\section{Introduction and preliminaries}\label{sec:intro}
Transmission of signals using frames, a redundant set of vectors in a Hilbert space (usually $\mathbb{R}^n$ or $\mathbb{C}^n$), is advantageous over orthonormal or Riesz bases due to their redundancy property which reduces losses and errors of reconstructed signals when some coefficients are
 lost in the transmission process. A lot of works is oriented towards  searching the best frames, according to some chosen criteria, optimizing the errors occurred during the recovery of transmitted signals. See \cite{goyal2001,vershynin2005,casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,bodmann2005,lopez2010optimal,leng2011optimal,leng2011optimalprob,leng2013probability,li2018frame,morillas2017optimal,miao2018class,dunkel2016quant} and the references therein.

The source information is viewed as a vector $x\in\mathbb{K}^n$ ($\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$), which is decomposed, via $m\geq n$ expansion coefficients with respect to some fixed frame.  These $m$ scalars are then sent over the networks. Due to unpredictable communication losses, the receiver may not receive the whole $m$ packets. During the last decades, one big problem for researchers is to construct optimal frames that minimize the recovering error of the original signals. In particular,   it has been shown  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,bodmann2005} that uniform tight frames are optimal for 1-erasure and the equiangular frames are optimal for 2-erasures. ( See below for appropriate definitions). 

We point out here that a probabilistic model related to erasure recovery was introduced in \cite{li2018optimal,leng2011optimalprob,leng2013probability,li2018frame}. In this model, the authors  assigned to each of the $m$ channels a probability of loss $p_i$, $i=1, \dots, m$. Next, they consider a new (transformed) probability distribution:  $q_i=F(p_1,\dots,p_m)$, $i=1,\dots,m$.  
 
 In our model, introduced later, we consider only the original probability distribution $(p_i)_{i=1}^m$, and we obtain even better results than  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,leng2013probability,li2018frame} as it is proved in Section \ref{sec:comparison}.
 
The remaining of this section recalls some notations and basics of frame theory.  In Section \ref{sec:revising_prob_model} we set up our revisited probabilistic model and establish several results to characterize the optimal frames minimizing the recovery error of the transmitted  data. Section \ref{sec:comparison} is devoted to compare our results to those obtained in  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,leng2013probability,li2018frame}.

Throughout this paper, we will refer by (CM) and (PM) to those models introduced in  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal} and 
\cite{leng2013probability,li2018frame} respectively, while (RPM) will refer to our revisited model introduced later in Section \ref{sec:revising_prob_model}.

A sequence $f:=(f_i)_{i=1}^m\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is called a frame  if there exist constants $0<A\leq B<\infty$ such that 
$$A\Vert x\Vert^2\leq\sum_{i=1}^m\vert\langle x,f_i\rangle\vert^2\leq B\Vert x\Vert^2,$$
holds for every $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$. If $A=B$, the frame is called tight. When $A=B=1$, then it is said to be a Parseval frame. If all elements of the frame have the same norm, it is called   uniform frame. If $\vert\langle f_i,f_j\rangle\vert$ is a constant for all $i\neq j$, the frame is called   equiangular.

In all the sequel, a frame of $m$ vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$ will be called a $(m,n)$-frame and the set of all $(m,n)$-frames will be  denoted by $\mathcal{F}(m,n)$.

The frame analysis operator related to $f$ is denoted by $T:=T_f$ and given by
$$Tx:=\left(\scal{x,f_i}\right)_{i=1}^m,\quad  x\in\mathbb{R}^n,$$
and the frame synthesis operator is 
given by $$T^{*}(c_1,\dots,c_m):= \sum_{i=1}^m c_if_i, \quad (c_1,\dots,c_m)\in\mathbb{R}^m.$$

From now on,  we identify the operators $T$ and $T^*$, related to $f$,  with there associated matrices in the canonical basis. 

The  operator $S:=T^{*}T$  is called the  frame operator  associated to the frame $F$. It is known that $S$ is a symmetric positive definite operator.

Two $(m,n)$-frames  $(f_i)_{i=1}^m $ and $( g_i)_{i=1}^m $  are called dual to each other if we have
$$x=\sum_{i=1}^m \langle x,f_i\rangle g_i=\sum_{i=1}^m \langle x,g_i\rangle f_i,$$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$. 
In particular, the  frame $f:=(f_i)_{i=1}^m $ and $(S^{-1}f_i)_{i=1}^m$ are dual and the latter is called the canonical dual frame of $f$.

The next result, known as the fundamental inequality, is a useful tool for our developments later. 
\begin{prop}[ \cite{casazza2006physical}]\label{pro:fundam_ineq}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be an $n-$dimensional Hilbert space, and let $(a_i)_{i=1}^m$ be a  sequence of positive real numbers. Then, there exists a tight
frame $( f_i)_{i=1}^m\subset\mathcal{H}$ with $\nrm{f_i}= a_i$ for all $i$, if and only if we have
$$\max_{i=1,\dots,m}a_i^2\leq\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^ma_i^2.$$
\end{prop}

\section{Probabilistic model for erasures}
\label{sec:a_prob_model}
In this section we present some of the basics of data erasure recovery using frame expansion theory along with a  probabilistic model.

