On almost-equidistant sets - II

Abstract: A set in $\mathbb R^d$ is called almost-equidistant if for any three distinct points in the set, some two are at unit distance apart. First, we give a short proof of the result of Bezdek and Lángi claiming that an almost-equidistant set lying on a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere of radius $r$, where $r<1/\sqrt{2}$, has at most $2d+2$ points. Second, we prove that an almost-equidistant set $V$ in $\mathbb R^d$ has $O(d)$ points in two cases: if the diameter of $V$ is at most $1$ or if $V$ is a subset of a $d$-dimensional ball of radius at most $1/\sqrt{2}+cd^{-2/3}$, where $c<1/2$. Also, we present a new proof of the result of Kupavskii, Mustafa and SwanepoelarXiv:1708.01590that an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ has $O(d^{4/3})$ elements.

\section{Introduction}
A set in $\mathbb R^d$ is called \textit{almost-equidistant} if among any three points in the set, some two are at unit distance apart. The natural conjecture~\cite{Pol17}*{Conjecture~12} claims that an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ has $O(d)$ points.

Using an elegant linear algebraic argument, Rosenfeld~\cite{R90} proved that an almost-equidistant set on a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere of radius $1/\sqrt{2}$ has at most $2d$ points. Note that the set of the vertices of two unit $(d-1)$-simplices lying on the same $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere of radius $1/\sqrt{2}$ is  almost-equidistant. Bezdek and L{\'a}ngi~\cite{BL00}*{Theorem~1} generalized Rosenfeld's approach and showed that an almost-equidistant set on a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere of radius at most $1/\sqrt{2}$ has at most $2d+2$ points; this bound is tight because the vertices of two unit $d$-simplices inscribed in the same sphere form an almost-equidistant set.

Balko, P{\'o}r, Scheucher, Swanepoel and Valtr~\cite{BPSSV16}*{Theorem~6} showed that an almost equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ has $O(d^{3/2})$ points. This bound was improved by the author~\cite{Pol17}*{Theorem~1} to $O(d^{13/9})$. Recently, Kupavskii, Mustafa, Swanepoel~\cite{KMS17} further improved to $O(d^{4/3})$. For more references we refer interested readers to~\cite{BPSSV16}*{Section~1}.

The first goal of this paper is to give a short proof of the result of Bezdek--L\'{a}ngi~\cite{BL00} using a lifting argument and the fact that an almost-equidistant set on a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere has at most $2d$ points. The second aim is to confirm the conjecture in two cases: for almost-equidistant sets of diameter $1$ (see~\hyperref[section:diameter]{Section~\ref*{section:diameter}}) and for almost-equidistant sets lying in a $d$-dimensional ball of radius $1/\sqrt{2}+cd^{-2/3}$, where $c<1/2$ (see~\hyperref[section:sphere]{Section~\ref*{section:sphere}}). The third goal is to give a new proof of the upper bound $O(d^{4/3})$ for the size of an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ (see \hyperref[section:newproof]{Section~\ref*{section:newproof}}). Also, we discuss several open problems related to almost-equidistant sets (see \hyperref[section:discussion]{Section~\ref*{section:discussion}}).

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{section:preliminaries}
Let $\{\mathbf v_1,\dots, \mathbf v_n\}\subset \mathbb R^d$ be an almost-equidistant set. Consider the matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:matrix_u}
	\mathbf U:=\|\mathbf v_i-\mathbf v_j\|^2+\mathbf I_n-\mathbf J_n,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf J_n$ is the $n$-by-$n$ matrix of ones and $\mathbf I_n$ is the identity matrix of size $n$.
We need two simple facts proved in~\cite{Pol17}*{Corollary 4 and Lemma 5}. We join them in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:eigenvalues}
The matrix $\mathbf U$ satisfies the following two properties.

1. The equalities $\tr (\mathbf U)=\tr(\mathbf U^3)=0$ hold.

2. The matrix $\mathbf U$ has at most one eigenvalue larger than $1$ and at least $n-d-2$ eigenvalues equal to $1$.
\end{lemma}
We use \hyperref[lemma:eigenvalues]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:eigenvalues}} combined with the following lemma several times.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:mainlemma}
Let $\lambda_0, 1,\dots, 1,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k$ be the eigenvalues of an Hermitian matrix $\mathbf A$ of size $n$, indexed in nondecreasing order. Assume $\tr(\mathbf A)=\tr(\mathbf A^3)=0$.

1. If $\lambda_0=1$, then $n\leq 2k$.

2. If $\lambda_0+\lambda_k\leq 0$, then $n\leq 2k$.

3. If $n\geq 2k$ and $\lambda_0>1$, then
\[
\lambda_0^3>\frac{(n-k)^3}{k^2}-(n-k-1).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\textit{1.} Suppose to the contrary that $n>2k$. Introducing the notation $l:=n-2k$, we can rewrite the equations $\tr(\mathbf A)=\tr(\mathbf A^3)=0$ as
\begin{equation*}
\label{equation:sumofeigenvalues}
	\sum_{i=1}^k(-\lambda_i)=\sum_{i=1}^k(-\lambda_i)^3=k+l.
\end{equation*}
To finish the proof, we need Lemma~1 in~\cite{BL00}. For the sake of completeness we provide its proof here.
\begin{lemma}
	\label{lemma:bezdeklangi}
	Let $x_1,\dots, x_m$ be real numbers such that $x_i\geq -2$ for $i=1,\dots,m$. If $\sum_{i=1}^mx_i=(m+l)$, where $l\geq 0$, then
	\[
	\sum_{i=1}^m x_i^3\geq \frac{(m+l)^3}{m^2}.
	\]
Here the equality is possible if and only if the $x_i$ are equal to $1+l/m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Also, note that ${(m+l)^3}/{m^2}\geq m+3l.$
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Consider functions $f, g:[-2,+\infty)\to \mathbb R$ such that
\[
	f(x)=x^3 \text{ for any }x\geq-2,\
    g(x)=\begin{cases}
    3x-2, &\text{ for any }-2\leq x\leq 1,\\
    x^3,  &\text{ for any }1\leq x.
    \end{cases}
\]
For $-2\leq x\leq 1$ we have $g(x)\leq f(x)$ because in this range $g(x)$ has the value of a tangent line to $f(x)$ at $x=1$ and the second point of the intersection of that tangent line and $f(x)$ is at $x=-2$. Further, $g(x)$ is a convex function in the range $-2\leq x$. By Jensen's Inequality, we obtain
\begin{gather*}
	\sum_{i=1}^m x_i^3=\sum_{i=1}^m f(x_i) \geq\sum_{i=1}^m g(x_i) \geq m g\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^mx_i}{m}\right)\\=m\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^m x_i}{m}\right)^3=\frac{(m+l)^3}{m^2}\geq m+3l.
\end{gather*}
The equality case we leave as an exercise.
\end{proof}

Clearly, \hyperref[lemma:bezdeklangi]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:bezdeklangi}} implies that
\[
	\sum_{i=1}^k(-\lambda_i)^3\geq k+3l,
\]
and this is a contradiction with the inequality $l>0$.

\textit{2.} Suppose to the contrary that $n \geq 2k+1$. Introducing the notation $l:=n-2k-1$, we can rewrite the equalities $\tr(\mathbf A)=\tr(\mathbf A^3)=0$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:sumofeigenvaluesnew}
	\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} (-\lambda_i)+ (-\lambda_0-\lambda_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(-\lambda_i)^3-\lambda_0^3-\lambda_k^3=k+l.
\end{equation}
By \hyperref[lemma:bezdeklangi]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:bezdeklangi}}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:sumofmodifiedeigenvalues}
	\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(-\lambda_i)^3+(-\lambda_0-\lambda_k)^3\geq k+3l.
\end{equation}
The second equality in~\eqref{equation:sumofeigenvaluesnew} implies
\[
	k+l+(-\lambda_0-\lambda_k)^3+\lambda_0^3+\lambda_k^3\geq k+3l,
\]
and so
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:case2}
-3\lambda_0\lambda_k(\lambda_0+\lambda_k)\geq 2l.
\end{equation}
Since $\lambda_0>0$, $\lambda_k<0$, $\lambda_0+\lambda_k\leq 0$ and $l\geq 0$, we get $\lambda_0+\lambda_k=0$ and $l=0$. By~\hyperref[lemma:bezdeklangi]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:bezdeklangi}}, if $\lambda_1+\lambda_k=0$ then we have a strict inequality in~\eqref{equation:sumofmodifiedeigenvalues}, and thus we get a strict inequality in~\eqref{equation:case2}. This implies a contradiction with the equality $l=0$.

\textit{3.} Clearly, we can rewrite the equalities $\tr (\mathbf A)=\tr(\mathbf A^3)=0$ as
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-\lambda_i)=\lambda_0+n-k-1> n-k
\]
and
\[
 \lambda_0^3=\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-\lambda_i)^3-(n-k-1).
\]
Since $n\geq 2k$, \hyperref[lemma:bezdeklangi]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:bezdeklangi}} implies that
\[
\lambda_0^3 > \frac{(n-k)^3}{k^2}-(n-k-1).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:useful}
If the matrix $\mathbf U$ does not have an eigenvalue larger than $1$, then $n\leq 2d+4$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The proof easily follows from Lemmas~\ref{lemma:eigenvalues} and~\ref{lemma:mainlemma} (\textit{case 1}).
\end{proof}
We need the following technical lemma only in the proof of the fact that an almost-equidistant set has $O(d^{4/3})$ points; see \hyperref[theorem:kms17_4/3]{Theorem~\ref*{theorem:kms17_4/3}}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:end}
If $\{\mathbf w_0, \mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_k\}$ is an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:radius}
\left|\|\mathbf w_i\|^2-1/2\right|\leq x
\end{equation}
for $0\leq i \leq k$ and a positive $x$, then
\[
\left| \sum_{1\leq i\leq k}\left(\|\mathbf w_0-\mathbf w_i\|^2-1\right)\right| \leq c \left(d^{1/2}+dx^{1/2}+dx\right)
\]
for some positive constant $c$ independent of $d$ and $x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume without loss of generality that $\|\mathbf w_0-\mathbf w_i\|\ne 1$ for $1\leq i\leq k$. Since the set is almost-equidistant, the points $\mathbf w_1,\dots, \mathbf w_k$ form a regular unit $(k-1)$-simplex, and so $k\leq d+1\leq 2d$.

