length embedded in
$ \mathbb{R}^d $,
where
$L$
is the length of
$\gamma$.
Let
$ c $, $ \bar{c} > 0 $,
and set
$
K :=
\| \gamma^{ \prime \prime } \|
_{ L^\infty ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) }
$.
In addition,
for
$ n \in \mathbb{N} $,
let
$ \{ b_k \}_{ k=1 }^n $
be a division of
$ \mathbb{S}_L $
satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\frac{ c L }{ n }
\leq
\min_{k=1, \ldots ,n}
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma( b_k ) |
\leq
\max_{k=1, \ldots ,n}
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma( b_k ) |
\leq
\frac{ \bar{c} L }{ n },
\label{div.bk}
\end{equation*}
and let $p_n$ be the inscribed polygon in $ \gamma $ with vertices
$ \gamma(b_1) , \ldots , \gamma(b_n) $,
where
we extend the notation
$ \gamma (b_k) $
to all
$ k \in \mathbb{Z} $
in the natural way via congruency modulo
$n$;
i.e.,
$\gamma(b_0) = \gamma(b_n)$,
$\gamma(b_1) = \gamma(b_{n+1})$,
and so on.
Then,
if the number $n$ of points of the division is sufficiently large,
there exists
$ C > 0 $
depending on
$ c $, $ \bar{c} $, $ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma) $
such that
\[
| \mathcal{E}^{ \alpha , q } ( \gamma )
- \mathcal{E}_n^{ \alpha , q } ( p_n )|
\leq
C
\{
( LK )^{2q}
+
( LK )^{2q+2}
\}
\cfrac{1}{ n^{2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\]
Furthermore, if $\alpha \leq 2$,
then there exists $C>0$ depending on $ c $, $ \bar{c} $, $ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma) $
such that
\[
| \mathcal{E}^{ \alpha , q } ( \gamma )
- \mathcal{E}_n^{ \alpha , q } ( p_n )|
\leq
C
\{
( LK )^{ \alpha q }
+
( LK )^{ \alpha q - \alpha + 2 }
+
( LK )^{ \alpha q + 2 }
\}
\cfrac{ \log n }{ n }.
\]
\item
Let
$ \gamma \in W^{ 1+\sigma , 2q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d) $,
and let $ p_n $ be the inscribed polygon as in 1.
Then, we have
\[
\lim_{ n \rightarrow \infty }
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} ( p_n )
=
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} ( \gamma ).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}[cf. Theorem \ref{gamma}]
For
$\alpha \in (0,\infty)$,\ $ q \in [1,\infty) $
satisfying
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $,
$\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}$
converges to
$\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}$
in the sense of
$\Gamma$-convergence on a metric space $X$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$W^{1+\sigma , 2q}$
is called the \textit{Sobolev-Slobodeckij space},
and it was used in \cite{Bla} to give a necessary and sufficient condition that O'Hara's energies are bounded.
\item
A metric function on $X$, $d_X : X \times X \to \mathbb{R} $, satisfies
\[
C_1 \| f-g \|_{L^1 (\mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d)} \leq d_X (f,g) \leq
C_2 \| f-g \|_{W^{1,\infty} (\mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d)}
\]
for $f$, $g \in X$,
where
$C_1$,
$C_2 > 0$
are constants.
The full definition of $X$ is given in Section \ref{sec.gamma}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
In addition,
we discuss minimizers of the discrete energies $\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}$ of the set of all \textit{equilateral} polygons with $n$ edges.
If we try to decrease the values of the discrete energies $\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}$ without conditions of lengths of edges and the numbers of vertices,
polygons degenerate into triangles.
Hence, the infimum of the discrete energies $\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}$ of the set of all polygons is $0$.
That is reason why we consider their minimizers in the set of all equilateral polygons with $n$ edges.
\begin{thm}[cf. Theorem \ref{discrete--minimizer}]
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $.
Then, minimizers of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
are regular polygons in the set of equilateral polygons with $n$ edges.
In particular, a regular polygon with $n$ edges is the only minimizer,
except for congruent transformations and similar transformations.
\end{thm}
In what follows,
for simplicity,
we write
$ D( \gamma(s), \gamma(t) )$,
$ D(p_n(a_i) , p_n(a_j)) $
as
$|t-s|$,
$|a_j - a_i|$
respectively.
\paragraph{Acknowledgment.}
The author is grateful to Professor Takeyuki Nagasawa for his direction and many useful advices and remarks.
Additionally,
the author would like to thank Professor Neal Bez for English language editing and mathematical comments.
\section{Approximation of O'Hara's energy by inscribed polygons}
In this section, we show that the discrete energy defined in previous section converges to O'Hara's energy under certain conditions.
First, in order to describe our claim, we define the \textit{Sobolev-Slobodeckij space}.
\begin{df}[The (cyclic) Sobolev-Slobodeckij space]
Let
$ \sigma \in (0,1) $,
and let
$ q \in [1,\infty) $.
We define the \textit{Sobolev-Slobodeckij space} by
\[
W^{\sigma ,q} (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
:=
\left\{
f \in L^q (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
\,\left|\,
\int_{\mathbb{S}_L} \int_{\mathbb{S}_L}
\frac{ | f^\prime (t) - f^\prime (s) |^q }{ |t-s|^{ 1+q \sigma } }
dsdt
< \infty
\right.
\right\},
\]
equipped with the norm
\[
\| f \|_{W^{\sigma ,q} (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)}
:=
\| f \|_{L^q (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d) }
+
\left(
\int_{\mathbb{S}_L} \int_{\mathbb{S}_L}
\frac{ | f^\prime (t) - f^\prime (s) |^q }{ |t-s|^{ 1+q \sigma } }
dsdt
\right)^{1/q}.
\]
Furthermore, we put
\[
W^{ 1+\sigma , q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
:=
\{
f \in W^{ 1 , q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
\, | \,
f' \in W^{ \sigma , q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
\}.
\]
\end{df}
Using the Sobolev-Slobodeckij space, we can describe the necessary and sufficient conditions for the boundedness of O'Hara's energy.
\begin{prop}[{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Bla}}]\label{propbdd}
Let
$ \gamma \in C^{ 0 , 1 } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d) $
be a regular curve.
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
with
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $,
and set
$ \displaystyle \sigma := \frac{ \alpha q - 1 }{ 2q } $.
Then,
$ \mathcal{E}^{ \alpha , q } ( \gamma ) < \infty $
if and only if
$ \gamma \in W^{ 1+\sigma , 2q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d) $.
\end{prop}
From now on,
we write
$ \sigma = ( \alpha q - 1 )/( 2q ) $.
For a given regular curve $\gamma$,
we say that a polygon $p$ is \textit{inscribed} in $\gamma$
if $p$ satisfies
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
the number of vertices is finite,
\item[(ii)]
the set of vertices is
$ \{ \gamma(s_1) , \gamma(s_2) , \ldots , \gamma(s_n) \} $
with
$ s_1 < s_2 < \cdots < s_n \ (< s_1+L) $,
\item[(iii)]
the $i$-th edge is the segment jointing
$ \gamma(s_i) $ and $ \gamma(s_{i+1}) $, where we interpret
$ s_{n+1} = s_1 $.
\end{itemize}
The aim of this section is to prove the following two theorems.
\begin{thm}
[The rate of convergence of discretization via the approximation by inscribed polygons]
\label{orderinscribed}
Assume that
$ \alpha \in ( 0 , \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
satisfy
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $.
Let
$ \gamma \in C^{ 1,1 } ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) $
be a curve parametrized by arc-length embedded in
$ \mathbb{R}^d $,
where $L$ is the length of $\gamma$.
Let
$ c $, $ \bar{c} > 0 $,
and set
$
K :=
\| \gamma^{ \prime \prime } \|
_{ L^\infty ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) }
$.
In addition,
for
$ n \in \mathbb{N} $,
let
$ \{ b_k \}_{ k=1 }^n $
be a division of\,\,\,$ \mathbb{S}_L $
satisfying
\begin{equation}
\frac{ c L }{ n }
\leq
\min_{k=1, \ldots ,n}
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma( b_k ) |
\leq
\max_{k=1, \ldots ,n}
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma( b_k ) |
\leq
\frac{ \bar{c} L }{ n },
\label{div.bk}
\end{equation}
and let $p_n$ be the inscribed polygon in $ \gamma $ with vertices
$ \gamma(b_1) , \ldots , \gamma(b_n) $.
Then,
if the number $n$ of points of the division is sufficiently large,
there exists
$ C > 0 $
depending on
$ c $, $ \bar{c} $, $ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma) $
such that
\[
| \mathcal{E}^{ \alpha , q } ( \gamma )
- \mathcal{E}_n^{ \alpha , q } ( p_n )|
\leq
C
\{
( LK )^{2q}
+
( LK )^{2q+2}
\}
\cfrac{1}{ n^{2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\]
Furthermore, if $\alpha \leq 2$,
then there exists $C>0$ depending on $ c $, $ \bar{c} $, $ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma) $
such that
\[
| \mathcal{E}^{ \alpha , q } ( \gamma )
- \mathcal{E}_n^{ \alpha , q } ( p_n )|
\leq
C
\{
( LK )^{ \alpha q }
+
( LK )^{ \alpha q - \alpha + 2 }
+
( LK )^{ \alpha q + 2 }
\}
\cfrac{ \log n }{ n }.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}[The convergence of the discrete energy of inscribed polygons]\label{inscribed}
Assume that
$ \alpha \in ( 0 , \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
satisfy
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $.
Let
$ \gamma \in W^{ 1+\sigma , 2q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d) $,
and let $ p_n $ be the inscribed polygon as in Theorem \ref{orderinscribed}.
Then, we have
\[
\lim_{ n \rightarrow \infty }
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} ( p_n )
=
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} ( \gamma ).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Since it holds that
\[
C^{1,1} (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d)
\subset
W^{ 1+\sigma , 2q } (\mathbb{S}_L,\mathbb{R}^d),
\]
then
$\gamma$ in Theorem \ref{orderinscribed} has always bounded energy,
i.e., $\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma) < \infty$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Lemmas}
In this subsection,
we prove estimates and properties of parameters of curves and polygons in preparation for our proofs of Theorems \ref{orderinscribed} and \ref{inscribed}.
First,
we observe the \textit{bi-Lipschitz continuity} property of curves with bounded energy.
\begin{lem}[$\mbox{\cite[Lemma 2.1]{Bla}}$]
Let
$ \gamma \in C^{0,1} ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) $
satisfy
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma) < \infty $.
Then,
there exists
$ C_b > 0 $
such that
\begin{equation}
| t-s | \leq C_b | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |
\label{bi-Lip}
\end{equation}
for
$ s $,
$ t \in \mathbb{S}_L $.
\end{lem}
Next, we give the parametrization of an inscribed polygon.
For a division
$ \{ b_k \}_{k=1}^n $
on
$ \mathbb{S}_L $,
let
$ p_n $
be the inscribed polygon in $\gamma$
with vertices
$ \gamma (b_k) \ ( k=1 , \ldots ,n ) $.
We extend the notation
$ \gamma (b_k) $
to all
$ k \in \mathbb{Z} $
in the natural way via congruency modulo
$n$;
i.e.,
$\gamma(b_0) = \gamma(b_n)$,
$\gamma(b_1) = \gamma(b_{n+1})$,
and so on.
Let
$
\tilde{L}_n
= \sum_{k=1}^n
| \gamma ( b_{k+1} ) - \gamma ( b_k ) |
$
be the length of
$p_n$.
Set
$
a_i = \sum_{k=0}^{i-1}
| \gamma ( b_{k+1} ) - \gamma ( b_k ) |
$
as the value of the arc-length parameter of the $i$-th vertex of $ p_n $.
Then,
note that
\begin{equation}
| b_j - b_i |
\geq | a_j - a_i |
\geq
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
\geq C_b^{ -1 } | b_j - b_i |.
\label{ab--bi.Lip.}
\end{equation}
In what follows,
we set
$
\displaystyle
N:= 4 C_b \frac{ \bar{c} }{ c }
$.
We get the following lemma by the triangle inequality.
\begin{lem}
Let
$ t \in [ b_j , b_{j+1} ] $,
$ s \in [ b_i , b_{i+1} ] $.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
| t - s |
\leq
\left(
1 + 2C_b \frac{ \bar{c} }{ c }
\right)
| b_j - b_i |.
\label{tsleqbjbi}
\end{equation}
In addition,
if
$ | j - i | \geq N $,
we have
\begin{equation}
| t - s |
\geq
C_b^{ -1 } \frac{ c }{ 2\bar{c} } | b_j - b_i |.
\label{tsgeqbjbi}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
In the next lemma,
we calculate the difference between the arc-length and the distance of two points.
\begin{lem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let
$ \gamma \in C^{1,1} ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) $,
and
$ s $, $ t \in \mathbb{S}_L $.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
0 \leq | t-s |^2 - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^2
\leq
\frac{K^2}{2} | t-s |^4.
\label{ts--est.}
\end{equation}
\item
Let
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $,
$ \gamma \in C^{0,1} ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d ) $
and let
$ s $,
$ t \in \mathbb{S}_L $.
Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
| t-s | - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |
}
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
\frac{1}{2}
| t-s |^{ \alpha + 1 - 2/q }
\left(
\int_s^t \int_s^t
\frac
{ | \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^{ 2q } }
{ | v-u |^{ \alpha q } } dudv
\right)^{ 1/q }.
\label{ts--int.est.}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We only prove (\ref{ts--int.est.}).
In the case where
$ q=1 $,
we get
\begin{align*}
| t-s | - | \gamma(t) - \gamma(s) |
& \leq \,
\frac{ | t-s |^2 - | \gamma(t) - \gamma(s) |^2 }{ | t-s | }
\\
& = \,
\frac{ 1 }{ 2 | t-s | }
\int_s^t \int_s^t
| \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^2 dudv
\\
& \leq \,
\frac{ 1 }{ 2 } | t-s |^{\alpha -1}
\int_s^t \int_s^t
\frac{| \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^2}{| v-u |^\alpha}
dudv.
\end{align*}
On the other hand,
in the case where
$ q \in (1, \infty ) $,
we get
\begin{align*}
&\ | t-s | - | \gamma(t) - \gamma(s) |
\\
\leq & \
\frac{ 1 }{ 2 | t-s | }
\left(
\int_s^t \int_s^t
\frac{ | \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^{2q} }{ |v-u|^{\alpha q} } dudv
\right)
^{1/q}
\left(
\int_s^t \int_s^t
| v-u |^{ \frac{ \alpha q}{ q-1} } dudv
\right)^{1-1/q}
\\
\leq &\
\frac{ 1 }{ 2 }
| t-s |^{\alpha + 1 - 2/q}
\left(
\int_s^t \int_s^t
\frac{ | \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^{2q} }{ |v-u|^{\alpha q} } dudv
\right)
^{1/q}
\end{align*}
by H\"{o}lder's inequality.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is proved by simple calculations, hence, we omit the proof.
\begin{lem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $ 0 < \alpha \leq 2 $.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
1 -x^\alpha \leq (1-x^2)^{ \alpha /2}
\label{alpha2less1-xest.}
\end{equation}
for all $ 0 \leq x \leq 1 $.
\item Let $ a > 0 $.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
1 - x^a \leq ( a+1 )( 1-x ).
\label{1-xest.}
\end{equation}
for all $ 0 \leq x \leq 1 $.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Finally,
we have the following lemma,
which may be proved by using (\ref{ts--est.}), (\ref{alpha2less1-xest.}), and (\ref{1-xest.}).
\begin{lem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Let
$ \alpha > 0$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
| t-s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha
\leq
\left( \frac \alpha 2 +1 \right)
\frac{ K^2 }{ 2 } | t-s |^{ \alpha +2}
\label{alpha2more--est.}
\end{equation}
for all
$s$,
$t \in \mathbb{S}_L$.
\item
Let
$0 < \alpha \leq 2$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
| t-s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha
\leq
\frac{ K^{ \alpha } }{ 2^{ \alpha/2 }} | t-s |^{ 2\alpha }
\label{alpha2less--est.}
\end{equation}
for all
$s$,
$t \in \mathbb{S}_L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
In subsections \ref{pforderinscribed} and \ref{pfinscribed},
unless otherwise noted,
we assume that
$\alpha \in (0,\infty)$
and
$q \in [1,\infty)$
satisfy
$2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{orderinscribed}}\label{pforderinscribed}
Firstly,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
| \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma) - \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n) |
}
\\
& \leq &
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{|j-i| \leq N}
\int_{b_j}^{b_{j+1}} \int_{b_i}^{b_{i+1}}
\left|
\Mag^q - \Manp^q
\right|
dsdt
\\
& &
+\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{|j-i| >N}
\int_{b_j}^{b_{j+1}} \int_{b_i}^{b_{i+1}}
\left|
\Mag^q - \Manp^q
\right|
dsdt,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$ \displaystyle \sum_{|j-i| \leq N} $
and
$ \displaystyle \sum_{|j-i| > N} $
are summations with respect to $j$ with
$ |j-i| \leq N $ and $ |j-i| > N $ for each $i=1, \ldots ,n$ respectively.
In what follows, we estimate each of them.