Let $f:=( f_i)_{i=1}^m$ be a Parseval frame in $\mathbb{R}^n$. 
The data to be transmitted by means of the frame $f$ is decomposed into packets $x\in\mathbb{R}^m$, and each packet $x$ is sent, to some receiver, as a vector $y=Tx=(\scal{x,f_i})_{i=1}^m\in\mathbb{R}^m$, where $T$ is the analysis operator associated to $f$. 

In the standard recovery model way, we let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the set of indexes corresponding to surviving coefficients of $y$. Thus, the recovered vector is given by $\tilde{x}=T^*Qy$, where  $Q$ stands for the $m\times m$ matrix  defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_matrix_Q}
	\begin{cases}
	Q_{ii}=1 \quad i\in\mathcal{R},\\
Q_{ij}=0\quad\mathrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and the reconstruction error is evaluated by 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_error}
x-\tilde{x}= (T^*DT)x,
\end{equation}
where $D:=I_m-Q$. 

The main concern of optimizing  data erasure is to seek, within the set of $(m,n)$-frame $F$, the optimums of the quantity 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_d_r}
d_r(F ):= \max_{D\in\mathcal{D}_r}\Vert T^*DT\Vert,
\end{equation}
where, for $1 \leq r\leq m$, $\mathcal{D}_r,$ denotes the set of $m\times m$ diagonal matrices with $r$ ones and $m-r$ zeros and the used norm here is the operator norm.
See \cite{casazza2003equal,bodmann2005,holmes2004optimal} for details and results related to the optimization problem associated to \eqref{eq:def_d_r} in the cases $r=1,2$.
 
To enhance the minimization problem related to \eqref{eq:def_d_r}, a probabilistic model of erasures was introduced in  \cite{leng2011optimalprob,leng2013probability,li2018frame}. More precisely, they associate to the  $i^\text{th}$ channel, $i=1,\dots,m$, a coefficient $p_i$,  representing the probability that erasure occurs in this channel, and in place of the matrix $Q$ defined in \eqref{eq:def_matrix_Q},  they used a new matrix
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_matrix_Q_p}
	\begin{cases}
	Q_{ii}=q_i \quad i\in\mathcal{R},\\
Q_{ij}=0\quad\mathrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the weights $(q_i)_{i=1}^m$ are given by 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_prob_q_i}
q_i:=\frac{m-1}{n}\frac{\sum_{k=1}^m p_k}{ \sum_{k=1}^m p_k-p_i}.
\end{equation}
 See \cite{leng2011optimalprob,leng2013probability,li2018frame} for details.

\section{A revisited probabilistic model} \label{sec:revising_prob_model}

In this section, we introduce our new revisited probabilistic model and investigate the optimal frames for erasure related to \eqref{eq:def_d_r}. 

The main idea behind our model is that for a given frame $f=(f_i)_{i=1}^m$, the recovered data may be written as 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_x_tilde}
\widetilde{x}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}(1-X_i) \scal{x,f_i}f_i,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
where  $X_i$, $i=1,\dots, m$ is a sequence of independent Bernoulli random variables associated to the $m$ channels such that 
\begin{center}
	``$X_i=1$'' is the event ``Erasure occurred at the  $i^\text{th}$ channel,
\end{center}
and   
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_Bernoulli_distrib}
\mathbb{P}(X_i=1)=p_i, \quad i=1,\dots, m,
\end{equation}
where the $p_i$'s are given.

Hence from  \eqref{eq:def_x_tilde} we see that for $x$ fixed,  $\widetilde{x}$ is a vector-valued random variable such that $$\widetilde{x}=S^{-1}T^{*}(I_m-D_X) Tx,$$
 where $D_X:=\mr{diag}(X_1,\dots,X_m)$ and $T$, $S$ are respectively the analysis and frame operators associated to the frame $f$. 
 
 The ``random'' error in our model is then set by 
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:expr_random_error}
 x-\tilde{x}=(S^{-1}T^*D_XT)x.
 \end{equation}
 
 To evaluate this ``random'' error, we are led to investigate the minimization problem
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:def_random_error_0}
 \inf_{F\in\mathcal{F}(m,n)}\mathbb{E}\left(\nrm{ S^{-1}T^*D_XT}\right),
 \end{equation}
 where $\mathbb{E}$ is the expectation operator and  $\nrm{.}$ is the  operator norm induced  by the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
 