We use the following theorem (see~\cite{DM94}*{Theorem~1}) several times.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:centermass}
	Let $X = \{\mathbf x_1,\dots, \mathbf x_n\}$ and $Y = \{\mathbf y_1, \dots, \mathbf y_n\}$ be two point-sets in $\mathbb R^d$. Then
	\[
	\sum_{1\leq i,j\leq n} \|\mathbf x_i-\mathbf y_j\|^2 = \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \|\mathbf x_i - \mathbf x_j\|^2 + \sum_{1\leq i< j\leq n}\|\mathbf y_i- \mathbf y_j\|^2 + n^2\|\mathbf x -\mathbf y\|^2,
	\]
	where $\mathbf x$ and $\mathbf y$ are the barycenters of $X$ and $Y$, respectively, that is,
	\[
	\mathbf x =(\mathbf x_1 + \cdots + \mathbf x_n)/n,\ \mathbf y = (\mathbf y_1 + \cdots +\mathbf y_n)/n.
	\]
\end{theorem}

\hyperref[theorem:centermass]{Theorem~\ref*{theorem:centermass}} applied to $\{\mathbf w_0,\dots, \mathbf w_0\}$ and $\{\mathbf w_1,\dots, \mathbf w_k \}$ implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ineq1}
\sum_{1\leq i\leq k} \|\mathbf w_0-\mathbf w_i\|^2=\frac{k-1}{2} + k\|\mathbf w_0-\mathbf o'\|^2=\frac{k-1}{2}+k\|\mathbf w_0\|^2+k\|\mathbf o'\|^2+O(1)\cdot k\|\mathbf w_0\|\|\mathbf o'\|,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf o'$ is the center of the simplex $\mathbf w_1\dots \mathbf w_k$. \hyperref[theorem:centermass]{Theorem~\ref*{theorem:centermass}} applied to $\{\mathbf o,\dots, \mathbf o\}$ and $\{\mathbf w_1,\dots,\mathbf w_k\}$, where $\mathbf o$ is the origin, and combined with \eqref{equation:radius} yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ineq3}
k\|\mathbf o'\|^2=\sum_{1\leq i\leq k}\|\mathbf w_i\|^2-\frac{k-1}{2}=\frac{k}{2}-\frac{k-1}{2}+O(1)\cdot kx=\frac{1}{2}+O(1)\cdot kx.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{equation:radius} and \eqref{eq:ineq3}, we obtain
\begin{gather*}
\eqref{eq:ineq1}= \frac{k-1}{2}+\frac{k}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+ O(1)\cdot kx+O(1)\cdot k(1+x^{1/2})(k^{-1/2}+x^{1/2})\\
=k+O(1)\cdot(k^{1/2}+kx^{1/2}+kx).
\end{gather*}
The fact $k\leq 2d$ finishes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{A simple proof of the result of Bezdek and L\'{a}ngi}
\label{section:simpleproof}
\begin{theorem}[Bezdek, L\'{a}ngi, 1999]
\label{theorem:bezdek-langi}
If an almost equidistant-set lies on a $(d-1)$-dimensional sphere $S$ of radius $r$, where $r \leq 1/\sqrt{2}$, then it has at most $2d+2$ points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $S$ is embedded in $\mathbb R^{d+1}$ and its center $\mathbf o$ and a point $\mathbf o'\in\mathbb R^{d+1}$ are such that the line $\mathbf o' \mathbf o$ is orthogonal to the affine hull of $S$ and $|\mathbf o'-\mathbf o|^2 = 1/2-r$. Now, we get that the almost-equidistant set lies on the $d$-dimensional sphere of radius $1/\sqrt{2}$ with center $\mathbf o'$. By Rosenfeld's theorem~\cite{R90}, the size of the almost-equidistant sets is at most $2(d+1)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Almost-equidistant diameter sets}
\label{section:diameter}
A subset of $\mathbb R^d$ is called an \textit{almost-equidistant diameter set} if it is almost-equidistant and has diameter $1$; see \cite{Pol17}*{Proposition~13 and Problem~14}. The next theorem is about the maximal size of such sets.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:diameter} An almost-equidistant diameter set in $\mathbb R^d$ has at most $2d+4$ points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, the matrix $\mathbf U$ (see \eqref{equation:matrix_u}) for an almost-equidistant diameter set in $\mathbb R^d$ has non-positive entries. \hyperref[lemma:eigenvalues]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:eigenvalues}} and \hyperref[corollary:useful]{Corollary~\ref*{corollary:useful}} imply that we can assume without loss of generality that $\mathbf U$ has exactly one eigenvalue $\lambda$ larger than $1$.

We need the following week form of the \hyperref[theorem:perron]{Perron--Frobenius Theorem}; see ~\cites{Per1907,Fro1912}.
\begin{theorem}[Perron--Frobenius Theorem]
	\label{theorem:perron}
If an $n$-by-$n$ matrix has non-negative entries, then it has
a non-negative real eigenvalue, which has maximum absolute value among all eigenvalues.
\end{theorem}
By the \hyperref[theorem:perron]{Perron--Frobenius Theorem}, the matrix $\mathbf U$ has a negative eigenvalue $\lambda'$ such that $|\lambda'|\geq\lambda$. Therefore, Lemmas~\ref{lemma:eigenvalues} and~\ref{lemma:mainlemma} (\textit{case 2}) imply that the almost-equidistant diameter set has at most $2d+2$ points.
\end{proof}
\section{Almost-equidistant sets in small balls}
\label{section:sphere}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:smallspheres}
Let $0 \leq c_0 < 1/2$ be a fixed constant. If an almost-equidistant set lies in a $d$-dimensional ball of radius $\sqrt{1/2 + c_0/(d+1)^{2/3}}$, then its cardinality is $O(d)/(1-2c_0)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{\mathbf v_1,\dots, \mathbf v_n\}$ be an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ such that $n\geq 2d+2$ and $\|\mathbf v_i\|^2=1/2+c_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n$, where $c_i\leq c_0/(d+1)^{2/3}=r$.

By \hyperref[corollary:useful]{Corollary~\ref*{corollary:useful}} and \hyperref[lemma:eigenvalues]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:eigenvalues}}, without loss of generality we can assume that the matrix $\mathbf U$ (see~\eqref{equation:matrix_u}) for this set has exactly one eigenvalue $\lambda$ larger than $1$.  Hence Lemmas~\ref{lemma:eigenvalues} and~\ref{lemma:mainlemma} (\textit{case 3}) for $\mathbf U$ yield
\[
	\lambda^3> \frac{(n-d-1)^3}{(d+1)^2}-(n-d-2).
\]
To finish the proof, we need the following special case of \hyperref[theorem:sumofHermitian]{Weyl's Inequality}~\cite{W1912}*{Theorem~1}.
\begin{theorem}[Weyl's~Inequality]
\label{theorem:sumofHermitian}
If $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$ are the largest eigenvalues of Hermitian matrices $\mathbf A, \mathbf B$ and $\mathbf A+\mathbf B$ respectively, then $\gamma \leq \alpha+\beta$.
\end{theorem}
Clearly, by~\eqref{equation:matrix_u}, we have
\[
\mathbf U=(c^t j+j^tc)-2\langle \mathbf v_i, \mathbf v_j\rangle +\mathbf I,
\]
where $c=(c_1,\dots, c_n)$ and $j=(1,\dots,1)$. Obviously, the largest eigenvalues of the matrices $c^t j$ and $j^t c$ do not exceed $nr$.
Therefore, from \hyperref[theorem:sumofHermitian]{Weyl's Inequality} and positivity of the Gram matrix $\langle \mathbf v_i, \mathbf v_j \rangle$, we conclude that $\lambda\leq 2nr+1$. This forces
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:interesting}
\left(2nr+1\right)^3\geq \lambda^3> \frac{(n-d-1)^3}{(d+1)^2}-(n-d-2),
\end{equation}
and so
\[
	(2c_0x+o(1))^3\geq (x-1)^3-(x-1-o(1)),
\]
where $x=n/(d+1)$. Hence we get $x=O(1)/(1-2c_0)$, and thus $n=O(d)/(1-2c_0)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Interestingly, an almost-equidistant set lying in a $d$-dimensional ball of radius $1/\sqrt{2}$ has at most $2d+4$ points. Indeed, in that case $r$ is equal to $0$, and hence \eqref{equation:interesting} yields $n<2d+2$ if $\mathbf U$ has an eigenvalue larger then $1$. Therefore, by \hyperref[corollary:useful]{Corollary~\ref*{corollary:useful}}, we get $n\leq 2d+4$.
\end{remark}
\section{Almost-equidistant sets: general case}
\label{section:newproof}

\begin{theorem}[Kupavskii, Mustafa, Swanepoel, 2018]
\label{theorem:kms17_4/3}
The size of an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$ is $O(d^{4/3})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\{\mathbf v_1,\dots, \mathbf v_n\}$ is an almost-equidistant set in $\mathbb R^d$. Let
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:definition_of_f}
f:=\max_{i=1,\dots,n}\Bigl\{\Bigl| \sum_{j=1}^n\left(\|\mathbf v_i-\mathbf v_j\|^2-1\right)\Bigr|\Bigr\}.
\end{equation}
Assuming that $\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf v_i$ is the origin $\mathbf o$, we easily get
\[
-f\leq n\|\mathbf v_i\|^2 +\sum_{j=1}^n\|\mathbf v_j\|^2- n\leq f
\]
for $1\leq i\leq n$. Summing up these inequalities for $1\leq i\leq n$, we obtain
\[
-f/2\leq \sum_{i=1}^n\|\mathbf v_i\|^2 - n/2\leq f/2.
\]
The last two inequalities implies
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:radius2}
-3f/(2n)\leq \|\mathbf v_i\|^2-1/2\leq 3f/(2n)
\end{equation}
for $1\leq i\leq n$. By \eqref{equation:definition_of_f}, \eqref{equation:radius2} and \hyperref[lemma:end]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:end}}, we have
\[
	f\leq O(1)\cdot\left(d^{1/2}+d(f/n)^{1/2}+d(f/n)\right).
\]
Therefore, we obtain either $n=O(d)$ or
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:assumption}
f=O(1)\cdot \left(d^{1/2}+d^2/n\right).
\end{equation}