\subsubsection{Estimates for the case where $ |j-i| \leq N $}
\begin{prop}\label{estleqN}
We have
\begin{align*}
& \ L^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt
\\
\leq & \
\frac{
\left( \alpha +2 \right)^q C_b^{ \alpha q/2 }
\{ \bar{c} (N+1) \}^{2q- \alpha q+2} ( 2N + 1 )
}
{ 4^q (2q- \alpha q+1)(2q- \alpha q+2)}
L^{ 2q } K^{ 2q }
\frac{1}{ n^{2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$, then we have
\[
L^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt
\leq
\frac{C_b^{\alpha q+1} (2N+1) \bar{c}}{2^{\alpha q/2}}
L^{\alpha q} K^{\alpha q}
\frac 1 n.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
L^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq} &
L^{\alpha q - 2}
C_b^{ \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\frac{ ( | t - s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha )^q }
{ | t-s |^{ 2 \alpha q } }
dsdt
\\
& \overset{(\ref{alpha2more--est.})}{\leq} &
L^{\alpha q - 2}
C_b^{ \alpha q }
\left( \frac \alpha 2 +1 \right)^q
\frac{ K^{ 2q } }{ 2^q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
| t-s |^{ 2q- \alpha q }
dsdt
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk})}{\leq} &
\frac{
\left( \alpha +2 \right)^q C_b^{ \alpha q }
\{ \bar{c} (N+1) \}^{2q- \alpha q+2} ( 2N + 1 )
}
{ 4^q (2q- \alpha q+1)(2q- \alpha q+2)}
L^{ 2q } K^{ 2q }
\frac{1}{ n^{2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the case where
$ \alpha \leq 2 $,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
L^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt
}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq} &
L^{\alpha q - 2}
C_b^{ \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\frac{ ( | t - s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha )^q }
{ | t-s |^{ 2 \alpha q } }
dsdt
\\
& \overset{(\ref{alpha2less--est.})}{\leq} &
L^{\alpha q - 2}
C_b^{ \alpha q } \frac{ K^{ \alpha q } }{ 2^{ \alpha q /2}}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
| b_{j+1} - b_j | | b_{ i+1 } - b_i |
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk})}{\leq} &
\frac{ C_b^{ \alpha q +1 } (2N+1) \bar{c} }{ 2^{ \alpha q/2 }}
L^{ \alpha q } K^{ \alpha q }
\frac{ 1 }{ n }.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
The following proposition is proved by the same calculations as those in the proof of Proposition \ref{estleqN}.
\begin{prop}\label{estleqN2}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\
\tilde{L}_n^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\\
\leq &\
\frac{
( \alpha +2 )^q C_b^{ \alpha q }
c^{2q- \alpha q} \bar{c}^2 ( 2N+1 )
}
{ 4^q }
L^{2q} K^{2q}
\frac{1}{ n^{2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2 $, then we have
\begin{align*}
&\ \tilde{L}_n^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\\
\leq &\
\frac{ C_b^{ \alpha q } (2N+1) \bar{c} }{ 2^{ \alpha q /2} }
L^{ \alpha q } K^{ \alpha q }
\frac{1}{n}.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\subsubsection{Estimates for the case where $ |j-i| > N $}
Note that the difference between the lengths of the curve and its inscribed polygon satisfies
\begin{equation}
L - \tilde{L}_n
\leq
\frac{ \bar{c}^3 C_b^3}{ 2 }
L^3 K^2
\frac{ 1 }{ n^2 },
\label{L-L--est.}
\end{equation}
which follows from (\ref{div.bk}), (\ref{bi-Lip}), and (\ref{ts--est.}).
In order to determine how to prove Theorem \ref{orderinscribed},
we use the following lemma which may be proved by the same calculations as those in the proof of Proposition \ref{estleqN2}.
\begin{lem}\label{line}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\
\left|
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\right|
\\
\leq &\
\frac{ C_b^{\alpha q} ( \alpha +2 )^q c^{2q-\alpha q} \bar{c}^2 }
{ 4^q (2q- \alpha q+1) }
L^{2q- \alpha q+2} K^{2q}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$, we have
\[
\left|
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\right|
\leq
\frac{ C_b^{\alpha q} \bar{c}^2 }{ 2^{\alpha q /2} }
L^2 K^{\alpha q}.
\]
\end{lem}
Set
\begin{align*}
X
& := \,
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt,
\\
Y
& := \,
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |.
\end{align*}
We will estimate
$ | L^{ \alpha q -2 } X - \tilde{L}_n^{ \alpha q -2 } Y | $
which is the difference
of
the part of summation corresponding to
$i = 1, \ldots ,n$ and $ j $ with $ |j-i| > N $
of
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} $
and
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha,q} $.
If there exists
$ \ell > 0 $
and
$ \tilde{C} > 0 $
such that
$ |X-Y| \leq \tilde{C} n^{- \ell} $,
then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
| L^{ \alpha q -2 } X - \tilde{L}_n^{ \alpha q -2 } Y |
}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{1-xest.})}{\leq} &
L^{ \alpha q -2 }
| X-Y |
+
( \alpha q - 1 )
L^{ \alpha q - 3 }
( L - \tilde{L}_n ) | Y |
\\
& \overset{\substack{(\ref{L-L--est.}),\\\text{Lemma }\ref{line}}}{\leq} &
\tilde{C} L^{ \alpha q -2 } \frac{ 1 }{ n^{\ell} }
+
\frac{
( \alpha q - 1 ) C_b^{\alpha q+3} ( \alpha +2 )^q
c^{2q-\alpha q} \bar{c}^5
}
{ 2^{2q+1} (2q- \alpha q+1) }
L^{2q+2} K^{2q+2}
\frac{ 1 }{ n^2 },
\end{eqnarray*}
and if $\alpha \leq 2$, similarly we have
\[
| L^{ \alpha q -2 } X - \tilde{L}_n^{ \alpha q -2 } Y |
\overset{\text{Lemma }\ref{line}}{\leq}
\tilde{C} L^{ \alpha q -2 } \frac{ 1 }{ n^{\ell} }
+
\frac{
( \alpha q - 1 ) C_b^{\alpha q+3} \bar{c}^5
}
{ 2^{\alpha q/2+1} }
L^{ \alpha q +2 } K^{ \alpha q+2 }
\frac{ 1 }{ n^2 }.
\]
Thus, it is sufficient to estimate
$ | X-Y | $.
Next, set
\fontsize{8.5pt}{0pt}\selectfont
\begin{align*}
A_{i,j}
& :=
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \!\! \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\left|
\frac
{ | t-s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha }
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha }
-
\frac
{ | b_j - b_i |^\alpha - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha }
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha }
\right|
dsdt,
\\
B_{i,j}
& :=
\lefteqn{
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \!\! \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\left|
\frac
{ | b_j - b_i |^\alpha - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha }
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha }
-
\frac
{ | b_j - b_i |^\alpha - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha }
{ | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha | b_j - b_i |^\alpha }
\right|
dsdt,
}
\\
C_{i,j}
& :=
\left|
\frac{ 1 }{ | a_j - a_i |^\alpha }
-
\frac{ 1 }{ | b_j - b_i |^\alpha }
\right|
| b_{i+1} - b_i |
| b_{j+1} - b_j |,
\\
D_{i,j}
& :=
\left|
| b_{i+1} - b_i |
| b_{j+1} - b_j |
-
| \gamma ( b_{i+1} ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{j+1} ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\right|.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
\begin{rem}
In what follows,
$ C_{\rm g} $
is a positive constant that may change from line to line.
\end{rem}
Then, we have the following key lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{keylem}
There exists a positive constant
$C_{\rm g}$
such that
we have
\begin{align*}
| X-Y |
\leq &\
C_{\rm g}
K^{2( q-1 )}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2 )(q-1) }
(A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} + C_{i,j} )
\\
&\
+
C_{\rm g}
K^{2q}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2)q} D_{i,j}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$,
we have
\[
| X-Y |
\leq
C_{\rm g} K^{ \alpha ( q-1 ) }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
(
A_{i,j} + B_{i.j} + C_{i,j}
)
+
C_{\rm g} K^{ \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N } D_{i,j}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\quad | X-Y |
}
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{1-xest.}),\,(\ref{alpha2more--est.})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g} K^{2(q-1)}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\left|
\mathcal{M}^\alpha ( \gamma )
-
\mathcal{M}_n^\alpha ( p_n )
\right|
\nonumber\\
& &
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\times
\max
\left\{
\frac{ |t-s|^2 }{ |\gamma(t) - \gamma(s)|^\alpha}
,
\frac{ |b_j - b_i|^2 }{|\gamma(b_j) - \gamma(b_i)|^\alpha}
\right\}^{ q-1 }
dsdt
\nonumber\\
& &
+\, C_{\text g} K^{2q}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\frac{ |b_j - b_i|^{2q} }{ |\gamma(b_j) - \gamma(b_i)|^{\alpha q}}
\nonumber\\
& &
\qquad
\times
\left|
| b_{i+1} - b_i |
| b_{j+1} - b_j |
-
| \gamma ( b_{i+1} ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{j+1} ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\right|
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{bi-Lip}),\,(\ref{tsgeqbjbi})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
K^{2(q-1)}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2 )(q-1) }
( A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} + C_{i,j})
\nonumber\\
& &
+\,
C_{\text g}
K^{2q}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2)q} D_{i,j}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the case where $\alpha \leq 2$, we get the claim in a similar way using (\ref{alpha2less--est.}) instead of (\ref{alpha2more--est.}).
\end{proof}
Before we estimate the summations appearing in the statement of Lemma \ref{keylem},
we state inequalities used later.
The following lemma is proved by using inequalities (\ref{bi-Lip}), (\ref{tsgeqbjbi}), and (\ref{1-xest.}).
\begin{lem}\label{A--pre.est.12}
For
$ s \in [ b_i , b_{i+1} ],\ t \in [ b_j , b_{j+1} ] $,
we have
\begin{equation}
|
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha
-
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha
|
\leq
C_{ \rm g }
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha - 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |,
\label{A--pre.est.1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
|
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| t-s |^\alpha
|
\leq
C_{ \rm g }
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha - 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\label{A--pre.est.2}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Using Lemma \ref{A--pre.est.12}, we estimate the summations appearing in Lemma \ref{keylem}.
\begin{prop}\label{A--est.}
We have
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2)(q-1) }
A_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \mathrm{g} }
L^{ 2q - \alpha q+2 } K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\]
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$, then we have
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
A_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \mathrm{g} }
\left(
L^2 K^\alpha
\frac{ \log n }{ n }
+
L^{ 4-\alpha } K^2
\frac{ 1 }{ n }
\right).
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix
$ s \in [ b_i , b_{i+1} ] $ and $ t \in [ b_j , b_{j+1} ] $.
Without loss of generality, we may assume $s<t$.
Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
| | t-s |^\alpha - | b_j - b_i |^\alpha |
\left(
1 -
\frac
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha }
{ | t-s |^\alpha }
\right)
}
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{A--pre.est.2}),\,(\ref{tsgeqbjbi})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g}
\frac{ \max_{ k = 1 , \dots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k | }
{ | b_j - b_i | }
( | t-s |^\alpha - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha )
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{alpha2more--est.}),\,(\ref{tsleqbjbi})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g}
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha +1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\label{A--pre.est.3}
\end{eqnarray}
Also, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
|
( | t-s |^2 - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^2 )
-
( | b_j - b_i |^2 - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^2 )
|
}
\\
& = &
\left|
\iint_{A}
( 1- \langle \gamma^\prime (v) , \gamma^\prime (u) \rangle ) dudv
-
\iint_{B}
( 1- \langle \gamma^\prime (v) , \gamma^\prime (u) \rangle ) dudv
\right|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{align*}
A &:=\,
( [s,t] \times [b_j,t] ) \cup ( [b_j,t] \times [s,t] ),
\\
B &:=\,
( [b_i,b_j] \times [b_i,s] ) \cup ( [b_i,s] \times [b_i,b_j] ).
\end{align*}
The integral over
$ [ b_j , t ] \times [ s,t ] $
is estimated as
\[
\left|
\int_s^t \int_{b_j}^t
( 1- \langle \gamma^\prime (v) , \gamma^\prime (u) \rangle ) dudv
\right|
\leq
\frac{K^2}{2}
| t-s |^3 | t-b_j |.
\]
We can dominate the integrals over
$ [ s,t ] \times [ b_j ,t ] $
and
$ B $ similarly.
Then, we get
\begin{align}
&\
|
( | t-s |^2 - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^2 )
-
( | b_j - b_i |^2 - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^2 )
|
\nonumber\\
\leq &\
2 K^2
\left(
| t-s |^3 | t - b_j |
+
| b_j - b_i |^3 | s - b_i |
\right).
\label{A--pre.est.0}
\end{align}
Consequently, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
\left|
\frac
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha }
{ | t-s |^\alpha }
-
\frac
{ | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha }
{ | b_j - b_i |^\alpha }
\right|
}
\nonumber\\
& \overset{\substack{(\ref{1-xest.}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip}),\\(\ref{alpha2less--est.}),\,(\ref{A--pre.est.0})}}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha - 2 }
\frac{
(
| t-s |^3 | t - b_j |
+
| b_j - b_i |^3 | s - b_i |
)}
{ |t-s|^2 }
\nonumber\\
& &
+ \ C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha + 4 }
\left|
\frac{ 1 }{ | t-s |^2 }
-
\frac{ 1 }{ | b_j - b_i |^2 }
\right|
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{tsgeqbjbi}),\,(\ref{A--pre.est.2})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha + 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\label{A--pre.est.4}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{A--pre.est.3}) and (\ref{A--pre.est.4}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\ |
(
| t-s |^\alpha
-
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha
)
-
(
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha
)
|}
\\
& = &
\left|
( | t-s |^\alpha - | b_j-b_i |^\alpha )
\left( 1- \frac{ | \gamma(t)-\gamma(s) |^\alpha }{ | t-s |^\alpha } \right)
\right.
\\
& &
\left.
-| b_j-b_i |^\alpha
\left(
\frac{ | \gamma(t)-\gamma(s) |^\alpha }{ | t-s |^\alpha }
-
\frac{ | \gamma(b_j)-\gamma(b_i) |^\alpha }{ | b_j-b_i |^\alpha }
\right)
\right|
\\
& \leq &
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha + 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, we have
\[
A_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ 1 - \alpha }
\max_{ k = 1 , \cdots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^3 ,
\]
and therefore, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2)(q-1) }
A_{i,j}
}
\\
& \leq &
C_{\text g}
K^2
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2)(q-1)+1 -\alpha }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^3
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g }
L^{ 2q - \alpha q+2 } K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, assume that
$ \alpha \leq 2 $.
Using (\ref{tsleqbjbi}), (\ref{tsgeqbjbi}), (\ref{alpha2less--est.}), and (\ref{A--pre.est.2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
| | t-s |^\alpha - | b_j - b_i |^\alpha |
\left(
1 -
\frac
{ | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha }
{ | t-s |^\alpha }
\right)
}
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
C_{ \text g}
K^\alpha
| b_j - b_i |^{ 2 \alpha -1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, using in addition (\ref{tsleqbjbi}), (\ref{tsgeqbjbi}), (\ref{A--pre.est.1}), (\ref{A--pre.est.2}), it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
|
(
| t-s |^\alpha
-
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha
)
-
(
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha
)
|}
\\
& = &
\left|
( | t-s |^\alpha - | b_j-b_i |^\alpha )
\left( 1- \frac{ | \gamma(t)-\gamma(s) |^\alpha }{ | t-s |^\alpha } \right)
\right.
\\
& &
\left.
-| b_j-b_i |^\alpha
\left(
\frac{ | \gamma(t)-\gamma(s) |^\alpha }{ | t-s |^\alpha }
-
\frac{ | \gamma(b_j)-\gamma(b_i) |^\alpha }{ | b_j-b_i |^\alpha }
\right)
\right|
\\
& \leq &
C_{ \text g }
K^\alpha
| b_j - b_i |^{ 2 \alpha - 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
\\
& &
+\,C_{\text g}
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha + 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n } | b_{ k+1 } - b_k |.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, by (\ref{div.bk}) and (\ref{bi-Lip}), we get
\[
A_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g}
\left(
L^2 K^\alpha \frac 1 { |j-i| n^2 } + L^{4- \alpha} K^2 \frac 1 { |j-i|^{\alpha -1} n^{4- \alpha } }
\right).
\]
Hence, we obtain
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
A_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
\left(
L^2 K^\alpha
\frac{ \log n }{ n }
+
L^{ 4-\alpha } K^2
\frac{ 1 }{ n }
\right).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{B--est.}
We have
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2 )(q-1) }
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \mathrm{g} }
L^{ 2q - \alpha q+2 } K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\]
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$, then we have
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \mathrm{g} }
L^2 K^\alpha
\frac{ \log n }{ n }.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since we have
\begin{align*}
&\
|
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha | b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha
|
\\
\leq &\
C_{ \text g }
| b_j - b_i |^{ 2 \alpha - 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
\end{align*}
using (\ref{A--pre.est.1}) and (\ref{A--pre.est.2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } }
\int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\frac
{
|
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha | b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha
|
}
{
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha | b_j - b_i |^\alpha
}
dsdt
}
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
C_{\text g}
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } }
\int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\frac
{
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha - 1 }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
}
{
| \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^\alpha | t-s |^\alpha
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^\alpha
}
dsdt
\nonumber\\
& \overset{\substack{(\ref{div.bk}),\ (\ref{bi-Lip}),\\(\ref{tsleqbjbi}),\ (\ref{tsgeqbjbi})}}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
\frac{ \max_{ k=1,\ldots,n } | b_{k+1} - b_k |^3 }
{ | b_j - b_i |^{ 2 \alpha +1 } },
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and therefore, using (\ref{alpha2more--est.}),
we have
\[
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^{1- \alpha }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^3.
\]
Hence, by (\ref{div.bk}) and (\ref{bi-Lip}), we get
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2 )(q-1) }
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
L^{ 2q - \alpha q +2 } K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1} }.
\]
If $ \alpha \leq 2 $, using (\ref{alpha2less--est.}) instead of (\ref{alpha2more--est.}), similarly we have
\[
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g} | b_j-b_i |^{-1}
\max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1}-b_k |.
\]
Therefore, by (\ref{div.bk}) and (\ref{bi-Lip}), we get
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
L^2 K^\alpha
\frac{ \log n }{ n }.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{C--est.}
We have
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2)(q-1) }
C_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \mathrm{g} }
L^{2q- \alpha q+2} K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1 } }.
\]
Moreover, if $ \alpha \leq 2 $, then we have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| > N } C_{i,j}
\leq
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
C_{\mathrm{g}} L^{4- \alpha } K^2 \frac{1}{n^2}
& ( 0 < \alpha < 1 ),
\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle
C_{\mathrm{g}} L^3 K^2 \frac{\log n}{n^2}
& ( \alpha =1 ),
\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle
C_{\mathrm{g}} L^{4- \alpha } K^2 \frac{1}{n^{3- \alpha}}
& ( 1 < \alpha \leq 2 ).
\end{cases}
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We may assume
$ j>i $ because of the symmetry of $i$ and $j$.
Also, since
\[
| b_j - b_i |
=
\min \left\{
\sum_{k=i}^{j-1} | b_{k+1} - b_k |
,
\sum_{k=j}^{i+n-1} | b_{k+1} - b_k |
\right\},
\]
we may assume
\[
| b_j - b_i |
=
\sum_{k=i}^{j-1} | b_{k+1} - b_k |.
\]
Otherwise, we reduce to the above case by changing
$ \{ j , i+n \} $
with
$ \{ i,j \} $.
In this situation, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
-
| a_j - a_i |^\alpha
}
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{1-xest.})}{\leq} &
\left(
{\frac \alpha 2} + 1
\right)
| b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha - 2 }
( | b_j - b_i | + | a_j - a_i | )
| | b_j - b_i | - | a_j - a_i | |
\nonumber\\
& \overset{(\ref{ts--int.est.})}{\leq} &
2 \left( \frac \alpha 2 + 1 \right)
K^2
| b_j - b_i |^\alpha
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^2.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, we have
\[
C_{i,j}
\overset{(\ref{bi-Lip}),\,(\ref{ab--bi.Lip.})}{\leq}
C_{ \text g }
K^2
| b_j-b_i |^{ -\alpha }
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^4.