  
In fact we will show, in a while, that  in the minimization problem  \eqref{eq:def_random_error_0}, we can  restrict ourselves to the smallest set of Parseval frames. To do so, we need first the following Lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tech_lemma}
	Let $A$ and $B$ be two  auto-adjoint  bounded operators in a Hilbert space $\mc{H}$. We suppose further that $A$ is positive. Then $$\nrm{AB}\geq \nrm{A^{1/2}BA^{1/2}}.$$
	Here, the above norm is the operator norm induced by the Euclidean norm in $\mc{H}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
	Appealing to the inequality $(1)$ in \cite[Theorem 1]{fujii1993norm} we have
	$$\nrm{AB}+\nrm{BA}\geq \nrm{AB+BA}\geq 2\nrm{A^{1/2}BA^{1/2}}.$$
	Our claim follows noticing that $$\nrm{BA}=\nrm{\left(BA\right)^*}=\nrm{AB}.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{pro:set_inf}
	We have
	$$\inf_{f\in\mathcal{F}(m,n)}\mathbb{E}_X\left(\nrm{S_f^{-1}T_f^*D_XT_f}\right)\geq \inf_{f\in\mathcal{P}(m,n)}\mathbb{E}_X\left(\nrm{T_f^*D_XT_f}\right),$$ where the notations  $S_f, T_f$ are used to  emphasis the dependence of these operators to their related frame $f$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Pick up a frame $f\in\mathcal{F}(m,n)$. Then owing to Lemma \ref{lem:tech_lemma}, we have
	\begin{align*}
	\nrm{S_f^{-1}T_f^*D_XT_f}&\geq \nrm{S_f^{-1/2}T_f^*D_XT_fS_f^{-1/2}}\\
	&=\nrm{T_g^*D_XT_g},
	\end{align*}
	where $g:=S_f^{-1/2}f$. The result follows noticing that  $g$ is a Parseval frame.
\end{proof}
Owing to Proposition \ref{pro:set_inf}, the minimization problem  \eqref{eq:def_random_error_0} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exp_random_error}
\inf_{F\in\mathcal{P}(m,n)}\mathbb{E}_X\left(\nrm{T^*D_XT}\right).
\end{equation}

In all the sequel, we will refer to our revisited probabilistic model by (RPM).

If we let $\mc{J}_r$ denotes the set of none empty subsets  of $\set{1,\dots,m}$ having exactly $r$ elements, $r\geq 1$, then since the $X_i$'s are independent,  straightforward calculations give us
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r_erasure_expect_error}
  \mathbb{E}\left(\nrm{T^*D_XT}|N=r \right)=\frac{1}{\mathbb{P}(N=r)}\sum_{J\in \mc{J}_r} \nrm{\left(f_{i}\right)_{i\in J} \left(f_{i}\right)_{i\in J}^*}\prod_{i\in J}p_{i} \prod_{i\notin J}(1-p_i),
  \end{equation}
where $\left(f_{i}\right)_{i\in J}$ stands for  the matrix whose columns are $f_{i}$, $i\in J$, and  $N=X_1+\dots+X_m$.

To make things easy, we follow   \cite{casazza2003equal, holmes2004optimal, bodmann2005, leng2011optimalprob, li2018optimal, leng2013probability, li2018frame, miao2018class, morillas2017optimal, lopez2010optimal, leng2011optimal} and determine the optimal frames for 1-erasure, then 2-erasures and so forth as explained below. 

For each $(m,n)$-frame $F:=(f_i)_{i=1}^m$ and $r=1,\dots,m$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_d_p_r}
d_{p,r}(F) = \max_{J\in \mc{J}_r}\nrm{(f_{i})_{i\in J}(f_{i})_{i\in J}^*}\prod_{i\in J}p_i\prod_{i\notin J}(1-p_i),
\end{equation}
so that, 
$$ \mathbb{E}\left(\nrm{T^*D_XT}|N=r \right)\leq  \frac{{m\choose r}}{\mathbb{P}(N=r)}d_{p,r}(F).$$

It is easily checked that the value
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_e_1_p}
	e_{p,1}(m,n):= \inf_{F\in\mathcal{F}(m,n)}d_{p,1}(F),
\end{equation}
is attained. This allows us to define 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_E_1_p}
\mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n):= \lbrace F\in \mathcal{F}(m,n) : d_{p,1}(F) = e_1(m,n)\rbrace.
\end{equation}
Proceeding inductively, we define 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_e_r_p}
e_{p,r}(m,n):= \inf_{F\in\mathcal{E}_{r-1}(m,n)}d_{p,r}(F), \quad 2\leq r \leq m,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_E_r_p}
\mathcal{E}_{p,r}(m,n):= \lbrace F\in \mathcal{E}_{p,r-1}(m,n): d_{p,r}(F) = e_{p,r}(m,n)\rbrace.
\end{equation}

Setting $r=1$ in \eqref{eq:def_d_p_r}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expr_d_p,1}
d_{p,1}(F) = \max_{i=1,\dots,m}\tilde{p}_i\nrm{ f_i}^2
\end{equation}
where 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_p_i_tielda}
	\tilde{p}_i:=p_i\prod_{k\neq i}(1-p_k). 
\end{equation}



In the case of 2-erasure, that is $r=2$, we are led to calculate, for $i,j\in \set{1,\dots,m}$, the operator norm $$\nrm{(f_{i},f_j)(f_{i},f_j)^*},$$
where $(f_{i},f_j)$ denotes the matrix whose columns are $f_i$ and $f_j$ respectively. We notice that 
$$\nrm{(f_{i},f_j)(f_{i},f_j)^*}=\nrm{(f_{i},f_j)^T(f_{i},f_j)}=\begin{bmatrix}
\nrm{f_i}^2&  \scal{f_i,f_j}  \\  \scal{f_i,f_j}&  \nrm{f_j}^2 
\end{bmatrix},
$$
from which we deduce that 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expr_d_p,2}
d_{p,2}(F) = \frac{1}{2}\max_{\substack{i,j=1,\dots,m\\ i\neq j}}\tilde{p}_{ij}\Big(\nrm{f_i}^2+\Vert f_j\Vert^2+\sqrt{(\nrm{f_i}^2-\Vert f_j\Vert^2)^2+4(\langle f_i,f_j\rangle)^2} \Big)
\end{equation}
where 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_p_ij_tielda}
\tilde{p}_{ij}:=p_ip_j\prod_{k\neq i,j}(1-p_k). 
\end{equation}



\begin{remark}\label{rem:assumption_on_p}
	Having a probability $p_i=0$ means that no erasure occurs at the $i^{\text{th}}$ channel, which is almost impossible in real situations. Alternatively, having a probability $p_i=1$ means that the data transmitted via the $i^\text{th}$ channel gets lost with certainty and then this channel is useless. 
	