Suppose to the contrary that $n\geq Cd^{4/3}$, where $C$ is a positive constant. Hence, by~\eqref{equation:radius2} and~\eqref{equation:assumption}, the almost-equidistant set lies in a ball of radius $1/\sqrt{2}+O(d^{-2/3})/C^2$. Hence if $C$ is big enough, then we can apply \hyperref[theorem:smallspheres]{Theorem~\ref*{theorem:smallspheres}} to the almost-equidistant set, and thus $n=O(d)$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
It is possible to prove \hyperref[theorem:kms17_4/3]{Theorem~\ref*{theorem:kms17_4/3}} using \hyperref[lemma:end]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:end}} combined with the Gershgorin Circle Theorem~\cite{G31}; see~\cite{Pol17}*{Section 3.2} for a similar argument.
\end{remark}
\section{Discussion}
\label{section:discussion}
\subsection{Almost-equidistant diameter sets.}
A graph $(V,E)$ is called a \textit{diameter graph} if its vertex set $V\subseteq \mathbb R^d$ is a set of points of diameter $1$ and a pair of vertices forms an edge if they are at unit distance apart. Of course, the set of vertices of two cliques in a diameter graph is an almost-equidistant diameter set. For instance, in \cite{KP17}*{the last paragraph of Section~3} there is given an example of diameter graph in $\mathbb R^d$ consisting of two cliques \textit{without common vertices} such that they have $d+1$ and $\lfloor \frac{d+1}{2}\rfloor$ vertices respectively. We believe that the vertex set of this diameter graph has the maximal size among almost-equidistant diameter sets in $\mathbb R^d$.
\begin{conjecture}
	\label{conjecture:1}
	An almost-equidistant diameter set in $\mathbb R^d$ has at most $\left\lfloor\frac{3(d+1)}{2}\right\rfloor$ points.
\end{conjecture}
 There is the following conjecture~\cite{Kal15}*{Conjecture~5.5} that arose in the context of study of cliques in diameter graphs.
\begin{conjecture}[Schur]
	\label{conjecture:schur}
	Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two unit simplices in $\mathbb R^d$ forming a set of diameter $1$ such that they have $k$ and $m$ vertices respectively. Then $S_1$ and $S_2$ share at least $\min \{0, k+2m-2d-2\}$ vertices for $k\geq m$.
\end{conjecture}
Clearly, this conjecture is closely related to \hyperref[conjecture:1]{Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:1}}. Note that \hyperref[conjecture:schur]{Conjecture~\ref*{conjecture:schur}} was confirmed in two special (but not trivial!) cases: $(k, m,d)=(d,d,d)$, where $d\geq 2$, in~\cite{KP17} and $(k, m, d)=(5, 3,4)$ in~\cite{KP217}.

\subsection{Two-distant almost-equidistant sets.}  A subset of $\mathbb R^d$ is called a \textit{two-distant set} if there are only two distances formed by any two distinct points of the set. The following question seems to be interesting.
\begin{problem}
	\label{problem:problem_two-distance}
	What is the largest cardinality of a set in $\mathbb R^d$ that is two-distant and almost-equidistant at the same time?
\end{problem}
Consider a two-distant almost-equidistant set $V\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ with distances $1$ and $a$ between points of $V$, where $a>1$; the case $a<1$ is not interesting because of \hyperref[theorem:diameter]{Theorem~\ref{theorem:diameter}}. \hyperref[lemma:eigenvalues]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:eigenvalues}} and \hyperref[corollary:useful]{Corollary~\ref*{corollary:useful}} imply that we may assume without loss of generality that $\mathbf U$ for $V$ has exactly one eigenvalue $\lambda$ larger than $1$. Note that the matrix $\mathbf U/(a^2-1)$ is the adjacency matrix of a triangle-free graph. By \hyperref[lemma:eigenvalues]{Lemma~\ref*{lemma:eigenvalues}}, \hyperref[problem:problem_two-distance]{Problem~\ref*{problem:problem_two-distance}} is reduced to following question.
\begin{problem}
	What is the minimal rank of the matrix $\mathbf A-\lambda_2 \mathbf I_n$, where $\mathbf A$ is the adjacency matrix of a triangle-free graph on $n$ vertices and $\lambda_2$ is its second largest eigenvalue provided that $\lambda_2>0$?
\end{problem}
It is worth pointing out that for every positive integer $n$ there are a triangle-free graph on $n$ vertices and an eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the adjecancy matrix $\mathbf A$ of the graph such that $\rank(\mathbf A-\lambda \mathbf I)=O(n^{3/4})$ and $\lambda>0$; see~\cite{CPR00}*{the proof of Theorem~5, pages 94--95}.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are grateful to \href{http://www.zilin.one}{Zilin Jiang} for bringing the \hyperref[theorem:perron]{Perron--Frobenius Theorem} to our attention. The author was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant \textnumero~18-31-00149 mol\_a.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Combinatorics (math.CO)

On almost-equidistant sets - II


A Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm using Gaussian processes

Abstract: In this paper, we treat the problem of evaluating the asymptotic error in a numerical integration scheme as one with inherent uncertainty. Adding to the growing field of probabilistic numerics, we show that Gaussian process regression (GPR) can be embedded into a numerical integration scheme to allow for (i) robust selection of the adaptive step-size parameter and; (ii) uncertainty quantification in predictions of putatively converged numerical solutions. We present two examples of our approach using Richardson's extrapolation technique and the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm. In scenarios where the error-surface is smooth and bounded, our proposed approach can match the results of the traditional polynomial (parametric) extrapolation methods. In scenarios where the error surface is not well approximated by a finite-order polynomial, e.g. in the vicinity of a pole or in the assessment of a chaotic system, traditional methods can fail, however, the non-parametric GPR approach demonstrates the potential to continue to furnish reasonable solutions in these situations.

\section{Introduction}

Solutions to ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are often sought by means of adaptive numerical integration algorithms \cite{NumRce}. The accuracy of these approaches regularly relies on the assumption that the {\sl true} solution is suitably smooth across the region of integration so that {\sl locally}, i.e. in an interval of width equal to integration step-size $h_{i}$, where $i$ indexes the algorithm's iteration, the numerical error is well approximated by a finite-order polynomial. The choice of  step-size $h_{i}$ is then determined using an extrapolation procedure and a given precision bound. Of particular importance to the present study are the extrapolation procedures of Richardson \cite{Rich} and the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm  (BSA) \cite{BS1964}. The BSA is a descendant of Richardson's algorithm and aims to quantify whether the numerical integration scheme has recovered a converged solution to the ODE at the $i^{th}$ iteration by recursively assessing the behaviour of the numerical error in the limit as $h_{i}\to 0$. Central to the good performance of this method is the assumption that the error function can be expressed as a power series in $h_{i}$. While this assumption has broad applicability, it can breakdown in a number of scenarios, e.g. in the vicinity of a singularity or when aiming to compute particle trajectories in chaotic systems - owing to exponentially large separation rates between nearby particles. In scenarios like these, numerical integration algorithms which are underpinned by polynomial extrapolation can fail and often with considerable burden on computational economy.

In this paper we instead propose treating the numerical error as {\sl uncertain}. We employ a probabilistic reinterpretation of the problem of adaptively determining a suitable choice of step-size $h_{i}$ at each iteration. We do this by embedding Gaussian process regression (GPR) in to the extrapolation component of the numerical integration scheme. Our non-parametric approach side-steps the assumption that the numerical error is `well-behaved' near the region of interest and contrasts with the parametric (polynomial) extrapolation methods of Richardson and Bulirsch-Stoer. Moreover, the proposed approach allows for uncertainty quantification in the choice of step-size, at each iteration, and consequently the numerical error. Hence, the GPR implementation can allow for a broader theoretical assessment of candidate numerical solutions to the ODE relative to alternative {\sl deterministic} methods. Our GPR extrapolation method contributes to the expanding field of probabilistic numerics \cite{BOGO2018,HOG2015,Cockayne2017} and as we will demonstrate may offer a more robust numerical integration scheme, particularly when the true solution to the ODE over the region of interest is not well approximated by a finite-order polynomial.

We begin our discussion by considering the widely used extrapolation scheme put forward by Richardson. After a brief mathematical description of the method, we introduce how a GP can be successfully included into the scheme and present an algorithm to do this. The Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm is a descendant of Richardson's scheme and is regularly used to compute practical numerical solutions to ODEs. We summarize the BSA before presenting a probabilistic version of the algorithm with a application. We finish by applying both the probabilistic and deterministic versions of the algorithm to the classical problem of a Keplerian orbit.

Our goal is to approximate the integral $F^{\ast} = \int_{\Omega} f(x) dx $, which we assume exists and is bounded over the domain $\Omega$. Where possible, we avoid unnecessary mathematical details and instead focus on describing the various issues associated with the computation of $F^{\ast}$, i.e. owing to the behaviour of the integrand $f(x)$, either locally or globally in $\Omega$, or because of the choice of numerical integration scheme.