\]
Therefore,
we get
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j-b_i |^{ -( \alpha -2)(q-1) }
C_{i,j}
\overset{(\ref{div.bk}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq}
C_{ \text g }
L^{2q- \alpha q+2} K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{ 2q- \alpha q+1 } },
\]
and if $\alpha \leq 2$, since we have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| >N } C_{i,j}
\overset{(\ref{div.bk}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq}
C_{ \text g }
L^{4- \alpha } K^2
\frac{1}{ n^{3- \alpha} }
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^\alpha},
\]
we get the claim by estimating $ \sum_{k=1}^n 1/k^\alpha $.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{D--est.}
We have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| <N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-(\alpha -2) q} D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \rm g }
L^{2q - \alpha q + 4} K^2
\frac{1}{n^2}.
\]
Moreover, if $\alpha \leq 2$, then we have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| <N } D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \rm g } L^4 K^2 \frac{1}{n^2}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since we have
\[
D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
K^2
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^4
\]
using (\ref{bi-Lip}) and (\ref{ts--est.}),
we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2)q}
D_{i,j}
}
\\
& \leq &
C_{ \text g }
K^2
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^4
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2)q}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
L^{ 2q- \alpha q +4 } K^2
\frac{1}{n^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
and we get
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| <N } D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \text g }
K^2
\max_{ k = 1 , \ldots , n }| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^4
\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{ |j-i| <N } 1
\overset{(\ref{div.bk}),\ (\ref{bi-Lip})}{\leq}
C_{ \rm g } L^4 K^2 \frac{1}{n^2}
\]
if $ \alpha \leq 2$.
\end{proof}
Using Propositions \ref{A--est.}--\ref{D--est.},
we get
\begin{align*}
| X-Y |
& \leq \,
C_{\text g}
K^{2( q-1 )}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2 )(q-1) }
( A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} + C_{i,j} )
\\
&\,
\quad+
C_{\text g}
K^{2q}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
| b_j - b_i |^{-( \alpha -2)q} D_{i,j}
\\
& \leq \,
C_{\text g}
\left(
L^{2q - \alpha q +2} K^{2q} + L^{2q - \alpha q +4} K^{2q+2}
\right)
\frac{1}{n^{2q - \alpha q +1}}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, in the case where $ \alpha \leq 2 $,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
| X-Y |
}
\\
& \leq &
C_{\text g} K^{ \alpha ( q-1 ) }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
( A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} + C_{i,j} )
+
C_{\text g} K^{ \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N } D_{i,j}
\\
& \leq &
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
C_{\text g}
\left\{
L^2 K^{\alpha q} \frac{\log n}{n}
+ L^{4-\alpha} K^{ \alpha q -\alpha +2 }
\left( \frac 1 n + \frac{\log n}{n^2} \right)
+ L^4 K^{\alpha q+2} \frac{1}{n^2}
\right\}
\vspace{1mm}\\
\hspace{8.5cm}
(0 < \alpha < 1),
\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle
C_{\text g}
\left\{
L^2 K^q \frac{\log n}{n}
+ L^3 K^{q+1}
\left( \frac 1 n + \frac{1}{n^2} \right)
+ L^4 K^{q+2} \frac{1}{n^2}
\right\}\ \
(\alpha=1),
\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle
C_{\text g}
\left\{
L^2 K^{\alpha q} \frac{\log n}{n}
+ L^{4-\alpha} K^{ \alpha q -\alpha +2 }
\left( \frac 1 n + \frac{1}{n^{3-\alpha}} \right)
+ L^4 K^{\alpha q+2} \frac{1}{n^2}
\right\}
\vspace{1mm}\\
\hspace{8.5cm}
(1 < \alpha \leq 2).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we get
\[
| X-Y |
\leq
C_{\text g}
\left(
L^2 K^{\alpha q} + L^{4- \alpha} K^{\alpha q - \alpha +2}
+ L^4 K^{\alpha q+2}
\right)
\frac{\log n}{n}.
\]
This completes our proof of Theorem \ref{orderinscribed}.
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \,$\square$
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{inscribed}}\label{pfinscribed}
Set
\[
\varepsilon_n
:=
L^{ \alpha q - 2 }
\sum_{ k=1 }^n
\int_{ b_k }^{ b_{ k+1 } }
\int_{ b_k }^{ b_{ k+1 } }
\frac
{ | \gamma^\prime (v) - \gamma^\prime (v) |^{ 2q } }
{ | v-u |^{ \alpha q } }
dudv
\]
for
$ \gamma \in W^{1+\sigma , 2q} ( \mathbb{S}_L , \mathbb{R}^d )$.
Note that
$ \varepsilon_n < \infty $
because
$ \alpha q = 1+2 \sigma q $.
Since
\[
\mu
\left(
\bigcup_{ k=1 }^n
[ b_k , b_{k+1} ]
\times
[ b_k , b_{k+1} ]
\right)
\to 0
\]
as $ n \to \infty $,
we have
$ \varepsilon_n \to 0 $
from the absolute continuity of integrals for absolutely integrable functions,
where
$\mu$
is the Lebesgue measure on
$\mathbb{S}_L \times \mathbb{S}_L$.
Using
$ \varepsilon_n $,
set
$
N_n := n \max
\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4 q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6 q } }
\right\}.
$
\subsubsection{Estimates for the case where $ |j-i| \leq N_n $}
Set
$
\displaystyle \delta
= \left( 1 + 2 \frac{ \bar{c} }{ c } \,\right)^{-1}
$.
Let
$ n \in \mathbb{N} $
be sufficiently large
such that $ \{ b_k \} $ satisfies
\[
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
\leq
( 1 + \delta )
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_k ) |.
\]
Then, since we have
\begin{align*}
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
& \leq \,
( 1- \delta +2 \delta )
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_k ) |
\\
& \leq \,
( 1 - \delta )
( | b_{ k+1 } - b_k | + | b_k - b_{k-1} | )
\\
& = \,
( 1 - \delta ) | b_{ k+1 } - b_{k-1} |
\end{align*}
using (\ref{div.bk}), we have
\begin{equation}
\delta
| b_{ j+1 } - b_i |
\leq
| b_{ j+1 } - b_i |
-
( 1- \delta )
| b_{ j+1 } - b_{j-1} |
\leq
| b_j - b_i |.
\label{delta}
\end{equation}
Therefore, we get
\small
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\quad
\tilde{L}_n^{\alpha q - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N_n }
\Manp^q
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
}
\\
& \overset{\substack{(\ref{ab--bi.Lip.}),\,(\ref{div.bk}),\\(\ref{bi-Lip}),\,(\ref{1-xest.})}}{\leq} &
\tilde{L}_n^{\alpha q - 2}
C_b^{ \alpha q }
\frac{ \bar{c} }{ c }
\left(
{\frac \alpha 2}
+ 1
\right)^q
\\
& &
\times
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N_n }
\left(
\frac
{
| b_j - b_i |^2
-
| \gamma (b_j) - \gamma (b_i) |^2
}
{ | b_j - b_i |^{ \alpha + 2 } }
\right)^q
| b_i - b_{ i-1 } |
| b_{ j+1 } - b_j |
\\
& \overset{(\ref{delta}),\,(\ref{tsleqbjbi})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g} \tilde{L}_n^{\alpha q - 2}
\delta^{ -2 q ( \alpha +2 )}
\\
& &
\times
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N_n }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_{ i-1 } }^{ b_i }
\left(
\frac{
\int_s^t \int_s^t
| \gamma^\prime ( v ) - \gamma^\prime ( u ) |^2
dudv}
{ 2 | t-s |^{ \alpha + 2 } }
\right)^q
dsdt
\\
& \overset{(\ref{1-xest.})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
L^{\alpha q - 2}
\delta^{ -2 q ( \alpha +2 )}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N_n }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_{ i-1 } }^{ b_i }
\Mag^q
dsdt
\\
& \longrightarrow &
0
\end{eqnarray*}
\normalsize
as $ n \to \infty $.
Here, we have used
\[
\mu
\left(
\bigcup_{ | j-i | \leq N_n }
[ b_{ i-1 } , b_i ]
\times
[ b_j , b_{ j+1 } ]
\right)
\leq
2 C_b^2 \bar{c}^2
\frac{ 1 }{ n }
( N_n + 1 )
\to
0
\]
and the absolute continuity of the integral.
Also, we have
\[
L^{\alpha p - 2}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | \leq N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\Mag^q
dsdt
\to
0,
\]
which follows easily from the absolute continuity of the integral.
\subsubsection{Estimates for the case where $ |j-i| > N_n $}
First, by estimates (\ref{div.bk}) and (\ref{bi-Lip}), we have
\begin{equation}
| \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
\geq
C_b c L \frac{ N_n }{ n }.
\label{>Nn--est.}
\end{equation}
The strategy of the proof of Theorem \ref{inscribed} is as follows.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
L - \tilde{L}_n
}
\\
& = &
\sum_{ k=1 }^n
(
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |
-
| \gamma ( b_{ k+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_k ) |
)
\\
& \overset{(\ref{ts--int.est.})}{\leq} &
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{ k=1 }^n
| b_{ k+1 } - b_k |^{ \alpha + 1 - 2/q }
\left(
\int_{ b_k }^{ b_{ k+1 } } \int_{ b_k }^{ b_{ k+1 } }
\frac
{ | \gamma ' (v) - \gamma ' (u) |^{ 2q } }
{ | v-u |^{ \alpha q } } dudv
\right)^{ 1/q }
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
L
\frac{ 1 }{ n^{ \alpha - 1/q } }
\varepsilon_n^{ 1/q }
\end{eqnarray*}
by H\"{o}lder's inequality, and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|Y|
& \leq &
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N_n }
\frac{ 1 }{ | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^{ \alpha q } }
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\\
& \overset{(\ref{>Nn--est.})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g } L^{ - \alpha q }
\left(
\frac{ n }{ N_n }
\right)^{ \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N_n }
| \gamma ( b_{ i+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{ j+1 } ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\\
& \overset{(\ref{div.bk})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g }
L^{ 2 - \alpha q } n^{ \alpha / 6 }.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, if
$ | X-Y | \to 0 $
as $ n \to \infty $,
we get
\begin{align*}
| L^{ \alpha q -2 } X - \tilde{L}_n^{ \alpha q -2 } Y |
\,\leq \,&\
L^{ \alpha q -2 }
| X-Y |
+
( \alpha q - 1 )
L^{ \alpha q - 3 }
( L - \tilde{L}_n ) | Y |
\\
\,\leq \,&\
C_{ \text g }
\left(
L^{ \alpha q -2 }
| X-Y |
+
\frac{ 1 }{ n^{ \frac{ 5 }{ 6 } \alpha - \frac{ 1 }{ q } } }
\varepsilon_n^{ 1/q }
\right)
\\
\,\,\to &\
0,
\end{align*}
and Theorem \ref{inscribed} will be proved.
Here, we have used
$ \displaystyle \frac 5 6 \alpha - \frac 1 q > 0$.
Thus, it suffices to prove
\[
| X-Y | \to 0
\]
as $ n \to \infty $.
To this end,
observe that we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{| X-Y |}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{1-xest.})}{\leq} &
( q+1 )
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{ j+1 } } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{ i+1 } }
\max
\{
| \mathcal{M}^\alpha ( \gamma ) |
,
| \mathcal{M}_n^\alpha ( p_n ) |
\}^{ q-1 }
\nonumber\\
& &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\times\left|
\mathcal{M}^\alpha ( \gamma )
-
\mathcal{M}_n^\alpha ( p_n )
\right|
dsdt
\nonumber\\
& &
+
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\left|
\mathcal{M}_n^\alpha ( p_n )
\right|^q
\nonumber\\
& &
\qquad \quad
\times
\left|
| b_{i+1} - b_i |
| b_{j+1} - b_j |
-
| \gamma ( b_{i+1} ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |
| \gamma ( b_{j+1} ) - \gamma ( b_j ) |
\right|
\\
& \leq &
C_{ \text g }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\frac{ 1 }{ | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^{ \alpha ( q-1 ) } }
(
A_{ i,j }
+
B_{ i,j }
+
C_{ i,j }
)
\\
& &
+\,C_{\text g}
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\frac{ 1 }{ | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^{ \alpha q } }
D_{i,j}
\\
& \overset{(\ref{>Nn--est.})}{\leq} &
C_{ \text g }
L^{ - \alpha ( q-1 ) }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha ( q-1 ) }
(
A_{ i,j }
+
B_{ i,j }
+
C_{ i,j }
)
\\
& &
+\,C_{\text g}
L^{ - \alpha q }
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha q }
D_{i,j}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We estimate these summations.
\begin{prop}\label{AB--est.2}
We have
\[
\displaystyle
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha ( q-1 ) }
( A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} )
\leq
C_{\rm g}
L^{2- \alpha }
\frac{ 1 }
{
n^{ 1- (\alpha q +1) / (6q) }
}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
|
( | t-s |^2 - | \gamma (t) - \gamma (s) |^2 )
-
( | b_j - b_i |^2 - | \gamma ( b_j ) - \gamma ( b_i ) |^2 )
|}
\nonumber\\
& = &
\left|
\int_A
( 1- \langle \gamma^\prime (v) , \gamma^\prime (u) \rangle)
dudv
-
\int_B
( 1- \langle \gamma^\prime (v) , \gamma^\prime (u) \rangle)
dudv
\right|
\nonumber\\
& \leq &
C_{\text g}
| t-s | | t -b_j | + | b_j-b_i | | s- b_i |,
\label{pre--AB--est.}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align*}
A &:=\,
( [s,t] \times [b_j,t] ) \cup ( [b_j,t] \times [s,t] ),
\\
B &:=\,
( [b_i,b_j] \times [b_i,s] ) \cup ( [b_i,s] \times [b_i,b_j] ).
\end{align*}
Now, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
A_{i,j}
\overset{\substack{(\ref{1-xest.}),\,(\ref{bi-Lip}),\\(\ref{pre--AB--est.}),\,(\ref{A--pre.est.2})}}{\leq}
C_{\text g}
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{j+1} } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{i+1} }
\frac{
| b_j-b_i |^{\alpha -1} \max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1} - b_k |
}{ |t-s|^\alpha }
dsdt
}
\\
& &
+\,C_{\text g}
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{j+1} } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{i+1} }
\frac{
| b_j-b_i |^\alpha \max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1} - b_k |
}{ |t-s|^{2 \alpha +1} }
dsdt
\\
& &
+\,C_{\text g}
\int_{ b_j }^{ b_{j+1} } \int_{ b_i }^{ b_{i+1} }
\frac{
| b_j-b_i |^{\alpha +1} \max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1} - b_k |
}{ |t-s|^{2 \alpha +2} }
dsdt
\\
& \overset{(\ref{tsleqbjbi}),\,(\ref{tsgeqbjbi})}{\leq} &
C_{\text g}
\frac{ \max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1}-b_k |^3 }{ | b_j-b_i |^{\alpha +1} }.
\end{eqnarray*}
Also, we have
\[
B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g}
\frac{ \max_{k=1, \ldots ,n} | b_{k+1}-b_k |^3 }{ | b_j-b_i |^{\alpha +1} }
\]
using Lemma \ref{A--pre.est.12}, (\ref{bi-Lip}), and (\ref{tsgeqbjbi}).
Then, we get
\[
A_{i,j} + B_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g}
L^{2- \alpha} \frac 1 { n^{ 3-( \alpha +1)/6q } }
\]
using (\ref{>Nn--est.}), (\ref{bi-Lip}), and (\ref{div.bk}).
Therefore, we obtain
\[
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N_n }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha ( q-1 ) }
( A_{i,j} + B_{i,j} )
\leq
C_{ \text g } L^{ 2 - \alpha }
\frac{ 1 }
{
n^{ 1 - (\alpha+1) / (6q) }
}.
\]
\end{proof}
Using (\ref{>Nn--est.}), we obtain
\[
C_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g} L^{2-\alpha} \frac 1 {n^{ \alpha +2-2/q }}
\varepsilon_n^{(4- \alpha)/(4q)},\ \
D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\text g} L^2 \frac 1 { n^{\alpha +2-2/q} }
\varepsilon_n^{1/q}.
\]
Therefore, we can show the next lemma in a similar manner to the proof of Proposition \ref{AB--est.2}.
\begin{prop}\label{D--est.2}
We have
\[
\displaystyle
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N_n }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha ( q-1 ) }
C_{i,j}
\leq
C_{ \rm g }
L^{ 2 - \alpha }
\varepsilon_n^{\ (5 \alpha q -8) / (4q)},
\]
and
\[
\displaystyle
\sum_{ i=1 }^n \sum_{ | j-i | > N }
\max\left\{
\varepsilon_n^{ \frac{ 1 }{ 4q } }
,
n^{ - \frac{ 1 }{ 6q } }
\right\}^{ - \alpha q }
D_{i,j}
\leq
C_{\rm g}
L^2
\varepsilon_n^{\ (5 \alpha q -8)/(4q)}.
\]
\end{prop}
Using Propositions \ref{AB--est.2} and \ref{D--est.2},
we get
\[
| X-Y |
\leq
C_{\text g}
L^{2- \alpha q}
\left\{
\frac{1}{n^{1-( \alpha q+1 )/(6q)}}
+
\varepsilon_n^{(5 \alpha q -8)/(4q)}
\right\}
\to 0
\]
as $ n \to \infty $,
and this proves Theorem \ref{inscribed}.
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \ \ $\square$
\section{$\Gamma$-convergence}
In this section, we prove that
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
converges to
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} $
in the sense of $ \Gamma $-convergence.
When we consider $\Gamma$-convergence,
it is necessary that
we consider the functionals
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
and
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} $
on a common set of simply closed curves.
Hence, we need to extend their domains.
\subsection{Preparation}\label{sec.gamma}
In this subsection, we give the definition of $\Gamma$-convergence and introduce its fundamental property, and we extend the domains of
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} $
and
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $.
\begin{df}[$\Gamma$-convergence]
Let
$ X $
be a metric space.
If
$ \mathscr{F}_n : X \to \overline{\mathbb{R}} $
and
$ \mathscr{F} : X \to \overline{\mathbb{R}} $
satisfy the following two properties for all $ x \in X $,
we say that
$ \mathscr{F}_n $
\textit{$\Gamma$-converges} to
$ \mathscr{F} $
on $X$
and denote this by
$
\mathscr{F}_n \overset{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}
\mathscr{F}\ \mbox{on}\ X
$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\,\liminf$ inequality$)$
For all
$ \{ x_n \} \subset X $
converging to $x$
in $X$,
we have
\[
\mathscr{F} (x) \leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathscr{F}_n (x_n).