	Therefore, with these considerations in mind, from now on we will assume that $0< p_i<1$ for all $i=1,\dots,m$.
	
	Also, up to rename the channels, we may and will suppose that  
	$$p_1\leq p_2\leq \dots \leq p_m.$$	
\end{remark}

\medskip

Before going further in our developments, it is worth mentioning here that in the case of equal probability, that is  $0< p_1=\dots= p_m=p<1$, the models  studying optimal frames for erasures in  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,bodmann2005} are a particular case of our probabilistic model. Indeed, in this setting we get 
	 $\mathcal{E}_{p,r}(m,n)=\mathcal{E}_r(m,n)$ for all $r=1,\dots,m,$ where 
$\mathcal{E}_r(m,n)$ is the set of optimal $(m,n)-$Parseval frames for $r-$erasures according to the models in \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal,bodmann2005}. 

\medskip

Now we will proceed to prepare our main result Theorem  \ref{thm:One_earsure_optimums}.


\begin{defn}\label{def:condition_H}
	Let $\alpha:=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m)\in {(0,+\infty)}^m$. We will say that  $\alpha$ satisfies the condition $(H)$ if we have
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:H}\tag{H}
	\alpha_i\geq \frac{n}{\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{1}{\alpha_k}}, \quad \forall i=1,\dots,m.
	\end{equation} 
\end{defn}


The following lemma is crucial for the characterization of optimal frames in the 1-erasure case in  our model.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:alpha_min_pb}
Let $h$, $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m$ be positive   real numbers. Then the minimization problem

\begin{equation}\label{eq:min_pb}
\min_{{}^{t_1+\dots+t_m=h}_{t_i\geq 0,\, i=1,\dots,m}}\max\lbrace\alpha_1t_1,\dots,\alpha_mt_m\rbrace,
\end{equation}
admits a unique solution given by 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expr_min_solution}
\frac{h}{\sum_{i=1}^m\frac{1}{\alpha_i}}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha_1},\dots,\frac{1}{\alpha_m}\right).
\end{equation}Consequently, its optimal value is $\frac{h}{\sum_{i=1}^m\frac{1}{\alpha_i}}.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First of all, by a compacity argument, the minimization problem \eqref{eq:min_pb} does have a solution, say $(w_1,\dots,w_m)$. Since the $m$-tuple given by \eqref{eq:expr_min_solution} satisfies the conditions of the minimization problem \eqref{eq:min_pb}, we get 
$$\alpha_k w_k \leq \frac{h}{\sum_{i=1}^m\frac{1}{\alpha_i}},\quad \forall\, k=1,\dots,m.$$

If one among the $m$ inequalities above is strict, then this will lead to 
$$\sum_{k=1}^m w_k<\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{h}{\alpha_k\sum_{i=1}^m\frac{1}{\alpha_i}}=h,$$
which is a contradiction and ends the proof.
\end{proof}


\begin{remark}\label{rem:min_pb}
It is worth noting that the minimization problem \eqref{eq:min_pb} equivalents to 
$$\min_{{}^{t_1+\dots+t_m=h}_{t_i> 0,\, i=1,\dots,m}}\max\lbrace\alpha_1t_1,\dots,\alpha_mt_m\rbrace.$$
\end{remark}



 Now we are ready to determine the set $\mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$ of optimal frames for 1-erasure according to our probabilistic model.
 
 
 For simplicity, in all the sequel we will write  $I:=\set{1,\dots,m}$.  
 
 
 Fix  $p:=(p_1,\dots,p_m)\in \left(]0,1[\right)^m$ and define $\tilde{p}:=(\tilde{p}_1, \dots,\tilde{p}_m)$ as in \eqref{eq:def_p_i_tielda}. 
 
 It is worth noting that by Proposition \ref{pro:fundam_ineq}, the minimization problem \eqref{eq:def_e_1_p} becomes
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:e_p_1_equiv_expr}
 e_{p,1}(m,n)=\min_{{}^{a_1+\dots+a_m=n}_{a_1,\dots,a_m\in [0,1]}} \left(\max_{i\in I }\tilde{p}_i a_i\right),
 \end{equation}
 
 We begin first by calculating  the optimal value  $e_{p,1}(m,n)$. As we will see, this value depends on whether  $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H} or not. The next lemma is essential in determining this value.
 
 
 \begin{lem}\label{lem:d_existence}
 	Assume that the set $$J:=\Big\{ i\in I ,\  \tilde{p}_i \text{ do not satisfy the condition } \eqref{eq:H}\Big\}$$ is not empty. Then the non negative integer 
 	$$d:=\max\set{j\in I , \tilde{p}_j\sum_{k=j+1}^{m}
 		\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}<n-j},$$
 	is well defined and satisfies $\mathrm{card}(J)\leq d\leq  n-1$ and 
 	\begin{equation}\label{eq:d_def}
 		\tilde{p}_{d}<\frac{ n -d}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}}\leq \tilde{p}_{d+1}.
 	\end{equation}
 \end{lem}
 \begin{proof} Recall that, by our assumption in Remark \ref{rem:assumption_on_p}, we have  $0<\tilde{p}_1\leq...\leq \tilde{p}_{m}$ which yields $J=\lbrace 1,...,\mathrm{card}(J)\rbrace$.
 	