\section{Richardson extrapolation}

Let $I\left(f, h\right)$ be a numerical evaluation of the integral $\int f(x) dx$ using a fixed step-size $h$. Generally, if $f(x)$ is smooth and bounded across $x\in \Omega$, $I\left(f, h\right)$ can be written as a weighted sum of $N$ evaluations of $f(x)$ over a sub-interval $\omega\subseteq \Omega$ of length $h$, i.e.
\[
I\left(f, h\right) = h \sum_{i=1}^{N}  w_i f(x_i) \approx \int_{\omega\subseteq\Omega} f(x)  dx,
\]
where the weights $w_{i}$ and number of abscissa $N$ are given by the choice of numerical scheme, e.g. a Gaussian or Netwon-Cotes type quadrature method. As it will be important later, the trapezoidal rule, from the Newton-Cotes family of numerical schemes, sets $N=2$, $w_{1}=w_{2} = 0.5$, $h = x_{2}-x_{1}$. In all evaluations of this type, the error in approximating the integral by $I\left(f, h\right)$ is particularly sensitive to the choice of step parameter $h$.

Under the assumption that the numerical evaluation can be written as
\[
I\left(f, h_{0}\right) = F^{\ast} + C_{0}h_{0}^{n} + \mathcal{O}\left(h_{0}^{n+1}\right), \quad n \in \mathbb{N}
\]
where $h_{0}$ is some choice of step parameter $h$ and $C_{0}$ a bounded constant, Richardson's extrapolation scheme can be used to: (i) assess sensitivity to the choice of $h$ and; (ii) recursively reduce the leading order approximation error, i.e. sequentially remove $C_{0}h_{0}^{n}$. Note, in order to simplify notation the above equation assumes that $\omega = \Omega$. To derive Richardson's extrapolation scheme, we re-write the numerical approximation in terms of a new step-size $h_{1}= \gamma h_{0}$, for some $0<\gamma<1$ (the choice of which is discussed later), and combine $I\left(f, h_{0}\right)$ and $I\left(f, h_{1}\right)$ to remove the leading order error term.  Repeating this process for $h_{j}=\gamma h_{j-1}, j=1,2,\dots$, the scheme can be written as a recurrence relation in which, for each additional iteration, the approximation error decreases\footnote{The error cannot be reduced beyond numerical rounding error}, i.e.
\[
R_{j} = \frac{\gamma^{1-n-j} I(f,h_{j}) - R_{j-1}}{\gamma^{1-n-j}-1} = F^{*} + C_{j}h_{0}^{n+j} + \mathcal{O}\left(h_{0}^{n+j+1}\right)\,: \quad j = 1,2 \dots \quad \text{and} \quad R_{0} = I(f,h_{0}).
\]
Ignoring numerical rounding errors, the approach can be used to compute $F^{\ast}$ to within a desired tolerance $\tau$, which we refer to as a {\sl converged} numerical solution, e.g.  by identifying $h_{j}:\,\,\mid R_{j} - R_{j-1} \mid \leq \tau$. For example, the method underpins the Romberg extension of the trapezoidal scheme.

A variation of Richardson's method, sometimes referred to as Richardson's deferred approach to the limit, computes an ensemble of values $R = \{R_{1}, R_{2}, \dots, R_{J}\}$ and fits a polynomial, as a function of $h_{0}$, to $R$. The intercept of the fitted polynomial is then an estimate of $I(f, 0)$, i.e. $F^{\ast}$ in the theoretical limit as $h_{0}\to 0$, which we denote by $F^{\ast}_{h_{0}\to 0}$. The process is repeated for several distinct initializations of $h_{0}$, e.g. $h^{(1)}_{0}$ and $h^{(2)}_{0}$, and a converged numerical solution is identified when $\mid F^{\ast}_{h^{(1)}_{0}\to 0} - F^{\ast}_{h^{(2)}_{0}\to 0} \mid \leq \tau$. This approach underpins the Bulirsch-Stoer  \cite{BS1964} extension of Richardson's extrapolation technique.

Central to the good performance of both methods is the {\sl parametric} assumption that the numerical error can be approximated by a power series in $h_{0}$ of order $n$, or more generally on $f(x)$ being {\sl analytic} and bounded in $\Omega$. The assumption is widely applicability, but can fail when two nearby approximations, e.g. at $h_{j}$ and $h_{j+1}$, diverge at a rate not captured by $h_{0}^{n}$, i.e. near to a singular point or owing to the systems intrinsic chaotic nature. To overcome this limitation, we propose a non-parametric approach that is inspired, in part, by recent developments in the Bayesian Quadrature literature \cite{D1988,OH1991}. We illustrate the approach considering the example of Richardson's deferred approach to the limit, i.e. the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm.
\subsection{Uncertainty in the numerical evaluation}
So far we have treated the numerical evaluation as one in which the approximation error is fixed by a given choice of step-size $h$. We now make a conceptual shift from this position and instead assume that the approximation error has intrinsic uncertainty. For a very good discussion of the philosophical and scientific implications of this switch see \cite{HOG2015}. In the present paper, we let $\hat{I}\left(f, h_{j}\right)$ denote the probabilistic re-interpretation of $I\left(f, h_{j}\right)$, where
\[
\hat{I}\left(f, h_{j}\right) = F^{\ast} + \epsilon_{j}(h_{j}), \quad F^{\ast} \in \mathbb{R} \quad \text{and} \quad h_{j}\in \mathbb{R}^{+},
\]
i.e. the uncertainty appears through the presence of the random error term $\epsilon_{j}$. By construct, the approximation error must approach zero as the step-size approaches zero, which, in the probabilistic model, requires that
\[
p\left(\hat{I}\left(f, h_{j}\right) - F^{\ast} = 0 \mid F^{\ast}\right) \to 1,  \quad j\to \infty \quad \text{and} \quad 0\leq h_{j}<h_{j-1}.
\]
The identity is motivated by a key assumption we make: that a numerical evaluation $I(f, h_{j})$, computed using a deterministic numerical integration scheme, is a draw from the distribution of probabilistic evaluations $\hat{I}(f, h_{j})$. Hence, as $\lim_{h\to0}\left(I(f, h) - F^{\ast}\right) = 0$, the above identity holds. We furthermore consider that a collection of $J$ random variables $\hat{I}(f, h_{j})\,:\,\,j = 1,2,\dots, J$ is a Gaussian process (GP), where $h_{j}$ denotes a {\sl distinct} step-size that monotonically decreases as $j$ increases. In the spirit of the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm, our objective is to estimate $F^{\ast}$ at $h=0$ from the fitted estimate of $\hat{I}\left(f, 0\right)$. In the probabilistic reinterpretation, an estimate of $F^{\ast}$ is deemed a converged numerical evaluation when the uncertainty $\sigma_{0}$ in $\hat{I}\left(f, 0\right)$ is below a user defined uncertainty tolerance $\hat{\tau}$ (henceforth we drop the hat). Therefore, in deterministic evaluations of $F^{\ast}$, the tolerance $\tau$ places a bound on the numerical precision of an estimate, whereas in probabilistic evaluations $\tau$ places a bound on the maximum uncertainty of an estimate. Our approach can broadly be described in four steps.

Step 1; Input a $K$ dimensional vector of step-sizes ${\bf h} = \{h_{1}, h_{2}, \dots, h_{K}\}$ and compute the initial data set $\mathcal{D}^{(0)}_{h}$ comprising $j = 1,2,\dots,K$ pairs of variables $\{h_{j}, I(f,h_j)\}\in \mathcal{D}^{(0)}_{h}$, where each $I(f,h_j)$ is assumed a draw from the distribution of probabilistic evaluations $\hat{I}(f, h_{j})$. $I(f,h_j)$ is computed via a numerical integration scheme, and in the present treatment we use the trapezoidal scheme. Step 2; Let the collection of $K$ random variables $\hat{I}(f,h_{j}), j = 1,2,\dots,K,$ be a GP, i.e.
\[
\hat{I}(f, {\bf{h}}) \mid \mathcal{D}^{(0)}_{h} \sim \mathcal{GP} \left(m({\bf{h}}), k\left({\bf{h}}, {\bf{h}}'\right)\right),
\]
where $m(.)$ and $k(.,.)$ denote the GP mean and kernel functions, respectively. From this model, compute estimates of: (i) $F^{\ast}$ at $h=0$, denoted $F^{\ast}_{0}$, and; (ii) $\sigma_{0}$, i.e. the uncertainty of in the estimate $F^{\ast}_{0}$. Step 3; if the uncertainty in the estimate is above a user defined threshold, i.e. $\sigma_{0}>\tau$, we reject $F_{0}^{\ast}$ as a reasonable estimate of $F^{\ast}$ and instead estimate a new step-size $h_{K+1}$ which satisfies
\[
h_{K+1} \,: \quad \sigma(h_{K+1}) = \hat{\gamma} \sigma_{0}, \quad 0<\hat{\gamma}<1,
\]
i.e. locate $h_{K+1}$ such that the uncertainty $\sigma(h_{K+1})$ in the fitted value $\hat{I}(f, h_{K+1})$ is a user defined fraction $\hat{\gamma}$ of the uncertainty in the current estimate $F_{0}^{\ast}$ of $F^{\ast}$. In practice $h_{K+1}$ is identified using a grid search over the region $h_{K+1}\in [0,h_{K})$. Step 4; augment the sample data with a new observation using $h_{K+1}$, i.e.
\[
\mathcal{D}^{(1)}_{h} = \mathcal{D}^{(0)}_{h} \cup \{h_{K+1}, I(f,h_{K+1})\},
\]
where $I(f,h_{K+1})$ is computed via the deterministic numerical integration scheme. Using the augmented data, we then repeat steps 2-4 until we identify an estimate of $F^{\ast}$ with uncertainty $\sigma_{0}\leq\tau$. See Alg. \ref{algRE} for pseudo-code.