\]
\item $(\,\limsup$ inequality$)$
There exists
$ \{ x_n \} \subset X $
converging to $x$ in $X$
and we have
\[
\mathscr{F} (x) \geq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \mathscr{F}_n (x_n).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{df}
The following lemma states a sufficient condition under which the minimum of
$ \mathscr{F} $
is less than that of
$ \mathscr{F}_n $.
This lemma is useful for the investigation of minimality of functionals.
\begin{lem}\label{gamma--min}
Let
$ ( X , d_X )$
be a metric space,
and let
$Y$
be a subspace of
$X$.
Assume that
$ \mathscr{F}_n $,
$ \mathscr{F} : X \to \overline{\mathbb{R}} $
satisfy the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We have
\[
\mathscr{F} (x) \leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathscr{F}_n (x_n)
\]
for all
$ \{ x_n \} \subset X $
such that
$ d_X (x_n , x) \to 0\ ( x \in X )$
as $ n \to \infty $.
\item
For all
$ y \in Y $,
there exists
$ \{ y_n \} \subset X $
such that
$ d_X (y_n,y) \to 0 $
as $ n \to \infty $
and
\[
\mathscr{F} (y) \geq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \mathscr{F}_n (y_n).
\]
\end{enumerate}
Then,
for
$ z_n $,
$ z \in X $
satisfying
\[
d_X ( z_n , z ) \to 0,
\ \
\left|
\mathscr{F}_n (z_n) - \inf_X \mathscr{F}_n
\right|
\to 0
\]
as $ n \to \infty $,
we have
\[
\mathscr{F} (z) \leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} \inf_X \mathscr{F}_n
\leq \inf_Y \mathscr{F}.
\]
\end{lem}
Next,
we extend the domains of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha,q}$
and
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} $.
For a given
tame knot class
$ \mathcal{K} $,
let
$ \mathcal{C} ( \mathcal{K} ) $
be the set of simply closed curves of length $1$ belonging to
$ \mathcal{K} $,
and let
$ \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
be the set of equilateral polygons with $n$ edges with total length $1$ belonging to
$ \mathcal{K} $.
Also, we set
\[
\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K})
:=
\left(
\mathcal{C} ( \mathcal{K} ) \cap
C^1 ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d )
\right)
\cup
\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ).
\]
Furthermore,
let $d_{L^1}$, $d_{W^{1,\infty}} : \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) \times \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) \to \R$
be two metric functions
induced from the $L^1$-norm or $W^{1,\infty}$-norm,
respectively.
Then, we consider a metric function
$d_X : \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) \times \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) \to \R$
for which there exist two constants $C_1$, $C_2>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
C_1 d_{L^1} (f,g)
\leq
d_X (f,g)
\leq
C_2 d_{W^{1,\infty}} (f,g)
\label{emb}
\end{equation}
for
$ f $,
$ g \in \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) $.
For example, $d_X (f,g) := \| f-g \|_{L^r (\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d)}$
or
$\| f-g \|_{W^{1,r} (\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d)}$ $(r \in [1,\infty])$
satisfies (\ref{emb}) because $\mathbb{S}_1$ is a bounded set.
In what follows,
we put
\[
X := ( \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{K}) , d_X ).
\]
Moreover, let
\[
Y :=
\left(
\mathcal{C} ( \mathcal{K} ) \cap
C^1 ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d ) \cap
W^{1+ \sigma ,2q} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d )
,d_X
\right).
\]
We extend the domain of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha,q} $ to $X$
as follows.
For
$ m \ne n $,
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $,
and
a simply closed curve
$ \gamma $,
we \textit{define}
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}_m (p_n) := \infty,
\ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}_m (\gamma) := \infty.
\]
Concerning the extension of the domain of
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} $,
we obtain the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{polygon--expand}
Let
$ p_n $
be a polygon of length $1$ with $n$ edges and vertices
$ p_n (a_i) \in \mathbb{R}^d \ (i=1, \ldots ,n)$.
Suppose
$ \alpha \in ( 0, \infty ) $,
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
with
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2+1/q $.
Then, we have
$ p_n \notin W^{1+\sigma ,2q} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d ) $,
that is,
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (p_n) = \infty $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to prove
\begin{equation}
p_n^{\prime \prime}
\notin W^{(\alpha-3)/2,2}(\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d)
\label{pp}
\end{equation}
for $ 2 \leq \alpha < 3 $
because we have
$
W^{\sigma-1,2q} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d )
\subset
W^{(\alpha-3)/2 ,2} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d )
$.
Note that there exist constants
$ c_{j\ell} \ \ ( 1 \leq j \leq n,\ 1 \leq \ell \leq d ) $
such that
\[
p_n^{\prime \prime}
=
\sum_{j=1}^n
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c_{j1}
\\
\vdots
\\
c_{jd}
\end{array}
\right)
\delta_{a_j},
\]
where $ \delta_{a_j} $ is the Dirac measure supported at $a_j$.
In order to prove (\ref{pp}),
we show
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} |k|^{\alpha-3}
| (p_n^{\prime \prime} )^\wedge (k) |^2
=
\sum_{\ell=1}^d
\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} |k|^{\alpha -3}
\left|
\sum_{j=1}^n
c_{j \ell} e^{-2\pi i ka_j}
\right|^2
= \infty,
\label{series}
\end{equation}
where
$
(p_n^{\prime \prime} )^\wedge (k) =
{\vphantom{
\left\langle
p_n^{\prime \prime}, e^{-2\pi ik\cdot}
\right\rangle
}}_{\mathscr{D}^\prime}\! \left\langle
p_n^{\prime \prime}, e^{-2\pi ik \cdot}
\right\rangle_{\mathscr{D}}
$,
and
$ i = \sqrt{-1} $.
Fix $\ell = 1, \ldots , d$. Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{ k \in \mathbb{Z} } |k|^{\alpha -3}
\left|
\sum_{j=1}^n
c_{j \ell} e^{-2\pi i ka_j}
\right|^2
}
\\
& = &
\sum_{ k \in \mathbb{Z} } |k|^{\alpha -3} \sum_{j=1}^n |c_{j \ell}|^2
+
2 \sum_{ k \in \mathbb{Z} } |k|^{\alpha -3}
\sum_{1 \leq j_1 < j_2 \leq n}
c_{j_1 \ell} c_{j_2 \ell}
\cos 2\pi k ( a_{j_2} - a_{j_1} ).
\end{eqnarray*}
It is obvious that the first term diverges to infinity,
and the second term is bounded because the infinite series
$ \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^s \cos (ka) $
converges for
$ a \in \mathbb{R} \setminus 2\pi \mathbb{Z} $
and
$ s < 0 $.
Therefore, we get (\ref{series}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{The $\Gamma$-convergence of $ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $}
Note that we prove the $\liminf$ inequality with respect to $L^1$-topology
and the $\limsup$ inequality with respect to $W^{1,\infty}$-topology
because we have to consider the $\liminf$ inequality for \textit{all} polygonal sequences $\{ p_n \}$ and the $\limsup$ inequality for
\textit{a} polygonal sequence $\{ p_n \}$.
First, we prove the $ \liminf $ inequality needed for proof of the
$ \Gamma $-convergence of $\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q}$.
\begin{thm}[The $\liminf$ inequality]\label{liminf}
Let
$ \alpha \in ( 0, \infty ) $,
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $.
Assume that
$ p_n $,
$ \gamma \in \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{K}) $
satisfy
\[
\| p_n - \gamma \|_{L^1 (\mathbb{S}_1,\mathbb{R}^d)} \to 0
\]
as $ n \to \infty $.
Then, we have
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma)
\leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We may assume
$
\liminf_{n \to \infty}
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} ( p_n ) < \infty
$.
Note that
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
by the way we extended the domain of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
.
Now, there exists $\{ n_k \}_{k=1}^\infty$ such that
\[
n_1 < n_2 < \cdots \to \infty,\ \
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n)
=
\lim_{k \to \infty} \mathcal{E}_{n_k}^{\alpha ,q} (p_n).
\]
Thus, there exists $\{ p_{n_{k(\nu)}} \}_{\nu =1}^\infty$
which is a subsequence of $\{ n_k \}_{k=1}^\infty$
such that
$ p_{n_{k(\nu)}} \to \gamma$
as $\nu \to \infty$ a.e.\,on $\mathbb{S}_1$.
It is sufficient to prove the claim for
$\{ p_{n_{k(\nu)}} \}_{\nu =1}^\infty$.
Now, we write $p_{n_{k(\nu)}}$ as $p_n$ for simplicity.
Let
$
s,t \in
\left\{
u \in \mathbb{S}_1
\,\left|\,
\lim_{n \to \infty} p_n (u) = \gamma (u)
\right.
\right\}
$,
$ s \ne t $.
For all
$ n \in \mathbb{N} $,
we can put consecutive points
$ a_1^{(n)} , \ldots , a_n^{(n)} \in \mathbb{S}_1 $
which satisfy
$ | a_{k+1}^{(n)} - a_k^{(n)} | = 1/n $
for
$ k=1, \ldots ,n $
and such that there exists
$ i_n , j_n \in \{ 1, \ldots ,n \} $
satisfying
\[
( s,t ) \in
[ a_{ i_n }^{(n)} , a_{ i_n+1 }^{(n)} )
\times
[ a_{ j_n }^{(n)} , a_{ j_n+1 }^{(n)} ).
\]
Then, we have
\[
\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i \ne j}}^n
\Manp ( a_i^{(n)} , a_j^{(n)} )^q
\chi_{ [ a_{ i_n }^{(n)} , a_{ i_n +1 }^{(n)} )
\times [ a_{ j_n }^{(n)} , a_{ j_n +1 }^{(n)} ) }
( s,t )
\to
\Mag (s,t)^q
\]
as $ n \to \infty $.
Using Fatou's lemma,
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} (\gamma)
=
\frac 1 \alpha
\int_{\mathbb{S}_1} \int_{\mathbb{S}_1}
\Mag (s,t)^q
dsdt
}
\\
& = &
\frac 1 \alpha
\int_{\mathbb{S}_1} \int_{\mathbb{S}_1}
\lim_{n \to \infty}
\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i \ne j}}^n
\Manp ( a_i^{(n)} , a_j^{(n)} )^q
\chi_{ [ a_{i_n}^{(n)} , a_{i_n +1 }^{(n)} )
\times [ a_{j_n}^{(n)} , a_{j_n +1}^{(n)} ) }
( s,t )
dsdt
\\
& \leq &
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n)
\end{eqnarray*}
because of the definition of
$ \{ a_k^{(n)} \}_{k=1}^n $.
\end{proof}
Furthermore, by Ascoli-Arzel\`{a}'s theorem, we get the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{liminf--cor}
Assume that
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n (\mathcal{K}) $
satisfy that
\[
\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N} }
\| p_n \|_{ L^\infty (\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d) } < \infty,
\ \
\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N} } \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n) < \infty.
\]
Then, there exists a subsequence
$ \{ p_{n_j} \} $
and
$ \gamma \in W^{1+\sigma ,2q} (\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d) $
such that
$ \| p_{n_j} - \gamma \|_{ L^1 (\mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d) } \to 0 $
as $ j \to \infty $ for
$ \alpha \in ( 0, \infty ) $,
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
with
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $.
\end{cor}
The following claim is a strong version of the $\limsup$ inequality for
$ \gamma \in W^{1+ \sigma , 2q } ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d ) $.
We can prove it using the method of proof of \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Sch}.
\begin{thm}[A strong version of the $\limsup$ equality]\label{limsup}
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
with
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $,
and let
$
\gamma \in \mathcal{C}( \mathcal{K} )
\cap C^1 ( \mathbb{S}_1 ,\mathbb{R}^d )
\cap W^{1+\sigma , 2q} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d )
$.
Then, there exists
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
such that
\[
\lim_{n \to \infty}
\| p_n - \gamma \|_{ W^{1, \infty} ( \mathbb{S}_1 , \mathbb{R}^d ) }=0,
\ \
\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}_n (p_n)
= \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}( \gamma ).
\]
\end{thm}
Next,
we show that
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
$ \Gamma $-converges to
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q} $
using previous results.
\begin{thm}[$ \Gamma $-convergence of $ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $]\label{gamma}
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty )$
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $
with
$ 2 \leq \alpha q < 2q+1 $.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n
\overset{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}
\ \mbox{on}\ X.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Put $ \gamma \in X $.
If
$ p_n \in X $
satisfies
$ d_X (p_n , \gamma ) \to 0 $
,
we have
$ \| p_n - \gamma \|_{L^1} \leq C_1^{-1} d_X (p_n , \gamma) \to 0 $.
Then, we have
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma)
\leq
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n)
\]
using Theorem \ref{liminf}.
This implies that
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
satisfies the $\liminf$ inequality.
Now, we prove the $\limsup$ inequality.
The claim is obvious in the case where
$ \gamma \in X \setminus Y $.
Therefore, let
$ \gamma \in Y $.
Then, there exists
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n \to \infty} d_X (p_n , \gamma) = 0,
\ \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n)
= \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma)
\label{gamma--rmk}
\end{equation}
by Theorem \ref{limsup} and (\ref{emb}).
In particular, we have
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma)
\geq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{gamma--rem}
(\ref{gamma--rmk}) implies that
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n $
not only
$ \Gamma $-converges to
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} $
but also
satisfies the assumption of Lemma \ref{gamma--min}.
\end{rem}
The following corollary suggests the following: assume that a polygonal sequence has values of the discrete energy are sufficiently close to the minimum value for all numbers of vertices.
Then, this sequence converges to a curve, which is a right circle by \cite{ACFGH}.
\begin{cor}\label{minimizer1}
If
$ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
and
$ \gamma \in \mathcal{C} ( \mathcal{K} ) $
satisfy
\[
\left|
\inf_{ \mathcal{P}_n (\mathcal{K}) } \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n
- \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n)
\right|
\to 0,\ \
d_X (p_n , \gamma ) \to 0,
\]
then
$ \gamma $
is the minimizer of
$ \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} $
in
$ \mathcal{C} ( \mathcal{K} ) $,
and we have
\[
\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n)
= \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q} (\gamma).
\]
\end{cor}
\section{Minimizers of $ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $}
In this section,
we consider minimizers of a generalized discrete energy using techniques of \cite{ACFGH}.
In what follows, we set
$ \Omega := \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \,|\, 0 < x \leq y \} $.
\begin{thm}\label{ippan--minimizer}
Let
$ F : \Omega \to \mathbb{R} $
be a function such that, if we set
$ g_y (u) = F( \sqrt{u} ,y ) $
for
$ u \in (0 , y^2 ] $
and
$ y \in (0, 1/2) $,
then
$ g_y $
is decreasing and convex.
For a polygon with $n$ edges with total length $1$, set
\[
\mathcal{E}_F ( p_n ) :=
\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\i \ne j}}^n
F( | p_n (a_j) - p_n (a_i) | , |a_j-a_i| )
| p_n (a_{i+1}) - p_n (a_i) |
| p_n (a_{j+1}) - p_n (a_j) |.
\]
Moreover,
for $0< a < b$,
set $ [ a ]_b := \min\{ a, b-a \} $.
Then, if $ p_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $, we have
\[
\mathcal{E}_F ( p_n )
\geq
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}
F \left(
\frac{1}{n} \frac{ \sin ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin ( \pi /n ) } , |a_k - a_0|
\right),
\]
and the minimizers of
$ \mathcal{E}_F $
are regular polygons with $n$ edges.
\end{thm}
The proof of Theorem \ref{ippan--minimizer} makes use of the following lemma.
\begin{lem}[$\mbox{\cite[Theorem II]{Gab}}$,\ $\mbox{\cite[Lemma 7]{ACFGH}}$]\label{dm--lem}
Let
$ n \geq 4 $,
and put
$ k = 1, \ldots ,n $.
Let
$ f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} $
be an increasing and concave function.
Then, there exists
$ c >0 $
with
$ | v_{i+1} - v_i | \leq c $
such that
\[
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n f(| v_{i+k} - v_i |^2)
\leq
f
\left(
c^2 \frac{ \sin^2 ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin^2 ( \pi /n ) }
\right)
\]
for all
$ v_1, \ldots ,v_n \in \mathbb{R}^d $
with
$ v_{n+i} = v_i $
for
$ i=1, \ldots ,n $.
Equality holds in the above inequality only
when the polygon which is made by joining
$ v_1 , \ldots ,v_n $
by segments in turn is a regular polygon with $n$ edges.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[\bf{Proof of Theorem \ref{ippan--minimizer}}]
Since
$ p_n $
is an equilateral polygon, we have
\[
\mathcal{E}_F (p_n)
=
\frac{1}{n^2}
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^n
F( | p_n (a_{i+k} ) - p_n (a_i) | , |a_k - a_0| ).
\]
For
$ k=1, \ldots ,n $,
set
\[
f_k (x)
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
- F( \sqrt{x} , | a_k - a_0 | ) & ( 0 < x < | a_k - a_0 |^2 ),
\\
- F( | a_k - a_0 | , | a_k - a_0 | ) & ( x \geq | a_k - a_0 |^2 ).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then,
$ f_k(x) $
is an increasing and concave function on
$ 0 < x < | a_k - a_0 |^2 $.
Hence, using Lemma \ref{dm--lem}, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n
F( | p_n (a_{i+k} ) - p_n (a_i) | , |a_k - a_0| )
= &\,
- \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n
f_k ( | p_n (a_{i+k} ) - p_n (a_i) |^2 )
\\
\geq &\,
- f_k
\left(
\frac{1}{n^2} \frac{ \sin^2 ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin^2 ( \pi /n ) }
\right),
\end{align*}
where the equality holds only when
$ p_n $
is a regular polygon with $n$ edges by the condition of equality in Lemma \ref{dm--lem}.
Let
$ g_n \in \mathcal{P}_n ( \mathcal{K} ) $
be a regular polygon with $n$ edges,
and suppose
$ 1 \leq k \leq n $.
Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n} \frac{ \sin ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin ( \pi /n ) }
= | g_n(a_k) - g_n(a_0) |
=&\ | g_n(a_{i+k}) - g_n(a_i) |,
\\
| a_k-a_0 | =&\ |a_{i+k} - a_i |
\end{align*}
for all
$ i=1, \ldots ,n-1 $.
Hence, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{E}_F (p_n)
\geq &\,
- \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}
f_k
\left(
\frac{1}{n^2} \frac{ \sin^2 ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin^2 ( \pi /n ) }
\right)
\\
= &\
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}
F \left(
\frac{1}{n} \frac{ \sin ([k]_n \pi /n) }{ \sin ( \pi /n ) } , |a_k - a_0|
\right)
=
\mathcal{E}_F (g_n).