 	Set $$H:=\set{j\in I , \tilde{p}_j\sum_{k=j+1}^{m}
 		\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}<n-j}.$$ 	
 	
 	By its definition, for all $j\in J$ we have
 	\begin{equation}\label{eq:conseq_def_J}
 		\tilde{p}_j\sum_{k\in I}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}<  n.
 	\end{equation}
 	
 	From \eqref{eq:conseq_def_J} we see that  
 	$$\tilde{p}_j\sum_{k=j+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}<  n-\tilde{p}_j\sum_{k=1}^{j}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}\leq n-j,$$ for all $j\in J$. This shows that $J\subset H$ and then $d:=\max (H)$ is  well defined $\mathrm{card}(J)\leq d\leq  n-1$. 	
 	Finally, \eqref{eq:d_def} follows from the definition of $d$. 
 \end{proof}
 
 In all the sequel, we define the index of the distribution $p$ by  $i(p)=0$ when $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H}, and $i(p)=d$ otherwise, where $d$ is given by Lemma \ref{lem:d_existence}.
 
Now we are ready to establish the value of $e_{p,1}(m,n)$.   
  
 \begin{prop}\label{pro:e_p_1_value}
We have $$e_{p,1}(m,n)=\frac{ n -i(p)}{\sum_{j=i(p)+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}},
 	$$ where $i(p)$ is the index of the distribution $p$.
 \end{prop}
 \begin{proof} 
 	If  $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H}, then by definition we have  $i(p)=0$ and the result follows from   \eqref{eq:e_p_1_equiv_expr} and Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_min_pb}. 
 	
 	Now assume that $\tilde{p}$ does not satisfy the condition \eqref{eq:H} and, for simplicity, set $i(p)=d$ and 
 	 $T:=\lbrace d+1,\dots,m \rbrace$.
 	Appealing to Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_min_pb}, we have
 	\begin{align*}
 	&\min_{{}_{0\leq a_i\leq 1,\ i=1,\dots,m} ^{\sum_{i=1}^ma_i=n}} \left(\max_{i\in I}\tilde{p}_ia_i\right)\geq  \min_{{}_{0\leq a_i\leq 1,\ i=1,\dots,m} ^{\sum_{i=1}^ma_i=n}} \left(\max_{ i\in T}\tilde{p}_ia_i\right) \\
 	&=\min_{{}^{0<a_i\leq 1}_{i\notin T}} \left(\min_{{}_{0<a_i\leq 1 \ i\in T}^{\sum_{i\in T}a_i=n-\sum_{i\notin T}a_i}}\left(\max_{i\in T}\tilde{p}_ia_i\right)\right)\\
 	&=\min_{{}^{0<a_i\leq 1}_{i\notin T}} \frac{n-\sum_{i\notin T}a_i}{\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}}\\
 	&=\frac{ n -d}{\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}}
 	\end{align*}
 	In other hand, by letting $a:=(a_1,\dots,a_m)$  such that  
 	\begin{equation}\label{eq:expr_sol_optimal}
 	\begin{cases}
 	a_i=\frac{ n -d}{\tilde{p}_i\sum_{k=d+1}^{m }\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}} \quad  i\in T,\\
 	a_i=1, \quad i\notin T,
 	\end{cases}
 	\end{equation} 
 	then from \eqref{thm:One_earsure_optimums}, we see that $a_i\in [0,1]$ for all $i=1,\dots, m$ and actually the sequence $a$ is an optimal solution for the minimization problem \eqref{eq:e_p_1_equiv_expr}. Thus,  	
 	$$
 	\min_{F\in \mathcal{P}(m,n)} d_{p,1}(F)=\frac{ n -d}{\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}},
 	$$ which ends the proof.
 	
 \end{proof}
 

 
 Now we are ready to establish our main result.   
 
\begin{thm}\label{thm:One_earsure_optimums}
 Let $f:=(f_i)_{i=1}^m$ be a Parseval frame in $\mathbb{R}^n$.  Then $f\in \mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$ if and only if $f$ satisfies 
 $$\begin{cases}
 	\nrm{f_i}^2= \frac{ n -d}{\tilde{p}_i\sum_{k=i(p)+1}^{m }\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}}, \quad&\text{if} \quad  i\geq i(p)+1,\\
 	\nrm{f_i}= 1 \quad &\text{otherwise} ,\\
 \end{cases}$$
 where $i(p)$ is the index of the distribution $p$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} 	
	
For simplicity, we will set $i(p)=d$ and $T:=\set{d+1,\dots,m}$.

Appealing to Proposition \ref{pro:e_p_1_value}, we see that the sufficient condition of our claim is obvious.
	