In summary, the proposed approach is an {\sl adaptive learning} technique, developed from Richardson's extrapolation and the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm, that sees the uncertainty in the current estimate $F_{K+j}^{\ast}$ of $F^{\ast}$ being used to guide the choice of subsequent step-sizes $h_{k+j+1}$. There are two notable benefits of this approach over and above the deterministic alternative: (i) there is no parametric assumption concerning the behaviour of the error function, i.e. that the leading order error term is well approximated by of a finite order polynomial, and; (ii) the choice of step-size between two observations $I(f. h_{j})$ and $I(f, h_{j+1})$ is `dynamic', i.e. in the deterministic set-up the distance between two abscissa $h_{j}$ and $h_{j+1}$ is fixed and controlled by the parameter $\gamma$ whereas in the probabilistic setting the distance can vary between any two adjacent abscissa owing to asymmetry in the distribution of the uncertainty parameter $\sigma_{0}$ and the choice of $\hat{\gamma}$ (henceforth we drop the hat). A fundamental challenge remains between both the deterministic and probabilistic approaches, however, as each subsequent step-size $h_{K+i}$, $i=1,2,\dots,J$, must be small enough to closely approximate $I(f,h)$ while large enough that computation is dominated by {\sl discretization} error only, e.g. see \cite{HV2016}. In the probabilistic setting, this issue is related to the choice of step-control parameter $\gamma$, the choice of `prior' mean and the kernel function of the GP.

To illustrate our approach, and to go some way toward assessing the influence of these choices, we consider the following test function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:test_f}
f(x) = \exp \bigg( -\frac{(x - 0.35)^2}{2(0.1)^2} \bigg) - \frac{\sin(10x)}{3}
\end{equation}

and aim to approximate the integral of $f(x)$ over the interval $[0,1]$. We construct the initial data $D^{(0)}_{h}$ from a 4-dimensional vector of step-sizes ${\bf h}_{K} = \{1,1/2,1/3,1/4\}$ and use the trapezoidal rule to compute each $I(f, h_{j}), j=1,2,\dots,4$, and set the step-control parameter $\gamma = 0.5$. For the GP, we chose the Mat\'{e}rn class of kernel \cite{Stein1999}:

$$ K_{matern}(r) = \frac{2^{1-\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu)} \bigg( \frac{\sqrt{2 \nu} r}{l} \bigg)^{\nu}  K_{\nu} \bigg( \frac{\sqrt{2 \nu} r}{l} \bigg)$$

where $r=|x-x'|$, $k_{\nu}$ is a modified Bessel function and $\{l,\nu\}$ are the kernel parameters and set $\nu = 1.5$ (for mean square differentiability). We discounted the popular radial basis function (also called squared exponential), which is a limiting case of the Mat\'{e}rn class (as $\nu \to \infty$), as it makes stronger assumptions on smoothness and it has been argued that this may be unrealistic for modeling many physical systems, see \cite{Stein1999,GPbook}. The results from our analysis are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:exp}. We note that a consequence of the GP modeling approach is that the posterior mean of $\hat{I}(f, h)$ is strongly influenced by the choice of prior mean when $h$ lies in the interval between the zero and the most recent update of the step size $h_{K+i}$, i.e. $h\in (0,h_{k+i})$. We therefore assessed the sensitivity of our results to the choice of prior mean across three prior initializations: zero, the average of the $K$ initial points $\sum_{j = 1}^{K} \frac{I(f, h_{K})}{K}$ and $I(f, h_{K})$, i.e. evaluated at the smallest step-size in the initial data set $\mathcal{D}^{(0)}_{h}$ (Fig. \ref{fig:exp} left). In our example, the results illustrate a strong preference toward setting the prior mean as the final observation $\hat{I}(f, h_{4})$. Working under the assumption that the most recent evaluation of I is the most accurate, the result seems reasonable. Fig. \ref{fig:exp} (right) displays the results when applying the $\mathcal{GP}$ approach and demonstrates how the sequential updating of the pair $\{h_{j}, I(f,h_j)\}$, and thus the data $\mathcal{D}_{h}$, can quickly shrink the uncertainty both in the estimation of the integral $F_{\ast}$ at $h=0$. It is possible, therefore, that dynamic updating of the step-size $h_{j}$ to $h_{j+1}$ can lead to faster convergence properties than when fixing the step-size, as in the deterministic set-up.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{varmu.pdf}
    \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{rich5var.pdf}
    \caption{{\bf Left:} assessment of sensitivity to the choice of the prior mean ($\mu$) in  the $\mathcal{GP}$. Three choices are considered: $\mu=0$ , $\mu=\bar{x}$ and  $\mu=x_i$.
    {\bf Right:} Evaluation $F^{\ast}$ (marked with a star at $h=0$). The {\color{blue} Blue} points denote the evaluation of $I(f,h)$ using the 4 initial step-sizes ${\bf h}_{K} = \{1,1/2,1/3,1/4\}$ and a 95\% uncertainty band. We then apply the $\mathcal{GP}$ algorithm over several iterations (only 2 required) to identify a converged estimate of $F^{\ast}$. Each of the two new step-sizes were chosen based on the step-size $h_{j}$ in which the 95\% uncertainty band is below $\gamma = 0.5$ of the uncertainty $\sigma_{0}$ at $h=0$. The first evaluation, point $h_{5}$, is denoted by {\color{green} Green} point and the second, $h_{6}$, is denoted by {\color{red} Red}.
   }
    \label{fig:exp}
\end{figure}

\begin{algorithm}
    \caption{Richardson extrapolation style algorithm}
  \begin{algorithmic}[1]
    \REQUIRE function $f$, integration interval $H$, step control $\gamma$  where $\gamma \in (0,1$), tolerance $\tau$
    \STATE \textbf{Initialization} evaluate integral with  $h=H,H/2$
    \WHILE{not converged}
        \STATE condition $\mathcal{GP}$ on $\mathcal{D}_h$ and calculate confidence ($\sigma_0$) for $h=0$
        \IF{$\sigma_0 < tolerance$}
        \STATE Accept and exit loop
        \ELSE
        \STATE find $h_i$ with uncertainty $\gamma\sigma_0$
        \STATE evaluate $x_i = I(f,h_i)$
        \STATE append  $\mathcal{D}_h$  with $(h_i,x_i)$
        \STATE repeat
        \ENDIF
    \ENDWHILE
  \end{algorithmic}
  \label{algRE}
\end{algorithm}

\section{Bulirsch-Stoer Algorithm}
\label{sec:headings}
We have reviewed the Bulirsch-Stoer extrapolation algorithm by fixing the domain of integration to be the length the initial step-size $h_{0}$. If the domain is local to a singular point, however, numerical evaluations which rely on a fixed initial step-size can regularly fail to converge. The full implementation of the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm aims to resolve this issue. In regions where a converged numerical solution appears difficult to identify, the choice of initial step-size, and thus the domain of integration, is repeatedly reduced until a converged numerical solution has been identified. Hence, the original domain of integration is partitioned into segments, in which a converged solution is identified, and the integral is evaluated by aggregating the results from each segment, see Alg. \ref{Alg:BSA} for pseudo code. Our probabilistic re-interpretation of this algorithm sees our GP scheme replacing the traditional extrapolation algorithm, as before, for each segment in the domain, see Alg. \ref{Alg:BSA_GP} for pseudo code. To better suit our numerical example in this section, we henceforth consider the domain of integration as a temporal region and denote a step-size (time-step) by $dt$.

\begin{algorithm}
    \caption{Bulirsch-Stoer Algorithm}
  \begin{algorithmic}[1]
    \REQUIRE initial conditions $x$, derivative $f'(x)$, tolerance $\tau$, step-size sequence $\{ s_i \}_{i=1}^{n}$

\WHILE{t < H}
    \STATE CONV = FALSE
    \FOR{i <= 8}
        \STATE set step size   $h_i = H/s_i$
        \STATE integrate from $t$ to $t+H$ and store result $R_i$
        \STATE fit polynomial $\{(h_j,R_j)\}_{j=1}^i$ and extrapolate to $h=0$
        \IF{ $|R_i-R_{i-1}|   < \tau $}
              \STATE CONV = TRUE, accept result and process to next interval
        \ENDIF
        \ENDFOR
       \IF{ CONV = FALSE}
            \STATE reduce H and repeat loop
       \ENDIF
           \STATE t += H
    \ENDWHILE
  \end{algorithmic}
  \label{Alg:BSA}
\end{algorithm}

The Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm is descendant of Richardson's deferred approach to the limit and therefore typically\footnote{It is worth noting that the original method as proposed by Bulirsch-Stoer used rational function extrapolation, however straightforward polynomial extrapolation is typically slightly more efficient than rational function extrapolation \cite{NumRce} (for smooth problems).} relies on performing polynomial extrapolation between the numerical evaluations at each abscissa. Briefly, for each segment of integration, the algorithm usually selects the abscissa at the points  $dt/n_{j}$, where $n_{j}$ follows the series originally proposed by Bulirsch-Stoer $n = 2,4,6,...$ $n_j = n_{j-2}$. However, it is more common to see the sequence more recently suggested by Deuflard \cite{Deuflard1,Deuflard2} -- i.e.  $n = 2, 4, 6,... n_j = 2j$  -- which is the scheme we adopt. Typically, the choice of $j=8$ is made \cite{Deuflard1,Deuflard2}. The Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm is an adaptive deterministic numerical scheme, which furnishes solutions to the integral problem across a broad range of scenarios. However, the approach is underpinned by the assumption that the integrand $f(x)$ is well approximated by a polynomial in each segment of the domain of integration which, even for an analytic function $f(x)$, can lead to issues. We now illustrate this.