\end{align*}
Therefore, minimizers of $ \mathcal{E}_F $ are regular polygons with $n$ edges.
\end{proof}
Applying Theorem \ref{ippan--minimizer} to
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $,
we obtain the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{dm--est}
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $.
Then, for all equilateral polygons with $n$ edges $p_n$,
we have
\[
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} (p_n)
\geq
\frac{n^{\alpha q -1}}{\alpha}
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}
\left(
\frac{ \sin^\alpha ( \pi /n ) }{ \sin^\alpha ([k]_n \pi /n) }
-
\frac{1}{[k]_n^\alpha}
\right)^q
\]
with equality if and only if
$ p_n $
is a regular polygon with $n$ edges.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For
$ (x,y) \in \Omega $,
set
\[
F(x,y) :=
\left(
\frac{1}{x^\alpha} - \frac{1}{y^\alpha}
\right)^q.
\]
Then, we have
$ F( \sqrt{u} , y ) $
is decreasing and convex on
$ u \in (0,y^2] $
whenever
$ y \in (0,1/2) $.
Therefore,
$ F $
satisfies the assumption of Theorem \ref{ippan--minimizer}.
Using Theorem \ref{ippan--minimizer},
we obtain
\[
\mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha,q} (p_n)
\geq
\frac{n^{\alpha q -1}}{\alpha}
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}
\left(
\frac{ \sin^\alpha ( \pi /n ) }{ \sin^\alpha ([k]_n \pi /n) }
-
\frac{1}{[k]_n^\alpha}
\right)^q
\]
for all equilateral polygons
$ p_n $
with $n$ edges.
By the condition of equality in Lemma \ref{dm--lem},
equality holds in the above inequality only when
$ p_n $
is a regular polygon with $n$ edges.
\end{proof}
By Corollary \ref{dm--est},
we obtain the following claim about the minimizers of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha,q} $.
\begin{thm}[Minimizers of $ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $]
\label{discrete--minimizer}
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $.
Then, minimizers of
$ \mathcal{E}_n^{\alpha ,q} $
in the set of equilateral polygons with $n$ edges are regular polygons.
Especially, a regular polygon with $n$ edges is the only minimizer except for congruent transformations and similar transformations.
\end{thm}
From Theorem \ref{discrete--minimizer},
we immediately obtained the following property of minimizers of
$\mathcal{E}^{\alpha ,q}_n$.
\begin{cor}\label{minimizer--circle}
Let
$ \alpha \in (0, \infty ) $
and
$ q \in [1, \infty ) $,
and let
$ p_n $
satisfy
$
\mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n (p_n)
= \inf_{\mathcal{P}_n (\mathcal{K})} \mathcal{E}^{\alpha,q}_n
$.
Then, there exists a similar transformation such that
$ \{ p_n \} $
converges to a right circle in the sense of
$ W^{1, \infty} $
as
$ n \to \infty $.
\end{cor}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) \cite{aom} recently finalised the development of the AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) specification. AOMedia was founded in 2015 as a consortium of over 30 partners from the semiconductor industry, video on demand providers and web browser developers, with the specific objective of creating open, royalty-free multimedia delivery solutions. AV1 is the first outcome of such initiative, and it was built using the VP9 standard specification developed by Google \cite{VP9} as a base. Similarly to its predecessor, AV1 follows the typical hybrid block-based approach commonly used in many video coding standards.
Thanks to many new optimisations, algorithms and techniques, AV1 has significantly better performance in terms of higher quality with considerable bit rate saving compared to VP9 \cite{t_laude}. This is mostly due to the fact that AV1 adopts a number of new technical contributions, such as enhanced directional intra-prediction, extended reference frames, dynamic spatial and temporal motion vector referencing, overlapped block motion compensation, extended transform kernels, and many others \cite{ov_av1}. While these large number of tools and encoder options contribute to the compression efficiency of the standard, encoder implementations are required to select the best configuration for each portion of the sequence being encoded. This comes at the cost of considerable additional computational complexity, which may limit the benefits of using the standard in practical applications \cite{ibcAndre}. Therefore, algorithms to reduce the encoder run time with limited effects on the standard coding efficiency would be highly beneficial.
In this paper, a method to reduce the complexity of an AV1 encoder based on early termination of inter-prediction is presented. The method is based on machine learning techniques in order to reduce the number of options to test at the encoder side. The rest of the paper is organised as follow. Section \ref{sec:state_of_the_art} briefly presents state-of-the-art encoder speed-up techniques which make use of machine learning. Section \ref{sec:motivation} provides an overview of AV1 inter-prediction, as well as the motivation of the proposed method. Then, Section \ref{sec:proposed} presents the proposed binary tree based inter mode decision algorithm. Experimental results and analysis are presented in Section \ref{sec:results}. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{State of the art}
\label{sec:state_of_the_art}
Due to the fact that AV1 was recently finalised, limited work is found in the literature related to reducing the complexity of AV1. A paper was presented focusing on predicting the optimal block size of AV1 encoding based on Bayesian inference \cite{guo_av1}. In addition, some work was proposed to speed up AV1 encoding in multi-rate configurations, exploiting information obtained in one representation to speed up the encoding of the other representations \cite{guo_av1_multirate}.
AV1 follows a similar architecture to standards developed by the ITU-T VCEG and/or ISO/IEC MPEG, and as such, it is relevant to briefly present some of the speed-up tools based on machine learning that were proposed in this context. Shen et al. \cite{l_shen} proposed an early termination algorithm for transform block size determination in the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard, where the Bayesian decision theory was applied to map the variance of the residual coefficients to the block size. In \cite{g_correa} the decision trees generated by data mining tools were utilised to predict the size of HEVC blocks. Furthermore, a method was proposed to limit the number of block sizes to test in HEVC based on exploiting the size of neighbouring blocks \cite{zupancic}. Similarly, a method to select the optimal motion vector precision was proposed \cite{blasi}, based on local features, such as the behaviour of the residual error samples, and global features, such as the amount of edges in the pictures. These methods were proposed in the context of different codecs and may not be applicable to apply directly to the AV1 coding structure.
\section{Motivation}
\label{sec:motivation}
In AV1, an inter-predicted block can be encoded with either Single Reference Frame Prediction Mode (SRFPM), in which case one single reference frame with a corresponding motion vector is used for the prediction, or with Compound Reference Frame Prediction Mode (CRFPM), where two reference frames (with two corresponding motion vectors) are used. Up to seven reference frames can be used by either mode, referred to as LAST\_FRAME, LAST2\_FRAME, LAST3\_FRAME, GOLDEN\_FRAME, BWDREF\_FRAME, ALTREF\_FRAME, and ALTREF2\_FRAME.
More details on this selection can be found in the literature \cite{ov_av1}.
\begin{figure}[!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{pictures/nearest_nearmv_mode.png}
\caption{NEARESTMV and NEARMV modes}\label{fig:nearestmv}
\vspace*{-6mm}
\end{figure}
Four motion vector candidates are used in SRFPM, which are NEARESTMV, NEARMV, NEWMV and GLOBALMV. NEARESTMV and NEARMV modes employ previously coded motion vectors extracted from spatial neighbours, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nearestmv}. In addition, NEWMV mode performs block based motion estimation to generate a new motion vector for the current block, while GLOBALMV mode performs frame based motion estimation to generate a single motion vector candidate for the whole frame. Eight candidates are used in CRFPM, obtained by combining some of the candidates in SRFPM to perform bi-directional inter-prediction.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{pictures/gop_structure.png}
\caption{Multi-layer structure of a golden-frame group in AV1}\label{fig:gop}
\end{figure}
\fi
In conventional AV1 encoder implementations, the encoder can select among all these different options, the best option for the current block. Typical implementations base these decisions on rate-distortion optimisation techniques, in which the options are compared based on a cost that takes into account the number of bits needed to encode the block, and the corresponding distortion. Clearly, exhaustively searching among all these options can lead to significant encoder complexity.
On the other hand, it is likely that different types of content may benefit from different coding modes. If the encoder could identify which options to use without performing a brute-force search, considerable time savings could be obtained with limited impact on the compression efficiency. Hence, a statistical analysis was performed to analyse which modes are mostly used in specific sequences, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bestpumodes_av1}. The figure presents the average occurrence probability of SRFPM, CRFPM and intra-prediction in blocks extracted from inter frames in AV1 software (Mar, 2018 version), where four different QPs (32, 43, 55 and 63) considered. As can be seen, most inter-predicted blocks are encoded mainly with SRFPM. For example, around 91\% and 60\% of inter-blocks are encoded with SRFPM in sequences \textit{RaceHorses} and \textit{BQTerrace} respectively.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4.5cm]{pictures/best_modes.png}
\caption{Percentage of the best prediction modes in AV1}\label{fig:bestpumodes_av1}
\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, the complexity and coding efficiency of using CRFPM were analysed. The AV1 encoder was modified to prevent testing and selection of CRFPM. This modified encoder was compared with an anchor, namely a conventional AV1 encoder that can select CRFPM. The compression performance of the modified encoder with respect to the anchor was measured in terms of the well-known BD-BR metric, a measure of the difference in rate required to encode at the same objective quality with respect to the anchor at different quality points, in percentage \cite{bdbr}. Complexity was measured in terms of the difference in encoding time, calculated as:
\begin{equation}
TS[\%] = (1 - \frac{T(C\textsubscript{modified})}{T(C\textsubscript{anchor})})\cdot 100,
\end{equation}
where $T(C\textsubscript{anchor})$ and $T(C\textsubscript{modified})$ are the total encoding times required by the anchor and the modified encoder, respectively. Results of this test are presented in Table ~\ref{table:ccr}.
As can be seen, avoiding testing CRFPM modes reduce complexity by average 61.4\% in terms of encoding time. On the other hand, forcing the encoder to simply remove CRFPM modes can have a detrimental effect on encoding performance in some cases, with up to $12.7\%$ efficiency losses in the case of the \textit{BQTerrace} sequence. In this paper, a method to selectively predict blocks in which CRFPM would be needed is presented using data mining. The proposed method can be considered as a binary-class classification task which is applied to each block to decide whether it should be predicted using SRFPM (Class 0) or using either CRFPM or SRFPM (Class 1).
\begin{table}[hbt]
\centering
\caption{Complexity and efficiency of CRFPM modes}
\resizebox{.9\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l|c|c}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Sequence}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Resolution}} & \textbf{TS [\%]} & \textbf{BD-BR [\%]} \\ \hline
ParkScene & \multirow{3}{*}{1920 $\times$ 1080} & 62.8 & 0.55 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}
BQTerrace & & 66.7 & 12.73 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}
Cactus & & 50.7 & 1.62 \\ \hline\hline
RaceHorses & \multirow{3}{*}{832$\times$480} & 60.4 & 0.73 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}
BQMall & & 64.6 & 2.48 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}
BasketballDrill & & 63.0 & 1.94 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Average}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{61.4}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{3.34}} \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:ccr}
\end{table}
\section{Inter-coding early termination based on decision trees}
\label{sec:proposed}
Decision trees are simple yet an effective tool to learn the relationship between a set of features and the ground truth. A decision tree is a hierarchical structure consisting of a group of decision nodes and terminal leaves, where each node corresponds to a specific test on a single feature, and the terminal leaves provide a classification for the ground truth. The work in this paper made use of a well-known open-source implementation \cite{cusplit} for training the decision trees.
Different from more complex machine learning solutions, the application of trained decision trees has the advantage of being very simple to implement, leading to little additional complexity. This is crucial from the problem at hand of reducing the complexity of an AV1 encoder implementation. Using more complex solutions such as methods based on support vector machines or deep learning may lead to better classification results, but this comes at the cost of high complexity of applying the method itself during encoding. Given the decision needs to be taken for each inter-predicted block during encoding, such complexity would have a detrimental impact on encoding time, compromising the effectiveness of the algorithm.
As with all machine learning techniques, the selection of sequences used for the training is crucial to ensure that the method can generalise well. To this aim, the first 20 frames of a set of well-known video sequences used in the development of MPEG standards \cite{ctc} was used, as shown Table ~\ref{table:training_sequences}. Motion activity, texture and resolution are different for the selected test sequences.
\begin{table}[!bt]
\centering
\caption{Sequences for training data set}
\resizebox{.8\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Sequence}} & \textbf{Frame Rate} & \textbf{Bit Depth} & \textbf{Resolution} \\ \hline
ParkScene & 24 & 8 & 1920 $\times$ 1080 \\ \hline
BQTerrace & 60 & 8 & 1920 $\times$ 1080 \\ \hline
Kimono1 & 24 & 8 & 1920 $\times$ 1080 \\ \hline
Cactus & 50 & 8 & 1920 $\times$ 1080 \\ \hline
RaceHorses & 30 & 8 & 832 $\times$ 480 \\ \hline
BQMall & 60 & 8 & 832 $\times$ 480 \\ \hline
PartyScene & 50 & 8 & 832 $\times$ 480 \\ \hline
BasketballDrill & 50 & 8 & 832 $\times$ 480 \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:training_sequences}
\end{table}
Also important to the accuracy of a machine learning algorithm is the selection of features to use for the classification. Ideally the features should be highly correlated to the ‘ground truth’, which in the case under examination is whether a block is encoded using SRFPM or CRFPM, but not very correlated with each other. This minimises the inclusion of unnecessary data and inter-feature correlations. To this end, many features were extracted from each block in the training sequences. Each feature was then classified in terms of its Gini impurity with respect to the ground truth. The Gini impurity is a measurement of the likelihood of making an incorrect classification of a new instance of a random variable, and it is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
G = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}[{{{P(i)}\cdot{(1-P(i))}}]},
\end{equation}
where $P(i)$ is the probability of block \textit{i} being encoded with SRFPM, and \textit{i} indicates blocks in the data training set.
Following this process, four features were selected, which aims at 80\% accuracy of the prediction in Class 0. Table ~\ref{table:features} shows the selected features. Two features are taken from each of the adjacent encoded blocks, on the left and on the top of the current block. These features are denoted as 'f\textsubscript{1}' and 'f\textsubscript{2}' for the left block, and 'f\textsubscript{3}' and 'f\textsubscript{4}' for the top block. They have been selected because there is a high correlation in coded information between the current block and its neighbours.
\begin{table}[!hbt]
\centering
\caption{Selected features and descriptions}
\resizebox{.8\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{p{2cm} p{5.5cm}}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Description} \\ \hline
f\textsubscript{1} & second reference frame of left block \\ \hline
f\textsubscript{2} & prediction mode of left block \\ \hline
f\textsubscript{3} & second reference frame of upper block \\ \hline
f\textsubscript{4} & prediction mode of upper block \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:features}
\end{table}
Given that the sequences in the training set are of different length and different resolutions, using all blocks in each sequence would lead to an unbalanced number of training samples from each sequence. Sequences at high resolutions may therefore have a higher impact on the training, which is not ideal to ensure the training can generalise well. Therefore, a fixed number of training samples is used per sequence. Moreover, in order to balance the training samples between the two classes of the ground truth, the number of training samples \textit{M} for each sequence is calculated as
\begin{align*}
M=\left\{\begin{array}{@{}cc}
p\textsubscript{0}\cdot N,&p\textsubscript{0} < 0.5\\
(1-p\textsubscript{0})\cdot N,&p\textsubscript{0} \geq 0.5,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
where $p\textsubscript{0}$ represents the accuracy of SRFPM prediction, and $N$ corresponds to the number of training samples in each class. Hence, the data set is balanced with 50\% of blocks classified as being predicted using SRFPM, and 50\% using CRFPM.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{pictures/flowchart.png}
\caption{Flowchart of the proposed method}\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
The flowchart of the proposed method is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart}. A binary classifier (Classifier A) is firstly used to make a decision per block. If the block is classified as Class 0, which corresponds to the block being predicted using SRFPM, then CRFPM modes are not tested for the current block. Conversely, if the block is classified in Class 1, both SRFPM and CRFPM modes are tested as in conventional AV1 encoders.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:results}
The method was tested to evaluate its performance using test sequences that are not part of the training used to develop the method. In order to validate the performance of the proposed method, an encoder was developed using the reference AV1 software (Sep 5, 2018 version) encoder as a basis \cite{av1}. The unmodified reference software encoder was also used as anchor for measuring performance. Seven different video sequences \cite{testset} were used to evaluate the performance. Each sequence was encoded at four different quality points (obtained using --cq-level=32, 43, 55, 63), to validate the method under different conditions. The performance of the proposed method was measured in terms of BD-BR and encoder time savings. Table ~\ref{table:summaryresults} shows that the proposed method reduces encoding time on average by 43.4\%, with a maximum time saving of 53.0\% and a minimum of 33.7\%. As can be seen, the method achieves considerably better coding efficiency than the modified encoder which skips testing of CRFPM modes altogether.
\begin{table}[!bt]
\centering
\caption{Performance of the proposed approach and C\textsubscript{modified}}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\hline\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Sequence}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Proposed method}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{C\textsubscript{modified}}} \\ \cline{2-5} & \textbf{BD-BR[\%]} & \textbf{TS[\%]} & \textbf{BD-BR[\%]} & \textbf{TS[\%]} \\ \hline
blue\_sky\_360p\_120f & 0.62 & 45.1 & 1.04 & 62.4 \\ \hline
old\_town\_cross\_1080p50\_60f & 0.28 & 53.0 & 1.54 & 59.4 \\ \hline
pedestrian\_area\_1080p25\_60f & 0.35 & 38.5 & 0.54 & 58.5 \\ \hline
speed\_bag\_640x360\_120f & 1.00 & 33.7 & 4.71 & 59.3 \\ \hline
stockholm\_640x360\_120f & 0.14 & 50.5 & 0.13 & 66.5 \\ \hline
tacomanarrows360p\_120f & 0.62 & 46.8 & 0.72 & 61.0 \\ \hline
thaloundeskmtg360p\_120f & 2.37 & 35.7 & 10.97 & 60.1 \\ \hline
\textbf{Average} & \textbf{0.77} & \textbf{43.4} & \textbf{2.81} & \textbf{61.0} \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:summaryresults}
\end{table}
The AV1 reference software allows encoding to be performed using a variety of so called "Speed presets", namely encoder configurations which limit certain options and tools in order to reduce the complexity. When doing so, the coding efficiency decreases due to the fact the codec is limited in the number of options it can select. On the other hand, the proposed method selects whether to test or not the CRFPM modes on a block-by-block basis based on features of the block, and as such it has a limited impact on coding efficiency. Moreover, the tool can be used on top of existing AV1 Speed presets and still provide additional speed-ups, showing that the method does not overlap with existing complexity reduction schemes. In order to validate these claims, the method was compared with AV1 Speed preset $2$, and it was also tested on top of an AV1 encoder using Speed preset $2$.