Now assume that $f\in \mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$ and set $\nrm{f_i}^2=a_i$. Then from \eqref{eq:def_e_1_p} and Proposition \ref{pro:e_p_1_value} we have 
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:optimal_pty_1}
	\max_{i\in I}\tilde{p}_ia_i=\frac{ n -d}{\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}}\qquad \mathrm{and}\qquad\sum_{i=1}^ma_i=n.
	\end{equation}  
	Since $T\subset I$,  then  using Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_min_pb} we get 
	\begin{align*}
	\max_{i\in I}\tilde{p}_ia_i&\geq\max_{i\in T}\tilde{p}_ia_i\\
	&\geq  \min_{\substack{\sum_{i\in T}x_i=n-\sum_{i\notin T}a_i\\ x_i\geq0}}\max_{i\in I}\tilde{p}_ix_i\\
	&=\frac{n-\sum_{i\notin T}a_i}{\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}}.
	\end{align*}
	Therefore, according to \eqref{eq:optimal_pty_1} we get 
	$$d\leq \sum_{i\notin T}a_i\leq d,$$ and then 
	$\sum_{i\notin T}a_i= d$. Further, since $a_i\in [0,1]$ for all $i\in I$, we infer that 
	$$a_i=1\qtxtq{for all} i\notin T.$$
	Thus, from \eqref{eq:optimal_pty_1} we deduce that
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:optimal_pty_2}
	a_i\leq \frac{ n -d}{\tilde{p}_i\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}}\qtxtq{and}\sum_{i\in T}a_i= n -d,
	\end{equation}  
	for all $i\in T$, which leads to 
	$$a_i= \frac{ n -d}{\tilde{p}_i\sum_{j\in T}\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_j}},$$
	for all $i\in T$ and this proves the necessary condition of our claim.
\end{proof}


A direct application of Theorem \ref{thm:One_earsure_optimums}, gives us more insights for optimums in the case of 2-erasures phenomena  and when $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H}. More precisely we have the following.
\begin{prop}\label{pro:bounds_2_erasure_with_H}	
	Assume that $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H}. Then for all $f\in\mc{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$ we have 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_operator_B}\small d_{p,2}(f)
		=\frac{1}{2}\max_{i,j\in I } \left ( c \left(\frac{p_i}{1-p_i}+\frac{p_j}{1-p_j} +\right )+\sqrt{c^2\left (\frac{p_i}{1-p_i}- \frac{p_j}{1-p_j}\right) ^2+4\left(\tilde{p}_{i,j}\langle f_i,f_j\rangle\right)^2}\right), 
	\end{equation} 
	where $c:=\frac{ n }{\sum_{k=1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k}}$. 	
\end{prop}


\begin{cor}\label{cor:d_p_2_equi_proba}Assume that $p_i=p$ for all $i\in I$ with  $0< p<1$. Then 
	$$e_{p,2}(m,n)\sim \frac{ n p^2}{m(1-p)}, \qtxtq{as} m\to\infty.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}Since in this case $\tilde{p}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{eq:H}, then from Proposition \ref{pro:bounds_2_erasure_with_H},  for all  $f\in \mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$  we get that 
	\begin{align*}
	d_{p,2}(f)&=\frac{1}{2}\max_{i,j\in I } \left (\frac{ n p^2}{m(1-p)}+2p^2(1-p)^{m-2}\abs{\langle f_i,f_j\rangle}\right )\\
	&=\frac{ n p^2}{m(1-p)} + p^2(1-p)^{m-2}\max_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m}\left (\abs{\langle f_i,f_j\rangle}\right )
	\end{align*}
	
	Appealing to  Theorem \ref{thm:One_earsure_optimums},  we have
	$$\abs{\langle f_i,f_j\rangle}\leq \frac{ n }{m},$$ for all $f\in\mathcal{E}_{p,1}(m,n)$ and this proves our claim.	
\end{proof}

\section{Comparison with other models}\label{sec:comparison}
In this section we reuse the notations of Section \ref{sec:revising_prob_model}. For a sequence $(X_i)_{i=1}^m$ of independent Bernoulli random variables associated to the $m$ transmission channels and its associated distribution $(p_i)_{i=1}^m\in ]0,1[^m$, the expression \eqref{eq:r_erasure_expect_error} reduces in the case of one erasure  to  
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expect_one_erasure}
\mathbb{E}\left(\nrm{T^*D_XT} | N=1\right)=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i}\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i\nrm{f_{i}}^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $N:=X_1+\dots+X_m$ and  $(f_{i})_{i=1}^m$ is a given frame in $\mc{F}(m,n)$ and $T$  its associated analysis operator.

We are concerned here by comparing our model (RPM) to the models (CM) and (PM) by estimating, for each of the three models, the quantity \eqref{eq:expect_one_erasure} when applied to their associated optimal Parseval frames and the distribution  $(p_i)_{i=1}^m$ being given.