In Fig. \ref{fig:runge} we provide an example of a well-known situation where polynomial interpolation can perform badly. In this famous example of {\sl Runge's phenomenon}, the GP approach, using a Mat\'{e}rn kernel \cite{Stein1999}, provides excellent extrapolation and interpolation whereas the polynomial interpolation procedure fails, particularly at the tails of the domain. This result might be reversed however, particularly if the true underlying function is or is well approximated by a polynomial. In this case, the GP scheme  will almost certainly fail to match the  goodness of the polynomial extrapolation scheme. The extent to which the methods differ in performance will likely be dependent on the the choice of kernel function: if we had some prior knowledge that the function should `look like' a polynomial, we might choose a kernel that helps the GP posterior mean to exhibit polynomial like behaviour, see for example \cite{Karvonen1998}.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{runge.pdf}
    \caption{The well-known case of Runge's phenomenon where polynomial interpolation results in oscillation at the edge of the interval. Gaussian Process Regression does not suffer from the same problem and provides a better fit on the same data.}
    \label{fig:runge}
\end{figure}

\begin{algorithm}
    \caption{Bulirsch Stoer Algorithm using Gaussian Processes}
  \begin{algorithmic}[1]
    \REQUIRE initial conditions $x$, derivative $f'(x)$, tolerance $\tau$

\WHILE{t < H}
     \STATE evaluate $f$ with step size $H,H/2$
    \WHILE{not converged}
        \STATE choose step size $h_i$ as in Alg. \ref{algRE}
        \STATE integrate from $t$ to $t+H$ store result $R_i$
        \STATE append $(h_i,R_i)$ to $\mathcal{D}_h$
        \STATE condition $\mathcal{GP}$  on $\mathcal{D}_h$
        \STATE evaluate mean value and uncertainty $\sigma_0$ at $h=0$
        \IF{ $\sigma_0  < \tau $}
              \STATE CONV = TRUE;
              \STATE break
        \ENDIF
            \STATE repeat loop
    \ENDWHILE
           \STATE t += H
    \ENDWHILE
  \end{algorithmic}
    \label{Alg:BSA_GP}
\end{algorithm}

In the probabilistic re-interpretation of the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm, we make the assumption that the numerical evaluation converges to the correct solution as $dt \to 0 $.  This is typically true, but when the domain is partitioned into sufficiently small time-steps rounding error can dominate error due to discretization. The GPR derived scheme suffers from the same issue. Outside of numerical rounding error, the GPR scheme can assess convergence using a combination of two conditions: assessing the uncertainty of the predicted mean in the limit as $dt\to0$, via the fitted GP model, and; by comparing the estimated means between any two intializations. The standard Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm only assesses the later.

The main disadvantage of the probabilistic version of the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm is computation time, i.e. for a fixed number of abscissa fitting a polynomial using Neville's algorithm is typically faster than aiming to maximize the likelihood of the kernel parameters. Certainly, for a smooth and bounded function $f(x)$, the original BSA will likely outperform the probabilistic version. However, in cases where a segment of the domain is partitioned multiple times, e.g. owing to $|f'(x)|$ rapidly changing over the interval, it is possible that the overall performance of the probabilistic version will be better than the original.

\subsection{Example: Kepler orbit}
To illustrate utility in the probabilistic re-interpretation of the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm, we consider the case of a mass-less particle in a Keplerian potential \footnote{The choice of an astronomical problem is perhaps fitting as an early reported use of Gaussian processes dates to time series analysis by the astronomer T.N. Thiele in 1880. \cite{L1981}}. The problem involves finding a solution to the second order ODE,

$$ \ddot{\bf r} = \frac{GM}{|{\bf r}|^3 } {\bf r} $$

where ${\bf r}$ is the position vector, $G$ is Newton's constant and $M$ is total mass (it is convention to use units with $G=M=1$). We consider the case of a particle initially at ${\bf r} = (1,0)$ on an orbit with eccentricity of 0.99. This results in a close passage to the singularity in the force at ${\bf r} = {\bf 0}$.

We compare two different versions of Bulirsch-Stoer: the usual polynomial extrapolation and; the Gaussian process regression approach. Integration over each sub-interval is performed using a second-order leapfrog integrator. For the polynomial scheme, if integration fails to converge after eight sub-divisions of the time-step $dt/n{j}$, the region is iteratively halved until convergence is achieved. We note that more complex schemes can be used to reduce the time-step  (e.g. see \cite{NumRce}), which might outperform the Bulirsch-Stoer scheme. For the GP approach, we do not place a limit on the number of times an interval can be sub-divided owing to the ability of the GP scheme to closely approximate a wider class of analytic functions than those that are well approximated by a finite order polynomial.

Fig. \ref{fig:kepler} displays a comparison of the two schemes relative to the true solution. Notably, as the particle first passes through pericenter passage, i.e. the closest approach to the origin, which is a singularity, the polynomial based scheme fails and no longer furnishes an estimate of the particle's position. However, the non-parametric GP scheme closely approximates the particle's trajectory as it first passes through pericenter and, moreover,continues to furnish a reasonable approximation of the particle path throughout the time interval considered.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{kep.pdf}
    \caption{Comparison of Bulirsch-Stoer schemes with polynomial extrapolation and Gaussian process regression. Displayed are the x (horizontal) and y (vertical) co-ordinates of a particle, as a function of time, in a Kepler orbit with eccentricity of 0.99. The Bulirsch-Stoer scheme using polynomial extrapolation (blue circles) fails during the pericenter passage (i.e. closest approach). In contrast, Gaussian process regression (green circles) closely folows the true particle trajectory across the spatio-temporal domain.}
    \label{fig:kepler}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}
In this paper we have presented an adaptive-learning integration scheme, which embeds Gaussian process regression (GPR) into the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm (BSA), for use in numerical integration. This probabilistic approach extends the current deterministic implementation of the BSA in two ways. Firstly, the approach avoids the parametric assumption that a numerical evaluation of the integral has an error term that is closely approximated by a finite order polynomial. This assumption can lead to the deterministic approach failing near a singular point in the integrand. Secondly, for given step-size, uncertainty in the numerical evaluation of the integral via GPR is used to guide how the step-size should be adapted. The combination of these additional features leads to a more robust numerical integration scheme beyond the current standard. The probabilistic scheme is not intended one-size-fits-all replacement for existing numerical methods, however, but rather to be considered as an alternative when standard approaches fail.

\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}

We would like to thank Prof. Chris Oates for helpful comments in connection with the project and Dr. Paul Kirk for interesting scientific discussions and helpful comments  on the manuscripts. PB acknowledge support from the Leverhulme Trust
(Research Project Grant, RPG-2015-408). CNF acknowledges support from the Medical  Research  Council  (MC  UU  00002/7).

\medskip

\small

Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG)


Characterizations of regular local rings via syzygy modules of the residue field

Abstract: Let $R$ be a commutative Noetherian local ring with residue field $k$. We show that if a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of $k$ surjects onto `a semidualizing module' or `a non-zero maximal Cohen-Macaulay module of finite injective dimension', then $R$ is regular. We also prove that $R$ is regular if and only if some syzygy module of $k$ has a non-zero direct summand of finite injective dimension.

\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}
 Throughout this article, unless otherwise specified, all rings are assumed to be commutative Noetherian local rings, and all modules
 are assumed to be finitely generated.

 In this article, $R$ always denotes a  local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ and residue field $k$.
 Let $\Omega_n^R(k)$ be the $n$th syzygy module of $k$. Dutta gave the following characterization of regular local rings in
 \cite[Corollary~1.3]{Dut89}.

\begin{theorem}[Dutta]\label{theorem: Dutta}
 $R$ is regular if and only if $\Omega_n^R(k)$ has a non-zero free direct summand for some integer $n \ge 0$.
\end{theorem}

 Later, Takahashi generalized Dutta's result by giving a characterization of regular local rings via the existence of a semidualizing
 direct summand of some syzygy module of the residue field. Let us recall the definition of a semidualizing module.

\begin{definition}[\cite{Gol84}]\label{definition: semidualizing module}
 An $R$-module $M$ is said to be a {\it semidualizing module} if the following hold:
 \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
  \item The natural homomorphism $R \to \Hom_R(M,M)$ is an isomorphism.
  \item $\Ext_R^i(M,M) = 0$ for all $i \ge 1$.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

 Note that $R$ itself is a semidualizing $R$-module. So the following theorem generalizes the above result of Dutta.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem~4.3]{Tak06}\label{theorem: Takahashi; regular; semidualizing}
 $R$ is regular if and only if $\Omega_n^R(k)$ has a semidualizing direct summand for some integer $n \ge 0$.
\end{theorem}

 If $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with canonical module $\omega$, then $\omega$ is a semidualizing $R$-module. Therefore,
 as an application of the above theorem, Takahashi obtained the following:

\begin{corollary}\cite[Corollary~4.4]{Tak06}\label{corollary: Takahashi; regular; canonical module}
 Let $R$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with canonical module $\omega$. Then $R$ is regular if and only if $\Omega_n^R(k)$ has a
 direct summand isomorphic to $\omega$ for some integer $n \ge 0$.
\end{corollary}

Now recall that the canonical module (if exists) over a Cohen-Macaulay local ring has finite injective dimension. Also it is
well-known that $R$ is regular if and only if $k$ has finite injective dimension. So, in this direction, a natural question arises
that ``if $\Omega_n^R(k)$ has a non-zero direct summand of finite injective dimension for some integer $n \ge 0$, then is the ring
$R$ regular?''. In the present study, we see that the above question has an affirmative answer.

Kaplansky conjectured that if some power of the maximal ideal of $R$ is non-zero and of finite projective dimension, then $R$ is
regular. In \cite[Theorem~1.1]{LV68}, Levin and Vasconcelos proved this conjecture. In fact, their result is even stronger:

 \begin{theorem}\label{theorem: Levin and Vasconcelos}
  If $M$ is an $R$-module such that $\mathfrak{m} M$ is non-zero and of finite projective dimension {\rm (}or of
  finite injective dimension{\rm )}, then $R$ is regular.
 \end{theorem}

 Motivated by this theorem, Martsinkovsky generalized Dutta's result in the following direction. {\it We denote a finite
 collection of non-negative integers by $\Lambda$}. In \cite[Proposition~7]{Mar96}, Martsinkovsky proved the following:

 \begin{theorem}\label{theorem: Martsinkovsky}
  Let $f : \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} \left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)^{j_n} \longrightarrow L$\quad $(j_n \ge 1$ for each $n \in \Lambda)$
  be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism, where $L$ is non-zero and of finite projective dimension. Then $R$ is regular.
 \end{theorem}

 For a stronger result, we refer the reader to \cite[Corollary~9]{Avr96}. In this direction, we prove the following result which
 considerably strengthens Theorem~\ref{theorem: Takahashi; regular; semidualizing}. The proof presented here is very simple and
 elementary.

 \begin{customthm}{I}[See Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto semidualizing}]
                     \label{Theorem I: surjection onto semidualizing}
  If a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of $k$ surjects onto a semidualizing $R$-module, then $R$ is regular.
 \end{customthm}

 Furthermore, we raise the following question:

 \begin{question}\label{question: surjection onto finite injdim}
  If a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of $k$ surjects onto a non-zero $R$-module of finite injective dimension,
  then is the ring $R$ regular?
 \end{question}

 In this article, we give a partial answer to this question as follows:

 \begin{customthm}{II}[See Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto finite injdim}]
		       \label{Theorem II: surjection onto semidualizing}
  If a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of $k$ surjects onto a non-zero maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module $L$ of finite
  injective dimension, then $R$ is regular.
 \end{customthm}

 If $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with canonical module $\omega$, then one can take $L = \omega$ in the above theorem.