Results of these tests are presented in Table ~\ref{table:summaryresults2}. In all cases, the unmodified AV1 encoder was used as anchor. As can be seen, using AV1 Speed preset $2$ on its own usually provides lower complexity reductions for higher efficiency losses than using the proposed method (as in Table ~\ref{table:summaryresults}), showing that the Speed preset is less capable of adapting to content-dependent features. Moreover, using the proposed method on top of Speed preset $2$ can still provide considerable complexity reductions, showing that the method is almost orthogonal to the Speed preset. Average $58\%$ and up to $64\%$ complexity reduction can be obtained under these conditions.
\begin{table}[!bt]
\vspace*{-5mm}
\centering
\caption{Performance of Speed preset $2$, and the proposed approach used in combination with Speed preset $2$}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\hline\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Sequence}} & \multicolumn{2}{P{2.3cm}|}{\textbf{Speed preset $2$}} & \multicolumn{2}{p{2.7cm}}{\textbf{Proposed method + Speed preset $2$}} \\ \cline{2-5} & \textbf{BD-BR [\%]} & \textbf{TS [\%]} & \textbf{BD-BR [\%]} & \textbf{TS [\%]} \\ \hline
blue\_sky\_360p\_120f & 0.45\ & 32.5\ & 1.19\ & 54.8\ \\ \hline
old\_town\_cross\_1080p50\_60f & 0.66\ & 33.5\ & 1.11\ & 60.9\ \\ \hline
pedestrian\_area\_1080p25\_60f & 0.58\ & 40.5\ & 0.73\ & 55.0\ \\ \hline
speed\_bag\_640x360\_120f & 1.00\ & 41.2\ & 1.82\ & 55.1\ \\ \hline
stockholm\_640x360\_120f & -0.56\ & 33.2\ & 0.05\ & 60.3\ \\ \hline
tacomanarrows360p\_120f & 1.20\ & 48.6\ & 1.34\ & 64.2\ \\ \hline
thaloundeskmtg360p\_120f & 2.94\ & 34.6\ & 4.88\ & 53.6\ \\ \hline
\textbf{Average} & \textbf{0.90}\ & \textbf{37.7}\ & \textbf{1.59}\ & \textbf{57.7} \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{table:summaryresults2}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
This paper presented a fast algorithm for AV1 inter prediction based on decision trees, based on the observation that not all sequences benefit from using CRFPM modes. A decision tree was trained based on $7$ features extracted while encoding each block. A decision is performed whether to skip testing of CRFPM modes, or whether to instead test all modes exhaustively. Experimental results show that the encoding time can be reduced on average by 43.4\%, with negligible impact on coding efficiency. Future work could focus on using more features and using different classifier to further speed up AV1 encoder implementations.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the seminal work of de Solla Price \cite{deSollaPrice510} quantitative analysis of knowledge spreading through a network of scientific publications has become a matter of great interest. The analysis of bibliometric data not only sheds light on the structure of science and its knowledge accumulation, but also gives us insight into the citation distributions \cite{Wallace2009296,RednerStatistics,Radicchi11112008}, collaboration networks \cite{Newman16012001,Barabasi2002590}, geographical patterns of collaborations and citations \cite{pan2012world,Havemann2006,Jones2008}, and the structural changes that take place at the level of scientific fields \cite{Sinatra2015,Rosvall29012008,10.1371/journal.pone.0010355}.
Along this line of research, the citations between scientific publications are in the focus of interest and they can encode various meanings between publications \cite{HURT19871}, but perhaps most often they indicate that some knowledge from the cited publication is being used in the citing publication \cite{Bornmann2008}.
Despite all this progress for more than half a century, a core question remains elusive: at the global scale, where is the knowledge going and where is it coming from?
The main research paradigm in the \emph{Science of Science} has been to focus locally on the direct citations between a pair of publications. This thinking is exemplified by the literature on quality measures that are based on direct citations, such as the H-index \cite{10.2307/4152261}, the Journal Impact Factor \cite{Garfield1999}, and a number of others. Even though much attention has been given to the structural limitations of these methods \cite{Penner2013,Adler2009,Alonso2009}, the standard approach to overcome such limitations has been to introduce minor adjustments while still relying on the numbers of direct citations each publication/author/journal receives
\cite{BrasAmorós2011248,doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4,Braun2006,Egghe2006}.
This local paradigm is in contrast to the structure of science itself because science is a cumulative process where researchers ``stand on the shoulders of giants'', i.e., the results of each researcher are intrinsically based on a massive amount of previous work, not just the publications that are directly cited \cite{Merton1957,Bornmann2008}. Therefore, when one attempts to study the structure and behaviour of scientific knowledge accumulation, it is necessary to look at the whole process and not focusing only on a local area of the system.
In this work, we aim at answering the following question: starting from a publication or group of publications, where and how does its knowledge flow in a citation network if one looks beyond the direct citations? To answer this question, we study all the possible chains of citations, indicated by a citation network, the publications form. In particular, we introduce two stylized models for studying the flow of knowledge, i.e. the models of \emph{persistent influence} and \emph{diffusion}.
These stylized models are complementary to each other and are computationally tractable even if they are applied to the citation network of all the scientific publications. Here, we use these models to study a comprehensive data set of around 35 million publications from most fields of science covering more than hundred years of making research (see Appendix \ref{sec:data} for details).
When we use millions of individual publications and different groups of them as the sources of information chains, we obtain a good general understanding of the knowledge flows in the citation network. When we compare the relationship between the direct citation counts and the total persistent influence of individual publications, we find that papers associated with Nobel prizes tend to outperform their peers with similar citation counts and publication years. Given that papers related to Nobel prizes are expected to have a profound long-term impact on science, this result validates in part our global approach to model the spreading of scientific knowledge.
There are some previous works looking at the impact of citations beyond the local perspective, but often it was done from a very different starting point as compared to the present work. The spread of information has been studied through the adoption rates \cite{Kim2014}, contagion models \cite{KISS201074}, and diffusion \cite{Gao2012,ASI:ASI23541}, but these studies have either relied on small samples of the full citation network or of the aggregated networks. This is in contrast to our approach to model the processes on a comprehensive network of millions of publications, which allows us to track individual publications and where the processes are independent of any sampling or categorisation of journals and publications. Further, the PageRank-type algorithms have been used to rank publications \cite{Chen20078} and individual scientists \cite{PhysRevE.80.056103} in a set of physics journals. These PageRank-type methods are closely related to diffusion but they rely on random walkers that do not keep track of their origins and destinations, whereas we are interested in how the information from one publication (or collection thereof) is used in other publications.
In addition, it is possible to quantify the spreading of scientific ideas, or memes, between citing and cited publications \cite{PhysRevX.4.041036}. Perhaps the closest work to ours is the study of in-components of individual publications in a citation network of physics papers~\cite{10.1371/journal.pone.0113184}, which has enabled to pinpoint influential, but low-cited, publications of Nobel-Prize winners.
This paper is organised as follows. First we introduce the \textit{persistent influence} model and use it to track the amount of influence the millions of individual publications have on all other publications downstream to them in the citation data we use. After summarising these results, we explore how the papers associated with a Nobel Prize perform in terms of persistent influence, and explore the publications whose rankings in terms of direct citations and persistent influence differ the most. Finally, we introduce the diffusion process and focus on the rate of diffusion out of scientific fields, subfields and journals, and how their speeds have changed over the years.
\begin{figure}[htpb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width =.21\columnwidth]{Figs/schematic_a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width =.21\columnwidth]{Figs/schematic_b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width =.21\columnwidth]{Figs/schematic_c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width =.21\columnwidth]{Figs/schematic_d.pdf}
\includegraphics[width =.10\columnwidth]{Figs/schematic_colorbar.pdf}
\caption{
\footnotesize
Persistent influence and diffusion in a citation network.
In all panels, we show the same citation network where the nodes are publications and each edge corresponds to a citation with direction corresponding to the flow of knowledge from a cited publication to a citing publication.
The square node marks the seed publication $s$.
(a) The nodes and edges \textit{reachable} from the seed node are in black and the others are in grey.
(b) The nodes are coloured according to \textit{persistent influence} $I_{s \rightarrow j}$ (darker colours indicate higher values). Note that nodes with only a single in-edge inherit the influence value of the publication they cite, and the nodes with many citations outside of the reachable set of nodes (grey arrows) have in general low influence values. (c) The probabilities $D_{s \rightarrow j}$ for a random walker (RW) that has started from the seed node to pass each node. Note that the publications published in the future have an effect on these \textit{diffusion} probabilities: for example, the three nodes citing the seed publication each get value one third even though the last publication is published much later than the two others.
(d) The diffusion probabilities $\hat{D}_{s \rightarrow j}$ for finding the random walker in each node conditional to the random walker residing within the same time window as the node; the probabilities within each time window sum up to one.
The citation network is divided into three time windows after the seed node that are separated by the dotted horizontal lines.
Now, the publications published after the end of each time-window have no effect on the diffusion probabilities of nodes inside the time window. In the case that there are edges within a time window they are not considered when calculating the diffusion values for that window to avoid systematically giving higher values for nodes that are close to the end of the window (see the Appendix for details).
}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{figure}
\section{Persistent influence process}
\label{sec:persistent}
Our aim in this study is to model how the scientific knowledge percolates through the network of publications citing each other.
Since the flow of knowledge within scientific publications is difficult to measure or quantify using available data, some simplifying assumptions are required.
First, we assume that each publication is only using information that is present in the publications it cites, and the amount of intrinsic information it contains is negligible to it %
\footnote{This assumption could be relaxed by introducing a parameter describing the fraction of new information in each new paper, which would act like a damping factor. For simplicity, here we only study the case where this fraction is zero.}.
Second, we assume that each publication contains the same amount of information.
Third, we assume that each of the cited publications is equally important for the citing publication.
Fourth, we assume that the information content of a publication can be presented as the weighted sum of information contents of the different sources, as opposed to some more complicated function.
The above ideas are formalised in a simple persistent influence spreading process. Starting from a seed publication $s$, we attribute to it an initial value of influence $I_{s \rightarrow s}=1$, while all the other publications have an initial value of 0. We then compute the influence of the seed publication on publications published after the seed by going through the publications in chronological order. Now, each publication can be directly influenced by the seed or inherit the influence of the seed through longer chains of citations. Assuming that each of the cited publications is equally important and that the influence can be summed, the rule for calculating the persistent influence of the seed publication $s$ to publication $j$ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:impact}
I_{s \rightarrow j} = \sum_{i \in \Gamma_{j}^{in}} \frac{I_{s \rightarrow i}}{ k_{j}^{in}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_j^{in}$ is the set of publications cited by $j$, and $k_{j}^{in}=|\Gamma_j^{in}|$ is the number of references, or the in-degree, of publication $j$. The normalisation guarantees that the sum of influence that the cited publications can have on publication $j$ is at most $1$ in the case that all the cited publications also have persistent influence values of $1$. For an illustration of this model, see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{glauber_diagram_raster_small.pdf}
\caption{
Persistent influence profile of Glauber's Nobel Prize winning paper from 1963 to 2008.
Panel a: The first ten thousand, or about 9 years of, papers and citations between them in the downstream network of Glauber's paper. The edges are coloured according to the subfield of the citing paper. In case of multiple subfields, the colour is chosen according to which of these subfield has the largest area in panel d.
Glauber's paper is at the centre of the figure.
The polar coordinates of the other publications are chosen so that older publications are closer to Glauber's paper, and the angles are determined using a force-directed layout algorithm.
Panels b, d and f show the relative, aggregated persistent influence values of Glauber's paper on different groups of publications based on publication year.
Panels c, e, and g show similar yearly sums for local influence values that have been calculated using only direct citations.
Panels b and c show the relative distribution of influence among fields (F) of science ordered in decreasing order of area in the figure starting from the bottom. The most influenced fields are \emph{physics} (green), \emph{mechanical} (orange) and \emph{engineering} (light blue)).
Similarly, panels d and e show the influence on subfields (SF) with the most influenced subfields being \emph{optics} (red), \emph{physics}, and \emph{multidisciplinary physics}, and panels f and g show the influence on journals (J) with \emph{Phys. Rev. A} (light green), \emph{Phys. Lett. A} (light purple), and \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} (light orange) being the most influenced ones.
Only the contribution of 8 largest fields/subfields/journals are shown and the rest is shown as light grey space.
In panels g and h, we show the total influence at the resolution of one year, \textit{i.e.}, the sum of influence values $I(t)$ for publications published in each year.
The legend on the bottom corresponds to subfields, that is, panels a, d, and e.
}
\label{fig:impact_photons}
\end{figure*}
In the presented model, each citation in the reference list of a publication is considered equally important. This feature of the model has some consequences that are important to understand.
A hypothetical publication with only one reference will draw all its influence from the cited paper as its scientific results are entirely based on that previous work. Similarly, a publication that is cited by a review publication that also cites hundreds of other publications has to share the attention with all of the other references, and only a small fraction of the information present in the cited publication is influencing the review.
When the process continues beneath the first few layers of publications in the chains of citations, typically a large number of papers become influenced by the seed node while the persistence influence values for individual papers become diluted. Now, instead of studying the persistent influence of the seed node to an individual paper, it is more meaningful to study the persistent influence of the seed publication to a group of publications.
For instance, given a seed publication, one could compute an aggregated persistent influence value $I_{\text{Physics}}(t=2019)$ by summing over the persistent influence values of all the publications published in physics journals during the year 2019.
\subsection{Persistent influence in a random citation network}
\label{sec:genmodel}
One can gain intuition on how the spreading process of persistent influence works by considering how the papers' influence scores develop in a simple model of a citation network. Let us consider a citation network where publications are published in generations, and they only cite publications of the previous generation \footnote{This assumption is for simplicity, but it is based on the reality: The number of citations a publication receives peaks few years after its publication \cite{PDBP}}.
Further, we assume that the number of publications $n(t)$ in each generation $t$ grows at a constant rate $\mu=n(t+1)/n(t)$, and the maximum values of the in- and out-degree distributions are always small compared to the current system size $n(t)$.
Now, if the in- and out degrees of papers are statistically independent, the sum of the influence values of all the papers in generation $t+1$ is on average given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:model}
I(t+1)=\mu p(k^{in}=0) I(t) \,,
\end{equation}
where $p(k^{in}=0)$ is the probability that a node has zero in-degree (i.e., it receives no citations). That is, the total influence of a paper to all future research grows or decays exponentially with the factor $\mu p(k^{in}=0)$ or remains constant if the generation sizes do not change and there are no ``dead-end'' publications, or if these two factors counter each other out. In reality, the scientific input has been continuously growing ($\mu > 1$) \cite{PDBP}, and thus we expect that on average the influence of early papers will grow. However, this is only the average picture. While some papers' influence values die out, others' grow faster than the average.
\subsection{Empirical results}
We will now apply the process of persistent influence to a citation network with millions of publications covering most fields of science. The data also contains information about the journal each publication is published in and the subfield classifications of the journals. This data is combined with a coarser field classification of the subfields and the information about the papers that led to Nobel Prizes \cite{PDBP}, see Appendix \ref{sec:data} for details. We begin by examining the persistent influence profile of a publication depicting how we can evaluate the cumulative influence of a paper on other papers, journals, and fields of science across time. Later, we move on to a large-scale analysis of source publications and assess the out-performance of papers related to Nobel prizes.
%
\subsubsection{Case study: Glauber's Nobel winning publication}
Roy J. Glauber's seminal paper on photon correlations \cite{PhysRevLett.10.84} was published in 1963, which eventually led him winning the Nobel Prize. Around nine years after the publication date, already 10 thousand publications can be connected to Glauber's paper through a chains of citations.
The subnetwork containing these publications and the citations between them are visualised in Fig. \ref{fig:impact_photons}a.
Different subfields in this network of persistent influence can be seen to roughly organise to their own branches, and the developments within these subfields can be approximately assessed.
For example, publications in interdisciplinary physics journals are seen to be the early ones citing Glauber's work, but after few years the publications in the sphere of influence are more and more in the journals categorised to more specific fields of physics.
As expected, the number of publications that could be indirectly influenced by Glauber's paper in the citation network grows exponentially, reaching millions of publications before 2008 that is already a significant part of all the publications in the data set (compared to 473 direct citations). The size and topology of such a large subnetwork may be of little practical interest, but the persistent influence values are still meaningful:
Even though a massive number of publications could be influenced through chains of citations on long time ranges, most of the persistent influence values are extremely small.That is, even for the long time ranges, the influence is concentrated on a small subset of publications that can often be reached through multiple routes. By aggregating yearly influence values within the categories of publications, we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:impact_photons}b,d,f,h that these publications are mostly on fields and subfields which are known to be impacted by Glauber's work.
To illustrate the difference between the local viewpoint of counting direct citations and the persistent influence, we show a local influence profile calculated using Eq. \ref{eq:impact} but only considering direct citations to the Glauber's original publication in Figs. \ref{fig:impact_photons}c,e,g,i.
At first sight, the most notable difference between the global and local profiles is that the global profile is much smoother than the local one. This is expected as if a field was influenced by a seed article, the articles from the field are also likely to cite the seed. However, a closer inspection reveals more subtle differences between the global and local profiles. The influence of Glauber's paper on publications categorised to fields (Fig.\ref{fig:impact_photons}b) shows a strong persistence in \emph{physics} with a gradually growing contribution to fields called \emph{mechanical} and \emph{engineering}. This pattern is already stable after ten years in the persistent influence, but it is not visible in the local profile even though the second most influenced field, \emph{mechanical}, starts to cite the seed publication later on.
A similar effect of \emph{optics} becoming prominent in the persistent influence much before it is picked up by the local influence profile
%
can be seen when looking at the categorisation in the level of subfields (Fig. \ref{fig:impact_photons}d-e).
Going down to the level of journals we can see that the contribution to \emph{optics} is mainly due to two journals: \emph{Physical Review A} and \emph{Optics Communications}, which once again are not as strongly present in the local profile (Fig. \ref{fig:impact_photons}f-g).
The total persistent influence of Glauber’s publication on publications published during each year grows (except for few years), but the local influence remains relatively stationary when one considers only direct citations. This observation is qualitatively in line with what would be expected based on the generational model defined in Section \ref{sec:genmodel}, because the persistent influence values are sensitive to the expansion in science that has happened at a rapid pace since 1963. However, it is not clear from this analysis if the rate at which the persistent influence grows is a typical example of a publication of that time or if this Nobel winning publication is somehow special.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\columnwidth]{impact_panel_fulltest_False.png}
\caption{
Relationship between citation counts $C$ and persistent influence $I$, and the outperformance of Nobel papers.