Concretely, we fix the erasure distribution $(p_i)_{i=1}^m$ and we set 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expect_one_erasure_M}
  \mathbb{E}_M:=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i}\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i\nrm{f_{i}}^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $M$ stands for one of the three models (CM), (PM) and (RPM) and $(f_{i})_{i=1}^m$ is an optimal Parseval frame obtained for the model M. Namely,
\begin{itemize}
  \item[-] Following  \cite{casazza2003equal,holmes2004optimal}, optimal Parseval frames $(f_i)_{i=1}^m$ for (CM) satisfy  $$\nrm{f_i}^2=\frac{n}{m}$$ and then \begin{equation}\label{eq:CM_expect}
    \mathbb{E}_{CM}=\frac{n}{m}.
  \end{equation}
  \item[-] Following \cite{li2018frame}, optimal Parseval frames $(f_i)_{i=1}^m$ for (PM) satisfy $$\nrm{f_i}^2=\frac{n}{m-1}\left(1-\frac{ p_i}{\sum_{i=1}^m p_i}\right)$$ which gives  
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:PM_expect}
    \mathbb{E}_{PM}=\frac{n}{(m-1)\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i}\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i\left(1-\frac{ p_i}{\sum_{i=1}^m p_i}\right).
  \end{equation}
  \item[-] Finally for (RPM), Theorem \ref{thm:One_earsure_optimums} says that optimal Parseval  frames $(f_i)_{i=1}^m$ satisfy $$\nrm{f_i}^2=\begin{cases}
		1\quad \text{for}\ i=1,\dots,d\\
		\frac{n-d}{\tilde{p}_i\sum_{k=d+1}^m
			\tilde{p}_k}\quad \text{for}\ i=d+1,\dots,m.
  \end{cases}$$ and accordingly 
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:RPM_expect}
    \mathbb{E}_{RPM}=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i}\left(\sum_{i=1}^d\tilde{p}_i+\frac{(m-d)(n-d)}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_k}\right).
  \end{equation}
\end{itemize}
 

We will prove that $\mathbb{E}_{RPM}$ is the smallest compared to $\mathbb{E}_{PM}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{CM}$. 
 Further we will classify the three models in ascending order (See Propositions \ref{pro:comp_PM_CM} and \ref{pro:comp_RPM_PM}). 

A useful ingredient for our developments to this aim, is the following lemma  known as Chebyshev inequality, and for which we give a sketch of the proof for the convenience of the reader.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Chebyshev_ineq}
	Let $a:=(a_i)_{i=1}^m$ and $b:=(b_i)_{i=1}^m$ be two sequences of real numbers such that $a$ and $b$ are both increasing. Then we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_ib_i\geq \frac{1}{m} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_i\right) \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_i\right).$$
	
	As a consequence, if $a$ is increasing and $b$ is decreasing then
	$$\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_ib_i\leq \frac{1}{m} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}a_i\right) \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_i\right).$$  
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
	In the case when $a$ and $b$ are both increasing, the result follows by expanding the sum
	$$A:=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{m}(a_{j}-a_{k})(b_{j}-b_{k}),$$ 
	and noting that $A\geq 0$.	
\end{proof}

Now we are ready to compare $\mathbb{E}_{PM}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{CM}$.
\begin{prop}\label{pro:comp_PM_CM}
	Keeping the same notations as above, we have
	$$\mathbb{E}_{PM}\leq\mathbb{E}_{CM}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} 
	For simplicity, we set  $P=\sum_{i=1}^m p_i$. We get then
	\begin{align*}
		\mathbb{E}_{PM}-\mathbb{E}_{CM}
		&=\frac{n}{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i} \sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i\left[\frac{1}{m-1}\left(1-\frac{p_i}{P}\right)-\frac{1}{m}\right].
	\end{align*}
Note that the sequence $(\tilde{p}_i)_{i=1}^m$ is increasing and  	
$\left(\frac{1}{m-1}\left(1-\frac{p_i}{P}\right)-\frac{1}{m}\right)_{i=1}^m$ is decreasing, and then by Lemma \ref{lem:Chebyshev_ineq}   we get 
$$\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i\left[\frac{1}{m-1}\left(1-\frac{p_i}{P}\right)-\frac{1}{m}\right]\leq \frac{1}{m}\left(\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\frac{1}{m-1}\left(1-\frac{p_i}{P}\right)-\frac{1}{m}\right)\right)=0,$$ and this proves our claim.
\end{proof}

Now we establish a comparison between $\mathbb{E}_{PM}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{RPM}$.
\begin{prop}\label{pro:comp_RPM_PM}
Keeping our notations as above, we have  
$$\mathbb{E}_{PM}-\mathbb{E}_{RPM}\geq \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i}\frac{i(p)(m-n)(m-n-1)}{n(m-i(p))(m-i(p)-1)}\left(\sum_{i=i(p)+1}^m\tilde{p}_i-\frac{\sum_{k=i(p)+1}^m \tilde{p}_k p_k}{\sum_{k=i(p)+1}^m p_k }\right),$$ where $i(p)$ is the index of the distribution $p$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For simplicity we set $i(p)=d$,  $P:=\sum_{i=1}^m p_i$ and $$A:=\left(\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i\right)(\mathbb{E}_{RPM}-\mathbb{E}_{PM}).$$
We have  \begin{align*}
    &A=\sum_{i=1}^d \tilde{p}_i +\frac{(m-d)(n-d)}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\frac{1}
    {\tilde{p}_k }}-\frac{n}{m-1}\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i \left(1-\frac{p_i}{P}\right)\\
  &= \left(1-\frac{n}{m-1}\right)\sum_{k=1}^d\tilde{p}_k  +\frac{(m-d)(n-d)}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\frac{1}	{\tilde{p}_k }}
  -\frac{n}{m-1}\left(\sum_{i=d+1}^m \tilde{p}_i
  - \frac{\sum_{k=1}^m\tilde{p}_k p_k}{P}\right)
  \end{align*}
  