 We obtain one new characterization of regular local rings. It follows from Dutta's result (Theorem~\ref{theorem: Dutta}) that $A$
 is regular if and only if some syzygy module of $k$ has a non-zero direct summand of finite projective dimension. Here we prove the
 following counterpart for injective dimension.

 \begin{customthm}{III}[See Theorem~\ref{theorem: characterization of RLR, injdim}]
  $R$ is regular if and only if some syzygy module of $k$ has a non-zero direct summand of finite injective dimension.
 \end{customthm}

 Moreover, this result has a dual companion; see Corollary~\ref{corollary: dual result, cosyzygy}.

 Till now we have considered surjective homomorphisms from a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of $k$ to a `special module'.
 One may ask ``what happens if we consider injective homomorphisms from a `special module' to a finite direct sum of syzygy modules
 of $k$?". More precisely, if
 \[
  f : L \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n}
 \]

 is an injective $R$-module homomorphism, where $L$ is non-zero and of finite projective dimension (or of finite injective dimension),
 then is the ring $R$ regular? In this situation, we show that $R$ is not necessarily a regular local
 ring; see Example~\ref{example: counter, injective map}.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{Preliminaries}

 In the present section, we give some preliminaries which we use in order to prove our main results. We start with the following
 lemma which gives a relation between the socle of the ring and the annihilator of the syzygy modules.

 \begin{lemma}\label{lemma: socle, syzygy}
  Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Then, for every integer $n \ge 1$, we have
  \[
   \Soc(R) \subseteq \ann_R\left(\Omega_n^R(M)\right).
  \]
  In particular, if $R \neq k$ {\rm (}i.e., if  $\mathfrak{m} \neq 0${\rm )}, then
  \[
   \Soc(R) \subseteq \ann_R\left(\Omega_n^R(k)\right) \mbox{ for all } n \ge 0.
  \]
 \end{lemma}

 \begin{proof}
  Fix $n \ge 1$. If $\Omega_n^R(M) = 0$, then we are done. So we may assume $\Omega_n^R(M) \neq 0$. Consider the following commutative
  diagram in the minimal free resolution of $M$:
  \[
  \xymatrixrowsep{8mm} \xymatrixcolsep{6mm}
  \xymatrix{ \cdots \ar[r] & R^{b_n} \ar@{->>}[rd]_{f} \ar[rr]^{\delta} 	& 			& R^{b_{n-1}}\ar[r] & \cdots. \\
			    &                                     	& \Omega_n^R(M)\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]_g	}
  \]
  Let $a \in \Soc(R)$, i.e., $a\mathfrak{m} = 0$. Suppose $x \in \Omega_n^R(M)$. Since $f$ is surjective, there exists
  $y \in R^{b_n}$ such that $f(y) = x$. Note that $\delta(ay) = a\delta(y) = 0$ as
  $\delta\left(R^{b_n}\right) \subseteq \mathfrak{m} R^{b_{n-1}}$ and $a\mathfrak{m} = 0$.  Therefore
  $g(ax) = g(f(ay)) = \delta(ay) = 0$, which gives $ax = 0$ as $g$ is injective.
  Thus $\Soc(R) \subseteq \ann_R\left(\Omega_n^R(M)\right)$.

  For the last part, note that $\Soc(R) \subseteq \mathfrak{m} = \ann_R\left(\Omega_0^R(k)\right)$ if $\mathfrak{m} \neq 0$.
 \end{proof}

 Let us recall the following well-known result initially obtained by Nagata.

 \begin{proposition}\cite[Corollary~5.3]{Tak06}\label{proposition: Nagata}
  Let $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$ be an $R$-regular element.
  Set $\overline{(-)} := (-) \otimes_R R/(x)$. Then
  \[
    \overline{\Omega_n^{R}(k)} \cong \Omega_n^{\overline{R}}(k)\oplus \Omega_{n-1}^{\overline{R}}(k)
    \quad \mbox{for every integer $n \ge 1$}.
  \]
 \end{proposition}

 We notice two properties satisfied by semidualizing modules and maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules of finite injective dimension.

 \begin{definition}\label{definition: star property}

  Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a property of modules over  local rings. We say $\mathcal{P}$ is a $(*)$-property if $\mathcal{P}$
  satisfies the following:
  \begin{enumerate}[(1)]
   \item An $R$-module $M$ satisfies $\mathcal{P}$ implies that the $R/(x)$-module $M/xM$ satisfies $\mathcal{P}$, where $x \in R$
         is an $R$-regular element.
   \item An $R$-module $M$ satisfies $\mathcal{P}$ and $\depth(R) = 0$ together imply that $\ann_R(M) = 0$.
  \end{enumerate}
 \end{definition}

 Now we give a few examples of $(*)$-properties.

 \begin{example}\label{example: star property: semidualizing}
  The property $\mathcal{P}$ $:=$ `semidualizing modules over  local rings' is a $(*)$-property.

 \end{example}

 \begin{proof}
  Let $C$ be a semidualizing $R$-module. It is shown in \cite[p.~68]{Gol84} that $C/xC$ is a semidualizing $R/(x)$-module, where
  $x \in \mathfrak{m}$ is an $R$-regular element. Since $\Hom_R(C,C) \cong R$, we have $\ann_R(C) = 0$
  (without any restriction on $\depth(R)$).
 \end{proof}

 Here is another example of $(*)$-property.

 \begin{example}\label{example: star property: MCM, finite injdim}
  The property $\mathcal{P}$ $:=$ `non-zero maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules of finite injective dimension over Cohen-Macaulay local
  rings' is a $(*)$-property.

 \end{example}

 \begin{proof}
  Let $R$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring, and let $L$ be a non-zero maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module of finite injective dimension.
  Suppose $x \in R$ is an $R$-regular element. Since $L$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module, $x$ is $L$-regular as well. Therefore
  $L/xL$ is a non-zero maximal Cohen-Macaulay module of finite injective dimension over the Cohen-Macaulay local ring $R/(x)$
  (see \cite[3.1.15]{BH98}).

  Now further assume that $\depth(R) = 0$. Then $R$ is an Artinian local ring, and
  \[
   \injdim_R(L) = \depth(R) = 0.
  \]
  Therefore, by \cite[3.2.8]{BH98}, we have that $L \cong E^r$, where $E$ is the injective hull of $k$ and $r = \rank_k\left(\Hom_R(k,L)\right)$.
  It is well-known that $\Hom_R(E, E) \cong R$ as $R$ is an Artinian local ring. Hence $\ann_R(L) = \ann_R(E) = 0$.
 \end{proof}

 \section{Main results}\label{Main results}

 Now we are in a position to prove our main results. First of all, we prove that if a finite direct sum of syzygy modules of the
 residue field surjects onto a non-zero module satisfying a $(*)$-property, then the ring is regular.

 \begin{theorem}\label{theorem: RLR and surjection onto star module}

  Assume that $\mathcal{P}$ is a $(*)$-property {\rm (}see {\rm Definition~\ref{definition: star property})}. Let

  \[
    f : \bigoplus_{n\in\Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n} \longrightarrow L
    \quad\quad\mbox{$(j_n \ge 1$ for each $n \in \Lambda)$}
  \]
  be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism, where $L$ {\rm(}$\neq 0${\rm)} satisfies $\mathcal{P}$. Then $R$ is regular.
 \end{theorem}

 \begin{proof}
  We prove the theorem by induction on $t := \depth(R)$. Let us first assume $t = 0$. If possible, let $R \neq k$, i.e.,
  $\mathfrak{m} \neq 0$. Since $\depth(R) = 0$, we have $\Soc(R) \neq 0$. But, by virtue of Lemma~\ref{lemma: socle, syzygy}, we obtain
  \begin{align*}
   \Soc(R) & \subseteq \bigcap_{n \in \Lambda} \ann_R\left(\Omega_n^R(k)\right) \\
           & = \ann_R\left( \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n} \right) \\
           & \subseteq \ann_R(L) \quad\quad
                    \mbox{[as $f : \bigoplus_{n\in\Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n} \longrightarrow L$ is surjective]}\\
           & = 0 \quad\quad\quad \mbox{[as $L$ satisfies $\mathcal{P}$ which is a $(*)$-property]},
  \end{align*}
  which is a contradiction. Therefore $R$ ($= k$) is a regular local ring.