(a) The total persistent influence of a paper on average increases as a function its citation count, but citation counts alone can not explain the persistent influence values. Black dots correspond to individual papers, and the coloured markers show the total persistent influence value averaged over papers with similar citation counts and same publication year, $\langle I \rangle_{C,t}$.
The crosses represent Nobel papers with the colours chosen according to the closest 10 years.
(b) The same as in panel a, but with citations and persistence influence being aggregated only for the first ten years after the publication of each paper: $C_{10}=C(\Delta t < 10y)$ and $I_{10}=I(\Delta t < 10y)$.
The average curves thus correspond to $\langle I_{10} \rangle_{C_{10},t}$.
(c) The distribution of total persistent influence values divided by the average total persistent influence of a group of papers with similar order of magnitude of citations ($\approx100$).
The inset shows the same distribution for publications with one order of magnitude less citations.
The colour coding is the same as in panels (b) and (c).
These corresponds to the distribution of aggregated persistent influence values for vertical slices of panel b.
(d) The outperformance of Nobel-winning papers in total number of citations $C / \langle C \rangle_{C_{10}, t_0}$ and total persistent influence $I/ \langle I \rangle_{C_{10},t_0}$ when compared to a group of reference papers with similar publication years ($t_0$) and numbers of citations in the first 10 years ($C_{10}$).
Now Nobel papers outperform their peers in 70\% of the cases in terms of citations, but outperform their peers at even a higher rate (87\%) in terms of persistent influence.
}
\label{fig:impact_panel_full}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{System level analysis of seed publications} %
In order to gain insight into the relationship between the persistent influence and local citation count at the system level, we repeated the influence profile calculation described above for all the papers in our dataset published between 1970 and 2008 and having at least 20 citations. We chose 20 as the required number of citations primarily to limit the computational costs of our analyses while focusing on papers with significant scientific impact. In total, this amounts to approximately $6.2$ million seed publications. To summarize the results, we focus on the total persistent influence that each publication gathers ($I=\sum_t I(t)$).
There is a strong positive correlation between the total number of citations $C$ and the total persistent influence $I$ a publication receives (Fig.\ref{fig:impact_panel_full}a). However, at the same time there is large variation, up to several magnitudes, in the total persistent influence values of publications that receive similar numbers of citations. This dependence between the local citation counts and the globally computed persistent influence values resembles the results in Ref. \cite{Chen20078} obtained for another global measure of publication importance. Further, this result indicates that the number of citations \textit{per se} is not sufficient to fully summarize the persistent influence that a single paper has had within the scientific literature.
Also, we see that older papers manage to gather a significantly higher amount of impact with the same number of citations. This is expected, as the older papers have had more time to gather cumulative influence among their scientific off-springs, and may also benefit from the growing system size.
To remove this advantage of the older papers, we calculate the total persistent influence that each paper gathers during the first 10 years since its publication date $t_0$ ($I_{10}=\sum_{t-t_0 \leq 10 \text{\,years}} I(t)$). We have chosen to use 10 years as the limit so that there would be sufficient time for publications to gather citations and persistent influence. Note however, that if 5 years were used as the limit instead, the results would remain qualitatively similar.
This partly removes the effect of the publication year, but older publications with the same number of citations are still seen to have slightly higher total persistent influence as compared to the newer ones (Fig.\ref{fig:impact_panel_full}b).
The remaining difference between the publication years might be due to other changes in the citation practices such as the increase in the length of reference lists, which causes the denominator in Eq.\ref{eq:impact} to reduce the amount of influence to a single citing paper.
However, the distributions of persistent influence values of publications with the same number of citations within 10 years ($C_{10}$) have super-exponential tails that are relatively independent of the publication year (Fig.\ref{fig:impact_panel_full}c).
This shows that even on a time scale of 10 years, publications having similar numbers of citations can have varying scientific impacts when measured using the total persistent influence.
\subsubsection{Performance of Nobel-winning publications}
What are the publications that achieve higher persistent impact values than expected based on their citation count and are these publications somehow more important for science than the others? To begin to answer these questions, we studied 74 papers that were associated with a Nobel Prize \cite{NobelAge}, which we assume here is a hallmark of scientific importance.
The Nobel prize winning papers mainly populate the top-right corner in Fig.\ref{fig:impact_panel_full}a-b, indicating that, generally, they tend to gather high absolute values of citations and influence. However, as many of them are among the few most cited papers in the data their persistent influence is not significantly higher than other papers with similar citation counts.
Because the Nobel prizes are often given with a significant and growing delay \cite{NobelAge} indicating that their significance is acknowledged only long after the original research is published,
we divert our attention to the longitudinal aspect of the influence process. The idea behind this approach is to take a set of control papers which, at a certain point in time, are apparently equivalent to the Nobel paper and to compare the performance of the Nobel paper with respect to the control group at a later point in time. Practically speaking, we construct a set of control papers that have been published in the same year, $t_0$, as the reference paper and have at most $10\%$ difference in the citation count after 10 years, $C_{10}$.
We calculate the out-performance of a Nobel paper to its controls as the ratio $I/\langle I \rangle_{C_{10},t_0}$, where $I$ is the total persistent influence value of the Nobel winning publication and $\langle I \rangle_{C_{10},t_0}$ is the average total persistent influence of the control papers. These out-performance values can be compared to the outperformance of Nobel papers in terms of total number of citations $C / \langle C \rangle_{C_{10},t_0}$: Out of 74 Nobel papers 65 outperform their controls in persistent influence and 50 of them outperform the controls in citations (see Fig. \ref{fig:impact_panel_full}d), which makes the persistent influence significantly more likely to display outperformance than citation counts (p-value $<10^{-4}$ for the hypothesis that 50/74 chances could have produced 65 or more successes). Furthermore, in 73$\%$ of the cases (54 papers out of 74) the persistent influence outperformance is greater than the citation one (again, the p-value $<10^{-4}$ for the hypothesis that this difference was produced with a null model that gives equal probability for the persistent influence and citation count to outperform the other).
Based on the above numbers and the overall picture presented in Fig. \ref{fig:impact_panel_full}d, it can be said that the Nobel papers outperform the controls in terms of persistent influence and citation counts, and that typically the outperformance of the Nobel papers is greater in terms of the persistent influence than citation counts. For some Nobel papers, the outperformance is smaller in terms of persistence influence but the difference to citation-count-based outperformance is then typically small. An interpretation of these results is that the Nobel papers often constitute the starting points of new growing areas of science that reach beyond the publications directly citing them, as one would expect from publications with influential results.
This conclusion supports the finding of \cite{10.1371/journal.pone.0113184}, where the groundbreaking papers by important Nobel laureates were found to have large networks of child nodes spanning over multiple layers.
\subsubsection{Using rankings to detect influential but low-cited papers}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width =.99\columnwidth]{nobel_ranking_horizontal_nCit.pdf}
\caption{
Nobel papers have higher ranks in terms of persistent influence than citations.
(a) Cumulative distributions of relative difference in persistent influence rank and citation count rank, $\delta = \frac{R_C - R_I}{R_I}$.
Only the positive values of $\delta$ are shown, and the amount of probability mass in the negative side of the distribution can be read from the smallest shown value.
Three categories of papers are considered: Nobel papers (red circles), Nobel control set of papers having the same publication year and being within $3\%$ in citation volume (green squares), and papers selected uniformly at random from all papers (blue triangles).
In case no papers were found within the 3\% interval, the most similar paper in terms of citation was used as the control.
(b) The same distributions as in (a) but using persistent influence values and citation counts after 10 years (i.e., $I_{10}$ and $C_{10}$ instead of $I$ and $C$).
}
\label{fig:nobel_ranking}
\end{figure}
The raw values of the persistent influence and citation counts have fat tails, which can make the analysis very sensitive to outliers, and also depend heavily on the publication year.
Instead of looking at these raw values, we will now use ranks as a more robust measure of publication importance. To this end, we order the papers published within the same year according to the citation count and persistent influence, and give each paper ranks $R_C$ and $R_I$ in terms of the citations and persistent influence, respectively, such that small rank means high value.
We analyse the ranks by the publication year to avoid the biases due to higher values of citation counts and persistent influence for older papers.
Now, we are primarily interested in identifying those publications that have high persistent influence values but have received relatively few citations over the years.
To this end, we define the relative change in ranking as
\begin{equation}
\delta = \frac{R_C - R_I}{R_I}\,.
\label{eq:deltarank}
\end{equation}
Here we divide the absolute difference in rankings by $R_I$ to emphasize the publications that have low ranks in terms of the persistent influence: given two publications with the same absolute difference in ranks, the higher $\delta$ is given to the publication with more persistent influence.
Fig.\ref{fig:nobel_ranking}a shows the cumulative distribution of $\delta$ values at different times for the 74 Nobel papers, a control group of papers within $3\%$ of citations of each Nobel paper and uniformly randomly selected papers. The Nobel publications are seen to be much more likely to be among the publications that have high persistent influence but relatively low citation count than publications in either of the control groups. This effect persists when we use the 10-year persistent influence values $I_{10}$ and citation counts $C_{10}$ for computing the ranks (Fig.\ref{fig:nobel_ranking}b).
The Nobel publications are overrepresented in the publications with high $\delta$ values, but what are the publications with the largest relative difference in the persistent influence and citation counts? Table \ref{tab:dead_beauties} shows the publications with largest $\delta$ values for all the papers in our dataset. Some of these publications might be ``forgotten beauties'' in the sense that they have contributed to the development of several other important publications but were forgotten as these more prominent publications gathered all the citations related to the breakthroughs that were made.
Indeed, such forgotten publications appear in the list.
The publication with the highest $\delta$ score (\#1) is related to DNA hybridisation techniques and is cited by several early publications in the emerging field of molecular biology, most notably by E.M. Southern's work on the \textit{Southern Blot}, a widely-used method for identifying specific DNA sequences from DNA samples.
The second, third and fifth are in the reference list of Sanger's Nobel Paper \textit{DNA sequencing with the chain terminating inhibitors} which had a massive impact on the biological and medical sciences.
Articles \#5, \#9, \#15, and \#21 are all linked to the identification, classification, or prediction of very well known diseases (Prostate Cancer, AIDS, Leukemia).
As expected, Biology is the main contributor to the list, due to it being the largest field in our dataset. However, unlike for the highest cited papers for each year where Biology is virtually the only field present (see Table \ref{tab:highest_citations} in the Appendix), in this list diverse aspects of science are included. There are many papers from physics, with \#4, \#12, and \#24 being linked to the discovery of High Temperature Superconductivity, while \#11 and \#30 are linked to the development of Carbon Nanotubes and, in general, of Material Science. \#10 is among Amano's works that led to his Nobel Prize for the invention of efficient blue light emitting diodes. \#25 is a small summary of the recent (at the time) discoveries in the mathematical field of Fractals, as it was among the few cited works in the famous \textit{Self Organized Criticality: An Explanation of 1/f Noise}. Also, we can see contributions from Economics and Engineering with \#27, which discusses a computer method able to improve the efficiency of production of industrially assembled products. \#28 is one of the earliest attempts of statistical methods for assessing agreement between different clinical measurements.
Finally, the list also shows evidence of the relatively new field of complex networks, with \#23 being among the earliest papers in the field and cited by virtually all the most significant early publications in the field. Overall, we can see how $\delta$ is able to describe the growth in the whole scientific field of certain discoveries/subfields/hot topics by being able to identify
low cited papers that have been crucial in their early stages.
\begin{table}[t!]\footnotesize
\caption{The 30 publications with the highest relative difference in influence rank and citation count rank $\delta$ given in Eq.~\ref{eq:deltarank}.}
\label{tab:dead_beauties}
%
\begin{tabular}{c c c|p{6.5cm}}
\# & $R_c$ & $R_I$ & Title (year) \\ \hline
1 & 37588 & 5 & {\tiny \it Hybridization On Filters With Competitor Dna In Liquid-Phase In A Standardand A Micro-Assay (1974) }\\
2 & 23366 & 5 & {\tiny \it Nucleotide And Amino-Acid Sequences Of Gene-G Of Phix174 (1976)}\\
3 & 62269 & 18 & {\tiny \it Invitro Polyoma Dna-Synthesis - Inhibition By 1-Beta-D-Arabinofuranosyl Ctp (1975)}\\
4 & 88381 & 32 & {\tiny \it Inhomogeneous Superconducting Transitions In Granular A1 (1980)}\\
5 & 26353 & 10 & {\tiny \it An Adjustment To The 1997 Estimate For New Prostate Cancer Cases (1997)}\\
6 & 28047 & 11 & {\tiny \it Molecular Hybridization Between Rat Liver Deoxyribonucleic Acid And Complementary Ribonucleic Acid (1970)}\\
7 & 63260 & 25 & {\tiny \it A Novel Method For The Detection Of Polymorphic Restriction Sites By Cleavage Of Oligonucleotide Probes - Application To Sickle-Cell-Anemia (1985)}\\
8 & 105590 & 42 & {\tiny \it Phase-Diagram Of The (Laalo3)1-X (Srtio3)X Solid-Solution System, For X-Less-Than-Or-Equal-To 0.8 (1983)}\\
9 & 131750 & 72 & {\tiny \it A New Method Of Predicting Us And State-Level Cancer Mortality Counts For The Current Calendar Year (2004)}\\
10 & 114723 & 67 & {\tiny \it Zn Related Electroluminescent Properties In Movpe Grown Gan (1988)}\\
11 & 26020 & 16 & {\tiny \it Structure And Intercalation Of Thin Benzene Derived Carbon-Fibers (1989) }\\
12 & 12231 & 8 & {\tiny \it The Oxygen Defect Perovskite Bala4Cu5O13.4, A Metallic Conductor (1985)}\\
13 & 19801 & 13 & {\tiny \it Translation Of Encephalomyocarditis Viral-Rna In Oocytes Of Xenopus-Laevis (1972)}\\
14 & 4216.5 & 3 & {\tiny \it Amplified Ribosomal Dna From Xenopus-Laevis Has Heterogeneous Spacer Lengths (1974)}\\
15 & 42143 & 30 & {\tiny \it Classification Of Acute Leukemias (1975)}\\
16 & 62485 & 48 & {\tiny \it Wild Topology, Hyperbolic Geometry And Fusion Algebra Of High Energy Particle Physics (2002)}\\
17 & 58242 & 46 & {\tiny \it Relation Between Mobility Edge Problem And An Isotropic Xy Model (1978)}\\
18 & 42981 & 34 & {\tiny \it Transcriptional And Posttranscriptional Roles Of Glucocorticoid In The Expression Of The Rat 25,000 Molecular-Weight Casein Gene (1986)}\\
19 & 114240 & 91 & {\tiny \it The Use Of Biotinylated Dna Probes For Detecting Single Copy Human Restriction-Fragment-Length-Polymorphisms Separated By Electrophoresis (1986)}\\
20 & 92031 & 74 & {\tiny \it A Solid-State Nmr-Study On Crystalline Forms Of Nylon-6 (1989)}\\
21 & 89271 & 74 & {\tiny \it Multiple Opportunistic Infection In A Male-Homosexual In France (1982)}\\
22 & 11535 & 10 & {\tiny \it Synthesis Of Ribosomal Rna In Different Organisms - Structure And Evolution Of Rrna Precursor (1970)}\\
23 & 11227 & 10 & {\tiny \it Small-World Networks: Evidence For A Crossover Picture (1999)}\\
24 & 12064 & 13 & {\tiny \it Superconductivity At 52.5-K In The Lanthanum-Barium-Copper-Oxide System (1987)}\\
25 & 71919 & 82 & {\tiny \it Fractals - Wheres The Physics (1986)}\\
26 & 28044 & 33 & {\tiny \it The Complete Structure Of The Rat Thyroglobulin Gene (1986)}\\
27 & 21222 & 25 &{\tiny \it Interference Detection Among Solids And Surfaces (1979)}\\
28 & 81374 & 99 & {\tiny \it Comparison Of The New Miniature Wright Peak Flow Meter With The Standard Wright Peak Flow Meter (1979)}\\
29 & 7962 & 10 & {\tiny \it Studies On Polynucleotides .105. Total Synthesis Of Structural Gene For Analanine Transfer Ribonucleic-Acid From Yeast - Chemical Synthesis Of An Icosadeoxyribonucleotide Corresponding To Nucleotide Sequence 31 To 50 (1972)}\\
30 & 26908 & 34 & {\tiny \it Materials Science - Strength In Disunity (1992)}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Diffusion}
The persistent influence spreading method we just introduced is a simple and elegant method to model the spreading of knowledge in the citation network, but it is not the only plausible one. In the influence spreading, the tracked quantity can be copied, and the total amount in all publications can grow.
Next, we instead define a diffusion method where the original mass placed on the seed node (or nodes) is always strictly conserved. This allows us to track the diffusion of ideas not only from single publications but across journals, subfields, and fields.
The idea behind the diffusion method is to start a random walker from a seed publication that is randomly selected from a set of seed publications, and then, at each step, let it move from a publication to future publications citing it (see Fig. \ref{fig:schematic}). That is, if we have $N$ seed papers we assign the same initial probability $\hat{D}_{s \rightarrow s} = 1/N$ to all of them, and calculate the probability that the random walker goes through the rest of the publications as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diffusion}
\hat{D}_{s \rightarrow j} = \sum_{i \in \Gamma_{j}^{in}} \frac{\hat{D}_{s \rightarrow i}}{ k_{i}^{out}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_j^{in}$ is the set of publications cited by $j$, and $k_{i}^{out}$ is the number of publications citing $i$ (or, the out-degree).
Note that this process is sensitive to the time window we choose, as the future publications that we do not know about yet will change the degrees $k_{i}^{out}$, and thus probabilities of trajectories of the walkers. To negate this effect, we will focus on walks that have not passed beyond our observation year. That is, we only use the information available of each observation year, and the random walk process is re-calculated for each starting year and observation year pair. In addition, we are not interested in the raw probabilities of random walkers visiting the nodes $\hat{D}_{s \rightarrow i}$, but on the conditional visiting probabilities $D_{s \rightarrow i}(t)$ given that the walker is within given year $t$. Further, we will disregard any citations within each observation year to avoid emphasising the publications that are published towards the end of each year. It is also possible to define the model such that both the distribution of the initial mass and the diffusion process are based on the citations of the seed papers and of the child nodes. The results, although qualitatively different, are quantitively identical. See Appendix \ref{sec:alt_diffusion} for details about these methods and Appendix \ref{sec:computations} for details of how the diffusion probability is calculated.
\begin{figure}[htpb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\columnwidth]{push_panel.pdf}
\caption{
Examples of the diffusion process (a,c,e) and the exponential decays to the metastable state (b,d,f).