Since $(p_i)_{i=1}^m$ is increasing, then from \eqref{eq:d_def} we infer that 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pty_d}
\sum_{i=1}^d \tilde{p}_i\leq \frac{d(n-d)}{\sum_{i=d+1}^m \frac{1}{\tilde{p}_i}}
\end{equation}
 which leads to
\begin{align*}
	&A\leq 
    (n-d)\frac{d(m-n-1)+(m-1)(m-d)}{(m-1)\sum_{i=d+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_i}}
		-\frac{n}{m-1}\left(\sum_{i=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_i- \frac{\sum_{k=1}^m \tilde{p}_k p_k}{P}\right)
  \end{align*}
Alternatively, by setting $\pi_p:=\prod_{i=1}^{m}p_i$  and $P_{d,m}:=\sum_{k=d+1}^m p_k$ and $$g(x):= \frac{x}{1-x}
\left(1-\frac{x}{P_{d,m}}\right),$$ we see that
\begin{align*}
	&\tilde{p}_i
	\left(1-\frac{p_i}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m p_k}\right)=\pi_p \frac{p_i}{1-p_i}
	\left(1-\frac{p_i}{P_{d,m}}\right)=\pi_p g(p_i)
\end{align*}
and straightforward calculations show that  
$$g(x)-g(y)= \frac{(x-y)(P_{d,m}-x-y+xy)}{(1-x)(1-y)P_{d,m}}.$$ This shows in particular that the sequence $\left(\tilde{p}_i
\left(1-\frac{p_i}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m p_k}\right)\right)_{i=d+1}^m$ is  increasing, and appealing to Lemma \ref{lem:Chebyshev_ineq} we get 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main_ineq}
\sum_{i=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_i
\left(1-\frac{p_i}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m p_k}\right)\geq \frac{(m-d)(m-d-1)}{\sum_{i=d+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_i}}.
\end{equation}
By consequence, we get
\begin{align*}
	&\frac{(m-1)}{n}A\leq 
	(n-d)\frac{d(m-n-1)+(m-1)(m-d)}{n(m-d)(m-d-1)}	
	\left(\sum_{i=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_i-\frac{\sum_{i=d+1}^m \tilde{p}_i p_i}{\sum_{i=d+1}^m p_i }\right)\\
	&\qquad 
  -\left(\sum_{i=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_i-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_i p_i}{P}\right)\\
  &\leq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m \tilde{p}_ip_i}{P}-\frac{\sum_{i=d+1}^m \tilde{p}_ip_i}{\sum_{i=d+1}^m p_i }-\frac{d(m-n)(m-n-1)}{n(m-d)(m-d-1)}\left(\sum_{i=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_i-\frac{\sum_{i=d+1}^m \tilde{p}_i p_i}{\sum_{i=d+1}^m p_i }\right)
\end{align*}
Now, from \eqref{eq:d_def} we see that  for all $i=1,\dots,d$ and $j=d+1,\dots,m$ we have  
$$\tilde{p}_ip_i\leq \frac{n-d}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k }} p_i\leq \frac{n-d}{\sum_{k=d+1}^m\frac{1}{\tilde{p}_k }} p_j\leq\tilde{p}_j p_j,$$ and then summing over $i$, and $j$ yields 
$$\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^dp_i}\sum_{i=1}^d
\tilde{p}_ip_i\leq \frac{1}{\sum_{j=d+1}^m p_j}\sum_{j=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_jp_j,$$ from which we deduce that
$$\frac{1}{P}\sum_{i=1}^m
\tilde{p}_ip_i\leq \frac{1}{\sum_{j=d+1}^m p_j}\sum_{j=d+1}^m\tilde{p}_jp_j,$$ and this ends the proof.
\end{proof}

As a direct consequence of Proposition \ref{pro:comp_RPM_PM} we get
\begin{cor}\label{cor:comp_RPM_PM}
	Keeping the same notations, we have $$\mathbb{E}_{PM}-\mathbb{E}_{RPM}\geq 
	\frac{i(p)(m-n)(m-n-1)}{n(m-i(p))(m-i(p)-1)}
	\frac{\sum_{i=i(p)+1}^m\tilde{p}_i\left(1-\frac{1}{m-i+1}\right)}{\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i}.$$
\end{cor}
 \begin{proof}
 	Note that for all $i\in \set{d+1,\dots,m}$ we have
 	$$\sum_{k=d+1}^{m}p_k\geq (m-i+1)p_i,$$ and then 
 	$$\frac{p_i}{\sum_{k=d+1}^{m}p_k}\leq \frac{1}{m-i+1},$$ and from Proposition \ref{pro:comp_RPM_PM} we deduce that 
 	\begin{align*}
 		&\mathbb{E}_{PM}-\mathbb{E}_{RPM}\geq 
 		\frac{i(p)(m-n)(m-n-1)}{n(m-i(p))(m-i(p)-1)}
 		\frac{\sum_{i=i(p)+1}^m\tilde{p}_i\left(1-\frac{1}{m-i+1}\right)}{\sum_{i=1}^m\tilde{p}_i}
 	\end{align*} 
 	which is the desired result.
 	
 \end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{abbrv