  Now we assume $t \ge 1$. Suppose the theorem holds true for all such rings of depth smaller than $t$. Since
  $\depth(R) \ge 1$, there exists an element $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$ which is $R$-regular. We set
  $\overline{(-)} := (-) \otimes R/(x)$. Clearly,
  \[
    \overline{f} : \bigoplus_{n\in\Lambda} {\left( \overline{\Omega_n^R(k)} \right)}^{j_n} \longrightarrow  \overline{L}
  \]
  is a surjective $\overline{R}$-module homomorphism, where the $\overline{R}$-module $\overline{L}$ {\rm(}$\neq 0${\rm)}
  satisfies $\mathcal{P}$ as $\mathcal{P}$ is a $(*)$-property. Since $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$ is an $R$-regular
  element, by Proposition~\ref{proposition: Nagata}, we have
  \[
     \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} \left( \overline{\Omega_n^R(k)} \right)^{j_n} \cong
     \bigoplus_{n\in\Lambda} \left( \Omega_n^{\overline{R}}(k) \oplus \Omega_{n-1}^{\overline{R}}(k) \right)^{j_n}
     \quad \mbox{[by setting $\Omega_{-1}^{\overline{R}}(k) := 0$]}.
  \]
  Since $\depth(\overline{R}) = \depth(R) - 1$, by the induction hypothesis, $\overline{R}$ is a regular local ring, and hence $R$
  is a regular local ring as $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$.
 \end{proof}

 As a few applications of the above theorem, we obtain the following necessary and sufficient conditions for a  local ring
 to be regular.

 \begin{corollary}\label{corollary: RLR and surjection onto semidualizing}
  Let $f : \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n} \longrightarrow L$
  be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism, where $L$ is a semidualizing $R$-module. Then $R$ is regular.
 \end{corollary}

 \begin{proof}
  The corollary follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem: RLR and surjection onto star module}
  and Example~\ref{example: star property: semidualizing}.
 \end{proof}

 \begin{remark}\label{remark: Dutta and Takahashi's result}
  We can recover Theorem~\ref{theorem: Takahashi; regular; semidualizing} (in particular, Theorem~\ref{theorem: Dutta} because $R$
  itself is a semidualizing $R$-module) as a consequence of Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto semidualizing}.
  In fact the above result is even stronger than Theorem~\ref{theorem: Takahashi; regular; semidualizing}.
 \end{remark}

 Now we give a partial answer to Question~\ref{question: surjection onto finite injdim}.

 \begin{corollary}\label{corollary: RLR and surjection onto finite injdim}
  Let $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring, and let
  \[
    f : \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} {\left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)}^{j_n} \longrightarrow L
  \]
  be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism, where $L$ {\rm (}$\neq 0${\rm )} is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module of finite injective
  dimension. Then $R$ is regular.
 \end{corollary}

 \begin{proof}
  The corollary follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem: RLR and surjection onto star module}
  and Example~\ref{example: star property: MCM, finite injdim}.
 \end{proof}

 \begin{remark}\label{remark: partial answer for Artinian rings}
  It is clear from the above corollary that Question~\ref{question: surjection onto finite injdim} has an affirmative answer for
  Artinian local rings.
 \end{remark}

 Let $R$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring. Recall that a maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module $\omega$ of type $1$ and of finite injective
 dimension is called the {\it canonical module} of $R$. It is well-known that the canonical module $\omega$ of $R$ is a semidualizing
 $R$-module; see \cite[3.3.10]{BH98}. So, both Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto semidualizing}
 and Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto finite injdim} yield the following result (independently) which
 strengthens Corollary~\ref{corollary: Takahashi; regular; canonical module}.

 \begin{corollary}\label{corollary: RLR and surjection onto omega}
  Let $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with canonical module $\omega$, and let
  $f : \bigoplus_{n \in \Lambda} \left( \Omega_n^R(k) \right)^{j_n} \longrightarrow \omega$ be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism.
  Then $R$ is regular.
 \end{corollary}

 Here we obtain one new characterization of regular local rings. The following characterization is based on the existence of a
 non-zero direct summand with finite injective dimension of some syzygy module of the residue field.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem: characterization of RLR, injdim}
 The following statements are equivalent:
 \begin{enumerate}[{\rm (1)}]
  \item $R$ is a regular local ring.
  \item $\Omega_n^R(k)$ has a non-zero direct summand of finite injective dimension for some integer $n \ge 0$.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
 (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). If $R$ is regular, then $\Omega_0^R(k)$ $(= k)$ itself is a non-zero $R$-module of finite injective
 dimension. Hence the implication follows.

 (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Without loss of generality, we may assume that $R$ is complete. Existence of a non-zero (finitely generated)

 $R$-module of finite injective dimension ensures that $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring (see \cite[9.6.2 and 9.6.4(ii)]{BH98} and
 \cite{Rob87}). Therefore we may as well assume that $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay complete local ring.

 Suppose that $L$ is a non-zero direct summand of $\Omega_n^R(k)$ with $\injdim_R(L)$ finite for some integer $n \ge 0$. We prove the
 implication by induction on $d := \dim(R)$. If $d = 0$, then the implication follows from
 Corollary~\ref{corollary: RLR and surjection onto finite injdim}.

 Now we assume $d \ge 1$. Suppose the implication holds true for all such rings of dimension smaller than $d$. Since $R$ is
 Cohen-Macaulay and $\dim(R) \ge 1$, there exists $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$ which is $R$-regular.
 We set $\overline{(-)} := (-) \otimes_R R/(x)$. If $n = 0$, then the direct summand $L$ of $\Omega_0^R(k)$ $(= k)$ must be equal to
 $k$, and hence $\injdim_R(k)$ is finite, which gives $R$ is regular. Therefore we may assume $n \ge 1$. Hence $x$ is
 $\Omega_n^R(k)$-regular. Since $L$ is a direct summand of $\Omega_n^R(k)$, $x$ is $L$-regular as well. This gives
 $\injdim_{\overline{R}}(\overline{L})$ is finite. Now we fix an indecomposable direct summand $L'$ of $\overline{L}$. Then
 $\injdim_{\overline{R}}(L')$ is also finite. Note that the $\overline{R}$-module $\overline{L}$ is a direct summand
 of $\overline{\Omega_n^R(k)}$. Hence $L'$ is an indecomposable direct summand of $\overline{\Omega_n^R(k)}$.
 Since $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$ is an $R$-regular element, by Proposition~\ref{proposition: Nagata}, we have
 \begin{equation*}
  \overline{\Omega_n^{R}(k)} \cong \Omega_n^{\overline{R}}(k)\oplus \Omega_{n-1}^{\overline{R}}(k).
 \end{equation*}
 It then follows from the uniqueness of Krull-Schmidt decomposition (\cite[Theorem~(21.35)]{Lam01}) that $L'$ is isomorphic
 to a direct summand of $\Omega_n^{\overline{R}}(k)$ or $\Omega_{n-1}^{\overline{R}}(k)$. Since $\dim(\overline{R}) = \dim(R) - 1$,
 by the induction hypothesis, $\overline{R}$ is a regular local ring, and hence $R$ is a regular local ring
 as $x \in \mathfrak{m} \smallsetminus \mathfrak{m}^2$.
\end{proof}

 Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Consider the augmented minimal injective resolution of $M$:
 \[
  0 \longrightarrow M \stackrel{d^{-1}}{\longrightarrow} I^0 \stackrel{d^0}{\longrightarrow} I^1 \stackrel{d^1}{\longrightarrow}
  I^2 \longrightarrow \cdots \longrightarrow I^{n-1} \stackrel{d^{n-1}}{\longrightarrow} I^n \longrightarrow \cdots.
 \]
 Recall that the $n$th {\it cosyzygy module} of $M$ is defined by
 \[
  \Omega_{-n}^R(M) := \Image(d^{n-1}) \quad\mbox{for all } n \ge 0.
 \]

 The following result is dual to Theorem~\ref{theorem: characterization of RLR, injdim} which gives another characterization of
 regular local rings via cosyzygy modules of the residue field.

 \begin{corollary}\label{corollary: dual result, cosyzygy}
  The following statements are equivalent:
  \begin{enumerate}[{\rm (1)}]
   \item $R$ is a regular local ring.
   \item Cosyzygy module $\Omega_{-n}^R(k)$ has a non-zero finitely generated direct summand of finite projective
         dimension for some integer $n \ge 0$.
  \end{enumerate}
 \end{corollary}

 \begin{proof}
  (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). If $R$ is regular, then $\Omega_0^R(k)$ $(= k)$ has finite projective dimension. Hence the implication
  follows.

  (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Without loss of generality, we may assume that $R$ is complete. Suppose $\Omega_{-n}^R(k) \cong P \oplus Q$
  for some integer $n \ge 0$, where $P$ is a non-zero finitely generated $R$-module of finite projective dimension. Consider the
  following part of the minimal injective resolution of $k$:
  \begin{equation}\label{theorem: dual result, cosyzygy: equation 1}
   0 \to k \to E \to E^{\mu_1} \to \cdots \to E^{\mu_{n-1}}
   \to \Omega_{-n}^R(k) \cong P \oplus Q \to 0,
  \end{equation}
  where $E$ is the injective hull of $k$. Dualizing \eqref{theorem: dual result, cosyzygy: equation 1} with respect to $E$ and
  using $\Hom_R(k,E) \cong k$ and $\Hom_R(E,E) \cong R$ (cf. \cite[3.2.12(a) and 3.2.13(a)]{BH98}), we get the following part of the
  minimal free resolution of $k$:
  \[ 0 \to \Hom_R(P,E) \oplus \Hom_R(Q,E) \cong \Omega_n^R(k) \to R^{\mu_{n-1}} \to \cdots
       \to R^{\mu_1} \to R \to k \to 0. \]
  Clearly, $\Hom_R(P,E)$ is non-zero and of finite injective dimension as $P$ is non-zero and of finite projective dimension.
  Therefore the implication follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem: characterization of RLR, injdim}.
 \end{proof}

 Now we give an example to ensure that the existence of an injective homomorphism from a `special module' to a finite direct sum of
 syzygy modules of the residue field does not necessarily imply that the ring is regular.

 \begin{example}\label{example: counter, injective map}
  Let $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a Gorenstein local domain of dimension $d$. Then $\Omega_d^R(k)$ is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay $R$-module;
  see, e.g., \cite[1.3.7]{BH98}. Since $R$ is Gorenstein, $\Omega_d^R(k)$ is a reflexive $R$-module (by \cite[3.3.10]{BH98}), and
  hence it is torsion-free. Then, by mapping $1$ to a non-zero element of $\Omega_d^R(k)$, we get an injective $R$-module homomorphism
  $f : R \to \Omega_d^R(k)$. Note that $\injdim_R(R)$ is finite. But a Gorenstein local domain need not be a regular local ring.
 \end{example}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
 The first author would like to thank NBHM, DAE, Govt. of India for providing financial support for this study.