(a,b) The diffusion of scientific value for (a, b) \emph{economics} in 1970, (c, d) \emph{evolutionary biology} in 1980, and (e, f) the \emph{British Medical Journal} in 1990.
(a,c,e) The area in the bottom shows the amount of scientific value retained by the initialisation field (F), subfield (SF) or journal (J).
The contribution of the 8 largest fields/subfields/journals are also shown individually, and the contribution of other fields/subfields/journals are shown as light grey space.
In panel c the colours represent the following subfields (from bottom to top): \emph{evolutionary biology}, \emph{biology}, \emph{miscellaneous}, \emph{plant sciences}, \emph{anthropology}, \emph{ecology}, \emph{zoology}, \emph{genetics \& heredity}, \emph{arts \& humanities}, and \emph{general biology}.
In panel e the colours represent the following journals (from bottom to top): \emph{Br. Med. J.}, \emph{Lancet}, \emph{Br. J. Gen. Pract.}, \emph{Bmj-British Medical Journal}, \emph{Med. J. Aust.}, \emph{Postgrad. Med. J.}, \emph{Arch. Dis. Child.}, \emph{J. Clin. Pathol.}, and \emph{Med. Clin.}.
The panels (b,d,f) instead show the renormalised value of $D$ retained within each field/subfield/journal for different years (markers) and with the exponential fitting (solid line).}
\label{fig:push_panel}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Relationship to persistent influence}
The equation for diffusion, Eq. \ref{eq:diffusion}, resembles the equation for the persistent influence, Eq. \ref{eq:impact}, but the similarity between these two runs deeper than that. In fact, the persistent influence values $I_{s \rightarrow i}$ can also be considered in terms of a diffusion process that goes backwards in time. That is, the persistent influence value starting from a single seed publication $s$, $I_{s \rightarrow i}$, is equal to $\hat{D}_{i \rightarrow s}$ in a network where the directions of the links are reversed and the diffusion process starts from the node $i$. In this sense, the two processes, the persistent influence and the diffusion are complementary to each other.
\subsection{Empirical Results}
When starting the diffusion process, we select a field, a subfield, or a journal and a starting time $t_0$, and track the probability that the random walker is found in a field $D_{F}(t)$, a subfield $D_{SF}(t)$, or a journal $D_{J}(t)$ at time $t$ (using a resolution of one year). This process is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:push_panel}a,c,e for the initial field of \emph{economics} (in 1970), the subfield of \emph{evolutionary biology} (in 1980), and the \emph{British Medical Journal} (in 1990). In the case of journal-level aggregation, the probability for finding the random walker in the seed journal equals one in the beginning. However, when aggregating results on the level of fields or subfields, papers can be associated with multiple fields or subfields. In this case, we initially split the total probability equally among all the fields or subfields the paper belongs to.
As the diffusion process progresses, the random walker jumps between publications that can be in different groups (i.e., fields, subfields, or journals) with the possibility of returning to the original one.
However, as expected in any diffusion process, the random walker will forget its origin, and the amount of probability mass in the original group goes down monotonically as time progresses. This process is observed to be slow in the examples of Fig. \ref{fig:push_panel}a-c.
For \emph{economics}, the probability of finding the walker in other fields has not grown significantly even after 40 years of random walk.
Similarly, for the subfield of \emph{evolutionary biology} and \emph{British Medical Journal} the walker is far from forgetting its origin during the observation period. These two initial groups seem to lose probability mass very fast to other groups in the beginning, but this fast phase is then followed by a very slow change, which is almost like a plateau compared to the initial rate of change.
In a stationary system, which the citation network is not, one would expect the diffusion eventually to completely forget its origin and settle to a stationary distribution. Furthermore, such stationary citation system would likely be ergodic, and the stationary state would be unique. The behaviour observed for the fields, subfields and journals do not reach such a unique stationary state, but they seem to be rapidly reaching a metastable state, where the probability of finding a random walker in a specific field, subfield or journal does not change much in time but where these probabilities are not independent of the origin. This observation could, for example, be explained by a network structure containing strong clusters where the random walkers get trapped for the time scales of the data.
\subsection{Summarizing the diffusion curves}
The above procedure of observing the diffusion patterns is very cumbersome if the goal is to get an idea of the system-wide behaviour of diffusion starting from different groups. In order to summarize the results of the patterns such as the ones presented in Fig. \ref{fig:push_panel}a,c,e, we have looked only at the amount of value retained by each group. For each starting year $t_0$, we observe the yearly values of the initial group $D_{G}(t)$ and normalize them with the initial value before any diffusion $D_G(t_0)$. We then fit each curve with an exponential of the form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:curve}
D_G(t)/D_G(t_0) = (1-\beta) e^{-\alpha t} + \beta\,,
\end{equation}
which follows well the typical shape we observe for the curve. The fits for the previously discussed example cases are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:push_panel}b,d,f.
These fits allow us to summarize both the rate of change of the value of the initial years (through $\alpha$) and find the final plateau value (through $\beta$). Therefore, $\alpha$ can be used to measure the rate at which one group shares its knowledge with other groups that are close to it, and $\beta$ instead represents the intrinsic ``conservativeness'' of a group and the other groups related to it, i.e. the amount of knowledge retained within the boundaries of the group itself in medium time scales.
In order to provide an easier metric for the exponential decay, we introduce a related parameter called half-life $t^{1/2}$ defined as the time required to lose half of the possible plateau value. That is by solving %
\begin{equation} \label{eq1}
\begin{split}
(1 - \beta)e^{-\alpha t^{1/2}} + \beta & = 1- \frac{1 - \beta}{2} \,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we get the conventional definition of half-life:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:half_life}
t^{1/2} = \ln(2)/\alpha \,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{$t^{1/2}$ and $\beta$ in the data}
With the above-mentioned ideas on summarizing the diffusion processes in mind, we can put together information about all the possible initial times and fields, subfields, and journals. Table \ref{tab:fields_1970} shows the values for the half-lives, $t_{1/2}$s, and plateau values, $\beta$s, in 1970 and 1995. We can see that in general there is a decreasing trend for half-lives while the plateau value $\beta$ instead shows a much more stable pattern.
Some of the individual fields display interesting patterns. The field of \emph{multidisciplinary} has the lowest half-life for both starting years, coherently with the fact that it is meant to be a field open to sharing its knowledge with others. However, its change in $\beta$ is positive and the second highest (behind \emph{music}).
This could indicate that \emph{multidisciplinary} might have become a field of its own, which can retain random walkers within itself for long periods of time. This observation is coherent with the evidence that shows the increasing role of interdisciplinarity in science \cite{Pan2012interdisciplinarity,Sinatra2015,Rosvall29012008,Porter2009}. It is also interesting to note that while in 1970 some humanistic fields show very high values for their half-lives, e.g. (\emph{philosophy}, \emph{history}, \emph{anthropology}, \emph{literature}, and \emph{linguistics}), these fields also show some of the highest changes in time, putting them much closer to hard sciences these days than they were before.
A more systematic observation on the changes in the speed of the diffusion process is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:distribution_panel}(a,c,e) which displays the change of half-lives for a set of fields and changes in the distributions of half-lives for all subfields and journals. All of the fields show a speeding-up pattern, losing between 20 and 60 percent of their half-life values, while for subfields and journals the more recent cumulative distributions of half-lives are above the older ones, showing that the values have in general decreased.
\subsection{Renormalizing the time}
Previous studies show \cite{PDBP} that the time as such may not be the best choice for measuring the rate at which changes happen in science, but instead use the numbers of papers published as the measure of progress. In other words, science can be considered to be ``updated'' every time a new publication is introduced in the system, and the count of such updates is a better measure of ``progress'' in science than simply the time elapsed.
As the number of publications per year $N(t)$ grows exponentially, one would theoretically expect that the functional form of the exponential decay given by~\ref{eq:curve} would have to be adjusted when measuring time in terms of published papers. However, as the growth rate of yearly publication number is sufficiently small $N(t) \approx
N_{0}e^{\delta t}$ with $\delta \sim 0.05 \, (\text{year}^{-1})$ across all the fields, we can approximate this exponential growth by a simple, linear function $e^{\delta t} \approx (1+\delta t)$ for the span of time $t$ that we consider.
This allows us to use the functional forms given by Eq.~\ref{eq:curve} also for fitting the half-lives $t^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and the asymptotic fractions $\beta$ when the time is measured in terms of published papers.
Hence we are able to follow the earlier procedure we applied to real time and quantify the half-lives in terms of the numbers of published papers. We chose to use the number of published papers in each field as a unit of time for the fields, while for the subfields and journals we used the data from all scientific publications.
In Fig.\ref{fig:distribution_panel}b,d,f we show the half-lives that are fitted in terms of published papers. Interestingly, now the half-lives do not in general decrease as a function of the publication year as only \emph{chemistry} shows such a clearly decreasing pattern. The other fields, instead, either remain constant or show a significant increase in their half-lives over time.
A very similar result can be seen in the half-life distributions for subfields and journals, which are shifted to higher numbers of papers as the initial time increases. That is, these results suggest that the growth in the speed of diffusion can be explained by the increase in the rate at which publications are published.
\definecolor{tableneg}{rgb}{1.0,0.0,0.0}
\definecolor{tablepos}{rgb}{0.0,0.5,0.0}
\begin{table} %
\caption{
The half-lives in years ($t^{\frac{1}{2}}$) and the asymptotic fractions ($\beta$) for a subset of fields in 1970 and 1995 when the evolution of the diffusion process is fitted to Eq. \ref{eq1}. The relative changes from 1970 to 1995 in these values are given in the last two columns.
}
\label{tab:fields_1970}
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ l @{\hspace{0.3cm}} c @{\hspace{0.3cm}} c @{\hspace{0.6cm}} c @{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c @{\hspace{0.2cm}}c}
& \multicolumn{2}{ c @{\hspace{0.6cm}}}{1970}&\multicolumn{2}{ c @{\hspace{0.3cm}}}{1995} &\multicolumn{2}{ c }{$\Delta$} \\
{\bf Field} & $t^{\frac{1}{2}}$ & $\beta$ & $t^{\frac{1}{2}}$ &$\beta$ &$ t^{\frac{1}{2}}$&$ \beta$\\ \hline
\hline
Philosophy & 19.7 & 0.84 & 4.36 & 0.90 &{\color{tableneg}-78\%} &{\color{tablepos}+7\%}\\
Economics & 11.0 & 0.83 & 4.20 & 0.76 & {\color{tableneg}-62\%} & {\color{tableneg}-8\%} \\
Psychology & 8.93 & 0.72 & 3.44 & 0.67 & {\color{tableneg}-61\%} & {\color{tableneg}-7\%} \\
Linguistics & 8.86 & 0.87 & 3.02 & 0.90 & {\color{tableneg}-66\%} & {\color{tablepos}+3\%} \\
Chemistry & 8.55 & 0.80 & 1.99 & 0.80 & {\color{tableneg}-77\%} & 0\% \\
Music \& Dance & 7.83 & 0.82 & 6.18 & 0.98 & {\color{tableneg}-21\%} & {\color{tablepos}+20\%} \\
Gen. Humanities & 7.25 & 0.85 & 3.43 & 0.95 & {\color{tableneg}-53\%} & {\color{tablepos}+12\%} \\
Mathematics & 7.14 & 0.87 & 3.21 & 0.79 & {\color{tableneg}-55\%} & {\color{tableneg}-9\%} \\
Medicine & 6.54 & 0.83 & 3.20 & 0.85 & {\color{tableneg}-51\%} & {\color{tablepos}+2\%} \\
Sociology & 6.34 & 0.80 & 3.72 & 0.73 & {\color{tableneg}-41\%} & {\color{tableneg}-9\%} \\
Engineering & 4.89 & 0.82 & 2.33 & 0.79 & {\color{tableneg}-52\%} & {\color{tableneg}-4\%} \\
Law & 4.38 & 0.92 & 7.21 & 0.80 & {\color{tablepos}+65\%} & {\color{tableneg}-13\%}\\
Social Sciences & 4.38 & 0.73 & 2.35 & 0.59 & {\color{tableneg}-46\%} & {\color{tableneg}-19\%} \\
Physics & 4.01 & 0.82 & 2.32 & 0.81 & {\color{tableneg}-42\%} & {\color{tableneg}-1\%} \\
Management & 3.72 & 0.78 & 3.60 & 0.66 & {\color{tableneg}-3\% } & {\color{tableneg}-15\%} \\
Biology & 3.43 & 0.71 & 1.69 & 0.70 & {\color{tableneg}-51\%} & {\color{tableneg}-1\%} \\
Multidisciplinary & 1.33 & 0.59 & 1.08 & 0.59 & {\color{tableneg}-19\%} & 0\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htpb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\columnwidth]{distribution_panel.pdf}
\caption{Changes in half-lives in real time (left column, panels a,c,e) and time measured in number of papers (right, panels b,d,f). %
(a, b) The evolution of the half-lives for 8 fields normalized with the half-lives they they had in 1970.
All half-lives measured in real time (a) show a downward trend, while when time is measured in the number of papers in the field (b), most fields show an upward trend, which indicates a slowing down in the time required to share knowledge with other fields.
The cumulative distribution for half-lives for all subfields (SF) they are measured in (c) real time and (d) total number of papers in the system.
Panels (e) and (f) show the same distribution for journals (J).
}
\label{fig:distribution_panel}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
Ever since bibliometric data of scientific publications have been available, there has been efforts to analyse such data with the goal of quantifying scientific research. The dominant framework has been to use the counts of direct citations between publications, journal, and research fields in order to quantify the relationships between them, and, for example, to rank authors \cite{10.2307/4152261}, publications \cite{Garfield1955}, universities \cite{vanRaan2005}, and institutions \cite{Boyack2003}. As these methods work reasonably well \cite{ASI:ASI20262}, and apart from few exceptions \cite{Chen20078,PhysRevE.80.056103}, the improvements of these methods have been correcting technical flaws \cite{Seglen1997,Frey2010}. However, most of the previous research has ignored the intrinsic conceptual issue of methods based on just counting citations: they ignore the fact that scientific publications are not only based on the information created in the publications they cite, but on the whole body of literature underneath this first layer of publications.
We have introduced two simple methods to analyse how the knowledge created in a publication, or in a group of publications, might percolate through the scientific literature. This approach follows the tradition of modelling the dynamics on networks, where a real observed network is used as a substrate where the progress of a stylized model is tracked. This approach has been extensively used in network science to study epidemic spreading \cite{Pastor2015Epidemic} and social dynamics \cite{RevModPhys.81.591}. In all of these cases, the models are not expected to exactly mimic the real behaviour, but the goal is to reproduce the behaviour in the large scale with an accuracy that is enough to make at least qualitative statements about the system. Our goal in this work was to explore this approach in knowledge spreading in citation networks.
The first of our two measures, \textit{persistent influence}, is based on the idea of papers inheriting the knowledge of papers they cite, \textit{i.e.}, the ``shoulders'' on which they stand. As a consequence, a paper can influence later papers through chains of citations. As expected, the out-degree, in other words the direct citation count, is positively correlated with the persistent influence, but we also observe that papers that are similar in publication date and citation count can have a wide range of the persistent influence values. In our simulations we have found publications that have several orders of magnitude higher influence values than papers with similar numbers of citations. This finding suggests that there are publications for which the citation count can be a poor proxy for tracking the global cumulative influence.
We tested the hypothesis that the discrepancies in the citation counts and global persistent influence values are not meaningful but simply noise added by the global process, and to do this we used papers associated with Nobel Prizes as a manually curated corpus for presumably high influence on science. We found a significant over-performance in terms of the persistent influence by the Nobel papers when compared to the publications with similar intial citation counts and publication dates. Thus the indirect influence (i.e., the persistent influence) and direct influence (i.e., the citation count) seem to capture different aspects of the influence of a publication. Furthermore, we looked at the papers that have the greatest increase in rank while switching from the local to the global scenario, and found that these papers are often early publications in the fields that would later become hot topics of their time in the scientific world.
The second modelling approach we employed was a simple \textit{diffusion} method. We focused on analysing the rate of diffusion of knowledge across the fields, subfields, and journals. We summarized the curves describing the loss of diffusing knowledge to other fields, subfields, and journals by an exponential decay function that reaches a plateau value. Each starting time and set of seed publications can thus be described by a plateau value of the retained knowledge $\beta$ and by a typical time required $t^{1/2}$ to share half of the available knowledge. We found that $\beta$ varies heavily across disciplines, yet remaining constant in time, while the values for the half-life, $t^{1/2}$, have been steadily decreasing, suggesting an increase in the interdisciplinarity of research. However, we showed that the faster sharing of information could be explained by the increase in the rate at which publications are produced.
One crucial difference between the diffusion and persistence influence models is that in the diffusion model the total amount of knowledge created in some publication is conserved across papers citing it, whereas in the persistent influence model the knowledge is allowed to ``duplicate'' across papers. Given that there is no reason why many publications could not contain a same piece of knowledge, out of these two models the persistent influence approach is likely to provide a more realistic picture of how knowledge spreads in citation networks. The diffusion on the other hand could be considered as more of a theoretical tool to understand the structure of the citation networks.
The work done here forms a basis for future possibilities of the model-based approaches to track global knowledge spreading in citation networks. For example, more detailed look at the long-term destinations of influence starting from various sources could bring interesting results. Note also that nothing would stop one, to introduce the initial persistent influence to a group of papers (instead of a single publication) similar to the diffusion process, and repeat the type of analysis done here for fields, subfields and journals using the persistent influence model. Furthermore, one can easily reverse the tracking direction of the persistent influence model and investigate which publications, or groups of publications, in the history have influenced individual papers. One can also make the influence spreading more realistic with the cost of increasing the complexity of the model. For example, the amount of knowledge created by each publication can be added as a parameter, which will effectively work as a damping factor that will decrease the influence of very long chains of citations.
We have introduced relatively simple methods to analyse the spreading of knowledge in citation networks at a global scale, and shown that these methods can lead to significantly different results than what can be obtained by using the local approach. With more and more bibliometric data being available, we hope that our findings will encourage future work to analyse science for what it is and has always been: a cumulative process that builds over time in which the successes in scientific discoveries are built on chains of previous successes.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We used data from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index and Arts \& Humanities Citation Index, prepared by Thomson Reuters,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Copyright Thomson Reuters, 2013. This research is partially supported by the European Community’s H2020 Program under the scheme
ìINFRAIA-1-2014-2015: Research Infrastructures’, grant agreement 654024 SoBigData: Social Mining. K.K. would also like to acknowledge financial support by the Academy of Finland Research project (COSDYN)
No. 276439 and EU HORIZON 2020 FET Open RIA project (IBSEN) No. 662725.
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{table}{0}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.